Let Neutrality not lead to Mediocrity

Recently, Thomas K Thomas of Hindu Business Line wrote an article regarding the Net Neutrality issue that is being debated in several countries and was introduced into the Broadband debate in India by Google. While TKT was kind enough to quote my views, there's only so much one can express in a quote. Therefore, this post to elaborate on the quote:

But Indian telecom operators are not in favour of any such regulation.  Srinivasa Addepalli, Senior Vice-President, Corporate Strategy, Tata Communication, says that more than it being a question of principles it is a commercial issue. “It is fair that consumers should have unrestricted access to the Internet. It is also a fact that telecom operators are investing billions of dollars in creating infrastructure. The Internet is at the core of private enterprise today; network operators, like the content/service providers, should be allowed to develop their commercial models without additional regulatory constraints,” Addeppali says.

There was a twist in the Net Neutrality debate in the US with Google and Verizon announcing a joint proposal and with AT&T jumping into the fray with its support of said proposal (or at least one key element of the proposal). Proponents of an open Internet accused Google of a sell-out and Google responded with an analysis of myths and facts related to the proposal. (By the way, I liked this reasonably objective teardown of the Google-Verizon proposal).

Whatever the outcome of the current round of debate on Net Neutrality proposals, I guess there are some key issues that one needs to consider here.

Is the Internet a public good or a private enterprise?

What might have started out in defence and academic circles, is now the primary platform for knowledge, collaboration, commerce, entertainment, and more. On one hand you have the largest encyclopedia in the world that is user-managed and runs on donations, and on the other you also have the most valuable brand in the world, both of which owe their existence to the Internet. The late Dewang Mehta of Nasscom once famously included Internet bandwidth as a fundamental right of all (Indian) citizens and rightly so. But it is not just information or governance that the Internet provides us now and nor is the Internet "free". Content providers and commercial enterprises are free however, to charge their customers (or not) for access to their services as they deem fit. There is no regulation that determines how much a song download should cost or what the pricing of a hosting plan should be. You can sign up for a free, 'lite' version or upgrade to a pricey, 'premium' version. It's a competitive market out there, and a reasonably free market.

Is Internet Access a monopoly or a scarce resource?

In the early days of telecom (30 yrs back in developed markets, 5-15 yrs back in several emerging markets), customers had no choice, whether it was voice services or data connectivity. Regulators were introduced in most of these markets to break incumbent monopolies and encourage competition. Even until a few years ago, customers had very few choices for broadband connectivity, one or two service providers at most in any market. But that has changed. Wireless broadband access has emerged as a reasonable alternative to wireline, particularly in developing markets that have had very poor wireline in any case. Most markets have at least three such providers; extreme cases like India have 6-7 (and growing) wireless operators. Of course, these broadband networks (both wireline and wireless) have failed to keep pace with the exponential growth in Internet traffic demand but that does not reflect scarcity or monopoly behaviour. 

Regulators, I believe, should aim to make themselves redundant. That can only happen by encouraging competition, not just in terms of numbers of players, but also ensuring that each of the players has the requisite resources to be an effective competitor. Regulations should define the minimum acceptable performance levels, for customers and competitors; beyond that, effective competition should take care of creating sufficient customer choice.

Broadband Networks: No longer commodity utilities

For long, telecom networks have been called the pipes, equating them with other utilities like water pipelines and electric wires. Broadband networks, as critical to human existence now as the aforementioned utilities, have features that set them apart from the other pipes. For one, as mentioned earlier, they are no longer primarily provided by local or national government bodies and are not monopolies. In addition, the "content" that flows through them is also varied, competitive and unregulated (unlike water or electricity), The highway example is an interesting one, with several similar characteristics to the broadband network. As one of the industry experts in TKT's article says:

It's like any toll road in the country where every type of vehicle gets to use the expressway but the toll charges vary depending on the type of vehicle.

Everyone can use the roads to travel as they please, however, there are several rules that govern how traffic flows on the roads. There are certain roads (highways or expressways) that place limitations on who (or what type of vehicles) enter the road and charge them in a differential manner. Traffic on these roads is regulated in different ways; certain types of vehicles get priority to use fast lanes and some have to stick to the slower ones. On some roads, the authorities may mandate some capacity to be reserved for public transport by creating special bus or taxi lanes, even if it slows down the rest of the traffic. Finally, in specific circumstances, private roads can be built and the owners determine what they are used for and how. What do we gather from this:

A) Rules of what is allowed and what the charges are should be clear to the users (and to the regulators)

B) Differential treatment to users is permitted. In the light of (A), users can choose what they prefer. (By the way, roads are a near monopoly or maybe duopolies; telecom networks, we have established earlier, are more competitive than roads)

C) Certain capacity of the 'public' infrastructure can be reserved or set aside for critical usage or public interest. 

D) Customers can, in certain circumstances, negotiate and build private infrastructure and use it the way they want.

As a Broadband customer, I would be willing to pay a premium for a network that understood my priority applications and provided a superior performance for such core services, even at the expense of other stuff. For instance, I would surely like to access my enterprise applications (Intranet, Mail, etc.) much faster / better than say, a YouTube video. A doctor providing remote medical assistance would surely want her tele-medicine application to not be choked mid-way through the procedure. On the other hand, a movie junkie (perhaps the doctor, on vacation) would want nothing more than super-fast download of the latest iTunes movie (in HD). Should we let this be left to fate (or best effort, in Internet / telecom parlance)? I say, No. Internet service providers need to make their networks more capable, to discriminate intelligently and individually across different types of content / applications. In a world where our lives are going to revolve around the cloud, networks have to become more than dumb pipes. Intelligent networks will create more value to the customers as well as the content providers. 

Maybe most customers do not want such intelligence. Maybe most content providers do not care about it. But for the few that want the choice, let regulation not take it away and relegate them, in the name of neutrality, to an "average" experience.

I welcome your comments and feedback, particularly because the "Net Neutrality" debate is still not defined well enough in developing markets.

Posted via email from Global Gyan

iPad - the device for the gaaks.

Most of us have become experts at seeing what isn't, so we miss out simple 'what is' facts. The other problem that we face is that of wanting everything, everytime, everywhere.

Apple's latest creation, the iPad, has underwhelmed the tech media and analysts; they are unable to see why somebody would use a large smartphone or an inferior laptop. Many others are aghast at the iPad's lack of Flash support or multi-tasking. That there aren't two cameras to support photography and video-chatting has let down a few more. Of course, some can't get over the "i" jokes and worse still, the "pad" jokes.

I beg to differ. I see here (and in a few other such devices) an opportunity to expand the market for digital services. Take it beyond the tech workers and fans of gadget blogs, take it beyond the home and office use, take it beyond the developed markets. I firmly believe that iPad has the opportunity to define its market, not as a large smartphone or as a cheaper/smaller laptop but as the primary digital device for the GAAKS, as against the geeks! (More about the gaaks, later.)

Broadband penetration remains relatively low in several emerging markets, not only because of supply constraints but also because prospective customers do not see value in the service. The primary interface device is a computer that is as "complex" as it is expensive. Most kids and senior citizens (all 45+ would qualify!) that have not received "formal" IT education would not venture to use a computer without assistance. Even when they do use a computer, it is rarely for its computing or processing power but really for the purpose of communication, media consumption and sharing. Finally, the keyboard is the most counter-intuitive input/control device that puts-off even highly educated people, leave alone those that aren't.

It is obvious that the next Broadband access device has to be developed using the same principles that have made mobile phones and media players accessible to several billion people worldwide. Simple and intuitive user interface that helps in communication/sharing and digital media management. A device that two-year old kids can manage and so can 60+ old grannies. Something that the neighborhood aunty will find as appealing as students focusing on their courseware. Something that the average-J can use to be more productive at work. Move over geeks, we need to serve the grannies, aunties, average-j, kids and students. The GAAKS.

Using a few personal, albeit anecdotal, experiences, let me outline needs of the gaaks in the context of a digital device:

Grannies: Simple visual control-interface, limited need for typing. Big, bright screen; large icons. Mostly photos, videos and music. Reading books. The occasional video chat. Home use.

Aunties: Cool looks. Fit in handbag. Idiot-proof controls (Oh, did I delete something!?). Music, videos and photos. Calendar. Facebook. Mail reader and forwarder. Home + nomadic use.

Average-J at work: Portable. Simple but secure. VPN/Exchange connectivity. Mail, Calendar & Contacts. Notes. Presentations (on-screen or projector). Document editor. Corporate apps. Occasional media (IT rules permitting). Mobile use.

Kids: Rugged (4-feet drop proof). Delete-proof. Intuitive physical & visual interface. Music, videos, games. Education apps. Occasional books/comics. Anywhere the parents want a silent kid.

