Adjudication, Regulation, Telecommunication

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Telecom Regulatory Authority of India An introduction.
Advertisements

GREETINGS TO CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS FOR ICAIS POST QUALIFICATION COURSE VIDEO CONFERENCE FROM HYDERABAD 26 AUGUST 2005.
POLICIES GOVERNING TELECOM SECTOR THE FIRST ATTEMPT TO FORMALIZE A POLICY STATEMENT WAS MADE IN 1994 WHEN THE NATIONAL TELECOM POLICY 1994 (NTP 94)
TWO DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA GOVERN THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SECTOR AND THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SECTOR THESE TWO DEPARTMENTS.
Consumer Disputes Settlement under Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 Presentation by: Madhav Joshi Chief Legal Officer Tata Teleservices.
The legislative framework for public procurement: implications for the 2010 ARV tender Jonathan Berger Senior Researcher AIDS Law Project Friday, February.
© Copyright Ovum The role of the BTA and competition law A presentation to the Stakeholders’ Forum on further liberalisation David Lewin.
Regulatory Body MODIFIED Day 8 – Lecture 3.
TRC - JORDAN Regulating interconnection The Jordanian experience 1st Regulatory Meeting for the ITU Arab Region, Algeria, April 2003 Muna Nijem Chairman.
PRESENTATION ON DISPUTE SETTLEMENT AND PROTECTION OF CONSUMER RIGHTS IN TELECOM AND BROADCASTING SECTORS UPAMANYU HAZARIKA Advocate HYDERABAD.
“Worldwide Review of the Profession” Competition & Regulatory Developments ALAN HUNTER.
1 National Electronic Commerce Strategies The Malaysian Experience Ho Siew Ching Ministry of International Trade and Industry Malaysia Expert Meeting on.
Nov/Dec 2003ElectraNet BSP-2 Workshop (khb) 1 EU Telecoms Regulatory Status Governing Legislation Package 2002  Directive 2002/19/EC Access to, and interconnection.
TDSAT Seminar- Guwahati, Dec of 15 Status of Disputes Settlement Mechanism in Telecom & Broadcasting Sectors in India Association of Unified Telecom.
Dispute Resolution Mechanism in Telecom Sector in India MTNL Mumbai.
MANJUL BAJPAI AHMEDABAD STATUS OF DISPUTE SETTLEMENT MECHANISM IN TELECOM AND BROADCASTING SECTORS IN INDIA.
MANJUL BAJPAI GOA EVOLUTION OF JUDICIAL MECHANISM IN TELECOM AND BROADCASTING SECTORS IN INDIA.
Implementation of EU Electronic Communication Directives.
CONSUMER RIGHTS UNDER TRAI ACT, 1997 TDSAT SEMINAR, BOMBAY 25 TH SEPTEMBER, 2004 RAMJI SRINIVASAN.
The New EU Directives Oftel Forum 25/04/02 Heather Clayton.
- Arijit Maitra P A Legal.  In India reforms started in to permit private participation in the POWER & TELECOM Sector.  reforms introduced.
Slide 1.2 Introduction to Department of Telecommunications: Telecommunication services started in India in the year 1851 with the First Electric telegraph.
Jump to first page MANJUL BAJPAI M U M B A I – DISPUTE SETTLEMENT MECHANISM IN TELECOM SECTOR IN INDIA.
THE CONVERGENCE BILL (Combination / Merger of all ICT Acts) Presentation to PC on Communications Parliament in Cape Town 2 June 2005 Nhlanhla Jethro Tshabalala.
TRC - JORDAN Future Challenges for the TRC Muna Nijem Chairman of the Board/CEO Telecommunications Regulatory Commission (TRC) 1st Regulatory Meeting for.
TDSAT Seminar 20 January 2008 Kolkata, India Settlement of Disputes & Protection of Consumer Rights by RAMJI SRINIVASAN Advocate.
Presentation By R K Arnold I.T.S. Secretary, TRAI TDSAT Seminar, Chennai on Dispute Resolution in Telecom.
Presentation to the Portfolio Committee on Communications by the Telecommunication Unit Presented by : Peter Hlapolosa Date : 08 October 2004.
Consumer Rights under Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 & Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – a Background Analysis.
1 Portfolio Committee on Water and Environmental Affairs WATER TRIBUNAL 16 APRIL 2013.
MANJUL BAJPAI AHMEDABAD – “REGULATORY FRAMEWORK AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN TELECOM, BROADCASTING AND CABLE SERVICE SECTORS”
_______________ R ORY M ACMILLAN Legal Mediation Rory Macmillan Telecom Sector Dispute Resolution: Alternative.
MANJUL BAJPAI Mumbai – “DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN TELECOM AND BROADCASTING SECTORS”
National Water Amendment Bill 2014 Presentation to the Select Committee on Land and Environmental Affairs by Department of Water Affairs 4 March 2014 Mr.
Good Morning ! Institute of Cost Accountants of India Trivandrum Chapter May 28, 2016 CS Bilu Balakrishnan ACIArb, FCS Deputy General Manager (Corporate.
Dispute Settlement Scenario in Telecom Sector By S C Khanna Secretary General Association of Unified Telecom Service Providers of India 15 th May 2010.
Judicial interventions in regulatory matters: Indian experience S Sundar Distinguished Fellow Tata Energy Research Institute August 2002 Dhaka.
©Ofcom EU Communications package : State of Implementation Kip Meek, Senior Partner, Content & Competition Brussels, 30 May 2005.
NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND LABOUR COUNCIL (NEDLAC)
Dispute Resolution Between ICT Service Providers in Saudi Arabia
MANJUL BAJPAI Lucknow –
SUBMISSION ON CONVERGENCE BILL
Nuclear and Treaty Law Section Office of Legal Affairs
Workshop on Regulatory Governance 7 April 2016, Riga, Latvia
HIPSSA/SA-1. HIPSSA/SA-1 Support for Harmonization of the ICT Policies in Sub-Sahara AfricaФ or the HIPSSA project is part of a programme funded by.
MANJUL BAJPAI CHANDIGARH –
INTERCONNECTION GUIDELINES
Independent Communications Authority of South Africa Amendment Bill
DISPUTE RESOLUTION SCENARIO IN TELECOM AND BROADCASTING SECTORS
Principles of Administrative Law <Instructor Name>
ICASA AMENDMENT BILL Vodacom’s Presentation to the
Neighbourhood Planning
BRIEFING TO THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON SECURITY AND JUSTICE ON THE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION ,BILL, 2017 [B10B-2017] 1 NOVEMBER 2017.
Overview of the Electricity Regulation Bill
Afef Abrougui and Koliwe Majama Internet Freedom Festival, March 2017
Communication and Consultation with Interested Parties by the RB
WATER REGULATORY AUTHORITY
EU action after Deepwater Horizon accident - Gulf of Mexico – April 2010
SACF Comments on the ECA Amendment Bill B
The activity of Art. 29. Working Party György Halmos
PRESENTATION TO THE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND POSTAL SERVICES ICASA Comments on Electronic Communications Amendment Bill, 2018.
CAP decision making process
LEGAL PRACTICE AMENDMENT BILL, 2017
Lecture 10: FCC Organization, Power and Structure
Why regulate and censor?
PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE BROADBAND INFRACO BILL, 2007
Making South Africa a Global Leader
2019 Consumer Protection Conference
ICASA AMENDMENT BILL COMMENTS
Presentation transcript:

Adjudication, Regulation, Telecommunication ART Adjudication, Regulation, Telecommunication of Convergence Regulatory and Licencing Regime in a Converged Environment MANJUL BAJPAI 06.02.2016

PROPOSED CONVERGENCE LAW NTP 2012 Convergence means that all transmission networks and services should be covered by a single regulatory framework. Strategy of Government in NTP 2012 is to review and harmonise the legal, regulatory and licensing framework and seeks convergence of services, networks and devices. PROPOSED CONVERGENCE LAW Government is proposing to enact a single regulatory framework. Constitute a new Communications Commission and a Communications Appellate Tribunal. Communication Commission will retain functions and powers of TRAI and also be involved in the affairs of some of the other Regulators like the Censor Board, the Competition Commission of India and DoT. It will regulate content also. Government will focus on issues such as security, morality, public safety, disaster management and ensure adequate competition and optimal usage of spectrum. New Bill aims to repeal various existing laws. Proposed convergence law is being built upon 2001 Convergence Bill.

RECAP Private players have been there since 1994 with separate licensing regime for both Broadcasting and Telecom. Under TRAI Act 1997, TRAI had jurisdiction only over telecom. It had limited adjudicatory powers. There was no TDSAT. March of technology and resultant convergence was recognised by National Telecom Policy 1999, which also contemplated replacement of Telegraph Act of 1885. TRAI Act was amended in January 2000. Created window for inclusion of Broadcasting within the regulatory ambit of TRAI. Separated adjudicatory and regulatory powers and established TDSAT. TDSAT has both original and appellate jurisdictions and jurisdiction over disputes between Licensor and Licensee.

