Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Twilight of voice, dawn of data: the future of telecommunications in India

  • Research Article
  • Published:
DECISION Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

These are exciting times for telecommunications in India. On the one hand, we have the entry of one of the largest business houses in India into the cellular mobile services market on a large scale, leading to increased competition as well as mergers and acquisitions. On the other, we see exciting new technologies being unveiled and we stand at a point in time where technologies such as internet of things, big data, cloud computing, 5G and artificial intelligence are starting to get deployed. Among other concerns, this has raised issues of privacy and net neutrality. We discuss all of these and other related matters. We also, provide a short history on telecommunications in India and discuss technological issues, manufacturing, infrastructure and market development. We end the paper with a set of policy recommendations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Source: OECD (2016) (The Internet of Things: Seizing the Benefits and Addressing the Challenges 2016)

Fig. 3

Source: Nokia white paper on IOT connectivity—understanding the options and choices (https://onestore.nokia.com/asset/201050/Nokia_IoT_Connectivity_White_Paper_EN.pdf)

Fig. 4

Source: ITU-R, IMT (https://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/m/R-REC-M.2083-0-201509-I!!PDF-E.pdf)

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Voice and Data, August 2017.

  2. Wireline subscribers are a small part of total subscribers. The total number of subscribers is 1206.71 million, implying a tele-density of 93.40. The total number of wireline subscribers stood at 23.67 million and declined by 1.37%.

  3. TRAI 2017. http://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/PIR_July_Sept_28122017.pdf.

  4. http://indianexpress.com/article/technology/tech-news-technology/internet-users-in-india-to-double-by-2021-says-cisco-4696154/.

  5. The number of internet subscriptions divided by the total population.

  6. The interested reader should consult Jeffrey and Doron 2015.

  7. The problem still exists even after TRAI’s efforts to bring it down.

  8. We should be cautious of signaling a premature end to an industry. Compact Disks had a similar effect on the cassette tape industry and vinyl is making a comeback. Camera producers are also introducing newer versions of digital cameras. Lemley (2010) sounds a precautionary note.

  9. http://www.dot.gov.in/profile.

  10. Voice and Data, August 2017.

  11. ibid.

  12. Diksha Technologies (2013).

  13. ibid.

  14. http://www.3gpp.org/technologies/keywords-acronyms/98-lte.

  15. https://www.sdxcentral.com/5g/definitions/what-is-5g/.

  16. Prasad and Sridhar (2014) provide an extensive treatment on the subject.

  17. Chattopadhyay and Chatterjee (2014) provide a comprehensive discussion of telecommunications auctions in India. Also look at Prasad and Sridhar (2014).

  18. Voice and Data, August, September 2017.

  19. ibid.

  20. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/brand-equity/how-indian-smartphones-are-losing-out-to-china/articleshow/58906705.cms.

    https://gadgets.ndtv.com/mobiles/features/how-indian-smartphone-makers-lost-the-war-against-chinese-companies-1747112.

  21. Emphasis in the original document.

  22. http://meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/National%20Telecom%20Policy%20(2012)%20(480%20KB).pdf.

  23. Department of Telecommunications (DOT) (2013).

  24. http://www.dot.gov.in/sites/default/files/DOC200214_0.pdf.

  25. BEREC-RSPG report on infrastructure and spectrum sharing in mobile/wireless networks.

  26. Different licenses were given at different times. Most access service operators now have UL.

  27. http://www.dot.gov.in/sites/default/files/2015_10_13%20Sharing-WPC_1.pdf?download=1.

  28. http://www.ictregulationtoolkit.org/toolkit/5.1.

  29. Tsilika, Huawei v. ZTE in Context—EU Competition Policy and Collaborative Standardization in Wireless Telecoms, at pgs 155–158.

  30. TSDSI was set up, based on the recommendations of India’s telecom regulatory authority (TRAI).

  31. Indian Telecommunications Industry Analysis, India Brand Equity Foundation dated October 2014; Prof. Abhay Karandikar, Economic Times article dated 16 August 2012, India needs Umbrella Body in Telecom Standards to foster Creation of IPR and Develop Indigenous Products; See also the website of Telecommunications Standards Development Society, India http://www.tsdsi.org.

  32. In this section, we analyse the market for smartphones, as a two level market, where the upstream market concentrates on research and development of patents. The downstream market comprises the smartphone manufacturers.

  33. reference to innovators, vertically integrated companies as well as patent assertion entities engaged in R&D.

  34. Gerard Llobet & Jorge Padilla, The Optimal Scope of the Royalty Base in Patent Licensing, dated 25 June 2014, available at https://papers.ssrn.com.