Students: Cool looks. Portable (fit in a ruck-sack with other assorted stuff). Social networking. Music, videos, photos & games. Camera or camera-phone interface. Search. Reading books & making/sharing notes. Everywhere use.

(I have described generic / average usage scenarios. There are bound to be exceptions in each of these categories. Have also not included stuff that can be done using pretty much any mobile phone: yakking, texting, FM radio, etc.)

Which device is more likely to serve these large user segments: a laptop-variant or an iPod Touch variant? Remember, most of these people already have access to a mobile phone, so they have basic voice and narrowband connectivity. A bigger, brighter and more capable iPod Touch or an iPhone appears to be more relevant to these users than a laptop or a netbook. The iPad may not yet address all these requirements but from a hardware perspective, it appears to have all features (except a video camera for chat: surprising but not a deal-breaker). The interface and software are almost ideal for the gaaks; a few rough edges should get resolved through software upgrades.

Us geeks will still buy the iPad because, well, we just have to have it. It will add to the bag-load of devices and accessories that we carry with us everywhere. The significance of the recent Apple announcement is that a whole new, untapped market is about to open up. What they call "blue-ocean" stuff in management consulting parlance. More power to the gaaks.

Broadband in India - Praying for Better Times

(This article, in this form was published at PuneTech.com on Jan 11, 2010)

India has about 7 million broadband subscribers, broadband, which by the way is defined in India at >=256Kbps: just about enough speed to let you experience the new, emerging Internet. The Indian Govt. had declared 2007 as the year of broadband, and a target of 9mn subs was set for the year. Even two years later, we are way behind! Just so you know, China has over 80 million broadband subscribers.

Why is a nation such as ours, IT superpower and aspiring global superpower, so poor when it comes to broadband penetration?

Very Poor Fixed Line Infrastructure

Most countries that have a high broadband penetration have (a) high wireline penetration, and / or (b) robust cable infrastructure. Simply speaking, if you do not have the basic infrastructure, you cannot provide a superior service such as broadband. Unfortunately for us, neither of these two conditions exist in India.

There are about 37 million fixed lines, of which only about 30% – about 10mn – are even capable of providing broadband. In recent years, there has been almost no investment in increasing and/or improving the quality of fixed line infrastructure. The country has added more than 400million wireless connections in the last 8 years, as against none in the fixed line space. While lack of focus on wireleine by the incumbents, BSNL and MTNL is an important factor, the blame must really be borne by the regulatory and policy regime which has not created an environment to encourage competition (and thereby, investment) in fixed line infrastructure / services in the country. The TRAI had recommended unbundling of the local loop as a step towards limited competition, but as has now almost become a norm, the TRAI recommendations were not accepted by the DoT.

Less said the better about cable infrastructure. It is a highly fragile and completely unregulated cobweb of many thousands of independent networks. It will take an investment of at least Rs 200 billion to upgrade the cable last mile to make it 2-way and broadband capable. Nobody, it appears, is willing to take that challenge up.

No Encouragement to Competition

It is well-recognized that the mobile revolution in India has been driven primarily by competition: at least 6-7 operators across the country. Private operators were licensed years before the incumbents were allowed to enter the mobile market; several steps have been taken towards creating a level playing field for all the licensed mobile operators. On the other hand, in broadband, there is absolutely no policy measure to encourage private operators to enter and compete; this in spite of the fact that none of them have any last mile infrastructure to speak of, and therefore, require considerable support in the initial years.

The incumbents that are riding on public-funded fixed line infrastructure have – in almost a predatory manner – dropped tariffs so much that India has, at the same time, the lowest broadband ARPU and the poorest broadband penetration in the world! Wireless broadband (read 3G & WiMax) is generally expected to become the competitive alternative – but there has simply been no urgency in creating the policy environment to encourage wireless. Spectrum â the essential ingredient to rolling out wireless networks â has not been made available for Broadband; the proposed spectrum auctions have been postponed several times in the last 2 years.

Can something be done to salvage the situation?

Unfortunately, in the short term, I see no option for the customers and private operators. During 2010, the incumbents will strengthen their dominance in the broadband market (for whatever it is worth); private operators will half-heartedly roll out parallel copper / cable networks and will be plagued with quality issues. If spectrum auctions happen in Jan-Feb 2010 as currently envisaged, 3G and WiMax services should become available in most metros towards the second half of the year.

