Bare Acts Live

Intelligent Network Services in Multi Operator and Multi Network Scenario Regulations, 2006

Published Vide Notification Gazette of India, Extra., Part 3, Section 4, dated 27.11.2006.

1700

(a) "Act" means the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997(24 of 1997);

(b) "Access Providers" includes the Basic Operator, Cellular Mobile Service Provider and Unified Access Service Provider;

(c) " Authority' means the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India established under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Act;

(d) "Basic Operator" means a service provider who has been granted a licence under section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (13 of 1885) and who provides basic telephone service in accordance with the terms and conditions of the licence;

(e) "Cellular Mobile Telephone Service Provider" means a Cellular Mobile Telephone Service provider who has been granted a licence under section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (13 of 1885) and who provides Cellular Mobile Telephone Service in a specified service area in accordance with the terms and conditions of the licence;

(f) "Eligible Service Provider" means service provider who has been granted a licence under section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (13 of 1885) and who is eligible to provide the service in accordance with terms and conditions of licence;

(g) "Interconnection" means the commercial and technical arrangements under which the service providers connect their equipment, networks and services to enable their customers to have access to the customers, services and networks of other service providers;

(h) "Intelligent Network" means a network architecture for the operation and provision of new services which is characterized by -

(A) extensive use of information processing techniques;

(B) efficient use of network resources;

(C) modularisation and reusability of network functions;

(D) integrated service creations and implementation by means of the modularised reusable network functions;

(E) flexible allocation of network functions to physical entities;

(F) portability of network functions among physical entities; standardised communication between network functions via service independent interfaces;

(G) service subscriber control of some subscriber-specific service attributes;

(H) service user control of some user-specific service attributes; standardised management of service logic;

(i) "Service Control Point" means a real time database -

(A) which stores customer records;

(B) which executes one of the range of software routines customized for particular applications, when accessed by an enquiry from it ;

(C) which sends instruction back to the Service Switching Point to process the call ;.

(j) "National Numbering Plan" means the National Numbering Plan 2003, or, any such plan, made subsequently by the Government of India, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Department of Telecommunication;

(k) "Service Switching Point" means the Switching Point providing the users with access to the network and performing any necessary switching functionality which -

(A) consists of the hardware switch and basic call control software with the added functionality of Intelligent Network;

(B) allows access to the set of Intelligent Network capabilities; and

(C) contains detection capability to detect request for Intelligent Network based services;

(l) "regulations" means the Intelligent Network Services in Multi Operator and Multi Network Scenario Regulation, 2006; 4

(m) "Unified Access Service Provider" means a Unified Access Service provider who has been granted a licence under section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (13 of 1885) and who provides Unified Access Service in a specified service area in accordance with the terms and conditions of the licence;

(n) all other words and expressions used in these regulations but not defined, and defined in the Act and the rules and other regulations made there under, shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in the Act or the rules or other regulations, as the case may be.

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

(a) Non-availability of B number, i.e. Called Party Number at the Originating Network Interfaces, in many cases.

(b) Alternate billing options, i.e. Calling Party pays in full or part,

(c) Called party pays in full or part or a third party pays, and,

(d) Distributed location of Functional Entities,

(e) Difficulties in transparent application of the Interconnect regime that could be termed as equitable and mutually beneficial to the Interconnecting operators.

(i) Network architecture wherein the SSP of originating access provider connects to the SCP of the interconnecting operator over CCS-7 link for authentication and other purposes has a number of technological pitfalls, integrating SSPs based on different technologies within existing SCPs is a difficult task.

(ii) It would be very difficult and cost prohibitive for any Access Provider to not only procure SCP equipment to cater to its own customer base but also to size it for current and future customer base of all other Access Provider's in the absence of any knowledge of the business plans of the competitor.

(iii) For services which rely only on signalling network, and do not rely at all on bearer network, this would require investment on small signalling platforms to be able to screen and account signalling messages and generate CDRs for inter-operator billing.

