The following are the comments that Netcore, which runs the Push SMS Service MyToday has submitted to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, in response to the TRAIs draft recommendations on the regulation of Mobile VAS services. MediaNama’s take on the policy here and here.
However, we would like to draw your attention to just a few issues that, we believe, still requires more detailed clarifications. These are listed below:
1) The key issue considered is ‘Issue 9 – whether there should be regulation on revenue share model’. In the debate on pricing models there is mention of the mandatory revenue share model whereby TRAI can specify a maximum revenue share that the operator can charge. Netcore is of the opinion that it would be good if TRAI specifies separate revenue shares for each of the services in the off-deck as well as the on-deck model. It has been suggested that the same should be left to discussions between operator and content provider but, as we all know, one party has much more bargaining power than the other so the negotiations can never be bilateral. This is why TRAI needs to intervene. TRAI cites the roadblock to doing this as the lack of mandatory licensing for VASPs. We believe that smaller VAS and content players will be more than happy to register as ‘OSP – VAS’, provided this would ensure them of a reasonable revenue share.
2) In addition to access, one of the key services that Telecom providers can give to other players is access to billing services. Although this is mentioned in the document a few times, the obligation of telecom operators to provide this service to off-deck providers at reasonable revenue shares is not spelt out clearly. Netcore would like to appeal to TRAI to make further clarifications on this very important point. The ability to collect money (through operators) from subscribers will energize content and VAS providers to come up with new and innovative services further accelerating the growth of VAS. This will encourage a lot of VAS companies to undertake their own marketing, customer support as well as brand building. For billing services there could either be a revenue share or a fixed price defined by TRAI. This will also spawn healthy competition in the market and hence ensure consumers/subscribers get the best pricing possible for value added services. This will help a larger number of subscribers to avail of such services.
3) In off-deck model, Telecom providers will be mandated to publish access and bearer charges. Again this could become a problem if the charges published are high because these will add to the end-user price. Also end-users will need to be educated that they will be paying the sum of the two charges – VAS + access – and it may well be that the high access/carrier charge may make the service unviable. This is once again an argument in favour of TRAI setting the revenue shares for all services provided by the telecom operator.
4) Common short code services Chapter II clause (xvii): VAS and content providers should be asked to keep DOT informed about additional services that they propose to release on existing short codes rather than asking them to seek approval for each such new service. Once DOT is informed it should be assumed that the service can be made operational after 15 days unless an objection is raised. The process of seeking approval will delay the launch of new services and introduce unnecessary bureaucracy.
5) Common short code services, Chapter II clause (xxiii): While we welcome the introduction of short codes at different price points and also Toll free short codes, we would like to seek an additional clarification. Over the years, short codes have become automatically associated with premium services. This has led to the interpretation in some quarters that free information alert (push) services of the type provided by Netcore (MyToday Dailies) cannot be offered on short codes. Netcore would therefore like to have an explicit clarification that users may indeed opt-in for free information alert (subscription) services through short codes. If a VASP is able to subsidise the cost of service via other revenue sources e.g. advertising, lead generation etc. and in turn is able to offer free service to the subscribers then this will be in the best interest of a consumer. Since these are opt-in services it will help build multi-revenue streams rather than just burdening the subscriber to pay for every service he/she wants to subscribe to.
6) Chapter II, Clause (iv)(d) and para 3.9.3(ii): The argument that reconciliation and calibration of MIS systems should be part of the negotiation between Telecom providers and VAS providers, in order to bring confidence in the MVAS value chain and improve the reconciliation process, is flawed. Telecom access providers have much more bargaining power than smaller players like VAS and content providers so this will not lead to the effect that TRAI is looking for. Ideally online access to MIS should be made available to VAS providers, but technology wise this could take a long time to be ready. In the meantime MIS and reconciliation will always be subject to dispute.
7) At the open house, one of the key issues raised was that of dispute redressal. The TRAI draft recommendations document is completely silent on this topic. Netcore is of the opinion that a healthy ecosystem cannot be created unless there are quick and effective mechanisms to settle disputes. Netcore would like to urge TRAI to add some recommendations in this regard.
8) Another issue that needs clarification is one of NDNC vs. Opt-in. Netcore pioneered opt-in services and the industry today is moving steadily towards ‘opt-in’ as the best method of offering services (Airtel information alerts, Google SMS channels and even TRAI’s DND service some of the services that have already started). In the light of this it becomes important for TRAI to issue a clarification to the effect that ‘Opt-in overrides NDNC registration’. Every subscriber should have the option to register under NDNC and hence protect himself from un-solicited communication. However a subscriber who has registered under NDNC yet has the right to opt-in to any service voluntarily. Due to lack of clarity, currently subscribers under NDNC are not allowed to be offered services even if they have voluntarily opted-in to a service.
© 2009 Netcore. Reproduced from Emergic.org at MediaNama with permission.











This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
12 Comments until now.
What comments by others?
Netcore is not even a player who can comment on it. Did Onmobile submit its reply and their stand on it?
VASGuy:
Well, it does impact them, and they've suffered significantly due to the lack of transparency – when their short code was blocked a couple of years ago, and more recently, when their long code was blocked. In that context, they can comment on the recommendations, and should.