The Broadband market will have to wait till 2011 for true competition, high quality and innovative services – available in all major towns and cities. But the rest of the world will not stay still. Singapore is experimenting with getting 100Mbps to every home by 2012; we hope to get to about 1Mbps in the top 100 towns by then.

Every year, since 2005, I have been hoping that the next year would be the year that broadband becomes widely available in India. I have been proven wrong before; I pray that things change this time around.

Is Indian Broadband Overpriced?

New World of Communications: India Broadband: Under-fulfilled Potential

Price of Broadband services, it appears from the poll & comments I heard from various people, is the biggest inhibitor to adoption of the service in India. So, let's examine the pricing issue here.

Since pricing is directly linked to what is being purchased, we need to make some assumptions.

Mr. Novice has recently purchased a computer and wants to figure out what the Internet is all about. He is quite OK with 256 Kbps onwards speeds and does not need more than 2Gig downloads per month. On the other hand, Ms. Savvy has been on the Net for long and has recently got a office laptop that she wants to connect from home. In addition to work stuff (email mostly), she is also looking forward to improving her online social networking, as well as getting some latest content for her iPod. She would like at least 512 Kbps (perhaps more) and expects her data transfer to be about 5Gig a month. Finally, Master Gamer has just convinced his father to get the home PC connected to the Net, and can now avoid those trips to the cybercafe for his dose of WoW. He knows all about Internet speeds and service levels, and prefers an unlimited connection of at least 1 Mbps; his only concern is that he lives in a distant suburb of a mini-metro.

Based on my evaluation of various service providers and tariff plans, I would recommend the following choices:

1. Mr. Novice is better off taking a 256K DSL connection on his landline at an additional cost of Rs 500 (total about Rs 600 with voice). If DSL were not available, the next best alternative would be a data card (not 3G) with a plan cost of about Rs 700 per month, but an upfront CPE cost of about Rs 1500.

2. Ms. Savvy could take a 512K DSL connection or a fixed WiMax connection (if DSL were unavailable) at about Rs 1000 to 1300 per month; alternatively a 3G data card would have an upfront cost of about Rs 2000 to 3000, and a monthly charge of about Rs 1000 with the added advantage of mobility for the laptop.

3. Master Gamer would be lucky to get a DSL or Fiber connection at his home; his only option is likely to be a fixed WiMax 1Mbps connection (a 3G data card could work but may not give him the assured high speeds that he requires for gaming). This would cost nearly Rs 2000 per month for unlimited data transfers.

Evaluation:
First of all, it is not at all easy to determine what is the appropriate pricing / plan available from service providers. While there is value in choice, too much of it can also lead to confusion.

Now, let's compare the price-points with other benchmarks. I first checked Singapore and USA, but most operators in those markets had plans of several Mbps... ahem, not easy to compare our 256K plans. I looked towards China next (our favorite comparison) but I had to go back a couple of years to a period when 512kbps was the most popular connectivity there. A typical 512Kbps unlimited plan cost about Rs 1000; current prices are at similar levels but for more bandwidth.

In 2007, according to this article, average prices in North America & Western Europe for 4Mbps speeds were about Rs 2500 per month; while tariffs are not necessarily proportional to bandwidth, this should translate to about Rs 600 per 1Mbps. Eastern Europe had prices of about Rs 2000 per 2Mbps, or Rs 1000 per 1Mbps.

(Note: these are are just rough calculations using public info for benchmarking, directionally correct, I believe.)

From the above, it is clear that tariffs in India are more than what many other markets have, but there is one big difference: all these markets have either a very strong DSL market or have a competitive cable industry (in some cases like USA, both). If we look at a market like South Africa that has very high mobile/wireless penetration and low fixed line coverage, we find that price-points for 3G data cards are at about Rs 1500 per month, which are not dissimilar to the India plans.

Conclusion
Prices in India are perhaps somewhat higher than what they ought to be, but not by a large margin, given where we are on the adoption curve/scale and infrastructure availability. So, while price is stated by most as the inhibitor to adoption, the real issue must lie elsewhere. Otherwise, every market that started with high tariffs (including Indian mobile) should have stalled like Indian Broadband has...

We will continue looking for answers...