  35. To the knowledge of the authors, no Indian smartphone manufacturers have any SEPs registered to their name.

  36. See Case No COMP/M.6381 Google/Motorola Mobility, available at http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/decisions/m6381_20120213_20310_2277480_EN.pdf; Statement of the Deppartment of Justice’s Antitrust Division on its Decision to Close its Investigations of Google Inc’s Acquisition of Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc. and the Acquisitions of Certain Patents by Apple Inc., available at https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/statement-department-justice-s-antitrust-division-its-decision-close-its-investigations.

  37. The expression FRAND in more frequently used in India and the European Union and RAND is more commonly used expression in the USA. The two expressions, though are ‘substantively equivalent’. David J Teece, Edward F Sherry and Peter C Grindley, On the “non-discrimination” aspect of FRAND licensing: A response to the Indian Competition Commission’s recent orders, IIMB Management Review, available online 19 October 2017 at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0970389617305098#fn0420. Accessed 01st December 2017.

  38. Decision Unwired Planet/Huawei [2017] EWHC 711 (Pat).

  39. David J Teece, Edward F Sherry and Peter C Grindley, On the “non-discrimination” aspect of FRAND licensing: A response to the Indian Competition Commission’s recent orders, IIMB Management Review, available online 19 October 2017 at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0970389617305098#fn0420. Accessed 01st December 2017.

  40. Microsoft v. Motorola, US District Court.

  41. See Micromax Informatics Limited v. Telefonaktienbolaget LM Ericsson (Publ), Case No. 50 of 2013, available at http://infojustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/CCI-Case-no-50-2013.pdf; Intex Technologies (India) Limited v. Telefonaktienbolaget LM Ericsson (Publ), Case No. 76 of 2013, available at http://www.cci.gov.in/sites/default/files/762013_0.pdf; M/s Best IT World (India) Private Limited (iBall) v. Telefonaktienbolaget LM Ericsson (Publ), Case No. 04 of 2015, available at http://www.cci.gov.in/sites/default/files/042015_0.pdf.

  42. This is an interim decision of the court subject to final decision. See Ericsson v. Micromax and Ericsson v. Intex.

  43. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) v. Competition Commission of India and another, W.P. (C) 464/2014 & CM Nos. 911/2014 & 915/2014 dated 30 March 2016, available at http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/VIB/judgement/30-03-2016/VIB30032016CW4642014.pdf, accessed 01st December 2017.

  44. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) v. Intex Technologies (India) Limited, I.A. No. 6735/2014 in CS (OS) No. 1045/2014. Judgment dated 13 March 2015, available at http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/MAN/judgement/16-03-2015/MAN13032015S10452014.pdf, Accessed 01st December 2017.

  45. Joseph Farrell, John Hayes, Carl Shapiro and Theresa Sullivan, Standard Setting, Patents and Hold-Up, 74 Antitrust Law Journal 603 (2007) stating that the “the proportionality default could be modified, either ex ante or ex post based on information about the ex-ante incremental values of the essential patent”.

  46. Philppe Chappatte, FRAND Commitments—The Case for Antitrust Intervention, 5(2) European Competition Journal 319, 340–343 (2009).

  47. Joseph Kattan, The Next FRAND Battle: Why the Royalty Base Matters, 1 CPI Antitrust Chronicle March 2015.

  48. And not against the end or final product.

  49. In re Innovation IP Venture, LLC Patent Litigation, Case No. 11 C 9308, District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

  50. Kirti Gupta, FRAND in India: Emerging Developments, Antitrust in Emerging and Developing Countries, Conference Papers at pg 11.

  51. David J Teece, Edward F Sherry and Peter C Grindley, On the “non-discrimination” aspect of FRAND licensing: A response to the Indian Competition Commission’s recent orders, IIMB Management Review, available online 19 October 2017 at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0970389617305098#fn0420. Accessed 01st December 2017.

  52. David J Teece, Edward F Sherry and Peter C Grindley, On the “non-discrimination” aspect of FRAND licensing: A response to the Indian Competition Commission’s recent orders, IIMB Management Review, available online 19 October 2017 at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0970389617305098#fn0420. Accessed 01st December 2017.

  53. Bruce H Kobayasshi and Joshua D Wright, Federalism, Substantive Preemption and Limits on Antitrust: An Application of Patent Holdup, 5(3) Journal of Competition Law & Economics 469 (2009).

  54. Microsoft v Motorola.

  55. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2015-12-12/fourth-industrial-revolution.

  56. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2017).

  57. Ministry Of Science and ICT, Committee of Future Preparation, KISTEP, KAIST (2017).

  58. http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/info-tech/5g-in-india-govt-sets-up-body-for-5g-eyes-rollout-by-2020/article9873596.ece.

