Airtel, Vodafone, Idea told to stop 3G services in all circles under roaming; slapped hefty fines

[sathishq 27]

Press Trust of India
March 16, 2013


The department of telecom has asked Bharti Airtel to stop offering third generation (3G) services in seven circles where the company does not hold spectrum.

"Airtel has been asked to stop 3G services and file a compliance report by 3pm on March 18," sources said.

The DoT has also asked Airtel to pay a penalty of Rs 350 crore for offering 3G services beyond permitted zones.

The company sources said Airtel has already approached the Delhi High Court against the order.

Telecom minister Kapil Sibal had approved the recommendation of a DoT committee to impose Rs 50 crore penalty each on seven licences of Bharti Airtel that entered into 3G roaming agreements with other operators to offer services beyond permitted zones.

Airtel won 3G spectrum in 13 out of 22 telecom circles in 2010 through auction and entered into a quid pro quo agreement with other players who won the spectrum in other service area where it did not have spectrum to offer 3G services.

DoT has held that it is illegal to offer 3G data services beyond a company's licensed zone or circle. On December 23, 2011, the DoT had issued a letter instructing various telecom service providers including the Bharti Airtel to immediately stop providing the intra circle roaming service in all service area.

The operators, however, had moved the tribunal (TDSAT) challenging the DoT order, saying it would harm customers and investment in the sector. In July 2012, the tribunal had delivered a split verdict.

While one member of the two-member bench favoured the DoT's claim that roaming agreements were illegal, the other supported the operators who had challenged it.

[rajanmehta 4,056]

Delhi High Court Lifts Stay Order On Bharti Airtel 3G Roaming Pact Ban

Source

The court has allowed Airtel to continue its 3G roaming until the next hearing, scheduled for 8 May.

New Delhi: A division bench of the Delhi high court has vacated a stay order on the department of telecommunications (DoT) notice to Bharti Airtel Ltd, asking the telco to pay a Rs.350 crore fine and to stop offering 3G services in circles where it did not win spectrum in the 2010 auction.

On 15 March, DoT had sent Bharti the notice that asked the company to stop offering 3G services in seven circles and pay the fine in 72 hours. Bharti was able to get a stay on the order from a single bench judge in the court by 18 March.

The court also let the telco continue its 3G roaming until the next hearing, scheduled for 8 May. Bharti was able to offer the services through roaming pacts with Vodafone India Ltd and Idea Cellular Ltd who are also expected to receive similar notices.

This stay was then contested by Reliance Communications Ltd which has led to the vacations.

[Arun 795]

The court has allowed Airtel to continue its 3G roaming until the next hearing, scheduled for 8 May.

This was as part of the the earlier stay order that AirTel got from the court; which is now lifted off. So they have to stop the service within the next 72 hours unless they manage to get another stay order.

[Arun 795]

DoT directs Vodafone & Idea also to end 3G roaming pacts; slaps fine.
Press Trust of India - Friday, April 05, 2013, 21:18

The government Friday ordered Vodafone, Idea and Airtel to stop 3G roaming services outside their licence areas within three days and imposed hefty penalties on the first two operators for violating the norms.

The Department of Telecom slapped Rs 550 crore penalty on Vodafone and Rs 300 crore on Idea Cellular for violating 3G service roaming norms, officials said.

"It (notice) has been issued Friday," DoT officials told PTI, confirming the penalty amount on the two companies.

They also said that while Airtel has been asked to stop services within 24 hours, the other two companies have been asked to stop 3G services under the roaming pact with other operators within three days.

Comments were not received immediately from the three operators.

Meanwhile Bharti Airtel on Friday filed a petition with the Supreme Court seeking an order in support of continuing 3G services in areas where it does not have spectrum.

Airtel told the apex court that the Delhi High Court order would impact 20 million subscribers and, hence, the case needs to be heard at the earliest.

The Supreme Court has posted the case for hearing on Monday.

The company has not stopped 3G services in the seven circles where it does not have spectrum.

[commonman 228]

Instead of asking for the small fine, DOT should have asked them to pay price equivalent to the price paid by the successful 3G bidder in the concerned circle.

[rajanmehta 4,056]

Firstly can it be done legally? How DOT will allocate 3G spectrum to airtel in those circles if they do that?

Secondly even if it can be done, other than getting a pleasure of airtel being punished, it would end up hurting you the consumer as you'll pay much MORE for 3G.

[sougatadc 358]

Secondly even if it can be one, other than getting a pleasure of airtel being punished, it would end up hurting you the consumer as you'll pay much MORE for 3G.

I support.

This was the point I raised at the time many of our members including some gurus were rejoicing poor state of MTS effected by Supreme Court's order to discontinue operation.

After all, we, the subscribers will suffer if the competition at the operators' level subsides. So, let's not get vindictive against AirTel/ Voda/ !dea.

[krishnendu halder 24]

They deliberately did not bid for 3g spectrum with the intention of using each others network.so it can not be supported.imho.also you can see from there list of 3g circles that they are almost complimentary,eg in kolkata vf got 3g but not airtel.For the price factor I feel if the specturm price was determinant then evdo price should have been much lower than 3g.So kindly dont support this cartel.They are not only looting customers but also the GOI.