India Broadband: Under-fulfilled Potential

For years, we have been talking about the upcoming Broadband revolution in India, yet it remains an elusive dream. We, of course, find fault with Government policies on fiber roll-out and spectrum auctions yet it is not clear what is inhibiting customers from adopting Broadband. There are instances where Broadband is available (from one or more operators), however, network fill-factors are quite low, abysmally low in some cases. "Availability of last mile" cannot be the issue in such circumstances... there has to be something more.

Over the next few posts, I will try to uncover the customer perspective towards Broadband services, service providers and adoption-related issues. I will use a few snap polls to answer specific questions as well as conduct a few focused discussions with existing and potential customers to get their perspectives. Your inputs through comments would, of course, be most welcome.

Whither 3G and Broadband?

There have been several opinions, including a couple of editorials in the Mint , that have supported the doubling the reserve price in the 3G and BWA spectrum auctions in India. While the objective of maximizing Government revenues is generally admirable, this last minute googly and consequent confusion in the auction process will only reinforce the image of India as an uncertain investment destination.

It is indeed surprising that the issue of reserve price has been brought up now, after the auction Information Memorandum was released and the time-table announced. That the 3G reserve price would be about Rs 2000 crores was known for several months; indeed, the guidelines for auction of spectrum were announced over five months ago on 1 August 2008. Has the Ministry of Finance become aware of the "low" reserve price only now? In fact, it might be argued that since August 2008 the global (and Indian) economic environment has worsened, telecom valuations have taken a beating (down 30-50% during this period) and liquidity - even for good projects / investments has considerably dried up - therefore, the reserve price should be reduced in order to attract more bidders for the spectrum. Hong Kong did just that, and cut their BWA reserve price by 50% between October and November 2008!

Policy decisions in the telecom sector are being taken on the fly. New licences announced, terms & conditions changed, and scarce resources awarded without any sense of predictability. The number of players involved in this process are numerous, often leading to myopic and locally optimized decisions. The industry regulator has been relegated to a 'recommendator', whose opinions are occasionally sought and frequently rejected or modified. And, operators and investors indulge in guess-work and waste precious resources on creating regulatory arbitrage instead of focusing on developing new services or technologies.  

Coming back to the issue of the reserve price, what is the basis for somebody in the Government seeking a 100% increase? Why not 125% or 150% or 75%? It is the job of the regulator to study the economics of the business, analyze international benchmarks and assess current market conditions to determine the base price for a scarce asset. When was the last time TRAI was consulted to make such an assessment? What basis does someone else use to change the assessment made by an independent industry regulator? 

It would be an easy and safe decision to double the reserve price and / or delay the auction process by a couple of months. After all, nobody in the Government will lose their jobs or sleep over that. What it does to the business case of rolling out Broadband in India and consequently, overall value to the country is forgotten in the process. The tougher option is to find ways to encourage greater level of participation in the auction. A fair, transparent and well-managed auction will ensure that an appropriate market value for spectrum is determined for the first time in nearly 5 years. Opening up more spectrum slots for auction would have a multiplying effect on Government revenues as well as Broadband penetration. Clarifying some of the long pending (at DoT) regulatory issues like number portability, Internet Telephony, MVNO and calling cards would further enhance the "value" of the spectrum, particularly to new entrants and foreign operators.

Fix the Fixed Lines

(This was written about two years ago, but the suggestions are still valid and need to be implemented.)

I have not had a fixed line at home for several years now; my wife and I have four mobile phones between us and never felt the need for a fixed line at home. I thought, like many predict, that fixed lines would soon die. But just today, I applied for a fixed line at home. Not a fixed wireless, mind you, but the copper line that is uncharitably referred to as the plain old telephone service (POTS). 

Why did I need to take such a "retrograde" step? There were several reasons:

1. The quality of the wireless network is erratic. I am unable to depend on my mobile phone for long phone conversations, particularly official conference calls. With flexi-work and international calls at late hours, the need for a reliable phone line at home has become a must. 

2. Mobile call rates are still higher than that of fixed lines. Whether that reflects relative costs or not, it is surely true that calling from a wireline, particularly at high usage levels, is cheaper. My employer might be footing the bill, but still, why should I pay more when I call from a fixed / pre-determined location (home or office).

3. My mobile phone provides service to me as an individual, it can be shared only when I am at home. So if there is someone at home who needs to make a call when I am not home, say my parents or my child or a domestic help, the fixed line is a shared communication service. This is true even at the work-place where everyone does not necessarily have a mobile phone.