  59. OECD 2015.

  60. https://beebom.com/examples-of-internet-of-things-technology/.

  61. 3rd Generation Partnership Project.

  62. Dinh et al. (2013).

  63. There are other names such as MiniCloud, Cloudlet and Mobile Edge Cloud depending on who develops the technology (Carlton 2016).

  64. https://www.openfogconsortium.org/resources/#definition-of-fog-computing.

  65. https://www.ijsr.net/archive/v5i5/NOV163418.pdf.

  66. European Commission and 5Gppp. https://5g-ppp.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/5G-Vision-Brochure-v1.pdf.

  67. GSMA Intelligence (2014).

  68. Business Insider, Gus Lubin, The Incredible Story of how Target Exposed a Teen Girl’s Pregnancy, dated 16 February 2012 available at http://www.businessinsider.com/the-incredible-story-of-how-target-exposed-a-teen-girls-pregnancy-2012-2?IR=T; Kashmir Hill, How Target Figured Out a Teen Girl was Pregnant Before her Father did, dated 16 February 2012, available at https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-target-figured-out-a-teen-girl-was-pregnant-before-her-father-did/#351a3ba96668.

  69. A De Mauro, M Greco and M Grimaldi, A Formal Definition of Big Data Based on its Essential Features, Library Review 65(3) 2016, pgs 122–135; Viktor Mayer-Schönberger and Kenneth Cukier, Big Data: A Revolution that will Transform how we Live, Work and Think (John Murray: Hachette UK 2013.

  70. Marc Bourreau, Alexandre de Streel and Inge Graef, Project Report dated 16 February 2017: Big Data and Competition Policy: Market Power, personalised pricing and advertising, Centre on Regulation in Europe, pgs 11–14.

  71. Viktor Mayer-Schönberger and Kenneth Cukier, Big Data: A Revolution that will Transform how we Live, Work and Think (John Murray: Hachette UK 2013) 74 ff.

  72. Monopolkommission, ‘Wettbewerbspolitik: Herausforderung digitale Märkte’ Sondergutachten 68 der Monopolkommission gemäβ §§ Abs. 1 Satz 4 GWB (Bonn/Berlin 1 June 2015) <http://www.monopolkommission.de/index.php/de/homepage/84-pressemitteilungen/286-wettbewerbspolitik-herausforderung-digitale-maerkte> accessed 05 December 2017.

  73. Rochet and Tirole, Two-Sided Markets: A Progress Report’, 37(3) The RAND Journal of Economics 645 (2006) at page 646.

  74. Ariel Ezrachi and Maurice E Stucke, Virtual Competition: The Promise and the Perils of Algorithm-Driven Economy, Harvard University Press (2016).

  75. Ashna Ashesh and Bhairav Acharya, Locating the Constructs of Privacy within Classical Hindu Law (2014).

  76. Ananthkrishan G, ‘In Supreme Court, Centre admits Aadhaar data leak, critics cite ‘civil liberties’, dated 4 May 2017, available at http://indianexpress.com/article/india/govt-admits-aadhaar-data-leak-critics-cite-civil-liberties-4639819/.

  77. Justice K S Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India and Ors., Supreme Court of India, WP (Civil) No 494/2016.

  78. Dhapola (2015).

  79. http://trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/PR_No.100of2017.pdf.

  80. The exact ruling is more complex than what we have stated here. Kang (2017). https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/14/technology/net-neutrality-repeal-vote.html.

  81. TRAI (2018).

  82. http://www.dot.gov.in/sites/default/files/NTP-06.06.2012-final_0.pdf.

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IIM Bangalore, Bangalore, India

    Subhashish Gupta

  2. Max Planck Institute, Munich, Germany

    Kalpana Tyagi

  3. Doordarshan, Prasar Bharti, Government of India, New Delhi, India

    Rajkumar Upadhyay

Authors
  1. Subhashish Gupta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kalpana Tyagi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rajkumar Upadhyay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Subhashish Gupta.

Additional information

Kalpana Tyagi: The author was working as a Research Policy Analyst, International Telecommunications Union, Geneva while working on this paper and would like to thank her colleagues for their comments on the earlier working drafts of the paper. Errors, if any, are mine. Rajkumar Upadhyay: The views expressed in this paper do not represent the views of my employers.

The paper has benefited from the comments of the referee. The standard disclaimer applies.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gupta, S., Tyagi, K. & Upadhyay, R. Twilight of voice, dawn of data: the future of telecommunications in India. Decision 45, 161–183 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40622-018-0181-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40622-018-0181-0

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation