How same issues have been tackled elsewhere Russell Southwood Balancing Act http: //

“Consultation paper on “Measures to promote competition in International Private Leased Circuits (IPLC) in India”, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, June 2005 Source:

The Indian context Intro’d competition in international long distance in International tariffs not come down “to levels witnessed in other countries in Asia reflecting the lack of effective competition in the market.” Landing station controlled by VSNL had become a “bottleneck facility”. Cables financed by club consortia. Others paying charges to VSNL

Representations to the regulator Higher and commercially non-competitive charges for international bandwidth hampering growth of broadband and internet Non-permissability of reselling international bandwidth Complaints from competitor international operators about co-location of equipment BPO and ITES sectors unable to obtain competitive bandwidth

Methods used by regulators Fixing ceiling tariffs with reference to international benchmarks and general trends Permitting reseller market, essentially non-facility based operators Removing barriers for access to cable landing stations Facilitating mutual sharing of landing station infrastructure and international capacity amongst carriers TRAI has fixed ceiling tariff but “tariffs in other countries still appear to be lower”

Examples from elsewhere In general: “…have forced various obligations on incumbents owning submarine cable system”. Have applied general interconnect agreement/directives. Reference Interconnect Offer Hong Kong: HTKI access and co-location at landing station or virtual co-location France: Need to ensure equal access to international facilities for all operators Canada: Teleglobe under obligation to share monopoly facility in non-discriminatory and fair manner Singapore: To ensure more competition, wholesale intl on “retail-minus” basis with specified discounts