Consultation Paper on Review of existing TRAI Regulations on Interconnection matters

Consultation Paper No. 11/2025 भारतीय दूरसंचार वववियामक प्राविकरण Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Consultation Paper on Review of existing TRAI Regulations on Interconnection matters New Delhi, India 10th November 2025 Tower F, NBCC World Trade Centre, Nauroji Nagar New Delhi - 110029 “प्रभावी वववियम – सुगम संचार” “Effective Regulation - Ease of Communication”Written comments on the Consultation Paper are invited from stakeholders by 8th December 2025 and counter-comments by 22nd December 2025. The comments and counter-comments may be sent, preferably in electronic form, to Shri Sameer Gupta, Advisor (Networks, Spectrum and Licensing-I), TRAI on the email ID adv-nsl1@trai.gov.in with a copy to ja2-nsl2@trai.gov.in. Comments and counter-comments received from stakeholders will be posted on the TRAI’s website (www.trai.gov.in).

For any clarification/ information, Shri Sameer Gupta, Advisor (Networks, Spectrum and Licensing - I), TRAI, may be contacted at Telephone No. +91-11-20907752. iCONTENTS 1 1 Chapter 1 – Introduction .......................................................................... 1 A. Overview of Interconnection as an enabler of digital connectivity ............... 1 B. Regulatory Framework for Interconnection in India ................................... 5 C. Learnings from Global Best Practices ...................................................... 17 D. Need for Review of the Regulatory Framework for Interconnection ........... 18 E. Structure of this Consultation Paper ....................................................... 24 2 Chapter 2 – Examination of the Issues .................................................... 25 A. The Evolving Landscape of Telecommunications ..................................... 25 B. Regulations-Specific issues ..................................................................... 25 B.1 The Telecommunication Interconnection Regulations, 2018 ................ 25 B.2 Short Message Services (SMS) Termination Charges Regulations, 2013 ........................................................................................................... 62 B.3 Intelligent Network Services in Multi-Operator and Multi-Network Scenario Regulations, 2006 ................................................................ 73 B.4 The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Transit Charges for BSNL's Cell One Terminating Traffic) Regulations, 2005 ................................. 78 B.5 The Telecommunication Interconnection Usage Charges Regulations, 2003 ................................................................................................... 79 B.6 The Telecommunication Interconnection (Reference Interconnect Offer) Regulations, 2002 ............................................................................... 97 B.7 The Telecommunication Interconnection (Charges and Revenue Sharing) Regulations, 2001 ............................................................................. 106 B.8 The Telecommunication Interconnection (Port Charges) Regulations, 2001 ................................................................................................. 112 B.9 The Register of Interconnect Agreements Regulations, 1999 ............. 124 C. Generic Questions pertaining to all existing interconnection regulations .... 128 3 Chapter 3 – Issues for Consultation ...................................................... 134 4 Annexure-I ............................................................................................ 142 5 Annexure-II .......................................................................................... 151 6 Annexure-III ......................................................................................... 153 7 Annexure-IV .......................................................................................... 159 8 Annexure-V ........................................................................................... 161 9 Annexure-VI .......................................................................................... 174 ii10 Annexure-VII ........................................................................................ 217 11 Annexure-VIII ....................................................................................... 227 12 Annexure-IX ......................................................................................... 234 13 Annexure-X ........................................................................................... 238 14 Annexure-XI ......................................................................................... 244 15 List of Acronyms .................................................................................. 254 iiiLIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1: Comparative trend of number of wireless subscribers in the world and India from year 2014 to 2024. ................................................................................. 1 Figure 1.2: Comparative trend of number of wireline subscribers of the world and India from year 2014 to 2024 .................................................................................. 3 Figure 1.3: Timelines of existing Interconnection Regulations ................................ 6 Figure 1.4: Timeline of the Register of Interconnect Agreements Regulations, 1999 .... 8 Figure 1.5: Timeline of the Telecommunication Interconnection (Port Charges) Regulations, 2001 ................................................................................................... 9 Figure 1.6: Timeline of the Telecommunication Interconnection (Charges and Revenue Sharing) Regulations, 2001 ..................................................................... 10 Figure 1.7: Timeline of the Telecommunication Interconnection (Reference Interconnect Offer) Regulations, 2002 ................................................................... 11 Figure 1.8: Timeline of the Telecommunication Interconnection Usage Charges Regulations, 2003 ................................................................................................. 12 Figure 1.9: Timeline of the TRAI (Transit Charges for BSNL's Cell One Terminating Traffic) Regulations, 2005 ..................................................................................... 13 Figure 1.10: Timeline of the Intelligent Network Services in Multi-Operator and Multi-Network Scenario Regulations, 2006 ........................................................... 15 Figure 1.11: Timeline of the Short Message Services (SMS) Termination Charges Regulations, 2013 ................................................................................................. 15 Figure 1.12: Timeline of the Telecommunication Interconnection Regulations, 2018 ............................................................................................................................. 16 Figure 2.1: Interconnection between TDM-based network operator and IP-based network operator. .................................................................................................. 43 Figure 2.2: Technology preference in Inter-LSA & Intra-TSP Communication ....... 46 Figure 2.3: Technology Preference for Inter-LSA, Inter-TSP Communication ........ 47 Figure 2.4: A2P Originating SMS per subscriber per month. ................................ 66 Figure 2.5: P2P Originating SMS per Subscriber per Month ................................. 67 Figure 2.6: A2P SMS Traffic ................................................................................. 68 ivFigure 2.7: P2P SMS Traffic ................................................................................. 69 Figure 2.8: Route flow of International Outgoing Calls ......................................... 88 Figure 2.9: Route flow of International Incoming Calls ......................................... 89 Figure 2.10: Yearly ILD Traffic Trend ................................................................... 90 Figure 2.11: Decreasing rate of ILD Incoming Traffic in percentage. ..................... 92 vLIST OF TABLES

Table A: Port Charges notified in ‘The Telecommunication Interconnection (Port Charges) Regulation, 2001’ ................................................................................. 113

Table B: Port Charges notified in ‘The Telecommunication Interconnection (Port Charges) Amendment Regulations, 2007’ ............................................................ 114

Table C: Proposed Revised Ceiling of Annual Port Charges for MSC and Tandem/TAX Exchanges .......................................................................................................... 115 vi1 Chapter 1 – Introduction A. Overview of Interconnection as an enabler of digital connectivity

1.1. In today’s globalised world, the ability to connect and communicate with anyone, anywhere, is something we often take for granted. One of the essential building blocks of the worldwide telecommunication networks is interconnection. Interconnection is the process that links different telecommunication networks, thereby enabling seamless communication between the users. It might not be an exaggeration to say that interconnection serves as the backbone of telecommunications networks.

It involves commercial and technical arrangements under which network providers connect their networks and services to

Source: TRAI’s Telecom Subscription Reports[1] & ITU’s development statistics[2] Figure 1.1: Comparative trend of number of wireless subscribers in the world and India from year 2014 to 2024.

[1] https://trai.gov.in/release-publication/reports/telecom-subscriptions-reports

[2] https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/pages/stat/default.aspx 1 n o i l l i m n i s r e b i r c s b u u m b e r o f i r e l e s s u b s c r i b e r s i n m i l l i o n I n o d r l d i aenable their customers to have access to the customers and services of other network providers. In summary, interconnection between two public telecommunication networks allow customers of one network provider to communicate with customers of the other network provider.

1.2. The graph at Figure 1.1 illustrates the year-wise trend in the number of wireless subscribers in India compared to the global total from 2014 to

2024. This graph provides insights into India’s contribution to global wireless connectivity.

1.3. The global wireless subscriber base grew steadily from around 7 billion in 2014 to approximately 9.5 billion in 2024, showing a consistent year-on- year rise. This shows global mobile growth, driven by faster broadband access and affordability. Technology advancements like 4G, 5G, and IoT have also fuelled the expanding mobile ecosystem.

1.4. India’s wireless subscriber base also shows an upward trend, growing from around 900 million in 2014 to over 1.1 billion in 2024. This growth aligns with key policy and market developments in the country. By 2017, India’s wireless subscriber counts surged, contributing to over 12% of the global wireless base, a position it has largely retained through 2024. While this reflects sizeable progress, the number of unique wireless subscribers is lower than the total population, suggesting that the penetration among the entire population remains a potential growth area.

1.5. The graph at Figure 1.2 illustrates the year-by-year trend of the number of wireline subscribers in India compared to the global total from 2014 to 2024, highlighting long term changes in user preferences and the evolving role of fixed line infrastructure in the digital communication landscape.

1.6. The global decline in wireline subscribers from 1.1 billion in 2014 to 850 million in 2024 is driven by a general shift to wireless communication from wireline communication. In contrast, India’s wireline trend initially mirrored this global decline, falling from 27 million in 2014 to below 20 million by 2020 due to mobile substitution. However, post-2020, India saw a resurgence in wireline subscriptions, rising to over 39 million by 2024.

2This reversal was fuelled by increased broadband demand during the COVID-19 pandemic, expansion of FTTH (Fiber to the Home) services, and bundled service offerings, i.e., combining high-speed internet, IPTV, and landline voice, especially in urban and enterprise domain.

Source: TRAI’s Telecom Subscription Reports[3] & ITU’s development statistics[4].

Figure 1.2: Comparative trend of number of wireline subscribers of the world and India from year 2014 to 2024

1.7. Seamless interconnection among Indian TSPs have enabled efficient traffic handling across telecom networks. Policies such as elimination of domestic voice termination charges (Interconnection Usage Charges[5]) and mobile number portability (in wireless networks), has played an important role in eliminating barriers and providing support to the telecom operators to collaborate and expand.

[3] https://trai.gov.in/release-publication/reports/telecom-subscriptions-reports

[4] https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/pages/stat/default.aspx

[5] Interconnection Usage Charge (IUC): The charge payable by one service provider to another for the actual usage of network elements involved in the origination, transit, or termination of calls. These charges cover the operational cost of utilizing network resources to carry telecommunication traffic between different service providers.

3 noillim ni srebircsbu u m b e r o f i r e l i n e u b s c r i b e r s i n m i l l i o n I n o r l d d i aThe importance of interconnection

1.8. Telecommunications users cannot communicate with each other unless necessary interconnection arrangements are in place[6]. Without robust interconnection mechanisms, the individual networks would function in isolation, resembling self-contained “discrete islands” rather than an integrated system. Such a scenario would undermine the fundamental objective of establishing a unified telecommunications infrastructure.

Consequently, the lack of effective interconnection would not only impede market development but also hinder the broader socio-economic progress facilitated by a fully integrated telecommunications sector.

1.9. Interconnection agreements under ‘The Telecommunication Interconnection Regulations (TIR), 2018’, aim to enable cross-network communication for the 1.21 billion telecom subscribers[7], but challenges, if any, faced among telecom service providers in finalizing interconnection agreements timely, may limit its true potential. Despite a mandate requiring interconnection agreements to be finalized within 30 days[8], delays do occur and have the potential to affect not only the service rollout timelines but also deprive consumers of the likely benefits arising out of service innovation and competitiveness.

1.10. In order to ensure that interconnection arrangements are finalized in a timely manner, it is imperative that telecommunications service providers

(TSPs) reach consensus, keeping in view the prescribed regulations and directions. The Authority is conscious of the fact that the regulatory framework which fails to evolve, presents risks of constraining not only market development but also technological advancement.

1.11. In essence, Interconnection regulations may require a review in order to continue playing a role in maintaining level playing field among the service

[6] https://www.itu.int/ITU-D/treg/Documentation/Infodev_handbook/3_Interconnection.pdf

[7] https://trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/2025-09/QPIR_03092025.pdf

[8] https://trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/2024-09/CR_01012018.pdf 4providers, ensuring quality of service and expanding accessibility to the users.

B. Regulatory Framework for Interconnection in India

1.12. Some of the regulations, covering interconnection matters in respect of voice and SMS carried over PSTN-PSTN, PSTN-PLMN and PLMN-PLMN,

issued by the Authority are outlined below: i. The Telecommunication Interconnection Regulations, 2018 (Annexure-I) ii. The Short Message Services (SMS) Termination Charges Regulations, 2013 (Annexure-II) iii. Intelligent Network Services in Multi-Operator and Multi-Network Scenario Regulations, 2006 (Annexure-III) iv. TRAI (Transit Charges for BSNL's Cell One Terminating Traffic) Regulations, 2005 (Annexure-IV) v. The Telecommunication Interconnection Usage Charges Regulations, 2003 (Annexure-V) vi. The Telecommunication Interconnection (Reference Interconnect Offer) Regulations, 2002 (Annexure-VI) vii. The Telecommunication Interconnection (Charges and Revenue Sharing) Regulations, 2001 (Annexure-VII) viii. The Telecommunication Interconnection (Port Charges) Regulations, 2001 (Annexure-VIII) ix. The Register of Interconnect Agreements Regulations, 1999 (Annexure-IX) Interconnection regulations listed above are the principal regulations.

Subsequently, their amendments have been issued from time to time. The regulations provided in Annexure-I to IX are the consolidated regulations which include the respective principal regulations and their amendments.

5Figure 1.3: Timelines of existing Interconnection Regulations

61.13. For ease of understanding, Figure 1.3 illustrates the chronological progression of all major TRAI regulations pertaining to interconnection since the Authority’s establishment in 1997. This timeline highlights important regulatory milestones, including the introduction of the Reference Interconnect Offer (RIO) regulation in 2002, which standardized agreements between operators. Over the years, the Authority has periodically updated and strengthened the interconnection framework to address evolving industry needs, such as mandating timelines for entering into interconnection agreements, introducing financial disincentives for non-compliance, and specifying procedures for provisioning and augmentation of Points of Interconnect (POIs). The figure also includes Telecommunication Interconnection Regulations of 2018, which provided for 30 days of timeline for signing interconnection agreements and set clear guidelines for port provisioning, disconnection, and financial disincentives for violations.

C.1. The Register of Interconnect Agreements Regulations, 1999[9]

1.14. The Authority, on 31st August 1999, notified ‘The Register of Interconnect Agreements Regulations 1999’ and established the framework for maintaining a comprehensive register of interconnect agreements between telecommunication service providers across India. These regulations were amended on 3rd February 2004, 31st December 2004, and 4th March 2005.

These regulations mandate that all TSPs furnish the information pertaining to details of their interconnection agreements to TRAI, covering agreements entered both before and after the date of the regulations’ coming into force on 1st September 1999.

A brief timeline of the Register of Interconnect Agreements Regulations, 1999, along with its three subsequent amendments, is presented below.

[9] https://www.trai.gov.in/release-publication/regulations/amendments-page/7091 7Figure 1.4: Timeline of the Register of Interconnect Agreements Regulations, 1999 C.2. The Telecommunication Interconnection (Port Charges) Regulations, 2001[10]

1.15. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India on 28th December 2001 notified The Telecommunication Interconnection (Port Charges) Regulations 2001.

These regulations were amended on 2nd February 2007 and 18th September 2012. The objective of these regulations was to specify the port charges payable by the interconnection seeker to the interconnection provider for terminating interconnection links on the network interface.

Further, these regulations also regulate arrangements for sharing revenue derived from providing telecommunication services.

1.16. The port charges were initially determined by the Authority in 1999 by the Telecommunication Interconnection (Charges and Revenue Sharing) Regulations 1999 dated 28th May 1999[11] and later modified with the issuance of 'The Telecommunication Interconnection (Port Charges) Regulations 2001' on 28th December 2001. The bandwidth of the port was specified as 2.048 Megabits per second, i.e., one E1 link[12]. These regulations introduced a slab-based ceiling rate system (e.g., ₹55,000 per port for 1–16 PCMs).

[10] www.trai.gov.in/release-publication/regulations/amendments-page/7113

[11] www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/2024-09/Consolidated_Regulation_28051999.pdf

[12] E1 link is a standard digital transmission link used in India, other Asian countries and Europe. It operates at a data rate of 2.048 Mbps and carries data or voice over 32 channels, each at 64 Kbps. Of these 32 channels, 30 are used for voice or data communication, while 2 are used for signalling purposes. It uses time-division multiplexing (TDM) to interleave these 32 channels, combining into a single E1 transmission stream.

81.17. The first amendment, effective from 1st April 2007, introduced and replaced the original slabs with a revised rate structure in Schedule II, reducing port charges (e.g., ₹39,000 per port for 1–16 PCMs).

Interconnection seekers were required to project traffic for six months in Erlangs[13] to determine port demand, and billing scenarios were also clarified in these regulations.

A brief timeline of the Telecommunication Interconnection (Port Charges) Regulations, 2001, along with its two subsequent amendments, is presented below.

Figure 1.5: Timeline of the Telecommunication Interconnection (Port Charges) Regulations, 2001

1.18. The second amendment, effective from 1st October 2012, further simplified the structure by introducing Regulation 2B and Schedule III, replacing slabs with flat ceiling rates of ₹4,000 per port/year for MSCs and ₹10,000 per port/year for Tandem/TAX switches. Updated CAPEX data was used, assuming 10 years of equipment life, and confirmed that media and transmission costs remain part of IUC, not port charges.

C.3. The Telecommunication Interconnection (Charges and Revenue Sharing) Regulations, 2001[14]

1.19. Initially, the revenue share regime was put in place vide ‘The Telecommunication Interconnection (Charges and Revenue Sharing)

[13] An Erlang is a unit of telecommunications traffic measurement, representing the continuous use of one voice path (or circuit) for one hour. If a single phone line is in use for 60 minutes, it carries 1 Erlang of traffic.

[14] https://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/2024-09/201112090239141733750intwll0-15.pdf 9Regulations 1999’[15]. These Regulations came into force with effect from 1st May 1999. Revenue sharing for basic services, i.e., ‘calls originating in a basic service provider’s network and transmitted through or terminated in another basic service provider’s network’ and revenue sharing for cellular mobile services, i.e., ‘calls originating in a cellular mobile service provider’s network and transmitted through or terminated in another service provider’s network’ were separately specified in these regulations. Two schedules under these principal regulations were substituted by the First Amendment Regulations, 1999 (w.e.f. 17.09.1999). Further, the first amendment regulations of 1999 and Regulation 8 of ‘The Telecommunication Interconnection (Charges and Revenue sharing) Regulations, 1999’ had been quashed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide judgement dated 17.01.2000 in Writ Petition (C) No. 6543 of 1999 and CW No. 6483 of 1999.

1.20. Subsequently, on 14th December 2001, the Authority issued ‘The Telecommunication Interconnection (Charges and Revenue Sharing) Regulations, 2001 (5 of 2001)’.

A brief timeline of the Telecommunication Interconnection (Charges and Revenue Sharing) Regulations, 2001 along with its two subsequent amendments, is presented below.

Figure 1.6: Timeline of the Telecommunication Interconnection (Charges and Revenue Sharing) Regulations, 2001

[15] https://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/2024-09/Consolidated_Regulation_28051999.pdf 10C.4. The Telecommunication Interconnection (Reference Interconnect Offer) Regulations, 2002[16]

1.21. The Authority introduced the Telecommunication Interconnection (Reference Interconnect Offer) Regulations in 2002 to ensure effective and timely interconnection between the telecom service providers. TSPs having Significant Market Power (SMP) status in accordance with ‘The Telecommunication Interconnection (Reference Interconnect Offer) Regulations, 2002’, are mandated to publish a RIO, which outlines the technical and commercial terms for interconnection based on the model RIO provided in the regulations. The RIO serves as the foundational framework for all interconnection agreements involving the issuer TSP of the RIO. This enables interconnection seekers to either fully accept the RIO terms and directly enter into an agreement with the service provider or use it as a basis for negotiation to finalize an interconnection agreement.

A brief timeline of the Telecommunication Interconnection (Reference Interconnect Offer) Regulations, 2002, is presented below.

Figure 1.7: Timeline of the Telecommunication Interconnection (Reference Interconnect Offer) Regulations, 2002 C.5. The Telecommunication Interconnection Usage Charges Regulations, 2003[17]

1.22. The Authority established a regulatory framework for Interconnection Usage Charges through ‘The Telecommunication Interconnection Usage Charges (IUC) Regulations, 2003 (1 of 2003)’ dated 24th January 2003. The Authority issued ‘The Telecommunication Interconnection Usage Charges

[16] www.trai.gov.in/release-publication/regulations/amendments-page/7206

[17] www.trai.gov.in/release-publication/regulations/amendments-page/7233 11Regulations, 2003 (4 of 2003)’ dated 29th October 2003, which superseded the earlier IUC Regulations dated 24th January 2003. There have been 16

(sixteen) amendments[18] to these regulations since their inception, with the latest one being released on 17th April 2020.

A brief timeline of the Telecommunication Interconnection Usage Charges Regulations, 2003, along with its sixteen subsequent amendments, is presented below.

Figure 1.8: Timeline of the Telecommunication Interconnection Usage Charges Regulations, 2003

1.23. These regulations were established to create a framework for various telecom service providers to financially compensate for the use of their respective networks under interconnection arrangement with each other.

1.24. ‘The Telecommunication Interconnection Usage Charges (IUC) Regulations, 2003’ established a regime based on charges for originating,

[18] https://www.trai.gov.in/release-publication/regulations/amendments-page/7233 12transiting, and terminating calls. These charges are specified in detailed schedules attached to the regulations.

1.25. Since 2003, the Authority has periodically reviewed and amended these regulations. Consequently, the rates of different types of interconnection usage charges have changed over the period.

C.6. TRAI (Transit Charges for BSNL's Cell One Terminating Traffic) Regulations, 2005[19]

1.26. These Regulations came into force with effect from 3rd May 2005, consequent to the Hon’ble TDSAT's order dated 3rd May 2005, in Petition No. 20/2004 (Cellular Operators Association of India and others Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & others.) A brief timeline of the TRAI (Transit Charges for BSNL's Cell One Terminating Traffic) Regulations, 2005, is presented below.

Figure 1.9: Timeline of the TRAI (Transit Charges for BSNL's Cell One Terminating Traffic) Regulations, 2005

1.27. These regulations provide for transit charges for accessing BSNL's CellOne

subscribers as follows: “...No transit charge shall be levied by BSNL (Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited) on Cellular Operators for accessing BSNL's CellOne subscribers, wherever the MSCs of both BSNL's CellOne and Private CMSOs' are connected to the same BSNL switch...”

[19] www.trai.gov.in/release-publication/regulations/amendments-page/7265 13C.7. Intelligent Network Services in Multi-Operator and Multi-Network Scenario Regulations, 2006[20]

1.28. Intelligent Network (IN) services refer to value-added telecommunication services that are offered by separating service function/ service logic from the underlying call processing switching system (i.e. switching infrastructure) within a multi-operator and multi-network environment. IN services enable subscribers to access enhanced functionalities (such as free phone service, virtual card calling, televoting, premium rate service etc.) that are portable across networks of different service providers. This ensures that services hosted on one service provider's network can be accessed by customers of another service provider. In National numbering plan (2003)[21], 180 series was allocated for IN Services.

1.29. To provide a regulatory framework for Intelligent Network Services, the Authority issued the ‘Intelligent Network Services in Multi Operator Multi Service Scenario Regulations, 2006 (13 of 2006)’ on 27th November 2006.

1.30. These regulations mandated that all telecom service providers offering IN services must establish interconnection agreements with other access providers to ensure that subscribers can access IN services across different networks. The regulations also stipulated that such interconnection agreements be submitted to TRAI within 15 days of signing.

1.31. Subsequently, ‘The Intelligent Network Services in Multi Operator and Multi Network Scenario (Amendment) Regulations, 2012’ (17 of 2012), dated 18th September 2012, were introduced. This amendment reinforced the requirement for service providers to enter into arrangements with other service provider within 90 days from the date of commencement of these regulations for providing intelligent network services to subscribers of other telecom service providers and these arrangements or agreements to

[20] https://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/2024-09/CR_27112006.pdf

[21] https://dot.gov.in/sites/default/files/nnp2003_0_0.pdf?download=1 14come into force within 30 days from the date of entering into such arrangements or agreements.

A brief timeline of the Intelligent Network Services in Multi-Operator and Multi-Network Scenario Regulations, 2006, along with its subsequent amendment, is presented below.

Figure 1.10: Timeline of the Intelligent Network Services in Multi- Operator and Multi-Network Scenario Regulations, 2006 C.8. The Short Message Services (SMS) Termination Charges Regulations, 2013[22]

1.32. SMS termination charges are the charges that are payable by the originating access provider to the terminating access provider for each SMS terminated by it on the network of the terminating access provider.

‘The Short Message Services (SMS) Termination Charges Regulations, 2013’, which were issued on 24th May 2013, came into force with effect from 1st June 2013. These regulations prescribed SMS termination charge of ₹0.02 (2 paise only) per SMS.

A brief timeline of the Short Message Services (SMS) Termination Charges Regulations, 2013, is presented below.

Figure 1.11: Timeline of the Short Message Services (SMS) Termination Charges Regulations, 2013

[22] https://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/2024-09/CR_24052013.pdf 15C.9. The Telecommunication Interconnection Regulations, 2018[23]

1.33. ‘The Telecommunication Interconnection Regulations, 2018’ issued on 1st January, 2018, covered some of the important aspects of interconnection, e.g., interconnection agreement, provisioning of initial interconnection and augmentation of Points of Interconnection (POIs), interconnection charges[24], disconnection of POIs, and financial disincentive on interconnection matters. These regulations came into effect from 1st February, 2018.

1.34. Since the issuance of the ‘The Telecommunication Interconnection Regulations, 2018’, two amendments have been issued. The first amendment, dated 5th July 2018, stipulated, inter-alia, that port charges for POIs established prior to February 2018 shall remain unchanged and mandated traffic forecasting on every six months basis in lieu of the previous 30 days requirement. The second amendment, dated 10th July 2020, prescribed the levels of interconnection for PSTN-to-PSTN connectivity, the location of POIs, and also prescribed carriage charges applicable to calls between LDCC and SDCC.

A brief timeline of the Telecommunication Interconnection Regulations, 2018 along with its two subsequent amendments, is presented below.

Figure 1.12: Timeline of the Telecommunication Interconnection Regulations, 2018

[23] https://www.trai.gov.in/release-publication/regulations/amendments-page/7352

[24] Interconnection Charge: These charges are levied by an interconnection provider to an interconnection seeker for establishing the physical linkage between their telecommunications networks, covering infrastructure and connectivity costs.

16C. Learnings from Global Best Practices

1.35. International best practices across the globe emphasize the need for harmonized regulations, greater regulatory predictability through the reduction of uncertainty, and access to fair and just mechanisms for all the stakeholders, i.e., the telecom industry and customers.

1.36. Countries promote cooperation in telecom interconnections by adopting common standards and regulatory frameworks, inter-alia, by adopting global best practices either from other parts of world or from international organizations like International Telecommunication Union (ITU) as outlined in the World Bank document ‘Telecommunication Regulation Handbook’[25] containing guidance on technical domain, development

domain and policy domain as under: "…policy domain: to promote, at the international level, the adoption of a broader approach to the issues of telecommunications in the global information economy and society…" C.1. Equivalence of Inputs

1.37. During the pre-consultation phase, one of the stakeholders highlighted the principle of Equivalence of Inputs (EOI). They noted that, in several countries, EOI is implemented to ensure that vertically integrated operators provide the same terms and conditions to third-party service providers as they do to their own affiliates. The stakeholder further recommended that EOI principles should be adopted in India, particularly with regard to interconnection provisioning, port charges, and access timelines especially in markets where a dominant operator is present[26]. In the context of telecom interconnections, Equivalence of inputs is an extension of the non-discriminatory principle, which requires one service

[25] https://www.itu.int/ITU-D/treg/Documentation/Infodev_handbook/3_Interconnection.pdf

[26] https://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/2025-04/BIF%20Comments.pdf 17provider to provide another service provider with the same price and non- price inputs as it provides to its own divisions, subsidiaries, or partners.

This is an important concept, as it helps to promote competition, prevents anti-competitive practices, encourages innovation, and ensures fair interconnections.

1.38. The Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) is the body in which the regulators of the telecommunications markets in the European Union work together. BEREC considers the EoI principle as the surest way to achieve effective protection from discrimination[27]. This approach is already applicable within the telecommunication markets in New Zealand[28] and United Kingdom[29].

D. Need for Review of the Regulatory Framework for Interconnection

1.39. Over the preceding two decades, interconnection regulatory framework has been progressively shaped through a series of regulatory measures and interventions, commencing with the regulations ‘The Register of Interconnect Agreements Regulations, 1999’ and continuing with the more recent ‘The Telecommunication Interconnection Regulations, 2018.’ Further, these two regulations, along with various other interconnection regulations, have gone through many amendments, with the latest amendment being ‘The Telecommunication Interconnection (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2020,’ notified on 10th July 2020. This framework has been playing an important role in establishing principles of fair competition, non-discrimination, reciprocity, cost-based pricing, etc.

[27] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reco/2013/466/oj/eng

[28] https://comcom.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0027/225972/Equivalence-and-non-discrimination- guidance-30-September-2020.pdf

[29] https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/documents/phones-telecoms-and- internet/information-for-industry/bt/consolidated_undertakings24.pdf?v=332693

181.40. However, the telecommunications landscape in India has undergone a period of evolution. This transformation has been influenced by a convergence of factors, including technological advancements (e.g., transition from TDM or E1-based network to IP-based network architecture), changes in market structures (e.g., the consolidation of telecom operators), and evolving statutory (The Telecommunications Act, 2023 [30]) and regulatory frameworks.

D.1. Regulatory and Statutory Developments:

1.41. The regulatory landscape itself has been subject to continuous refinement, with new policies and guidelines introduced over time to adapt to changing market realities and technological developments. A statutory development in this regard is the enactment of ‘The Telecommunications Act, 2023’ on the 24th of December 2023 and is being implemented in a phased manner.

The Central Government notified vide the Gazette notification dated 21st June 2024 that the provisions of sections 1, 2, 10 to 30, 42 to 44, 46, 47, 50 to 58, 61, and 62 of the said Act shall come into force on 26th June 2024[31]. This Act repeals and replaces ‘The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885’[32] and ‘The Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933’[33]. Among other things, the Act envisages to introduces an authorisation based regime for telecommunication services.

D.2. Market Dynamics:

1.42. The Indian telecommunications market has experienced structural changes, characterized by periods of competition, consolidation among major operators, and the emergence of new players and business models.

These changes could influence market positioning as well as competitive

[30] https://egazette.gov.in/WriteReadData/2023/250880.pdf

[31] https://egazette.gov.in/(S(4ceiurycjxxgxq03vdtzigei))/ViewPDF.aspx

[32] dot.gov.in/sites/default/files/the_indian_telegraph_act_1985_pdf.pdf?ref=static.internetfreedom.in

[33] indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/15410/1/the_indian_wireless_telegraphy_act%2C_1933.pdf 19positioning among service providers, potentially affecting the commercial and technical terms of interconnection agreements in the future.

D.3. Technological Advancements:

1.43. The fundamental architecture of telecommunication networks appears to be undergoing a change, moving away from legacy systems towards IP- centric infrastructures. At the time when the interconnection regulations were framed, E1-based network elements like TDM ports, their technologies, and respective traffic considerations were prevalent. Now, IP- based connectivity introduces different technical considerations for signalling, routing, capacity management, service guarantees, billing, etc.

1.44. Modern telecom networks are mostly designed to operate on IP-based connectivity. This brings us to a question that whether the current framework adequately covers technology like IP-based infrastructure and whether it fully addresses the technical and commercial aspects of interconnection due to co-existence of E1-based networks and IP-based networks.

1.45. Therefore, it may be beneficial to assess how existing interconnection regulations could evolve to facilitate a smooth and efficient transition to future-ready IP-based networks, with the aim of ensuring long-term growth and sustainability for the sector. Furthermore, the advent of current technologies such as Network Function Virtualization (NFV)[34],

[34] Network Function Virtualization (NFV) in telecom is a network architecture concept that replaces traditional, dedicated hardware appliances such as routers, firewalls, and load balancers with software- based network functions running on standard, commodity servers or cloud infrastructure. These software-based functions can be deployed, managed, and scaled more flexibly and cost-effectively than physical devices. NFV allows telecom operators to quickly roll out new services, respond to changing network demands, and reduce both capital and operational expenses by eliminating the need for specialized hardware. This approach supports the growing needs of modern telecommunications, especially with the rise of 5G, IoT, and increasing data traffic.

20Software Defined Networking (SDN)[35], the Internet of Things (IoT)[36], and Machine-to-Machine (M2M) communications (M2M being a foundational technology for the IoT) presents both potential opportunities and challenges for the existing interconnection paradigm. NFV and SDN, by virtualizing network functions and abstracting network control, could potentially alter the traditional understanding of network boundaries and interconnection points. These changes might impact the provisioning, management, and cost of interconnection. Similarly, the scale and diverse traffic characteristics associated with IoT and M2M communications may necessitate examination of traditional approaches to interconnection, considering their varied QoS requirements, low-bandwidth applications, and the potential for numerous connected devices. The existing regulations may or may not adequately address the unique technical and commercial aspects of interconnecting these new technology driven networks and services. Therefore, a review may be required to address above mentioned aspects.

1.46. To summarize, a few of the key developments are given below: a) Enactment of the Telecommunications Act, 2023, and the

notification of several rules on various constituents of the Act. b) Increasing prominence of IP-based interconnections among telecom service providers, virtual and software-defined network architectures.

c) Subscriber shift to data-based 4G, 5G wireless services, emergence of 6G wireless services and wireline broadband services.

[35] Software Defined Networking (SDN) is a modern approach to network management that separates the network's control plane (which decides how data moves) from the data plane (which actually moves the data). In SDN, a centralized software controller manages and configures the entire network, allowing administrators to dynamically adjust traffic flows, automate tasks, and respond quickly to changing requirements without needing to manually configure individual devices. This architecture makes networks more flexible, scalable, and easier to manage, offering greater visibility and centralized control compared to traditional hardware-based networks.

[36] IoT refers to the network of billions of physical devices such as sensors, appliances, vehicles, and machines, connected to the internet, allowing them to collect, share, and analyze data. In telecommunications, IoT is transforming the industry by enabling seamless communication between these devices. Telecom companies can play a crucial role by providing the connectivity platforms that manage IoT devices. With the rise of 5G, IoT adoption in telecom is accelerating fast.

21d) Prominence of wireless telephony as the primary mode of communication. e) Rise in traffic volume of Application-to-Person (A2P) SMS as compared to Person-to-Person (P2P) SMS.

1.47. In view of the above, the Authority issued a Pre-consultation Paper (PCP) on ‘Review of existing TRAI Regulations on Interconnection matters’ on 3rd April 2025[37]. Stakeholders were initially invited to submit their comments by 16th April 2025[38], with the deadline subsequently extended to 23rd April 2025[39], to gather feedback on the following issues:

I. “The proposed review will require a thorough analysis and careful consideration of key objectives, including fostering interconnection, enhancing competition, promoting non- discriminatory practices, ensuring long-term sustainability and viability of the telecom sector. Completing this exercise can only be achieved through close cooperation among all stakeholders.

Therefore, to facilitate this review, the Authority invites all stakeholders to participate in the pre-consultation process by submitting the issues, concerns and suggestions pertaining to the existing interconnection regulations to develop a futuristic and robust regulatory framework for interconnection.

II. While submitting inputs, stakeholders may consider review of relevant interconnection-related regulations, including, but not

limited to the following regulations: a. The Telecommunication Interconnection Regulations, 2018

[37] https://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/2025-04/CP_03042025.pdf

[38] https://www.trai.gov.in/pre-consultation-paper-review-existing-trai-regulations-interconnection- matters

[39] https://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/2025-04/PR_No.24of2025_0.pdf 22b. The Short Message Services (SMS) Termination Charges Regulations, 2013 c. Intelligent Network Services in Multi-Operator and Multi- Network Scenario Regulations, 2006 d. TRAI (Transit Charges for BSNL's Cell One Terminating Traffic) Regulations, 2005 e. The Telecommunication Interconnection Usage Charges Regulations, 2003 f. The Telecommunication Interconnection (Reference Interconnect Offer) Regulations, 2002 g. The Telecommunication Interconnection (Charges and Revenue Sharing) Regulations, 2001 h. The Telecommunication Interconnection (Port Charges) Regulations, 2001 i. The Register of Interconnect Agreements Regulations, 1999 III. The Authority encourages all stakeholders to focus on, but not

limited to the following aspects: a. Efficacy of existing interconnection frameworks in the current telecom ecosystem. b. Challenges faced by service providers in implementing interconnection. c. Impact of emerging technologies on interconnection requirements.

d. Best practices from global interconnection frameworks for possible adoption in India. e. Role of interconnection in improving consumer experience and network efficiency.”

231.48. Based on the comments received from the TSPs and other stakeholders[40] on the pre-consultation paper dated 3rd April 2025[41], the Authority noted that there is a prima facie case for review of the regulatory framework for telecom interconnection.

E. Structure of this Consultation Paper

1.49. Through the present Consultation Paper (CP), the Authority is undertaking a review of the existing regulatory framework for interconnection with the ultimate objective of facilitating fair, effective, and non-discriminatory interconnection between telecom service providers in a consultative manner. This consultation paper has been structured into three chapters.

A. Chapter I provides an introduction, outlining the background, objectives, and context for the present consultation.

B. Chapter II offers a comprehensive analysis of the principal regulatory issues pertaining to interconnection, with a view to facilitating a detailed examination and inviting informed comments from stakeholders.

C. Chapter III enumerates the specific questions and issues identified for consultation, thereby seeking the views, suggestions, and feedback of all stakeholders to enable transparent regulatory decision-making process.

[40] https://www.trai.gov.in/pre-consultation-paper-review-existing-trai-regulations-interconnection- matters

[41] https://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/2025-04/CP_03042025.pdf 242 Chapter 2 – Examination of the Issues A. The Evolving Landscape of Telecommunications

2.1. Interconnection, in the present context refers to the connecting of two networks to allow subscribers on one network to communicate with those on other through voice or text messages. This is a fundamental pillar for the smooth and efficient functioning of any multi-operator telecommunications environment. The present consultation aims to review the existing interconnection regulatory framework established to deal with the exchange of voice and text messages between the service providers.

2.2. Over time, regulatory frameworks may develop gaps, overlaps, or inconsistencies that could possibly affect equitable access and operational efficiency for all service providers, regardless of their size or market share.

Addressing these challenges also requires simplifying technical and operational regulations to reduce complexity. Efficient and streamlined interconnection procedures can help reduce costs and delays in service rollout. Therefore, it is important to undertake the current exercise to review the existing interconnection regulatory framework.

2.3. Given these considerations and background, stakeholders are requested to submit their response and perspectives on the questions asked in the subsequent sections.

B. Regulations-Specific issues B.1 The Telecommunication Interconnection Regulations, 2018

2.4. ‘The Telecommunication Interconnection Regulations, 2018’[42] (TIR 2018) provide a comprehensive framework for how telecom service providers interconnect their networks. These regulations define the concept and management of Points of Interconnection (POIs), which are important

[42] https://www.trai.gov.in/release-publication/regulations/amendments-page/7352 25demarcation points where traffic is exchanged between telecom service providers.

2.5. ‘The Telecommunication Interconnection Regulations, 2018’ sets out timelines for entering into interconnection agreements, methodology for determination of bank guarantee amount, mandates fair and non- discriminatory provisioning of POIs, and establishes procedures for port allocation, augmentation, and disconnection. The regulations also cover aspects such as principles of interconnection charges, augmentation of POIs based on traffic forecasting, and dispute resolution.

2.6. There is a provision in these regulations which mandates that every service provider must, within thirty days of receiving a request from another service provider, enter into an interconnection agreement on a non- discriminatory basis. The process for entering into such an agreement is laid out in these regulations like the requesting service provider must submit a request along with a copy of its license agreement, specify the services for which interconnection is sought, indicate the proposed POI locations, and state the technology to be used at each POI. The service provider receiving the request is then required to provide a draft interconnection agreement within five working days. This ensures a time- bound and transparent process for establishing interconnection agreements, which is important for seamless network interoperability and consumer benefit.

2.7. The regulations also establish a detailed framework for provisioning and augmentation of ports at POIs. For the first two years following the establishment of initial interconnection, the requesting service provider is responsible for seeking ports to meet the demand for both incoming and outgoing traffic at POIs. After this period, or from 1st February, 2018 (whichever later), the total ports at a POI must be converted for carrying one way traffic in proportion to the outgoing traffic of each service provider, averaged over the preceding three months. Any further requests for ports must align with the outgoing traffic requirements of each provider.

26Additionally, after the interconnection agreement is in place, the requesting provider may ask for a sufficient number of ports at POIs to meet traffic requirements for the next three months. For augmentation, every provider is required to furnish, at six-month intervals, a forecast of busy hour[43] outgoing traffic for the succeeding six months at each POI. The first such forecast must be provided within sixty days of the establishment of interconnection.

2.8. The regulations further specify the conditions and procedures for disconnection of POIs, ensuring that such actions are not arbitrary and laid down procedure is followed. To enforce compliance, the regulations introduced provision of financial disincentives for violations related to interconnection, such as delays or failures in provisioning POIs or entering into interconnection agreements within the stipulated timelines.

2.9. Since the notification of the principal regulations, there have been two amendments. The first amendment, issued on 5th July 2018, clarified that port charges for POIs established before February 2018 would remain unchanged and revised the requirements for traffic forecasting to be conducted every six months instead of 30 days. It also adjusted the timelines for port augmentation requests, providing more flexibility to the telecom service providers.

2.10. The second amendment, notified on 10th July 2020, introduced provisions for level of interconnection for PSTN-to-PSTN connectivity, the location of POI, and it also prescribed carriage charge for carriage of calls from LDCC to SDCC and vice versa.

a) Legal Matters related to the Telecommunication Interconnection Regulations, 2018

2.11. There is a litigation matter presently going on before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi involving a TSP and TRAI vide Writ Petition (civil) 4758 of 2019.

[43] Busy hour refers to the continuous 60-minute period of the day during which a telecommunications network experiences the highest traffic.

27The petitioner TSP had challenged the validity of the Telecommunication Interconnection Regulations, 2018 dated 1st January 2018, and the Telecommunication Interconnection (Amendment) Regulations, 2018 dated 5th July 2018 and sought a stay on the operation of these regulations, asserting that they are ultra vires. The petitioner prayed that, “(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or in the nature thereof or any other writ, order or direction setting aside/quashing the Telecommunication Interconnection Regulations, 2018 dated

01.01.2018 made by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India;

(b) This Hon’ble Court may additionally set aside the Telecommunication Interconnection (Amendment) Regulations, 2018 (4 of 2018) dated 5th July 2018. (c) pass any other or further

order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”[44]

2.12. The primary contention revolved around the Regulation 12, which, according to the petitioner TSP, unlawfully granted adjudicatory powers to TRAI, which, under Section 14 of the TRAI Act, 1997, fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of Hon’ble TDSAT. The petitioner TSP had further argued that the Financial Disincentive (FD) up to ₹1 lakh per day per licensed service area amounted to a penalty, which TRAI lacked the authority to impose.

2.13. The petitioner TSP also argues in respect of ‘The Telecommunications Interconnection Regulations, 2018’ that: “Because the impugned regulation is arbitrary as it effectively does away with the concept of “seeker” and “provider” of interconnection. By only limiting the “seeker” status for two years the TRAI has created artificial classes with no intelligible differentia. The concept of “seeker” and “provider” of interconnection has always been that the existing TSP, which has

[44] Extract from the petition filed by M/s MTNL before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi 28established telephone exchanges and other infrastructure at various places and has facilitated other new TSPs in their rollout of services without the new TSP having the need to make such huge investment for establishing exchange and infra at all such places is the provider and the new TSP is the seeker.”

2.14. The petitioner TSP had also challenged the regulations’ approach to Points of Interconnection (POIs). It contended that TRAI had attempted to shift the ownership of POIs from the interconnection provider to the interconnection seeker by mandating a change in the functionality of ports from bidirectional (handling both incoming and outgoing traffic) to unidirectional (handling only outgoing traffic).

2.15. The petitioner TSP emphasized that it had invested heavily in infrastructure such as exchanges within its licensed service areas in full compliance with the regulatory and licensing framework in force at the time. It further argued that the impugned regulations unfairly benefitted other TSPs, imposed undue financial burden, and caused losses.

2.16. Finally, the petitioner asserted that the impugned regulations had been framed without adequate deliberation or due regard to the operational and financial implications for public sector entities.

2.17. The matter is currently pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. b) Key issues pertaining to these Regulations

2.18. Following issues have been highlighted by stakeholders in their comments to the pre-consultation paper issued on 3rd April 2025[45], indicating a need

for a review of these Regulations: i. Examination of existing Levels of Interconnection

2.19. POIs for fixed-line services have been provisioned at the Long-Distance Charging Area (LDCA) and Short Distance Charging Area (SDCA) level, and

[45] https://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/2025-04/CP_03042025.pdf 29this aligns with the National Numbering Plan (NNP)[46] and the idea of ‘Local call’ in telecom network. Local call as defined in the Unified Licence (UL) Agreement[47] of the Department of Telecommunications for telecom service authorisations, is a call originating and terminating within the same local area and is charged at local call rates. It is important to note here that, as per UL, for Basic Service, the SDCA is the local area, and for mobile network, the service area (i.e., LSA) is the local area.

2.20. The SDCA/LDCA-based interconnection regime was designed when the telecom landscape was dominated by E1 or TDM-based PSTN networks [48], with multiple hierarchical switching levels (such as Level-I TAX, Level-II TAX, and Tandem exchanges) facilitating call routing across Short Distance Charging Areas (SDCAs) and LDCAs within each License Service Area

(LSA).

2.21. However, the telecom sector has undergone technological transformation.

The introduction of the Unified License regime, the technological development of IP-based packet-switched core networks, and the convergence of services have fairly changed traffic patterns and network architectures. Today, a single IP core can efficiently handle traffic for an entire LSA, requiring reassessment of the traditional LDCA-based POI structure.

2.22. Interconnection for wireless services is already being done at the Licensed Service Area (LSA) level. Therefore, it needs to be examined whether aligning fixed wireline interconnection to this same level is technologically justified, reflecting a consistent regulatory framework and current technological capabilities. It is to be kept in view that the modern network

[46] https://dot.gov.in/sites/default/files/nnp2003.pdf

[47] https://eservices.dot.gov.in/sites/default/files/user-mannual/Compendium-UL- AGREEMENTupdatedupto31032024.pdf

[48] PSTN stands for Public Switched Telephone Network. It is the traditional, circuit-switched telephone system used globally for voice communication, often referred to as landlines. While much of its core infrastructure has become digital, PSTN remains essential for fixed-line telephony and global voice connectivity.

30architectures allow centralized traffic-handling models at the LSA level, potentially making the LDCA-based POI structure for fixed networks less aligned with current technological developments.

2.23. The concept of local call for both mobile and fixed wireline calls in India is defined by regulatory and licensing frameworks that specify how calls within certain geographic areas are treated for tariff and network purposes.

As stated earlier, for mobile services, any call made within the same Licensed Service Area (LSA), whether to another mobile or a landline number is treated as a local call. Fixed wireline services defined local calls as those made within a Short Distance Charging Area (SDCA). The fixed wireline service providers are required to provide connectivity at the SDCA level to ensure local and intra-circle communications.

2.24. Additionally, TRAI’s recent recommendations on the ‘Revision of National Numbering Plan’[49] mention the need and importance to consider change of inter-operator POIs from the LDCA to the LSA level to facilitate smoother

transitions to modern network architectures as follows: “...with the advent of modern technology, most TSPs have transitioned their fixed wireline service switching capabilities from the SDCA level to the LSA level. Both technological advancements and the evolving regulatory framework envision the management of PSTN traffic at a more centralised level...”

2.25. Stakeholders have expressed varied perspectives on the matter of level of interconnection. For instance, one of the stakeholders (who happens to be a wireline operator) highlighted that transitioning to IP-based interconnection at the LSA level is to be mandated, as it is now becoming challenging for wireline operators to invest in TDM-based network, as well as difficulties in sourcing TDM equipment because their Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) are no longer supplying TDM equipment. It further mentioned that while one of the TSP is consolidating

[49] https://trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/2025-02/Recommendation_06022025.pdf 31its network to IP-TAX, at the same time it is not initiating IP interconnections with the stakeholder.

2.26. Similarly, one of the stakeholders in their comments expressed need to move towards the LSA-based interconnection citing Next Generation Network[50] (NGN) deployment by TSPs, inter alia, stating that:

“...TSPs are implementing advanced technologies such as IMS (IP Multimedia Subsystems), 4G and 5G to deliver world-class telecom services. Enabling IP-based interconnection will ensure seamless connectivity, enhanced Quality of Service (QoS) and facilitate the adoption of advanced 4G codecs for improved voice quality...”

2.27. The stakeholder further mentioned that with the transition to IP networks, even one of the incumbent TSPs has replaced its traditional TDM-based circuit-switched networks with IP-based packet-switched NGN core networks and has deployed a single IP TAX Trunk Media Gateway (TMG) in each LDCA cluster across all circles. However, the interconnection with other TSPs is still on TDM based circuits.

“...The shift towards IP-based interconnection is steadily progressing, as all private service providers continue upgrading to IP networks, a phased migration to IP interconnection is inevitable...”

2.28. The stakeholder also submitted that the TSPs are accelerating their 4G/5G rollout requiring IP-based interconnection to enhance service quality, particularly for VoLTE-to-VoLTE calls. It further submitted that some of the TSPs are aligned to migrate on IP based interconnection and similarly other TSPs should be mandated to adopt a phased approach toward IP interconnection. All other operators barring a few TSPs have centralized

[50] NGN stands for Next Generation Network. It refers to a modern, all-IP (Internet Protocol) based telecommunications network that can carry voice, data, and multimedia services over a single network infrastructure, replacing traditional circuit-switched networks. NGNs are designed to be more flexible, efficient, and capable of supporting a wide range of services and applications.

