![\"\"](\"\/\/www.iser-br.com\/Themes\/Release\/images\/responsive\/ettelecom-default.jpg\")
While there has been a flood of progressive measures, the sector is also greatly disturbed about the prospect of a tsunami arising due to the moves afoot to auction satellite spectrum<\/a>. Luckily, a TRAI Consultation Paper has just been issued the subject which is extremely comprehensive and informative, presenting details of international practice and floating as many as 54 questions for stakeholders to respond to. Naturally, most of the questions probe about assignment of spectrum and charging, without any pre-decided mindset.
As per this open-minded, balanced and well researched Paper, international practice and findings are overwhelmingly against the approach of auctions for allocation of satellite spectrum<\/a>. After explaining international practices, TRAI notes that “..countries like the US, Mexico and Brazil had attempted to sell frequencies (through auction) but eventually did not succeed and at last resorted to administrative licensing.” The takeaway is clear: There is no merit in ignoring international learnings as regards satellite spectrum allocation and attempting to literally reinvent the wheel.
Experts point out that the starting point of Reference dated 13.09.21 from DoT is itself debatable since it is based on a flawed premise of “in case of satellite communication, the subscriber is accessed from the satellite through ‘Access Spectrum’ similar to ‘Access Spectrum’ in terrestrial network”. This is both erroneous and also indicative of a pre-conceived orientation. Satellite spectrum is different to mobile spectrum in several key characteristics - being shared resource as compared to discrete and exclusive chunks, dependent on ITU frequency coordination, different spectrum management rules, several precious rights with only terrestrial mobile,etc). Importantly, revenue potentials of the two sectors are virtually oceans apart.
The current annual revenues of the mobile operators is of the order of Rs 2.5 lakh crores i.e. Rs. 250,000 crores whereas that of the Indian VSAT satellite operators is only about Rs. 500 crores i.e. they have only 1\/500th or 0.2% of the revenues of the telcos! As per Art. 14 of the Constitution of India and related case laws, these two unequals have to mandatorily be treated differently. It would be gross injustice to apply the same spectrum rules for the two. Moreover, Hon’ble Supreme Court held, in its advisory jurisdiction in the Presidential Reference relating to the order in the 2G case that “Auction, as a method of disposal of natural resources, cannot be declared to be a Constitutional mandate under Art. 14 of the Constitution of India.” The Supreme Court further stated that “Auction may be the best way of maximising revenue, but revenue maximisation may not always be the best way to serve public good.”
Apart from the impracticability of auctioning satellite spectrum is well-proven in international practice, there is a large number of weighty reasons – over a dozen, for not auctioning satellite spectrum. One of the most powerful of these would be the incontrovertible fact that auctioning would drastically reduce the usage efficiency of satellite spectrum and destroy value of this precious resource for catering to public interest. The fundamental objective of any spectrum management is to maximise the usage efficiency of this important resource. If any approach fails to do so, it has to be summarily rejected, especially for a country like India having a large rural and unconnected population to serve. As commonly seen in auction of terrestrial mobile spectrum, the resource is sold in frequency chunks or fragments each one being different and unique from the others. In the auction, different mobile operators bid and take differing chunks. This is the essence of the auction.
However, satellite spectrum is a completely shared resource among different satellite operators. There is no breakup or fragmentation involved. Hence, the full band used by each operator with utmost spectrum efficiency. If an auction is to be held for satellite spectrum, obviously, there would have to be a fragmentation of the concerned band to enable unique allocation to different winners. The result would only be gross inefficiency.
Such auctions also create worrying prospects of the more powerful deep-pocketed players grabbing huge portions of spectrum to act as gate-keepers to block weaker players as well as startups and reduce the competitive choice that customers need to have. We have several space startups of great promise but weak financially, could be faced with risk and investment uncertainty and get blocked by powerful ‘gatekeepers’. India simply cannot afford the risk of creating such grossly anti-competitive environment.
Satellite broadcasting and communication are powerful tools for creating public good and serving public interest. It is practically the only way to connect the unconnected and serve the underserved in rural, remote and difficult-to-reach areas. As observed by TRAI, “satellite systems can be used to provide ubiquitous coverage for providing broadband connectivity, global positioning system (GPS) and navigation, internet of things (IoT) and machine to machine (M2M) communication, remote sensing and imaging, broadcasting, disaster management, telemedicine, etc.” As quoted by TRAI from an ADB Paper, “satellite connectivity is only for remote and dispersed populations where fiber deployments are challenging”.
The new Spacecom Policy<\/a> is aimed at catalysing Private Sector participation in the Space sector and raising India’s share in the global space economy from less than 2% to 10% soonest. However, satellite spectrum auctions would inexorably push back the emerging space sector which holds enormous promise for Digital India<\/a>.