Edited April 6, 2013 by krishnendu halder

[commonman 228]

time for Govt to leagalise Mobile Virtual Network and levy a licence fee on both sides for that. would yield much higher revenue for the Govt than these petty fines.

[commonman 228]

Secondly even if it can be one, other than getting a pleasure of airtel being punished, it would end up hurting you the consumer as you'll pay much MORE for 3G.

I support.

This was the point I raised at the time many of our members including some gurus were rejoicing poor state of MTS effected by Supreme Court's order to discontinue operation.

After all, we, the subscribers will suffer if the competition at the operators' level subsides. So, let's not get vindictive against AirTel/ Voda/ !dea.

the MTS situation was the unfortunate fall out of overbearing judiciary. the auction of CDMA spectrum was never part of the 2G auction. so it was not subject matter of the case for which the judgement was given. but the net result is that the consumers suffer.

Edited April 6, 2013 by commonman

[sougatadc 358]

^^^

My assertion was clearly different. It was not about 2G or 3G auction but about having a fellow-feeling with the members using different operators' service. Our choice regarding an operator depends upon many factors and losing an operator from the competitive market is always detrimental to the interest of the consumers.

I support Rajan Mehta's view that there isn't any positive reason to be happy at others' loss, because lesser the competition more we (the subscribers) suffer.

[krishnendu halder 24]

But the cartel 3g can not be supported as ultimately it will hurt the customers eliminating smaller operators.They already have started blackmailling the govt for extension of expiring licenses.

[sougatadc 358]

It's an important question that the biggies are to be prevented from having cartel/monopoly, but how?

[krishnendu halder 24]

Well the solution lies in the proper implementation of govt policies.And the first positive step is definitely cancelling 3g Icra.

[sougatadc 358]

But the Govt. seems to be confused. Sometimes it allows first-come-first policy and at other the normal competitive bidding. We know, competitive bidding subtly kills small players and the biggies control the market by framing mock fight among themselves, e.g. the false price war between Pepsi and Coca-Cola.

And I'm sure this lobby is so powerful that the so-called Govt policies will also be changed to their benefit. For example, AirTel, not having 3G license in Kolkata or Chennai but having it in RoWB & TN circles, will surely try to manipulate the Govt policies so that they can operate in the revenue earning circles (it is costly for them to maintain good network in cities scattered in vast geographical areas of WB or TN, rather it is highly cost-effective to operate in metros of Kolkata & Chennai with large number of 3G subscribers).

[sougatadc 358]

See, what's happening. Everything is possible in our country. Today SC has asked DoT not to take any coercive action till 11th.

It may happen that the apex court will nullify DoT's move in the long run.

Link: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/telecom/Supreme-Court-allows-Airtel-Vodafone-Idea-3G-pacts-until-April-11/articleshow/19442630.cms

[rajanmehta 4,056]

Bharti, Idea, Vodafone Can't Add New 3G Customers Till Final Order: SC

Source

NEW DELHI: In what may be a big blow to major telecom operators in the country, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that Bharti Airtel, Idea and Vodafone cannot add new 3G customers till further notice. The court has allowed Vodafone and Idea to be party to the 3G roaming case.

While existing customers can still avail the current services, no new customers can be added by Bharti in seven circles, the court ruled. A bench, led by the CJI, issued notices to all parties and BSNL to formally place their views on the subject before the court within four weeks. The case will now be listed on May 9, for final hearing.

The seven circles where Airtel does not have license to provide 3G services are Kolkata, Madhya Pradesh, Haryana, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh East and Kerala.

Airtel services in these circles came under a threat after the Delhi High Court vacated a stay on a Department of Telecommunications (DoT) order asking it to pay Rs 350 crore and stop these services at Reliance Communication's instance.

Reliance Communicatios claimed that it had suffered a Rs 5000 crore loss in its 3G services despite paying huge license fees for it. Bharti then came to the top court in appeal. Vodafone and Idea have also joined Bharti in the top court.

An HC division bench had on April 4 vacated a single order permitting Airtel to continue its 3G services inHaryana, Kolkata, UP East, Maharashtra, Goa, Gujarat, Kerala, MP and Chhattisgarh.

The DoT had on March 15 issued a notification restraining Bharti from providing 3G intra-circle roaming facilities in seven circles where it did not have the spectrum and also levied a penalty of Rs 350 crore (Rs 50 crore per circle) for allegedly violating the licence terms and conditions.

The telecom major challenged the decision of the division bench of the high court which had set aside its single judge's March 18 order staying the DoT notification.

Hitesh Shah, Research Analyst said "The apex cort's decision is both positive and negative for the companies."

Earlier this week, Supreme Court had asked the government to refrain from taking any "coercive steps" against Bharti Airtel, accused of illegally providing intra-circle roaming facilities in seven circles where it did not have the licences for the 3G spectrum.

The apex court heard the petition filed by Bharti Airtel challenging the Delhi High Court's order giving its nod to the Centre's decision holding the 3G roaming pact of the telecom major as illegal.

The high court's division bench passed the order on a plea by Reliance Communications Ltd challenging the single judge's order saying it has been incurring huge losses for the 3G on a daily basis and Bharti has been using it free of cost.

Senior advocate Abhishekh Singhvi, appearing for Airtel, said the division bench of the high court was wrong in entertaining the plea of Reliance as it was not a party before the single judge.