32POIs for both fixed-line and mobile traffic, even such TSPs manage mobile traffic centrally. Given the minimal volume of fixed-line traffic, it can be efficiently handled through a centralized interconnection. Therefore, from both technological and regulatory perspective, the potential benefits and challenges associated with alternative interconnection levels need to be thoroughly assessed.

2.29. This prompts a reconsideration that whether any level other than the LSA (Licensed Service Area) is practical in the modern telecom landscape. A careful evaluation is required to ensure that interconnection strategies align with current technological advancements and regulatory frameworks.

2.30. It is pertinent to note that the matter of level of interconnection and point of traffic handover has been dealt in multiple regulations and accordingly the aspect that need to be addressed is what changes are required to be done in the level of interconnection and point of traffic handover as

provided in the Telecommunication Interconnection Regulations (TIR), 2018 and the Guidelines annexed to the Telecommunication Interconnection (Reference Interconnection Offer) Regulations, 2002.

2.31. The Second Amendment dated 10.07.2020 of the Telecommunication Interconnection Regulations, 2018 provides for the following: “9A. [Level of interconnection for PSTN-to-PSTN connectivity:

(1) Within a service area, the location of POI, for calls between PSTN and PSTN or between PSTN and NLD network, shall be at such place as may be mutually agreed between the interconnection provider and the interconnection seeker.

(2) In case the interconnection provider and the interconnection seeker fail to agree under sub regulation (1), the location of POI, for calls between PSTN and PSTN or between PSTN and NLD network,

shall be at LDCC:

33Provided that carriage charge for carriage of calls from LDCC to SDCC and vice versa, as applicable, shall be paid by the

interconnection seeker to the interconnection provider:

Provided further that the existing POIs at the SDCC level, for calls between PSTN and PSTN or between PSTN and NLD network, shall remain in operation for a period of at least five years or till such time the interconnected service providers mutually decide to close such POIs, whichever is earlier:

Provided also that the existing POI at the SDCC level, for calls between PSTN and PSTN or between PSTN and NLD network, can be closed if the services of either of the interconnected service providers are discontinued in that SDCA.”

2.32. The Telecommunication Interconnection (Reference Interconnect Offer) Regulations, 2002[51] prescribes the levels of interconnection between different networks in the para 4.4 and 4.5 of Annex - C titled ‘Reference Interconnect Offer Guidelines dated 12.07.2002’, which may be seen at Annexure-XI. These scenarios are discussed in following paras.

2.33. Table 1.1 - PSTN to PSTN (Out-going Traffic) - The table specifies the designated Points of Interconnection (POIs) for local, intra-circle, inter- circle, and international PSTN-PSTN outgoing traffic. It further specifies POI arrangements for traffic routing between Basic Service Operators

(BSOs), National Long-Distance Operators (NLDOs), and International Long-Distance Operators (ILDOs).

2.34. Table 1.2 - PSTN to PSTN (In-coming Traffic) - The table specifies the POI designations in handling incoming PSTN to PSTN traffic. It further specifies the interconnection level between BSOs and other operators for different calling scenarios.

[51] https://www.trai.gov.in/release-publication/regulations/amendments-page/7206

342.35. Table 2.1 - Traffic from PLMN to PSTN - The table specifies the arrangement of POIs for mobile-originated traffic to PSTN in terms of local, intra-circle, inter-circle, and international calls. It further specifies the traffic handover between Mobile Service Providers and BSOs, NLDOs, and ILDOs.

2.36. Table 2.2 - Traffic From PSTN to PLMN - The table specifies the POI arrangements for PSTN-originated traffic destined for mobile networks, across local, intra-circle, inter-circle, and international calls. It further specifies mechanisms for routing including lower hierarchy routing options (below TAX level).

2.37. The arrangements for outgoing and incoming traffic routing, as outlined in Tables 1.1 and 1.2 for PSTN to PSTN communications, alongside Tables 2.1 and 2.2 which govern PLMN to PSTN and vice versa, merit close examination not only for their operational efficiency but also for their adaptability to emerging market dynamics and technologies. With questions now arising on mechanisms for handling traffic when traditional POIs are absent, opportunities to enhance network utilization through segregation or consolidation of traffic flows, and the evolving coordination between fixed wireline and mobile operators, stakeholders are invited to reflect the changes required in these POI frameworks, if any, so that the matter can be further examined.

2.38. One of the TSPs, however, supported connectivity at SDCA/LDCA levels and opposed the migration of connectivity to a single point in their comments and, inter alia, stated that: “...it has established exchanges at all LDCA/SDCA levels to meet the extant Licensing/Regulatory dispensation - by incurring huge expenditure in CAPEX (Construction of exchange buildings/ installation of Local/ TAX exchange/ laying of copper local cables) and OPEX (including recruitment of manpower at all levels). While its resources (money as well as man-power) were engaged largely in arranging and providing for interconnection, 35incurring huge expenditure, the private TSPs employed their resources in mobile network expansion and customer acquisition. The private TSPs have over the years only used the establishment/ network of PSU for their growth. While it spent most of its expenditure on establishments whereas private TSPs made the similar expenses towards customer acquisition and network expansion. As a result, private TSPs have huge customer base while it is still struggling with maintaining its establishments and manpower. A level playing field may be ensured to protect huge investments made by the PSU.

It has made huge expenditure in setting up of establishments at SDCA/ LDCA levels and migration of connectivity to a single point will make such establishments unproductive...”

2.39. As per stakeholders’ comments that the telecom sector is undergoing a transition from legacy circuit switched to IP-based networks and given the rising complexity of inter-operator traffic flows, the provisions across these two regulations i.e. ‘The Telecommunication Interconnection Regulations

(TIR), 2018’ and ‘The Telecommunication Interconnection (Reference Interconnection Offer) Regulations, 2002’ require re-assessment. In particular, the determination of the point of traffic handover has become important due to technological evolution, increasing traffic volumes, and the need to minimize disputes.

2.40. Against this backdrop, stakeholders are invited to provide their views on the changes required in the level of interconnection and point of traffic handover as envisaged in ‘The Telecommunications Interconnection Regulations, 2018’ and the ‘Reference Interconnect Offer Guidelines’ of ‘The Telecommunication Interconnection (Reference Interconnect Offer) Regulations, 2002’, if any, for further examination, and therefore, stakeholders' comments are solicited on the following questions:

36Q1. For PSTN to PSTN, PLMN to PSTN and PSTN to PLMN, should the interconnection level be specified at LSA level? If yes, should the existing POIs at the LDCA/SDCA level also be migrated to the LSA level? Kindly justify your response.

Q2. For PSTN to PSTN, PLMN to PSTN, PSTN to PLMN and PLMN to PLMN, should interconnection be allowed at a level other than the LSA level, based on mutual agreement? Kindly justify your response.

Q3. Based on your response to Question 1 and 2 above, what changes, if any, are required in the level of interconnection / point of traffic

handover as provided in the following: a) Telecommunication Interconnection Regulations (TIR), 2018, and b) Guidelines annexed to the Telecommunication Interconnection (Reference Interconnection Offer) Regulations, 2002? Kindly justify your response.

ii. Multi-path resiliency and redundancy in POI framework

2.41. During the consultation process, one of the stakeholders pointed out that the current Point of Interconnection (POI) architecture continues to follow a point-to-point implementation model for both legacy TDM-based and IP- based POIs. It further indicated that this approach, while functionally adequate, is perceived to lack resilience and redundancy. This requires a network architecture comprising of a primary POI and secondary POI(s), wherein the primary POI will carry traffic in default scenario, and the traffic would shift to secondary or alternate POI(s) as a backup connectivity. In case of link failure at the primary POI, the absence of alternate POI or multi-path connectivity can result in service disruptions, thereby causing potential loss of traffic as well as affecting quality of service and customer experience.

372.42. Given the many comments from stakeholders proposing for fewer and aggregated POIs for voice and SMS traffic, the robustness of POI connectivity design assumes importance. With the evolution of IP networks, the possibility of incorporating advanced architectural frameworks that enable redundancy, load sharing, and dynamic rerouting of traffic is now technically feasible. Therefore, the Authority has considered it pertinent to examine whether the regulatory framework should mandate multi-path resiliency and redundancy at the POI level to enhance network reliability.

2.43. The Authority considers that interconnection between service providers is an important element in ensuring ubiquitous and uninterrupted communications across networks. A failure at the POI level without any redundancy can potentially affect large volumes of traffic, leading to congestion, and degraded service experience. The continuation of point-to- point architecture for IP interconnections exposes networks to a single point of failure. In contrast, resilient and redundant architectures may be designed to provide alternate paths for traffic flow, thereby mitigating the risk of disruptions.

2.44. Such frameworks not only enhance reliability but keeps telecom network ready for any unforeseen situation. In the Indian context, where subscriber bases are large and traffic volumes are high, reliance on a single-path POI implementation may not be suitable in the long run. The Authority is therefore of the view that introduction of resilience and redundancy in the POI framework merits further examination.

2.45. The Authority also recognizes that mandating multi-path redundancy may involve additional investment in infrastructure, including transmission capacity, routing equipment, and interconnection links. Smaller service providers, in particular, may find the associated costs considerable. At the same time, the long-term benefits of improved service reliability, customer satisfaction, and reduced service disruptions may outweigh the initial costs. The Authority is therefore seeking a balanced approach that 38safeguards consumer interest without imposing disproportionate burdens on service providers.

2.46. Further, it is important to explore whether the required resiliency can be achieved through regulatory mandates or whether it may be better addressed through technical standards and bilateral agreements among operators. The Authority is of the view that stakeholder feedback on feasible architectural models, including illustrative diagrams, will provide valuable insights. Such inputs will help determine whether a regulatory mandate for multi-path resiliency and redundancy in the POI framework is necessary in the telecom network.

iii. Security in telecom network interconnections

2.47. Telecommunications networks are essential for many aspects of day-to-day life, from national defence to public safety to economic growth. This is a sector that, inter-alia, supports healthcare, manufacturing, energy, transportation and more. As technology evolves, so do the capabilities of attackers, requiring continuous adaptation and revision of underlying regulatory frameworks for ensuring network security.

2.48. Interconnection point carries a potential security vulnerability and increases the attack surface which can be exploited by malicious actors for abusing interconnect privileges to locate individuals, intercept messaging, and eavesdrop on calls[52] etc. Before the adoption of IP-based interconnections, Telecommunication Networks based on E1 interconnection had sufficient barriers to entry due to trusted peers on the either ends of the telecom network. Securing the network against threats was simpler. Today, the telecom sector has moved to IP infrastructure, IP networks potentially allow much easier access from anywhere in the world, thereby lowering the barriers to security breach attempts.

[52] https://www.oracle.com/a/ocom/docs/industries/communications/state-telecom-security-wp.pdf

392.49. The IP network including the interconnect interfaces use open protocols which are universally accessible[53]. So, the networks are susceptible to various attacks like denial-of-service (DoS), IP spoofing, interception, session hijacking, packet sniffing, compromised key attacks, Domain Name System (DNS) spoofing, network scanning, signalling and routing exploits, etc. Hence the challenge is in protecting the telecom networks, especially interconnection points, gateways and control systems from intruders, by addressing this issue through a regulatory framework.

2.50. For instance, a recent cyberattack in United States named ‘Salt Typhoon’[54] breached nine domestic telecommunications and internet service providers, exposing vulnerabilities in critical infrastructure across the US.

It compromised devices like routers and switches by exploiting old equipment, facilities that had not been updated, and network components that lacked basic cybersecurity protocols in the United States and in more than a dozen other countries. The issue of cybersecurity at the point of

interconnection has also been highlighted in the following: “…The recently reported cyberattacks by “Salt Typhoon” on key telecom providers in US, showcases the ability of attackers to go after information of senior government officials. In this attack, the intruders were also able to get access to sensitive information that is normally accessible to Lawful Interception teams (information used for surveillance). This attack highlighted the challenge that despite following global security standards (such as 3GPP, ITU-T) it is difficult to maintain a complex network environment specifically in a highly interconnected environment being secure at all the times…”[55]

[53] https://ntiprit.gov.in/pdf/ngn/Interconnection_issuses_IP_Networks_Study_paper-TEC.pdf

[54] https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-25-9A1.pdf

[55] https://kpmg.com/in/en/blogs/2025/02/telecom-sector-cyber-risk.html

402.51. In response to ‘Salt Typhoon’, the Federal Communications Commission

(FCC), the U.S. telecom regulator, issued a Declaratory Ruling[56] and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in January 2025 that clarify and expand the obligations of telecommunications carriers. The ruling affirms that these carriers must secure not only the physical equipment in their networks but also how they manage the network as a whole, including implementing safeguards against unlawful access or interception of communications. The NPRM proposes that communications service providers be required to develop, update, and maintain comprehensive cybersecurity and supply chain risk management plans, with an annual certification to the FCC that these plans are in place and have been implemented.

2.52. In December 2022, the UK introduced its Telecommunications Security Code of Practice[57]. This established strong legal security duties and specific security measures for public telecom providers to identify, prevent, and mitigate security risks. The framework included a tiered compliance system based on provider size, with Ofcom, the UK telecom regulator, responsible for regulatory oversight and enforcement.

2.53. These regulatory measures, inter-alia, highlight that Points of Interconnection (POIs) must also be secured against cyber threats, as unpatched or poorly protected gateways, routers, switches especially at the points of interconnection can be a potential security vulnerability. A compromised network element can lead to widespread disruptions, thereby requiring the implementation of security controls at this layer, which is an important part of the interconnection regulatory framework. This matter needs further examination from the regulatory perspective.

[56] https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-25-9A1.pdf

[57]

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6384d09ed3bf7f7eba1f286c/E02781980_Telecommuni cations_Security_CoP_Accessible.pdf

412.54. Accordingly, in light of the stakeholder’s concerns on multi-path resiliency, redundancy as well as the concerns flagged by global entities on security aspects of interconnections, the Authority seeks comments to examine the need to mandate multi-path resiliency, redundancy and security provisions in the POI framework for fixed wireline and wireless services, and if so, the appropriate architectural framework that may be adopted.

2.55. In this background, stakeholder’s comments are solicited on the following

question:

Q4. Is there a need to mandate multi-path resiliency and redundancy in the Point of Interconnection (POI) framework to mitigate link failure

at the primary POI in the case of: i. PSTN-PSTN interconnection, ii. PLMN-PLMN interconnection, and iii. PLMN-PSTN interconnection? If yes, kindly provide an appropriate architectural framework with diagram. Kindly justify your response.

Q5. Is there a need to incorporate security provisions in the interconnection framework to ensure network security? If yes, kindly provide details along with an appropriate architectural diagram. Kindly justify your response.

iv. Assessment of need for migration to IP-based Interconnection for all TSPs

2.56. The Indian telecom sector, due to technological development, is transitioning from legacy circuit-switched networks towards modern, IP- based (Internet Protocol) interconnection frameworks. This change is driven by the need to support an increasingly diverse range of communication services that go beyond traditional voice calls, including Voice over IP (VoIP), video conferencing, rich communication services

(RCS), and other data-intensive applications. Stakeholders have indicated that IP-based interconnection offers numerous advantages over traditional 42Time Division Multiplexing (TDM) and circuit-switched technologies. These benefits include higher network efficiency due to packet switching, greater scalability to accommodate growing traffic volumes, enhanced flexibility for integrating multiple service types, and improved quality of service (QoS) through advanced traffic management capabilities. Additionally, IP-based networks are capable of faster deployment of new services and innovations, which is important in an era of digital transformation and increasing consumer expectations.

Figure 2.1: Interconnection between TDM-based network operator and IP-based network operator.

2.57. Building upon this technological evolution, the accompanying diagram in the Figure 2.1 visually represents a common scenario of interconnection between an IP-based network and a legacy TDM network, highlighting the crucial elements that enable seamless communication during this transitional phase. In this architecture, Operator 1 utilizes an IP-based Next Generation Network (NGN) that transports voice and signalling using protocols such as SIP and H.323, effectively supporting advanced applications and services. Operator 2, however, continues to operate a legacy network based on E1 or TDM, where signalling relies on SS7 and 43voice is transmitted as traditional TDM streams. The interface between these two domains is facilitated at a dedicated Point of Interconnect (POI), where both signalling and media gateways play pivotal roles. The signalling gateway mediates between SIP/H.323 and SS7, translating messages and ensuring seamless call setup and management across both network types.

Simultaneously, the media gateway converts voice traffic between VoIP packets and TDM streams, enabling real-time communication despite differing underlying technologies.

2.58. Globally, many advanced economies have either completed or are well underway with the migration to IP-based interconnection. Regulators across several countries, such as the Canada[58] have acknowledged the evolutionary shift towards IP technology, which enables greater network efficiencies, opportunities for network optimization, and service offerings than legacy circuit-switched technologies. The Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC), which is the body in which the regulators of the telecommunications markets in the European Union (EU) work together, has also recommended in its ‘Final Report on IP interconnection’[59] that telecom regulators in EU member states devise an appropriate interconnection regime for an all-IP world and to focus on the migration towards IP based Next Generation Networks (NGNs). IP-based interconnection not only reduces operational costs for service providers but also enhances interoperability and facilitates the rollout of next-generation communication services.

2.59. In India, however, the existing interconnection arrangements remain predominantly rooted in E1 or TDM based circuit-switched technologies.

While these legacy systems have served well in the past, they are now increasingly seen by stakeholders as inefficient and inadequate for supporting the converged, multi-service networks that modern consumers

[58] https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2012/2012-24.pdf

[59]

https://www.berec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/files/documents/erg_07_09_rept_on_ip_interconn.pdf 44and enterprises demand. Circuit-switched interconnection is inherently limited by its fixed bandwidth allocation per channel and lack of flexibility, making it less suitable for handling the dynamic and bursty nature of IP traffic. Moreover, running both legacy and IP-based systems in parallel makes telecommunications operations more complex and expensive for service providers, which can slow down innovation and reduce the quality of communication services and seamless communication experiences. IP- based telecom networks enable faster call setup times, more flexible and scalable networks, and lower costs compared to E1-based networks. They efficiently handle multiple types of traffic over a single infrastructure and simplify management. As the telecom ecosystem moves towards 5G and beyond, there is a need assess the matter of migrating to the IP-based interconnection.

2.60. Majority of the stakeholders in their submissions, during pre-consultation, have supported the subject of migration to from E1-based interconnection to the IP-based interconnection. Out of 15 stakeholders who have submitted their views, 12 stakeholders have supported the IP-based interconnection over existing E1 or TDM based interconnection. Views of many stakeholders on IP interconnection have already been collated in the above section under the heading “Examination of existing Levels of Interconnection”. Stakeholders have cited the long-term benefits of efficiency, cost savings, and service innovation. They emphasize the need for clear timelines along with a regulatory framework to facilitate the transition. However, there might be some concerns about the upfront capital expenditure required for upgrading infrastructure, clarity on port charges for IP interconnection, technical challenges involved in migration, and the risk of service disruptions during the transition period.

2.61. The graph at Figure 2.2 illustrates the percentage distribution of IP and E1 outgoing traffic for Inter-LSA & Intra-TSP wireless-to-wireless voice communication across five of India’s telecom service providers (TSP A to TSP E), based on data for the month of March 2025. This reflects the degree 45of modernization in the internal interconnection architecture across LSAs within each operator’s network.

Source: Minutes of Usage data provided by TSPs for March 2025 Figure 2.2: Technology preference in Inter-LSA & Intra-TSP Communication

2.62. This variation reflects internal preference for majority of operators for IP connectivity in comparison to E1 connectivity. Since intra-TSP inter-LSA communication is fully within the control of each provider, they may potentially face fewer coordination hurdles, facilitating faster upgrades.

2.63. The graph at Figure 2.3 illustrates the percentage share of IP and E1 outgoing traffic for inter-LSA inter-TSP wireless-to-wireless voice communication across five Indian telecom service providers (TSP1 to TSP5) for the month of March 2025.

2.64. As depicted in Figure 2.3, TSP1 carries 67% of its inter-LSA outgoing wireless traffic with other TSPs over IP networks, indicating a notable transition towards next-generation interconnection. TSP2 rely heavily on E1 connectivity, with 99% of its inter-operator traffic across LSAs routed through traditional circuit-switched infrastructure. Similarly, TSP3, TSP4, 46and TSP5 show 100% dependence on E1-based systems, reflecting no migration toward IP-based interconnection for this category of traffic.

Source: Minutes of Usage data provided by TSPs for March 2025 Figure 2.3: Technology Preference for Inter-LSA, Inter-TSP Communication

2.65. This pattern reflects that while most operators remain tied to E1 due to existing legacy systems, TSP1’s adoption of IP could point to efforts in cost optimization, scalability, and better integration with digital ecosystem. The disparity suggests varying levels of technological adaptation among operators and needs further examination.

2.66. The comparative analysis of the two graphs presented in Figure 2.2 and Figure 2.3 underscores a clear dichotomy in technology adoption based on the nature of interconnection. While intra-operator (within the same TSP) inter-LSA traffic has largely transitioned to IP-based interconnection, inter- operator (between different TSPs) inter-LSA traffic continues to rely heavily on traditional E1 circuits. This divergence highlights the need for further regulatory and industry-driven efforts to promote IP-based interconnection 47between operators, which would harmonize network efficiencies, improve quality of service, and support the sector’s ongoing digital transformation.

2.67. For interconnection over IP, fixed wireline and wireless networks are interconnected for voice and SMS traffic by adopting both electrical and optical connectivity, with standards issued by the Telecommunication Engineering Centre (TEC) titled ‘IP Based Interconnection between Service Providers Networks’[60]. Interconnection between networks uses devices such as dedicated edge routers, session border controllers, and media gateways, which perform protocol conversion and support a variety of physical interfaces.

2.68. One of the stakeholders, while recommending IP interconnection and time- bound migration to IP-based interconnection across all networks, inter alia,

stated that: “...telecom industry is undergoing a structural shift toward all-IP networks to enable high-quality services such as VoLTE, video calls, and other real-time applications. With the advent of IP networks, the TDM based circuit switched networks are being replaced with IP based packet switched core networks.

In case of IP based packet switched core networks, a single soft switch along with the required number of Access/Line Media Gateway (“LMG”) and Trunk Media Gateway (“TMG”) can replace large number of standalone TDM based switches. In fact, one soft switch may be sufficient to cater to the requirement of one or more than one LSAs. As a large number of LMGs and TMGs can be parented to a single Soft Switch, the requirement of a large number of standalone TDM switches can be done away with.

All major private operators have already migrated a substantial portion of their POIs to IP. Even the PSU operator has deployed IP- TAX Trunk Media Gateways and NGN infrastructure but continues

[60] https://tec.gov.in/pdf/IRs/TEC-SD-IT-IPI-001-01-NOV-15.pdf 48to maintain legacy TDM-based interconnection arrangements with private operators.

This dual structure leads to interoperability issues, degraded call quality (especially for VoLTE-to-VoLTE or video calls across networks), inefficient capacity utilization, and increased operational costs. Additionally, the PSU operator’s fragmented POI provisioning for fixed-line services, despite its own centralized switching architecture, continues to result in delays and network planning challenges...”

2.69. In this background and to examine these matters, stakeholders’ comments

are solicited on the following questions:

Q6. (a) Should IP-based interconnection be mandated for new interconnections in the regulatory framework? Kindly justify your response.

(b) Should TSPs be mandated to migrate existing TDM based E1 interconnection to IP-based interconnection within a specified period? If yes, suggest timelines. Kindly justify your response. v. Provisioning and augmentation of ports at POIs

2.70. The process for provisioning and augmentation of ports at Points of Interconnection (POIs) is one of the elements of ‘The Telecommunication Interconnection Regulations, 2018’. Chapter IV of the regulations provide regulatory framework for interconnection seeker and interconnection provider[61] and lays out a detailed mechanism for seeking and augmenting ports, including the initial two-year period where the requesting service provider is responsible for seeking ports to meet both incoming and

[61] In accordance with the TIR, 2018, the term "interconnection seeker" refers to the service provider that initiates a request for interconnection to another service provider, referred to as the "interconnection provider." The interconnection seeker is responsible for submitting a formal request for connectivity; the interconnection provider, upon receipt of such a request, is obligated to take this forward, provision the requisite ports, and establish the necessary connectivity for interconnection.

49outgoing traffic. After this period, or from 1st February 2018 (whichever was later), the total ports at a POI were to be converted for one-way traffic in proportion to the outgoing traffic of each service provider, averaged over the preceding three months. Subsequently, each service provider is required to seek ports only to meet the requirements of its outgoing traffic.

This framework was designed to ensure transparency, fairness, and efficiency in the allocation of network resources and to prevent disputes over capacity at interconnection points.

2.71. Some stakeholders pointed out that the principle of reciprocity in terms and conditions for interconnection is not being uniformly followed by a TSP.

It was highlighted that in many cases, such TSP continues to treat other service providers as "seekers" of interconnection long after the initial arrangements have been established.

2.72. It was further submitted by stakeholders that no service provider should be treated as a perpetual "seeker" for interconnection beyond a reasonable period, for instance two years, as this practice results in non-uniform application of cost-sharing obligations. Stakeholders suggested that the classification of some operators as “seekers” indefinitely should be discontinued and that interconnection charges and cost-sharing responsibilities should be applied on a reciprocal and non-discriminatory basis across all operators.

2.73. On the other hand, a TSP has submitted other TSPs are insisting to enter into interconnection agreements on terms dictated by them, and in case of non-agreement, refrain from signing the interconnection agreements altogether.

2.74. The aforesaid TSP further pointed out that other TSPs had approached the Authority with a request that it may be directed to implement all relevant provisions of the interconnection regulations even without execution of a formal agreement. It further stated that such practices undermine the principle of mutual agreement and reciprocity envisaged in the interconnection framework.

502.75. The Authority observes divergent views expressed by TSPs on the implementation of the seeker - provider concept and reciprocal cost- sharing obligations. The existing regulations prescribe clear procedures and timelines for provisioning of interconnection as well as the “seeker” classifications based on the requirement to seek ports to meet outgoing traffic. The litigation on this issue has already been discussed the earlier sections.

2.76. The Authority recognizes that reciprocity in interconnection arrangements is essential for ensuring non-discriminatory treatment and promoting a level playing field among all service providers. The concern of some of the TSPs that perpetual “seeker” classification may lead to inequitable cost burdens is also worth examining. At the same time, the Authority notes a TSP’s submission for implementation of interconnection provisions exactly as provided in the regulations.

2.77. In view of the above, the Authority is of the opinion that there may be a need to further examine the seeker–provider framework to ensure clarity, reciprocity, and time-bound obligations while safeguarding the commercial fairness of interconnection agreements. The matter requires examination in this consultation paper to ascertain if any modifications or clarifications are required in the existing regulatory framework to address this issue.

2.78. In light of the concerns raised, the Authority considers it important to examine whether the current process for port provisioning and augmentation remains effective in addressing the operational realities of the sector. The changing market dynamics including rising volumes of telecom traffic, migration to IP-based networks, and increasing reliance on interconnection for converged services require a more agile and responsive framework. The Authority accordingly seeks stakeholder views on whether the present timelines and compliance mechanisms are sufficient or whether modifications are warranted to enhance efficiency, strengthen accountability, reduce operational bottlenecks, and foster a more resilient and future-ready interconnection regime.

512.79. The Authority seeks to understand whether the existing provisions adequately address the dynamic needs of the industry and consumers. It needs to be examined whether the modifications are required to enhance efficiency, reduce operational complexities, and promote a more responsive interconnection regime.

2.80. In this background, stakeholders’ comments are solicited on the following

questions:

Q7. hould the existing processes of ‘provisioning and augmentation of ports at POIs’ under Chapter IV of the TIR in respect of following

need revision: a. Seeking of ports at POIs, b. Request for initial provisioning of ports, and c. Request for augmentation of POIs? Kindly provide your response with justification. vi. Review of existing Interconnection timelines

2.81. Adherence of timelines by TSPs play an important role in initial commissioning and subsequent modifications of POIs. Adhering to timelines in telecom interconnection are essential to ensure seamless connectivity, minimize network congestion, and safeguard consumer interests by prompt linking of networks across different service providers.

With the growing subscriber base, timely provision and augmentation of interconnection points prevent call failures and maintain service quality.

Regulatory mandates for defined timelines help foster fair competition among operators and create a level playing field for technological and market growth.

2.82. In pre-consultation comments, some of the telecom service providers have raised the issue of delays in the provisioning of Points of Interconnection

(POIs) by the incumbent TSPs across several licensed service areas. Despite 52the clear timelines prescribed under ‘The Telecommunication Interconnection Regulations, 2018’, stakeholders stated that in many cases POIs are not commissioned within the mandated 42 days period from the receipt of a complete request. Such delays, according to these stakeholders, disrupt the timely rollout of telecom services, hamper network expansion plans, and adversely affect the quality of service delivered to customers.

2.83. Stakeholders emphasized that interconnection with the specific TSP remains an important and obligatory requirement in the Indian telecom ecosystem, owing to its extensive network coverage and legacy connectivity base. Consequently, any delay in POI provisioning imposes a disproportionate impact on other operators, who remain unable to commence or expand services without such interconnection in place. This was viewed as creating an artificial bottleneck in service rollout and eroding the overall efficiency of the sector.

2.84. To address these concerns, some stakeholders proposed that establishing a POI with the specific TSP should not be treated as a mandatory precondition for launching or expanding voice services, particularly in cases where delay is attributable to the specific TSP. They further argued that stricter accountability measures need to be instituted to ensure adherence to the 42 days’ timeline, including the introduction of monitoring and deterrent mechanisms to deal with non-compliance.

2.85. Some of the stakeholders emphasized the need for defining clear timelines in order to avoid delay or denial of interconnection requests. It was suggested that a strengthened dispute resolution mechanism and adoption of international best practices would help in ensuring a fair and efficient interconnection framework.

2.86. A view was expressed that strict adherence to prescribed POI (Point of Interconnection) commissioning timelines must be enforced uniformly across all operators. Stakeholders pointed out that the existing regulatory framework may not be sufficient to prevent anti-competitive practices, such as dominant operators imposing high charges or deliberately delaying 53interconnection agreements. It was suggested that these provisions may require review to enable streamlined dispute resolution processes and a level playing field for all service providers.

2.87. It was further highlighted that certain operators have faced delays in service rollout on account of non-adherence to prescribed interconnection timelines by other TSPs. To address this, some stakeholders proposed that the Authority may establish a reporting system to monitor the status of all interconnection requests, publish compliance reports of TSPs periodically, and impose deterrent measures in cases of unjustified delay.

2.88. It was also pointed out that while the Telecommunication Interconnection Regulations, 2018 prescribe timelines for establishing POIs, multiple acceptance test procedures are required for different types of traffic and for capacity augmentation. Stakeholders observed that in some cases, such as with incumbent TSPs, the process takes much longer time, sometimes extending to several months, due to legacy procedures being followed. It was suggested that the Authority may examine methods to streamline these processes and reduce avoidable delays.

2.89. As per the existing interconnection framework, the Authority has, from time to time, notified several regulations that collectively prescribe the detailed procedures and corresponding timelines to be followed by service providers in matters relating to interconnection. These regulatory measures are aimed at ensuring transparency, fairness, and uniformity in the establishment and augmentation of Points of Interconnection (POIs), execution of interconnection agreements, settlement of charges, and provisioning and augmentation of capacity.

2.90. Regulations among these are ‘The Telecommunication Interconnection Regulations, 2018’, which, inter-alia, lay down the timelines and processes for provisioning and augmentation of POIs; the Telecommunication Interconnection (Reference Interconnect Offer) Regulations, 2002, which, inter-alia, mandate the preparation and publication of Reference Interconnect Offers along with various times lines by service providers with 54‘significant market power’ status; and the Telecommunication Interconnection (Charges and Revenue Sharing) Regulations, 2001, which provide the framework for determination of interconnection charges and revenue sharing arrangements. Collectively, the above said regulations provide an interconnection framework prescribing detailed timelines for different procedural and commercial operations with the intent of minimizing disputes, curbing delays, and promoting a level playing field across service providers. The prescribed procedures and corresponding timelines under these regulations are given in detail in the Annexure-X.

2.91. The Authority has observed that delays in interconnection provisioning undermine the intended objectives of the interconnection regulations, which were designed to bring about transparency, predictability, and uniformity in interconnection processes. Timely establishment of POIs is central to ensuring network readiness, avoiding congestion, safeguarding consumer interest, and promoting fair competition. Repeated breaches of prescribed timelines risk creating inefficiencies and disputes, which, if left unaddressed, may have far-reaching effects on service quality and sectoral growth.

2.92. In this background, and to further examine this matter, stakeholders’

comments are solicited on the following question:

Q8. Should the existing framework for Interconnection process and timelines, as provided in the existing TRAI regulations including, The Telecommunication Interconnection Regulations (TIR) 2018, The Telecommunication Interconnection (RIO) Regulations, 2002, and The Telecommunication Interconnection (Charges and Revenue Sharing) Regulation 2001 be revised or continued.

Kindly indicate challenges, if any, currently being faced in the implementation of the framework by the TSPs and their possible remedies.

Kindly provide your response with detailed justifications.

55vii. Review of existing procedure of disconnection and surrender of POIs

2.93. ‘The Telecommunication Interconnection Regulations, 2018’[62] established a structured framework for the disconnection of Points of Interconnection

(POIs) between telecom service providers. Under these regulations, a TSP intending to disconnect a POI must first issue a show-cause notice of fifteen working days to the other party, clearly stating the reasons for the proposed disconnection. If the response is unsatisfactory or absent, the initiating TSP is then required to provide a subsequent fifteen working days’ notice specifying the date of disconnection. This two-tiered notice system aims to ensure transparency and provide adequate time for dispute resolution, thereby safeguarding the interests of the parties involved by minimizing service disruptions. It may be noted that the disconnection is initiated by a TSP in case of contravention of the provisions of the regulations or agreement by other TSP which, inter-alia, includes non-payment of dues.

2.94. Despite the provisions for disconnection of Points of Interconnection (POIs) in ‘The Telecommunication Interconnection Regulations, 2018’, several stakeholders have raised concerns about issues related to the surrender process for POI. Many stakeholders have specifically pointed out the absence of a clearly defined regulatory framework for the surrender of all or partial ports or the POI itself. Stakeholders emphasize that a formal exit or surrender process should be clearly articulated within the regulatory framework. The Authority understands that in certain situations such as reduction in traffic between the operators, withdrawal of services from certain areas by an operator, re-routing of traffic, etc. there may be a requirement for surrendering a part or whole of the POIs and this is distinct in nature from the disconnection of POI due to contravention of regulations and non-compliance of agreement, as mentioned in para above.

[62] https://www.trai.gov.in/release-publication/regulations/amendments-page/7352

562.95. Given the dynamic nature of the telecom sector including the introduction of new technologies and evolving service requirements it is prudent to reassess the existing provisions.

2.96. In their response to the pre-consultation paper, stakeholders suggested for the introduction of surrender procedures, outlining clear criteria, processes, charges, and timelines for the voluntary surrender of POIs.

Additionally, stipulating a minimum retention period prior to allowing a surrender request would support stable service continuity while ensuring operational flexibility.

2.97. In view of this, it will be appropriate to get stakeholders’ comments to reassess and revise, the existing disconnection procedure and to introduce surrender procedure for POI, if required.

2.98. In this background, stakeholders’ comments are solicited on the following

questions:

Q9. Whether there is a need to revise the existing process of disconnection of POIs as provided in the regulation 11 of the Telecommunication Interconnection Regulations (TIR) 2018? If yes, what specific changes should be done in the disconnection procedure? Kindly justify your response.

Q10. Is there a need to introduce a process for the surrender or closure of POIs in the regulatory framework? If yes, what should be the criteria, procedure, charges, and timelines, including the minimum retention period for POIs before a surrender or closure request can be made? Kindly justify your response.

viii. Provision of Bank Guarantee

572.99. Regulation 5 of the Telecommunication Interconnection Regulations, 2018[63], addresses the requirement for furnishing a bank guarantee[64] by one telecom service provider (TSP) to another as a security measure during the establishment of interconnection. These bank guarantees are generally intended to safeguard the interests of the interconnection provider against potential financial defaults such as non-payment of interconnection usage charges (IUC) or other commercial liabilities that may arise under the interconnection arrangement.

2.100. As per the sub-regulation (1) of regulation 5 of TIR-2018, the bank guarantee is to be furnished for a period of six months from the date of initial interconnection, covering the total number of ports sought during this period, if demanded by the provider. Bank guarantee is also to be furnished for the interconnection usage charges payable by a service provider. For interconnection usage charges, the process to determine the liability of the service provider to furnish bank guarantee has been provided in the sub-regulation (2) of regulation 5 of TIR-2018. At the end of every six-month period, the net payable IUC for the previous two months is calculated, and the service provider with a net payment liability furnishes a bank guarantee equivalent to that amount for the ensuing six months.

This rolling mechanism ensures that the bank guarantee amount dynamically reflects the actual interconnection traffic and financial exposure, thereby aligning risk coverage to current operating liabilities.

2.101. The ceiling on the bank guarantee per E1 link at a Point of Interconnection is specified as ₹ 8,00,000 multiplied by the applicable IUC per minute for the traffic carried on that E1 link. This formula introduces greater transparency and uniformity in determining the amount of bank guarantee and thereby ensuring financial security required for interconnection between TSPs.

[63] https://www.trai.gov.in/release-publication/regulations/amendments-page/7352

[64] A bank guarantee is a formal assurance provided by a bank on behalf of its customer, promising to cover financial or contractual obligations if the customer fails to fulfil them. In essence, if the customer defaults, the bank will pay the beneficiary, providing a safety net for the third party involved.

582.102. While the practice of furnishing bank guarantees is a long-standing commercial safeguard in inter-operator agreements, there has been variation in the quantum and applicability of such guarantees across different TSPs. These changes have brought to the fore questions regarding the adequacy and relevance of the existing provisions on bank guarantees and the need to further examine this matter.

2.103. One of the TSPs, during pre-consultation, in its comments raised the issue related to bank guarantee. The concerned TSP, inter-alia, stated that: “…before TIR 2018, BSNL was not required to submit Bank Guarantees to other TSPs and BSNL sought Bank Guarantees from other TSPs suitably to protect its receivables.

From the BSNL perspective, the issue of Bank Guarantee needs immediate attention. And not only IUC, the Bank Guarantee should also include other interconnection charges and outstanding…”

2.104. Another TSPs also gave its comments during pre-consultation stage on the issue of bank guarantee. The concerned TSP, inter-alia, stated that: “…One of the most important aspects of IP interconnections would be to revise the existing charges as well as to prescribe a ceiling on all types of interconnection charges and other financial conditions including set up costs, port charges, NPLC charges and Bank Guarantees. The charges / financial conditions must have a direct and clear linkage to actual usage. We recommend that any prescribed formulae to arrive at the charges and / or Bank Guarantees must be clear and concise with no room for any misinterpretations leading to a higher amount than intended by the Authority…”

2.105. In the above context, stakeholders’ comments are solicited on the following

question:

59Q11. In order to safeguard the interest of TSPs arising due to financial obligations of interconnection, is there a requirement for furnishing bank guarantee by one TSP to the other TSP? If yes, please provide the process and methodology for determining the initial bank guarantee amount and any subsequent bank guarantee amount, if required.

Kindly justify your response. ix. Standardizing procedures for delayed IUC payments

2.106. Interconnection Usage Charges (IUC) payments are made by one telecom service provider (TSP) to another for the use of its network to originate, carry, or terminate voice calls and SMSs. Timely settlement of these charges is essential for maintaining financial discipline, ensuring smooth inter-operator relationships, and supporting the overall stability of the telecom sector. However, delays in IUC payments and other interconnection-related payments could possibly lead to disputes, affect cash flow issues, and operational inefficiencies among the TSPs.

2.107. Presently, interconnect agreements between TSPs may include provisions for penal interest in case of delayed payments, but these terms are not uniform.

2.108. This absence of a standardized framework leads to inconsistent enforcement, inter-operator disputes, and an uneven playing field. Some of the TSPs have called for equitable, transparent, and reciprocal settlement mechanisms.

2.109. Some of the stakeholders submitted that the applicable interest rate for delayed payments should be reviewed and benchmarked. Benchmarking is usually done to a widely recognized financial indicator, such as the State 60Bank of India’s (SBI) Marginal Cost of fund-based Lending Rate (MCLR)[65] plus a reasonable margin (e.g., 2%), to ensure that the rate is fair, market- linked, and adjusts with prevailing economic conditions. License agreement of Department of Telecommunications for unified license[66] also provides for interest on delayed payment at a rate which is 2 % above the MCLR of State Bank of India.

2.110. Some other stakeholders also submitted that linking the penal interest rate to a transparent, external benchmark discourages delays, compensates the affected party adequately, and maintains regulatory consistency.

2.111. In this background, stakeholders’ comments are solicited on the following

question:

Q12. Should a procedure be established for addressing delays in the payment of interconnection-related charges? If yes, what should be the procedure to address such delays? Kindly provide your response with justification.

x. Financial Disincentive Framework

2.112. Financial disincentive (FD) is a monetary amount imposed on service providers by TRAI for non-compliance of TRAI regulations. The financial disincentive framework provided in the Telecommunication Interconnection Regulations, 2018[67], was designed to ensure timely and fair compliance by service providers with interconnection requirements.

This framework relied on financial disincentive to address failures such as not entering into interconnection agreements within the stipulated

[65] Marginal Cost of Funds-based Lending Rate (MCLR) is the minimum interest rate below which a bank is not permitted to lend loans.

[66] https://dot.gov.in/sites/default/files/Compendium-UL- AGREEMENT%20updated%20up%20to%2031032024.pdf?download=1

[67] https://www.trai.gov.in/release-publication/regulations/amendments-page/7352 61timelines, delays in providing initial Points of Interconnection (POIs), failure to augment POIs as required, and other violations of regulatory clauses.

2.113. These regulations provides that if any service provider contravenes the provisions of these regulations, it shall be liable to pay an amount, by way of financial disincentive not exceeding rupees one lakh per day per licensed service area, as the Authority may direct.

2.114. During the pre-consultation, stakeholders have not directly expressed views on the quantum and nature of financial disincentive, but many stakeholders have highlighted the need for incorporating effective and efficient mechanisms for dispute resolution in the matters of interconnections.

2.115. In this background, stakeholders’ comments are solicited on the following

question:

Q13. Is there a need to revise the financial disincentive framework as

provided in these regulations. If yes, what specific changes should be done? Kindly justify your response.

B.2 Short Message Services (SMS) Termination Charges Regulations, 2013

2.116. SMS termination charges are the charges that are payable by the originating access provider to the terminating access provider for each SMS delivered.

2.117. Initially termination charges for SMS were kept under forbearance and were governed by ‘The Telecommunication Interconnection Usage Charges Regulation, 2003’. Subsequently, ‘The Telecommunication Interconnection Usage Charges (Tenth Amendment) Regulations, 2009’ contained a schedule specifically mentioning that SMS termination charges would be kept under forbearance. The afore-mentioned schedule was as follows:

62“Interconnect Usage Charge (IUC) for Short Message Service (SMS) - Interconnect Usage Charge (IUC) for Short Message Service (SMS)

shall be under forbearance:

Provided that such charges shall be transparent, reciprocal and non-discriminatory"

2.118. The issue of IUC for SMS was raised in the consultation paper dated 27th April 2011, inviting detailed inputs from stakeholders. Following this, stakeholders submitted their comments and counter-comments, providing diverse perspectives on the matter. In a continued effort to gather comprehensive data, the Authority, vide its letter dated 13th December 2012, again specifically asked all service providers about international practices concerning SMS termination charges, the specific network elements utilized for providing SMS termination, relevant cost data, and the costing methodology employed for estimating SMS termination charges.

Many of the service providers reiterated their prior stand of "Bill and Keep" for SMS termination charges, a system where each operator bears its own costs for terminating messages. In support of their "Bill and Keep" suggestion, they also submitted various international practices illustrating its implementation. These service providers submitted that if it is decided to prescribe an SMS termination charge, it should be strictly based on cost, and according to their calculations, it should be less than 1 paisa per SMS.

On the other hand, some of the TSPs were of the view that the termination charge for all types of SMS should be prescribed at a level that allowed the terminating operator not only to recover their costs but also to successfully address the pervasive concerns of SPAM and pesky SMSs.

2.119. The policy of forbearance on SMS termination charge had worked satisfactorily in the past when the use of SMS by the subscriber was limited. In the changed circumstances, there had been an exponential increase in the number of commercial SMSs, a large imbalance in SMS traffic between the networks of interconnecting service providers, unilateral imposition of SMS termination charge and in case of non-agreement, 63disconnection by some dominant service providers and growing litigations amongst the service providers. This imbalance, coupled with the imposition of SMS termination charges and, in cases of non-agreement, disconnection by some of the service providers, led to growing litigations amongst the service providers. Recognizing these challenges, the policy of forbearance in SMS termination charges was reviewed and a cost-based SMS termination charge was prescribed to bring stability and fairness to the market.

2.120. Subsequently, ‘The Short Message Services (SMS) Termination Charges Regulations, 2013[68],’ issued on 24th May, 2013 came into force on 1st June, 2013. These regulations prescribe a cost-based SMS Termination Charge as 2 paise per SMS (for domestic SMS) to be paid by originating Access Provider to the terminating Access Provider. The regulations further provide that termination charges for international incoming SMS shall be under forbearance.

2.121. In addition to the above termination charge of ₹0.02 (2 paise) per SMS, ‘The Telecom Commercial Communications Customer Preference Regulations, 2018’ dated 19th July 2018 (as amended from time to time) provides for the

following: “Terminating Access Provider (TAP) may charge Originating Access Provider (OAP) for Commercial communication messages as

following:

(1) Upto ₹ 0.05 (five paisa only) for each promotional SMS;

(2) Upto ₹ 0.05 (five paisa only) for each service SMS;

(3) Upto ₹ 0.05 (five paisa only) for each Transactional SMS;.

Provided that there shall be no Service SMS charge on:

(i) any message transmitted by or on the directions of the Central Government or State Government;

[68] https://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/2024- 09/201305240356215478392English_SMS_Regulation_24.05.pdf 64(ii) any message transmitted by or on the directions of bodies established under the Constitution;

(iii) any message transmitted by or on the directions of the Authority;

(iv) any message transmitted by any agency authorized by the Authority from time to time;”

2.122. According to para 13 of the explanatory memorandum to The Short Message Services (SMS) Termination Charges Regulations, 2013: “...some of the large Telecom Service Providers (TSP) submitted that the smaller operators are selling bulk SMSs to the telemarketers at comparatively cheap price. Their contention is that the revenue earned by such service providers through the sale of bulk SMS is primarily because they are able to send large number of A2P SMS to their subscribers. As their subscriber base is large compared to the subscriber base of such service providers, there is a substantial traffic imbalance between the two networks. These service providers further contended that as such service providers are earning revenue because of the investment done by them for acquiring customers and building the networks, in their opinion they should also be given a part of such revenue. To take care of such externalities and to ensure that the service providers continue to invest in building up the networks, the Authority had earlier prescribed a promotional SMS charge of Re.0.05 on promotional SMS sent by registered telemarketer in the Telecom Commercial Communications Customer Preference Regulations, 2010 (6 of

2010). While doing this exercise, the Authority has observed that apart from promotional SMSs, there is a large traffic imbalance between different networks on account of transactional SMSs also.

Hence, with these amendments, the Authority has also simultaneously amended the Telecom Commercial Communications Customer Preference Regulations, 2010 (6 of

652010) to prescribe a transactional SMS charge of Re.0.05 per transactional SMS...”.

Emergence of over-the-top (OTT) application-based messaging

2.123. As stated above, the existing 2 paise per SMS charge was established in 2013, a period different from today's digital environment. Back then, SMS remained a primary mode of short-form communication, and the regulatory focus was on ensuring cost recovery and preventing market from operator- imposed charges.

Source: SMS reports submitted by TSPs Figure 2.4: A2P Originating SMS per subscriber per month.

2.124. The graph at Figure 2.4 illustrates the quarterly trend in the average number of A2P (Application-to-Person) originating SMS per subscriber per month from March 2021 to June 2025.

2.125. The graph at Figure 2.4 shows A2P SMS per user per month rising from around 71 in March 2021 to a peak of nearly 103 by June 2025, indicating strong growth, especially in the second half of the year. This surge aligns with increased reliance on SMS for digital services, financial transactions, 66and e-commerce, driven by OTPs, alerts, and two factor authentication.

A2P SMS remains preferred for its wide reach, device agnosticism, and reliability, especially in areas with low smartphone penetration or limited internet access.

Source: SMS reports submitted by TSPs Figure 2.5: P2P Originating SMS per Subscriber per Month

2.126. The graph at Figure 2.5 illustrates the quarterly trend in the average number of P2P (Person-to-Person) originating SMS per subscriber per month from March 2021 to June 2025.

2.127. The graph at Figure 2.5 reaffirms that P2P SMS usage in India remains minimal and flat, with monthly volumes ranging between 8 and 12 messages per user throughout March 2021 to June 2025. A slight spike in September in 2021 and 2024 could be driven by major cultural and social events like Raksha Bandhan, Ganesh Chaturthi, Onam, the start of academic sessions, and the onset of the wedding season all prompting personal greetings and logistical coordination via SMS. Overall, the graph displays a fall in number of SMS per subscriber per month. With the rise of OTT application-based messaging services, there has been a shift from 67traditional SMS to these platforms, as users may be preferring options like WhatsApp and Telegram for feature-rich, real-time communication. While P2P SMS continue to find usage in the legacy devices comprising of keypad type mobile phones and feature phones, allowing users to send SMS, OTT application-based messaging services are becoming increasingly popular among smart phone users. Overall, user behaviour is moving toward more interactive and versatile platforms.

Source: SMS reports submitted by major TSPs Figure 2.6: A2P SMS Traffic

2.128. The graph at Figure 2.6 illustrates the quarterly trend of Application-to- Person (A2P) originating and terminating SMS traffic across five telecom service providers (TSP1 to TSP5) from December 2023 to December 2024.

