Making do not call facility work
About 42 million subscribers have registered for the “Do Not Call” facility. That’s a minuscule proportion of the total mobile subscriber base of over 435 million.
The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) notified a regulation on unsolicited commercial communications in June, 2007. TRAI could have deferred this regulation till legislative changes were made— but its initiative was prompt response to widespread demand for curbing unwanted telemarketing calls. These calls were seen as encroaching on the privacy of subscribers.
The regulation requires that telecom subscribers register with their service provider regarding preference for not receiving unsolicited calls. Telemarketers are required to register under the OSP (Other Service Providers) category in the Department of Telecommunication (DOT). Such registered tele-marketers are to verify the telephone numbers from the National Data Registry to ascertain the preference of subscribers.
The authority was conscious that the effectiveness of the regulation could only be achieved if all the players comply. It was evident from the beginning that telemarketers who do not register may dilute regulation. Moreover, telecom companies have also been reluctant to disconnect in their enthusiasm for revenue mobilisation.
The TRAI regulation has completed two years and it now appears it has not been effective. Approximately 25,000 telemarketers have been registered with the telecom service providers and the NIC. Initial estimates suggested that nearly 60,000 telemarketers are functional, excluding retail and short-term periodic telemarketers. About 42 million subscribers have registered their preference against unwanted calls. The data is extremely important as the total number of mobile subscribers is more than 435 million. Clearly, only a minuscule proportion exercised the option.
The experience regarding effectiveness of such a regulation in other countries is no different. The US, UK, Ireland, Australia and others have implemented a do not call registry. In the US, there is the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, while Australia and the UK also have legal provisions. As per a 2007 survey in the US, 59 per cent of subscribers reported that they do get telemarketing calls but on a significantly reduced level after they signed into the registry. It indicates that in the US, even after four years, it is not a foolproof system.
To my mind, TRAI, from the beginning, has operated under serious limitations. As per the TRAI Act, it has no powers to impose penalty either on service providers or on telemarketers registered as OSPs. TRAI also has no powers of dispute resolution between consumers and other stakeholders. Moreover, I feel disconnection has not served as a major disincentive as marketers switch to other telecom service providers if disconnected due to non-compliance at the hands of one.
The authority had also considered in great detail the option of a ‘do call registry’. This raised many complex issues in terms of its impact on BPOs and the legality of interpreting subscriber’s preference. The problem of unwanted calls remains as it is today in the absence of legislation but perhaps with manifold increase in the number of complaints.
TRAI rightly believes this menace can only be curbed by bringing appropriate legislation. There is no substitute for a strong legal mechanism to force telemarketers and others to comply with regulations. Punitive powers are a must to give teeth to this regulatory body.
Nripendra Misra is Ex-chairman, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India