At the same time, I don't agree with all of their suggestions – I do NOT think the TRAI should get involved in the revenue share deal between on-deck and off-deck players. That will be opening a Pandoras box, and against free market operations. Some companies actually get minimum guarantees from operators for their content, and they're not complaining about the deal. MyToday should expect transparency, but to expect the government to fix revenue shares is going too far…
what do you think?
Nowhere in world a regular does these kind of recommendations. Even in open markets like USA, regulator/government does not take call on application embedding .
This seems like a out of VAS business companies lobbying effort :))
Why will an operator allow some third party to get a revenue sucking machine plugged on to their prepaid customers? Just because he has a OSP license available for free. Sounds ridiculous on someone's logic and expectations too.
VASGuy,
Looks like you work / run a company which has been effected by Netcore's business model and you want to see an end to Netcore.
I have an AIRTEL connection and I subscribe to the Netcore service like the million other people in India and I like what I get from them. I don't want a bully like AIRTEL stopping the service because they are not making money out of this service.
Does every single idea in this country need necessarily to fleece people. Dont I have the right to get what I want on my mobile. Why are you not considering my rights.
Ranjitha
I never said Airtel should stop Netcore services and I am one of the subscriber of lot of them instead of paying some operator's services.
That said, my point of Ntecore's asking regulator's getting into this space is more like last chance of trying this out when the basic business model is not showing sustenance.
If it is about giving access to Netcore service, it must be there and no one should be able to stop them.
If it is about regulator forcing a commercial relationship between operator and content provider (Netcore), I definitely find it stupid.
Now VASguy can we have your real name. You are putting your view point but we need to know whether it is biased or unbiased view ? So posting your real name and company name will help. Regarding me my name is real. But I dont look so good and hence this photograph :-)
I agree with the sentiment that the regulator should be concerned with ensuring level playing fields, open access and the ability to launch and shut a business easily. They should also be concerned about customer rights and costs etc. ____I dont know if Netcore's business model is sustainable or not.. and I really dont care. but what I am concerned about is that if Sidharth wants to launch a new business in mobile, how easily can he get a shortcode, how easily can he get interconnect, how easily can he get his contracts in place, how long will he have to wait to launch, will he have to share his idea with VAS guys across the country this giving them the opporunity to launch a competing service on deck before approving his off deck version, when will he get paid and how does he know he has been paid fairly..____If we can get the TRAI to ensure clear answers to the above, Sidharth's business will have some value, he will be able to get funding, build his company, sell his company, make millions and then no one will care about his looks!!____Sidharth, I hope you dont mind me staying anonymous, I am a wimp who prefers to stay hidden from the big bad players in the world.
MoByte: should the government then compensate telecom operators for forcing them to allow others access to their network. One may argue that they should be like ISPs, but was the opening up of the Internet forced? It's the operators business decision, it's his network. Transparency – I agree. But making access equitable is perhaps cross the line.
Lets look at the facts… the operator charges me a cost for data access (bytes of data I download from the internet) isnt he being compensated for my use. If I down load only text and use less of his network I pay less and when I download video I pay more.
Similar to when I use his connection to call home in the same city or call my relatives in the US. In the voice space, I pay based on the distance the call needs to be carried not how many words I speak. Its not like I pay less if I get an answering machine as no one is at home or more if I strike million dollar deal.
The consumer is paying for access and thus has the right to access whatever he wants… I dont get the whole discussion on additional compensation as its HIS network.!!
Its like I Medianama should pay its ISP more money as he is allowing access to Medianama .. after all its his network…No Way!!
ISP is not forced to charge for your shopping on Amazon.com or take fee of your content download/access from internet.
Why should a VAS company given access to charge the subscribers at all (as part of government license) ? If short code is a way to charge consumer, why should it be forced on operator to open a short code?
I do not think anyone is stopping a consumer to dial a number and sending a SMS to a mobile number. Also no operator can stop what kind of SMS a user gets. So where is that illusive access missing today?
If it is about access, Lets see following:
WAP: The open internet on your phone has no restriction. You go where ever you want to and you pay for bytes/fixed per month whichever.
SMS: You can collect SMS on any 10 digit mobile number. You do not need to take permission from operator ( I am keeping charging away, as this disucssion is about access first). You can send SMS to any subscriber (I think here is what catch is coming, an operator's one dud VAS manager stopped in a circle and that much not happen).
If as business I want to send SMS : of content or some information which subscriber is asking from me. Operator should not stop (and I am still surprised if operator will stop it at all. Sounds more like creating a sensational news creation to get cheap attention and publicity)
Voice: Get a number from any operator in your city, Run a service. No one says that you can not offer some thing, if you can afford it.
more blah blah
I still think this is more like giving life to some companies in name of freedom.
i remember Reliance did same (and by doing some more creative steps) in case of their UASL license. Is it such a big business for some one?
I agree with VAS guy!
Why should i be forced to charge my content consumption on my mobile bill? I should be able to pay music companies for my music, tv companies for my video, bollywood producers for my movies…
Just because I buy my communication needs from an operator. why should i be forced to buy my content needs from him and pay huge premiums just to enrich him when the content guys are willing to sell it cheaper?
Its like being forced to buy expensive samosas at the multiplex..just cause I want to see a movie and eat samosas, why should I pay 50 bucks for a samosa that costs 2 rupees outside…
Bash on VAS Guy!!