TSP1 consistently handles the largest share of A2P traffic, with terminating traffic reaching around 260 billion and originating traffic around 220 billion in September 2024. The asymmetry between originating and terminating SMS traffic handled by various TSPs is also visible in the Figure 2.6.

2.129. Some of the TSPs show relatively higher originating volumes of A2P SMS traffic than terminating ones whereas other TSPs show reverse of it i.e.

68higher terminating A2P SMS traffic volumes than the originating A2P SMS traffic volumes. The overall upward trend of A2P SMS traffic, especially the spike in September 2024, aligns with seasonal demands as explained above. It is evident that A2P messaging continues to grow due to its important utility in services like OTPs, alerts, two factor authentication, and commercial communication.

2.130. It is pertinent to mention that there are certain other wireline TSPs primarily catering to the enterprise segment. These service providers provide bulk SMS facilities to their enterprise customers including telemarketers.

Source: SMS reports submitted by major TSPs Figure 2.7: P2P SMS Traffic

2.131. The graph at Figure 2.7 illustrates the quarterly trend of Person-to-Person

(P2P) SMS traffic, both originating and terminating, across five telecom service providers (TSP1 to TSP5) for the period from December 2023 to December 2024. As can be seen from Figure 2.7, the volume of originating P2P SMS traffic is comparable to the terminating P2P SMS traffic for majority of TSPs, reflecting the two-way symmetrical nature of P2P SMS communication.

692.132. The graph at Figure 2.7 illustrates that the TSP3 and TSP4 maintain moderate traffic as compared to the TSP 1 and TSP2, while TSP5 carries the least traffic in this space. However, compared to A2P SMS volumes, the P2P SMS volumes are significantly lower. Nonetheless, P2P traffic has shown relative stability over the year, with minor quarter-to-quarter fluctuations.

i. Review of SMS termination charges

2.133. The Short Message Service (SMS) continues to serve as an important mode of communication, particularly for critical functions such as one-time passwords, banking and transaction alerts, e-commerce order and delivery notifications, and governments’ citizen-centric services notifications even as data-based application messaging platforms have gained widespread popularity. In this context, the current SMS termination charge of 2 paise per SMS has remained unchanged for a quite some time. The interconnection framework is designed to ensure fair compensation to service providers for delivering messages that originate from other networks, while also fostering efficiency, competition, and protection of consumer interests. However, with the telecom industry undergoing technological transformation, marked by a change from legacy 2G and 3G networks to modern IP-based 4G and 5G infrastructures, the cost dynamics associated with SMS termination might have changed.

2.134. Furthermore, the increasing reliance on SMS traffic, especially by enterprises and public service providers, has led to a surge in bulk SMS usage. This raises important questions about need to examine whether the current termination charge remain reasonable and equitable, both in terms of recovering actual costs and ensuring a level playing field for market participants. There is also a need to examine if the existing charge structure creates any unintended disincentives for innovation and service quality.

702.135. In order to protect the interests of the consumers and also acknowledging the submission of some service providers that, SMS Termination Charges should be cost-based and adhere to the "work done" principle, the Authority had prescribed a cost-based SMS termination charge of ₹ 0.02 (Paise 2 only) per SMS. This decision aimed to standardize the termination charge and reduce disputes.

2.136. Despite these regulatory efforts, several stakeholders have raised issues highlighting the concerns regarding efficacy and continued relevance of the existing SMS termination charge regime.

2.137. With the per-SMS termination charge of 2 paise, the volume of SMS traffic across different networks could lead to administrative overheads for billing, reconciliation, and dispute resolution between service providers. These concerns indicate a need to assess and further review the existing regulatory framework, if required.

2.138. Various stakeholders have commented for SMS termination charges to be cost based. They have also commented for SMS termination charges to be a tool for deterrence of spam and unsolicited commercial communication.

One of the stakeholders has commented that a TSP who has essentially established only SMSC may not be compared with the TSPs who have established BTS/ BSC/ MSC and huge mobile network and such TSPs should be liable to pay proportionately more termination charges to mobile/GMSC TSPs.

2.139. As discussed above in para 2.121, the subject matters of A2P promotional, service and transactional SMSs along with those related with unsolicited commercial communication such as spam SMSs are dealt under ‘The Telecom Commercial Communications Customer Preference Regulations, 2018’ (as amended from time to time), present consultation does not envisage the review of these regulations.

2.140. In view of these evolving market and technological conditions, stakeholders’ comments are solicited on the following question to examine the SMS 71termination charges prescribed by ‘The Short Message Services (SMS) Termination Charges Regulations, 2013’:

Q14. Is there a need to revise the existing SMS termination charge? If yes, what are the considerations necessitating such a revision? If not, kindly provide justification. ii. SMS Carriage charges when NLDO carries SMS between LSAs

2.141. The SMS Termination Charges Regulations, 2013, were primarily framed in an era when SMS was a widely used mode of person-to-person (P2P) communication. At that time, the Authority regulated termination charges for SMSs to prevent any anti-competitive practices among telecom service providers (TSPs). However, the regulatory framework did not explicitly prescribe charges for SMS carriage by National Long-Distance Operators

(NLDOs), particularly in cases where messages are relayed across different Licensed Service Areas (LSAs). With changing traffic patterns and volume of SMS traffic, it requires an examination of this subject from regulatory perspective.

2.142. One of the stakeholders in its comments during pre-consultation submitted

following: “…Regulation doesn't provide for SMS carriage charges, in case NLO operator carries the SMS over NLDO's signalling network from originating access provider and hands over to the terminating access provider in a different LSA. This poses challenges for service providers intending to take single/multiple LSA authorisation to serve niche use cases but, without intending to build a pan-India interconnected NLD network…”

2.143. Moreover, as the Authority continues its broader review of interconnection frameworks in light of technological advancements and convergence of services, it becomes pertinent to assess whether SMS carriage (akin to voice 72carriage handled by NLDOs) requires a cost-based charging mechanism.

Any such consideration must be carefully evaluated in terms of recovery of cost involved, market competitiveness, and the long-term sustainability of SMS. Establishing clarity on whether and how SMS carriage charges should be determined will not only reduce inter-operator disputes but also contribute to fair revenue-sharing arrangements.

2.144. Accordingly, stakeholders’ views are being solicited to examine whether there is a need to prescribe SMS carriage charges for NLDOs carrying messages between LSAs. For terminating SMS to the subscriber, both the services of the TSP serving the subscriber and the involvement of the NLD operator are essential, as this SMS traffic can only be carried by the NLD operator. If such charges are indeed needed, the Authority seeks to examine this issue in greater depth and understand the appropriate cost- based methodology or market benchmarks that should guide determination of charges. Conversely, if stakeholders believe that no such charges are necessary, their justification will assist in largely reinforcing the current regulatory position.

2.145. In view of this background, stakeholders’ comments are solicited on the

following question:

Q15. Is there a need to prescribe SMS carriage charges when an NLDO carries SMS between the LSAs? If yes, what principles and methodology should apply? If not, kindly provide justification.

B.3 Intelligent Network Services in Multi-Operator and Multi-Network Scenario Regulations, 2006

2.146. The Intelligent Network Services in Multi-Operator and Multi-Network Scenario Regulations, 2006, along with its amendment issued in 2012, laid down the framework for the provision and interconnection of telecom services that go beyond basic voice and data. A decision dated 5th December 2007 was issued, specifying that for all IN based free phone calls from any network, free phone service provider shall pay ₹ 0.52 to the originating 73service provider. These regulations were important at a time when services like Freephone (toll-free numbers), Universal Access Number, and Premium Rate Services (PRS) were gaining traction, requiring seamless interaction between different network operators to ensure end-to-end connectivity and service delivery. The primary objective was to facilitate the widespread availability of IN services, promote fair competition, and safeguard consumer interests in a burgeoning multi-operator environment. These regulations addressed aspects like points of interconnection, technical standards, and commercial principles to ensure that subscribers of one service provider could access IN services provided by another service provider.

2.147. However, the telecommunications landscape has undergone transformation since 2006 and even since the 2012 amendment. The advent of high-speed data networks (4G/5G), the adoption of Over-the-Top

(OTT) communication services, and the move towards cloud-native architectures have reshaped how telecom services are designed, delivered, and consumed. These technological advancements and market dynamics may necessitate a comprehensive review of the existing IN regulations to assess their continued relevance, effectiveness, and ability to accommodate future innovations while ensuring continued consumer access and fair competition. In this regard, issues to be discussed are as follows:

i. Access charges

2.148. The Intelligent Network Services in Multi-Operator and Multi-Network Scenario Regulations, 2006, were established to enable seamless provision of intelligent network (IN) services such as free phone (toll-free) and universal access number etc. across multiple operators and networks in India. One of the aspects of these regulations is the facilitation of interconnection agreements and the specification of access charges to ensure fair compensation for network usage by all parties involved.

Specifically, the Authority’s decision dated 5th December 2007 in respect of these regulations, inter-alia, mandated that the free phone service provider 74pay an access charge of ₹ 0.52 per minute to the originating service provider for every IN-based free phone call, as given below:

(i) “For all IN based free phone call from any network, free phone service provider shall pay ₹ 0.52 to the originating service provider.

It also includes calls originating from national/international roaming subscribers. This access charge will be applicable to those service providers who have not entered into agreement till date. It will not affect in any manner the charges already mutually negotiated between the service providers.

(ii) Originating service provider shall handover free phone call to free phone service provider at existing point of interconnection.

(iii) All the service providers who have not entered into agreement for IN based free phone services till date are directed to enter into agreement in the framework of above decision or mutual agreement within 15 days of this decision i.e. before 20.12.2007 and submit agreement to the Authority for registration within 15 days from the date of entering into such agreement.

(iv) All the service providers who have already entered into agreement on or before 15.11.2007, they are directed to send compliance of implementation to the Authority on or before 15.12.2007.

Compliance of implementation of agreement signed after

15.11.2007 shall also reach to the Authority within 30 days from the date of entering into such agreement.”

2.149. During pre-consultation process, few stakeholders gave comments on the IN regulations. One of the stakeholders suggested to revise the current IUC of ₹ 0.52.

2.150. There have been changes in network technologies, cost structures, and traffic volumes, including the proliferation of IP-based networks and the declining relative importance of traditional voice and IN-based services since 2006 when these regulations first came into effect. These developments may have altered the cost dynamics underlying the original 75₹ 0.52 access charge. Furthermore, the current regulatory framework allows for mutual negotiation of charges, but in cases where such agreements are not reached, the prescribed access charge serves as the default. This raises the question of whether the existing benchmark remains appropriate or requires revision to better reflect present-day realities.

2.151. Given these factors, it is necessary to examine whether the ₹ 0.52 access charge continues to serve its intended purpose of fair compensation and efficient network utilization, or if a revision is required.

ii. Challenges in IN Interconnection

2.152. The 2006 IN Regulations, along with the 2012 amendment, prescribed technical guidelines and operational procedures for interconnecting Intelligent Network platforms between different service providers. These

regulations provided that: “...network equipment (including circuit or packet switches) to conform to the International Telecommunication Union and Telecommunication Engineering Centre standards and Standards of the industry. - All Eligible Service Providers providing the Intelligent Network Services in Multi-Operator Multi-Network scenario shall use such type of network equipment (including circuit or packet switches) which conform to the International Telecommunication Union and Telecommunication Engineering Centre standards and

standards of the industry:

Provided that in the case of new technologies where no standards have been determined, all Eligible Service Providers shall deploy type of network equipment (including circuit or packet switches) approved by the Central Government and the Licensor...”

762.153. These guidelines were intended to facilitate the smooth exchange of signalling information and service logic necessary for routing and billing IN calls. Such procedures often involve establishing physical links, configuring signalling points (e.g., Signalling Transfer Points - STPs), and agreeing on technical parameters for message exchange, often relying on legacy SS7 (Signalling System No. 7) protocols.

2.154. However, as the networks and technologies transition to IP-based and virtualized infrastructures (e.g., IMS[69], NFV[70]), the implementation of these interconnection arrangements may present various technical and operational challenges for service providers. These might stem from the complexity of integrating diverse legacy IN platforms, managing different versions of signalling protocols, troubleshooting call flows across multiple network domains, or dealing with issues related to fraud detection and prevention in a multi-operator environment.

2.155. Therefore, in order to examine this matter further needs identification of technical and operational issues experienced by operators and gather their suggestions for practical improvements, potentially involving updated technical standards, streamlined processes, or greater flexibility in implementation, stakeholders’ comments are solicited on the following

questions:

Q16. Is there a need to revise the existing access charge to be paid by the service provider to the originating provider for IN services? If yes,

[69] IMS stands for IP Multimedia Subsystem. It is a standardized architectural framework designed to deliver multimedia communication services such as voice, video, and text messaging over IP (Internet Protocol) networks. IMS was originally specified by the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) for use in next-generation mobile networks but is now used in both mobile and fixed-line networks.

[70] Network Function Virtualization (NFV) in telecom is a network architecture concept that replaces traditional, dedicated hardware appliances such as routers, firewalls, and load balancers with software- based network functions running on standard, commodity servers or cloud infrastructure. These software-based functions can be deployed, managed, and scaled more flexibly and cost-effectively than physical devices. NFV allows telecom operators to quickly roll out new services, respond to changing network demands, and reduce both capital and operational expenses by eliminating the need for specialized hardware. This approach supports the growing needs of modern telecommunications, especially with the rise of 5G, IoT, and increasing data traffic.

77kindly provide detailed explanation; if not, kindly provide justification.

Q17. Are there any difficulties that service providers encounter in complying with existing IN Regulations, 2006 in Multi-Operator and Multi-Network Scenario? Kindly describe these challenges in detail and suggest possible regulatory remedial measures to overcome these challenges.

B.4 The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Transit Charges for BSNL's Cell One Terminating Traffic) Regulations, 2005

2.156. The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Transit Charges for BSNL’s CellOne Terminating Traffic) Regulations 2005, issued on 8th June 2005, emerged from dispute between M/s BSNL and private cellular operators over transit charges levied by M/s BSNL for terminating calls on its CellOne network.

2.157. Prior to 2005, M/s BSNL imposed a transit charge of 19 paise per minute on cellular operators for routing calls through its PSTN switches to reach CellOne subscribers. This practice was challenged by the Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI) in Petition No. 20/2004, arguing that the charges were discriminatory and violated principles of fair interconnectivity.

2.158. Hon’ble TDSAT, in its order dated 3rd May 2005, ruled that M/s BSNL could not levy transit charges under such circumstances, emphasizing the need for a level playing field and directing to formalize this decision into regulations. After examining the issue, these regulations were issued, explicitly prohibiting transit charges for calls where the MSCs of BSNL’s CellOne and private operators were interconnected through the same BSNL switch.

2.159. These regulations were made effective from retrospective date i.e. date of Hon’ble TDSAT's order dated 3rd May 2005.

782.160. During the pre-consultation phase of this consultation process, none of the stakeholders have given comments concerning these regulations.

2.161. In this background, stakeholders’ comments are solicited on the following

question:

Q18. Is there a need to revise the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Transit Charges for Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited's CellOne Terminating Traffic) Regulation, 2005? Kindly provide your response with justification.

B.5 The Telecommunication Interconnection Usage Charges Regulations, 2003

2.162. The Authority established a regulatory framework for Interconnection Usage Charges through ‘The Telecommunication Interconnection Usage Charges (IUC) Regulations, 2003 (1 of 2003)’[71] dated 24th January 2003.

The main objective of these regulations was to prescribe a framework for sharing of revenues between originating, transit, and terminating networks.

2.163. Recognizing the need for enhanced clarity and operational ease, ‘The Telecommunication Interconnection Usage Charges Regulations, 2003 (4 of 2003),’[72] were issued on 29th October 2003, which superseded the earlier regulations and became the principal regulatory instrument governing IUC in India.

2.164. Since their implementation, these regulations have been amended sixteen times, the latest being notified on 17th April 2020[73], transitioned international termination charges into a sort of forbearance regime ranging between ₹ 0.35 and ₹ 0.65 per minute, while mandating non-discriminatory access across standalone and integrated operators. Earlier amendments,

[71] https://www.trai.gov.in/release-publication/regulations/amendments-page/7220

[72] https://www.trai.gov.in/release-publication/regulations/amendments-page/7233

[73] https://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/2024-09/Regulations_17042020.pdf 79including the eleventh and twelfth in 2015, addressed termination, carriage charges and evolving traffic profile. As highlighted in consultation paper on ‘Review of Interconnection Usage Charges’[74] dated 5th August 2016, the IUC regime is an integral part of the regulatory framework for the telecom sector, intended to ensure that inter-operator payments are cost-based, promote competition, and ultimately benefit consumers by enabling affordable and efficient access to telecommunication services.

2.165. The Telecommunication Interconnection Usage Charges (IUC) Regulations, 2003 introduced an element-based charging methodology, wherein various charges were individually prescribed in detailed schedules attached to the regulations. Origination charges, transit charges, carriage charges, transit carriage charges, termination charges, and international termination

charges have been explained below: i. Origination Charges: The calling party’s access provider collects call charges from the calling party (i.e., the subscriber) as per the applicable tariff. From the amount so collected from the subscriber, the access provider has to pay termination charges to the called party’s access provider and carriage charges (in case of an inter- circle call) to the NLDO. The access provider retains the balance amount to cover the cost of originating the call. The amount so retained by the calling party’s access provider is called an origination charge. In essence, these are the charges incurred by the originating network (the network from which a call is initiated) for handling the initial segment of the call.

ii. Carriage Charge: Carriage charge means the charges for carrying telecommunication traffic (voice and SMS) by a telecom service provider on its network for the other telecom service provider, from the point of handover to the point of termination or another handover, referring to long distance calls within India.

[74] https://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/2024-09/Consultation_Paper_05_August_2016.pdf 80iii. Transit Charge: Transit charge means the amount payable by a telecom service provider for routing telecommunication traffic (voice and SMS) through another telecom service provider’s network, when connectivity to the terminating network is not established.

iv. Transit Carriage Charge: Transit carriage charge refers to the charge for carriage of intra-circle traffic handed over from Cellular Mobile networks to Fixed network, from Level II Trunk Automatic Exchange (TAX) of LDCA in which the call is to be terminated, to SDCA.

v. Termination Charges: Domestic termination charge (DTC) is the charge payable by an access provider, whose subscriber originates the call, to the access service provider (ASP) in whose network the call terminates. In a Calling-Party-Pay (CPP) regime, the calling subscriber pays for the call to his access provider, and the calling party’s access provider usually pays the termination charge to the called party’s access provider to cover the network usage cost. This compensates the terminating network for the resources utilized to deliver the call to the called party.

vi. International Termination Charges (ITC): International termination charge (ITC) is the charge payable by an Indian International Long-Distance Operator (ILDO), who carries the call from outside the country, to the access provider in the country in whose network the call terminates.

2.166. These regulations also prescribed access deficit charge (ADC). ADC[75] regime had been put in place to manage the sustainability of the operations of the fixed line operators in a competitive environment, the Authority phased out the Access Deficit Charges (ADC) on domestic calls with effect from 1st April 2008 and from international incoming calls with effect from

[75] https://www.pib.gov.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=74840 811st October 2008. ADC was started from 1st May, 2003 for giving sufficient time to fixed line operators for rebalancing the tariffs in the transition period. Regulatory objective was to create a balanced environment where both large and small service providers could recover costs fairly, facilitate seamless connectivity across licensed service areas, and foster healthy market competition.

2.167. There has been technological evolution from circuit-switched voice platforms to IP based, packet-switched networks and data-dominant services. In response, IUC charges have been periodically recalibrated to align with technological efficiencies, declining per-minute costs, and altered traffic patterns. However, with the telecom landscape now moving towards next-generation interconnection architectures, a comprehensive reassessment of the fundamental structure, methodology, and applicability of IUC, including contemporary principles like cost-based charges, granularity, and interoperability, is necessary to preserve the regulatory framework’s relevance and efficacy in the digital age of IP based networks.

i. Examining carriage and transit charges

2.168. The Telecommunication Interconnection Usage Charges Regulations, 2003 established a comprehensive, cost-based framework for following charges, across all service providers in a multi-operator environment. This approach ensured that interconnection usage fees more accurately reflected network costs, promoting transparency and predictability in inter-operator settlements.

2.169. Summary of the termination charges, origination charges, and carriage charges as provided in Schedule I and Schedule II of the regulations are as

follows: a. Termination charges i. Local and national long-distance calls:

82A. Wireless to wireless: ₹ 0.06 per minute from 1st October 2017 to 31st December 2020; 0 (Zero) from 1st January 2021 onwards.

B. Wireless to wireline, wireline to wireline, wireline to

wireless: 0 (Zero) per minute form 1st March, 2015. ii. International incoming calls:

A. Calls to wireless and wireline: Not less than ₹ 0.35 and not more than ₹ 0.65 per minute (from 1st May 2020 onwards). b. Origination charges i. Authority has kept origination charges under forbearance.

Origination charges are retained from the residual after payment of carriage and termination charges. c. Carriage charges i. Carriage charges for long distance calls within India:

A. As per mutual agreement between service providers, subject to a ceiling of ₹ 0.35 (thirty-five paise) per minute, irrespective of distance. ii. Transit charges for intra-SDCA calls:

A. These charges are under forbearance, subject to condition that direct interconnection between access providers is mandatory. Para (b) of the Schedule II of the

Regulations further specifies that: “For exceptional cases of Intra-SDCA transit, operators may decide the charges through mutual negotiation. However this [shall be less than Re.

0.15 (Fifteen paise only) per minute].” iii. TAX Transit Charges:

83A. Trunk automatic exchange transit charge in all cases, other than transit charge for accessing the cellular mobile telephone service of BSNL by cellular operators which is governed by the TRAI (Transit charges for BSNL’s Cell One Terminating Traffic) Regulation, 2005, shall be less than ₹ 0.15 (Fifteen paise only) per minute and, subject to the said limit, may be decided by the concerned service providers through mutual commercial arrangement.

iv. Transit Carriage Charge (Level II TAX to SDCA):

A. ₹ 0.15 (fifteen paise) per minute for intra-circle traffic handed over from cellular networks to fixed networks.

2.170. Furthermore, these regulations also stipulate the carriage charges payable between operators. The accompanying ‘Notes to Schedule II,’ including Table II, provide detailed provisions on the point of traffic handover, which determines how traffic is exchanged and where carriage charges become applicable for a particular level of interconnection, as given below:

Table II - Applicability of Carriage Charge (F = Fixed or WLL(Fixed); W = WLL(M); C = Cellular Mobile) Type of Carriage Charge Carrier (Handover at) Traffic Within SDCA F/W ↔F/W Nil for direct BSO1/BSO2 (Tandem) connectivity/Applicable tandem usage as in Schedule II (b) F/W ↔ C Nil (Tandem: Metro)/TAX usage BSO (Tandem: Metro)/ carriage Charge (Level II TAX) BSO (Level II TAX) F/W/C ↔ As above since ILDO hand-over is BSO (TAX) ILD at LDCC TAX Intra Circle i.e. Inter (SDCA) 84F ↔ F Carriage as per details in BSO1/BSO2 Depending BSO1/ BSO2 Schedule II on Near end F ↔ W Carriage as per details in BSO1/BSO2 or Far end BSO1/ BSO2 Schedule II Handover F/W ↔ C Same as Intra SDCA except TAX BSO (Level II/ I TAX) charge is “applicable” Charge since more than one TAX may be involved.

C ↔ ILD No carriage/ tandem in case traffic MSC (Direct connectivity is picked up or delivered at MSC cases) F / W ↔ ILD Carriage as per Schedule II BSO (TAX) Inter Circle F/ W ↔ F/ W Carriage as per Schedule II NLDO (TAX) F ↔ C Carriage as per Schedule II NLDO (TAX) W ↔ C Carriage as per Schedule II NLDO (TAX) F/W/C ↔ Carriage as per Schedule II NLDO (TAX) ILD

2.171. Many stakeholders have given comments on the need for review of the interconnection usage charges especially transit and carriage charges in their response to the pre-consultation paper.

2.172. On the other hand, one of the TSP has submitted that: “…It may be noted that almost all interconnection Regulations are inter-related whether it is about Port charges, IUC or IN etc. Each amendment is closely related to the other e.g. while carriage charges were high, private TSPs were more interested in having PoI at the lowest level of switching area. However, subsequently when carriage charges were reduced, these TSPs are not interested in having connectivity at one point only….”

2.173. In this background, stakeholders' comments are solicited on the following

questions to examine this issue:

85Q19. The existing interconnection regulatory framework provides for application of origination, carriage, transit, transit carriage and termination charges for various levels of interconnections for PSTN- PSTN, PLMN-PLMN, PLMN-PSTN. Based on the interconnection regulatory framework suggested in your response in Questions 1, 2 and 3 above, should there be a review of these charges? Kindly justify your response.

ii. Interconnection Charges for Emergency Calls (112 and Legacy Level-1 Codes)

2.174. Emergency services are a cornerstone of public safety and a critical public utility. The provision of universal access to emergency services is a fundamental public interest obligation for all telecom service providers in the country. With the operationalization of the nationwide 112 Emergency Response Support System[76] (ERSS), India has moved towards a unified emergency response platform, wherein PRI lines are to be provided by each TSP in each PSAP[77] without any commercial implications (Annexure-XII).

2.175. However, in few places, legacy emergency short codes such as 100 (for police), 101 (for fire), and 102 (for ambulance) continue to be in use, and their integration with the ERSS is still underway in several states.

Department of Telecommunications’ letter conveying instructions to all access service providers tilted “Implementation of Single Number based

[76] https://112.gov.in/ Emergency Response Support System (ERSS) is a Pan-India single number (112) based emergency response system for citizens in emergencies. Each State/ UT is required to designate a dedicated Emergency Response Centres (ERC) to handle emergency requests and assistance from Police, Fire & Rescue, Health and other services. These services can, inter-alia, be accessed by dialing 112 from phone, pressing power button on smart phone 3 times quickly to activate panic call etc.

[77] Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP): It is an automated facility setup in the capital cities of all States and UTs, which handles emergency calls and provide assistance available to the people in distress within the best possible time with the help of Police, Fire & Rescue, Health services etc.

(https://112.gov.in/about) 86Emergency Response Support System” dated 24th August 2020 on this matter is placed at Annexure-XII.

2.176. Currently, the routing and termination of emergency calls often involve multiple networks, including those of private TSPs and public sector undertakings (PSUs). In many cases, private operators are required to route emergency calls through PSU networks, which may levy charges for this service, which includes applicable IUC as well as lump sum charges.

Stakeholders, in their comments to the pre-consultation paper, have submitted that regulatory guidance on interconnection charges for emergency calls are required.

2.177. Many stakeholders in their response to the pre-consultation paper have expressed views to regulate and streamline the emergency service interconnection charges indicating that there exists a difference in the method of charging for emergency services among government PSU TSPs.

It is stated by one of the stakeholders that while one of the government PSU TSP has adopted a methodology of charging for emergency services on a per call basis, other PSU TSP imposes excessive charges for these services, including a lump sum fee per LSA that increases by 10% annually, in addition to per-call charges. This lump sum charge has risen, from ₹10 lakh per LSA per year in 2010 to ₹41.8 lakh per LSA per year by 2025.

Stakeholder requested to prescribe a cost based IUC for emergency services as well.

2.178. Furthermore, while the existing interconnection regulations and overarching framework have been primarily structured to address commercial voice traffic. The distinct characteristics associated with emergency services, such as priority routing, necessitate a reassessment to determine whether specific and tailored regulatory provisions are required to adequately address these services. There is a need to examine whether the existing regulations sufficiently ensure universal access to emergency services.

872.179. In the background of the above, stakeholders’ comments are solicited on

the following question to examine this issue:

Q20. For termination of emergency calls/SMSs from one T P’s network to another T P’s network, should there be a provision of any additional charges other than applicable IUC? If so, what should be the charges and the basis thereof? iii. Examining International Termination Charges (ITC) Regime in context of IP-Based Networks Figure 2.8: Route flow of International Outgoing Calls

2.180. Figure 2.8 illustrates the typical routing of international outgoing calls originating from Indian subscribers (shown on the left side of the figure), encompassing both fixed-line and mobile networks, traversing through access service providers’ network to NLDOs’ and ILDOs’ network to foreign carriers and terminating into foreign countries’ access service provider and finally connecting to the foreign subscriber. This is further detailed in subsequent paras.

2.181. Call Origination: International outgoing calls can originate from either a fixed-line telephone or a mobile handset. In both cases, the call is first routed through the respective Access Service Provider (ASP), either a Basic 88Service Provider (for fixed lines) or a Cellular Mobile Service Provider (for mobile phones).

2.182. National Long-Distance Operator (NLDO): Once the call is received by the Access Service Provider, it is handed over to a National Long-Distance Operator (NLDO). The NLDO is responsible for carrying the call across different Licensed Service Areas (LSAs) within India, ensuring the call reaches the appropriate gateway for international termination.

2.183. International Long-Distance Operator (ILDO): At the international gateway, the call is transferred from the NLDO to an International Long- Distance Operator (ILDO). The ILDO is licensed to carry calls outside the national boundaries of India and is responsible for handing over the call to the appropriate foreign carrier.

2.184. Handover to Foreign Carrier: Finally, the ILDO hands over the international outgoing call to a foreign carrier, which then delivers the call to the intended recipient in the destination country.

Figure 2.9: Route flow of International Incoming Calls

2.185. Figure 2.9 illustrates the typical routing of international incoming calls originating from foreign subscribers and finally terminating to Indian subscriber.

2.186. International Traffic Reception: International incoming calls originate from subscribers in foreign countries and are routed through a foreign carrier. These calls are handed over to the International Long-Distance 89Operator (ILDO) licensed in India, which is responsible for receiving all international voice traffic entering the country.

2.187. Role of ILDO: The ILDO acts as the gateway for international calls, ensuring compliance with regulatory requirements and facilitating the secure and efficient transfer of international voice traffic into the Indian telecom network. Upon receipt, the ILDO hands over the call to a National Long-Distance Operator (NLDO).

2.188. Role of NLDO: The NLDO is responsible for carrying the call from the international gateway (managed by the ILDO) across different Licensed Service Areas (LSAs) within India. The NLDO ensures the call is routed to the appropriate Access Service Provider (ASP) based on the destination number, whether it is a fixed-line or a mobile subscriber.

2.189. Access Service Provider (ASP): The ASP, which may be a Basic Service Provider (for fixed-line phones) or a Cellular Mobile Service Provider (for mobile phones), receives the call from the NLDO and completes the final leg of the call delivery to the end subscriber. This ensures that international calls can seamlessly reach both landline and mobile users across the country.

Source: Data submitted by ILDOs Figure 2.10: Yearly ILD Traffic Trend

902.190. The graph at Figure 2.10 illustrates the annual trend of International Long Distance (ILD) traffic in India from 2014-15 to 2024-25, showing incoming, outgoing, and total minutes. ILD traffic peaked in 2015-16 with 97.30 billion total minutes, most of which was dominated by incoming calls (92.40 billion), while outgoing traffic remained consistently low throughout the period.

2.191. A sharp decline began from 2017-18 onwards, with total traffic dropping to just 11.89 billion minutes in 2024-25. This fall could be due to the growing adoption of OTT communication apps (like WhatsApp, Telegram etc.), which offer free global calling. The impact of COVID-19 further accelerated this shift by increasing reliance on data-driven services and reducing international mobility.

2.192. Many stakeholders have highlighted that high ILD termination charges levied by foreign countries for outbound traffic originating from India and terminating to other countries deterred the growth of outbound ILD traffic from India. It is pertinent to note that the interconnection regulations have been amended from time to time. Referring to the figure 2.10, it can be seen that the ILD traffic is declining continuously. The trend reflects a structural transition from traditional ILD voice services to internet-based communication[78], highlighting the need for review of existing regulation to maintain balance in the ILD ecosystem.

2.193. The graph at Figure 2.11 illustrates the year-on-year rate of decrease in percentage terms, for ILD (International Long Distance) incoming traffic from 2015–16 to 2024–25, where the positive values indicate a decline and negative values reflect traffic growth as compared to previous year. The percentage rate of change in traffic for any year is calculated using the

[78] Technical report ITU-T DSTR-OTTBypass (07/2024) - OTT bypass 91previous year’s traffic figure as a base[79], wherein a larger positive value depicts a sharper reduction in the traffic volume.

Source: Data submitted by ILDOs Figure 2.11: Decreasing rate of ILD Incoming Traffic in percentage.

2.194. In 2015–16, ILD incoming traffic had increased over previous year, as shown by a negative rate of -5.52%. However, this trend reversed from 2016–17 onwards, with a consistent rise in positive percentages indicating a growing year-on-year reduction in incoming traffic. The rate of decline accelerated from 5.26% in 2016–17 to a peak of 31.98% in 2021–22, reflecting a substantial drop in traditional ILD voice usage, which, as stated earlier, was largely influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic and a shift toward OTT platforms for international communication.

2.195. After 2021–22, while ILD traffic continued to decline, however, the rate of reduction slowed and dropped to 26.73% in 2022–23, 22.33% in 2023–24, and 12.80% in 2024–25. This suggests that although the steepest fall has passed, the overall trend remains downward. The sustained positive percentages, even post-pandemic years, point to a continued change in the

[79] Following formula has been used for calculation of the decreasing rate of traffic in percentage (Previous Year Incoming Minutes - Next Year Incoming Minutes)×100 , for example, for year 2015-16 to 2016-17, the Previous Year Incoming Minutes incoming minutes decreased from 92.40 billion to 87.54 billion (Figure 2.10), therefore, for year 2016-

92.40−87.54 17, Rate of decrease in percentage = ×100 = 5.26 % (Figure 2.11).

92.40 92users’ behaviour, with indication of international voice traffic increasingly moving away from conventional ILD services to internet-based OTT calling solutions.

2.196. The decline in ILD traffic has continued even though ILD termination charges for calls terminating in India have been kept relatively low as compared to calls originating from India and terminating in other countries. However, these low charges in India help make calls affordable.

Whereas, foreign telecom operators charge much higher termination charges for calls originating from India to other countries.

2.197. Another consideration is that the current IUC regime is based on voice minutes for cost assessment and revenue settlement. In an IP-based, all- data environment, where voice is one of many applications using the packet switched network, the existing model may not fully capture evolving usage patterns or cost structures. Additionally, the existing IUC framework needs review in view of evolving next-generation networks (NGN), IP Multimedia Subsystems (IMS), or Voice over LTE (VoLTE)[80] services. As the sector transitions to newer technologies, there is a need to review and potentially update, if required, the IUC regime to better address emerging technologies, support investment in newer technological developments like IP-based infrastructure and align regulatory approaches with modern network architectures to make it future ready.

2.198. The volume of international voice traffic traditionally carried over Public Land Mobile Networks (PLMN) has migrated to internet-based communications platforms. These platforms often bypass[81] traditional interconnection frameworks and compete with conventional international voice and text services.

[80] VoLTE stands for Voice over Long-Term Evolution. It is a technology that allows voice calls to be made over a 4G LTE (Long-Term Evolution) data network, instead of the traditional 2G or 3G voice networks. VoLTE provides higher quality voice calls, faster call setup times, and allows users to use voice and data services simultaneously on their smartphones.

[81] https://www.itu.int/epublications/zh/publication/itu-t-dstr-ottbypass-2024-07-ott-bypass?utm_

932.199. ‘The Telecommunication Interconnection Usage Charges (Sixteenth Amendment) Regulations 2020’[82] dated 17th April 2020, which came into force from 1st May 2020, mandates that International Termination Charges

(ITC) for international incoming call to wireless and wireline should not be less than ₹ 0.35 (thirty-five paise only) per minute and not more than ₹

0.65 (sixty-five paise only) per minute.

2.200. Many of the stakeholders, during pre-consultation, were of the view that current international termination charges for incoming calls to India are asymmetrical as compared to the termination charges levied by TSPs of other countries for the outgoing international call from India. Stakeholders further indicated that comparatively lower termination charges of incoming calls to India vis-à-vis termination charges of outgoing calls from India make routing of spam and scam calls terminating into India through other countries attractive for spammers and scamsters. To address this issue, they submitted that ITC should be gradually revised upwards from the current ₹ 0.65 per minute. In this context, it is proposed to examine the ITC regime to assess whether termination charges accurately reflect cost, support competitiveness, and prevent distortions in traffic flows.

2.201. Given these multi-dimensional issues, the Authority seeks to ascertain stakeholders’ view on whether the existing IUC and ITC frameworks are sufficiently robust to accommodate technological advancement, changing user behaviour, and evolving international dynamics. Stakeholders’

comments are solicited on the following questions to examine this issue:

Q21. Should the International Termination Charges (ITC) for international incoming calls to India be revised? If yes, what are the considerations necessitating such a revision.

Kindly provide your response with justification.

[82] https://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/2024-09/Regulations_17042020.pdf 94iv. Examining the issue of Telemarketing and Robo-Calls in Interconnection Framework

2.202. Some of the stakeholders in their comments in the pre-consultation have highlighted concerns regarding the increasing volume of traffic generated by telemarketing and robo-calls.

2.203. Telemarketing calls, in general, are outbound telephone calls made by an enterprise, business or a call centre to potential or existing customers for the purpose of promoting, advertising, or selling products and services, generating leads or conducting surveys. These calls are often initiated by the seller or marketing entity, not the customer, and aim to create new sales opportunities or gather market information.

2.204. While on the other hand, robo-calls are automated, pre-recorded voice calls delivered in bulk, often originating without direct human intervention at the point of call origination and many times irrespective of the consent of recipients. These calls are, usually bulk dialled to a wide audience, primarily generated by telemarketers, financial services, political campaigns, and unregistered marketers for commercial and promotional purposes.

2.205. Unlike telecom calls between two subscribers, which typically involve direct, conversational interaction and where calls can be initiated by either subscriber, telemarketing and robo-calls generally constitute outbound communication characterized by their commercial intent, large volume, one-way origination and promotional nature. For any originating operator, this practice enables increased call volumes and reach to subscribers across networks of all service providers.

2.206. A stakeholder in its pre-consultation comments has suggested that “….that A2P traffic be excluded from the mandatory interconnection regime and handled exclusively through commercial agreements between service providers and telemarketers…”

952.207. It is pertinent to note that in view of the concerns regarding the proliferation of unsolicited telemarketing and robo-calls, the Authority has notified the Telecom Commercial Communications Customer Preference (Second Amendment) Regulations 2025[83], to enhance the regulatory framework governing commercial communications. The amendment introduces specific provisions to address the use of automated calling systems, including robo-calls, and mandates prior disclosure by senders intending to use such systems. It further streamlines the complaint redressal mechanism by simplifying the process for lodging complaints and reducing the timeframes for resolution. The regulations also empower access providers to take timely action against entities found to be in violation, including disconnection. The 160 numbering series[84] has been allocated exclusively for service and transactional voice calls made by government bodies, regulators, and principal financial entities. This enables citizens to easily recognize service and transactional calls. With the introduction of the 160-series for genuine service and transactional communications, the 140-series is reserved solely for promotional and telemarketing calls.

2.208. There may be a need for examination of this issue due to asymmetrical nature of robo-calls and telemarketing calls. In the background of the above, stakeholders’ comments are solicited on the following question:

Q22. Is there a need to address the issue of telemarketing and robo-calls within the interconnection framework? If yes, kindly provide your inputs on the possible approaches.

Kindly justify your response.

[83] https://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/2025-02/Regulation_12022025.pdf

[84] https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=2022249 96B.6 The Telecommunication Interconnection (Reference Interconnect Offer) Regulations, 2002

2.209. Interconnection, the bedrock of any multi-operator telecom environment, ensures that subscribers of one network can seamlessly communicate with those on another. Prior to comprehensive regulations, interconnection agreements were often subject to bilateral negotiations, which could lead to protracted disputes, non-transparent terms, and potentially anti- competitive practices, particularly for new entrants. A new entrant telecom service provider (TSP) typically begins with a smaller network and a limited subscriber base, necessitating interconnection with the networks of incumbent TSPs to deliver services to its subscribers. However, incumbent TSPs may resist such interconnection arrangements, as they perceive it as enabling new entrants to leverage their established networks and intensify competition. Incumbents may believe that the commercial benefits of interconnection favour the smaller telecom service providers, as their subscribers gain greater access to the larger subscriber bases of the incumbents. Consequently, incumbent TSPs may deliberately delay interconnection by imposing unilateral terms and conditions in agreements or demanding excessive charges.

2.210. Such practices could lead to prolonged and costly negotiations between competing TSPs, undermining the competition and potentially affecting the quality and efficiency of services provided to consumers. To address these challenges, many countries have introduced regulatory guidelines aimed at creating a conducive environment for facilitating fair and expeditious interconnection between TSPs. These countries[85] have mandated publication of Reference Interconnect Offer (RIO) by operators having significant market power (SMP) status.

2.211. In India, the expansion and liberalization of the telecommunications sector in the early 2000s necessitated a robust framework to govern interconnection between competing service providers. To address this, 'The

[85] https://datahub.itu.int/data/?i=100046&s=5273 97Telecommunication Interconnection (Reference Interconnect Offer) Regulations, 2002'[86] (hereinafter referred to as "the RIO Regulations 2002") were issued on 12th July 2002.

2.212. One of the objectives of the RIO Regulations 2002 was to mandate ‘significant market power’ operators, a concept explained in detail in subsequent para, to publish a "Reference Interconnect Offer" (RIO). A RIO is a standard offer document detailing the terms and conditions under which a service provider would provide interconnection to other licensees.

By requiring the publication of a RIO, the Authority sought to bring transparency and predictability to the interconnection process, reducing the negotiation burden on new operators and facilitating faster market entry. Reference interconnect offer finds its mention in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) reference paper on Basic Telecommunications agreed by the Negotiating Group on Basic Telecommunications[87]. WTO reference paper on basic telecommunications embodies a negotiated set of pro- competitive regulatory principles. It is a set of common guidelines for a regulatory framework that countries should follow to support the transition of the telecommunications sector to a competitive marketplace and to guarantee effective market access. The reference paper deals with various regulatory principles including competitive safeguards, interconnection and creation of independent regulator among others[88]. India also participated in the WTO Negotiating Group on Basic Telecommunications.

In the reference paper published in the year 1996, it was agreed that, “...a major supplier will make publicly available either its interconnection agreements or a reference interconnection offer.”[89]

[86] https://www.trai.gov.in/release-publication/regulations/amendments-page/7206

[87] https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/telecom_e/tel23_e.htm

[88]

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/telecom_e/workshop_dec04_e/guermazi_referencepaper. doc

[89] https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/telecom_e/tel23_e.htm

982.213. The RIO covers aspects such as points of interconnection, technical standards, quality of service parameters, and the commercial terms, including charges, for various interconnection services. This approach was designed to minimize disputes and promote efficient network rollout across the country.

2.214. Furthermore, the RIO Regulations 2002 provided a clear framework for dispute resolution in cases where service providers could not mutually agree on interconnection terms. In such cases, the Authority may intervene to settle disputes, ensuring that interconnection is provided in a timely manner and on fair terms. These regulations also emphasized the principle of non-discrimination, ensuring that an interconnecting service provider received terms and conditions no less favourable than those offered to any other service provider. Over its two decades of existence, the RIO Regulations 2002 has played a pivotal role in enabling the growth of India's multi-operator telecom market, facilitating seamless communication, and fostering competition to the ultimate benefit of the consumers. Hence, as already explained above, the Reference Interconnect Offer is a concrete regulatory tool required under WTO commitments to promote open, fair, and transparent interconnection in telecommunications markets, embodying principles defined in the WTO Reference Paper for Basic Telecommunications.

2.215. A core concept underpinning these regulations is that of ‘Significant Market Power’ (SMP). SMP is a designation given to operators with substantial control over market conditions due to their market share of 30% or more.

Under current regulations, a service provider shall be deemed to have significant market power if it holds a share of 30% of total ’Activity’ in a licensed telecommunication service area. These services are:

A. Basic Service, B. Cellular Mobile Service, C. National Long-Distance Service, and D. International Long-Distance Service.

99And an ‘Activity’ would mean and include any one or more of the following: i. Subscriber base ii. Turnover iii. Switching Capacity iv. Volume of Traffic

2.216. Operators identified as having SMP were required to publish Reference Interconnect Offers (RIOs), which were subject to regulatory scrutiny and approval. a) Legal Matters related to the Telecommunication Interconnection (Reference Interconnect Offer) Regulations, 2002

2.217. ‘The Telecommunication Interconnection (Reference Interconnect Offer) Regulations, 2002,’ and a model Reference Interconnect Offer, formed the basis of the Reference Interconnect Offer (RIO) to be published by all telecom service providers with Significant Market Power (SMP). Market power refers to “the degree to which price can profitably be elevated above a competition level.”[90] Firms with significant market power can set prices above or below (predatory pricing to reduce/eliminate competition) marginal cost[91]. In India, on similar lines, a concept of dominant market power is prevalent. Section 4 of the Competition Act 2002, as amended by the Competition (Amendment) Act 2023, provides for the phrase ‘dominant position.’ The Act defines ‘dominant position’ in terms of:

“strength enjoyed by an enterprise, in the relevant market in India, which enables it to -

(i) operate independently of the competitive forces prevailing in the relevant market;

[90] http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/olin_center/papers/pdf/Kaplow_886.pdf

[91] Marginal Cost can be defined as the difference in the overall cost of production caused by producing one additional unit of output.

100(ii) affects its competitors or consumers or the relevant market in its favour.”[92]

2.218. In India, as per the Telecommunication Interconnection (Reference Interconnect Offer) Regulations, 2002, a service provider shall be deemed to have significant market power if it holds a share of 30% of activities in the services mentioned above[93]. Service providers are not required to obtain prior permission for entering into interconnect agreements. As per the “The Register of Interconnect Agreement Regulations 1999”, an agreement must be registered with the TRAI, after it has been signed.

2.219. Two TSPs challenged before Hon’ble TDSAT the decision of TRAI conveying its approval on their draft RIO with some alterations made therein and also challenged certain provisions of the Telecommunication Interconnection (Reference Interconnect Offer) Regulations, 2002 (Appeal No. 11 of 2002 and Appeal no. 12 of 2002). The main contention of TSP was that TRAI cannot override the terms and conditions of licenses and interconnections agreements and that the regulations are in breach of the provisions of the TRAI Act 1997. While allowing the appeal, Hon’ble TDSAT in its order dated

27.04.2005, inter-alia, held that the TRAI has powers to change the terms and conditions of interconnectivity of the license issued prior to 24th January 2000, only to the extent to bring the pre-2000 issued licenses into conformity with the licenses issued after 24th January 2000.

2.220. The power of TRAI to fix the terms and conditions of interconnectivity between service providers came up before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the Writ Petition (Civil) 24105/2005. The Hon’ble High Court, vide its judgement[94] dated 9th July, 2007, in para 48, inter-alia, held as under:

“48…The amending Act has bifurcated the functions of the Authority. It must now make recommendations under Section 11

[92] https://www.cci.gov.in/legal-framwork/act

[93] www.trai.gov.in/release-publication/regulations/amendments-page/7206

[94] https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/case_number_pdf/2007:DHC:733- DB/VJS09072007CW241052005.pdf 101(1) (a) and by virtue of Section 11 (1) (b) must discharge several functions, including fixing the terms and conditions of interconnectivity between service providers, maintain interconnect agreements etc., as we have already adumbrated above...” The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in para 49 of the above mentioned

judgement further held that: “49… We cannot accept the argument that the law does not empower TRAI to fix terms of interconnection.” The above mentioned judgement of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has obtained finality as the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s). 23612- 23613/2007 filed against the said judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated the 3rd January 2008[95].

This judgement re-affirmed the power of TRAI to fix the terms and conditions of interconnectivity." b) Key issues pertaining to these Regulations

2.221. As stated earlier, over the past two decades, the telecom sector has undergone transformational changes. The market structure has changed due to mergers, exits, and consolidation; technological transitions have moved networks from circuit-switched to all-IP and cloud-based architectures; and regulatory frameworks have been updated to reflect the realities of convergence, and digital services. As a result, there might be a case to examine the existing RIO framework to ensure that it fully addresses the present requirements. In this context, a review of the Telecommunication Interconnection (Reference Interconnect Offer) Regulations, 2002, is relevant. In this regard, key issues to be discussed

are as follows:

[95] https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/bosir/orderpdf/535289.pdf 102i. Reference Interconnect Offer framework in a changing telecom landscape

2.222. Given the technological and market evolution since 2002, there is a rationale to revisit the regulatory mechanisms that ensure fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory interconnection terms. Among the possible options, amending the existing RIO Regulations to incorporate changes in technology (such as IP-based interconnection, virtualization, and 5G), market structure (e.g., reduced number of operators), and licensing norms may help modernize the framework while retaining the familiarity and predictability of the RIO mechanism. On the other hand, prescribing a Standard Interconnection Agreement could bring more consistency and reduce prolonged negotiations, particularly in cases of dispute or delay.

This approach may be especially useful in ensuring timely network interoperability in the public interest, but it must be carefully designed to maintain flexibility and account for varied business models and network architectures.

2.223. Alternatively, prescribing only broad guidelines based on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory principles and leaving the rest to bilateral negotiations could promote flexibility and reduce regulatory burden, especially in a matured and competitive market. However, this approach may not adequately safeguard smaller or new entrants in scenarios where bargaining power is uneven. Another option could be a hybrid approach incorporating mandatory RIO principles with fallback standard agreements in cases of negotiation failure. This approach appears to combine the benefits of all above mentioned approaches.

2.224. Another important consideration is the migration of existing interconnection agreements to any new regulatory framework that may emerge from this consultation. Given the importance of consistency, interoperability, and regulatory certainty, allowing voluntary migration to the new framework could benefit both operators and consumers. On the contrary, a rigid or mandatory migration may disrupt long-standing 103agreements. So, it is important to strike a balance between regulatory modernization and operational continuity in consultation with all stakeholders.

