The objective is the ask them the following:

1) The cost of providing access to Broadband to a customer’s premises. The idea is to know as to why we are stuck with 256 kbps speeds and what needs to be done about it. So the question that is going to be framed is :

What is the cost of Home Unlimited 256 kbps plan? How has the price been arrived at using what methodology of calculation? Kindly provide the break up of the costs.

2) I have been facing frequent disconnections on my DSL link and it is frustrating to have sustained download speeds. I wish to know the telephone line parameters of the provided connection.

3) I am also not happy with the type of modem provided. I want to know from them as to why I can’t have the choice of my own modem since they seem to actively discourage from installing another modem. This smacks of anti competitive tactics and restricts the choice to the customer.

4) They provide no end to end solution to those on Unix platform. Why has Microsoft Windows been chosen as the “default” operating system? As a Public Service Provider, they are not supposed to invest in a platform that is closed source but rather open source systems.

It is definitely going to be a long drawn affair but then it’s worth it.

The best part is that it can be interacted through letters and I am going to file it today itself. I am very keen to know about the break up of the costs incurred because TRAI has not been able to answer it. Those shit heads call themselves as “regulators” without realizing that their actions are actually thwarting the spread of broadband.

I am terribly disappointed by their response. Hypothetical? My foot. I had asked pointed questions and everything here is in public domain. Even the response received from them which I got scanned and put it up here. To say that TRAI is full of assholes, is truly an understatement.

I was not even called for the appeal which is unfair. This case was decided “ex parte” which is not called for. Indeed, it is my privilege to attend the hearing; it is my call (as per the law) whether or not I need to go their dung infested shit holes.

I am not even surprised that they have not even bothered to go in the nature of the appeal but rather dismiss it as “fucking hypothetical”. What was the b**** even thinking about? Is it possible to quell the public opinion just because these motherfuckers are bedfellows with the vested corporate interests? What the FUCK is the Government of India doing as we all get raped for the public convenience that truly belongs to us?

I am sorry to say but we have juvenile delinquents hired as “regulators” who are not even fit to stand tall on their two feet but then it’s too much to ask for these creepy crawly lowly beings. They ought not forget that EVERYTHING about them is out in the public domain; although it is not a “personal fight” but based on their responses, I might even be compelled to ask them for their qualification, the reason they have been appointed for this job and their merits.

The second appeal, of course, is now the CIC, New Delhi and thats where I am headed. In order to maintain the transparency, each of the exchange of the email, the response received and the action taken would all be in pubic domain, that is, here on this blog.

May I also hasten to add that the frequency of posts has dwindled down in recent times because I am very busy with the academic pursuits and it is difficult to move ahead full steam with the present case as well as do justice to this blog. Nevertheless, I am expecting some response from CIC and since the courthouses are open for all, in the event that this case lands up there, I invite you all to present your side of the story.

I shall keep you informed via this blog or through the forums. Stay in touch and I am even more determined to take the fight to the finish.

The asshole of the year undoubtedly goes to Telecom Regulatory Authority of India. For their persistence in making inane rules, for sleeping on with the telecom lobbies, being roughshod by the Department of Telecom and I should question it’s very existence. Given the framework within which it operates, it could have easily questioned the authority of the “minister” in charge for bypassing and challenging it’s authority for everything. The imminent launch of mobile number portability was delayed; for very obvious reasons because the entrenched players have a greater say in the lobby or it must have been a part of the deal to allow new players while the mobile number portability could be delayed based on whims and fancies of established operators. We would never know the real reason but TRAI has been found wanting for lack of action.

As a regulator, it is naive to assume that it has “unprecedented powers”; on the contrary, it has not been able to exercise it’s own powers the way it should act on customers behalf. I remember the time when I had dragged Vodafone to the regulator and made it work. But the compliance reports were never made public. At the same time, it has given me valuable lessons in case I need to drag TRAI to act. The best way is to send them a notice while you complain to your telecom operator. Since most of the operators never respond even to repeated emails, it’s best to file a RTI application and know the status of the compliance reports filed by the operators- the nature of the complaint received from the customer, action taken report on the same and how the case was closed. It is a mandatory requirement but so far TRAI has not made anything public.

The wheels of justice churn slowly in this country. So does the thinking of the populace as well as the elected representatives. The idea is simple. To keep the population under duress, to ignore the idea for reforms and let the status quo remain unchanged. Or else, the Government which seems to “act” cannot really resort to extra judicial or extra constitutional ways and means.

In any case, this is the end of the calendar year 2009 and I do sign off with a heavy heart. The efforts in 2010 would be directed towards a bit of activism given the fact that there are untold academic pressures to “be up to it”

In any case, I am toying with the idea of filing a second RTI application but my attention is fixated on academics and it would be impossible to keep a track of the same. In case anyone among the readers feels motivated enough, please let me know through feedback on drapuri (at) gmail (dot) com and I would happily guide the way out including help with drafting of the application.