(iv) Appropriate TEC GR does not define the capability set for SCPs supporting all protocols on one platform. In the absence of this and limitations of existing SCPs, implementation and that too uniform implementation across all operators is doubtful.

(v) IN service is a value addition over Basic services. Such value added services have so far not been regulated by TRAI. Accordingly, IN services also need a similar treatment.

(vi) All efforts should be made for Integrating SSP of all technologies with SCP of different technologies as SSP of one Service Provider interacting with SCP of different Service Providers at signalling interconnect level is the final solution for all kind of IN services. Protocol for IN services needs to standardized.

(vii) There is an overlap in the domains of Access Providers and NLDOs and the service can be provided jointly by Access Provider and NLDO. These services will yield the best result if left for mutual arrangements to be made amongst the operators.

(viii) Commercial arrangements and revenue share for IN services should be left for the mutual negotiation between the operators.

(ix) IN regulations should be in conformity with the various court orders/license agreements/commercial requirements.

(x) Security aspect will need to be kept in mind while finalising the IN Regulation.

(xi) The issue of interconnect seeker and interconnect provider will need to be addressed.

(xii) A list of allowed/not allowed services should be given to help in avoiding potential misinterpretation of the Regulation and subsequent litigations.

(xiii) In order to avoid ambiguity and achieve the objective of providing free choice to all subscribers for IN services of all Intelligent Network Service Providers (INSPs), very clear billing, charging and revenue share guidelines for each type of IN service need to be specified.

(xiv) The start up cost for IN services and also for continued investment for platform upgrades for deployment in a Multi Operator, Multi Service environment will have to be borne by INSPs.

(xv) The issue who provides intelligent peripherals (like announcement) needs to be addressed.

(xvi) How the location based IN services - when accessed by a subscriber of other access provider will be handled.

(xvii) Issue of how the national and international roamers could use the IN services needs to be addressed.

(xviii) There are chances of misuse, if 18xx call is handed over by the access provider to the INSP. Access provider will not able to know what service INSP is providing, once call is handed over to INSP.

(xix) The interest of access provider should be protected.

(xx) There are IN service providers (generally vendors) outside India who already have infrastructure and workable architecture for providing these services. These models should be studied and analysed in our context. Option of IN services provided by the third parties should also be explored.

(i) The Authority observed that most of the service providers are of the opinion that integrating SSP based on different technologies with an existing SCP of other operators may not be feasible at all times. Inter-working of SSP and SCP of different vendors may require software and hardware modification. This may be time consuming process. This may also add unnecessary cost to the operators. Because of this, most of the service providers are of the opinion that SSP and SCP are to be owned by the Service provider who is providing IN services and All access provider would hand over the 18xx(IN) calls as voice call to the closest POI switch designated for this purpose.

(ii) Authority has also noted the points made by the representatives of MTNL that integrating SSP based on different technologies with an existing SCP of other operators would be the final solution for all IN services. Authority has also noted that TEC GR does not define the capability set for SCP supporting all protocols at one platform. Therefore, operator may also require to implement different protocols for fixed line, wireless (WLL(M), WLL(F), Cellular) etc. Therefore Integrating SSP of one service provider with all SCP of all other service providers would be a time consuming process.

(iii) In view of the above, Authority is of opinion that exact implementation of the architecture should be left open to the operators. They themselves may decide the Architecture on caseby-case basis.

(iv) A crucial factor in favour of leaving architecture open for service providers is that IN service would get implemented quickly at least for Free Phone service and VCC. The Authority has also noted the technical difficulties in implementing location based Intelligent Network Services as well as provision of services through Intelligent Peripherals in case the architecture is specified. IN committee also recognised that Free Phone and VCC (Voice 16 Calling Cards) should be the first set of IN services to be implemented.

(v) Authority has also noted the fact that as of now all operators have dimensioned their IN resources as per their own requirements and subscribers base. Once it is opened for interconnection with other operators there may be requirement of more signalling links and other resources like enhancement of Intelligent Peripherals etc. In fact, requirement of signalling will increase substantially as many IN services rely more on signalling network i.e. tele-voting etc. There may also be some legacy switches in the incumbent's network which may require extensive up-gradation in hardware and software.

