The Supreme Court’s ruling on the call drop issue should act as a wake-up call to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India. Though the decision to strike down TRAI’s order may appear to be anti-consumer on the face of it, a full reading of the judgment reveals there were several gaps in the proposed regulation that would have left mobile users no better off than they are now. The process followed by TRAI was so arbitrary and non-transparent that even if the regulations had been implemented, consumers would have found it difficult to get compensated for the inconvenience they faced due to frequent call drops. By the regulator’s own admission, nearly 37 per cent of call drops happen due to the fault of the consumers. The Quality of Service norms, issued by the regulator in 2009, allow for a 2 per cent distortion in the number of calls completed. In this context, if an individual consumer were to go to a consumer forum for compensation for call drops, he would have to prove that the call drop took place due to the fault of the service provider. He would further have to prove that he has suffered a monetary loss for which he has to be compensated.
The TRAI regulation attempted to completely avoid the adjudicatory process, and legislatively laid down a penal consequence to a service provider. As a result, TRAI was cornered into a situation where it could not justify to the court why it decided to limit the compensation to three call drops a day, or how it had arrived at the figure of ₹1 per dropped call to compensate for the inconvenience caused to the calling party. The regulator could also not clarify why there was no compensation to the person who receives the call.
While one cannot question the motive of the regulator in issuing the order — it was trying to protect consumers against the powerful telecom operators lobby — perhaps it should have applied its mind better to come up with a foolproof regulation that withstood all legal scrutiny. Having failed to do so, TRAI must do two things immediately to win back its credibility. There is no denying the fact that mobile users have to deal with call drops and network congestion regularly. Yet, surprisingly, almost all the operators are meeting the standards specified in the Quality of Service norms. Clearly, these outdated norms must be replaced with more stringent benchmarks. It would force telecom operators to invest more in deploying new technologies aimed at improving network quality. TRAI should also start a fresh consultation to put in place a robust mechanism to ensure that call drops do not happen. This needs to be done transparently and in consultation with all stakeholders, including operators and consumers. TRAI must use its vast powers to ensure, in a reasonable and non-arbitrary manner, that service providers provide the necessary funds for infrastructure development. Otherwise, telecom consumers would feel let down by an incompetent regulator.