2.225. Further, the current timelines and processes prescribed in the RIO Regulations 2002 for publishing, reviewing, and implementing RIOs may need to be revisited. In today’s fast-paced, digital-first environment, where network changes and service launches occur rapidly, delays in finalizing interconnection terms can hinder service rollouts and consumer access.

The timeline for responding to interconnection requests, submitting revised RIOs to the Authority, and dispute resolution mechanisms may require streamlining and digital enablement to enhance efficiency and predictability. Revisiting these procedural aspects will help make the interconnection framework more responsive, time-bound, and aligned with the needs of both operators and consumers.

2.226. In conclusion, stakeholders’ comments are solicited on the following

question to examine this matter further:

Q23. Is there a need to revise ‘The Telecommunication Interconnection (Reference Interconnect Offer) Regulation, 2002’? If yes, kindly provide the specific revisions.

Kindly provide your response with justification. ii. Role of Significant Market Power (SMP) and RIO Disclosure Obligations

2.227. The Telecommunication Interconnection (Reference Interconnect Offer) Regulations, 2002, was introduced with the objective of ensuring transparency, fairness, and non-discrimination in the interconnection process among telecom service providers (TSPs).

2.228. As discussed earlier, the RIO framework has certain categories of ‘Services’ i.e. Basic Service, Cellular Mobile Service, National Long-Distance Service, and International Long-Distance Service, and certain ‘Activities’ namely 104Subscriber base, Turnover, Switching Capacity, Volume of Traffic in a licensed telecommunication service area for determination of SMP. This framework was designed to prevent dominant players from dictating interconnection terms unilaterally, thereby protecting competition and enabling new entrant and smaller players to negotiate on equal footing.

2.229. With the passage of time, the Indian telecom sector has undergone structural and technological changes. The market has moved from being highly fragmented to more consolidated, and technologically advanced IP- based networks are replacing the traditional circuit-switched systems. This required re-examination of the matter pertaining to SMP.

2.230. In light of these changes, to assess whether the current framework of SMP designation and selective RIO publication still serves its original intent or whether it needs to be updated to reflect contemporary market dynamics, stakeholders’ comments are solicited on the following question:

Q24. For the purpose of interconnection, is there a need to revise the current categories of ‘ ervices’ and ‘Activities’ to determine Significant Market Power (SMP)? Kindly provide your response with justification.

2.231. ‘The Telecommunication Interconnection (Reference Interconnect Offer) Regulations, 2002’ aims to ensure fair and transparent interconnection arrangements among telecom service providers (TSPs). As described in earlier sections, under these regulations, TSPs with Significant Market Power (SMP), defined as those holding a 30% market share in a licensed service area are mandated to publish a Reference Interconnect Offer (RIO).

The RIO outlines the technical and commercial terms for interconnection and serves as a standardized framework to facilitate efficient negotiations and agreements between operators. This approach minimizes repetitive negotiations and promotes a level playing field in the telecom sector.

1052.232. Regarding the existing interconnection framework, the current model distinguishes between interconnection seekers and providers, delineating roles where one-party requests interconnection and the others facilitate it.

This structure has been effective in clarifying responsibilities and streamlining interconnection agreements. Further, in today’s digital environment, it would be prudent to review the possibility of publication of RIO on the SMPs’ websites to ensure better accessibility for entrant TSPs.

The Authority is of the opinion to re-examine the matter and seek detailed views of the stakeholders.

2.233. In the background of the above, stakeholders’ comments are solicited on

the following question to examine this matter:

Q25. Should the publication of Reference Interconnect Offers (RIOs) on the websites of Telecom Service Providers (TSPs) be mandated? Kindly justify your response.

B.7 The Telecommunication Interconnection (Charges and Revenue Sharing) Regulations, 2001

2.234. The Telecommunication Interconnection (Charges and Revenue Sharing) Regulations[96], 2001, issued on 14th December 2001, established the framework for how service providers interconnect, share revenues, and levy charges across telecommunication networks. They replaced ‘The Telecommunication Interconnection (Charges and Revenue sharing) Regulations, 1999’ and sought to address emerging challenges in a multi- operator landscape.

2.235. At its core, the Telecommunication Interconnection (Charges and Revenue Sharing) Regulations, 2001 (hereinafter also referred as “2001 Regulations”) sought to create a level playing field by laying down the principles for determining interconnection charges and the sharing of

[96] https://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/2024-09/201112090239141733750intwll0-15.pdf 106revenues arising from telecommunication services. Key tenets included

following broad principles: a. The principle of cost-based charging; b. For determination of cost-based interconnection charges, the main basis shall be “incremental or additional” costs directly attributable to the provision of interconnection by the interconnection provider;

c. No service provider shall discriminate between service providers in the matter of levying of charges for interconnection; d. No service provider shall be charged for any interconnection facility it does not seek or require;

2.236. By regulating these charges, the Authority aimed to foster healthy competition, encourage investment in network infrastructure, and protect consumer interests by enabling universal access to telecommunication services without artificial barriers or exorbitant costs stemming from interconnection disputes. The regulations addressed various facets of interconnection, including the principles of interconnection, process and broad timelines of interconnection, interconnection charge and revenue sharing for basic and cellular mobile services. Interconnection charges were largely forborne under these regulations, however, revenue sharing rates for per unit of traffic for local calls, domestic long distance calls, and international calls were specifically provided. Essentially these regulations

provided a structured approach to how operators would compensate each other for the use of their networks to originate, transit, and terminate calls.

2.237. This framework was crucial in an era where fixed-line and mobile services were rapidly expanding, necessitating robust and equitable interconnection regimes to facilitate communication across different service providers and technologies, thereby ensuring that subscribers of one network could reliably connect with subscribers of another.

2.238. Over the past two decades, the Indian telecommunications landscape has undergone a transformation, characterized by rapid technological advancements, exponential growth in subscriber base, making available 107high speed data services, and a transition from voice-centric to data-centric consumption. While the principles provided in the 2001 Regulations remain relevant, the dynamic nature of the sector necessitates a periodic review to ensure that the regulatory framework stays abreast of these changes. In this regard, key issues to be discussed are as follows:

i. Standardizing and Promoting Transparent, Cost-Based Infrastructure Charges

2.239. Interconnection between TSPs involves not only the exchange of traffic but also the sharing of physical and network infrastructure. Over time, incumbent operators have introduced a range of infrastructure-related charges such as tower rental, space rental, duct sharing, passive cabling, POI setup, power supply, air conditioning, technology-specific charges, escalation charges, signalling point code change charges, emergency charges, late payment fees, etc.

2.240. Stakeholders in their response to pre-consultation paper highlighted this issue and stated that miscellaneous infrastructure charges are often levied unilaterally, lack transparency, and are not always based on actual costs or usage. One of the stakeholders also commented that, there have been instances where a TSP has charged other operators for signalling point code changes but has refused to pay similar charges in case there is a requirement of change of Signalling Point Code at their end. They requested that these charges should be made reciprocal.

2.241. Stakeholders indicated that the escalation of infrastructure charges over time is often not mutually agreed upon, leading to further ambiguity and conflict. Some stakeholders submitted that incumbent TSPs unilaterally determine Infrastructure charges, setting them at exorbitant rates with an annual increase of 10%, whereas TIR 2018 provides for mutually negotiated, reasonable and transparent charges. Infrastructure charges have escalated by approximately 500% between 2010 and 2025 due to the yearly 10% increment.

1082.242. Another stakeholder stated that incumbent TSPs impose separate charges for duct usage, even though these costs should already be included in the POI infrastructure charges. Therefore, it should be prohibited from levying additional duct charges, as these should be considered part of the port and POI infrastructure charge. These issues not only increase operational costs but also create uncertainty and hinder efficient network interconnection.

2.243. To address these concerns, there is a need to examine this issue and explore the possibility of bringing clarity and standardization by explicitly including all permissible infrastructure-related charges and their escalation rates in the consultation process. This would ensure that such charges become cost-based, usage-based, reciprocal, and non- discriminatory, thereby eliminating ambiguity and fostering a more predictable and fairer interconnection environment. Clear regulatory guidance would also help prevent disputes, promote investment in shared infrastructure, and support the overall growth and efficiency of the telecom sector.

2.244. In background of the above, stakeholders’ comments are solicited on the

following question:

Q26. Should there be any interconnection charges? If yes, kindly provide

details about the following: a. the types of infrastructure charges to be levied, b. the guiding principles for determining such charges along with ceiling, if required, and c. determination of time-based escalation methodology, if required.

Kindly provide your response with justification. ii. Relevance of Section IV, Schedules I and II of the 2001 Regulations

2.245. The Telecommunication Interconnection (Charges and Revenue Sharing) Regulations 2001 laid the broad principles for addressing interconnection 109and revenue sharing arrangements. The dynamic nature of the telecom sector necessitated the introduction of a more comprehensive framework.

Consequently, the Telecommunication Interconnection Usage Charges Regulations, 2003, (hereinafter also referred as “2003 Regulations”) together with the successive amendments issued thereunder from time to time, have emerged as the primary framework governing usage-based charges for interconnection. Though, certain aspects of the 2001 regulations have not been repealed. To bring better clarity and compliance, the above two regulations are analysed and discussed in detail in the following sections.

2.246. The Telecommunication Interconnection (Charges and Revenue Sharing) Regulations, 2001 were introduced to create an interconnection arrangements framework between service providers. The regulations contain key provisions related to broad principles governing interconnection charges, revenue sharing arrangements, reporting requirements, and rate prescriptions for basic and cellular mobile services.

2.247. Section III of 2001 regulations outlines the broad principles governing interconnection charges, emphasizing that such charges should be cost- based, non-discriminatory, and transparent, and provides the general methodology for their determination rather than prescribing fixed rates.

Section IV of 2001 regulations sets out the broad framework for revenue sharing arrangements, particularly in the context of interconnection usage charges (IUC). In addition to these sections, Schedules I and II of 2001 regulations specify applicable IUC rates for various categories of calls viz.

local, domestic long distance and international calls, forming the operative basis of interconnection tariffs at the time of issuance. Regulation 4 of

Section IV of the IUC Regulations, 2003, comprehensively addresses the determination and settlement of IUC, making certain provisions of the 2001 regulations, particularly Section IV and Schedules I-II redundant, and it may no longer reflect current market realities or cost structures.

1102.248. Subsequently introduced Telecommunication Interconnection Usage Charges Regulations, 2003 are comprehensive, cost-based framework for origination, carriage, and termination charges in a multi-operator environment. This approach ensured that interconnection usage fees more accurately reflected network costs, promoting transparency and predictability in inter-operator settlements.

2.249. The regulation 4 under section IV of the Telecommunication Interconnection Usage Charges Regulations, 2003 specifies Interconnect Usage Charges i.e. Termination Charges and Carriage Charges, and Interconnect Usage Charges (IUC) for Short Message Service (SMS).

2.250. Therefore, it requires consideration whether Section IV along with their Schedules I & II of the 2001 Regulations are relevant in light of the framework introduced in 2003 Regulations.

2.251. The regulation 3 under Section III of the Telecommunication Interconnection Usage Charges Regulations, 2003 mentions that: “3. Interconnection Charges Interconnection Charges shall continue to be governed by “The Telecommunication Interconnection (Charges and Revenue Sharing) Regulation, 2001(5 of 2001)” and The Telecommunication Interconnection (Port Charges) Regulation 2001 (6 of 2001), except to the extent modified by this Regulation”

2.252. Regulation 3 under Section III of the 2003 Regulations indicated above refer to the provisions of the 2001 Regulations except to the extent modified. It links the new framework back to the old one, potentially requiring stakeholders to cross-reference two sets of regulations to determine the applicable charges and principles. Therefore, it needs to be assessed whether this cross-reference continues to serve the purpose, or whether clarity would be better achieved by retaining only Regulation 4 under 111section IV of the 2003 Regulations, which prescribes the operative IUC rates.

2.253. An alternative approach could also be to either restructure the relevant provisions across both sets of regulations to enhance clarity and improve ease of reference for stakeholders.

2.254. In the background of the above, stakeholders’ comments are solicited on

the following question to examine this matter further:

Q27. Whether following sections of The Telecommunication Interconnection (Charges and Revenue Sharing) Regulations, 2001: a) Section IV which contains ‘Revenue haring Arrangements’ i.e. interconnection usage charges.

b) Schedule I and II which contains rates of interconnection usage charges. still hold relevance, in view of the subsequent issuance of the Regulation 4 under Section IV which specifies rates of ‘Interconnection Usage Charges IUC under ‘The Telecommunication Interconnection Usage Charges Regulations, 2003’.

Additionally, is there an alternative way to organize these two regulations to enhance clarity and ease of understanding? Kindly provide your response with justification.

B.8 The Telecommunication Interconnection (Port Charges) Regulations, 2001

2.255. ‘The Telecommunication Interconnection (Port Charges) Regulations[97], 2001’ were issued on 28th December 2001 to establish a framework for charging port access between telecom networks. As defined in these regulations, a ‘Port’ is a place of termination on a switch or distribution frame that provides ingress and egress of traffic between two

[97] https://www.trai.gov.in/release-publication/regulations/amendments-page/7113 112interconnecting networks. These regulations specified that the bandwidth of the ‘Port’ shall be 2.048 Megabits per second, which is essentially an E1 link in TDM based interconnection. In a multi-operator environment, these regulations aimed to address anomalies in earlier charge structures that encouraged excess port demands and discouraged efficient provisioning.

These regulations, inter-alia, specified slab-based ceiling rates for port charges based on the number of PCMs (Pulse Code Modulation) links or E1 links demanded by an interconnection seeker from an interconnection

provider for terminating interconnection links as per the table below:

Table A: Port Charges notified in ‘The Telecommunication Interconnection Port Charges Regulation, ’ [Applicable from 28.12.2001 to 31.03.2007] 'Port' charges S. No. No. of Ports (Ceiling of ₹ per port)

1. 1 to 16 PCMs N * 55,000

2. 17 to 32 PCMs 8,80,000 + (N-16) * 30,000

3. 33 to 64 PCMs 13,60,000 + (N-32) * 20,000

4. 65 to 128 PCMs 20,00,000 + (N-64) * 15,000

5. 129 to 256 PCMs 29,60,000 + (N-128) * 14,000 Where ‘N’ refers to the number of ports demanded by the interconnection seeker within the capacity ranges under the column ‘No. of ports.’

2.256. These charges were based on Directly Attributable Incremental Costs

(DAIC)[98] and Annual Recurring Expenditure (ARE)[99], with provisions for mandatory reporting, review, and Authority’s intervention in case of any dispute.

[98] Directly Attributable Incremental Costs are the specific, additional costs caused by providing a telecom service or interconnection. It is the costs that would not exist without that service and can be clearly assigned to it.

[99] Annual Recurring Expenditure (ARE) refers to the total predictable, yearly expenses that a business or individual expects to incur on a regular basis.

1132.257. The port charges were subsequently revised on 2nd February 2007. After following a consultation process, the Authority notified ‘The Telecommunication Interconnection (Port Charges) Amendment Regulations, 2007’ [100] on 2nd February 2007 to be effective from 1st March 2007, vide which the ceiling rates for existing port charges were reduced by about 26% to 29% for various slabs. The revised port charges were as

follows:

Table B: Port Charges notified in ‘The Telecommunication Interconnection Port Charges Amendment Regulations, ’ [Applicable from 01.04.2007 to 30.09.2012] S. No. No. of Ports 'Port' charges (in ₹) per annum

1. 1 to 16 PCMs N * 39,000

2. 17 to 32 PCMs 6,24,000 + (N-16) * 22,500

3. 33 to 64 PCMs 9,84,000 + (N-32) * 14,500

4. 65 to 128 PCMs 14,48,000 + (N-64) * 11,500

5. 129 to 256 PCMS 21,84,000 + (N-128) * 10,500 Where ‘N’ refers to the number of ‘ports’ within the capacity ranges under the column ‘No. of Ports.’

2.258. The Authority again revised the port charges by issuing ‘The Telecommunication Interconnection (Port Charges) (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2012’ on 18th September 2012. Keeping in view the CAPEX costs of an E1 port in GMSC and TAX exchanges at that time, these regulations revised the ceiling of annual port charges as per the following

table in the Schedule III of these regulations:

[100] https://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/2024-09/First_Amendment_02_Feb_2007.pdf 114Table C: Ceiling of Annual Port Charges for MSC and Tandem/TAX Exchanges [Applicable from 01.10.2012 till present] Port Charges S. No. Type of Switch (Ceiling of ₹ per Port) 1 MSC 4,000 2 Tandem/TAX Exchange 10,000

2.259. A way forward was provided for the review of port charges in these regulations in view of the migration to IP based interconnection that had already started by that time and noted following in the Explanatory

Memorandum: “...Now, migration to Next Generation Networks (NGN) has started and the major telecommunication operators in India have already implemented IP based core transport network for carrying voice and data traffic. In some cases IP/Ethernet elements have extended into access and aggregation networks. In the changed circumstances, instead of reviewing TDM switch based interconnect exchange concept, in view of the advancement in technology, extension of networks, entry of various new operators, TRAI is in process of studying that whether peer-to- peer interconnection, IP based interconnection exchange or a combination would be preferable. A comprehensive consultation paper in this regard would be issued, separately...” “...the Authority will keep close watch and if requires, either suo motu or on the basis of requests received from the service providers, it may review the port charges...” 115a) Legal Matters related to the Telecommunication Interconnection (Port Charges) Regulations, 2001

2.260. The Telecommunication Interconnection (Port Charges) Regulations, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as “the Regulations” in this section only) were introduced under Sections 11(1)(b) and 36 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) Act, 1997, to standardize port charges payable by one service provider (interconnection seeker) to another service provider (interconnection provider) for the use of interconnection ports, ensuring non-discriminatory access and fostering competition. These regulations primarily aim to establish a fair and transparent regime for charges levied by access providers for providing interconnection ports to other service providers.

2.261. Over time, the Authority has reviewed and amended these regulations in accordance with the evolving technological landscape and market dynamics. One such amendment was the “Telecommunication Interconnection (Port Charges) (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2012,” dated 18.09.2012. While the regulatory intent was to simplify the interconnection framework and enhance regulatory clarity, these changes were met with legal resistance from certain service providers.

2.262. Some telecom service providers contested the regulations on the grounds that they had overridden existing interconnection agreements and altered the financial and operational arrangements previously agreed upon with other telecom service providers.

2.263. There are litigation matters presently going on in the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in respect of these regulations vide Writ Petition (civil) 1338 of 2014 and Writ Petition (civil) 2816 of 2014. The petitioner TSPs had challenged the validity of the “Telecommunication Interconnection (Port Charges) (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2012 dated 18th September 2012” on

several legal and procedural grounds and had prayed for the following:

116“(i) Quash and set aside the impugned Telecommunication Interconnection (Port Charges) (2nd Amendment) Regulations. 2012 dated 18.09.2012 issued by the Respondent No. 1/TRAI;

(ii) Direct the members of Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 3 to pay the port charges in terms of the rates agreed under the Interconnect Agreement.”

2.264. It had been stated by the petitioners that the impugned regulations were violative of the principles of natural justice, as no prior opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before the decision to alter port charges was made. According to the petitioner the revised charges were considerably below the actual costs incurred by them for provisioning interconnection ports to TSPs, leading to financial prejudice.

2.265. The petitioners further submitted that they were not put on specific notice regarding the abolition of the slab-based system of port charges, and thus, they were denied an opportunity to comment on this aspect of these regulations. It was also contended that TRAI had altered the methodology of cost apportionment, which disproportionately impacted providers based on the volume of ports demanded.

2.266. Whereas, TRAI asserted that due process was strictly adhered to while formulating the 2012 amendment. A comprehensive consultation process was conducted involving the issuance of a pre-consultation paper, a formal consultation paper, and the organisation of open house discussions to solicit views from all stakeholders. The Authority maintains that the regulations were framed following a transparent, fair, and consultative approach. This matter is currently pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.

i. Reviewing port technology, size, and charges for evolving networks

2.267. The Telecommunication Interconnection (Port Charges) Regulations, 2001, were conceptualized and implemented at a time when circuit-switched (E1 or TDM based) networks dominated the telecom infrastructure. The 117concept of a "port" and its associated charges were intrinsically linked to the physical E1 interface and capacity planning methodologies of these traditional networks, primarily designed for voice traffic. However, the telecommunications industry worldwide has since witnessed a paradigm shift, characterized by a migration from legacy E1 based circuit switched networks working on TDM technology to advanced, packet-based Internet Protocol (IP) networks. This transition is not merely an incremental upgrade but a fundamental change in how voice and SMSs are transmitted, processed in the data packet form in the modern telecommunication networks.

2.268. Currently, fixed wireline and wireless networks are interconnected for voice and SMS traffic mostly using E1 based Time Division Multiplexing (TDM) links. A ‘port’ or an E1 link provides a bandwidth of 2.048 Mbps divided into 32 timeslots, with each timeslot consisting of 64 Kbps capacity, where 30 timeslots carry voice signal, and 2 timeslots are used for signalling.

Typical interconnection sizes involve multiples of E1 links (such as 2, 4, 8, 16, and upwards) aggregated based on required capacity and traffic demands of the service providers.

2.269. The interface standards for E1 based TDM interconnection conform to ITU- T recommendations G.703 for the physical and electrical characteristics of the E1 interface and G.704 for framing and timeslot assignments.

2.270. Interconnection using E1 links is typically electrical, using balanced 120- ohm twisted pair copper cables over shorter distances. For longer distances or higher capacity requirements, E1 links are bundled and transmitted using higher capacity transmission equipment for which optical fiber is used along with electrical-to-optical conversion equipment, providing enhanced signal integrity and reduced attenuation. This E1/TDM based interconnection formed the backbone for circuit-switched services, efficiently carrying voice and SMS traffic between fixed wireline and wireless networks at that point of time.

1182.271. This technological evolution coupled with reductions in the electronic and optical equipment costs and an exponential surge in data traffic (driven by broadband, 4G, and the advent of 5G technologies), necessitates a review of the existing regulations. The current definitions and assumptions regarding "port technology”, "port size (capacity)”, and consequently, "port charges”, needs examination to assess whether it accurately reflect the underlying economic costs or the operational realities of modern IP-based networks. For instance, IP interconnection often involves different scaling mechanisms, bandwidth considerations, and network elements as compared to traditional E1/TDM ports. Therefore, it is crucial to understand what changes are required to ensure that interconnection arrangements remain efficient, contemporary, cost-reflective, and relevant, preventing any disincentives for technological upgrades or disproportionate cost burdens on service providers.

2.272. During pre-consultation process, many stakeholders had expressed their views requesting review of port charges due to technological and other reasons like need for examination to ascertain that they are fair, competitive and reflective of modern infrastructure and technology costs.

2.273. Telecommunication Engineering Centre (TEC) standards titled ‘IP Based Interconnection between Service Providers Networks’[101] defines various requirements to be met at the IP interconnection interface to enable the public telecom networks to interconnect over IP links. These interfaces include Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) based links, optical or electrical Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) connections, and direct Ethernet links, supporting speeds like Fast Ethernet, Gigabit Ethernet, and 10 Gigabit Ethernet depending on the traffic load and network requirements. The optical interface provides varying link speeds like 1 Gbps, 10 Gbps, 100 Gbps and above as per the network requirements.

[101] https://tec.gov.in/pdf/IRs/TEC-SD-IT-IPI-001-01-NOV-15.pdf

1192.274. Connectivity is typically established using optical fiber for backbone and long-haul segments due to its high bandwidth and low latency, while electrical copper connections may be used in short-haul or legacy scenarios with comparatively lower bandwidth requirements. The interface standards for IP connectivity conform to Ethernet (IEEE 802.3), SDH, and above- mentioned TEC specified standard. Service providers are required to follow these standards when establishing their interconnections with each other to maintain service quality, ensure reliable traffic exchange, and guarantee interoperability at every point of interconnection between mobile-mobile and mobile-landline networks in India.

2.275. The above-mentioned TEC standard titled ‘IP Based Interconnection between Service Providers Networks’ also provides for quality of service

(QoS) as well as it outlines parameters and measures to maintain end-to end voice quality including latency[102], jitter[103], packet loss[104], and overall network efficiency. Performance indicators such as round-trip delay[105], mean opinion score (MOS)[106], answer seizure ratio[107], average length of

[102] Latency in IP telecom network is how long it takes for data to travel across a network. Shorter latency means faster communication.

[103] Jitter in an IP telecom network is the variation in delay between when data packets are sent and when they arrive. Instead of arriving at steady, regular times, packets may come faster or slower, causing uneven delivery. This can make voice or video calls sound broken or look disrupted.

[104] Packet loss in an IP telecom network happens when some data packets sent from one device do not reach their destination. This loss can cause voice or video calls to sound broken, freeze, or drop.

[105] Round-trip delay is the total time it takes for a signal or data packet to travel from the source to the destination and back again to the source, including the time for transmission, propagation, and acknowledgment processing. It is typically measured in milliseconds.

[106] Mean opinion score is a subjective parameter defined in ITU-T Rec. P.10 about the performance of telephone transmission system used either for conversation or listening to spoken material.

[107] Answer Seizures Ratio expresses the ratio of the number of calls effectively answered in a given period of time against the number of call session requests in that time.

120conversation[108] and post-gateway ringing delay[109] are considered to maintain service quality.

2.276. With the proliferation of new and emerging technologies, such as IP-based voice (VoIP), IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS), and 5G networks, there is a need to examine whether current interconnection framework adequately cover all facets of modern interconnection, therefore, stakeholders’

comments are solicited on the following question:

Q28. Is there a need for change, if any, required in respect of following: i. Port Technology ii. Port Size (Capacity) iii. Port Charges iv. Any other related aspect Kindly provide a detailed response with justification.

ii. Re-evaluating network elements and uniformity of port charges across services/technologies

2.277. The calculation of port charges, as stipulated in the Telecommunication Interconnection (Port Charges) Regulations, 2001, was based on a set of identifiable network elements and equipment prevalent in TDM-centric networks. However, the architectural transformation towards IP-based networks means that the composition and cost contribution of various network elements at the interconnection points may have changed. Modern IP interconnection involves elements such as routers, IP switches, session border controllers (SBCs), virtual routers, and media gateways, which differ from the traditional exchanges and transmission systems. Therefore, to ascertain which specific network elements and equipment should now be considered for the accurate and transparent calculation of port charges

[108] Average Length of Conversation which expresses the average time in seconds of conversations for all the calls successfully setup in a given period of time.

[109] Post Gateway Ringing Delay which expresses the time elapsed between a request for a call setup and the alerting signal for that call.

121across different service categories, stakeholders’ comments are solicited on

the following question to further examine this issue:

Q29. Should port charges be uniform across all services and technologies? Kindly provide detailed response for the following categories

specifically: a. Fixed Line Service/ Mobile Service/ NLD service/ ILD service, and b. E1 (TDM) based interconnection and IP based interconnection.

In case non-uniform charges are suggested, what methodology should be followed for calculation of port charges for above mentioned categories of services and technologies.

Kindly provide a detailed response with justification. iii. Reviewing demand estimation procedures for IP-based Interconnection

2.278. The Telecommunication Interconnection (Port Charges) Regulation 2001, and subsequently The Telecommunication Interconnection Regulations, 2018, prescribe procedures for demand estimation, typically based on traffic projections measured in Erlangs on a half-yearly basis. This methodology has historically been effective and practical for circuit switched networks, where Erlang B table[110] and grade of service (GoS)[111] are standard tools for dimensioning voice circuits and estimating the

[110] An Erlang B table is a precomputed chart that shows the maximum traffic load (in erlangs) a given number of circuits (lines, channels) can handle for a specified blocking probability i.e. the chance a call will be lost because all circuits are busy.

[111] Grade of Service is a performance metric in telecommunication networks, expressed as a decimal fraction, which quantifies the likelihood that a call will be blocked due to insufficient resources or experience an unacceptable delay.

Number of Blocked Calls Grade of Service= Total Number of Offered Calls This ratio provides a direct measure of service accessibility, where lower values indicate a higher quality of service.

122number of ports required based on call blocking probabilities. TIR-2018 under Schedule-II prescribes that: “For given number of channels of POI, its capacity for 0.5% Grade of Service shall be deduced from the Erlang B table...” Traditional E1/TDM (Time Division Multiplexing) networks rely heavily on Erlang calculations to dimension voice circuits essentially, how many simultaneous calls (voice channels) a given number of E1 lines can support, and the probability of call blocking (Erlang B). The focus is on the effective circuit utilization and reducing call blocking. The fundamental assumption of Erlang-based models is the continuous occupancy of a channel for the duration of a call, which aligns well with the behaviour of TDM voice networks which are essentially circuit switched networks.

2.279. However, the telecom industry's advanced technological development requiring IP-based interconnection presents a challenge to the continued relevance and practicality of Erlang-based demand estimation. IP-based interconnections are packet switched and handle voice and messages as data packets over a shared infrastructure between telecom operators, meaning resources are shared dynamically among multiple users, and traffic is inherently bursty rather than continuous.

2.280. As already explained in previous section about the TEC standard titled ‘IP Based Interconnection between Service Providers Networks’ which contains a section on quality of service (QoS) of IP based interconnections along with the relevant parameters to maintain QoS like latency, jitter, packet loss, round-trip delay, mean opinion score (MOS), answer seizure ratio, average length of conversation and post-gateway ringing delay are considered to maintain service quality and are more pertinent metrics for IP network dimensioning than Erlangs. Applying an Erlang model alone and directly to IP traffic may not be appropriate for accurate capacity planning, potentially resulting in either under-provisioning (leading to congestion, packet loss, and poor quality of service) or over-provisioning (resulting in inefficient resource utilization and higher operational costs that could be 123passed on to consumers). In this context, congestion avoidance and congestion management techniques play a vital role in telecom IP interconnection. Congestion avoidance proactively prevents network overload by early detection and selective packet dropping to signal sources to reduce transmission rates, thereby maintaining optimal traffic flow.

Congestion management handles excess traffic by prioritizing and scheduling packets to ensure that critical services receive the necessary resources during high traffic conditions. These methods, combined with agreed QoS parameters, help maintain service quality across interconnection points and support efficient network dimensioning and resource allocation.

2.281. Therefore, to check the effectiveness of the current Erlang-based demand estimation procedures in the context of IP interconnection, stakeholders’

comments are solicited on the following question to examine this issue:

Q30. hether use of ‘Erlang’ as a unit of traffic in various interconnection regulations is sufficient and are the current procedures for demand estimation as provided in the Telecommunication Interconnection (Port Charges) Regulation 2001 and the TIR 2018 still effective and practical, in view of adoption of IP based interconnection? a. If yes, kindly provide justification in support of your response.

b. If no, kindly provide alternate metrics and demand estimation methods for IP-based interconnection along with detailed

explanation.

In either case, kindly provide suitable diagrammatic representation.

B.9 The Register of Interconnect Agreements Regulations, 1999

2.282. ‘The Register of Interconnect Agreements Regulations, 1999’[112], were issued on 31st August 1999 and made effective from 1st September 1999.

The overall objective of the Register of Interconnect Agreements

[112] https://www.trai.gov.in/release-publication/regulations/amendments-page/7091 124Regulations, 1999, was to establish a regulatory framework for the maintenance of a register of all interconnection agreements between telecom service providers, ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of their licences, and to regulate the terms and conditions of interconnection between providers. The register is maintained in three

parts: i. A list of all agreements; ii. Confidential portions as directed by TRAI; and iii. Non-confidential portions of the agreement.

2.283. The non-confidential portion of the agreement shall be accessible for inspection to any member of the public upon payment of a fee prescribed in the regulations, which is ₹ 50 per hour and ₹ 20 per page for copy. Prior to these regulations, the terms and conditions of interconnection agreements between various service providers were often opaque to third parties, leading to potential disputes and hindrances to market entry and expansion.

2.284. As the communications sector evolved, the First Amendment of Register of Interconnect Agreements Regulations, 1999, were issued on 3rd February 2004, following a government notification that expanded the definition of “telecommunication services” to include broadcasting and cable services.

This amendment brought broadcasters and multi-service operators (MSOs) under the scope of the regulations, requiring them to register their interconnect agreements. It also introduced several new definitions such as broadcaster, cable operator, broadcasting service etc., to reflect the inclusion of these sectors and ensure that interconnection practices in broadcasting were also monitored and standardized.

2.285. Subsequently, the Second Amendment on 31st December 2004 reversed many of the changes introduced earlier. It deleted the newly added definitions related to the broadcasting and cable sectors and removed the requirement for broadcasters and MSOs to register their agreements. The 125amendment also restored the original, simplified definition of “interconnection,” focusing on the core technical and commercial arrangements between telecom networks.

2.286. To further streamline regulatory processes, the Third Amendment issued on 4th March 2005 revised the confidentiality mechanism under these regulations. It replaced the earlier detailed procedure for confidentiality with a new provision linking it to ‘The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Access to Information) Regulations, 2005’[113] dated 4th March 2005.

2.287. At the time of their formulation, the technological and operational landscape of the Indian telecom sector was considerably different. The primary modes of data submission and record keeping relied heavily on physical formats, such as print copies and floppy disks. These methods were standard practice in the late 1990s and served the purpose of creating a centralized repository for regulatory oversight. The regulations also laid down procedures for requesting and obtaining copies of these agreements by interested parties, typically other TSPs or stakeholders, subject to certain conditions and charges.

2.288. However, the advancements in digital technology and the adoption of electronic communication and data management systems have since transformed administrative and regulatory processes globally. The methods prescribed in the 1999 Regulations, while appropriate for their time, may now pose practical challenges in terms of efficiency, speed, accessibility, and environmental sustainability. This necessitates a review to ascertain whether the current procedures align with modern digital governance standards and facilitate a more agile and efficient regulatory framework.

[113] https://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/2024-09/Regulation_04032005_0.pdf 126i. Digitizing the Submission and Access Process for Interconnection Agreements

2.289. The 'Register of Interconnect Agreements Regulations, 1999' mandated the submission of interconnection agreements through physical means, specifically mentioning "floppy disks and print copies." These were common and accepted methods for data exchange and record keeping at that time.

The reliance on physical documentation ensured a tangible record and was suitable given the prevalent storage media. However, over two decades later, the digital transformation has swept across all sectors, including governance and regulation. The continued use of largely obsolete technology, and reliance on extensive print copies are increasingly inefficient, resource-intensive, and out of sync with modern digital practices.

2.290. The current physical process for both submitting agreements by Telecom Service Providers (TSPs) and for interested parties to obtain copies presents several practical challenges. It leads to delays in processing, requires physical movement of documents, increases administrative overheads, and contributes to environmental concerns due to paper consumption.

Furthermore, it hinders real-time access and efficient data management, which are crucial in a fast paced and dynamic telecom market where timely information can impact competitive strategies and dispute resolution.

2.291. One of the stakeholders in its pre consultation comments, in context of these regulations, stated that: “…we submit that seeking print copies as well as soft copies in floppy/diskette, is a traditional and outdated form of submission. In today's digital era, the print-copies and submission in floppy/diskette should be replaced with an end to end digital process…”

2.292. Therefore, to examine the viability of transitioning to a fully digital and online process for the submission and dissemination of interconnection 127agreements, stakeholders’ comments are solicited on the following

question:

Q31. Should the current provisions for submission, inspection and getting copies of interconnection agreements under ‘The Register of Interconnect Agreements Regulations, 1999’ using floppy disks and print copies be dispensed with and be made online? a. If yes, what changes do you suggest for the online process, timelines, related charges and any other aspect? b. If not, kindly provide justification.

C. Generic Questions pertaining to all existing interconnection regulations i. Financial Disincentive Framework

2.293. To regulate interconnection arrangement, the Authority has, inter-alia, notified various interconnection regulations, including ‘The Telecommunication Interconnection Regulations, 2018’; ‘Intelligent Network Services in Multi-Operator and Multi-Network Scenario Regulations, 2006’; ‘The Telecommunication Interconnection (Reference Interconnect Offer) Regulations, 2002’; and ‘The Register of Interconnect Agreements Regulations, 1999’. Among these regulations, the provision for imposing financial disincentive for non-compliance of the regulations exists only in ‘The Telecommunication Interconnection Regulations, 2018’.

2.294. The Register of Interconnect Agreements Regulations, 1999 mandate that all service providers register interconnection agreements with the Authority. The Telecommunication Interconnection (Reference Interconnect Offer) Regulations, 2002, inter-alia, require service providers with significant market power to publish Reference Interconnect Offers.

The Intelligent Network Services in Multi-Operator and Multi-Network Scenario Regulations, 2006 provides that all eligible service providers shall allow interconnection to enable subscribers of one network to access 128Intelligent Network Services of other networks. No service provider shall deny their subscribers access to Intelligent Network services available in a multi-operator environment.

2.295. While procedural timelines and obligations have been prescribed under these regulations, stakeholders’ experience indicates that non-compliance with interconnection commitments, including delays or deviations from agreed terms, can adversely impact service rollout, competition, and consumer welfare.

2.296. Introduction of financial disincentives provision as a regulatory tool can serve as a deterrent for non-compliance, helping maintain the effective regulation of the interconnection framework. It can incentivize timely completion of obligations such as execution of agreements, provisioning of Points of Interconnection, and adherence to published Reference Interconnect Offers, etc.

2.297. Accordingly, this consultation seeks to explore and examine the need for introducing provisions relating to financial disincentives within the ‘Intelligent Network Services in Multi-Operator and Multi-Network Scenario Regulations, 2006’, ‘The Telecommunication Interconnection (Reference Interconnect Offer) Regulations, 2002’, and ‘The Register of Interconnect Agreements Regulations, 1999’.

2.298. In this background, stakeholders’ comments are solicited on the following

question:

Q32. Is there a need to incorporate provisions for financial disincentives in interconnection regulations to deter non-compliance? If yes, kindly provide specific scenarios and mention the concerned regulations, where financial disincentives would be applicable, along with their quantification.

Kindly justify your response.

129ii. Transition mechanism for Interconnection Agreements

2.299. This consultation process on telecom interconnections is expected to culminate in the formulation of a new regulatory framework that could potentially redefine the terms and conditions of interconnection agreements between Telecom Service Providers. This evolving framework reflects the need to align regulatory policies with the rapid technological developments. The consultation aims to comprehensively review the existing interconnection regulations and identify gaps and challenges in the current framework, which was designed in an earlier technological context.

2.300. As a result, the new framework that will emerge from this consultation process will likely impact the existing terms and conditions of the interconnection agreements among TSPs. A structured, phased roadmap with clear milestones will ensure a smooth transition to the new interconnection framework.

2.301. Timelines should be realistic and implementable, striking a balance between the urgency for regulatory modernization and the industry’s practical capability to implement changes, especially considering the diversity of providers and varying technological maturity.

2.302. In the background of the above, stakeholders’ comments are solicited on

the following question to examine this matter:

Q33. What should be the mechanism and timelines for transition of existing interconnection agreements between the service providers to the new regulatory framework that will emerge from this consultation process? Kindly provide detailed response with justification.

130iii. Interconnection framework for satellite-based telecommunications services

2.303. The question of whether an interconnection framework should be established for satellite-based telecom services arises amidst the growing importance of satellite technologies in extending telecommunication coverage to remote and underserved areas, needs to be discussed. Satellite- based networks provide vital connectivity where terrestrial infrastructure, including PLMN and PSTN, may not be feasible or cost-effective. As such, integrating these satellite services within the broader telecom ecosystem, including seamless interconnection with existing PLMN and PSTN networks, including voice and SMS traffic interoperability across mobile and landline networks, may also need examination.

2.304. Further, it needs to be assessed that whether separate interconnection framework is required for Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) and Fixed Satellite Service (FSS), or the existing interconnection framework would be sufficient to meet the requirements of satellite-based telecommunications networks.

In case, a separate regulatory framework is required for these interconnections, the key technical requirements may include specifying the nature and location of Points of Interconnect (POIs), which involve satellite earth station gateways and their interconnection with other satellite networks, PLMN and PSTN. Regulatory considerations could address interconnection charges, interconnection usage charges, quality of service guarantees, and terms and conditions of interconnection agreements, ensuring effective interoperability among satellite, PLMN, and PSTN operators.

2.305. One may argue that since MSS-based telecommunications network are largely similar to the PLMN and as FSS-based telecommunications network are similar to the PSTN, hence no separate interconnection framework for the satellite-based telecommunications network may be required.

Therefore, it has to be examined whether the interconnection framework 131for PLMN and PSTN can be adopted for satellite-based telecommunications networks.

2.306. Satellite-based telecommunications network would likely have a national footprint with certain limited number of gateways. The connectivity with the satellite-based telecommunications network is extended through these gateways. The interconnection of satellite-based telecommunications network with PLMN and PSTN, for which POIs are existing at LSA and below LSA level respectively, needs to be examined.

2.307. In the background of the above, stakeholders’ comments are solicited on

the following question to further examine this matter:

Q34. What should be the interconnection framework for satellite-based telecommunications networks with other telecom networks? Further, whether the interconnection frameworks for MSS and FSS satellite-based telecommunications networks should be distinct? Please provide your response along with end-to-end diagrammatic representation and justification in respect of the

following: a. Satellite - Satellite network interconnection b. Satellite - PLMN interconnection c. Satellite - PSTN interconnection iv. Adoption of Global Best Practices

2.308. The Authority recognizes that global best practices in telecom interconnection regulation emphasize the need for a transparent, fair, and efficient regulatory framework that fosters healthy competition and safeguards consumer interests. Key principles observed internationally include ensuring non-discriminatory access to network infrastructure, mandating cost-based and transparent pricing mechanisms, and establishing timely and effective dispute resolution processes.

Furthermore, regulators globally encourage enabling commercial negotiations supported by clear regulatory guidelines. Such practices 132contribute to creating a level playing field, promoting infrastructure sharing, and encouraging innovation and investment within the telecom sector.

2.309. In light of this, all stakeholders are requested to provide their inputs, share relevant international best practices, and suggest measures that may be adapted to the Indian telecom ecosystem. Comments and recommendations from stakeholders will be crucial to shaping a forward- looking and robust regulatory policy for interconnection.

2.310. In the background of the above, stakeholders’ comments are solicited on

the following questions to examine this subject:

Q35. Are there any specific regulatory models from other countries that have successfully addressed interconnection related issues and challenges which can be adapted in the Indian telecom sector? If yes, kindly provide details of such international best practices.

Q36. Kindly mention any other challenges or concerns related to the regulations being reviewed in this consultation paper.

1333 Chapter 3 – Issues for Consultation A. Regulations-wise Specific Questions A.1. The Telecommunication Interconnection Regulations, 2018 Q1. For PSTN to PSTN, PLMN to PSTN and PSTN to PLMN, should the interconnection level be specified at LSA level? If yes, should the existing POIs at the LDCA/SDCA level also be migrated to the LSA level? Kindly justify your response.

Q2. For PSTN to PSTN, PLMN to PSTN, PSTN to PLMN and PLMN to PLMN, should interconnection be allowed at a level other than the LSA level, based on mutual agreement? Kindly justify your response.

Q3. Based on your response to Question 1 and 2 above, what changes, if any, are required in the level of interconnection / point of traffic handover as

provided in the following: a) Telecommunication Interconnection Regulations (TIR), 2018, and b) Guidelines annexed to the Telecommunication Interconnection (Reference Interconnection Offer) Regulations, 2002? Kindly justify your response.

Q4. Is there a need to mandate multi-path resiliency and redundancy in the Point of Interconnection (POI) framework to mitigate link failure at the

primary POI in the case of: i. PSTN-PSTN interconnection, ii. PLMN-PLMN interconnection, and iii. PLMN-PSTN interconnection? If yes, kindly provide an appropriate architectural framework with diagram.

Kindly justify your response.

134Q5. Is there a need to incorporate security provisions in the interconnection framework to ensure network security? If yes, kindly provide details along with an appropriate architectural diagram. Kindly justify your response.

Q6. (a) Should IP-based interconnection be mandated for new interconnections in the regulatory framework? Kindly justify your response.

(b) Should TSPs be mandated to migrate existing TDM based E1 interconnection to IP-based interconnection within a specified period? If yes, suggest timelines. Kindly justify your response.

Q7. Should the existing processes of ‘provisioning and augmentation of ports at POIs’ under Chapter IV of the TIR 2018 in respect of following need revision: i. Seeking of ports at POIs, ii. Request for initial provisioning of ports, and iii. Request for augmentation of POIs? Kindly provide your response with justification.

Q8. Should the existing framework for Interconnection process and timelines, as provided in the existing TRAI regulations including, The Telecommunication Interconnection Regulations (TIR) 2018, The Telecommunication Interconnection (RIO) Regulations, 2002, and The Telecommunication Interconnection (Charges and Revenue Sharing) Regulation 2001 be revised or continued.

Kindly indicate challenges, if any, currently being faced in the implementation of the framework by the TSPs and their possible remedies.

Kindly provide your response with detailed justifications.

Q9. Whether there is a need to revise the existing process of disconnection of POIs as provided in the regulation 11 of the Telecommunication Interconnection Regulations (TIR) 2018? If yes, what specific changes should be done in the disconnection procedure? Kindly justify your response.

135Q10. Is there a need to introduce a process for the surrender or closure of POIs in the regulatory framework? If yes, what should be the criteria, procedure, charges, and timelines, including the minimum retention period for POIs before a surrender or closure request can be made? Kindly justify your response.

Q11. In order to safeguard the interest of TSPs arising due to financial obligations of interconnection, is there a requirement for furnishing bank guarantee by one TSP to the other TSP? If yes, please provide the process and methodology for determining the initial bank guarantee amount and any subsequent bank guarantee amount, if required.

Kindly justify your response.

Q12. Should a procedure be established for addressing delays in the payment of interconnection-related charges? If yes, what should be the procedure to address such delays? Kindly provide your response with justification.

Q13. Is there a need to revise the financial disincentive framework as provided in these regulations. If yes, what specific changes should be done? Kindly justify your response.

A.2. The Short Message Services (SMS) Termination Charges Regulations, 2013 Q14. Is there a need to revise the existing SMS termination charge? If yes, what are the considerations necessitating such a revision? If not, kindly provide justification.

Q15. Is there a need to prescribe SMS carriage charges when an NLDO carries SMS between the LSAs? If yes, what principles and methodology should apply? If not, kindly provide justification.

A.3. Intelligent Network Services in Multi-Operator and Multi-Network Scenario Regulations, 2006 136Q16. Is there a need to revise the existing access charge to be paid by the service provider to the originating provider for IN services? If yes, kindly provide detailed explanation; if not, kindly provide justification.

Q17. Are there any difficulties that service providers encounter in complying with existing IN Regulations, 2006 in Multi-Operator and Multi-Network Scenario? Kindly describe these challenges in detail and suggest possible regulatory remedial measures to overcome these challenges.

A.4. TRAI (Transit Charges for BSNL's Cell One Terminating Traffic) Regulations, 2005 Q18. Is there a need to revise the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Transit Charges for Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited's CellOne Terminating Traffic) Regulation, 2005? Kindly provide your response with justification.

A.5. The Telecommunication Interconnection Usage Charges Regulations, 2003 Q19. The existing interconnection regulatory framework provides for application of origination, carriage, transit, transit carriage and termination charges for various levels of interconnections for PSTN-PSTN, PLMN-PLMN, PLMN- PSTN. Based on the interconnection regulatory framework suggested in your response in Questions 1, 2 and 3 above, should there be a review of these charges? Kindly justify your response.

Q20. For termination of emergency calls/SMSs from one TSP’s network to another TSP’s network, should there be a provision of any additional charges other than applicable IUC? If so, what should be the charges and the basis thereof? 137Q21. Should the International Termination Charges (ITC) for international incoming calls to India be revised? If yes, what are the considerations necessitating such a revision.

Kindly provide your response with justification.

Q22. Is there a need to address the issue of telemarketing and robo-calls within the interconnection framework? If yes, kindly provide your inputs on the possible approaches.

Kindly justify your response.

A.6. The Telecommunication Interconnection (Reference Interconnect Offer) Regulations, 2002 Q23. Is there a need to revise ‘The Telecommunication Interconnection (Reference Interconnect Offer) Regulation, 2002’? If yes, kindly provide the specific revisions.

Kindly provide your response with justification.

Q24. For the purpose of interconnection, is there a need to revise the current categories of ‘Services’ and ‘Activities’ to determine Significant Market Power

(SMP)? Kindly provide your response with justification.

Q25. Should the publication of Reference Interconnect Offers (RIOs) on the websites of Telecom Service Providers (TSPs) be mandated? Kindly justify your response.

A.7. The Telecommunication Interconnection (Charges and Revenue Sharing) Regulations, 2001 Q26. Should there be any interconnection charges? If yes, kindly provide details

about the following: a. the types of infrastructure charges to be levied, 138b. the guiding principles for determining such charges along with ceiling, if required, and c. determination of time-based escalation methodology, if required.

Kindly provide your response with justification.

Q27. Whether following sections of The Telecommunication Interconnection (Charges and Revenue Sharing) Regulations, 2001: a. Section IV which contains ‘Revenue Sharing Arrangements’ i.e. interconnection usage charges.

b. Schedule I and II which contains rates of interconnection usage charges. still hold relevance, in view of the subsequent issuance of the Regulation 4 under Section IV which specifies rates of ‘Interconnection Usage Charges

(IUC) under ‘The Telecommunication Interconnection Usage Charges Regulations, 2003’.

Additionally, is there an alternative way to organize these two regulations to enhance clarity and ease of understanding? Kindly provide your response with justification.

A.8. Telecommunication Interconnection (Port Charges) Regulations, 2001 and Its Amendments Q28. Is there a need for change, if any, required in respect of following: i. Port Technology ii. Port Size (Capacity) iii. Port Charges iv. Any other related aspect Kindly provide a detailed response with justification.