Trust me, you’d feel very happy with the process to move the sarkari machinery in motion to respond to you. The idea is to inundate these idiots with RTI applications and make them realize that their own regulations are being flouted.

The context of the RTI application should include pointed questions towards mobile number portability, relevant orders to the same, procedure outlined, whether the telecom operators are filing compliance reports, copies of those reports, penalties to be imposed on operators who delay, cause of delays and what action has TRAI taken to ensure compliance with the erring operators.

This is important because TRAI’s own rules are being flouted, mobile number portability would have benefited the incumbent operators and the biggest losers would have been the Government Operators. With delays in capacity expansion, BSNL is already loosing market share. But then, who cares?

The entry of private operators hasn’t really shaken up the market. With perhaps per second billing as the highlight of the year, there is nothing else to speak of. In any case, it would not result in “drastic savings” because of the complex interconnect and termination charges. We don’t really know how we are being scammed.

A further highlight of the proposed RTI application can be the break up of the call rates and the scope for reduction of the same. The operators are dependent on voice revenues to a large extent; data and VAS accounts for a growing percentage of revenues, but as per media reports, not good enough to impact the bottomline in any significant manner. Therefore, the scramble is on to protect the cash cow; at any cost because the customers can be MILKED.

The big question really is: How much profit is really profitable?

This is my first experience with Right to Information Act and has been a learning one too. The excitement is palpable because I can feel that there is some delivery of justice at the ground level. If required, I would be going down personally for the hearing, press upon them the need for a better broadband, force TRAI to eat crow and for once listen to the consumers to act proactively.

For long, huge amount of public funds have been spent on supporting these morons in office. Where is the bloody accountability?

I am awaiting response from CIC regarding the pendancy of my application and it’s status. Once it is accepted, subject to the approval, I guess the next step would be to screw the PIO and his boss regarding the denial of information. Let’s see what happens!

I shall duly update the whole thing here.

Calling the COAI as “assholes” is only a reflection of the personal opinion brought about by frustration because of their intense lobbying to delay any customer friendly initiative. After the broadband thingy is sorted out, I would be pressing TRAI for any information to make the telecom companies more responsive. Plus, to find out as to why they permitted the minute plans as existed before and ask them for any compensation if not in monetary terms but force the companies for any excess talk time etc etc.

This maybe a loud thinking but then we should get our money’s worth. It took a lot of time to get Vodafone to work and improve upon their services.

Wait and watch. I feel that the best is about to begin as yet. Let’s wait for the mobile number portability and the magic. The ‘revolution’ my dear friends has come NOW.

To me, it appears like a simple game. The “base” access is 256 kbps; anything over and above that is a “value added service”. I have no clue as to how the whole thing is priced but logic dictates that it is incremental profit for the telecom companies. The costs are fixed for “digging” up the roads, fixing up the telephone connections and if they are able to give an “error” free connection, people are loath to change their service providers in a jiffy. In any case, landlines are more reliable than a mobile connection because they are not prone for “congestion” or call drops as the case with the airwaves is.

TRAI has not addressed the customer claims so far. I remember the time when I had to struggle upfront against BSNL to start with “unlimited” connection. It was a long fight and after emailing them incessantly, I managed to get “true freedom”.

Right to Information Act has changed the game plan by giving the customer real power in terms of information. I have earlier mentioned that it is one of the most progressive legislation in the history ii independent India because the grass roots policy can be questioned to bring about a change. The appellate authority has 45 days to respond to the appeal failing which I would be escalating the matter to CIC, New Delhi and press for charges against the respective Information Officers.

I would have been happy had this case got the media scrutiny and then bring TRAI on the mat and screw them LITERALLY. For long, we have suffered enough lobbies because it doesn’t suit them. Trust me, we have enough bandwidth to support millions of ‘unlimited connections’ but are at the mercy of the likes of ISP’s like Sify and Airtel. Those associations have money, legal power and reach in the media. We as individual customers, don’t.

I find the idea to “petition” totally useless. If anything has to happen in democracy, one has to reach out to do something. Clicking on the petition is a SURE SHOT sign that you are a f***ing impotent asshole. This “clickitivism” does nothing because these petitions are as good as useless. If you are so overtly concerned about your rights, it’s a better option to hurl some stones outside their corporate offices after ganging up. Or protest outside naked with a group of people. That would generate more news rather than sitting on your sorry ass for want of doing ’something’.

I appreciate all of your concerns and do stay glued here for any news. I shall update it as soon as I get any information.

Having the useless information from the Public Information Officer, I explored ways and means to get the FULL information from TRAI.

