TelecomLive January-2019

Segmented Tariff www.telecomlive.com 29 Telecom LIVE January 2019 based on any of two parameters - subscriber base and gross revenue - while an earlier definition included subscriber base, revenue, switching capacity and volume of traffic. According to other opera- tors, excluding traffic from the definition of SMP would help a particular operator, which enjoys huge traffic on its network. Segmented Tariff On 16.02.2018, Trai issued its rd 63 amendment to the TTO reiterating what was the prevailing regulation ie all the operators shall inform within 7 days of launch of every tariff package, failing which a penalty of Rs 5,000 per day for default subject to a maximum of Rs 2 lakh shall be levied on the defaulting operators. It should be non- discriminatory and trans- parent. Trai had received numerous complaints that certain operators were not disclosing the tariffs in a transpar- ent manner and were offering the same on case to case basis to individual customers through negotiations or SMS etc. The tribunal has now spared telecom firms from disclosing on their websites segmented offers or tariff discounts aimed at retaining customers. The relevant part of its judgement is reproduced below: O n Dec 21, 2018, Trai has filed appeal in the Supreme Court against TDSAT's judgement dated Dec 13, 2018 on predatory pricing and discounted offers, arguing that it dismantles the regulatory framework for tariff assessment and places consumers at the mercy of service providers. It has also asserted that the tribunal's judgment hinders it from per- forming its statutory functions. SMP Trai had set the new rules arbitrarily on “significant market player” (SMP) and without deliberation or effective consulta- tion, TDSAT had ruled. Under the new rules, Trai could examine tariffs of an SMP - an operator holding a share of at least 30 per cent of total activity in a relevant market - to check for predatory pricing. The new definition of “total activity” was Segmented Tariff TDSAT says Trai can ask for details from telcos on case to case basis effective implementation of the principle of non-discrimination in the matter of all tariff plans. In the factual matrix of this case there is no finding that the Author i ty was sat i s f i ed on comp l a i nt or o the rwi se t o exercise such powers. 19. The petitioners have not been able to make out a case that the Authority as a Regulator should not have the required information so that in appropri- ate cases it may examine a so- called segmented offer with a view to find out whether it actually amounts to a tariff plan and/or violates the principle of non-discrimination. Since this power of the Authority cannot be ignored, hence away out has to be found. For example, this can be done on case to case basis by the Authority. contentions in respect of Seg- mented Offers and Discounts the petitioners' contentions deserve to be accepted. It is accordingly held that segmented offers and discounts offered in ordinary course of business to existing customers without any discrimi- nation within the targeted segment do not amount to a tariff plan and therefore, need no reporting in the manner pre- scribed for regular tariff plans. The confidentiality issue also favours this kind of practice. But the issue of non-discrimination between the same "segment" is too important to be ignored and that would require reporting in any particular case when the Authority has reasons to call for reporting any so called seg- mented offers/discounts during a particular period. Such power is anc i l l ary and essent i a l for 18. The aforesaid stand (by Trai) takes care of one of the major concerns of petitioners (Telcos) that segmented offers should not be covered within the cap of 25 tariff plans. However, the submissions noted above fail to meet the case of the petitioners that simple segmented offers or discounts to existing customers do not amount to a tariff plan meant for the general public and intending customers" which alone requires reporting. The reply on behalf of the Authority does not meet the genuine concern of the petitioners that segmented offers as existing from before are accepted to be confidentially designed trade practices and therefore, when they do not amount to a tariff plan, they should not be made known to the rival service providers. On a serious consideration of all the