Q29. Should port charges be uniform across all services and technologies? Kindly

provide detailed response for the following categories specifically: a. Fixed Line Service/ Mobile Service/ NLD service/ ILD service, and b. E1 (TDM) based interconnection and IP based interconnection.

139In case non-uniform charges are suggested, what methodology should be followed for calculation of port charges for above mentioned categories of services and technologies.

Kindly provide a detailed response with justification.

Q30. Whether use of ‘Erlang’ as a unit of traffic in various interconnection regulations is sufficient and are the current procedures for demand estimation as provided in the Telecommunication Interconnection (Port Charges) Regulation 2001 and the TIR 2018 still effective and practical, in view of adoption of IP based interconnection? a. If yes, kindly provide justification in support of your response.

b. If no, kindly provide alternate metrics and demand estimation methods for IP-based interconnection along with detailed

explanation.

In either case, kindly provide suitable diagrammatic representation.

A.9. The Register of Interconnect Agreements Regulations, 1999 Q31. Should the current provisions for submission, inspection and getting copies of interconnection agreements under ‘The Register of Interconnect Agreements Regulations, 1999’ using floppy disks and print copies be dispensed with and be made online? a. If yes, what changes do you suggest for the online process, timelines, related charges and any other aspect? b. If not, kindly provide justification.

B. Generic Questions pertaining to all existing interconnection regulations Q32. Is there a need to incorporate provisions for financial disincentives in interconnection regulations to deter non-compliance? If yes, kindly provide specific scenarios and mention the concerned regulations, where financial disincentives would be applicable, along with their quantification.

Kindly justify your response.

140Q33. What should be the mechanism and timelines for transition of existing interconnection agreements between the service providers to the new regulatory framework that will emerge from this consultation process? Kindly provide detailed response with justification.

Q34. What should be the interconnection framework for satellite-based telecommunications networks with other telecom networks? Further, whether the interconnection frameworks for MSS and FSS satellite-based telecommunications networks should be distinct? Please provide your response along with end-to-end diagrammatic representation and

justification in respect of the following: a. Satellite - Satellite network interconnection b. Satellite - PLMN interconnection c. Satellite - PSTN interconnection Q35. Are there any specific regulatory models from other countries that have successfully addressed interconnection related issues and challenges which can be adapted in the Indian telecom sector? If yes, kindly provide details of such international best practices.

Q36. Kindly mention any other challenges or concerns related to the regulations being reviewed in this consultation paper.

Note:

1. All principal regulations referred to in this consultation paper should be read together with their subsequent amendments, as issued from time to time.

2. For all purposes, the Gazette notifications of regulations and their amendments mentioned in this consultation paper may be referred to. *** 1414 Annexure-I The Telecommunication Interconnection Regulations, 2018 THE TELECOMMUNICATION INTERCONNECTION REGULATIONS, 2018 (1 of 2018) TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA

NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 1st January, 2018 File No. 10-10/2016-BB&PA --- In exercise of the powers conferred upon it under section 36, read with sub- clauses (ii), (iii) and (iv) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 11, of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (24 of 1997), the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India hereby makes the following regulations, namely:-

CHAPTER I PRELIMINARY

1. Short title, extent and commencement. ---

(1) These regulations may be called the Telecommunication Interconnection Regulations, 2018 (1 of 2018).

(2) They shall come into effect from the 1st February, 2018.

2. Definitions. - In these regulations, unless the context otherwise requires, -

(1) “Act” means the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (24 of 1997);

(2) “Authority” means the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India established under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Act;

(3) “busy hour” means the continuous one-hour period lying wholly in a given time interval for which the traffic is highest;

(4) “interconnection” means the commercial and technical arrangements under which service providers connect their equipment, network and services to enable their customers to have access to the customers, services and networks of other service providers;

(5) "interconnection charge" means the charges payable by one service provider to another service provider for interconnection;

142143 3 4 . . “ in te rc o n n e c tio n u s a g e c h a rg e s ” o r “ IU C ” m e a n s th e c h a rg e p a y a b le b y o n e s e rv ic e p ro v id e r to (6 ) o n e o r m o re s e rv ic e p ro v id e rs fo r u s a g e o f th e n e tw o rk e le m e n ts fo r o rig in a tio n , tra n s it o r te rm in a tio n o f th e c a lls ;

“ lic e n c e ” m e a n s a lic e n c e g ra n te d o r h a v in g e ffe c t a s if g ra n te d u n d e r S e c tio n 4 o f th e In d ia n (7 ) T e le g ra p h A c t, 1 8 8 5 , (1 3 o f 1 8 8 5 ) a n d In d ia n W ire le s s T e le g ra p h y A c t, 1 9 3 3 (1 7 o f 1 9 3 3 );

“ p o in t o f in te rc o n n e c tio n ” o r “ P O I” m e a n s a m u tu a lly a g re e d p o in t o f d e m a rc a tio n (b a s e d o n (8 ) T R A I d e te rm in a tio n / re g u la tio n s /L ic e n s e A g re e m e n t) w h e re th e e x c h a n g e o f tra ffic b e tw e e n th e tw o p a rtie s ta k e s p la c e ;

“ p o rt” m e a n s a p la c e o f te rm in a tio n o n a s w itc h / d is trib u tio n fra m e to p ro v id e in g re s s a n d e g re s s (9 ) o f tra ffic b e tw e e n tw o in te rc o n n e c tin g n e tw o rk s ;

“ re g u la tio n s ” m e a n s th e T e le c o m m u n ic a tio n In te rc o n n e c tio n R e g u la tio n s , 2 0 1 8 (1 o f 2 0 1 8 ); (1 0 ) “ S c h e d u le ” m e a n s th e S c h e d u le a p p e n d e d to th e s e re g u la tio n s ; (1 1 ) a ll o th e r w o rd s a n d e x p re s s io n s u s e d in th e s e re g u la tio n s b u t n o t d e fin e d , a n d d e fin e d in th e A c t (1 2 ) a n d th e ru le s a n d o th e r re g u la tio n s m a d e th e re u n d e r, s h a ll h a v e th e m e a n in g s re s p e c tiv e ly a s s ig n e d to th e m in th e A c t o r th e ru le s o r o th e r re g u la tio n s , a s th e c a s e m a y b e .

C H A P T E R I I I N T E R C O N N E C T I O N A G R E E M E N T I n te r c o n n e c tio n a g r e e m e n t. - E v e ry s e rv ic e p ro v id e r s h a ll, w ith in th irty d a y s o f re c e ip t o f re q u e s t fro m a s e rv ic e p ro v id e r, e n te r in to in te rc o n n e c tio n a g re e m e n t, o n n o n -d is c rim in a to ry b a s is , w ith s u c h s e rv ic e p ro v id e r.

P r o c e d u r e fo r e n te r in g in to in te r c o n n e c tio n a g r e e m e n t. --- (1 ) A s e rv ic e p ro v id e r, w h o in te n d s to e n te r in to a n in te rc o n n e c tio n a g re e m e n t w ith a n o th e r s e rv ic e p ro v id e r, s h a ll m a k e re q u e s t to s u c h s e rv ic e p ro v id e r a lo n g w ith --- a c o p y o f its lic e n s e a g re e m e n t; (a ) n a m e o f th e s e rv ic e s fo r w h ic h in te rc o n n e c tio n is s o u g h t; (b ) p ro p o s e d lo c a tio n s o f its p o in ts o f in te rc o n n e c tio n ; a n d (c ) n a m e o f te c h n o lo g y to b e u s e d fo r in te rc o n n e c tio n a t e a c h P O I. (d ) (2 ) T h e s e rv ic e p ro v id e r, to w h o m re q u e s t h a s b e e n m a d e u n d e r s u b -re g u la tio n (1 ) fo r e n te rin g in to in te rc o n n e c tio n a g re e m e n t, s h a ll, w ith in fiv e w o rk in g d a y s o f re c e ip t o f th e re q u e s t, s e n d d ra ft in te rc o n n e c tio n a g re e m e n t to th e s e rv ic e p ro v id e r fro m w h o m th e re q u e s t w a s re c e iv e d .144 5 .

(3 ) B a n k (1 ) (2 ) g O n re c e ip t o f th e d ra ft in te rc o n n e c tio n a g re e m e n t is s u e d u n d e r s u b -re g u la tio n (2 ), th e s e rv ic e p ro v id e r w h o m a d e th e re q u e s t fo r e n te rin g in to in te rc o n n e c tio n a g re e m e n t s h a ll, w ith in fiv e w o rk in g d a y s , s u b m it its s u g g e s tio n s a n d o b je c tio n s , if a n y , o n s u c h d ra ft to th e o th e r s e rv ic e p ro v id e r.

C H A P T E R I I I B A N K G U A R A N T E E u a r a n te e s . --- T h e s e rv ic e p ro v id e r, w h o m a d e re q u e s t fo r e n te rin g in to in te rc o n n e c tio n a g re e m e n t, s h a ll b e lia b le to fu rn is h b a n k g u a ra n te e , fo r a p e rio d o f s ix m o n th s fro m th e d a te o f e s ta b lis h m e n t o f in itia l in te rc o n n e c tio n fo r th e to ta l n u m b e r o f p o rts s o u g h t d u rin g s u c h p e rio d , if d e m a n d e d b y

th e s e rv ic e p ro v id e r to w h o m re q u e s t fo r e n te rin g in to in te rc o n n e c tio n a g re e m e n t w a s m a d e :

P ro v id e d th a t th e a m o u n t o f s u c h b a n k g u a ra n te e s h a ll b e d e te rm in e d in th e m a n n e r s p e c ifie d in th e S c h e d u le -I to th e s e re g u la tio n s .

A t th e e n d o f s ix m o n th s fro m th e d a te o f e s ta b lis h m e n t o f in itia l in te rc o n n e c tio n o r o n th e st1 F e b ru a ry , 2 0 1 8 , w h ic h e v e r is la te r, lia b ility to fu rn is h b a n k g u a ra n te e s h a ll b e d e te rm in e d in

th e fo llo w in g m a n n e r: (a ) th e in te rc o n n e c tio n u s a g e c h a rg e s p a y a b le b y th e tw o in te rc o n n e c tin g s e rv ic e p ro v id e rs to e a c h o th e r fo r th e tw o m o n th s p rio r to th e e n d o f s ix m o n th s fro m th e d a te o f ste s ta b lis h m e n t o f in itia l in te rc o n n e c tio n o r th e 1 F e b ru a ry , 2 0 1 8 , w h ic h e v e r is la te r, s h a ll b e c a lc u la te d a n d th e s e rv ic e p ro v id e r w h o is lia b le to p a y in te rc o n n e c tio n u s a g e c h a rg e s , a fte r a d ju s tm e n t, to th e o th e r s e rv ic e p ro v id e r, s h a ll b e lia b le to fu rn is h b a n k g u a ra n te e fo r a p e rio d o f s ix m o n th s , if d e m a n d e d b y th e o th e r s e rv ic e p ro v id e r;

(b ) th e b a n k g u a ra n te e s h a ll b e lim ite d to th e a m o u n t o f in te rc o n n e c tio n u s a g e c h a rg e s p a y a b le b y a s e rv ic e p ro v id e r a fte r a d ju s tm e n t u n d e r c la u s e (a ); a n d (c ) th is p ro c e s s to d e te rm in e th e lia b ility o f a s e rv ic e p ro v id e r to fu rn is h th e b a n k g u a ra n te e s h a ll b e re p e a te d a t th e e n d o f e v e ry s ix m o n th .145 6 8 12 C H A P T E R I V P R O V I S I O N I N G A N D A U G M E N T A T I O N O F P O R T S A T P O I s . S e e k in g p o r ts a t P O I s . --- (1 ) F o r a p e rio d o f tw o y e a rs fro m th e d a te o f e s ta b lis h m e n t o f in itia l in te rc o n n e c tio n , th e s e rv ic e p ro v id e r, w h o m a d e th e re q u e s t fo r e n te rin g in to in te rc o n n e c tio n a g re e m e n t, s h a ll s e e k p o rts a t P O Is fro m th e o th e r s e rv ic e p ro v id e r to m e e t th e d e m a n d o f in c o m in g a n d o u tg o in g tra ffic a t th e P O Is .

(2 ) A t th e e n d o f tw o y e a rs fro m th e d a te o f e s ta b lis h m e n t o f in itia l in te rc o n n e c tio n o r o n th e st1 F e b ru a ry , 2 0 1 8 , w h ic h e v e r is la te r, th e to ta l p o rts e x is tin g a t a P O I s h a ll b e c o n v e rte d fo r c a rry in g o n e w a y tra ffic in s u c h a m a n n e r th a t th e n u m b e r o f p o rts fo r s e n d in g th e o u tg o in g tra ffic o f e a c h s e rv ic e p ro v id e r to th e o th e r s e rv ic e p ro v id e r a re in p ro p o rtio n to th e ir o u tg o in g tra ffic s a v e ra g e d o v e r a p e rio d o f p re c e d in g th re e m o n th s ; a n d (3 ) A fte r th e c o n v e rs io n o f p o rts u n d e r s u b -re g u la tio n (2 ), e a c h s e rv ic e p ro v id e r s h a ll s e e k p o rts to m e e t th e re q u ire m e n t o f its o u tg o in g tra ffic .

1[P ro v id e d th a t th e p o rt c h a rg e s a n d in fra s tru c tu re c h a rg e s , fo r a ll p o rts p ro v id e d b e fo re th e 1 s t F e b ru a ry , 2 0 1 8 , s h a ll c o n tin u e to b e p a y a b le a s p e r th e te rm s a n d c o n d itio n s w h ic h w e re a p p lic a b le to th e m b e fo re th e 1 s t F e b ru a ry , 2 0 1 8 .] 7 . R e q u e s t fo r in itia l p r o v is io n in g o f p o r ts . -A fte r e n te rin g in to a n in te rc o n n e c tio n a g re e m e n t, th e s e rv ic e p ro v id e r, w h o m a d e re q u e s t fo r e n te rin g in to in te rc o n n e c tio n a g re e m e n t, m a y re q u e s t th e o th e r s e rv ic e p ro v id e r to p ro v id e s u c h n u m b e r o f p o rts a t P O Is w h ic h s h a ll m e e t th e re q u ire m e n t o f its o u tg o in g a n d in c o m in g tra ffic a t th e P O Is fo r a p e rio d o f th re e m o n th s fro m th e d a te o f in itia l in te rc o n n e c tio n .

2 . [R e q u e s t fo r a u g m e n ta tio n o f P O I s --- (1 ) E v e ry s e rv ic e p ro v id e r s h a ll p ro v id e to th e in te rc o n n e c tin g s e rv ic e p ro v id e r, a t in te rv a l o f e v e ry s ix m o n th s , its fo re c a s t o f b u s y h o u r 2 o u tg o in g tra ffic , fo r th e s u c c e e d in g s ix m o n th s , a t e a c h P O I a n d th e firs t s u c h fo re c a s t s h a ll b e p ro v id e d w ith in s ix ty d a y s o f In s. by the F irst A m end m ent R egulations, 2018, reg . 2 (w .e.f. 05.07 .2 018 ) S ub s. by the F irst A m end m en t R egulations, 2018 , reg . 3 (w .e.f. 05 .0 7.2018) fo r the follo w ing :

“R eq u est for a u gm en ta tio n of P O Is. - A service prov id er m ay request the other service p rovider fo r add itional po rts at a P O I, if the projected capacity utilization o f the po rts at such P O I, at th e end of thirty d ay s from th e date of p lacing the requ est, is likely to b e m o re than seventy per cent o f th e p o rts at the P O I and such p rojected capacity utilization o f the po rts at the P O I shall be determ ined o n the basis o f the daily traffic

for the preceding thirty d ay s at the P O I du ring busy hour:

P ro vided th at the service p ro vider shall request fo r su ch n um ber of additional po rts w hich is likely to b rin g the cap acity utilizatio n o f the po rts at the P O I at the end of thirty days fro m th e date of m aking request, to less th an sixty p ercent.”146 9 1 2 3 4 .

S ub S ub S ub S ub th e c o m m e n c e m e n t o f th e T e le c o m m u n ic a tio n In te rc o n n e c tio n (A m e n d m e n t) R e g u la tio n s , 2 0 1 8 a n d st stth e re a fte r o n th e 1 A p ril a n d 1 O c to b e r e v e ry y e a r.

(2 ) A s e rv ic e p ro v id e r m a y re q u e s t th e o th e r s e rv ic e p ro v id e r fo r a d d itio n a l p o rts a t a P O I, if th e p ro je c te d u tilis a tio n o f th e c a p a c ity o f s u c h P O I, c a lc u la te d in th e m a n n e r a s c o n ta in e d in s c h e d u le II to th e s e re g u la tio n s , a t th e e n d o f s ix ty d a y s fro m th e d a te o f p la c in g th e re q u e s t, is lik e ly to b e m o re th a n e ig h ty -fiv e p e rc e n t a n d s u c h p ro je c te d u tiliz a tio n o f th e c a p a c ity o f P O I s h a ll b e d e te rm in e d o n th e b a s is o f th e d a ily tra ffic fo r th e p re c e d in g s ix ty d a y s a t th e P O I

d u rin g b u s y h o u r:

P ro v id e d th a t th e s e rv ic e p ro v id e r s h a ll re q u e s t fo r s u c h n u m b e r o f a d d itio n a l p o rts w h ic h is lik e ly to b rin g th e u tiliz a tio n o f th e c a p a c ity o f s u c h P O I, a t th e e n d o f s ix ty d a y s fro m th e d a te o f m a k in g re q u e s t, to le s s th a n s e v e n ty -fiv e p e rc e n t.] F r a m e w o r k fo r p r o v is io n in g o f p o r ts . --- (1 ) A s e rv ic e p ro v id e r, u p o n re c e ip t o f re q u e s t o f p o rts u n d e r re g u la tio n 7 a n d re g u la tio n 8 , a n d c o llo c a tio n s p a c e , if re q u ire d , s h a ll is s u e le tte r o f a c c e p ta n c e , a n d , d e m a n d n o te , if a n y , w ith in 1[s e v e n w o rk in g d a y s ] o f th e re c e ip t o f th e re q u e s t.

(2 ) A s e rv ic e p ro v id e r, u p o n re c e ip t o f th e d e m a n d n o te u n d e r s u b -re g u la tio n (1 ), s h a ll p a y th e 2a m o u n t w ith in [fiv e w o rk in g d a y s ] fro m th e d a te o f re c e ip t o f th e d e m a n d n o te .

(3 ) T h e s e rv ic e p ro v id e r, w h o is s u e d th e le tte r o f a c c e p ta n c e u n d e r s u b -re g u la tio n (1 ), s h a ll in tim a te th e re q u e s tin g s e rv ic e p ro v id e r a b o u t p ro v is io n in g o f th e p o rts a n d a llo c a tio n o f th e c o llo c a tio n s p a c e , if a p p lic a b le ,--- 3 (a ) w ith in [te n w o rk in g d a y s ] fro m th e d a te o f is s u e o f its le tte r o f a c c e p ta n c e , in c a s e n o d e m a n d n o te w a s is s u e d ; a n d 1 (b ) w ith in [te n w o rk in g d a y s ] fro m th e d a te o f re c e ip t o f p a y m e n t fro m th e re q u e s tin g s e rv ic e p ro v id e r a g a in s t th e d e m a n d n o te , in c a s e a d e m a n d n o te w a s is s u e d .

4 (4 ) A s e rv ic e p ro v id e r, u p o n re c e ip t o f th e in tim a tio n u n d e r s u b -re g u la tio n (3 ), s h a ll, w ith in [te n w o rk in g d a y s ] o f th e re c e ip t o f th e in tim a tio n , in tim a te th e o th e r s e rv ic e p ro v id e r a b o u t e s ta b lis h m e n t o f th e tra n s m is s io n lin k b e tw e e n th e P O Is o f th e tw o s e rv ic e p ro v id e rs .

s. by the F irst A m end m en t R egulations, 2018 , reg . 4 (a) (w .e.f. 05.07.2018 ) fo r the follow ing: “five w orking day s” s. by the F irst A m end m en t R egulations, 2018 , reg . 4(b ) (w .e.f. 05.07 .20 18 ) fo r the follow in g:

“three w o rking days” s. by the F irst A m end m en t R egulations, 2018 , reg . 4 (c) (w .e.f. 05 .0 7.20 18 ) fo r the follow ing: “five w o rking day s” s. by the F irst A m end m en t R egulations, 2018 , reg . 4(d ) (w .e.f. 05.07 .2018 ) fo r the follow in g:

“three w o rking days”147 1 1 2 1 (5 ) A s e rv ic e p ro v id e r, u p o n re c e ip t o f th e in tim a tio n u n d e r s u b -re g u la tio n (4 ), s h a ll, w ith in [te n w o rk in g d a y s ] o f th e re c e ip t o f th e in tim a tio n , c a rry o u t a c c e p ta n c e te s tin g a n d is s u e fin a l le tte r o f c o m m is s io n in g o f th e p o rts to th e o th e r s e rv ic e p ro v id e r.

(6 ) A s e rv ic e p ro v id e r s h a ll p ro v id e S T M -1 p o rts a t P O Is , if a n y s e rv ic e p ro v id e r re q u e s ts fo r

p ro v is io n in g o f s u c h p o rts fo r a u g m e n ta tio n o f th e P O Is :

P ro v id e d th a t th e tw o s e rv ic e p ro v id e rs m a y a g re e fo r a u g m e n ta tio n o f P O Is a t a n y lo w e r o r h ig h e r le v e l s u c h a s D S -3 o r S T M -1 6 .

29 A . [L e v e l o f in te r c o n n e c tio n fo r P S T N to P S T N c o n n e c tiv ity :----- (1 ) W ith in a s e rv ic e a re a , th e lo c a tio n o f P O I, fo r c a lls b e tw e e n P S T N a n d P S T N o r b e tw e e n P S T N a n d N L D n e tw o rk , s h a ll b e a t s u c h p la c e a s m a y b e m u tu a lly a g re e d b e tw e e n th e in te rc o n n e c tio n p ro v id e r a n d th e in te rc o n n e c tio n s e e k e r.

(2 ) In c a s e th e in te rc o n n e c tio n p ro v id e r a n d th e in te rc o n n e c tio n s e e k e r fa il to a g re e u n d e r s u b - re g u la tio n (1 ), th e lo c a tio n o f P O I, fo r c a lls b e tw e e n P S T N a n d P S T N o r b e tw e e n P S T N a n d N L D n e tw o rk , s h a ll b e a t L D C C :

P ro v id e d th a t c a rria g e c h a rg e fo r c a rria g e o f c a lls fro m L D C C to S D C C a n d v ic e v e rs a , a s a p p lic a b le , s h a ll b e p a id b y th e in te rc o n n e c tio n s e e k e r to th e in te rc o n n e c tio n p ro v id e r:

P ro v id e d fu rth e r th a t th e e x is tin g P O Is a t th e S D C C le v e l, fo r c a lls b e tw e e n P S T N a n d P S T N o r b e tw e e n P S T N a n d N L D n e tw o rk , s h a ll re m a in in o p e ra tio n fo r a p e rio d o f a t le a s t fiv e y e a rs o r till s u c h tim e th e in te rc o n n e c te d s e rv ic e p ro v id e rs m u tu a lly d e c id e to c lo s e s u c h P O Is , w h ic h e v e r is e a rlie r:

P ro v id e d a ls o th a t th e e x is tin g P O I a t th e S D C C le v e l, fo r c a lls b e tw e e n P S T N a n d P S T N o r b e tw e e n P S T N a n d N L D n e tw o rk , c a n b e c lo s e d if th e s e rv ic e s o f e ith e r o f th e in te rc o n n e c te d s e rv ic e p ro v id e rs a re d is c o n tin u e d in th a t S D C A .” C H A P T E R V I N T E R C O N N E C T I O N C H A R G E S 0 . I n te r c o n n e c tio n c h a r g e s .- T h e in te rc o n n e c tio n c h a rg e s s u c h a s s e t-u p c h a rg e s a n d in fra s tru c tu re c h a rg e s m a y b e m u tu a lly n e g o tia te d b e tw e e n s e rv ic e p ro v id e rs s u b je c t to th e re g u la tio n s o r d ire c tio n s

is s u e d b y th e A u th o rity fro m tim e to tim e :

P ro v id e d th a t s u c h c h a rg e s a re re a s o n a b le , tra n s p a re n t a n d n o n -d is c rim in a to ry .

S ub s. by the F irst A m end m en t R egulations, 2018 , reg . 4 (e) (w .e.f. 05 .0 7.20 18 ) fo r the follow ing: “five w o rking day s” Ins. by th e S econ d A m end m ent R egulations, 2018, reg. 2 (w .e.f. 10 .07.2020 )148 1 1 1 1 2 3 .

. .

C H A P T E R V I D I S C O N N E C T I O N O F P O I s P r o c e d u r e fo r d is c o n n e c tio n o f P O I s . - A s e rv ic e p ro v id e r, b e fo re d is c o n n e c tio n o f a P O I, s h a ll--- (a ) g iv e a s h o w -c a u s e -n o tic e o f fifte e n w o rk in g d a y s to th e o th e r s e rv ic e p ro v id e r w ith re a s o n s fo r th e p ro p o s e d d is c o n n e c tio n ;

(b ) if n o t s a tis fie d w ith th e re p ly o f th e s h o w -c a u s e -n o tic e is s u e d u n d e r c la u s e (a ) o r n o re p ly is re c e iv e d to th e s h o w -c a u s e -n o tic e , g iv e a n o tic e o f fifte e n w o rk in g d a y s to s u c h s e rv ic e p ro v id e r s p e c ify in g th e d a te o f d is c o n n e c tio n o f P O I; a n d (c ) n o t d is c o n n e c t P O I b e fo re th e e x p iry o f th e p e rio d o f n o tic e g iv e n u n d e r c la u s e (b ):

P ro v id e d th a t n o th in g c o n ta in e d in th is re g u la tio n s h a ll a p p ly if a P O I is d is c o n n e c te d w ith m u tu a l c o n s e n t, o r o n th e d ire c tio n o f th e L ic e n s o r o r th e A u th o rity .

C H A P T E R V I I F I N A N C I A L D I S I N C E N T I V E O N I N T E R C O N N E C T I O N M A T T E R S C o n s e q u e n c e s fo r c o n tr a v e n tio n o f th e p r o v is io n s o f th e s e r e g u la tio n s .- If a n y s e rv ic e p ro v id e r c o n tra v e n e s th e p ro v is io n s o f th e s e re g u la tio n s , it s h a ll, w ith o u t p re ju d ic e to a n y p e n a lty w h ic h m a y b e im p o s e d u n d e r its lic e n c e , o r th e p ro v is io n s o f th e A c t o r ru le s o r o rd e rs m a d e o r d ire c tio n s is s u e d , th e re u n d e r, b e lia b le to p a y a n a m o u n t, b y w a y o f fin a n c ia l d is in c e n tiv e n o t e x c e e d in g ru p e e s o n e la k h p e r d a y p e r lic e n s e d s e rv ic e a re a , a s th e A u th o rity m a y d ire c t:

P ro v id e d th a t n o o rd e r fo r p a y m e n t o f a n y a m o u n t b y w a y o f fin a n c ia l d is in c e n tiv e s h a ll b e m a d e b y th e A u th o rity u n le s s th e s e rv ic e p ro v id e r h a s b e e n g iv e n a re a s o n a b le o p p o rtu n ity o f re p re s e n tin g a g a in s t th e c o n tra v e n tio n o f th e re g u la tio n s o b s e rv e d b y th e A u th o rity .

C H A P T E R V I I I M I S C E L L A N E O U S P o w e r o f th e A u th o r ity to is s u e d ir e c tio n .- W ith o u t p re ju d ic e to a n y o f th e p ro v is io n s o f th e A c t o r a n y o th e r re g u la tio n s m a d e u n d e r th e A c t o r d ire c tio n is s u e d th e re u n d e r, th e A u th o rity m a y , fro m tim e to tim e , is s u e s u c h d ire c tio n s , a s it m a y d e e m fit, to th e s e rv ic e p ro v id e rs o n a n y a s p e c t o f in te rc o n n e c tio n fo r w h ic h p ro v is io n s h a v e b e e n m a d e u n d e r th e s e re g u la tio n s .149 S .

N o .

1 C e lin ilin g k a t P o O n b a I (in B I te m n k g u R s .) a n a ra k n g te u e S c h e d u le -I a r a n te e p e r E 1 lin k a t a P (S e e re g u la tio n 5 .) p e r E 1 8 ,0 0 ,0 0 0 m u ltip c h a rg e p e r m in u o n E 1 lin k O I V a lie d te a p lu e (in R s .) b y th e in te rc o p lic a b le fo r th n n e c tio n e tra ffic c u s a g a rrie e d150 S c h e d u le I I 1[ F o r g iv e n n u m b e r o f c h a n n e ls o f P O I, its c a p a c ity fo r 0 .5 % G ra d e o f S e rv ic e s h a ll b e d e d u c e d fro m th e E rla n g B ta b le . T h e s a m p le c a lc u la tio n fo r a u g m e n ta tio n o f p o rts o f P O I is in d ic a te d b e lo w :

C o n s id e rin g th a t S e rv ic e P ro v id e r A h a s , fo r its o u tg o in g tra ffic , e x is tin g P O I o f 6 0 0 c h a n n e ls w ith th e S e rv ic e P ro v id e r B , th e n a s p e r th e E rla n g B ta b le , th e c a p a c ity o f s u c h P O I a t 0 .5 % G r a d e o f S e rv ic e s h a ll b e 5 6 2 .3 E rla n g . N o w w h e n th e p ro je c te d o u tg o in g tra ffic o f S e rv ic e P ro v id e r A , a t th e e n d o f s ix ty d a y s f ro m to d a y , w o u ld b e m o re th a n 4 7 7 .9 5 E r la n g (i.e . 8 5 % o f th e P O I c a p a c ity ), it m a y re q u e s t th e S e rv ic e P ro v id e r B fo r a u g m e n ta tio n o f th e P O I c a p a c ity b y s u c h n u m b e r o f p o rts w h ic h ta k e s it to m o r e th a n 6 3 7 .2 7 E r la n g (i.e . 4 7 7 .9 5 /0 .7 5 ). A s p e r E rla n g B ta b le , th is w o u ld im p ly a u g m e n ta tio n o f p o rts a t s u c h P O I b y a p p ro x im a te ly 7 7 c h a n n e ls .] 1 In s. by the F irst A m end m ent R egulations, 2018, reg . 5 (w .e.f. 05.07 .2 018 )5 Annexure-II The Short Message Services (SMS) Termination Charges Regulations, 2013 1511526 Annexure-III Intelligent Network Services in Multi-Operator and Multi-Network Scenario Regulations, 2006 153 1 1 5 8154 1 1 5 9155 1 1 6 0156 1 1 6 1157 1 1 6 2158 1 1 6 37 Annexure-IV TRAI (Transit Charges for BSNL's Cell One Terminating Traffic) Regulations, 2005 Telecom Regulatory Authority of India

Notification New Delhi, the 8th June, 2005 No.409-10/2005-FN In exercise of the powers conferred upon it under section 36 read with paragraphs (ii),

(iii) and (iv) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India hereby makes the following Regulation, namely:

1. Short title, extent and commencement:

(i) This Regulation shall be called “ Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Transit Charges for Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited's CellOne Terminating Traffic) Regulation, 2005 (10 of 2005)”

(ii) This Regulation shall come into force with effect from 3rd May, 2005 in compliance with the Hon'ble TDSAT's order dated May 3, 2005 in Petition No.

20/2004 (Cellular Operators Association of India and others Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & others.)

2. Transit Charges for accessing BSNL's CellOne subscribers - No transit charge shall be levied by BSNL (Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited) on Cellular Operators for accessing BSNL's CellOne subscribers, wherever the MSCs of both BSNL's CellOne and Private CMSOs' are connected to the same BSNL switch.

1 159160 3 . E T b x h a p la is R c k g n a t o e g u r o u n r la d y M tio a n e m n c o d r e o n a r a ta s o n in n d s s u m a t A fo r is n s n u e a x A n c e 2 , a o n e f th x is p la R e n g a u to la r y m tio n e m .

o r a [ R n A d J A u m E N c t th a t e x B Y O D R A S in g S e c p la in s R D E R IN G H ] r e t a r y8 Annexure-V The Telecommunication Interconnection Usage Charges Regulations, 2003 161 T e le c o m R e g u la to r y A u th o r ity o f I n d ia N o tific a tio n N e w D e lh i, th e 2 9 th O c to b e r 2 0 0 3 N o . 4 0 9 -5 /2 0 0 3 -F N In e x e rc is e o f th e p o w e rs c o n fe rre d u p o n it u n d e r s e c tio n 3 6 re a d w ith c la u s e s (ii), (iii) a n d (iv ) o f s u b -s e c tio n (b ) o f S e c tio n 1 1 (1 ) o f th e T e le c o m R e g u la to ry A u th o rity o f In d ia A c t, 1 9 9 7 a s a m e n d e d b y T R A I (A m e n d m e n t) A c t, 2 0 0 0 , to fix th e te rm s a n d c o n d itio n s o f in te rc o n n e c tiv ity b e tw e e n S e rv ic e P ro v id e rs , to e n s u re e ffe c tiv e in te rc o n n e c tio n b e tw e e n d iffe re n t s e rv ic e p ro v id e rs a n d to re g u la te a rra n g e m e n ts a m o n g s t s e rv ic e p ro v id e rs o f s h a rin g th e ir re v e n u e d e riv e d fro m p ro v id in g te le c o m m u n ic a tio n s e rv ic e s , th e T e le c o m R e g u la to ry A u th o rity o f In d ia h e re b y m a k e s th e fo llo w in g R e g u la tio n .

T H E T E L E C O M M U N I C A T I O N I N T E R C O N N E C T I O N U S A G E C H A R G E S R E G U L A T I O N , 2 0 0 3 (4 o f 2 0 0 3 ) S e c tio n I T itle , E x te n t a n d C o m m e n c e m e n t 1 . S h o rt title , e x te n t a n d c o m m e n c e m e n t:

(i) T h is R e g u la tio n s h a ll b e c a lle d “ T h e T e le c o m m u n ic a tio n In te rc o n n e c tio n U s a g e C h a rg e s R e g u la tio n 2 0 0 3 ” (th e R e g u la tio n ) a n d s u p e rs e d e s th e e a rlie r R e g u la tio n d a te d 2 4 th J a n u a ry 2 0 0 3 (1 o f 2 0 0 3 ) a n d its th tha m e n d m e n ts d a te d 2 7 M a rc h 2 0 0 3 (1 s t a m e n d m e n t) a n d 1 6 J u n e , 2 0 0 3 (2 n d a m e n d m e n t).

(ii) T h e R e g u la tio n s h a ll c o v e r a rra n g e m e n ts a m o n g s e rv ic e p ro v id e rs fo r p a y m e n t o f In te rc o n n e c tio n U s a g e C h a rg e s , fo r T e le c o m m u n ic a tio n S e rv ic e s , c o v e rin g B a s ic S e rv ic e th a t in c lu d e s W L L (M ) s e rv ic e s , C e llu la r M o b ile S e rv ic e s , a n d L o n g -D is ta n c e S e rv ic e s (S T D / IS D ) th ro u g h o u t th e te rrito ry o f In d ia .

(iii) T h e R e g u la tio n s h a ll b e d e e m e d to h a v e c o m e in to fo rc e fro m th e d a te o f its n o tific a tio n in th e o ffic ia l G a z e tte .

S e c tio n I I D e fin itio n s 2 . In th is R e g u la tio n , u n le s s th e c o n te x t o th e rw is e re q u ire s :

(i) “ A c t” m e a n s th e T e le c o m R e g u la to ry A u th o rity o f In d ia , 1 9 9 7 a s a m e n d e d b y T R A I (A m e n d m e n t) A c t, 2 0 0 0 .

(ii) “ A D C ” m e a n s A c c e s s D e fic it C h a rg e .

(iii) “ A u th o rity ” m e a n s th e T e le c o m R e g u la to ry A u th o rity o f In d ia .162 1[(iv ) “ B S O , C M S P , IL D O , N L D O a n d U A S P ” re s p e c tiv e ly m e a n th e B a s ic S e rv ic e O p e ra to r, C e llu la r M o b ile S e rv ic e P ro v id e r, In te rn a tio n a l L o n g D is ta n c e O p e ra to r, N a tio n a l L o n g D is ta n c e O p e ra to r a n d U n ifie d A c c e s s S e rv ic e P ro v id e r.] (v ) “ C e ilin g (s )” m e a n (s ) th e u p p e r lim it(s ) o f a c h a rg e s p e c ifie d b y th e A u th o rity fro m tim e to tim e o v e r w h ic h s u c h c h a rg e s m a y n o t b e o ffe re d .

(v i) “ F lo o r” m e a n s th e lo w e r lim it o f a c h a rg e s p e c ifie d b y th e A u th o rity fro m tim e to tim e b e lo w w h ic h s u c h c h a rg e s m a y n o t b e o ffe re d . (v ii) “ F o rb e a ra n c e ” m e a n s th a t th e A u th o rity h a s n o t, fo r th e tim e b e in g , n o tifie d a n y c h a rg e fo r a p a rtic u la r te le c o m m u n ic a tio n s e rv ic e a n d th e s e rv ic e p ro v id e r is fre e to fix a n y c h a rg e fo r s u c h s e rv ic e . T h e A u th o rity , h o w e v e r, h a s a rig h t to in te rv e n e a t a n y s ta g e a fte r th e in tro d u c tio n o f th e c h a rg e .

(v iii) " In te rc o n n e c tio n " m e a n s th e c o m m e rc ia l a n d te c h n ic a l a rra n g e m e n ts u n d e r w h ic h s e rv ic e p ro v id e rs c o n n e c t th e ir e q u ip m e n t, n e tw o rk s a n d s e rv ic e s to e n a b le th e ir c u s to m e rs to h a v e a c c e s s to th e c u s to m e rs , s e rv ic e s a n d n e tw o rk s o f o th e r s e rv ic e p ro v id e rs .

(ix ) " In te rc o n n e c tio n C h a rg e " m e a n s th e c h a rg e fo r in te rc o n n e c tio n le v ie d b y a n in te rc o n n e c tio n p ro v id e r o n a n in te rc o n n e c tio n s e e k e r.

(x ) “ In te rc o n n e c tio n U s a g e C h a rg e (IU C )” m e a n s th e c h a rg e p a y a b le b y o n e s e rv ic e p ro v id e r to o n e o r m o re s e rv ic e p ro v id e rs fo r u s a g e o f th e n e tw o rk e le m e n ts fo r o rig in a tio n , tra n s it o r te rm in a tio n o f th e c a lls .

(x i) " In te rc o n n e c tio n P ro v id e r" m e a n s th e s e rv ic e p ro v id e r to w h o s e n e tw o rk a n in te rc o n n e c tio n is s o u g h t fo r p ro v id in g te le c o m m u n ic a tio n s e rv ic e s .

(x ii) " In te rc o n n e c tio n S e e k e r" m e a n s th e s e rv ic e p ro v id e r w h o s e e k s in te rc o n n e c tio n to th e n e tw o rk o f th e in te rc o n n e c tio n p ro v id e r. (x iii) “ In te rn a tio n a l S u b s c rib e r D ia lin g ” (IS D ) m e a n s th e fa c ility b y w h ic h a s u b s c rib e r c a n h a v e d ire c t c o n n e c tio n b e tw e e n h im (in In d ia ) w ith a n o th e r e n d u s e r in a n o th e r c o u n try b y m e a n s o f d ire c t d ia lin g th ro u g h lic e n s e d n e tw o rk s . T h is in c lu d e s th e c o v e ra g e o f th e in te rn a tio n a l s e c to r b y IL D O a n d th e re la te d n a tio n a l s e c to r b y N L D O a n d /o r a c c e s s p ro v id e r.

(x iv ) “ L D C A / L D C C ” re s p e c tiv e ly m e a n L o n g D is ta n c e C h a rg in g A re a /L o n g D is ta n c e C h a rg in g C e n tre . (x v ) " O rd e r" m e a n s th e T e le c o m m u n ic a tio n T a riff O rd e r, 1 9 9 9 a s a m e n d e d fro m tim e to tim e .

(x v i) “ O rig in a tin g N e tw o rk ” m e a n s th e n e tw o rk to w h ic h a n o rig in a to r o f a te le c o m m u n ic a tio n m e s s a g e (v o ic e a n d n o n -v o ic e ) is p ro x im a te ly c o n n e c te d to .

(x v ii) “ O rig in a tin g /T ra n s it/T e rm in a tin g S e rv ic e P ro v id e r” m e a n s th e s e rv ic e p ro v id e r w h o s e n e tw o rk is u s e d fo r o rig in a tin g /tra n s it/te rm in a tin g a te le c o m m u n ic a tio n m e s s a g e (v o ic e a n d n o n -v o ic e ) re s p e c tiv e ly .

(x v iii) " R e g u la tio n " m e a n s th e T e le c o m m u n ic a tio n In te rc o n n e c tio n U s a g e C h a rg e s (IU C ) R e g u la tio n 2 0 0 3 (2 o f 2 0 0 3 ).

1 S ub s. by the T hird A m endm ent R egu lation s, 2003, reg. 2.1 (w .e.f. 31.12.20 03 ), for the follo w ing: “(iv) “B S O , C M S P , IL D O and N L D O ” respectively m ean the B asic S erv ice O perato r, C ellu lar M obile S erv ice P rovider, In tern ational L ong D istance O perator and N ational L on g D istance O perator.”163 (x ix ) “ R e p o rtin g R e q u ire m e n t” m e a n s th e o b lig a tio n o f a s e rv ic e p ro v id e r to re p o rt to th e A u th o rity a t le a s t 4 5 w o rk in g d a y s b e fo re im p le m e n tin g a n y n e w In te rc o n n e c tio n U s a g e C h a rg e fo r te le c o m m u n ic a tio n s e rv ic e s u n d e r ‘th is R e g u la tio n ’ a n d a n y c h a n g e s th e re a fte r.

(x x ) “ S D C A /S D C C ” re s p e c tiv e ly m e a n S h o rt D is ta n c e C h a rg in g A re a /S h o rt D is ta n c e C h a rg in g C e n tre . (x x i) " S e t U p C o s ts o f In te rc o n n e c tio n " m e a n s th e in itia l c o s t o f a n y s y s te m u p g ra d a tio n n e e d e d to p ro v id e th e s p e c ific in te rc o n n e c tio n fa c ilitie s re q u e s te d .

(x x ii) “ S e ttle m e n t P e rio d ” is th e p e rio d a t th e e n d o f w h ic h th e in te r-c a rrie r b illin g IU C /A D C p a y m e n ts a m o n g s e rv ic e p ro v id e rs a re to b e s e ttle d , b a s e d o n th e re c o rd re c o n c ilia tio n p ro c e s s a s m a y b e fin a liz e d th ro u g h m u tu a l a rra n g e m e n ts a m o n g th e s e rv ic e p ro v id e rs .

(x x iii) “ S ig n ific a n t M a rk e t P o w e r (S M P )” m e a n s “ A S e rv ic e P ro v id e r h o ld in g a s h a re o f a t le a s t 3 0 % o f to ta l a c tiv ity in a lic e n s e d te le c o m m u n ic a tio n s e rv ic e a re a . T h e s e S e rv ic e s a re c a te g o riz e d a s B a s ic S e rv ic e , C e llu la r M o b ile S e rv ic e , N a tio n a l L o n g D is ta n c e S e rv ic e a n d In te rn a tio n a l L o n g D is ta n c e S e rv ic e .” w h e re " A c tiv ity " w o u ld m e a n a n d in c lu d e a n y o n e o r m o re o f th e fo llo w in g :

(a ) S u b s c rib e r B a s e (b ) T u rn o v e r (c ) S w itc h in g C a p a c ity (d ) V o lu m e o f T ra ffic (x x iv ) “ S u b s c rib e r T ru n k D ia lin g ” (S T D ) m e a n s th e fa c ility b y w h ic h a s u b s c rib e r c a n h a v e d ire c t c o n n e c tio n b e tw e e n h im a n d a n o th e r e n d u s e r in a n o th e r S D C A w ith in In d ia b y m e a n s o f d ire c t d ia lin g th ro u g h th e p u b lic lo n g -d is ta n c e n e tw o rk s .

(x x v ) “ T e rm in a tin g N e tw o rk ” m e a n s th e n e tw o rk to w h ic h a re c e iv e r o f a te le c o m m u n ic a tio n m e s s a g e (v o ic e a n d n o n -v o ic e ) is p ro x im a te ly c o n n e c te d to .

(x x v i) “ T ra n s it N e tw o rk ” m e a n s th e n e tw o rk th ro u g h w h ic h te le c o m m u n ic a tio n m e s s a g e s (v o ic e o r n o n -v o ic e ) fro m o rig in a tin g n e tw o rk s o r o th e r tra n s it n e tw o rk s a re tra n s m itte d a n d d e liv e re d to te rm in a tin g o r o th e r tra n s it n e tw o rk s .

(x x v ii) “ U s a g e C h a rg e ” m e a n s th e c h a rg e le v ie d b y a s e rv ic e p ro v id e r fo r c a rria g e o f te le c o m m u n ic a tio n tra ffic o n its n e tw o rk , i.e . fo r u s e o f its n e tw o rk e le m e n ts .

(x x v iii) “ W L L (M )” m e a n s lim ite d m o b ility te le p h o n y s e rv ic e u s in g w ire le s s in lo c a l lo o p te c h n o lo g y w ith in a S h o rt D is ta n c e C h a rg in g A re a .

1[* * * * ] 2[(x x ix )] W o rd s a n d e x p re s s io n s u s e d in th is R e g u la tio n a n d n o t d e fin e d h e re in b u t d e fin e d in th e A c t s h a ll h a v e th e s a m e m e a n in g s a s s ig n e d to th e m in th e A c t.

1 Ins. the follo w in g clause by th e F ifth A m en dm en t R egulation s, 20 05, reg. 2 (w .e.f. 11.04.2005), w hich has been set aside by the H on’ble T D S A T , vide its order dated 21.09 .2005 passed in T A N o . 7 of 2005 titled as “C O A I & O rs. v . T R A I & A nr.”:

“(xx ix ) R oam in g m eans the ability for a cellular subscrib er to autom atically m ak e and receiv e vo ice calls, data and to access other serv ices w hile travelling outside the geographical co verag e area of th e h o m e netw o rk, by u sing th e visited netw o rk. It is nation al roam ing w hen v isited netw o rk and th e hom e netw o rk o f the sub scriber are in the sam e co untry and it is in ternational roam ing w hen visited netw ork and h om e netw o rk of th e su bscriber are in d ifferent cou ntries.”2 C lause (x xix ) re-nu m b ered as clau se (x xx ) b y th e F ifth A m endm ent R egulation s, 2005 , reg . 2 (w .e.f. 11.04.2005), w h ich has b een set asid e by the H on’b le T D S A T , vide its o rder d ated 21.09 .20 05 p assed in T A N o. 7 o f 2 005 titled as “C O A I & O rs. v. T R A I & A n r.”164 1[(x x x ) “ C e llu la r” m e a n s fu lly m o b ile s e rv ic e p ro v id e d b y C M S P s a n d U A S P s th ro u g h G S M , C D M A o r a n y o th e r te c h n o lo g y .] S e c tio n I I I 3 . I n te r c o n n e c tio n C h a r g e s In te rc o n n e c tio n C h a rg e s s h a ll c o n tin u e to b e g o v e rn e d b y “ T h e T e le c o m m u n ic a tio n In te rc o n n e c tio n (C h a rg e s a n d R e v e n u e S h a rin g ) R e g u la tio n , 2 0 0 1 (5 o f 2 0 0 1 )” a n d T h e T e le c o m m u n ic a tio n In te rc o n n e c tio n (P o rt C h a rg e s ) R e g u la tio n 2 0 0 1 (6 o f 2 0 0 1 ), e x c e p t to th e e x te n t m o d ifie d b y th is R e g u la tio n .

S e c tio n I V 4 . I n te r c o n n e c tio n U s a g e C h a r g e s (I U C ) T h e In te rc o n n e c tio n U s a g e C h a rg e s a re s p e c ifie d in S c h e d u le s h e re to .

S c h e d u le I – T e r m in a tio n C h a r g e s S c h e d u le I I – C a r r ia g e C h a r g e s S c h e d u le I I I – A c c e s s D e fic it C h a r g e (A D C ) 2[S c h e d u le I V – In te rc o n n e c t U s a g e C h a rg e (IU C ) fo r S h o rt M e s s a g e S e rv ic e (S M S )]

(i) U n le s s s p e c ific a lly p ro v id e d in th e S c h e d u le s to th is R e g u la tio n , th e A u th o rity fo rb e a rs w ith re s p e c t to o th e r In te rc o n n e c tio n U s a g e C h a rg e s .

3 4 5 st[ [ [(ii) T h e d a te o f e ffe c t fo r a c tu a l im p le m e n ta tio n o f IU C s h a ll b e 1 F e b ru a ry , 2 0 0 4 .]]]

(iii) T h e e x is tin g In te rc o n n e c tio n U s a g e C h a rg e s a rra n g e m e n t b e tw e e n th e In te rc o n n e c tin g n e tw o rk s in re s p e c t o f th e ite m s a s s p e c ifie d in th is R e g u la tio n s h a ll h o ld g o o d till th e d a te o n w h ic h th is R e g u la tio n c o m e s in fo rc e .

(iv ) A ll e x is tin g in te rc o n n e c t a g re e m e n ts /a rra n g e m e n ts a s o n d a te s h a ll s ta n d a m e n d e d o n th e d a te o f a c tu a l im p le m e n ta tio n o f th is R e g u la tio n s o a s to c o n fo rm to th e p re s e n t fra m e w o rk o f th e IU C re g im e a n d th e s e s h a ll b e s u b m itte d to T R A I fo r re g is tra tio n w ith in 1 5 d a y s o f im p le m e n ta tio n o f th is R e g u la tio n , a n d fo r s u b s e q u e n t c h a n g e s a s p e r re p o rtin g re q u ire m e n t.

