With its new telecom bill, the government wants to allocate, not auction, satellite spectrum–and that’s a good move

It is welcome for prioritising the efficiency needs of the sector over partisan political considerations. Allocation of satellite spectrum by administrative means rather than compulsorily via auctions is the sensible way to go about it, even if it cuts the ground from under the feet of the so-called Devas scam alleged against the UPA government.

The ground for alleging impropriety had been that the spectrum assigned to Devas for satellite broadband was given on an administrative basis, rather than via auctions. 

The bill suffers from two faults, nevertheless. One is its introduction as a money bill, dispensing with the need for approval by the Rajya Sabha. This is eminently avoidable. The other is the absence of parliamentary oversight for extreme decisions, such as to take over networks, or decisions to breach fundamental rights, such as privacy. 

Ideally, such decisions should proceed with a judicial order and culminate with reporting on the action and its results to a committee of Parliament, instead of reducing accountability to the wisdom of a civil servant, which essentially means, discretion of the Executive. 

It is welcome that the government has dropped a proposal to regulate over-the-top (OTT) apps on par with regulated telecom services. Messenger services and calling apps are software-enabled functionalities of basic internet connectivity. But then, so are video streaming services, increasingly the preferred way to access content, at the expense of broadcast TV. 

The government needs to level the playing field for traditional distribution of TV signals via cable and satellite by sharply reducing or eliminating the fees they pay, and taxing profits derived from India by providers of streamed content at 15%, the rate of minimum corporate tax globally agreed upon, in lieu of digital taxes. 

Domestic broadcast signal distributors should also pay corporate income tax at the applicable rate. Since there is considerable overlap between digital and traditional distributors of content, this should not cause too much disruption. 

The provision seeking biometric authentication for all users of telecom would appear to be extreme, carrying, as it does, hints of a surveillance state. However, this does not materially alter the situation now, in which many people submit their Aadhaar details as a way to establish identity. 

In a world where technology and destructive ideologies conspire to make the lives of even entirely blameless citizens insecure, with the threat of terror attacks, some limits to privacy are unavoidable. 

The provision allowing those in possession of spectrum to harmonise it, refarm it, or share with other operators is welcome. This serves the interest of optimal utilisation of spectrum, which is a scarce resource, with ever-expanding use. Those who have no further use for the spectrum in hand can surrender it as well. This, too, is welcome on similar grounds. 

The telecom bill also proposes to give district magistrates greater say in settling disputes over the right of way to lay cables. It is welcome that the civilian administrative authority, rather than the police, is being given the power—the newly introduced avatar of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Nagarik Suraksha Samhita II, seeks to give sweeping powers to the police at the expense of the civilian authority. 

A three-tier dispute settlement mechanism has been proposed, with the Telecom Dispute Settlement Authority (TDSAT) at the apex. The need really is for speedy settlement of disputes to prevent the accumulation of gigantic sums as arrears. There is no guarantee of speed in the new dispute settlement mechanism either. 

The conversion of the Universal Service Obligation fund into a Digital Bharat Nidhi is not entirely cosmetic. The new fund is allowed to finance a larger array of activities in telecom, including research and development. 

While national security is sacrosanct, citizen and corporate rights are not to be trifled with. Takeover of telecom networks, suspension of service, and interception of private communications should take place with safeguards and transparent accountability. If that were incorporated, there would be little to cavil with in the new telecom bill.