Reliance Info's Fixed Line Wireless Phone A Mobile Service: Tdsat

[robbyji 2]

Thomas K. Thomas

New Delhi , Jan. 17

IN a blow to Reliance Infocomm, the Telecom Dispute Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) today said the fixed wireless terminal (FWT) phone being offered by the company was equivalent to a limited mobile service and not a fixed line telephone.

This means that 24 lakh Reliance Infocomm FWT subscribers will have to pay access deficit charge (ADC) to state-owned Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

Reliance Infocomm had filed a petition with the TDSAT challenging BSNL's demand for ADC payments. The telecom tribunal in its ruling has said that the Reliance service was similar to the `Walky' offered by Tata Teleservices. Though the petition was filed against BSNL Chennai circle's claim of about Rs 27 lakh, Reliance Infocomm's net outgo to meet similar demands from other BSNL circles after this judgment is estimated to be between Rs 60 crore and Rs 100 crore.

In September 2005, responding to Tata Teleservices petition against BSNL, the tribunal had rejected the challenge and said that "Walky" was WLL (M) service, a service with limited mobility and not a fixed telephone service contrary to the licence granted to the company.

The tribunal also held that Tata was not entitled to the benefit of ADC, a levy collected by BSNL to fund its rural telephone projects. Fixed line telephone operators are exempt from paying the charge and BSNL alleged that Tata and Reliance were offering mobile type service in the garb of fixed line telephone to escape ADC payments.

Tata Teleservices has challenged the TDSAT order in Supreme Court and now Reliance may become a party to the case.

During the hearing in TDSAT, Reliance contended that its service was different from that of Tata Teleservices since mobility was possible within one base station. The TDSAT, however, ruled that "since it is held that the instrument supplied by the petitioner in this petition is also capable of being used outside the premises and choice of use is left to the subscriber, it loses its categorisation as a fixed line phone for the reasons already mentioned in the earlier petition. Therefore, we need not once again go into this question for answering the contention of counsel for the petitioner that in spite of the instrument supplied, the service provided by the petitioner is that of WLL-F."

[BPP 0]

hope revenue based ADc will solve all this, any idea when is it coming into force