ORIGINAL AND APELLATE JURISDICTION Convergence Bill 2001 proposed to divest the original adjudicatory powers from the Adjudicatory Tribunal and give it to the Regulator – Communications Commission of India (CCI). Proposed adjudicatory Tribunal to have only appellate powers i.e. entertain appeal from orders of CCI and Adjudicating Officers. Adjudicatory system in Telecom and Broadcasting has worked well for 15 years. Objective of establishing a separate expert Adjudicatory Tribunal has been met. Separation of adjudicatory and regulatory powers will instil confidence in the system. So TDSAT should continue to have original jurisdiction also.

LICENSOR LICENCEE DISPUTES TRAI Amendment Act of January 2000 specifically empowered TDSAT to adjudicate disputes between licensor and licensee. This power should continue with TDSAT. CCI is proposed to be Licensor also. Grantor of Licences should be different from interpreter of Licences. CCI is proposed to grant Licences, enforce terms of Licence, adjudicate on breach of Licence terms. It tantamount to CCI sitting as a Judge over its own licensing decisions. Not advisable. Government expected to take care of this situation.

JURISDICTION OVER COMPETITION ISSUES Two separate Authorities should not have jurisdiction over the same subject matter. CCI had adjudicatory powers on practices restrictive of fair competition. Under the Competition Act, statutory Authority like Communications Commission can refer such matters to Competition Commission for its opinion and decide the issue upon receipt of such opinion. Also if an issue on restrictive practices arises in a matter before Competition Commission, then this Commission can also refer it to Communications Commission for its opinion and decide the issue upon receipt of such opinion. There appears to be two Commissions having jurisdiction over the same issue, depending upon where the proceedings are filed. Not desirable. CCI should only regulate and not adjudicate. Telecom Tribunal should be empowered to deal with competition issues in Telecom.

SPECTRUM MANAGEMENT Government retains (through Spectrum Management Committee) rights over Spectrum assignment to strategic users like Central, State Governments, Defence, national security and Public Service Broadcaster. Maximum possible balance Spectrum to be given to CCI for further assignment to users or non-strategic and commercial purposes. There is merit in this arrangement. Regulator can examine and decide requirement of all commercial stakeholders and also ensure level playing field. This arrangement should find place in the proposed Convergence Law.

CONVERGENCE OF BRODCASTING REGULATOR In 2004, Government notified TRAI as Regulator for Broadcasting also. This converged the carriage of both telecom and Broadcasting in one single Regulator. A very forward-looking decision towards convergence. A single Regulator for both these sectors can encourage better use of physical and financial resources of the two in public interest, particularly if their Licences are also unified. This is a better situation than the earlier proposal of creating a separate Broadcasting Regulator in Broadcasting Services Regulation Bill, 2007.

CONTENT AND CARRIAGE Issue raised repeatedly whether there should be convergence of content and carriage regulation. Broadcasting Bill proposed these to be converged. Whereas TRAI had recommended in 2006 that regulation of carriage and content should be separate. Regulation of carriage is more concerned with technical and economical aspects. Content regulation has to take into account its impact on sensibilities, morals and value system of the society. Artistic and creative persons from the fields of fine arts, drama, films etc. may be more suited for content regulation. These should be separately regulated.

CONVERGED LICENSING   Licensing in Broadcasting and Telecom should be converged. In Telecom, Unified Licensing Regime was introduced in 2013. It is time for a service neutral licensing Regime together with a converged regulatory regime for Telecom and Broadcasting services; particularly since spectrum has already been separated from Licences. Synergies of these sectors can be better harnessed under one Licence. Issue of number of licences / competition etc can be dealt with by the Regulator.

WAY FORWARD   Convergence law is tall order and the process is time-consuming. Government can issue a Green Paper or TRAI can issue a detailed Consultation Paper. First raise fundamental issues like who should have which power and second what all has to be converged that is whether both content and carriage or only carriage and licensing et cetera.

OPINION  Converge all Licences, with General Terms and Conditions applicable to all Licences and specific terms, where required; Regulator should be one and the same for all services; Let the content be within Government’s control; Let the strategic Spectrum be within Government’s control and commercial Spectrum within Regulator’s control; There should be clear and complete separation of regulatory and adjudicatory powers, the latter vested in independent Tribunal – TDSAT. New Regime must ensure that existing stakeholders are not put to worse off situation. Make new convergence law to ensure certainty and predictability but implement it in a phased manner so that all stakeholders have advance notice and time to prepare.

EPILOGUE At the end we must remember that technology is marching and will not wait for a law to be enacted. After all the ultimate beneficiary of convergence is the consumer. Should we make them wait?

THANK YOU Manjul Bajpai