(v ) IU C v a lu e s s p e c ifie d in ‘th e R e g u la tio n ’ s h a ll a ls o b e a p p lic a b le fo r a ll R e fe re n c e In te rc o n n e c t O ffe rs b y S ig n ific a n t M a rk e t P o w e rs (S M P s ).

1 Ins. by the T hird A m end m ent R egulation s, 2003, reg. 2.2 (w .e.f. 31.12.200 3) 2 Ins. by the T enth A m endm en t R egulation s, 2009 , reg. 2 (a) (w .e.f. 0 1.04.20 09) 3 S ub s. by the F irst A m en d m ent R egulation s, 2003, reg. 2.1 (w .e.f. 2 5.11.2003 ), for th e fo llo w ing:

st“(ii) T he date of effect fo r actual im p lem en tation o f IU C shall be 1 D ecem b er 2003 .” 4 S ub s. b y th e S econ d A m end m ent R egu lation s, 200 3, reg . 2.1 (w .e.f. 12.12.2003), fo r th e follo w in g:

th “(ii) T he date of effect fo r actual im p lem en tation o f IU C shall be 15 D ecem ber, 200 3.”5 S ub s. by the T hird A m endm ent R egu lation s, 2003, reg. 2.3 (w .e.f. 31.12.20 03 ), for the follo w ing:

st“(ii) T he date of effect fo r actual im p lem en tation o f IU C shall be 1 January, 2004 .”165 1[(v i) E v e ry B S O , C M S P , U A S P a n d U n ifie d L ic e n s e (U L ) lic e n s e e s h a ll o ffe r a te rm in a tio n c h a rg e , fo r in te rn a tio n a l c a lls te rm in a tin g o n its n e tw o rk , in a n o n -d is c rim in a to ry m a n n e r a n d w ith in th e ra n g e s p e c ifie d in S c h e d u le I.] S e c tio n V 5 . R e p o r tin g R e q u ir e m e n t

(i) A ll s e rv ic e p ro v id e rs s h a ll c o m p ly w ith th e R e p o rtin g R e q u ire m e n t a s d e fin e d in S e c tio n II in re s p e c t o f In te rc o n n e c tio n U s a g e C h a rg e s s p e c ifie d fo r th e firs t tim e u n d e r ‘th e R e g u la tio n ’, a s a ls o a ll s u b s e q u e n t c h a n g e s , s u b je c t to th e p ro v is io n s o f S e c tio n IV a b o v e .

(ii) N o s e rv ic e p ro v id e r s h a ll a lte r a n y In te rc o n n e c tio n U s a g e C h a rg e o r a n y p a rt th e re o f, w ith o u t c o m p ly in g w ith th e R e p o rtin g R e q u ire m e n t.

(iii) In re s p e c t o f m a tte rs c o v e re d b y th e p ro v is io n s o f ‘th e R e g u la tio n ’, th e y s h a ll h a v e a n o v e rrid in g e ffe c t o v e r a n y R e g u la tio n , D ire c tio n , D e te rm in a tio n a n d O rd e r o f th e A u th o rity , R e fe re n c e In te rc o n n e c t O ffe r a n d e x is tin g In te rc o n n e c t a g re e m e n t/a rra n g e m e n t b e tw e e n S e rv ic e P ro v id e rs .

2[iv . E a c h s e rv ic e p ro v id e r s h a ll re p o rt to th e A u th o rity o n q u a rte rly b a s is , th e A D C re ta in e d b y it, w h e re v e r a p p lic a b le , a n d a ls o A D C p a id b y it to B S N L . In a d d itio n , B S N L s h a ll re p o rt, o n q u a rte rly b a s is , A D C p a y m e n ts re c e iv e d b y it fro m e a c h o p e ra to r. T h is s h a ll in c lu d e b o th th e c o m p o n e n ts o f A D C , n a m e ly A D C p a id in th e fo rm o f p e rc e n ta g e o f A d ju s te d G ro s s R e v e n u e a n d A D C o n p e r m in u te b a s is fo r 3in te rn a tio n a l in c o m in g [* * * * ] c a lls . T h is q u a rte rly re p o rt s h a ll re a c h th e A u th o rity w ith in 3 0 d a y s o f th e e n d o f th e p re v io u s q u a rte r.] 4 st [P ro v id e d th a t th e p ro v is io n s o f th is c la u s e s h a ll, o n a n d a fte r th e 1 d a y o f A p ril, 2 0 0 8 , h a v e e ffe c t a s if th e w o rd s “ A D C p a id in th e fo rm o f p e rc e n ta g e o f A d ju s te d G ro s s R e v e n u e ” h a d b e e n o m itte d a n d th e p ro v is io n s in th is c la u s e re la tin g to re p o rtin g re q u ire m e n t a fte r th e s a id d a te s h a ll b e c o n s tru e d

a c c o rd in g ly : st P ro v id e d fu rth e r th a t n o th in g c o n ta in e d in th is c la u s e s h a ll a p p ly o n a n d a fte r th e 1 d a y o f A p ril 2 0 0 8 .] 5[(v ) R e p o r tin g R e q u ir e m e n t fo r c a r r ia g e c h a r g e s fo r lo n g d is ta n c e c a lls w ith in I n d ia s p e c ifie d u n d e r p a r a g r a p h (a ) o f S c h e d u le I I . E v e ry N a tio n a l L o n g D is ta n c e O p e ra to r s h a ll, o n q u a rte rly b a s is , re p o rt to th e A u th o rity th e p e r m in u te ra te o f c a rria g e c h a rg e a n d th e to ta l a m o u n t o f s u c h c a rria g e c h a rg e fo r lo n g d is ta n c e c a lls w ith in In d ia re c e iv e d b y it fro m e v e ry B S O /C M S P /U A S L /IL D O , s e p a ra te ly , a n d e v e ry B S O /C M S P /U A S L /IL D O s h a ll, o n q u a rte rly b a s is , re p o rt to th e A u th o rity , th e p e r m in u te c a rria g e c h a rg e s fo r lo n g d is ta n c e c a lls w ith in In d ia a n d th e to ta l a m o u n t o f s u c h c a rria g e c h a rg e fo r lo n g d is ta n c e c a lls w ith in In d ia p a id b y th e m to e v e ry N a tio n a l L o n g D is ta n c e O p e ra to r, s e p a ra te ly , a n d s u c h q u a rte rly re p o rt s h a ll b e s u b m itte d to th e A u th o rity w ith in th irty d a y s o f th e e n d o f th e p re v io u s q u a rte r.

(v i) R e p o r tin g R e q u ir e m e n t o f I n te r c o n n e c tio n U s a g e C h a r g e fo r S h o r t M e s s a g e S e r v ic e (S M S ) s p e c ifie d u n d e r p a r a g r a p h (1 ) o f S c h e d u le I V . E v e ry B S O /C M S P /U A S L /N L D O /IL D O s h a ll, o n q u a rte rly b a s is , re p o rt to th e A u th o rity , th e ra te o f In te rc o n n e c t U s a g e C h a rg e fo r S M S a n d th e to ta l a m o u n t o f s u c h In te rc o n n e c t U s a g e C h a rg e fo r S M S re c e iv e d b y it fro m o th e r B S O /C M S P /U A S L / 1 In s. by the S ixteenth A m en d m ent R eg ulatio ns, 2020 , reg. 2 (w .e.f. 01.05.2020 ) 2 In s. by the S ixth A m end m ent R egu lation s, 2006, reg. 4 (w .e.f. 0 1.03.20 06) 3 D el. th e w ord s “and ou tgo in g” by the E ig hth A m endm en t R egulation s, 2007 , reg. 2 (w .e.f. 01.04 .20 07 ) 4 In s. by the N inth A m en d m ent R egu latio ns, 2 008 , reg. 2 (w .e.f. 0 1.04 .2008 ) 5 In s. by the T enth A m endm en t R egu latio n s, 2 009 , reg. 2 (b ) (w .e.f. 01.0 4.200 9)166 N L D O /IL D O a n d p a id b y it to o th e r B S O /C M S P /U A S L /N L D O /IL D O , s e p a ra te ly , a n d s u c h q u a rte rly re p o rt s h a ll b e s u b m itte d to th e A u th o rity w ith in th irty d a y s o f th e e n d o f th e p re v io u s q u a rte r.] S e c tio n V I 6 . R e v ie w 1[(i) T h e A u th o rity m a y , fro m tim e to tim e , re v ie w a n d m o d ify in te rc o n n e c tio n U s a g e C h a rg e a n d A c c e s s D e fic it C h a rg e .

(ii) T h e A u th o rity m a y a ls o a t a n y tim e , s u o -m o tu , o r o n th e b a s is o f re p o rte d in fo rm a tio n in te rm s o f c la u s e (iv ) o f R e g u la tio n (5 ) a b o v e o r o n re fe re n c e fro m a n y a ffe c te d p a rty , a n d fo r g o o d a n d s u ffic ie n t re a s o n s , re v ie w a n d m o d ify a n y In te rc o n n e c tio n U s a g e C h a rg e a n d A c c e s s D e fic it C h a rg e .] S e c tio n V I I 7 . E x p la n a to r y M e m o r a n d u m T h is R e g u la tio n c o n ta in s a t A n n e x A , a n e x p la n a to ry m e m o ra n d u m to p ro v id e c la rity a n d tra n s p a re n c y to m a tte rs c o v e re d u n d e r ‘th e R e g u la tio n ’.

S e c tio n V I I I 8 . I n te r p r e ta tio n 2[In c a s e o f a n y d o u b t re g a rd in g a n y p ro v is io n o f th is R e g u la tio n , th e c la rific a tio n g iv e n b y th e A u th o rity s h a ll b e fin a l.] B y O rd e r (D R . H A R S H A V A R D H A N A S IN G H ) S e c re ta ry -c u m -P rin c ip a l A d v is o r 1 S ub s. by the S ix th A m end m en t R egulation s, 200 6, reg. 5 (w .e.f. 01.03.200 6), fo r the fo llow ing :

“(i) T he A u tho rity m ay , from tim e to tim e, rev iew and m odify in terconn ectio n U sag e C h arge.

(ii) T h e A utho rity m ay also at any tim e, suo -m o tu, o r on reference fro m any affected p arty, and for good and sufficient reasons, review and m odify any In tercon nection U sage C h arge.” 2 S ub s. b y th e F ou rth A m endm en t R egulatio n s, 2005 , reg. 2 (w .e.f. 01.02.2005 ), for the follo w ing:

“In case o f dispute reg arding interp retatio n o f any of the p rovisions o f th is R egu lation , the d ecision of the A utho rity shall be final and b in din g.”167 S c h e d u le I 1 2[ [1 . T e r m in a tio n C h a r g e s T h e fo llo w in g te rm in a tio n c h a rg e s h a ll b e a p p lic a b le fo r L o c a l, N a tio n a l L o n g D is ta n c e a n d In te rn a tio n a l

L o n g D is ta n c e c a lls :- T y p e o f C a ll T y p e o f tr a ffic T e r m in a tio n c h a r g e 3 4W ire le s s to w ire le s s [ [(a ) R e . 0 .0 6 (p a is e s ix o n ly ) p e r (1 ) L o c a l a n d N a tio n a l stm in u te w ith e ffe c t fro m th e 1 L o n g D is ta n c e C a ll stO c to b e r, 2 0 1 7 to th e 3 1 D e c e m b e r, 2 0 2 0 ; a n d st (b ) 0 (Z e ro ) w ith e ffe c t fro m th e 1J a n u a ry , 2 0 2 1 ]] W ire le s s to w ire lin e 0 (Z e ro ) W ire lin e to w ire lin e 0 (Z e ro ) W ire lin e to w ire le s s 0 (Z e ro ) 5 6In te rn a tio n a l in c o m in g c a ll to [ [N o t le s s th a n R e . 0 .3 5 (p a is e (2 ) I n te r n a tio n a l c a ll w ire le s s a n d w ire lin e th irty fiv e o n ly ) p e r m in u te a n d n o t m o re th a n R e . 0 .6 5 (p a is e s ix ty fiv e o n ly ) p e r m in u te ]] N o te -W ire le s s m e a n s fu ll m o b ility , lim ite d m o b ility a n d fix e d w ire le s s a c c e s s s e rv ic e s .]] 2 . O r ig in a tio n C h a r g e s F o rb e a ra n c e .

T h e O rig in a tin g S e rv ic e P ro v id e r s h a ll re ta in o rig in a tio n c h a rg e s fro m th e re s id u a l a fte r p a y m e n t o f th e c h a rg e s fo r c a rria g e , te rm in a tio n a n d a c c e s s d e fic it.

3 . C a r r ia g e C h a r g e s C a rria g e c h a rg e s h a v e b e e n s p e c ifie d in S c h e d u le II.

4 . A c c e s s D e fic it C h a r g e s A c c e s s D e fic it C h a rg e (A D C ) h a s b e e n s p e c ifie d in S c h e d u le III.

1 S ub s. by the T enth A m en dm en t R egulatio ns, 2 009 , reg . 3 (w .e.f. 0 1.04 .2009 ), for th e follo w ing: “1 . T erm in a tio n C h arges T erm in atio n ch arg e for calls to B asic (F ixed , W L L (F ixed), and W L L w ith lim ited m obility ) an d C ellular n etw o rks w o uld be u n iform @ R s. 0 .3 0 p er m in u te. T he sam e term ination charge w ould be applicable for all typ es of calls viz. L o cal, N ation al L o ng D istance an d Intern atio nal L o ng D istance.”2 S ub s. by the E leven th A m endm ent R egu lation s, 201 5, reg. 2 (w .e.f. 01.03.2015), fo r the follo w in g:

“1. T erm inatio n C harges T erm in atio n ch arg e for L ocal and N atio nal L o ng D istance voice calls to F ixed W ireline, W ireless in L o cal L oop (F ix ed), W ire less in L o cal L o op (M obile), C ellular M ob ile T eleph on e S erv ice (both 2 G an d 3 G ) sh all be u niform at the rate o f R e. 0.20 (tw en ty p aise only) p er m inu te and the term ination charge fo r incom ing Intern ational L on g D istance v oice calls to su ch F ix ed W ireline, W ireless in L ocal L oop (F ixed), W ireless in L ocal L oop (M obile), C ellular M obile T elephone S ervice (both 2 G and 3 G ) sh all b e un ifo rm at th e rate of R e.

0 . 40 (forty paise only ) per m inute.”3 S ub s. by the T h irteen th A m en dm ent R eg ulatio ns, 2 01 7 , reg. 2 (w .e.f. 01 .10.2017), for th e follo w in g: “R e. 0 .1 4 (paise fou rteen only ) per m in ute” 4 S ub s. by the F ifteenth A m end m ent R egulations, 2019 , reg . 2 (w .e.f. 17 .12.2 019 ), fo r the follo w ing:

st st“(a) R e. 0.06 (paise six only ) p er m inute w ith effect from the 1 O cto ber, 2017 to the 31 D ecem ber, 20 19; and st(b ) 0 (Z ero ) w ith effect fro m th e 1 Jan uary, 2 020 ” 5 S u bs. b y th e F ou rteen th A m endm en t R egulation s, 2018 , reg. 2 (w .e.f. 01 .02.2018), for th e follo w in g:

“R s. 0.53 (paise fifty three o nly ) per m inute”6 S ub s. by the S ixteen th A m endm ent R egu lations, 2020 , reg . 3 (w .e.f. 01.05 .2 020 ), for th e follo w in g: “R s. 0.30 (p aise th irty only) per m inute”168 S c h e d u le I I C a r r ia g e C h a r g e s 1 [(a ) C a r r ia g e c h a r g e s fo r L o n g D is ta n c e c a lls w ith in I n d ia T a b le - I (A m o u n t in R u p e e s p e r m in u te ) C a rria g e c h a rg e s p e r m in u te A s p e r m u tu a l a g re e m e n t b e tw e e n th e s e rv ic e p ro v id e rs s u b je c t to a 2fo r L o n g D is ta n c e C a lls c e ilin g o f [R u p e e 0 .3 5 (th irty fiv e p a is e ) p e r m in u te ] irre s p e c tiv e o f w ith in In d ia th e d is ta n c e .] b ) T r a n s it C h a r g e s fo r in tr a -S D C A c a lls :

F o rb e a ra n c e , s u b je c t to th e fo llo w in g c o n d itio n :

D ire c t in te rc o n n e c tio n b e tw e e n A c c e s s P ro v id e rs is m a n d a to ry . F o r e x c e p tio n a l c a s e s o f In tra -S D C A 3tra n s it, o p e ra to rs m a y d e c id e th e c h a rg e s th ro u g h m u tu a l n e g o tia tio n . H o w e v e r th is [s h a ll b e le s s th a n R e .

0 .1 5 (F ifte e n p a is e o n ly ) p e r m in u te ]. c ) C a r r ia g e c h a r g e s fo r I n te r n a tio n a l L o n g D is ta n c e c a lls in c lu d in g I n te r n a tio n a l te r m in a tio n c h a r g e (i.e . I n te r n a tio n a l s e ttle m e n t):

F o rb e a ra n c e , s u b je c t to th e fo llo w in g c o n d itio n :

T h e s e rv ic e p ro v id e rs m a y m u tu a lly a g re e to th e s h a rin g o f a n y s u rp lu s , s u b je c t to th e a p p ro v a l o f th e A u th o rity .

4 [(d ) T r u n k A u to m a tic E x c h a n g e (T A X ) tr a n s it c h a r g e s . T ru n k A u to m a tic E x c h a n g e tra n s it c h a rg e in a ll c a s e s , o th e r th a n tra n s it c h a rg e fo r a c c e s s in g th e C e llu la r M o b ile T e le p h o n e S e rv ic e o f B h a ra t S a n c h a r N ig a m L im ite d b y C e llu la r O p e ra to rs w h ic h is g o v e rn e d b y th e T e le c o m R e g u la to ry A u th o rity o f In d ia (T ra n s it C h a rg e s fo r B h a ra t S a n c h a r N ig a m L im ite d ’s C e ll O n e T e rm in a tin g T ra ffic ) R e g u la tio n , 2 0 0 5 (1 0 o f 2 0 0 5 ), s h a ll b e le s s th a n R e . 0 .1 5 (F ifte e n p a is e o n ly ) p e r m in u te a n d , s u b je c t to th e s a id lim it, m a y b e d e c id e d b y th e c o n c e rn e d s e rv ic e p ro v id e rs th ro u g h m u tu a l c o m m e rc ia l a rra n g e m e n t.

(e ) T r a n s it C a r r ia g e C h a r g e fr o m L e v e l I I T r u n k A u to m a tic E x c h a n g e (T A X ) to S D C A . T ra n s it c a rria g e c h a rg e fo r c a rria g e o f in tra -c irc le tra ffic h a n d e d o v e r fro m C e llu la r M o b ile n e tw o rk s to F ix e d n e tw o rk , fro m L e v e l II T ru n k A u to m a tic E x c h a n g e (T A X ) o f L D C A in w h ic h th e c a ll is to b e te rm in a te d , to S D C A , s h a ll b e R e . 0 .1 5 (F ifte e n p a is e o n ly ) p e r m in u te , irre s p e c tiv e o f d is ta n c e .] 1 S ub s. by the S ixth A m end m ent R eg ulatio ns, 2006, reg . 2 (i) (w .e.f. 01.03 .2006 ), for the follo w ing:

“a ) C arria ge ch arges fo r L o n g D istan ce ca lls w ith in In d ia T ab le I (A m o u n t in R u p ees p er m in u te) C a rriage ch arg es p er m in u te fo r L o n g D istan ce ista n ce slab calls w ith in In d ia B elow 50 K m s 50 – 200 K m s 200 –500 K m s A b ove 5 00 K m s 0 .2 0 0.65 0 .9 0 1 .1 0 T h e service p ro viders are allow ed to negotiate a sp ot v alue w ithin + /- 10% of th e long distance calls carriage charg e b eyo nd 50 K m s.

F o rbearan ce for carriage charge for long distance calls w ill be in troduced once carrier selection by custom ers is im p lem en ted.” 2 S ub s. by the T w elfth A m endm ent R egulations, 2015, reg . 2 (w .e.f. 01.03 .2015 ), fo r the follo w ing: “R u pees 0.65 p er m inute” 3 S ub s. by the T en th A m endm ent R egu lations, 2009, reg . 4(a) (w .e.f. 01.04.2 009 ), fo r the fo llo w ing : “sho uld be low er than R s. 0 .20 p er m inute” 4 Ins. by the T enth A m end m ent R egulation s, 2009, reg. 4 (b), (w .e.f. 01.0 4.2009)169

N o te s to S c h e d u le I I : a ) T h e O rig in a tin g S e rv ic e P ro v id e r s h a ll re ta in o rig in a tio n c h a rg e s fro m th e re s id u a l a fte r p a y m e n t o f th e c h a rg e s fo r c a rria g e , te rm in a tio n a n d a c c e s s d e fic it.

1 b ) [T h e C a rrie r, a s s h o w n in T a b le II, w o u ld c o lle c t th e a p p lic a b le a m o u n ts fo r c a rria g e a n d te rm in a tio n c h a rg e fro m th e O rig in a tin g S e rv ic e P ro v id e r fo r v a rio u s ty p e o f c a lls . T h e C a rrie r w o u ld p a s s o n th e te rm in a tio n c h a rg e fo r te rm in a tin g th e tra ffic to th e T e rm in a tin g S e rv ic e P ro v id e r a s p e r S c h e d u le -I.] c ) T h e c a ll fro m / to fix e d lin e to / fro m W L L (M ) w o u ld b e tre a te d a s a lo c a l c a ll, if th e c a ll d e s tin a tio n is w ith in th e S D C A w h e re th e c a ll o rig in a te d . C a lls fro m / to fix e d lin e to / fro m W L L (M ) w o u ld b e tre a te d a s lo n g d is ta n c e c a lls if th e c a ll te rm in a te s o u ts id e th e S D C A fro m w h e re th e c a ll o rig in a te d .

T a b le I I A p p lic a b ility o f C a r r ia g e C h a r g e (F = F ix e d o r W L L (F ix e d ); W = W L L (M ); C = C e llu la r M o b ile ) T y p e o f T r a ffic C a r r ia g e C h a r g e C a r r ie r (H a n d o v e r a t) W ith in S D C A F /W ↔ F /W N il fo r d ire c t c o n n e c tiv ity /A p p lic a b le ta n d e m B S O 1 /B S O 2 (T a n d e m ) u s a g e a s in S c h e d u le II (b ) F /W ↔ C N il (T a n d e m : M e tro )/T A X u s a g e c a rria g e B S O (T a n d e m : M e tro )/ B S O C h a rg e (L e v e l II T A X ) (L e v e l II T A X ) F /W /C ↔ IL D A s a b o v e s in c e IL D O h a n d -o v e r is a t L D C C B S O (T A X ) T A X I n tr a C ir c le i.e . I n te r (S D C A ) F ↔ F C a rria g e a s p e r d e ta ils in B S O 1 / B S O 2 B S O 1 /B S O 2 D e p e n d in g o n S c h e d u le II N e a r e n d o r F a r e n d H a n d o v e r F ↔ W C a rria g e a s p e r d e ta ils in B S O 1 / B S O 2 B S O 1 /B S O 2 S c h e d u le II F /W ↔ C S a m e a s In tra S D C A e x c e p t T A X c h a rg e is B S O (L e v e l II/ I T A X ) “ a p p lic a b le ” C h a rg e s in c e m o re th a n o n e T A X m a y b e in v o lv e d .

C ↔ IL D N o c a rria g e / ta n d e m in c a s e tra ffic is p ic k e d M S C (D ire c t c o n n e c tiv ity c a s e s ) u p o r d e liv e re d a t M S C F / W ↔ IL D C a rria g e a s p e r S c h e d u le II B S O (T A X ) I n te r C ir c le F / W ↔ F / W C a rria g e a s p e r S c h e d u le II N L D O (T A X ) F ↔ C C a rria g e a s p e r S c h e d u le II N L D O (T A X ) W ↔ C C a rria g e a s p e r S c h e d u le II N L D O (T A X ) F /W /C ↔ IL D C a rria g e a s p e r S c h e d u le II N L D O (T A X ) 1 S u bs. b y th e S ixth A m endm en t R egulation s, 2 006 , reg. 2 (w .e.f. 1 .3 .2 006 ), for the follow ing:

“T he C arrier, as sho w n in T ab le II, w ould co llect the ap plicable am ounts for carriag e and term in ation ch arg e from th e O riginating S erv ice P rovider fo r v ariou s type of calls. T he C arrier w ou ld p ass on the term ination charge fo r term inating the traffic to the T erm inating S erv ice P rov id er as p er S ch ed u le I. In cases w h ere the access deficit charge am ount is to be collected by the term inating netw o rk or b y B S N L (as p er the T a b le III in S ch ed u le III) the access deficit ch arge am ount shall be passed on by the C arrier to the relev an t service p rov ider w ho has to be p rovided th e access deficit am ounts, as m ention ed in S ch ed u le III.”170 S c h e d u le – I I I A c c e s s D e fic it C h a r g e (A D C ) 1 2[3 .1 T h e A c c e s s D e fic it C h a rg e s [fo r In te rn a tio n a l In c o m in g C a lls re c e iv e d d u rin g th e p e rio d b e g in n in g st tho n th e 1 d a y o f A p ril, 2 0 0 8 a n d e n d in g a s a t th e 3 0 d a y o f S e p te m b e r, 2 0 0 8 ] s h a ll b e a s p e r T a b le III.

3[T a b le I I I 4A c c e s s D e fic it C h a r g e [fo r I n te r n a tio n a l I n c o m in g C a lls r e c e iv e d d u r in g th e p e r io d b e g in n in g o n st thth e 1 d a y o f A p r il, 2 0 0 8 a n d e n d in g a s a t th e 3 0 d a y o f S e p te m b e r , 2 0 0 8 ] T y p e o f C a ll A c c e s s D e fic it C h a r g e p e r m in u te A c c e s s D e fic it C h a r g e to b e p a id to B S N L (1 ) (2 ) (3 ) 5A ll In c o m in g [R e 0 .5 0 (p a is e fifty o n ly )] B y IL D O s o r N L D O s re fe rre d to in c la u s e IL D c a lls (iv ) o f re g u la tio n 2 ] 6[E x p la n a tio n . ─ T h e A c c e s s D e fic it C h a rg e fo r In te rn a tio n a l L o n g D is ta n c e C a lls s h a ll n o t b e a p p lic a b le st o n a n d a fte r th e 1 d a y O c to b e r, 2 0 0 8 ] 3 .2 A D C a s a p e r c e n ta g e o f R e v e n u e .

7 3 .2 .1 In a d d itio n to th e p a y m e n t o f A D C o n in te rn a tio n a l [* * * * ] in c o m in g c a lls in te rm s o f C la u s e 3 .1 , a ll lic e n s e e s o f U n ifie d A c c e s s S e rv ic e , C e llu la r M o b ile T e le p h o n e S e rv ic e , N a tio n a l L o n g D is ta n c e 8S e rv ic e a n d In te rn a tio n a l L o n g D is ta n c e S e rv ic e a n d B a s ic S e rv ic e O p e ra to rs s h a ll [p a y 0 .7 5 % ] o f th e ir A d ju s te d G ro s s R e v e n u e a s A D C to th e B S N L . B S N L s h a ll re ta in A D C c h a rg e a b le a s p e rc e n ta g e o f its A d ju s te d G ro s s R e v e n u e .

P ro v id e d th a t if a s e rv ic e p ro v id e r h a s U n ifie d A c c e s s S e rv ic e L ic e n s e /B a s ic S e rv ic e L ic e n c e , it s h a ll re ta in A D C a s p e rc e n ta g e o f A d ju s te d G ro s s R e v e n u e o f F ix e d w ire lin e s u b s c rib e rs a n d th e b a la n c e s h a ll b e p a id to th e B S N L . M T N L s h a ll a ls o re ta in A D C a s p e rc e n ta g e o f A d ju s te d G ro s s R e v e n u e fo r its F ix e d W ire lin e s u b s c rib e rs a n d s h a ll p a y th e b a la n c e to B S N L .

1 S ub s. by the F ou rth A m endm ent R egu lation s, 2005, reg . 3 (w .e.f. 01 .02 .2 005 ) an d the S ixth A m endm en t R egu latio n, 2 006 , reg. 3 (w .e.f.

0 1.03.20 06), th e entries relating to p aragraph s 3.1. and 3 .2 92 S ub s. by the N inth A m endm ent R egulatio ns, 2 008 , reg. 3, fo r “fo r In ternatio nal [* * *] In com ing C alls” (w .e.f. 1.4.200 8).3 S ub s. by the E ighth A m endm ent R egu lation s, 2007, reg . 3 (a)(ii) (w .e.f. 01.0 4.200 7), for the follow ing:

“T a b le III A ccess D eficit C h arg e for In tern atio n al L o n g D istan ce C alls S l. T y p e o f C all A D C p er m in u te (in A D C to b e p aid to/retain ed b y N o . ru p ees)

1. A ll O utgoing IL D calls o riginated fro m F ixed R s. 0 .80 T o b e retained by o rigin atin g F ixed w ireline su bscribers. w ireline S erv ice P rovider.

2. A ll O u tg oing IL D calls originated from C ellular R s. 0 .80 T o be p aid to B S N L by o riginatin g access M obile/W ireless including W L L (F ) su bscribers p rovid er throu gh IL D O

3. A ll Inco m ing IL D calls R s. 1 .60 T o b e paid to B S N L by IL D O o r N L D O ” 4 S ub s. by the N inth A m endm ent R egulatio n s, 2 008 , reg. 3 (a)(ii)(A ) (w .e.f. 01.04.2008 ), fo r th e fo llo w ing : “fo r In ternation al Inco m ing C alls” 5 S ub s. by the N inth A m end m ent R eg ulatio ns, 2 008 , reg. 3 (a)(ii)(B ) (w .e.f. 01.04.2008 ), for th e fo llo w ing: “R s. 1.00 (R upee O ne only )” 6 In s. by the N inth A m en dm ent R egu latio ns, 2 008 , reg. 3 (a)(iii) (w .e.f. 01.04.2008 ) 7 D el. th e w ord s “ou tgoing an d” by the E ig hth A m endm en t R egulation s, 2007 , reg. 3 (b )(i)(A ) (w .e.f. 01.04.2007) 8 S ub s. by the E igh t A m en dm ent R egulation s, 2 007 , reg .3 (b)(i)(B ) (w .e.f. 01.04.2007), for th e follo w ing: “pay 1.5% ” 9 D el. th e w o rd s “outg oing and” by the E igh th A m endm ent R egulatio n s, 2007, reg . 3 (a)(i) (w .e.f. 01.04.2007)171 1[3 .2 .2 F o r c a lc u la tin g A D C , A d ju s te d G ro s s R e v e n u e s h a ll h a v e th e s a m e m e a n in g a s g iv e n in th e re s p e c tiv e lic e n c e s ;

P R O V ID E D th a t in c a lc u la tin g th e A D C a s a p e rc e n ta g e o f A d ju s te d G ro s s R e v e n u e (A G R ) o f a U n iv e rs a l A c c e s s S e rv ic e L ic e n s e e /B a s ic S e rv ic e O p e ra to r, th e re v e n u e fro m R u ra l F ix e d W ire lin e s u b s c rib e rs s h a ll b e e x c lu d e d .] 3 .2 .3 A d ju s te d G ro s s R e v e n u e o f F ix e d W ire lin e s u b s c rib e rs fo r p u rp o s e o f re te n tio n o f A D C s h a ll b e c a lc u la te d a s g iv e n in T a b le IV .

T a b le I V C a lc u la tio n o f A G R fo r F ix e d W ire lin e S u b s c rib e rs fo r re te n tio n o f A D C S . N o P a rtic u la rs A m o u n t in ru p e e s R e v e n u e fr o m F ix e d

W ir e lin e s u b s c r ib e r s :

(i) R e n ta ls

(ii) C a ll re v e n u e w ith in s e rv ic e a re a

(iii) N a tio n a l L O N G D IS T A N C E C A L L re v e n u e (iv ) In te rn a tio n a l L O N G D IS T A N C E C A L L re v e n u e (v ) P a s s th ru re v e n u e fo r u s a g e o f o th e r n e tw o rk s (v i) S e rv ic e ta x (v ii) S e rv ic e c h a rg e s (v iii) C h a rg e s o n a c c o u n t o f a n y o th e r v a lu e a d d e d s e rv ic e s , S u p p le m e n ta ry S e rv ic e s e tc .

(ix ) A n y o th e r in c o m e /m is c e lla n e o u s re c e ip t fro m F ix e d W ire lin e s u b s c rib e rs . (x ) R e v e n u e fro m o th e r O P E R A T O R s o n a c c o u n t o f p a s s th ro u g h c a ll c h a rg e s o n fix e d w ire lin e s u b s c rib e rs (x i) A n y o th e r re v e n u e fo r p ro v is io n in g o f F ix e d W ire lin e s u b s c rib e rs A G R O S S R E V E N U E fr o m F ix e d W ir e lin e S u b s c r ib e r s

D E D U C T :

1 . C h a rg e s a c tu a lly p a id to o th e r S E R V IC E P R O V ID E R fo r F ix e d W ire lin e s u b s c rib e rs 2 . S e rv ic e T a x p a id to th e G o v e rn m e n t o n F ix e d w ire lin e s u b s c rib e rs 3 . S a le s T a x p a id to th e G o v e rn m e n t o n F ix e d W ire lin e s u b s c rib e rs 4 . R e v e n u e fro m R u ra l s u b s c rib e rs .

B T O T A L D E D U C T IB L E R E V E N U E C A D J U S T E D G R O S S R E V E N U E fo r F ix e d W ire lin e S e rv ic e o n w h ic h A D C re te n tio n is a d m is s ib le (A -B ) st3 .2 .4 S in c e th is R e g u la tio n s h a ll c o m e in to fo rc e w ith e ffe c t fro m 1 M a rc h , 2 0 0 6 , th e re fo re , a fte r p a y m e n t 2 sto f A D C in te rm s o f p e rc e n ta g e o f A G R [u p to 3 1 -3 -2 0 0 6 , th e s u b s e q u e n t p a y m e n ts b e fo re th e 1 A p ril, 2 0 0 7 ] s h a ll b e o n q u a rte rly b a s is s o th a t it m a tc h e s w ith th e p a y m e n ts o f a n n u a l lic e n c e fe e . T h e A D C to st stb e p a id o n th e b a s is o f re v e n u e s h a re b e tw e e n 1 M a rc h , 2 0 0 6 a n d 3 1 M a rc h , 2 0 0 6 s h a ll b e d e te rm in e d o n th e p ro -ra ta b a s is o f A d ju s te d G ro s s R e v e n u e fo r th e la s t q u a rte r o f y e a r 2 0 0 5 -2 0 0 6 .] 1 S u bs. b y th e S eventh A m end m en t R egulatio n s, 2006 , reg. 2 (w .e.f. 10.03.20 06 ), fo r the follo w ing:

3 .2.2 F o r calculatin g A D C , A djusted G ross R evenu e sh all have th e sam e m eanin g as given in the resp ective licences;

P R O V ID E D that in calcu lating th e A D C as a percentage of A djusted G ro ss R ev enue (A G R ) o f a U niversal A ccess S ervice L icensee/B asic S erv ice O perator, the revenu e fro m rural su bscribers shall be excluded .” 2 S ub s. by the E ighth A m endm ent R egu lation s, 2007, reg . 3 (b)(ii) (w .e.f. 01.0 4.200 7), fo r the follow ing :

“up to 31 -3-2006, the subsequent p aym ents”172 1 st[3 .2 .5 . F o r th e fin a n c ia l y e a r b e g in n in g o n th e 1 s t A p ril, 2 0 0 7 a n d e ffe c tiv e till 3 1 M a rc h , 2 0 0 8 , o n o r sta fte r th e 1 d a y o f A p ril, 2 0 0 7 d u rin g th e s a id fin a n c ia l y e a r, th e A c c e s s D e fic it C h a rg e re fe rre d to in s u b -p a ra g ra p h 3 .2 .1 , s h a ll b e p a y a b le a t th e ra te o f 0 .7 5 % o f th e A d ju s te d G ro s s R e v e n u e fo r e v e ry q u a rte r in th a t fin a n c ia l y e a r a n d s h a ll b e p a id in a c c o rd a n c e w ith in th e tim e s c h e d u le fo r p a y m e n t o f lic e n c e fe e m e n tio n e d in th e lic e n c e o f th e c o n c e rn e d lic e n s e e s .] 2[P ro v id e d th a t n o th in g c o n ta in e d s u b -p a ra g ra p h s 3 .2 .1 , to 3 .2 .5 (in c lu d in g p a y m e n t o f th e A c c e s s D e fic it st C h a rg e , b y w a y o f p e rc e n ta g e o f A d ju s te d G ro s s R e v e n u e ), s h a ll a p p ly o n a n d a fte r th e 1 d a y o f A p ril, 2 0 0 8 a n d th e A c c e s s D e fic it C h a rg e p a y a b le o n th e b a s is o f p e rc e n ta g e o f A d ju s te d G ro s s R e v e n u e a fte r th e s a id d a te s h a ll th e re fo re c e a s e to h a v e e ffe c t.] 3 .3 R e c o n c ilia tio n a n d S e ttle m e n t o f A D C A D C , c a rria g e a n d te rm in a tio n p a y m e n ts w o u ld b e b a s e d o n a g g re g a te d u s a g e in s e c o n d s (o n b u lk b a s is ).

T h e s e ttle m e n t w o u ld b e fo r th e a g g re g a te to ta l s e c o n d s e x p re s s e d in te rm s o f m in u te s , w ith th e fig u re b e in g ro u n d e d o ff in te rm s o f th e n e a re s t m in u te , o v e r th e s e ttle m e n t p e rio d a s a p p lic a b le in th e In te rc o n n e c t A g re e m e n t. F a ilin g a g re e m e n t a m o n g s t S e rv ic e P ro v id e rs o n th e s e ttle m e n t p e rio d , th e s e ttle m e n t s h a ll b e d o n e o n m o n th ly b a s is o n b u lk b a s is .

3[* * * * ] 1 In s. by the E ighth A m en dm en t R egulation s, 2007 , reg . 3(b )(iii) (w .e.f. 01.04 .2007) 2 Ins. by th e N in th A m endm ent R eg ulations, 2008 , reg . 3 (b ) (w .e.f. 01.04 .2008)3 In s. the follow ing p arag raphs by the F ifth A m endm ent R egulations, 2 005, reg. 3 (w .e.f. 11 .0 4.20 05), w hich has b een set aside by th e H o n’b le T D S A T , vide its order dated 21.09 .2005 passed in T A N o . 7 of 2005 titled as “C O A I & O rs. v . T R A I & A nr.”:

“3 .4 A ll calls from the N ational R o am ing sub scribers shall be treated as L o ng D istance calls and all calls fro m Internatio nal R o am ing su b scrib ers shall be treated as incom ing intern ational call fo r A D C pu rposes. A s such for all calls from N ational roam in g subscribers w hile in a d ifferent S ervice A rea, A D C ch arge as applicable for N ational L ong D istance calls sh all be app licable at the rate o f R s 0.30 p er m inute. F or In tern atio nal R oam ing S ub scrib er w h ile m akin g any call w h ile in In dia, an A D C o f R s 3 .25 per m inute shall b e ap plicab le.

3 .5 F o r all calls from R oam ing sub scriber, the access deficit am oun t is to be collected by the visited netw o rk o perato r an d p aid to B S N L .”173 1[S c h e d u le I V IN T E R C O N N E C T U S A G E C H A R G E (IU C ) F O R S H O R In te rc o n n e c t U s a g e C h a rg e (IU C ) fo r S h o rt M e s s a g e S e rv ic e (S Mfo r S h o rt M e s s a g e S e rv ic e (S M S ) s h a ll b e u n d e r fo rb e a ra n c e :

P r o v id e d th a t s u c h c h a rg e s s h a ll b e tra n s p a re n t, re c ip ro c a l a n d n o 1 In s. by the T enth A m end m ent R egulatio ns, 2 009 , reg. 5 (w .e.f. 0 1.04 .2009 ) T n M E S S A G E S E R V S ).- In te rc o n n e c t U -d is c rim in a to ry .] IC s a E g e (S C M h a S ) rg e (IU C )9 Annexure-VI The Telecommunication Interconnection (Reference Interconnect Offer) Regulations, 2002 Telecom Regulatory Authority of India

Notification New Delhi, the 12th July 2002 No 409-10/2002-TRAI (FN) and to regulate arrangements amongst service providers of sharing their revenue derived from providing Regulation.

THE TELECOMMUNICATION INTERCONNECTION (REFERENCE INTERCONNECT OFFER) REGULATION, 2002 ( 2 of 2002)

Section I

1. Title, Extent and Commencement hereto as annex 'B'. The RIO will stipulate the concerned service provider's terms and conditions on Interconnection Agreement wi pending execution of an Individualized Agreement after negotiations.

The Regulation is in addition and not in derogation of the other existing Regulations/Orders on interconnection. in the official Gazette.

Section II

2. Definitions In this Regulation, unless the context otherwise requires:

Turnover 773 174175 tim e . s o u g h t fo r p ro v id in g te le c o m m u n ic a tio n s e rv ic e s . th e in te rc o n n e c tio n p ro v id e r.

R e g u la tio n 2 0 0 2 . u n c o n d itio n a lly o r c o n d itio n a lly . s a m e m e a n in g s a s a s s ig n e d to th e m in th e A c t.

S e c tio n 3 . R e fe r e n c e I n te r c o n n e c t O ffe r 3 .1 3 .2 lis h e d R IO fo r e n te rin g in to a n In d iv id u a liz e d A 7 7 4 I I I g re e m e n rity t. p u rs u a n t to e p ro v id e rs n n e c tio n is th e p o w e rs g ra n te d to it -a lia th e te c h n ic a l a n d176 3 .3 3 .4 4 .

5 .

6 . is s u a n T h e A u th o rity m a y re v ie w th G e n e r a l P r o v is io n s G e n e r a l If a n y d is p u te a rise s w ith re g E x p la n a to r y M e m o r a n d u m T h e R e g u la tio n c o n ta in s a t Ac e o f th is R e g u la tio n e g u id e lin e s fro m tim e to tim e .

S e c tio n I V S e c tio n V a rd to th e in te rp re ta tio n o f a n y o S e c tio n V I n n e x 'A ' a n e x p la n a to ry m e m o ra 7 7 5 f th e p ro v is io n d u m th a t e x n s o f th e R e g u la p la in s th e re a s o n -c u m - B a s ic tio n , th e s fo r th e177 T E L E C R O E M F R E R E E G N U C L E D A T I N a t e d O T 1 R Y E R 2 J u 7 7 7 A C ly U T O N , 2 0 H N 0 2 O E C R T I T O Y F O F F E I R N D A I A N N E X – B178 R E F E R E N C E I N T E R C O N N E C T O F F E R C U M - D R A F T A G R E E M E N T P R E A M B L E T H I S A G R E E M E N T is m a d e th e d a y o f _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , 2 0 0 b e tw e e n M /s … … … … … … … , … … … … … .., a C o m p a n y re g is te re d u n d e r th e C o m p a n ie s A c t 1 9 5 6 h a v in g its re g is te re d o ffic e a t … … … … … … … .

s u c c e ss o r … … … … … … ,… … … … … .., a C o m p a n y re g is te re d u n d e r th e C o m p a n ie s A c t 1 9 5 6 a n d h a v in g its re g is te re d o ffic e a t … … … … … … … .;h e re in a fte r re fe rre d to a s th e P a rty _ _ w h ic h te rm s h a ll in c lu d e , o th e r p a rt, to g e th e r re fe rre d to a s th e P a r tie s.

W H E R E A S , [P a r ty in s ta ll a n d o p e ra te … … … … … . v a rio u s T e le c o m m u n ic a tio n s S y s te m s fo r th e p ro v is io n o f … … … … .

P a r ty io n s S y ste m to p ro v id e … … te le c o m m u n ic a tio n s s e rv ic e s in … … . o n th e te rm s a n d c o n d itio n s s p e c ifie d in s u c h lic e n s e ]; a n d W H E R E A S , [P a r ty _ _ o p e ra te … … … … … . v a rio u s T e le c o m m u n ic a tio n s S y s te m s fo r th e p ro v isio n o f … … … … .

P a r ty T e le g ra p h A c t 1 8 8 5 to e s ta b lis h , in s ta ll a n d o p e ra te a T e le c o m m u n ic a tio n s S y s te m to p ro v id e … … … .. … … … … … . te le c o m m u n ic a tio n s s e rv ic e s in … … … .. , o n th e te rm s a n d c o n d itio n s o f th e lic e n s e ], a n d W H E R E A S , in o rd e r to p ro v id e th e s p e c ifie d ra n g e o f s e rv ic e s to th e ir c u s to m e rs in th e ir s e rv ic e a re a s , th e P a r tie s N O W , T H E R E F O R E , th is A g re e m e n t, w itn e ss e th a s fo llo w s:

A R T IC L E 1 - S C O P E A N D D E F I N I T I O N O F S E R V I C E S 1 .1 S c o p e ------------ ------------- a n d s tip u la te s th e c o n d itio n s u n d e r w h ic h th e P a r tie s te le c o m tra ffic a n d th e m a n n e r in w h ic h in te rc o n n e c tio n a n d o th e r m u tu a lly a g re e d s e rv ic e s s h a l 2 0 0 0 .

7 7 8179

T h is a g re e m e n t c o v e rs th e fo llo w in g :

In te rc 1 .2 A c c e p ta n c e a n d C o m m e n c e m e n t 1 .2 .1 A c c e p ta n c e o f R I O T h e u n c o n d itio n a l a c c e p ta n c e o f th e o ffe r w ill re sa n d c o n d itio n s c o n ta in e d in th e R IO .

1 .2 .2 A n in te rc o n n e c tio fu rth e r n e g o tia tio n s a n d a g re e m e n t.

1 .2 .3 C o m m e n c e m e n t T h is a g re e m e n t s h a ll c o m m e n c e o n … … … a 1 .3 A m e n d m e n ts c o n c e rn e d a u th o rity .

1 .4 D e fin itio n s In a d d itio n a s u s e d in th is A g re e m e n t, th e fo llo u n w lt in a fo rm a lly sig d c o n tin u e [fo r a p in g te rm s sh a ll h a v 7 7 9 n e d a g re e m e n t p re c is e ly iv id u a lis e d A g re e m e rio d o f ---- e th e m e a n in g s in d ic a te d o n th e n t fo -A .

h e re u e te rm llo w in

n d e r: s g180 A c t 2 0 0 0 .

A p p a r a tu s -s y s te m s e n g in e e re d to p ro v id e th e s e rv ic e s in a c c o rd a n c e w ith th e o p e ra tio n a l, te c h n ic a l a n d q u a lity re q u ire m e n ts.

A u th o r ity m e a n s th e T e le c o m R e g u la to ry A u th o rity o f In d ia .

B a s ic T e le p h o n e S e r v ic e m e a n th e c o lle c tio n , c a rria g e , tra n s m is s io n a n d d e liv e ry o f v o ic e o r n o n -v o ic e ty p e s o f s e rv ic e s e x c e p t th o s e w h ic h re q u ire s e p a ra te lic e n c e .

B illin g I n fo r m a tio n A g re e m e n t.

B u s y H o u r m e a n s th e c o n tin u o u s o n e -h o u r p e rio d ly in g w h o lly in a g iv e n tim e in te rv a l fo r w h ic h th e tra ffic is h ig h e s t.

B H C A e rv ic e .

C C S C D R C L I C e ilin g (th e A u th o rity fro m tim e to tim e .

C e llu la r M o b ile T e le p h o n e S e r v ic e te le c o m m u n ic a tio n s y s te m fo r th e c o n v e y a n c e o f m e s s a g e s th ro u g h th e a g e n c y o f w ire le s s te le g ra p h y T h e C e llu la r M o b ile T e le p h o n e S e r v ic e re fe rs to tra n s m is sio n o f v o ic e o r n o n -v o ic e m e s s a g e s o v e r n o n - e s e rv ic e .

C u s to m e r E ffe c tiv e C a ll m e a n s a n a n s w e re d c a ll.

E ffe c tiv e D a te m e a n s th e c o m m e n c e m e n t d a te o f th e A g re e m e n t E rla n g m e a n s th e u n it o f te le p h o n e F A C 7 8 0181 F lo o r A u th o rity fro m tim e to tim e .

F o r b e a r a n c e s h a rin g a rra n g e m e n t fo r a p a rtic u la r te le c o m m u n ic a tio n se rv ic e a n d th e s ec h a rg e fo r s u c h s e rv ic e .

G a te w a y M S C G O S I n te r c o n n e c tio n C h a r g e s I n te r c o n n e c tio n P r o v id e r p ro v id in g te le c o m m u n ic a tio n s e rv ic e s .

I n te r c o n n e c tio n S e e k e r in te rc o n n e c tio n p ro v id e r.

I n te r n a tio n a l L o n g D is ta n c e T e le c o m m u n ic a tio n S e r v ic e m e a n s o rig in a tin g w ith in In d ia a n d te rm in a tin g o u ts id e In d ia a n d v ic e v e rs a .

I n te r n a tio n a l S u b s c r ib e r D ia llin g (I S D ) I S U P m e a n s In te g ra te d u s e r c a n c o n tro l a s p a rt o f th e le a s e d c irc u it p ro v is io n .

L D C A L D C C is th e n o m in a te d c h a rg in g c e n tre o f a n L ic e n se A g r e e m e n t L o c a l C a ll c a ll ra te s .

M S C lo c a te d in a n a ss o c ia te d g e o g ra p h ic a l a re a .