(vi) Therefore, Authority is of the opinion that one more month after agreement be required to the operators for implementing the IN in multi operator multi network scenario after their mutual agreement take place. Authority expects that at many places implementation may happen in a shorter span where switches do not require much up-gradation or no up-gradation at all.

(vii) Authority considered the fact that signalling information may cross the boundaries of the service area to make IN services available nationwide, it may lead to usage of SCPs of NLDOs by Basic Operators/CMSP/UASL as provision of the services by Access Provider is limited to their service areas only. Authority has also noted that as per license conditions NLDOs/ILDOs cannot access subscriber directly. In a communication to one of the NLDOs on 28.10.2005 the licensor had clarified that Toll Free number services and split charge (UAN) services by NLD operator is in contravention to the NLD license conditions because these services are subscriber based and an NLDO cannot directly access the subscriber in terms of clause 2.2 (a) of NLD license.

(viii) In this regard, submission has been received from one of the NLDOs on 15.09.06 wherein it was requested that decision on the subject of IN regulation should be in the perspective of its general applicability and need of the industry taking care of the interconnection issues of the IN network/services of the Long distance Service Providers as well. It further mentioned that any restriction on provision of IN based bearer services by the Long distance operators would tantamount to rewriting of the license provision of these Long Distance operators in terms of placing new prohibitions in the license.

(ix) Authority has taken note of the submissions of the NLDO and of the view that all service provider should provide the IN services as per terms and conditions of their Licenses and legal position and access the subscriber only if they are permitted to do so by the licensor.

(x) During the meeting with Cellular Operators' Association of India (COAI), members of the Association mentioned that charging and revenue sharing guidelines for each type of the IN Services need to be specified. But for this purpose COAI has not been able to provide the relevant data for analyzing the above requirement, yet.

(xi) Authority has taken note of the fact that in general members of the Committee were of the opinion that charging, billing and sharing of the revenue depends on the service features and therefore, charging, billing and sharing of revenue for resources used for IN Services may be decided by the concerned service provider through mutual commercial arrangement. The Authority accordingly, accepts the suggestion of the Committee in this regard. However, Authority is also in the process of finalising the standard agreement which would be applicable if service providers are not able to arrive at mutually acceptable agreement within a specific time. Authority would also ask the relevant data from the service providers shortly.

(xii) IN Services as such, is not a separate class of Services Neither NTP' 99 recognizes this as a separate Service nor has licensor categorized it as a separate Service. It is only a different means of providing a service. Therefore, Interconnect Usage Charges (IUC) as applicable from time to time will apply for the IN services provided by operator in multi-operator multi-network scenario. Interconnect Agreement between Service Providers shall include Intelligent Network (IN) access.

(xiii) In the interest of security, the Service providers shall make suitable arrangement so that Service providers in mutual association can provide data records of all the calls handled by them as per the requirement of Security Agencies/License Conditions.

(xiv) During the meeting, members of the COAI have also raised issue of seeker and provider for IN Services. As mentioned above, IN service as such is not a separate class of service, it is only a means of providing advanced services. Therefore, there is no separate case of seeker and provider in this scenario. Present Point of Interconnection (POI) will continue for IN Services also. There would be only additional requirement of signalling links which may be mutually negotiated among the service providers.

(xv) As set of IN services currently defined are all Circuit Switched or Packet Switched Voice Services, the Quality of Service (QoS) already mandated for voice services, shall apply. Therefore, all Service Providers involved will be required to ensure that there shall be no dilution in the Quality of Service (QoS) standards applicable to the underlying Bearer Network.

(xvi) The Numbering plan for the IN Services shall be as per applicable National Numbering Plan (NNP). All Service Providers shall ensure that IN Services on Multi-Operator, Multi-Network platform are launched after getting adequate Access Code allocations from the NNP Administrator (Licensor).

APPENDIX-I

Table 1

In Services as Defined in TEC GR's