4. Finally, I must admit that I just like the convenience of using the fixed phone - the big black box which nowadays can pack in a lot of intelligence. While I need my mobile to be slim and light to fit into my shirt pocket, the form factor is not convenient for long conversations, particularly when you are in a fixed location. In spite of hands-free devices and bluetooth, voice clarity is still suspect on most mobile phones, even the high-end ones.

Just so you do not misunderstand, I am not saying that mobiles are in general inferior to fixed lines; just that in certain contexts, the POTS delivers greater value than a wireless service.

If there is, as demonstrated above, a reasonable case for the continuation of the fixed line at home, why is it that only about 15% of Indian homes have a fixed phone? It cannot be because of affordability: twice as many homes have cable TV at home, paying almost the same charge, every month. Further, data shows that the average # of mobile phones per home (in homes that have a mobile phone) is less than 1.5; given that household size in India is 4 to 5, there is clearly a gap in telecom coverage.  Lack of competition in the fixed services space and the fixation of policy makers on wireless growth has completely choked the growth of wireline.

Let me correct that to lack of effective competition. There are a few access providers rolling out wireline networks - cherry-picking the enterprise locations and high-end homes. But more interestingly, some ISPs have also rolled out various forms of wireline (cable, fiber, copper) networks. However, none of them get any encouragement to continue their roll-out. There are no clear policies for RoW permissions - every municipality, authority and building society charges its pound of flesh for allowing network creation. Having created the network, with a very high capex per sub (usually Rs 15,000 to 25,000 per subscriber), the ISP can only offer Internet and limited Internet Telephony services. They do not have the opportunity to offer basic services like voice, which even today contribute a large portion of telcos' revenues globally. Obviously an ISP cannot hope to compete with the incumbent , while addressing just a fraction of the customer revenue but with the full (or more) capex.

What needs to be done

* Allow ISPs to migrate to new category of access license: Unified Access License - without spectrum, for a nominal entry fee. On terms similar to UASL, allow ISPs to offer access services, including full Internet Telephony.

* Encourage competition in fixed line services by mandating local loop unbundling - perhaps starting with all non-metros.

* Legislate free RoW for all access licensees (recovering just the actual re-instatement charges) and mandate sharing of existing ducts - on cost recovery basis - by all licensed operators.

Cheers!

Creating a National Broadband Access Network

(This was written nearly two years ago; the suggestions remain valid and still need to be implemented.)

Singapore is considered a highly developed country and is used as a relevant benchmark for India, at least in the telecom sector. The Singapore Government has initiated an interesting and rather ambitious program to make the city nation the leading knowledge hub in the world. The masterplan called iN2015 (Intelligent Nation 2015), is a ten year blue-print to harness the power of infocomm for the nation (www.in2015.sg). One of the major initiatives within iN2015 is to build a Next Generation National Broadband Network (NBN). Just look at some of NBN's parameters: reach to 95% of all postal addresses, 100 Mbps capacity at each home / office on day 1 to be scaled upto 1Gbps in a few years' time! 

The most interesting thing about NBN is that it is being driven by the regulator / licensor, Infocomm Development Authority (IDA) as a public-private partnership. The model is simple. The IDA intends to license an operator to create a high speed access network as an equal access, wholesale infrastructure. All service providers would be able to lease this access network and offer innovative content and applications to their target segments. Considering the targeted bandwidth, only a fiber based solution (FTTX) would be feasible. A global search for the appropriate partner(s) in this initiative is underway, expected to be completed by the middle of 2007. 

In stark contrast, we have no such plan for the future, in fact, not even a discussion to arrive at such a plan. By defining Broadband at 256Kbps, we have already set our sights low. By treating Broadband Wireless as the panacea, we have converted a short-term bridging technology into our long term goal. By letting everyone do their own thing, we have ensured that the investments that are required to create a robust, national infrastructure are sub-optimally duplicated by several players.

India is a much "tougher" country than Singapore from a broadband perspective; the sheer geographical size of India that is required to be "broadbanded" is many, many times that of Singapore. More the reason why we need to plan today, if we want to be anywhere comparable in ten years' time. 

What needs to be done

* Accept that true broadband will require a fiber-based infrastructure, even in the last mile.

* Develop a plan to create a National Broadband Access Network; select an operator / consortium to roll-out the network in phases, over the next 5 years. The NBAN operator should be a pure wholesaler (similar to IP-2 license) and cannot directly be a service provider. The NBAN operator must get automatic and free right of way across the country, and could be selected on the basis of lowest subsidy required for a target tariff.

