Lok Sabha Question No. 3359 (UNSTARRED), answered on 2017-03-22
Subject: Issues Faced by Telecom Consumers
Ministry: COMMUNICATIONS
Asked by: K. ASHOK KUMAR

## GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS

## LOK SABHA UNSTARRED QUESTION NO.3359 TO BE ANSWERED ON 22 ND   MARCH, 2017

## ISSUES FACED BY TELECOM CONSUMERS

## 3359. SHRI K. ASHOK KUMAR:

Will the Minister of COMMUNICATIONS be pleased to state:

- (a) whether the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has floated a new discussion paper seeking clearity on issues faced by the consumers and if so, the details thereof;
- (b) whether  a  feedback  is  sought  on  consumers  problems  in  case  of  termination  of  telecom services and if so, the details thereof and if not, the reasons therefor; and
- (c) whether  the  TRAI  has  invited  suggestions  from  telecom  companies  on  the  ideal  mode  of communicating a services closure to subscribers and if so, the details thereof?

## ANSWER

## THE MINISTER OF STATE (IC) OF THE MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS & MINISTER OF STATE IN THE MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS (SHRI MANOJ SINHA)

- (a) Yes,  Madam,  Telecom  Regulatory  Authority  of  India  (TRAI)  has  released  a  'Consultation Paper  on    Issues  related  to  Closure    of  Access  Services'  on  30 th November,  2016.The  details  of issues for consultation, as given in said TRAI consultation paper, are given below-
- Q.1  Is  there  a  need  for  modification  of  the  Unifies  Access  Service  License  (UASL)  and Cellular  Mobile  Telephone  Service  (CMTS)  licences  in  line  with  Clause  30.3(b)  of  Unified License  (UL),  for  those  licensees  who  have  liberalized  their  administratively  allocated spectrum?
- Q.2 Should discontinuation  of  services  being  provided  through  a  particular  technology,  say Code  Division  Multiple  Access  (CDMA),  be  treated  same  as  discontinuation  of  any  of  the service  under  a  Service  Authorisation  as  per  Clause  30.3(b)  of  UL?  Please  provide  details along with justification.
- Q.3  What  other  conditions  in  these  licenses  be  modified  so  as  to  keep  pace  with  the developments? Please justify your answer.
- Q.4 Regarding spectrum trading process, the Stakeholders are requested to comment upon the following:
- (a)  Is  there  a  need  to  define  a  time-limit  for  Department  of  Telecom  (DoT)  to  take  into  its records  the  prior  intimation  given  by  Telecom  Service  Providers  (TSPs)  regarding  the spectrum  trading?  Please  suggest  time-lines  for  different  activities  within  the  Spectrum Trading Process.
- (b)  Should  the  advance  notice  period  to  subscribers'  be  enhanced from  30  days  period  to say,  60  days,  in  case  of  closure  of  services  so  that  a  subscriber  has  sufficient  time  to consume his talktime balance? Please provide justification to your response.

Contd……2/-

(c) If a TSP is selling its entire spectrum in the Licensed Service Area (LSA) and intends to discontinue its access services being provided to its subscribers, should the TSP give the 60 days' advance notice to Licensor, TRAI and its subscribers, only after the spectrum trading is acknowledged by DoT/ Wireless Planning Commission (WPC) as suggested in Para 23?

(d) Give any other suggestion to improve the existing Spectrum Trading Process.

Q.5 What mechanism should be put in place to ensure that subscribers are informed about the  closure  of  services/change  of  access  technology  transparently  and  effectively  by  the TSPs? Should TSPs be directed to follow a specified mode of communication(s) as detailed in para 30 for informing subscribers or what could be other mode of communications?

Q.6 Will it be appropriate that the responsibility of verification of time-period elapsed since the last porting (i.e. 90 days period) be shifted from Mobile Number Portability Service Provider (MNPSP)  to  the  Donor  Operator  so  that  subscribers'  port-out  requests  are  accepted irrespective of his age on network in case of closure of services?

Q.7  In  case  a  TSP  changes  the  access  services  technology  and  asks  his  subscribers  to migrate  to  newer  technology,  should  the  tariff  protection,  carry-over  of  unused  talk-time balance and benefits be extended to such subscribers upon migration to new technology for the contracted period?

Q.8  How  much  time  period  should  be  given  to  the  subscribers  to  port-out  after  closure  of commercial services i.e. for how long the system should remain active to facilitate porting? Should the validity of the Unique Porting Code (UPC) in such cases coincide with such time period?

Q.9 What other changes should be made in the Mobile Number Portability (MNP) Regulation to ensure smooth bulk porting-out of the subscribers in the event of closure of access services or change of access technology by any TSP?

Q.10 Will it be appropriate that the change of technology within a licensee (TSP in a given LSA) be removed from the definition of MNP?

Q.11 Is there a need for an alternative mechanism to MNP for bulk transfer of subscribers from one TSP to other TSP(s)? If yes, please give suggestions.

Q.12 Should a TSP be allowed to transfer its subscribers, who have not been able to port-out to  other  TSPs  before  closure  of  service,  to  another  TSP  whenever  the  services  being rendered  by  that  TSP  are  going  to  be  discontinued?  What  can  be  associated  issues  and challenges? Please provide details.

Q.13 If there are any other issues relevant to the subject, stakeholders may submit the same, with proper explanation and justification.

(b) The consultation paper includes detailed questionnaire to find out problems  being faced by the  consumers    and  seeks  suggestions  from  all  stake-holders  for  mitigating  the  problem  of  the consumers.

(c) The consultation paper sought comments of the stake-holders on the mechanism that should be in place to ensure that subscribers are informed about closure of services.

**************************