N a tio n a l L o n g D is ta n c e N a tio n a l L o n g D ista n c e S e r v ic e N a tio n a l S ta n d a r d s 7 8 1 rv ic e p n s te le c o re v e n u e ro v id e r is fre e to fix a th e s e rv ic e p ro v id e r to m m u n ic a tio n s e rv ic e s o n p o in ts w h ic h th e182 N o n -d is c r im in a tio n in in te rc o n n e c tio n c h a rg e m e a n s th a t s e rv ic e p ro v id e rs s h a ll n o t, in th e ila rly situ a te d a n d s im ila r c la s s o f s e rv ic e p ro v id e rs O r d e r O r ig in a tin g N e tw o r k p ro x im a te ly c o n n e c te d to .

O r ig in a tin g / T r a n s it/ T e r m in a tin g S e r v ic e P r o v id e r fo r o rig in a tin g / tra n s it/ te rm in a tin g a te le c o m m u n ic a tio n m e s s a g e re s p e c tiv e ly .

P L M N P o in t o f P r e se n c e (P O P ) (a s a p p l r.

P o in t o f P r e s e n c e (P O P ) o n d e m a n d in te r-c irc le lo n g d is ta n c e s e rv ic ed is c rim in a to ry m a n n e r.

P o in t o f P r e s e n c e (P O P ) g ra d e o f s e rv ic e in a n o n -d is c rim in a to ry m a n n e r.

P S T N P o in t o f I n te r c o n n e c tio n (P O I) Q O S A m e n d m e n t.

R e p o r tin g R e q u ir e m e n t im p le m e n tin g a n y n e w in te rc o n n e c tio n c h a rg e a n d re v e n u e s h a rin g a rra n g e m e n t fo r te le c o m ms e rv ic e s u n d e r th e R e g u la tio n a n d a n y c h a n g e s th e re a fte r.

S h o r t D ista n c e C h a r g in g A r e a (S D C A ) S h o r t D is ta n c e C h a r g in g C e n tr e (S D C C ) S e r v ic e I m p a ir m e n t m e a n s a n y in te rfe re n c e w ith o r im p a irm e n t o f s e rv ic e o v e r a n y fa c ilitie s S e t U p C o s ts o f I n te r c o n n e c tio n s p e c ific in te rc o n n e c tio n fa c ilitie s re q u e s te d .

7 8 2 m a tte. u n ic a r o f - tio n183 S e r v ic e A r e a m e a n s th e g e o g ra p h ic a l a re a sp ro v id e d .

S L A S u b s c r ib e r s e rv ic e fro m th e lic e n se e .

S y s te m m e a n s a te le c o m m u n ic a tio n n e S u b s c r ib e r T r u n k D ia llin g (S T D ) T e r m in a tin g N e tw o r k p ro x im a te ly c o n n e c te d to .

T r a n s it N e tw o r k U s a g e C h a r g e -A d d e d V o ic e T e le p h o n y S e r v ic e m e afa c ility fo r c o n d u c tin g re a l-tim e tw o -w a y s p e W o r k in g D a y W L L (M ) m e a n s th e te le p h o n e p e e c c h ifie d u c o n v e 7 8 3 n d e r th rs a tio n e lic e n s e th ro u g a m o n g th e m .

h o u t w u n ic h ic a tio h n th m e s e rv e s sa g ic e s e s a h fro re in m -184 A R T IC L E 2 - P O I A N D IN T E R C O N N E C T I O N P R I N C I P L E S 2 .1 P o in t o f I n te r c o n n e c tio n

T h e P a r tie s a g r e e : to s u p p ly th e re q u e ste d te le c o m m u n ic a tio n s e rv ic e s , fa c ilitie s a n d in fo rm a tio n , re la tin g to 2 .2 T r a ffic R o u tin g P r in c ip le s R IO fin a l d r a ft 1 2 th J u ly 2 0 0 2 s h a ll h o rity .

o n v a rio u s in te rc o n n e c tio n a n d d e liv e ry o f in te r o p e ra to r tra ffic /s e rv ic e s .

2 .3 A r r a n g e m e n ts a t th e P O I n s m is s io n a n d e le c tric 2 .4 C o -lo c a tio n o f A p p a r a tu s a n d P la n t -P a r ty a n d u s e d fo r in te rc o n n e c tio n , a t th e p re m is e s o f th e o th e r P a r ty .

- o d a tio n a n d a u x ilia ry P a r ty u s e s th e p re m ise a n d /o r u s e s fa c ilitie s o f th e o th e r P a r ty , s u c h a s p o w e r e tc ., it sh a ll p a y a re n t to th e o th e r P a r ty A R T IC L E 3 - I N T E R C O N N E C T I O N P R O V I S IO N I N G P R O C E D U R E S 3 .1 I n itia l D e m a n d 3 .1 .1 in fo rm a tio n re q u ire d to fa c ilita te p la n n in g .

7 8 4185 A fo r m a l d e m a n d 3 .1 .2 T h e In te rc o n n e c tio n p ro v id e r s h a ll in tim a te w ith in a p e rio d o f 3 0 d a y s fro m th e d a te o f re c e ip t o f s u c h fo rm a l d e m a n d , e ith e r th e a c c e p ta n c e o r a n a lte rn a tiv e p ro p o s a l fo r m e e tin g th is d e m a n d fu lly o r n o te s fo r th e a c c e p te d p a rt o f th e d e m a n d w ith in 3 0 d a y s o f re c e ip t o f th e fo rm a l d e m a n d .

ts . m e t w ith in 6 m o n th s o f s u c h d e p o sit. in te rc o n n e c tio n p ro v id rn fo r a g ra d e o f s e rv ic e 3 .1 .3 llo w e d . T h e d e ta ile d p a y m e n t p ro c e d u re to 3 .1 .4 s h a 3 .2 3 .3 P r o v is io n in g & T e s tin g a n d C o m m is s io n in g o f I n te r c o n n e c t C ir c u its 3 .3 .1 in g . T h e fu ll 3 .3 .2 If th e d e m a n d is n o t m e t w ith in th e C o o rd in a tio n C o m m itte e fo r fu rth e r n e c e s sa ry a c tio n u n d e r th is a g re e m e n t.

3 .3 .3 d e te rm in in g th e p o rt c h a rg e s in te rm s o f th e R e g u la tio n s .

3 .3 .4 T h e p a rty in s ta llin g th e e q u ip m e n t a n d re q u irin g in te r-c o n n e c tiv ity te s ts s h a ll, n o tify to th e o th e r n o tific 7 8 5186 3 .4 A u g m e n ta tio n 3 .4 .1 d a y s , s ix m o n th s a fte r c o m m e n c e m e n t o f s e rv ic e a n d e v e ry six m o n th s th e re a fte r w ith a v ie w to d e te rm in e fu rth e r c a p a c ity re q u ire m e n ts .

3 .4 .2 3 .5 C a n c e lla tio n C h a r g e s 3 .5 .1 If th e c a n c e lla tio n o f d e m a n d is m a d e w ith in 1 5 d a y s o f th e firm d e m a n d , a n a m o u n t e q u iv a le n t to th e re o f.

3 .5 .2 If th e c a n c e lla tio n o f d e m a n d is m a d e a fte r 1 5 d a y s a fte r th e firm d e m a n d , th e p a y m e n t m a d e to w a rd s p o rt c h a rg e s fo r 3 .6 U tilisa tio n m in im u m p e rio d o f 3 y e a rs . If h e fa ils to u s e th e c a p a c ity , 5 0 % o f th e re n ta l fo r th e u n u s e d c a p a c ity fo r a m o u n t c o v e rin g 5 0 % o f th e re n ta l fo r th e a g re e d p e rio d o f u s e , w ith in 9 0 d a y s fro m th e d a te o f firm d e m a n d .

3 .7 P o r t I d e n tific a tio n e s e p a ra te a n d c le a rly id e n tifie d .

3 .8 D a m a g e s e r firm 6 0 d a y s. p ro v id e th e o rd e re d c a p a c ity .

7 8 6187 A R T IC L E 4 - N E T W O R K A N D T R A N S M I S S I O N R E Q U I R E 4 .1 T r a ffic F o r e c a s ts T ra ffic fo re c a s ts a re u s e d fo r th e p la n n in g o f s u ffic ie n t sw itc h in g a n d tra n s m 4 .2 N e tw o r k E n g in e e r in g 4 .2 .1 D iv e r s ity a n d A lte r n a te R o u tin g P a r ty o th e r p a rty a s it g iv e s to its o w n tra ffic .

4 .2 .2 C ir c u it P r o v is io n In te rfa c e a llo w in g fo r a d e q u a te o v e rlo a d s a fe ty p ro te c tio n .

4 .2 .3 N e tw o r k C h a n g e s 4 .2 .4 C a llin g L in e Id e n tific a tio n 4 .3 C a r r ie r S e le c tio n rd a n c e w ith th e R e g u la tio n s o f th e A u th o X X O n A R T IC L E 5 - T E C H N I C A L S E R V IC E C O M M I T M E N T S A N D F A U 5 .1 G e n e r a l C o m m itm e n ts .

5 .1 .1 7 8 7 M E N T S iss io n c a p a c ity . T ra ffic e r o n th e 1 s t e tra ffic o f th e - rity a n d p ro c e d u re s a n d L T R E P A I R S188 5 .1 .2 p ro v id e s to its e lf a n d to its a ffilia te s .

5 .1 .3 re p a irs fa 5 .1 .4 5 .2 Q u a lity o f S e r v ic e th e 5 .3 F a u lt R e p o r tin g 5 .3 .1 5 .3 .2 5 .3 .3 5 .3 .4 a d v e rse e ffe c t o n th e o th e r p a rty 's s y s te m , th e firs t w ill p ro m 5 .4 N e tw o r k R e s to r a tio n :

in te rru p tio n o r fa ilu re o f 5 .5 O p e r a tin g I n s tr u c tio n s : m a n a g e m e n t a c tio n s to re s to re s e rv ic e . fa u lt in c o -o p e ra tio n , a s d e e m e d n e c e ss a ry , w ith th e o th e 7 8 8 p tly in fo r th r p a rty .

rm e c th le a c t c e n tre . e o th e r p a rty o f th e a c tio n s ra n c e o f in d iv id u a l fa u lts . u re a n d lo c a tio n o f th e189 re s to ra tio n .

5 .6 P la n n e d M a in te n a n c e w o r k s:

5 .6 .1 E a c h p a rty w ill g iv e a t le a s t 7 d a y s n o tic e o f a no th e r's s y s te m .

5 .6 .2 A R T IC L E 6 - T E C H N I C A L S P E C I F 6 .1 N a tio n a l S ta n d a r d s A g re e m e n t.

6 .2 S ig n a lin g a n d S y n c h r o n is a tio n In te r- T h e s y s te m s - 6 .3 I n te r fa c e A p p r o v a l N e ith e 6 .4 T r a n s m is s io n a n d P e r fo r m a n c e S ta n d a r d s 6 .4 .1 T r a n s m is s io n I n te r fa c e in te rfa c e s m a y s h a ll a p p ly .

6 .4 .2 S w itc h in g 7 8 9 y p la I C A T I O y th e N c S o A N D S T A N e y s h a ll c o rm a t s ta n m p e te n t a u th - D n d o A R D fo rm a rd ise rity in S to th e d fo r In a c c o rd d a fo r a n y re le v a n t ia . O th e r ll th e n c e w ith190 6 .4 .3 P a c k e t N e tw o r k - 6 .4 .4 S p e e c h P e r fo r m a n c e - 6 .4 .5 P S T N / V O I P I n te r o p e r a b ility S ta n d a r d s :

- A R T IC L E 7 - N E T W O R K M A N A G E M E N T , M A IN T E N A N C E & M E A S U R E M E N T 7 .1 n a ll in te rc o n n e c tio n fa c ilitie s in te rc o n n e c t p u rp o s e a n d s h a ll a ls o a llo w a c c e s s to d u ly a u th o ris e d re p re s e n ta tiv e o f th e o th e r p a rty to s u c h e q u ip m e n t fo r p ro v is io n in g , m a in te n a n c e o r m o n ito rin g p u rp o s e s .

7 .2 re 7 .3 E a c h P a r ty - p re v e n t o v e rlo a d o f o th e r in te rc o n n e c tin g s y s te m s .

7 .4 T h e N e tw o -in tr u s iv e .

7 .5 E a c h P a r ty 7 .6 E a c h P a r ty s h o p e ra to r.

7 .7 7 .8 I P P la tfo r m s E a c h P a r ty - A R T IC L E 8 - N E T W O R K I N T E G R I T Y , S A F E T Y & P R O T E C T I O N 8 .1 G e n e r a l P r in c ip le s :

8 .1 .1 a n d s a fe ty .

7 9 0191 8 .1 .2 o p e ra tio n a l s ta te s a n d re m a in u n a ffe c te d 8 .2 M a in te n a n c e o f N e tw o r k I n te g r ity 8 .2 .1 8 .2 .2 -c o m p lia n t m e s s a g e s a re 8 .3 S a fe ty a n d P r o te c tio n .

8 .3 .1

o p e ra tio n s : d o n o t e n d a n g e r th e s a fe ty o r h e a lth o f a n y p e rs o n , in c lu d in g th e e m p lo y e e s a n d c o n tra c to rs o f th e c a u s in g d a m a g e , in te rfe rin g w ith o r c a u s in g d e te rio ra tio n in th e o p e ra tio n o f th e firs t m e n tio n e d 8 .3 .2 m a in ta in in g it. In th is re g a rd , sa fe ty re q u ire m e n ts o f a c c id e n ta l h u m a n to u c h o f fe e d in g v o lta g e a s A R T IC L E 9 - O P E R A T I O N S , S P E C I A L A N D M A N U A L S E R V I C E S 9 .1 A s s is te d C a lls n e g o tia te d if it is n o t s p e c ifie d in th e R e g u la tio n s .

9 .2 O th e r F a c ilitie s fe e s 9 .3 D ir e c to r y E n q u ir y s p e c ifie d o r 9 .4 C u s to m e r S e r v ic e s E a c h P a r ty C u s to m e rs .

7 9 1192 1 s 1 P c 1 T 1 1 Ea A R T IC L E 1 0 - A C C E S S T O IN T E R C O N N E C T I O N G A T E W A Y F A C I L I T I E S 0 .1 I n te r c o n n e c tio n G a te w a y s -o p e ra to r h o u ld c o n fo rm to th e re le v a n t T E C s p e c ific a tio n . O p A R T I C L E 1 1 - C H A R G I N G M E C H A N I S M S , B I L L I N G A N D S E T T L E M E N T 1 .1 S u b s c r ib e r B illin g a rty A s h a ll b e re s p o n s ib le fo r b illin g … … … a n d P a rty B s h a ll b e re s p o n s ib le fo r b illin g … … ... B illin g T h e d e s c rip tio n a n d c h a rg e s fo r s u c h se rv ic e s a re a ls o o n ta in e d in th e sa m e sc h e d u le .

1 .2 I n te r -C a r r ie r B illin g a c ilita te in te r-- - C a rrie r R e la te d In fo rm a tio n G e o g ra p h ic a l In fo rm a tio n in a tin g C h a rg in g A re a C o d e h e a g re e d fo rm a ts fo r in te r- -. A p a rt fro m 1 .3 S e ttle m e n t 1 .4 A c c o u n ts ll e ffe c tiv e tra ffic s e n t to o r re c e iv e d fro m th e o th e r p a rty . E ffe c tiv e T ra ffic fo r th is p u rp o s e w o u ld m e a n 7 9 2193 a n y o th e r a u th o rity in th is re g a rd .

1 1 .5 P a y m e n ts 1 1 .5 .1 T h e n e t a m 1 1 .5 .2 1 1 .5 .3 n e c e s sa ry d u e to th e ta riffs / ra te c h a 1 1 .6 E r r o r s a n d R e c o n c ilia tio n 1 1 .6 .1 a c c o u n ts a s a re n e c e ss a ry to c o rre c t th 1 1 .6 .2 p a y m e n t o f th e u n d is p u te d a m o u n t. T in te re s t fro m th e d u e d a te th is A rtic le a s a s e t-a rtie s .

1 1 .7 S e c u r ity D e p o sits 1 1 .8 F r a u d a n d D e fa u lt e h - e rro r. e fu ll a m o u 7 9 3 . o fro m tim e , to194 A R T IC L E 1 2 - C O M M E R C 1 2 .1 S u p p ly o f S e r v ic e in d ic a te d in th e In te rc o n n e c tio n R e g u la tio n s . T 1 2 .2 T h ir d P a r ty R ig h ts 1 2 .3 C o s ts o f I n te r c o n n e c tio n 1 2 .3 .1 T h e c o s t o f 1 2 .3 .2 1 2 .4 U p g r a d a tio n A n y u p g ra d a tio n o f ne a c h p a rty a t h is o w n c o st.

1 2 .5 E x c lu s iv ity s e t o u t in th e ir re s p e c tiv e lic e n s e s . N e ith e r P a r ty 1 2 .6 E m e r g e n c y S e r v ic e s a g re e m e n t.

1 2 .7 A p p lic a b le L a w 1 2 .8 A s s ig n a b ility N e ith e r th is A g re e m e n t n o r a n y o f th e ri IA L T E R M S A N D C O N D I T I O N S n s o f th e A u th o rity h e te rm s a n d c o n d itio n s u n d e r w h ic h s u c h s e rv ic e s / p le P a r ty in In d ia a c c o rd in g to th e te rm s a n d c o n d itio n s s h a ll re q u ire th e o th e r to in te rc o n n e c t to its fa c ilitie s o n P a r ty h e re to .

7 9 4195 1 2 .9 L a n g u a g e la n g u a g e fo r a ll m a tte rs re la tin g to th e m e a n in g o r in te rp re ta tio n o f th 1 2 .1 0 W a iv e r s to th e o th e r P a r ty . N o fa ilu re o n th e p a rt o f a n y P a r ty to e x e rc is e a nA g re e m e n t s h a ll o p e ra te a s a w a iv e r h e re o f.

1 2 .1 1 P a r tia l I n v a lid ity in te rp re te d a n 1 2 .1 2 N o n -D is c r im in a tio n -d iffe re n tia l.

7 9 5 is A g re e m y rig h t, p o e w n t. e r o r p riv ile g e u n d e r th is ic e196 A R T IC L E 1 3 - I N T E R C O N N E C T I O 1 3 .1 T y p e o f C h a r g e : T h e s e a re o f th e fo llo w in g ty p e s o th e r's tra ffic .

1 3 .2 S e t U p C h a r g e s 1 3 .3 U s a g e C h a r g e s :

A R T I C L E 1 4 - F U N D A M E N T A L T 1 4 .1 G e n e r a l A R T IC L E 1 5 - C O N F I D E N T I A L IT Y , L IA B 1 5 .1 a g re e m e n t o n ly .

1 5 .2 / th is a g re e m e n t, d o e s n o t in frin g e a n y c o p y -th ird p a rty .

1 5 .3 1 5 .4 n ------------- a n 7 9 6 N U S A G E C H A R G E S th e tw o p a rtie s fo E C H N IC A L P L A N S I L I T Y A N D I N D E M N I T I E s y s te m s a n d o th e r a rtic le s d -------------- r h a S o f n d lin g e a c th e s e rv ic h e197 1 5 .5

in fo rm a tio n e x c e p t in th e fo llo w in g c irc u m s ta n c e s: - th e o r re g u la to ry a u th o rity o r o rd e r o f a c o u r 1 5 .6 p rio r to a n y s u c h d is c lo s u re .

1 5 .7 u s e d s o le ly fo r th e p u rp o se s fo r w h ic h it is d is c lo s e d .

1 5 .8 lim it a c c e s s to s u c h c o n fid e n tia l in fo rm a tio n to a u th o ris e d e m p lo y e e s/a gc o n fid e n tia l in fo rm a tio n fo r p e rfo rm a n c e o f th is A g re e m e n t a n d to u s e s u c h c o n fid e n tia l in fo rm a tio n o n ly T h e a u th o ris e d e m p lo y e e s/a g e n t to w h o m a ll o r a n y c o n fid e n tia l in fo rm a tio n is d is c lo s e d s h a ll h o ld it 1 5 .9 th ird p a rty a ss e rtin g th a t th e u s e o f a n y c irc u it, a p p a ra tu s , o r s y s te m o r so ftw a re , o r th e p e rfo rm a n c e o f s u s e o f a n y p a te n t, c o p y rig h t o r a n y o th e r p ro p rie ta ry o r in te lle c tu a l p ro p e rty rig h t o f a n y th ird p a rty .

1 5 .1 0 A ll w ritte n c o n fid e n tia l in fo rm a tio n o r a n y p a rt th e re o f (in c lu d in g , w ritte n in fo rm a tio n in c o rp o ra te d in c o m p u te r s o ftw a re o r h e ld in e le c tro n P a r ty P a r ty re tu rn e d to th e d is c lo s in g P a r ty P a r tyP a r ty a t a n y tim e , o r w h e n th is a g re e m e n t e x p ire s o r is te rm in a te d , w h ic h e v e r is e a rlie r. In th e e v e n t o f d e s tru c tio n , th e re c e iv in g P a r ty s h a ll c e rtify in w ritin g to th e d is c lo s in g P a r ty s u c h c o n fid e n tia l in fo rm a tio n n o r re ta in s u c h c o n fid e n tia l in fo rm a tio n in a n y fo rm w h a ts o e v e r.

1 5 .1 1 T h e P a r tie s to m a in ta in c o n fid e n tia lit 1 5 .1 2 N o tw ith s ta n d in g a n y p ro v isio n in th is a g re e m e n t a n d u n le s s o th e rp a r ty in a n y m a n n e r h o w s o e v e r th e c o n te n ts o f th o s e 1 5 .1 3 7 9 7198 1 5 .1 4 d a m a g e .

1 5 .1 5 s a fe g u a rd in g o f th e c o n fid e n tia l in fo rm a tio n a n d s u p e rs e d e s a ll p rio r c o m m u n ic a tio n s a n d u n d e rsta n d in g s w ith re s p e c t th e re to .

1 5 .1 6 F O R C E M A J E U R E N e ith e r p a r ty s h a P a r ty P a r ty a ffe c te d , s u c h P a r ty fro m th e d a te o f th e n o tific a tio n , a n d c o n t P a r ty P a r ty . T h is A R T IC L E 1 6 - L I A I S O N A N D C O O R D I N A T I O N 1 6 .1 C o o r d in a tio n C o m m itte e im p le m e n ta tio n o f in te rc o n n e c tio n , a m e n d m e n t o f s c h e d u le s , re c o n c ilia tio n o f a c c o u n ts e tc . a n d la y d o w n - A R T I C L E 1 7 - T E R M I N A T I O N A N D R E V IE W 1 7 .1 T e r m in a tio n 1 7 .1 .1 T h is A g re e m e n t s h a ll c o n tin u e fo r th e p e rio d in d ic a te d in A rtic le 1 .2 u n le s s :

-u p o r d is s o lu tio n o f a 1 7 .1 .2

e v e n t th a t e ith e r P a r ty : n o tifie d in w ritin g o f its fa ilu r - 7 9 8199 1 7 .1 .3 e q u i 1 7 .1 .4 1 7 .2 W ith d r a w a l o f I n te r c o n n e c tio n fo r n o n -p a y m e n t th e re e x is ts s o m e s u c h c irc u m s ta n c e s , w h ic h w a r 1 7 .3 R e v ie w C o n d itio n s , R e g u la tio n s A R T IC L E 1 8 - D I S P U T E S 1 8 . S e ttle m e n t o f D is p u te s It is u n d e rs to o d a n d a g re e d th a t th e P a r tie s sh a ll c a rry o u t th is A g re e m e re fe rre d to in a rtic le 1 6 .1 . T h e C o m m itte e s h a ll re s o lv e th e m a tte r w ith inin te rv e n e a t th e re q u e st o f e ith e r o f th e p a rtie s .

s e rv ic e A R T IC L E 1 9 - N O T I C E S o th e r C o m m u n ic a tio n s re q u e s te d o r p e rm itte d p u rs v e rifie d a t th e fo llo w in g a d d re s s e s .

7 9 9 n t in th 3 0 d a y e s p s . T to h a v e irit o f m u tu a l c o - h e A u th o rity m a y200 If to P a r If to P a r

N a m e :

T itle : ty A ty A A : tte n tio B : tte n tio n n : :

T itle 8 0 :

0

N a m e :201 R E F E L is t o f P O Is S ta tio n /A r e a T a g re e m e n t I te m

N o te : B o th th e p a rtie s w ill P e r fo r m a n c e sta n d a r d s 1 .

2 . B it E rro r R a te 4 . O th e rs y R p e E o N C E I N T E R C O N NS C H E D U L E S S C H E D U L E 1 P O IN T S O F I N T E R C O N N f T r a ffic P O I D e s c r ip tio n

A d d re s s :

N a m e a n d A d d re s s: -T s p e c ific a tio 8 0 1 E E n C C T T O F In te F E R Q O R e m rn a tio S a r k n a l s202 a d v e rtis S . N o .

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 e m e n t e tc .

C H A R G T Y P I C A I te m T ra n s m is s io n In O th e r c a s e s E le c tric a l re q u ire m e n ts Q u a lity o f s e rv ic e s T e rm s a n d d e fin C H A R G E E S F O R S L S C H E D te rfa c e s s a fe ty te le c o m itio n s S C H E D U L E 2 S F O R M I S C E L L A N E O U S C H E D U L E 3 H A R I N G O F IN F R A S T R U S C H E D U L E 4 U L E O F S T A N D A R D S A N S p e c ific a tio n - -T -0 3 /0 1 - - G .7 8 2 / G .7 8 3 - - - - - -0 1 /0 4 -0 1 /0 1 -0 2 /0 1 -0 1 /0 1 A p r 9 9 -0 1 /0 1 A p r 9 9 -0 1 /0 1 M a y , 9 4 T R A I R e g u la tio n s -T B .1 3 8 0 2 S S E R V I C E S C T U R E E L E M E N D S P E C IF I C A T I O R e m a r k s in te rfa c e A s p e r N a tio n a l In te rn e t u s e r d e v ic e s -T E 8 0 0 R e c o m m e n d a tio n s T N S S -T203 N 1 2345 6 7 8 9 1 1 1 c c I n te r c o n n e c t U s a o .

E x c h a n tra n s m is s io n - - tra n s m is s io n In te r-T A X (In tra - 0 In te r-T A X T ra n s m is sio n 1 In te r-T A X (In te r- 2 In te r-T A X T ra n s m is sio n a lc u la te c a rria g e / a c o n fid e n tia l.

g e c h a r g e s (I U T o ta l p e r - g e - T A X T A X - - c e ss c h a rg e s in S C H E D U L E 5 C ) fo r u s e o f U n b u n d le d Nc a r r ia g e o f v a r io u s ty p e s o M e a n C a p ita l C o s t o f E m p lo y e d C a p ita l v o lv in g v a rio u s ty p e s o f s wll fo r o rig in a tin 8 0 3 e twf c a A n itc hg a n o r k Ells n u a l in g a nd te rm le m e n ts (U A n n u a l d tra n s m issin a tio n .

N io E s ) in v o lv e d in M in u te s A v . o f C o s t p e r m in u te n e le m e n ts s u c h a s204 TC O T T T T T N 21 s TN I N T E R C O N N Y P E O F A C C E S S / A R R I A G E rig in a tin g ra n sit ra n sit * ra n sit * ra n sit * e rm in a tin g

o te s : . In c a s e o f tw o o r m o re T0 0 K m s o r p a rt th e re o f. p e c ifie d Y P E O F I N T E R E S T o rm a l R a te o f In te re s t E N TaTC A S C H E D U L E 6 C T U S A G E C H A R G E S D E R I V E T W O R K E L E M E N T S I N V O L - - w o T A X s -n d In te r- h re e T A X s -irc le a n d In te r- - - X s a re in v o lv e d , th e C h a rg e S C H E D U L E 7 R A T E O F I N T E R E S T R A T E S 8 0 4 E V D E F D R R E O M M A S C -C R K H E D - irc le - - - S U L E 5 C H A R GM I N U T EE /205 N T 1 2 3 4 o .

o . . . . p e n d in L E T T ER E F E R g e x e c u tio n R E o ON f a n F AC E In d C I N iv id C u T a E P TE R C lis e d A A NO O r g re 8 0 5 CN e m E ON E C e n t in F R I O _ _T O F F E te rm s o f C la _R u s _ _ _ _ _ ( R I O e 1 .2 .2 N a m e o _ ) f th A n e C n e o m x p - A a n y206 R E F E R E N C D E I N G U a t e d T I D 1 E R E L 2 J 8 0 C u 6 O I N l y N E 2 N S 0 0 E 2 C T O F F E R A n n e x - C207 R E F E R E N C E I N T E R C O N N E C T O F F E R - G U I D E L I N E S 1 . I N T R O D U C T IO N in te rn a tio n a l lo n g -s e rv ic e s .

T o a s s is t o p e ra to rs in a rriv in g a t fa ir a g re e m e n ts , it is c u s to m a ry fo r th e p la y e rs w ith s ig n ifi R IO . m a y u se th e c la u s e s o f th e M o d e l R IO fo r th e ir In te rc o n n e c t A g re e m e n ts , a fte r a p p ro p ria te le g a l a n d c o m m e rc ia l sc ru tin y .

s e rv ic e p ro v id e s p e c ia l re q u ire m e n t o f th e tw o p a rtie s.

T h e R IO is d iv id e d in 2 . P R E A M B L E o p e ra tin g d ire c tly u n d e r th e T e le g ra p h A c t, is in v o lv e d , th e s e p a ra te w o rd in g s h o w n a s a n a lte rn a tiv e in 3 . A R T I C L E 1 3 .1 S c o p e tio n s re fe r to th e re le v a n t s e c tio n s o f th e T R A I A c t.

3 .2 D e fin itio n o f S e r v ic e s A g re e m e n t. T h e s e s c h e d u le s c o n ta in im p o rta n t p a rts o f th e a g re e m e n t re la tin g to c h a rg in g a n d te c h n ic a l m u tu a l a g re e m e n t.

8 0 7208 3 3 c 4 4 A 4 4 M 4 .3 R e g istr a tio n a n d C o m m e n c e m e n t ie d in th is c la u se .4 D e fin itio n o f T e r m s o n s o lid a te d lis t o f d e fin itio n s . . I N T E R C O N N E C T I O N P R I N C I P L E S .1 L e v e ls o f I n te r c o n n e c tio n g re e m e n t.

.2 I n te r c o n n e c tio n b e tw e e n F ix e d N e tw o r k (B S O - .3 S h a r in g o f I n te r c o n n e c tin g fa c ility : o re th a n o n e se rv ic e p ro v id e r m a y s h a re in te rc o n n e c .4 S h a r in g o f r e s o u r c e s o f in te r c o n n e c tio n s e e k e r 8 0 8 9 0 d a y s u n d e r n o rm a l c o n s , N L D /I L D ) -c irc le tra ffic o ffe re d a tio n in fra s tru c tu r

w ith o th e r s : d itio t th e n s s . T e c e h n e a c tu tre s . A a l n209 T y p e o In tra - In te r-C In te rn a T y p e o In tra -In te r-C In te rn a f C irc tio f C irc tio a lls le n a l a lls le n a l T T P S T N I n te r c o n n e c tio n a b le 1 .1 – P S T N to P S T N (O u t-g o in g T r a ffic ) P O I R e m m u tu a l a g re e m e n t.

te rm in a tin g e n d . a s p e r lic e n c e te rm s a n d c o n d itio n s a t a s p e r lic e n c e te rm s a n d c o n d itio n s a t lo c a te d a t th e sa m e s ta tio n o f le v e l I T A X . a b le 1 .2 – P S T N - P S T N (I n -c o m in g T r a ffic ) P O I R e m te rm in a tin g tra ffic te rm s a n d c o n d itio n s in th e d e s tin a tio n te rm s a n d c o n d itio n s a t te rm in a tin g te rm th e s a m e s ta tio n o f le v e l I T A X .

8 0 9 a- - - a in r k s r k s a tin g - - (foin r – – - tra ffic s a m e210 N N 4 L o te 1 . o te 2 . In tra - .5 I n te r c o n n e c tio ic e n se d A r e a A . M e tr o s 1 .

2 . In te r-C irc le C3 . In te rn a tio n a l B . C ir c le s 1 . In tra - C irc le C 2 . In te r - C irc le C 3 . In te rn a tio n a l C n b e a ll a ll a ll a ll tw e e n P L M N (M o b ile ) a n d P S T T a b le 2 .1 – T r a ffic fr o m P L P O I lo c a te d .

w ith m u tu a l a g re e m e n t fo r te rm T h a g re e m e n t a s p its G s a m e s ta tio n o f le v e l I T A X 8 1 0 N M N to P S T N in a tin g tra ffic .

R e m a r k s211 L ic e n se d A r e a A . M e tr o s 1 .

2 . In te r-C irc le C a ll 3 . In te rn a tio n a l (O u t- (In - B . C ir c le s 1 . In tra - C irc le C a ll 2 . In te r - C irc le C a ll P a m T a b le 2 O I g re e m e n t. u tu a l a g re e m .2 T r e n t a a ffic F r o m s p e r lic e n 8 1 1 c P S T N .

e te rm to P s a n d L c M o a n N n d . d th e itio n s R p e p p p p e m ro v n d ro v ro v ro v ro v a r k s id e r fo r id e r. id e r id e r id e r tra (Nffic e ao r f212 3 . In te rn a tio n a l C a ll (O u t- m u tu a l a g re e m e n t a s p e r lic e n a t th e s ta tio n o f le v e l I T A X .

(In - N o te 1 : c irc le h a s m o re th a n o n e le v e l 1 T A X .

4 .6 A r r a n g e m e n ts a t th e P O I lo c a tio n , p h y s ic a l a n d e le c tric a l p ro p e rtie s , tra n s m is s 4 .7 N e tw o r k E le m e n ts 5 . I n te r c o n n e c tio n I m p le m e n ta tio n 8 1 2 c e te rm io n d e s a n d fin itio c o n n s , d itio n s sig n a llin (N e a r-e n d fo r tra ffic o f p ro v id e r p ro v id e r le 1 . T h is s h o u ld c o v eg , ty p e a n d d ire c tio n o r f213 c o m m e rc ia l in te re s ts , ra th e r th a n a p p lic a tio n o f p e n a ltie s w ill e n s u re p ro m p t in te rc o n n e c tio n .

in g fo r in te rc o n n e c tio n is re -e m p h a s T h e p a rtie s m a y , h o w e v e r, n e g o tia te to e q u a lly s h a re th e c o s ts o f a u g m e n ta tio n . th e C o o rd in a tio n C o ms u rre n d e r o r w ith d ra w a l.

6 . N e tw o r k E n g in e e r in g fo r e n g in e e rin g . te s w ith a s u ffic ie n t sa fe ty m a rg in .

7 . T e c h n ic a l S p e c ific a tio n s a n d S ta n d a r d s th e In te rc o n n e c t A g re e m e n t. u s e d .

8 1 3 is e m a s d , o n c e ic . itte e fo r214 S C H E D U L E O F S T S l. N o . Ite m 1 .

2 . T ra n s m iss io n In te rfa c e s 3 .

4 . O th e r c a s e s 5 .

6 .

7 .

8 .

9 .

1 0 .

1 1 . Q u a lity o f te le c o m s e rv ic e s 1 2 .

8 . N e tw o r k I n te g r ity m u ltip le o p e ra to rs , s e rv ic e p ro v id e rs , a n din te r- 9 . O p e r a tio n s a n d S e r v ic e s a g re e d ra te s .

1 0 . I n te r c o n n e c tio n G a te w a y s In a m u lti- o th e r o p e ra to rs . C h a rg e s fo r s u c h s e rv A N D A R D S A N D S P E C I F S p e c ific a tio n -0 2 /0 1 -T E 7 7 0 -0 3 /0 1 - -T G .7 0 3 /G .7 0 7 G .7 8 2 /G .7 8 3 - - - - - -0 1 /0 4 - -0 2 /0 1 -0 1 /0 1 A p r. 9 9-0 1 /0 1 A p r. 9 9 -0 1 / 0 1 M a y , 9 4 T R A I R e g u la tio n s T R A I R e g u la tio n s o th e r p la y e rs in te r- 8 1 4 I C A T I O N R e m a r k A s d e v ic e s -T E-T B S s p e r 8 0 0 .1 3 N a tio n a l215 1 1 . B illin g a n d I n te r -c a r r ie r C h a r g in g d a g re e d p ro c e d u re s p la c e d in a n a p p ro p ria te a n n e x u re .

6 . A rtic le 1 1 la y s d o w n th e ru le s fo r s u c h tra n sa c tio n s. - re v e n u e fro m ts. It is 1 2 . C o m m e r c ia l T e r m s a n d C o n d itio n s A rtic le 1 2 la y s d o w n th e c o m m e rc ia l c o n d itio n s . T h e c o s t o f u p g ra d a tio n / m o d ify in g in te rc o n n e c tin g fo r c o s t o f u p g ra d in g / m o d ify in g 1 3 . C h a r g e s fo r O r ig in a tin g , T e r m in a tin g a n d T r a n s it T r a ffic a c c e s s p ro v id e r, fo r c o s ts th e re c o v e ry o f w h ic h is o th e rw is e n o t p ro v id e d fo r.

1 4 . F u n d a m e n ta l T e c h n ic a l P la n s T h is is a d e s c rip tiv e p a ra g ra p h re la 1 5 . C o o r d in a tio n a n d D is p u te S e ttle m e n t to m o n e y m a tte rs . B e fo re th e y d e v e lo p in to d is p u te s it is d e s ir 8 1 5216 p ro c e d u re s in th e lig h t o f e x p e rie n c e a n d a ls o try to s e ttle C o o rd in a tio n C o m m itte e a n d A rtic le 1 8 to d is p u te s e ttle m 1 6 . T e r m in a tio n a n d R e v ie w te rm in a te d u n d e r e x c e p tio n a l c irc u m s ta n c e s . A rtic le 1 7 la 8 1 6 m a tte e n t.

y s d o w rs o f d iffe re n c e . T h s e ttle m e n t. A n th e c o n d itio n s re e C o m m itte e m a y a ls o rtic le 1 6 re la te s to th e la tin g to th e s e m a tte rs .10 Annexure-VII The Telecommunication Interconnection (Charges and Revenue Sharing) Regulations, 2001 217 T e le c o m R e g u la to r y A u th o r ity o f In d ia N o tific a tio n N e w D e lh i, th e 1 4 T H D e c e m b e r , 2 0 0 1 N o .3 1 1 -4 /2 0 0 1 -T R A I (E c o n .) In e x e rc is e o f th e p o w e rs c o n fe rre d u p o n it u n d e r s e c tio n 3 6 re a d w ith c la u s e s (ii), (iii) a n d (iv ) o f s u bs e c tio n (b ) o f S e c tio n 1 1 (1 ) o f th e T e le c o m R e g u la to ry A u th o rity o f In d ia A c t, 1 9 9 7 a s a m e n d e d b y T R A I(A m e n d m e n t) A c t, 2 0 0 0 , to e n s u re e ffe c tiv e in te rc o n n e c tio n b e tw e e n d if fe re n t s e rv ic e p ro v id e rs a n d tore g u la te a rra n g e m e n ts a m o n g s t s e rv ic e p ro v id e rs o f s h a rin g th e ir re v e n u e d e riv e d fro m p ro v id in gte le c o m m u n ic a tio n s e rv ic e s , th e T e le c o m R e g u la to ry A u th o rity o f In d ia h e re b y m a k e s th e fo llo w in gR e g u la tio n .

T H E T E L E C O M M U N IC A T IO N IN T E R C O N N E C T IO N (C H A R G E S A N D R E V E N U E S H A R IN G ) R E G U L A T IO N , 2 0 0 1 (5 o f 2 0 0 1 ) S e c tio n I T itle , E x te n t a n d C o m m e n c e m e n t 1 . S h o rt title , e x te n t a n d c o m m e n c e m e n t:

(i) T h is R e g u la tio n s h a ll b e c a lle d “T h e T e le c o m m u n ic a tio n In te rc o n n e c tio n (C h a rg e s a n d R e v e n u e S h a rin g R e g u la tio n 2 0 0 1 " (T h e R e g u la tio n ).

(ii) T h e R e g u la tio n s h a ll c o v e r a rra n g e m e n t s a m o n g s e rv ic e p ro v id e rs fo r in te rc o n n e c tio n c h a rg e s a n dre v e n u e s h a rin g , fo r T e le c o m m u n ic a tio n S e rv ic e s , in c lu d in g w ire le s s in lo c a l lo o p w ith lim ite d m o b ility [W L L (M )], th ro u g h o u t th e te rrito ry o f In d ia , a s a ls o th o s e o rig in a tin g in In d ia a n d te rm in a tin g o u t s id e In d ia .

(iii) T h e R e g u la tio n s h a ll b e d e e m e d to h a v e c o m e in to fo rc e w ith e f fe c t fro m th e d a te o f n o tific a tio n in th e o ffic ia l G a z e tte . )218 S e c tio n IID e fin itio n s 2 . In th is R e g u la tio n , u n le s s th e c o n te x t o th e rw is e re q u ire s :

(i) “A c t” m e a n s th e T e le c o m R e g u la to ry A u th o rity o f In d ia ,1 9 9 7 a s a m e n d e d b y T R A I (A m e n d m e n t)A c t,2 0 0 0 .

(ii) “A u th o rity ” m e a n s th e T e le c o m R e g u la to ry A u th o rity o f In d ia .

(iii) “B a s ic T e le c o m m u n ic a tio n S e rv ic e s ” m e a n s e rv ic e s d e riv e d fro m P u b lic S w itc h e d T e le p h o n e N e tw o rk(P S T N ). (iv ) “C e ilin g (s )” m e a n (s ) th e u p p e r lim it(s ) fo r in te rc o n n e c tio n c h a rg e fo r te le c o m m u n ic a tio n s e rv ic e s a sm a y b e s p e c ifie d b y th e A u th o rity fro m tim e to tim e .

(v ) “D o m e s tic L o n g D is ta n c e T e le c o m m u n ic a tio n S e rv ic e ” o r D L D m e a n s th e te le c o m m u n ic a tio n s e rv ic e s re q u ire d to c o n n e c t o n e lo c a l a re a o f a p u b lic te le c o m m u n ic a tio n n e tw o rk to a n o th e r w ith in th e te rrito ria l lim its o f In d ia s o a s to a llo w fo r tra n s m is s io n o f v o ic e a n d n o n -v o ic e s ig n a ls a c ro s s d if fe re n t g e o g ra p h ic a la re a s .

(v i) “F lo o r” m e a n s th e lo w e r lim it o f in te rc o n n e c tio n c h a rg e s fo r a te le c o m m u n ic a tio n s e rv ic e a s m a y b e s p e c ifie d b y th e A u th o rity fro m tim e to tim e b e lo w w h ic h s u c h c h a rg e s m a y n o t b e o f fe re d .

(v ii) “F o rb e a ra n c e ” d e n o te s th a t th e A u th o rity h a s n o t, fo r th e tim e b e in g , n o tifie d a n y in te rc o n n e c tio nc h a rg e o r re v e n u e s h a rin g a rra n g e m e n t fo r a p a rtic u la r te le c o m m u n ic a tio n s e rv ic e a n d th e s e rv ic e p ro v id e r is fre e to fix a n y c h a rg e fo r s u c h s e rv ic e .

(v iii) “In te rc o n n e c tio n ” m e a n s th e c o m m e rc ia l a n d te c h n ic a l a rra n g e m e n t s u n d e r w h ic h s e rv ic e p ro v id e rsc o n n e c t th e ir e q u ip m e n t, n e tw o rk s a n d s e rv ic e s to e n a b le th e ir c u s to m e rs to h a v e a c c e s s to th e c u s to m e rs , s e rv ic e s a n d n e tw o rk s o f o th e r s e rv ic e p ro v id e rs .

(ix ) “In te rc o n n e c tio n C h a rg e ” m e a n s th e c h a rg e fo r in te rc o n n e c tio n b y a n in te rc o n n e c tio n p ro v id e r to a n in te rc o n n e c tio n s e e k e r. (x ) “In te rc o n n e c tio n P ro v id e r” m e a n s th e s e rv ic e p ro v id e r to w h o s e n e tw o rk a n in te rc o n n e c tio n is s o u g h t fo r p ro v id in g te le c o m m u n ic a tio n s e rv ic e s .

(x i) “In te rc o n n e c tio n S e e k e r” m e a n s th e s e rv ic e p ro v id e r w h o s e e k s in te rc o n n e c tio n to th e n e tw o rk o f th e in te rc o n n e c tio n p ro v id e r. (x ii) “In te rn a tio n a l L o n g D is ta n c e T e le c o m m u n ic a tio n S e rv ic e ” m e a n s te le c o m m u n ic a tio n s e rv ic e s re q u ire d219 to c o n n e c t a lo c a l a re a o f a p u b lic te le c o m m u n ic a tio n n e tw o rk w ith in In d ia to a lo c a l a re a o f a p u b lic te le c o m m u n ic a tio n n e tw o rk in a n o th e r c o u n try s o a s to a llo w fo r th e tra n s m is s io n o f v o ic e a n d n o n -v o ic e s ig n a ls .

(x iii) “In te rn a tio n a l S u b s c rib e r D ia lin g ” (IS D ) m e a n s d ire c t in te rc o n n e c tio n b e tw e e n a n e n d u s e r in In d ia w ith a n o th e r e n d u s e r in a n o th e r c o u n try b y m e a n s o f d ire c t d ia lin g th ro u g h p u b lic n e tw o rk s .

(x iv ) “L e a s e d C irc u its ” m e a n s te le c o m m u n ic a tio n fa c ilitie s le a s e d to s u b s c rib e rs o r s e rv ic e p ro v id e rs to p ro v id e fo r te c h n o lo g y tra n s p a re n t tra n s m is s io n c a p a c ity b e tw e e n n e tw o rk te rm in a tio n p o in t s w h ic h th e u s e r c a n c o n tro l a s p a rt o f th e le a s e d c irc u it p ro v is io n a n d w h ic h m a y a ls o in c lu d e s y s te m s a llo w in g fle x ib le u s e o f le a s e d c irc u it b a n d w id th .

(x v ) “N o n -d is c rim in a tio n in in te rc o n n e c tio n c h a rg e ” m e a n s th a t s e rv ic e p ro v id e rs s h a ll n o t, in th e m a tte r o f in te rc o n n e c tio n c h a rg e s , d is c rim in a te b e tw e e n s e rv ic e p ro v id e rs e x c e p t o n th e b a s is o f s u b s t a n tia l c o s t-d iffe re n tia l, a n d th a t to o o n ly to th e e x te n t ju s tifie d b y s u c h c o s t d if fe re n tia l.

(x v i) “O rd e r” m e a n s th e T e le c o m m u n ic a tio n T a riff O rd e r, 1 9 9 9 . (x v ii) “O rig in a tin g N e tw o rk ” m e a n s th e n e tw o rk to w h ic h a n o rig in a to r o f a te le c o m m u n ic a tio n m e s s a g e is p ro x im a te ly c o n n e c te d to .

(x v iii) “O rig in a tin g /T ra n s it/T e rm in a tin g S e rv ic e P ro v id e r” m e a n s th e s e rv ic e p ro v id e r w h o s e n e tw o rk is u s e dfo r o rig in a tin g /tra n s it/te rm in a tin g a te le c o m m u n ic a tio n m e s s a g e re s p e c tiv e ly .

(x ix ) “R e g u la tio n ” m e a n s T h e T e le c o m m u n ic a tio n In te rc o n n e c tio n (C h a rg e s a n d R e v e n u e S h a rin g )R e g u la tio n 2 0 0 1 . (x x ) “R e p o rtin g R e q u ire m e n t” m e a n s th e o b lig a tio n o f a s e rv ic e p ro v id e r to re p o rt to th e A u th o rity a t le a s t 4 w o rk in g d a y s b e fo re im p le m e n tin g a n y n e w in te rc o n n e c tio n c h a rg e a n d re v e n u e s h a rin g a rra n g e m e n t fo r te le c o m m u n ic a tio n s e rv ic e s u n d e r th is R e g u la tio n a n d a n y c h a n g e s th e re a f te r.

(x x i) “S e t U p C o s ts O f In te rc o n n e c tio n ” m e a n s th e in itia l c o s t o f a n y e n g in e e rin g w o rk n e e d e d to p ro v id e th e s p e c ific in te rc o n n e c tio n fa c ilitie s re q u e s te d .

(x x ii) “S u b s c rib e r T ru n k D ia lin g ”(S T D ) m e a n s d ire c t in te rc o n n e c tio n b e tw e e n tw o e n d u s e rs w ith in In d ia b ym e a n s o f d ire c t d ia lin g th ro u g h p u b lic n e tw o rk s .

5220 (x x iii) “T e rm in a tin g N e tw o rk ” m e a n s th e n e tw o rk to w h ic h a re c e iv e r o f a te le c o m m u n ic a tio n m e s s a g e is p ro x im a te ly c o n n e c te d to . (x x iv ) “T ra n s it N e tw o rk ” m e a n s th e n e tw o rk th ro u g h w h ic h te le c o m m u n ic a tio n m e s s a g e s fro m o rig in a tin g n e tw o rk s o r o th e r tra n s it n e tw o rk s a re tra n s m itte d a n d d e liv e re d to te rm in a tin g o r o th e r tra n s it n e tw o rk s .

(x x v ) “U s a g e C h a rg e ” m e a n s th e c h a rg e le v ie d b y a s e rv ic e p ro v id e r fo r c a rria g e o f te le c o m m u n ic a tio ntra ffic o n its n e tw o rk . (x x v i) “W L L (M )” m e a n s lim ite d m o b ility te le p h o n y s e rv ic e u s in g w ire le s s in lo c a l lo o p te c h n o lo g y w ith in a s h o rt d is ta n c e c h a rg in g a re a .

