T OWER A ND I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROVIDERS A SSOCIATION (TAIPA) December 23, 2010 INDIA’S TOWER & INFRASTRUCTURE PROVIDERS INDUSTRY

I. Who we are, II. Role Played by the Telecom Infrastructure Sharing Industry, III. Government’s position on “Sharing”, IV. Telecom Infrastructure Industry can contribute more…, V. Issues and the Way Forward. Contents 1/11

 We own and deploy telecom infrastructure for use by wireless and mobile operators,  Enable optimal sharing of telecom infrastructure & have invested over Rs. 75,000 Crores i.e. Over 60% of total Network investment,  Provide a neutral platform which is operator and technology agnostic,  Critical for efficiency and speed of rollout,  Our Business Model is linked to objective of sharing – we only make profits when sharing is achieved – currently in losses as an Industry.  Second largest consumer of Diesel after Indian Railways. I. Who We Are – An Introduction 2 / 11

Situation Before Tower Sharing  Operators Built Expensive Towers for Own Use  Roll Out was Slow and Expensive  Towers Used to Barely Half its Capacity  City Skyline Had More Towers  Customer Tariffs were higher 3/11

 Promote efficiency by  saving cost and time  enabling scale  ensuring highest uptime at lowest Capex/Opex,  Beneficiaries include operators of cellular, broadband, radio trunking and other wireless services,  Now rolling out broadband infrastructure for 3G Operators &  Proposed new models ensure viability of rural common service centres (CSC) & clean energy. II. Role played by Tower & Infrastructure Providers 4/11

Benefits of Organized Tower Sharing  Service Access: Faster Rollout,  Economics: More efficient Use of Capital,  Competition: reduced cost of entry and operations for new entrants,  Aesthetics: Reduce Tower Proliferation  Quality of Service: Better coverage quality.  Safety: players have incentive to follow prescribed norms  Standardization: by using IIT/TEC designs for Towers 5/11

III. Tower Sharing Not Only Desirable But Also Represents Government’s Position  Allows Industry to optimize cost and make Telecom/Broadband services affordable services to the “Aam Aadmi”  Protects Environment & Energy savings  Improves Aesthetics  Enhances Safety  Protect Consumer interests DOT’s Earlier Initiatives – :  USO funds for Sharing  Project Mobile Operator’s Shared Towers (MOST) TRAI’s Earlier Initiatives  Financial Incentive to Promote Infrastructure Sharing  Joint Working Groups(JWG)  TRAI’s Recent Recommendation  Further optimization of Telecom Infra Elements 6/11

IV. TAIPA members and DOT/USOF/DIT/MNRE are natural partners  Uniquely focused on bottleneck infrastructure,  Determined to tackle environmental issues with Green Energy & thereby reduce Diesel and Kerosine consumption.  Making the largest share of investments with little or no returns in the short run,  Have motivation to cover remote and rural areas & provide broadband to remotest parts of country.  Can cover several areas/people who would otherwise wait indefinitely for Broadband and basic telecom connectivity.  Uniquely positioned to partner with Government Agencies to :  Provide surveillance services for security checks and traffic control  Phone charging stations in rural areas  Community Emergency Lighting in rural areas in case of power-cuts. 7/11

 However, instead of encouragement, we are constantly harassed.  Incessant harassment by Local Authorities by treating us as ‘cash cows; with adhoc and unreasonable demands of levies and recurring charges.  Have been regularly subjected to adhoc sealings in different parts of country on frivolous grounds.  Even DOT levies ‘Testing Charges’.  TRAI has recently suggested levy of License Fee on Tower Companies. V. Issues 8/11

 Possible Higher Tariffs  Slower Rollout of Communication Services  More Towers than Necessary because of less sharing  More Pressure On Environment  Threat to Skyline Implications For Consumers & Society 9/11

 Reject proposal to levy License Fee  Not legally tenable as License Fee can only be levied on service providers covered under Indian Telegraph Act and not ‘supporting services’.  If levied, should also be levied on equipment suppliers, diesel suppliers, electricity companies, steel & cement companies etc.  In any case, if levied should be allowed as deduction from AGR to operators.  Need for National Infrastructure Policy Recognising Tower Infrastructure as ‘Critical Infrastructure’  Priority of permissions – single window clearances.  Priority for EB supplies at most favourable rates.  Uniform policies on levies, if any.  No adhoc sealings.  Use USO fund for Towers in Rural Areas.  Subsidies for Alternate Green Sources of Energy – e.g, solar, fuel cell & DCDG. The Way Forward 10/11

 We do recognise that DoT may not be able to direct some of the above due to legalities because of “state subjects” or involving other ministries like MRNE (Ministry for Renewable Energy).  National Infrastructure Policy, therefore may take sometime.  Would atleast request DoT to atleast make recommendations by way of a suggested Uniform Infrastructure Policy to states and others concerned and be a partner with TAIPA to present our legitimate case. We recognise difficulties and limitations on part of DoT in implementing some of the above. 11/11

T OWER A ND I NFRASTRUCTURE P ROVIDERS A SSOCIATION (TAIPA) 23 December 2010 Thank You