It’s as ridiculous as may also be
Responding to the letter, COAI stated that that is as ludicrous an offer as may also be imagined. It termed the verdict similar to roads paying cars for using on them. “By a very simple analogy, telecom networks are akin to roadways wherein the services for public consumption — such as public transport vehicles like buses operate — are similar to the OTT service providers. The outrageous suggestion of roads paying to the vehicles for getting passengers on their network is unheard of. OTTs, though, are not paying anything to the TSPs presently for their network costs,” the trade frame stated.
The COAI stated that OTT platforms no longer best cannibalize the services and products presented by way of the telecom corporations, additionally they eat massive quantities of bandwidth. This stresses the telcos’ community and makes the continual upgrading and building crucial.
According to the COAI, telecom provider suppliers have contributed an quantity of just about Rs 17,627 crore in opposition to license rate and Rs 7,073 crore in opposition to spectrum utilization rate (S.U.C.) for FY 2021-22 by myself. This is but even so the mammoth quantities invested in opposition to spectrum acquisition and community infrastructure.
“OTTs, on the other hand, have nil or very miniscule contributions to the government despite their robust revenues. Communication OTTs do not contribute to the exchequer in the form of taxes, levies, license fee etc., as they are not presently regulated by the ministry of communicationsalthough their services are similar to that provided by the telcos,” added COAI. The frame once more reiterated its call for for bringing OTT verbal exchange services and products below the Telecommunication Act.
What did the BIF letter say
The BIF letter despatched to DoT stated that OTTs don’t seem to be loose riders and are if truth be told accountable for greater than 70 according to cent of the telco visitors. “This concept of paying for the use of infrastructure is an excellent concept wherein any entity that uses another entity’s infrastructure, should pay for it. However, the revenues earned by the infra provider should also be shared with the entity using it in the same proportion the letter read.
“If the idea that of paying community get right of entry to fees is to be authorized, the telcos must additionally pay the OTTs for the entire above. Given the price of the opposite infrastructure is a ways more than the price of the get right of entry to community, it’s relatively most probably that telcos would possibly finally end up paying to the OTTs but even so sharing their revenues with them,” the discussion board argued.