(x x v ii) W o rd s a n d e x p re s s io n s u s e d in th is R e g u la tio n a n d n o t d e fin e d b u t d e fin e d in th e A c t s h a ll h a v e th e s a m e m e a n in g s re s p e c tiv e ly a s s ig n e d to th e m in th e A c t.

S e c tio n III 3 . In te r c o n n e c tio n C h a r g e s

(i) In te rc o n n e c tio n c h a rg e s s h a ll b e c o s t b a s e d , u n le s s a s m a y b e s p e c ifie d o th e rw is e .

(ii) F o r d e te rm in in g c o s t b a s e d in te rc o n n e c tio n c h a rg e s , th e m a in b a s is s h a ll b e “in c re m e n ta l o r a d d itio n a l”c o s ts d ire c tly a ttrib u ta b le to th e p ro v is io n o f in te rc o n n e c tio n b y th e in te rc o n n e c tio n p ro v id e r .

(iii) N o s e rv ic e p ro v id e r s h a ll d is c rim in a te b e tw e e n s e rv ic e p ro v id e rs in th e m a tte r o f le v y in g o f c h a rg e s fo rin te rc o n n e c tio n .

P ro v id e d th a t a d iffe re n t c h a rg e m a y b e le v ie d if ju s tifie d o n th e b a s is o f a s u b s t a n tia l d iffe re n c e in c o s tsin c u rre d fo r p ro v id in g th a t p a rtic u la r in te rc o n n e c tio n .

(iv ) N o s e rv ic e p ro v id e r s h a ll b e c h a rg e d fo r a n y in te rc o n n e c tio n fa c ility it d o e s n o t s e e k o r re q u ire .

P ro v id e d th a t if in te rc o n n e c tio n fa c ility c a n n o t b e p ro v id e d in th e fo rm th a t is s o u g h t o r re q u ire d b y th ein te rc o n n e c tio n s e e k e r, th e is s u e m a y b e d e c id e d m u tu a lly b e tw e e n th e s e e k e r a n d p ro v id e r o fin te rc o n n e c tio n . In c a s e s u c h m u tu a l a g re e m e n t is n o t p o s s ib le , th e m a tte r m a y b e re p o rte d to th e A u th o rityfo r a d e c is io n . T h e in te rc o n n e c tio n p ro v id e r s h a ll in fo rm th e in te rc o n n e c tio n s e e k e r w ith in 3 0 d a y s o f th ere q u e s t fo r in te rc o n n e c tio n fa c ilitie s w h e th e r th e fa c ilitie s c a n b e p ro v id e d in th e fo rm s o u g h t o r re q u ire d b yth e in te rc o n n e c tio n s e e k e r .

(v ) In th e a b s e n c e o f a m u tu a l a g re e m e n t b e tw e e n th e In te rc o n n e c tio n p ro v id e r(s ) a n d th e s e e k e r(s ), inre s p e c t o f c h a rg e s fo r th e e le m e n t s o f th e n e tw o rk u s e d to p ro v id e in te rc o n n e c tio n , c h a rg e s fo r th ee le m e n ts o f th e n e tw o rk u s e d to p ro v id e In te rc o n n e c tio n w ill b e a s s p e c ifie d b y th e A u th o rity fro m tim e totim e . In th e e v e n t m u tu a l a g re e m e n t is n o t a rriv e d a t in re s p e c t o f th e in te rc o n n e c tio n s o u g h t a n d / o r221 c h a rg e s th e re fo r, w ith in 3 0 d a y s fro m th e d a te o f s u c h re q u e s t , b o th th e p a rtie s w ill a p p ro a c h T R A I w ith th ed e ta ils o f th e ir n e tw o rk e le m e n t c o s t s a n d tra ffic p a rtic u la rs fo r a d e te rm in a tio n in th e m a tte r . P e n d in g s u c ha d e te rm in a tio n th e e x is tin g a rra n g e m e n t, if a n y , w ill c o n tin u e .

(v )(a ) T h e e x is tin g c h a rg in g a rra n g e m e n t s , if a n y , b e tw e e n th e In te rc o n n e c tio n s e e k e rs a n d In te rc o n n e c tio np ro v id e rs s h a ll h o ld g o o d u n til c h a n g e d w ith th e c o n c u rre n c e o f th e A u th o rity , o r o n th e b a s is o f a re g u la to ryd e te rm in a tio n .

(v i) U n le s s s p e c ific a lly s o p ro v id e d , th e A u th o rity h a s fo rb o rn e w ith re s p e c t to in te rc o n n e c tio n c h a rg e s . (v ii) W h e re th e A u th o rity h a s , fo r th e tim e b e in g , fo rb o rn e fro m s p e c ify in g in te rc o n n e c tio n c h a rg e s ,in te rc o n n e c tio n s e e k e rs a n d p ro v id e rs s h a ll m u tu a lly d e c id e o n s u c h c h a rg e s .

(v iii) In te rc o n n e c tio n c h a rg e s m u tu a lly a g re e d a m o n g in te rc o n n e c tio n s e e k e r a n d p ro v id e r s h a ll b e b a s e d o nth e p rin c ip le s e n u n c ia te d in th is S e c tio n .

(ix ) W h e re m u tu a l a g re e m e n t fo r in te rc o n n e c tio n c h a rg e s c a n n o t b e re a c h e d w ith in 3 0 d a y s o f in itia tin gs u c h a p ro c e s s fo r c h a rg e s w ith re s p e c t to w h ic h th e A u th o rity h a s fo rb o rn e , th e A u th o rity m a y in te rv e n e tos e ttle th e m a tte r s u o m o tu o r o n th e a p p lic a tio n o f e ith e r p a rty .

S e c tio n IV 4 . R e v e n u e S h a r in g A r r a n g e m e n t s

(i) A n y re v e n u e s h a rin g a m o n g in te rc o n n e c tio n s e e k e r a n d in te rc o n n e c tio n p ro v id e r s h a ll ta k e p la c e o u t o fth e p ro c e e d s o f th e a m o u n t p a y a b le b y th e s u b s c rib e r fo r o b ta in in g th e s e rv ic e w h ic h in v o lv e s th e u s a g e o fth e n e tw o rk o f th e in te rc o n n e c tio n p ro v id e r .

(ii) U n le s s s p e c ific a lly p ro v id e d in th e S c h e d u le s to th is R e g u la tio n , th e A u th o rity fo re b e a rs w ith re s p e c t tore v e n u e s h a rin g a rra n g e m e n ts .

(iii) W h e re th e A u th o rity h a s , fo r th e tim e b e in g , fo rb o rn e fro m s p e c ify in g re v e n u e s h a rin g a rra n g e m e n t s fo ra n y te le c o m m u n ic a tio n s e rv ic e o r p a rt th e re o f, s e rv ic e p ro v id e rs s h a ll m u tu a lly d e c id e o n s u c ha rra n g e m e n ts .

(iv ) W h e re m u tu a l a g re e m e n t fo r re v e n u e s h a rin g c a n n o t b e re a c h e d w ith in 3 0 d a y s o f in itia tin g s u c h ap ro c e s s fo r re v e n u e s h a rin g w ith re s p e c t to w h ic h th e A u th o rity h a s fo rb o rn e , th e A u th o rity m a y in te rv e n e tos e ttle th e m a tte r s u o m o tu o r o n th e a p p lic a tio n o f e ith e r p a rty .

(v ) In th e a b s e n c e o f a m u tu a l a g re e m e n t b e tw e e n th e In te rc o n n e c tio n p ro v id e r(s ) a n d th e s e e k e r(s ), inre s p e c t o f re v e n u e s h a rin g , th e re v e n u e s h a rin g w ill b e a s s p e c ifie d in th e S c h e d u le s to th is R e g u la tio n . Inth e e v e n t m u tu a l a g re e m e n t is n o t a rriv e d a t in re s p e c t o f th e in te rc o n n e c tio n s o u g h t a n d / o r re v e n u es h a rin g th e re fo re , w ith in 3 0 d a y s fro m th e d a te o f s u c h re q u e s t, b o th th e p a rtie s w ill a p p ro a c h T R A I w ith th ed e ta ils o f th e ir n e tw o rk e le m e n t c o s t s a n d tra ffic p a rtic u la rs fo r a d e te rm in a tio n in th e m a tte r . P e n d in g s u c ha d e te rm in a tio n , th e e x is tin g a rra n g e m e n t , if a n y , w ill c o n tin u e .

(v )(a ) T h e e x is tin g a rra n g e m e n ts , if a n y , b e tw e e n th e In te rc o n n e c tio n s e e k e rs a n d In te rc o n n e c tio n p ro v id e rss h a ll h o ld g o o d u n til c h a n g e d w ith th e c o n c u rre n c e o f th e A u th o rity , o r b y a re g u la to ry d e te rm in a tio n .222 S e c tio n V 5 . R e p o r tin g R e q u ir e m e n t

(i) A ll s e rv ic e p ro v id e rs s h a ll c o m p ly w ith th e R e p o rtin g R e q u ire m e n t in re s p e c t o f in te rc o n n e c tio n c h a rg e sa n d re v e n u e s h a rin g a rra n g e m e n t s s p e c ifie d fo r th e firs t tim e u n d e r th is R e g u la tio n , a s a ls o a ll s u b s e q u e n tc h a n g e s . T h is in c lu d e s in te rc o n n e c tio n c h a rg e s a n d re v e n u e s h a rin g a rra n g e m e n t s th a t a re d e c id e d o n am u tu a l b a s is a m o n g s e rv ic e p ro v id e rs .

(ii) T h e s e rv ic e p ro v id e r m a y im p le m e n t th e p ro p o s e d in te rc o n n e c tio n c h a rg e s a n d re v e n u e s h a rin ga rra n g e m e n ts a fte r th e m a n d a to ry n o tic e p e rio d o f 4 5 w o rk in g d a y s , u n le s s th e A u th o rity w ith in s u c h p e rio dd ire c ts o th e rw is e .

E x c e p t th a t a n a d d itio n a l p e rio d o f 4 5 d a y s is p ro v id e d fo r in te rc o n n e c tio n c h a rg e s a n d re v e n u e s h a rin ga rra n g e m e n ts to b e re p o rte d to th e A u th o rity fo r th e firs t tim e a f te r th e im p le m e n ta tio n o f th is R e g u la tio n .

(iii) W h e n a n in te rc o n n e c tio n p ro v id e r in fo rm s th e in te rc o n n e c tio n s e e k e r th a t it c a n n o t p ro v id ein te rc o n n e c tio n a s s o u g h t fo r b y th e la tte r , th e in te rc o n n e c tio n s e e k e r , w ith in 4 5 d a y s o f b e in g s o in fo rm e d ,m a y a p p ro a c h th e A u th o rity fo r s e e k in g its in te rv e n tio n .

(iv ) N o s e rv ic e p ro v id e r s h a ll a lte r a n y in te rc o n n e c tio n c h a rg e o r re v e n u e s h a rin g a rra n g e m e n t, o r a n y p a rtth e re o f, w ith o u t c o m p ly in g w ith th e R e p o rtin g R e q u ire m e n t.

S e c tio n V I 6 . R e v ie w

(i) T h e A u th o rity m a y , fro m tim e to tim e , re v ie w a n d m o d ify a n in te rc o n n e c tio n c h a rg e a n d /o r re v e n u es h a rin g a rra n g e m e n ts .

(ii) T h e A u th o rity m a y a ls o a t a n y tim e , o n re fe re n c e fro m a n y a f fe c te d p a rty , a n d fo r g o o d a n d s u ffic ie n tre a s o n s , re v ie w a n d m o d ify a n y in te rc o n n e c tio n c h a rg e o r re v e n u e s h a rin g a rra n g e m e n ts .

S e c tio n V II 7 . E x p la n a to r y M e m o r a n d u m T h is R e g u la tio n c o n ta in s a t A n n e x e A , a n e x p la n a to ry m e m o ra n d u m to p ro v id e c la rity a n d tra n s p a re n c y tom a tte rs c o v e re d u n d e r th is R e g u la tio n .

S e c tio n V III 8 . In te r p r e t a tio n In c a s e o f d is p u te re g a rd in g in te rp re t a tio n o f a n y o f th e p ro v is io n s o f th is R e g u la tio n , th e d e c is io n o f th e223 A u th o rity s h a ll b e fin a l a n d b in d in g .

B y O rd e r (D R . H A R S H A V A R D H A N A S IN G H ) S e c re ta ry -c u m -P rin c ip a l A d v is o r IN T E R C O N N E IT E M (1 ) D a te o f Im p le m e n ta tio n (2 ) C o v e ra g e (3 ) L o c a l c a lls (4 ) D o m e s tic lo n gd is ta n c e c a lls(S T D c a lls ) in B a s icS e rv ic e (4 .A ) D o m e s tic lo n gd is ta n c e c a lls (S T D c a lls )in W ire le s s in L o c a l L o o pw ith lim ite d m o b ility (5 ) In te rn a tio n a l c a lls inin B a s ic S e r v ic e S C H E D U L E I C T IO N C H A R G E A N D R E V E N U E S H A R IN G R E V E N U E S H A R IN G F O R B A S IC S E R V IC E S B Y 3 1 S T J A N U A R Y , 2 0 0 2 C a lls o rig in a tin g in a b a s ic s e rv ic e p ro v id e r ’s n e tw o rk a n dtra n s m itte d th ro u g h o r te rm in a te d in a n o th e r b a s ic s e rv ic ep ro v id e r’s n e tw o rk .

B ill a n d k e e p fo r e a c h s e rv ic e p ro v id e r .

T h e o rig in a tin g /tra n s it s e rv ic e p ro v id e r to p a y R s . 0 .4 8 p e r u n it o fm e a s u re d c a ll fo r tra ffic d e liv e re d fro m its n e tw o rk to th e n e tw o rko f th e tra n s it/te rm in a tin g s e rv ic e p ro v id e r fo r th e c a ll u n it sm e a s u re d a t th e p o in t o f in te rc o n n e c tio n fo r it s fu rth e r c a rria g efro m th e p o in t o f in te rc o n n e c tio n to d e s tin a tio n , b a s e d o n th e S T Dp u ls e ra te .

T h e o rig in a tin g s e rv ic e p ro v id e r to p a y R s . 1 .1 4 p e r u n it o fm e a s u re d c a ll fo r tra ffic d e liv e re d fro m its n e tw o rk to th e n e tw o rko f th e tra n s it s e rv ic e p ro v id e r fo r th e c a ll u n it s m e a s u re d a t th ep o in t o f in te rc o n n e c tio n fo r its fu rth e r c a rria g e fro m th e p o in t o fin te rc o n n e c tio n to d e s tin a tio n , b a s e d o n th e S T D p u ls e ra te .

P ro v id e d n o s u c h c h a rg e e ith e r in (4 ) o r (4 .A ) a b o v e s h a ll b ep a y a b le if th e p o in t o f in te rc o n n e c tio n is a t th e d e s tin a tio n S h o rtD is ta n c e C h a rg in g A re a (S D C A ) a n d a ls o p ro v id e d th a t n o s u c hc h a rg e w ill b e p a y a b le if th e te rm in a tin g s e rv ic e p ro v id e r re q u e s tsth a t th e c a ll b e h a n d e d o v e r b y th e o rig in a tin g /tra n s it s e rv ic ep ro v id e r a t a n S D C A o th e r th a n th e d e s tin a tio n S D C A .

T h e o rig in a tin g s e rv ic e p ro v id e r to p a y R s . 0 .6 6 p e r u n it m e a s u re dc a ll to th e tra n s it s e rv ic e p ro v id e r a s m a y b e a p p lic a b le , fo r th e c a ll.u n its to b e m e a s u re d a t th e p o in t o f in te rc o n n e c tio n224 (5 .A ) In te rn a tio n a l c a lls inW ire L e s s In L o c a l L o o pw ith lim ite d m o b ility[W L L (M )] IN T E R C O N N IT E M (1 ) D a te o f Im p le m e n ta tio n (2 ) C o v e ra g e (3 ) L o c a l c a lls fro m c e llu la rm o b ile to b a s ic s e rv ic es u b s c rib e r (4 ) D o m e s tic L o n g d is ta n c ec a lls fr o m c e llu la r m o b ileto b a s ic s e r v ic e s u b s c r ib e r E T h e o rig in a tin g s e rv ic e p ro v id e r to p a y R s . 1 .1 4 p e ru n it m e a s u re d c a ll to th e tra n s it s e rv ic e p ro v id e r a sm a y b e a p p lic a b le , fo r th e c a ll u n it s to b e m e a s u re d a tth e p o in t o f in te rc o n n e c tio n .

N o te s :(a ) “L o c a l c a lls ” a re c a lls w h ic h o rig in a te fro ms u b s c rib e rs o f a s e rv ic e p ro v id e r ’s n e tw o rk /e x c h a n g es y s te m in a S D C A a n d te rm in a te e ith e r (i) w ith in th es a m e S D C A o r (ii) in th e c o n tig u o u s te le p h o n ee x c h a n g e s y s te m o f th e a d ja c e n t S D C A , p ro v id e dth e s e a re d e liv e re d /h a n d e d o v e r to a n o th e r s e rv ic ep ro v id e r’s n e tw o rk in th e d e s tin a tio n S D C A o n ly .(b ) F o rd o m e s tic lo n g d is ta n c e c a lls in B a s ic S e rv ic e o th e rth a n W L L (M ), n u m b e r o f u n its o f c a lls fo r p a y m e n t a tR s . 0 .4 8 p e r m e te re d c a ll to b e c a lc u la te d b a s e d o nth e S T D ta riff p u ls e fo r th e ra d ia l d is ta n c e b e tw e e n th ep o in t o f in te rc o n n e c tio n a n d th e G a te w a y T A X w h e reth e c a ll is s u b s e q u e n tly d e liv e re d fo r fu rth e r c a rria g e /te rm in a tio n .(c ) F o r d o m e s tic lo n g d is ta n c e c a lls in W L L(M ), n u m b e r o f u n its o f c a lls fo r p a y m e n t a t R s . 1 .1 4p e r m e te re d c a ll to b e c a lc u la te d b a s e d o n th e S T Dta riff p u ls e fo r th e ra d ia l d is ta n c e b e tw e e n th e p o in t o fin te rc o n n e c tio n a n d th e G a te w a y T A X w h e re th e c a ll iss u b s e q u e n tly d e liv e re d fo r fu rth e r c a rria g e /te rm in a tio n .(d ) N o re v e n u e is to b e s h a re d b e tw e e nb a s ic s e rv ic e p ro v id e r a n d c e llu la r m o b ile s e rv ic ep ro v id e r fo r c a lls o rig in a tin g fro m th e fo rm e r ’s n e tw o rk .

S C H E D U L E II C T IO N C H A R G E A N D R E V E N U E S H A R IN G R E V E N U E S H A R IN G F O R C E L L U L A R M O B IL E B Y 3 1 S T J A N U A R Y , 2 0 0 2 C a lls o rig in a tin g in a c e llu la r m o b ile s e rv ic e p ro v id e r ’s n e tw o rk a n dtra n s m itte d th ro u g h o r te rm in a te d in a n o th e r s e rv ic e p ro v id e r ’sn e tw o rk .

P a y m e n t to b a s ic s e rv ic e p ro v id e r a t th e ra te o f R s . 1 .1 4 p e rm e te re d c a ll, w ith n u m b e r o f m e te re d c a lls m e a s u re d a t th e p u ls era te a p p lic a b le to a b a s ic s e rv ic e lo c a l c a ll.

P a y m e n t to b a s ic s e rv ic e p ro v id e r a t a ra te a p p lic a b le to d o m e s ticlo n g d is ta n c e c a lls . T h e c h a rg e s h a ll b e R s . 1 .1 4 p e r m e te re d c a ll, w ith th e n u m b e r o f m e te re d c a lls m e a s u re d a t th e p u ls e ra teth e c h a r g e a b lea p p lic a b le to b a s ic s e rv ic e lo n g d is t a n c e c a lls , w ith225 d is ta n c e e q u a l to th e d is ta n c e o f th e c a ll c a rrie d b y th e b a s ics e rv ic e p ro v id e r fo r a n e q u iv a le n t S T D fro m p o in t o f in te rc o n n e c tio n to d e s tin a tio n .

(5 ) In te rn a tio n a l c a lls P a y m e n t to b a s ic s e rv ic e p ro v id e r a t a ra te a p p lic a b le tofro m c e llu la r m o b ile in te rn a tio n a l c a lls . T h e c h a rg e s h a ll b e R s . 1 .1 4 p e r m e te re d c a ll,w ith th e n u m b e r o f m e te re d c a lls m e a s u re d a t th e p o in t o fin te rc o n n e c tio n a t a p u ls e ra te a p p lic a b le to a n e q u iv a le n tin te rn a tio n a l c a ll m a d e b y a b a s ic s e rv ic e s u b s c rib e r .

(6 ) F o r c a lls fro m c e llu la r F o r lo c a l/d o m e s tic lo n g d is ta n c e c a lls c a rrie d (p a rtly ) b y b a s icm o b ile to c e llu la r m o b ile s e rv ic e p ro v id e r, a n a m o u n t to b e p a id to b a s ic s e rv ic e p ro v id e r a ta ra te a p p lic a b le to lo c a l/d o m e s tic lo n g d is t a n c e c a ll. T h e a m o u n tto b e c a lc u la te d o n th e b a s is o f th e c o rre s p o n d in g c o n d itio n ss p e c ifie d in Ite m 3 /Ite m 4 a b o v e , i.e . R s . 1 .1 4 p e r m e te re d c a ll,p u ls e ra te a p p lic a b le to b a s ic s e rv ic e lo c a l/lo n g d is ta n c e c a lls ,a n d fo r lo n g d is ta n c e c a lls th e c h a rg e a b le d is t a n c e e q u a l to th ed is ta n c e o f th e c a ll c a rrie d b y th e b a s ic s e rv ic e p ro v id e r fo r a ne q u iv a le n t S T D c a ll fro m p o in t o f in te rc o n n e c tio n to d e s tin a tio n .

N o te s : (a ) T h e d e fin itio n o f “lo c a l c a lls ” to a s c e rta in re v e n u es h a rin g w ith b a s ic s e rv ic e p ro v id e rs fo r c a lls c a rrie d b y th e m isth e s a m e a s in n o te (a ) in S c h e d u le I.(b ) F o r d o m e s tic lo n gd is ta n c e c a lls fro m c e llu la r m o b ile to b a s ic s e rv ic e s u b s c rib e r ,n u m b e r o f u n its o f m e a s u re d c a lls fo r d e te rm in in g th e a m o u n t o fre v e n u e p a y a b le to b a s ic s e rv ic e p ro v id e r to b e c a lc u la te d a s th en u m b e r o f s u c h c a lls m e a s u re d a t th e b a s ic s e rv ic e p ro v id e r ’sG a te w a y T A X u p to th e d e s tin a tio n S h o rt D is t a n c e C h a rg in g A re a(S D C A ).(c ) F o r d o m e s tic lo n g d is ta n c e c a lls fro m c e llu la r m o b ileto c e llu la r m o b ile c a rrie d b y b a s ic s e rv ic e p ro v id e r , n u m b e r o f c a llu n its to b e p a id to th e b a s ic s e rv ic e p ro v id e r a t R s . 1 .1 4 p e rm e te re d c a ll to b e c a lc u la te d b a s e d o n th e ra d ia l d is t a n c eb e tw e e n th e G a te w a y T A X a t th e p o in t o f in te rc o n n e c tio n w h e reth e c a ll is a c c e p te d fo r fu rth e r c a rria g e a n d th e G a te w a y T A X o fth e s e rv ic e p ro v id e r to w h o s e n e tw o rk th e c a ll is s u b s e q u e n tlyh a n d e d o v e r. (d ) F o r c a lls o rig in a tin g fro m c e llu la r m o b ile ,re v e n u e s h a rin g a rra n g e m e n ts a m o n g o n e b a s ic s e rv ic e p ro v id e ra n d a n o th e r b a s ic s e rv ic e p ro v id e r to b e a s s p e c ifie d in S c h e d u leI.(e ) T h is R e g u la tio n d o e s n o t s p e c ific a lly a d d re s s a n y re v e n u es h a rin g a rra n g e m e n t a m o n g c e llu la r m o b ile s e rv ic e p ro v id e rs fo rc a lls fro m s u b s c rib e rs o f a n y c e llu la r m o b ile s e rv ic e p ro v id e r tos u b s c rib e rs o f a n o th e r c e llu la r m o b ile s e rv ic e p ro v id e r .

A N N E X E - A E X P L A N A T O R Y M E M O R A N D U M 1 . S c h e d u le I o f th is R e g u la tio n s p e c ifie s re v e n u e s h a rin g a rra n g e m e n t s fo r c a lls o rig in a tin g in a B a s icS e rv ic e P ro v id e r ’s N e tw o rk in c lu d in g fro m W L L (M o b ile ), h a n d h e ld te rm in a ls a n d tra n s ite d o r te rm in a te d inth e N e tw o rk o f a n o th e r B a s ic S e rv ic e P ro v id e r , in c lu d in g th e in c u m b e n ts B S N L /M T N L .226 2 . S c h e d u le II o f th is R e g u la tio n s p e c ifie s re v e n u e s h a rin g a rra n g e m e n t s fo r c a lls o rig in a tin g in a c e llu la rm o b ile s e rv ic e p ro v id e r ’s (C M S P s ) n e tw o rk a n d tra n s ite d o r te rm in a te d in a n o th e r s e rv ic e p ro v id e r ’sn e tw o rk . In its D e te rm in a tio n d a te d th e 8 th J a n u a ry , 2 0 0 1 , o n s ix m a jo r is s u e s re la tin g to in te rc o n n e c tio n ,th e A u th o rity h a s d e te rm in e d th a t 5 % o f th e p a s s th ro u g h re v e n u e p a id to th e B a s ic S e rv ic e P ro v id e rs b yth e C M S P s m a y b e re ta in e d b y th e la te r to c o v e r th e re c o s t o f b illin g a n d c o lle c tio n a n d b a d d e b t s . P a y m e n tto th e B a s ic S e rv ic e P ro v id e r @ R s .1 .1 4 p e r m e te re d c a ll u n it a g a in s t R s .1 .2 0 re p re s e n t s th is a rra n g e m e n t.T h e b a la n c e 5 % , i.e . R s .0 .0 6 p e r m e te re d c a ll u n it, w ill b e re t a in e d b y th e C M S P s .

3 . In its T a riff O rd e r p e rta in in g to W L L (M ), i.e . th e 1 4 th A m e n d m e n t to T h e T e le c o m m u n ic a tio n T a riff O rd e r,1 9 9 9 d a te d 2 4 th M a y , 2 0 0 1 , th e A u th o rity to o k n o te o f th e re c o m m e n d a tio n s o f th e G ro u p o n T e le c o m a n dIn fo rm a tio n T e c h n o lo g y C o n v e rg e n c e o n re v e n u e s h a rin g a rra n g e m e n t s fo r W L L (M ).

4 . In th is c o n te x t th e A u th o rity h a d n o te d in th e a b o v e T a riff O rd e r th a t re v e n u e s h a rin g a rra n g e m e n tb e tw e e n W L L (M ) b a s e d b a s ic o p e ra to rs a n d N a tio n a l L o n g D is t a n c e O p e ra to rs in c lu d in g B S N L c a n b eim p le m e n te d o n ly a fte r s u ita b le in te rc o n n e c t c h a rg in g a n d b illin g m e c h a n is m s h a v e b e e n in s t a lle d a t th eN e tw o rk to N e tw o rk In te rfa c e s o f th e tw o o p e ra to rs , p a rtic u la rly to d is tin g u is h b e tw e e n th e tra f fic s tre a m so rig in a tin g fro m W L L (M ) lin e s a n d th o s e fro m fix e d lin e s , a n d to c h a rg e th e m d if fe re n tly . T h e A u th o rityfu rth e r n o te d th a t n o s u c h a rra n g e m e n t e x is te d , a s th e e x c h a n g e n u m b e rin g s c h e m e d id n o t d is tin g u is hb e tw e e n a fix e d lin e o r a W L L (M ) lin e . T h e A u th o rity h a d s p e c ifie d th a t s e rv ic e p ro v id e rs s h o u ld , th e re fo re ,b y m u tu a l a g re e m e n t p u t in p la c e th e re q u ire d te c h n ic a l s y s te m s in th e ir e x c h a n g e s a s w e ll a s a t th e P o in tso f In te rc o n n e c tio n ( P O Is ) s o a s to d is tin g u is h c le a rly th e tra f fic flo w s o rig in a tin g fro m W L L (M ) lin e s a n dP O T s lin e s , s o th a t re v e n u e s a re s h a re d d if fe re n tly fo r th e tw o tra f fic s tre a m s . It m a y b e re c a lle d in th isc o n n e c tio n th a t s in c e W L L (M ) s e rv ic e h a s b e e n c o n s id e re d a s a p a rt o f th e b a s ic s e rv ic e s , it h a s b e e nc le a rly m e n tio n e d in th e T R A I’s re c o m m e n d a tio n s o n th e s u b je c t th a t th e n u m b e rin g p la n fo r W L L (M ) w illb e th e s a m e a s th a t o f th e b a s ic s e rv ic e s fix e d c o n n e c tio n s .

5 . T h e A u th o rity is in th e p ro c e s s o f d e te rm in in g e le m e n t b a s e d c a rria g e c h a rg e s . T h e re le v a n t c o s t d a tah a v e b e e n s o u g h t fro m s e rv ic e p ro v id e rs fo r th is p u rp o s e .

6 . A R e g u la tio n s p e c ify in g P o rt C h a rg e s a n d L e a s e d L in e C h a rg e s w ill b e is s u e d s e p a ra te ly . (D R . H A R S H A V A R D H A N A S IN G H ) S e c re ta ry -c u m -P rin c ip a l A d v is o r11 Annexure-VIII The Telecommunication Interconnection (Port Charges) Regulations, 2001 22722822923023123223312 Annexure-IX The Register of Interconnect Agreements Regulations, 1999 TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA New Delhi 31st August, 1999 [F.No. 409-1/98-TRAI (Comm)] In exercise of the powers conferred upon it unde - of Register of Interconnect Agreements and matters connected therewith, the Telecom Regulatory Authori THE REGISTER OF INTERCONNECT AGREEMENTS REGULATION, 1999 (2 of 1999)

Section-I

1. Title, Extent and Commencement i) These Regulations shall be called “The Register of Interconnect Agreements Regulations 1999”. ed therewith.

All service providers who are required to furnish information pertaining to Interconnect a Agreements to the Authority as per these Regulations or any other Rule/Regulation/Order issued under the TRAI Act, 1997.

throughout the territory of India. these Regulations come into effect.

Section-II

2. Definitions In these Regulations, unless the context otherwise requires: i. “Act” means the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997. ii. “Authority” means the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India.

iii. “Fee” means any charge(s) prescribed by the Authority from time to time for inspection of the Register of Interconnect Agreements, or for copies thereof.

724 234235 2 3 2iv . “ In te rc o n n e c tio n ” m e a n s th e c o m m e rc ia l a n d te c h n ic a l a rra n g e m e n ts u n d e r w h ic h s e rv ic e v . “ R e g is te r” m e a n s th e R e g iste r o f In te rc o n n e c t A g re e m e n ts m a in ta in e d b y th e A u th o rity e ith e r in th e v i. “ R e g u la tio n s ” m e a n th e R e g is te r o f In te rc o n n e c t A g re e m e n ts R e g u la tio n s 1 9 9 9 .

v ii. “ C o n s u m e r” m e a n s a n y in d iv id u a l, g ro u p , p u b lic / p riv a te c o m p a n y , a n y o th e r o rg a n iz a tio n o r v iii. “ Q u a lity o f S e rv ic e ” m e a n s th e c o lle c tiv e e ffe c t o f se rv ic e p e rfo rm a n c e , w h ic h d e te rm in e s th e d e g re e p e rfo rm a n c e , s e rv ic e s e c u rity p e rfo rm a n c e a n d o th e r fa c to rs s p e c ific to e a c h s e rv ic e .

4 5 m e a n in g a s a s s ig n e d to th e m in th e A c t.

S e c tio n -I I I 3 . C o n te n ts o f th e R e g is te r 2 m end m ent R egulatio n, 2004, s. 3, for “Interco nnection” m eans the co m m ercial and technical arrangem ents under w hich service pro viders co nnect including through electro - e access to the custom ers, services, and netw orks of other service providers ‘(w .e.f. 31.12.2004).

2 S ubs. b y the F irst A m end m ent R egulatio n, 2004, s. 2 (w .e.f. 3.2.2004), for “Interco nnection” m eans the co m m ercial and technical arran gem ents under w hich se vices, 4 ‘ix - for the m anagem ent and x - - xi - “cable televisio n netw ork” m eans any sy stem co nsisting of a set o f clo sed transm issio n paths and associated signal generation, co ntrol xii - ns, signals, w riting, pictures, im ages and so und s -directly or indirectly through the m edium of relay stations and al xiii - xiv - -extend s acro ss a state/ district/ city/ tow n/ area, as the case m ay be.’ 5 , s. 2.

7 2 5236 ii 4 . C o n fid e n tia l P o r tio n o f th e R e g is te r :

6 re le v a n t p ro v is io n s o f T h e T e le c o m R e g u la to ry A u th o rity 5 . R e g is tr a tio n o f I n te r c o n n e c t A g r e e m e n ts A ll s e rv ic e p ro v id e rs s h a ll re g is te r w ith th e A u th o rity a n y In te rc o n n e c t A g re e m e n t to w h ic h th e y a re

p a rtie s : in to e a rlie r th a n th e s e R e g u la tio n s , w ith in 3 0 d a y s o f th e 7 * * * * * 6 . A ll s e rv ic e p ro v id e rs s h a ll fu rn is h to th e A u th o rity tw o c o p ie s e a c h o f th e In te rc o n n e c t A g re e m e n ts a lo n g w ith 7 . T h e A u th o rity m a y fro m tim e sp e c ific a tio n s re la tin g to in te rc o n n e c tio n , q u a lity o f s e rv ic e , fa u lt re s o lv in g p ro c e d u re s , d o w n tim e s , a c c e s s c h a rg e s , p o rt c h a rg e s , re v e n u e s h a rin g a rra n g e m e n ts , a re a o f o p e ra tio n a n d c o n s u m e r re la te d 8 . A c c e ss to th e R e g iste r 6 -- “4. i) T he A uthority m ay, o n the request of any party to an Interconnect A greem ent, direct that any part of such Interco nnect -co nfidential sum m ary of the confidential. T he no n- portion of the Interco nnect A greem ent co nfidential, it shall record its reaso n for doing so and furnish a cop y of its order to the service provider concerned. In that event the service p rovider shall have sure o f the thority shall afford an opportunity of hearing to service greem ent shall rem ain confidential until the m atter is determ ined b y the A uthority.” 7 d m ent R egulation, 2004, s. 2 (w .e.f. 31.12.200 – “P rovided that in respect of B roadcasting and C able S ervices, the B roadcasters including their authorized distributio n agencies and M ulti-service O perators w ill register w ith the A uthority any interconnect agreem ent to w hich they are parties” 7 2 6237 9 1 1A 1 1 .

0 . T h e d e s ig n a te d o ffic e r s h 1 . Tu th o rity o n th e s a m e c o n d itio 2 . L e v y o f fe e s a n d o th e r c 3 . G e n e r a l If a n y d is p u te a ris e s w ith re a h g ll a llo w in s p e c tio n o f th a r g e s a rd to th e in te rp re ta tio n 7 2 7 e R e g o f a n is te r a n y o f th e d p ro v is io - e R e g is te n s o f th e s r G e R e e n g e u ra l la tio n s , th e13 Annexure-X Timelines as contained in the Telecommunication Interconnection Regulations, 2018 Activity Timeline Time to enter into agreement on receipt of interconnection request.

a Providing draft interconnection agreement 5 working days 30 days b suggestions and objections on draft agreement 5 working days letter of acceptance and demand note, if any, upon receipt of request 7 working of ports and colocation space, if required. days Payment of demand note. 5 working days

Intimation of provisioning of Ports and allocation of Colocation space: 10 working a. In case no demand note issued, from the date of acceptance days letter. b. In case demand note issued, from the date of issue of demand note Interconnection seeker to intimate establishment of Transmission link 10 working between POIs, after intimation port and colocation space days Interconnection provider to issue letter of commissioning (after doing 10 working acceptance testing) after Transmission link establishment. days 238Timelines as contained in the Telecommunication Interconnection (RIO) Regulations, 2002 Activity Timeline Interconnection seeker shall provide relevant information Normally 6 months in before seeking POI advance Interconnection provider shall intimate interconnection Within 30 days from seeker and issue demand notes for the accepted part of the date of receipt of the demand formal demand In case no response is made within 30 days, the formal demand will be treated as accepted and interconnection seeker shall be free to deposit the prescribed amount.

Accepted demand shall be met by interconnection Within 6 months of provider such deposit Minimum number of ports required for the launch of Within 90 days of service, shall be provided by the interconnection provider payment of the demand note Interconnection provider shall issue demand notes for the Within 30 days of capacity to be provided formal demand The Interconnection seeker shall make the payment Within 30 days of receiving the Demand Note Any change in the firm demand shall be intimated Within 15 days of making the payment 239For balance requested capacity of ports not likely to be met within 6 months, planning action shall be immediately started.

The capacity made available within 90 days shall be taken up immediately for testing.

The full capacity required shall be provided and made available for testing in accordance with the time schedule indicated in the acceptance of demand or demand note, but within 6 months of the firm demand.

Both parties shall ensure that testing is completed Within 30 days of provisioning Traffic measurements to determine further capacity Six months after requirements commencement of service and every six months thereafter If cancellation of demand is made within 15 days of the Cancellation charge of firm demand 10% of annual rent payable for cancelled capacity shall apply If the cancellation of demand is made after 15 days of the firm demand, the payment made towards port charges for first year shall be forfeited Seeker to undertake to use the capacity for a minimum 3 years; if it fails, 50% period rental for unused capacity for remaining period payable, along with Bank Guarantee of 240this amount within 90 days from firm demand If within 6 months provider fails to make interconnect 1% of annual rent per capacity available, or seeker is unable to use, the failing E1 port per day for party pays damages delay (max 60 days) Both parties to forecast outgoing traffic for each POI for First forecast within future planning of sufficient switching and transmission 90 days of effective capacity. date, then on 1st April and 1st October every year Parties to inform each other of changes to network Wherever possible, 12 configuration and facilities months in advance Parties to give notice of planned maintenance work At least 7 days prior Each party to send invoice/bill for effective traffic Within 7 calendar days after close of month Net amount for each billing period to be remitted Within 15 days following receipts by both parties Charges omitted from bill may be included in subsequent Not later than 6 bills months from date of relevant bill (except tariff/rate change) 241Party discovering error in reports to notify other party Not later than 3 months from date of issue of Bill Two years after initial interconnection, cost of additional After 2 years resources to be negotiated between service providers.

Obligation to maintain confidentiality of the information 2 years upon expiry or termination of agreement If force majeure lasts for more than 90 days, affected party Not less than 30 may terminate agreement with written notice calendar days’ notice Agreement may also be terminated by either party giving 30 days notice Coordination Committee to resolve disputes before formal Within 30 days dispute Both parties to update Schedule I containing POI details, At intervals of 6 at Circle level months or whenever new POIs are added Interconnection required to be established under normal Within 90 days conditions 242Timelines as contained in the Telecommunication Interconnection (Charges and Revenue Sharing) Regulation 2001 Activity Timeline Interconnection provider shall inform the Within 30 days of the request interconnection seeker whether facilities can be for interconnection facilities

provided in the form sought If mutual agreement is not reached on Within 30 days from the date of interconnection sought and/or charges, parties such request will approach TRAI with network and traffic details for determination If mutual agreement for interconnection charges cannot be reached within 30 days of initiating the process for charges with respect to which Authority has forborne, Authority may intervene.

24314 Annexure-XI Levels of Interconnection between different networks as provided in the para 4.4 and 4.5 of Annex - C titled ‘Reference Interconnect Offer Guidelines dated . . ’ PSTN Interconnections Table 1.1 - PSTN to PSTN (Out-going Traffic) Type of Call POI Remarks Local At SDCC Tandem or BSO- BSO Local Exchange level situated in the same SDCA as per mutual agreement.

Intra-Circle Long (i) Terminating BSO- BSO (Far-end) Distance (Note 2) SDCC / LDCC

(ii) Originating SDCC / LDCC, if BSO has no POI at the terminating BSO-BSO (Near-end) end.

Inter-Circle BSO to hand over BSO to NLDO (Near- originating traffic at the end) SDCC in the same SDCA in which it has originated or by mutual agreement as per licence terms and conditions at the LDCC of originating LDCA International BSO to hand over BSO to NLDO (Near- originating traffic at the end) SDCC in the same SDCA in which it has originated or by mutual agreement as per licence terms and 244conditions at the LDCC of originating LDCA.

NLDO to ILDO NLDO to hand over international traffic at the Gateway Switch of ILDO To the gateway switch BSO to ILDO (Near- of the ILDO in case the end) for traffic of same ILD Gateway Switch SDCA and the BSO's Tandem/Transit Switch are located at the same station of level I TAX.

Table 1.2 - PSTN - PSTN (In-coming Traffic) Type of Call POI Remarks Local Same as Table 1.1 Intra-Circle Long Same as Table 1.1 distance Inter-Circle NLDO to hand over NLDO to BSO terminating traffic by mutual agreement as per licence terms and conditions in the destination LDCA at SDCC or at LDCC POI.

International Level I TAX where the ILDO to NLDO ILDO Gateway Switch is located.

NLDO to hand over International traffic to NLDO to BSO 245the BSO at the terminating SDCC or by mutual agreement as per licence terms and conditions at terminating LDCC.

Terminating local network at tandem/transit in case ILDO to BSO (for traffic the ILD Gateway Switch terminating in same and the Access SDCA) Provider's Tandem/Transit Switch are located at the same station of level I TAX.

Note 1. New National Long-Distance Operator(s) can make necessary interconnection arrangements with other NLDOs, to ensure delivery of calls at places where POP is yet to be established as per their network rollout obligations.

Note 2. Intra-Circle Traffic may also be handed over to an NLDO by mutual consent.

Interconnection between PLMN (Public Land Mobile Network)[114] and PSTN Table 2.1 - Traffic from PLMN to PSTN Licensed Area POI Remarks A. Metros

1. Local Call Transit Exchange (Tandem) To BSO Local Exchange by mutual agreement

[114] PLMN stands for Public Land Mobile Network. It is a mobile (cellular) network operated by a telecom provider to offer wireless services like voice calls, SMS, and mobile data to the public within a specific area or country. PLMN is connects users through technologies like 2G, 3G, 4G, and 5G.

2462. Inter-circle call Designated Level I TAX located in the Metro.

3. International Designated Level I TAX of Designated by NLDO / Call NLDO (or) Gateway Switch ILDO of ILDO if ILDO Gateway Switch and GMSC are located at the same station of Level I TAX (Metro).

B. Circles

1. Intra - Circle Level I TAX for both transit To BSO Call to other LDCAs/termination in the LDCA in which it is located.

Level II TAX for traffic terminating in the destination LDCA, at the request of interconnection seeker. POI below TAX level may also be provided with mutual agreement for terminating traffic.

2. Inter - circle Call The traffic can be handed To NLDO over at the designated Gateway Level I TAX of NLDO through any one of its Gateway MSC.

CMTS provider cans also NLDO to BSO handover traffic to NLDOs at the POP situated in the LDCA at the location of the Gateway MSC or MSC in a Circle.

The NLDO shall handover terminating traffic in the 247destination LDCA at the SDCC or by mutual agreement as per licence terms and conditions at LDCC POI.

3. International The traffic can be handed To NLDO Call over at the designated Gateway Level I TAX of NLDO through any one of its Gateway MSC.

CMTS provider cans also handover traffic to NLDOs at the POP situated in the To ILDO LDCA at the location of the Gateway MSC or MSC in a Circle.

To the Gateway Switch of the ILDO if ILDO's Gateway Switch and the GMSC are located at the same station of level I TAX Note 1. New National Long-Distance Operator(s) can make necessary interconnection arrangements with other NLDOs, to ensure delivery of calls at places where POP is yet to be established as per their network rollout obligations.

Table 2.2 Traffic from PSTN to PLMN Licensed Area POI Remarks A. Metros

1. Local Call Transit Exchange To CMTS provider

(Tandem) 248Local Exchange (by mutual agreement)

2. Inter-circle call BSOs shall handover BSO to NLDO the call at the designated TAX of NLDO in the originating Metro.

The traffic can be NLDO to CMTS handed over at any one provider of the GMSC through a designated Level I TAX of NLDO NLDO can also handover traffic to CMTS provider at the POP situated in the LDCA at the location of GMSC or MSC in the Metro / Circle.

3. International Call BSOs shall handover BSO to NLDO (Out-going) the call at the designated TAX of NLDO in the originating Metro (In-coming) To the gateway switch of the ILDO in case the BSO to ILDO (Near end ILD Gateway Switch for traffic of same and the Access SDCA) Provider's Tandem/Transit Switch are located at the same station of level I TAX

(Metro).

249The ILDO to handover at the Gateway MSC of the Cellular Operator if ILDO to CMTS Provider this Gateway MSC and the Gateway Switch of the ILDO are located at the same location of Level I TAX (Metro).

The traffic can be handed over at any one of the GMSC through a NLDO to CMTS provider designated Level I TAX of NLDO.

NLDO can also handover traffic to CMTS provider at the POP situated in the LDCA at the location of GMSC or MSC in the Metro / Circle.

B. Circle

1. Intra -Circle Call Level I TAX or Level II BSO to CMTS provider TAX of the originating LDCA. If no POI is available at Level II TAX then at GMSC of the CMTS provider subject to mutual agreement.

2. Inter-circle call BSO to hand over BSO to NLDO originating traffic at the SDCC in the same SDCA in which it has originated or by mutual agreement as per licence terms and 250conditions at the LDCC of originating LDCA.

The traffic can be NLDO to CMTS handed over at any one provider of the GMSC through a designated Level I TAX of NLDO.

NLDO can also handover traffic to CMTS provider at the POP situated in the LDCA at the location of GMSC or MSC in the Metro / Circle

3. International Call BSO to hand over BSO to NLDO (Out-going) originating traffic at the SDCC in the same SDCA in which it has originated or by mutual agreement as per (In-coming) licence terms and conditions at the LDCC of originating LDCA.

NLDO to hand over International calls to NLDO to ILDO the ILDO at the Gateway Switch.

To the gateway switch of the ILDO in case the BSO to ILDO (Near end ILD Gateway Switch for traffic of same and the Access SDCA) Provider's Tandem/Transit Switch are located at the same station of level I TAX.

251ILDO to hand over incoming international ILDO to NLDO traffic to NLDO at the Gateway Switch of ILDO The traffic can be handed over at any one of the GMSC through a designated Level I TAX of NLDO.

NLDO can also handover traffic to CMTS provider at the POP situated in the LDCA at the location of NLDO to CMTS GMSC or MSC in the provider Metro / Circle.

The ILDO to handover at the Gateway MSC of the Cellular Operator if this Gateway MSC and ILDO to CMTS provider the Gateway Switch of the ILDO are located at the same location of Level I TAX.

Note 1 New National Long-Distance Operator(s) can make necessary interconnection arrangements with other NLDOs, to ensure delivery of calls at places where POP is yet to be established as per their network rollout obligations.

Note 2: Different level 1 TAXs can be designated for terminating calls from different circles, in case a circle has more than one level 1 TAX.” 252Annexure-XII DoT Letter dated 24.08.2020 on ERSS 25315 List of Acronyms A2P Application-to-Person ADC Access Deficit Charge ARE Annual Recurring Expenditure ASP Access Service Provider BSNL Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited CA Civil Appeal CAPEX Capital Expenditure CMSO Cellular Mobile Service Operator COAI Cellular Operators Association of India CPP Calling-Party-Pay DAIC Directly Attributable Incremental Costs DoT Department of Telecommunications DTC Domestic Termination Charge EOI Equivalence of Inputs ERSS Emergency Response Support System EU European Union FD Financial Disincentive GMSC Gateway Mobile Switching Center ILD International Long Distance ILDO International Long Distance Operator IMS IP Multimedia Subsystems IN Intelligent Network IoT Internet of Things IP Internet Protocol IPTV Internet Protocol Television ITC International Termination Charge IUC Interconnection Usage Charge LDCA Long Distance Charging Area LDCC Long Distance Charging Centre 254LRIC Long Run Incremental Cost LSA License Service Area MCLR Marginal Cost of Funds Based Lending Rate MSC Mobile Switching Centre MSS Mobile Satellite Service MTNL Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited NFV Network Function Virtualization NGN Next-Generation Networks NLD National Long Distance NLDO National Long Distance Operators NNP National Numbering Plan OEM Original Equipment Manufacturers Ofcom Office of Communications of the British Government OTT Over-the-Top P2P Person-to-Person PCM Pulse Code Modulation PCP Pre-Consultation Paper PLMN Public Land Mobile Network POI Points of Interconnection PRS Premium Rate Services PSTN Public Switched Telephone Network PSU Public Sector Undertaking QoS Quality of Service RCS Rich Communication Services RIO Reference Interconnection Offer SBI State Bank of India SDCA Short Distance Charging Areas SDCC Short Distance Charging Centre SDN Software Defined Networking SMP Significant Market Power SMS Short Message Service 255SS7 Signaling System No. 7 STD Subscriber Trunk Dialing TAX Trunk Automatic Exchange TDM Time Division Multiplexing TDSAT Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal TIR Telecommunication Interconnection Regulations TMG Trunk Media Gateway TRAI Telecom Regulatory Authority of India TSP Telecommunications Service Providers UCC Unsolicited Commercial Calls UK United Kingdom UL Unified Licence USA United States of America VoIP Voice over IP VPN Virtual Private Network WLL Wireless Local Loop 256