DoT berates TRAI for change in MNP service providers' permits

The Telecom Department (DoT) is unhappy with the Telecom Regulator’s decision which amends the mobile number portability service providers’ permits (MNPSP), according to the Economic Times.

Questioning the decision, the DoT wrote a three-page letter to the Secretary of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI). In the letter, the DoT expressed its unease over the telecom regulator’s notification issued last September, which allowed an increase of two hours “break time” in porting a number to another mobile service provider’s network. Before the issue of this notification, a subscriber’s services could only be disrupted for a maximum of two hours.

The DoT negated the TRAI’s explanation that an MNPSP functions as facilitator in porting the number from one service provider to another. Rationalising its argument, the DoT has said that both mobile service providers and the MNPSP are in fact telecom licensees.

More from News & Analysis

What is the US HIRE Bill and why is India’s $250-billion IT sector worried? Is the internet dead? What's this theory that OpenAI's Sam Altman says might be true?

DoT hauls up the TRAI for a notification which allowed MNSPs an increased break time for porting a customer (Image credit:foxnews)

In its communication with the regulator, the DoT has said that, “Both of the licences are granted under section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885 and so the distinction created by TRAI that MNP service provider is only a ‘facilitator’ is not correct.”

The department also spoke about section 11(1) (a) (ii) of the TRAI Act which states that the regulator only has recommendatory function in the matter of terms and conditions of licence to a service provider. By that logic, the DoT stated that issuing regulations which resulted in a change of license conditions would contradict the TRAI Act.

Using an example of a Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal judgment back in 2005, the DoT pointedly said that the regulations which were issued by the regulator must be in line with the licence conditions and not defeat them entirely. Another example used was a Supreme Court judgment of 2011 which reinforced the DoT’s point that the regulator’s powers can only be recommendatory in nature. 

The TRAI, defending its decision, has said that the order was made in keeping with the unified access service licence which clearly says that the porting process is to be handled by TRAI, from time to time. The DoT has since refuted this claim, stating that the right is not valid if an order issued alters a telecom licence.

In a letter, which was sent out on March 12, a regulator defended the TRAI’s stance by saying, “In MNP process, deactivation and activation of mobile numbers is carried out by access providers acting as donor or recipient operators. MNP service provider plays the role of a facilitator only. Therefore, amendment to MNSP licence needs to be carried out so as to bring it in line with overall MNP porting process.”