* Release spectrum in 2.5GHz and 3.5GHz bands immediately for WiMax roll-out during 2007 - this will enable basic broadband services to be introduced in a ubiquitous manner.

What Ails Broadband in India?

(This was originally written two years ago; nothing much has actually changed since then!)

1000,000,000 people

700,000,000  young people

600,000,000 literate people

180,000,000 telecom subscribers

100,000,000 with higher education

60,000,000 cable pay TV homes

40,000,000 Internet users

... and just about 2,000,000 broadband subscribers. Broadband, which by the way is defined in India at <=256Kbps: just about enough speed to let you experience the new, emerging Internet. The Indian Govt. has declared 2007 as the year of broadband, and a target of 9mn subs has been set for the year.

Just so you know, China has about 75 million broadband subscribers -- 60% of its Internet subscribers have broadband.

Why is a nation such as ours, IT superpower and aspiring global superpower, so poor when it comes to broadband penetration?

1. Very Poor Fixed Line Infrastructure

Most countries that have a high broadband penetration have (a) high wireline penetration, and / or  (b) robust cable infrastructure. Simply speaking, if you do not have the basic infrastructure, you cannot provide a superior service such as broadband. Unfortunately for us, neither of these two conditions exist in India.

There are about 40-odd million fixed lines, of which only about 30% - about 10mn - are capable of providing broadband. In recent years, there has been almost no investment in increasing and/or improving the quality of fixed line infrastructure. The country has added 140mn wireless subscribers in the last 5 years, as against just 5mn wireline subs. While  lack of focus on wireleine by the incumbents, BSNL and MTNL is an important factor, the blame must really be borned by the regulatory and policy regime which has not created an environment to encourage competition (and thereby, investment) in fixed line infrastructure / services in the country. The TRAI had recommended  unbundling of the local loop as a step towards limited competition, but as has now almost become a norm, the TRAI recommendations were not accepted by the DoT.

Less said the better about cable infrastructure. It is a highly fragile and completely unregulated cobweb of many thousands of independent networks. It will take an investment of at least Rs 200 billion to upgrade the cable last mile to make it 2-way and broadband capable. Nobody, it appears, is willing to take that challenge up. 

2. No Encouragement to Competition

It is well-recognized that the mobile revolution in India has been driven primarily by competition: 6-7 operators across the country. Private operators were licensed years before the incumbents were allowed to enter the mobile market; several steps have been taken towards creating a level playing field for all the licensed mobile operators. On the other hand, in broadband, there is absolutely no policy measure to encourage private operators to enter and compete; this in spite of the fact that none of them have any last mile infrastructure to speak of, and therefore, require considerable support in the initial years.

The incumbents that are riding on public-funded fixed line infrastructure have - in almost a predatory manner - dropped tariffs so much that India has, at the same time, the lowest broadband ARPU and the poorest broadband penetration in the world! Wireless broadband (read WiMax) is generally expected to become the competitive alternative - but there has simply been no urgency in creating the policy environment to encourage wireless. TRAI has finally issued its recommendations - suggesting that WiMax be implemented in the 3.3 - 3.6 GHz bands while the rest of the world is moving towards 2.5GHz. There is no clarity when these recommendations will be accepted and subsequently, implemented. One can guess that it will be late 2007 before any real competitive action will begin in broadband. Meanwhile, BSNL's juggernaut will continue - they have now announced 2Mbps speeds (up 4 times from 512 Kbps) for the same tariff.

Can something be done to salvage the situation?

Unfortunately, in the short term, I see no option for the customers and private operators. During 2007, the incumbents will strengthen their dominance in the broadband market (for whatever it is worth); private operators will half-heartedly roll out parallel copper / cable networks and will be plagued with quality issues. Everyone, including BSNL, will experiment with WiMax, and perhaps by the end of the year, commence full-fledged network roll-out.

The Broadband market will have to wait till 2008 for true competition, high quality and innovative services - available in all major towns and cities. But the rest of the world will not stay still. Will the gap between India and other markets such as US and Singapore widen? I am afraid, yes.

What a depressing thought to end 2006 with. Let us change that. My next post, hopefully before this year ends, will have some suggestions on medium and long terms measures on what can be done during 2007 to ensure that we catch up with the rest of the world before the end of this decade.

Cheers!