It appears that there is a huge lobby to keep the definition of broadband as 256 kbps which can be “offered” at an attractive “price”. Anything over and above that is chargeable at a higher price. The companies incur a fixed price to extend the wire from the exchange to your premises. However, after that, we have no clue as to how a company, for example, Airtel justifies it’s monthly costs to service me as a customer. In the recent price fall, on what basis, the price was reduced? On what basis, the earlier price point was maintained?

The PIO has not specifically mentioned about the fair usage policy. Under no circumstances, does this fair usage policy apply, nor it is mandated, nor it is ‘legal’. I have no clue about whether TRAI is aware of such a thing but in any case, it needs a follow up and TRAI should be forced to stop the unfortunate usage.

In the long term, the license of these firms needs to be made public; how these private companies acquire them, how they charge and what are their revenue sources. Their accounts need to be audited and everything should be in the public domain.

I am only interested in a bare bones 2 Mbps connection and any other value added service maybe charged for. That is a legitimate right to make a profit. However, charging exorbitant rates for something as simple as a plain vanilla broadband access is unfair and the customer needs to be put in the loop.

I am reproducing the mail to the appellate authority in full. The best part is that I don’t have to pay the requisite fees and I am sure that the PIO would be put under the mat. TRAI should exert itself as an authority and not a hand maid of the various lobbies. Lets fight them!

November 23rd 2009

To,

Smt. Sadhana Dikshit,
Pr. Advisor (FA &IFA) & Appellate Authorit,
TRAI, Mahanagar Doorsanchar Bhawan,
Jawaharlal Nehru Marg,
Old Minto Road,
New Delhi-110 002.

Sub: Misleading, incoherent and incomplete reply received from PIO, Mr. P.K. Dutta vide letter No. 1(229)/2009-RTI dated 18th November 2009.

Respected Madam,

With reference to the above mentioned subject, the reply received from PIO Mr. P.K. Dutta is INCOMPLETE, INCOHERENT,ABSOLUTELY MISLEADING and NOT TO MY SATISFACTION AT ALL.

1) The definition of Broadband mentioned as per the letter is and I quote verbatim, “minimum speed of Broadband has been kept at 256 kpbs (sic) as per definition adopted by International Telecommunications Union(ITU).

After accessing the website of ITU, the picture is entirely different.
It says and I quote verbatim,” Recommendation I.113 of the ITU Standardization Sector defines broadband as a “transmission capacity that is faster than primary rate Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) at 1.5 or 2.0 Megabits per second (Mbits)”.
(Accessed from http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/publications/birthofbroadband/faq.html and accessed on 22nd November 2009).

Hence this information is INCORRECT AND MISLEADING a customer.

2)The question number “4, 5 and 6” in the letter to PIO dated 6th November have NOT been answered. I had specifically asked:

Does fair usage policy violate any of the provisions of TRAI?
If it does, what action can be taken against errant Internet Service Provider?
Has any Internet Service Provider been ever penalised for violating for introducing “fair usage policy?

NO ANSWERS WERE GIVEN SPECIFICALLY TO THESE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS and it amounts to WITHOLDING THE INFORMATION.
Further, If the usage of the term “FAIR USAGE POLICY” is ‘illegal’. What action has TRAI taken to notify the various Internet Service Providers to avoid the usage of term and it’s implementation for ‘reducing the speeds’ to 50%’ of the availed plan. The following definition of Fair Usage Policy is taken from Airtel available as a pdf download from their website (www.airtel.in/applications/xm/Fair_Usage_Policy.pdf)

“Under the policy we have defined fair usage levels for unlimited data transfer plans and
needless to mention, the usage levels set are very generous such that most customers will not
be affected by the Fair Usage Policy. On reaching the fair usage level, the plan speed would be rationalized by up to 50% for the restof the monthly billing cycle.”
IS TRAI AWARE OF SUCH A POLICY? WHAT ACTION HAS TRAI TAKEN TO AVOID THE USAGE OF THIS TERM?

3)Question number 8 in letter dated 6th November 2009 was specific and has NOT been answered to MY SATISFACTION, namely,
Has TRAI suggested reducing the price for various plan combinations?If yes, what is the base price fixed for an unlimited Internet Connection by any Internet Service Provider? If no, is there any provision whereby TRAI can act on behalf of the customer to reduce the prices?

I need to know whether TRAI speaks on behalf of the customers, whether TRAI asks the service providers about the break up of the various tariff plans as to under what head the various tariff plans are designed and on what basis the end customer is charged for availing the services of the various Internet Service Providers.

4)Question number 9 has NOT been answered at all namely, “ How has the tariff on unlimited broadband (1Mbps unlimited) being offered by Bharti Airtel fixed line been calculated?”

Please rush the information to me by speed/registered post at the following address listed below. In case the requisite information is not provided to me by the mandatory period, I have the option to escalate the matter to the second appellate authority namely CIC, New Delhi.