<\/body>","next_sibling":[{"msid":99117237,"title":"Component localisation, tariff reforms & EoDB to bolster Indian electronics industry","entity_type":"ARTICLE","link":"\/blog\/component-localisation-tariff-reforms-eodb-to-bolster-indian-electronics-industry\/99117237","category_name":null,"category_name_seo":"blog"}],"related_content":[],"msid":99367115,"entity_type":"ARTICLE","title":"Auction of satellite spectrum?","synopsis":"\"\u200b\u200bThe current annual revenues of the mobile operators is of the order of Rs 2.5 lakh crores i.e. Rs. 250,000 crores whereas that of the Indian VSAT satellite operators is only about Rs. 500 crores i.e. they have only 1\/500th or 0.2% of the revenues of the telcos! As per Art. 14 of the Constitution of India and related case laws, these two unequals have to mandatorily be treated differently. It would be gross injustice to apply the same spectrum rules for the two,\" says Ramachandran. ","titleseo":"blog\/auction-of-satellite-spectrum","status":"ACTIVE","authors":[{"author_name":"TV Ramachandran","author_link":"\/author\/479255677\/tv-ramachandran","author_image":"https:\/\/etimg.etb2bimg.com\/authorthumb\/479255677.cms?width=100&height=100&hostid=268","author_additional":false}],"analytics":{"comments":0,"views":632,"shares":0,"engagementtimems":2761000},"Alttitle":{"minfo":""},"artag":"ETTelecom","artdate":"2023-04-10 07:56:42","lastupd":"2023-04-10 07:56:43","breadcrumbTags":["satellite spectrum","spacecom policy","digital india","satellite spectrum auction","telecom regulatory authority of india","Spectrum Auction","satcom","satcom blog","international telecommunication union"],"secinfo":{"seolocation":"blog\/auction-of-satellite-spectrum"}}" data-authors="[" tv ramachandran"]" data-category-name="" data-category_id="" data-date="2023-04-10" data-index="article_1">
- 博客
- 5分钟读
拍卖的卫星光谱?
“目前的年收入的移动运营商的Rs 2.5十万的卢比即Rs。250000卢比,而印度网络连线的卫星运营商只有Rs 500卢比。即他们只有1/500th或电信公司0.2%的收入!根据艺术。14印度宪法及相关法律,这两个不需要强制被区别对待。是严重不公应用相同的频谱两个规则,“拉马钱德兰说。
读到
虽然已经有大量的先进措施,该行业也大大干扰是由于发生海啸的可能性进行拍卖卫星光谱。幸运的是,火车刚刚发布的咨询文件非常全面和丰富的主题,展示国际惯例的细节和浮动多达54个问题利益相关者作出反应。当然,大部分问题调查关于分配的频谱和充电,没有任何事先内定的心态。
按照这个开放、平衡和研究论文,国际惯例和发现绝大多数是对拍卖的方法分配卫星光谱。在解释了国际惯例,火车指出,“…国家,如美国,墨西哥和巴西曾试图出售频率(通过拍卖),但最终没有成功,最后采取行政许可。”有一个很明显的结论:没有优点无视国际知识至于卫星频谱分配和试图重新发明轮子。
专家指出参考13.09.21约会的起点点本身是有争议的,因为它是基于有缺陷的前提”卫星通信,卫星的访问用户通过接入频谱的类似于陆地接入频谱的网络”。这是错误的,也表明一个先入为主的取向。卫星光谱是不同的移动频谱在几个关键特性——共享资源相比离散和独家块,依赖ITU频率协调,不同的频谱管理规则,一些珍贵的权利只有陆地移动,等等)。重要的是,两个部门的收入潜力几乎是海洋。
目前的年收入的移动运营商的Rs 2.5卢比即Rs。只要250000卢比,而印度网络连线的卫星运营商只有Rs 500卢比。即他们只有1/500th或电信公司0.2%的收入!根据艺术。14印度宪法及相关法律,这两个不需要强制被区别对待。是严重不公正的光谱应用相同的规则。此外,鸿'ble最高法院举行,总统参考咨询管辖权的有关订单在2 g的情况下,“拍卖,作为自然资源的一种处理方法,不能宣布宪法授权的艺术。14下印度的宪法。“最高法院进一步表示,“拍卖可能最大化收入的最佳方式,但收入最大化可能并不总是最好的方法为公共利益服务。”
除了拍卖卫星光谱的固执是可行的在国际实践中,有大量的重要的原因——在一打,没有卫星频谱拍卖。之一,其中最强大的是无可争议的事实,拍卖将大大减少卫星频谱的使用效率和摧毁价值的宝贵资源,为迎合公共利益。任何频谱管理的基本目标是最大限度地增加这一重要资源的使用效率。如果任何方法未能这样做,必须立刻拒绝,特别是像印度这样的国家拥有大量农村和无关的人。拍卖中常见的陆地移动范围,频率资源出售块或碎片每一个不同的和独特的。在拍卖中,不同的移动运营商投标,并采取不同的块。这是拍卖的本质。
然而,卫星光谱是一个完全不同卫星运营商之间的共享资源。没有分手或碎片。因此,每个操作符所使用的完整的乐队与最大频谱效率。如果拍卖了卫星光谱,很明显,必须有一个分裂有关乐队,使独特的分配到不同的赢家。结果只会是低效率。
这样的拍卖也创造了令人担忧的前景更强大的财力雄厚的球员抓住巨大的部分谱作为管家阻止实力较弱的参与者以及创业和减少竞争选择,客户需要。我们有几个空间初创公司的承诺但疲弱的经济,可能会面临风险和投资的不确定性,被强大的“守门人”。印度已经经受不起创建此类的风险严重反竞争的环境。
卫星广播和沟通是强大的工具,用于创建公共利益和公共利益服务。这几乎是唯一的方法来连接无关和服务于农村缺医少药,偏远和难以到达的地区。所观察到的火车,”卫星系统可用于提供无处不在的报道提供宽带连接,全球定位系统(GPS)和导航,物联网(物联网)和机器对机器(M2M)通信、遥感成像、广播、灾害管理,远程医疗,等等。”援引火车从亚洲开发银行的报告,“卫星连接只是为远程部署和人口分散在纤维具有挑战性”。
新Spacecom政策旨在促进私人部门参与太空部门和提高印度的份额在全球空间经济最快从低于2%到10%。然而,卫星频谱拍卖将无情地推新兴空间领域拥有巨大的承诺数字印度。
评论
现在评论 阅读评论(1)所有评论
找到这个评论进攻?
下面选择你的理由并单击submit按钮。这将提醒我们的版主采取行动