Telecom Companies Oppose MMRCL’s Vendor Model

The Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI) has expressed its strong opposition to the Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Limited’s (MMRCL) decision to award telecom infrastructure deployment to a third-party vendor, ACES. The COAI has stated that the vendor model adopted by MMRCL is illegal and anti-consumer. “**At the core of this issue is MMRCL’s decision to award telecom infrastructure deployment to a third-party IP-I vendor, in violation of existing regulations.** Under the current telecom licensing framework, IP-I providers are prohibited from deploying active infrastructure,” the industry body said.

Joint Proposal by Telecom Operators

In an earlier communication to the MMRCL, all three telecom service providers (Reliance Jio, Bharti Airtel, and Vodafone Idea) had jointly proposed to install a common in-building solutions (IBS) network across the Colaba-Bandra-Aarey metro corridor at their own cost. However, the metro authority had directed the telcos to route their services through the selected vendor, ACES. The COAI stated that MMRCL arbitrarily rejected the telcos’ request for Right of Way (RoW) permissions, citing the selection of a vendor through its internal tender process. This decision prioritises commercial gains over public convenience and stands in blatant violation of the Telecommunication Act, 2023.

Cost Estimates and Vendor Charges

Estimates put the cost of setting up telecom infrastructure along Mumbai Metro Line 3 at between Rs 150 crore to Rs 200 crore. Sources close to the development said that the vendor is charging more than 80% premium over what it would cost the telcos to deploy the infrastructure. The telcos are being asked to pay a recurring rental in some cases on a yearly basis, and in some cases, monthly, on a per station basis for tenures of 10 to 20 years.

Industry Body Highlights Past Projects

The COAI highlighted examples of past projects deployed along similar lines, where the telcos laid infrastructure without paying any cost to anyone, including any third party. The COAI pointed to the PWD tunnel in Pragati Maidan and the Central Vista building in New Delhi as examples. “**Deploying such network(s) are a norm, even in important places like the PWD tunnel in Pragati Maidan or the Central Vista wherein the TSPs are laying infrastructure without paying any cost to anyone (including any third party),**” the industry body said.

Telcos’ Response to MMRCL

In response to the MMRCL’s decision, a Mumbai-based telco emailed the metro authority stating that it would not pay anything more than what it would have spent on setting up the infrastructure itself. “We would also not agree to any loading of additional costs on us by imposition of an unnecessary intermediary with inflated costs,” the telco said in its email.

Key Points

• COAI opposes MMRCL’s vendor model, stating it’s illegal and anti-consumer.
• Telcos had proposed to install a common IBS network at their own cost but were directed to route services through ACES.
• Estimated cost of setting up telecom infrastructure along Mumbai Metro Line 3: Rs 150 crore to Rs 200 crore.
• Vendor is charging more than 80% premium over telcos’ deployment costs.
• Telcos to pay recurring rental on a yearly or monthly basis for 10-20 years.

Definitions

An IP-I provider is a third-party vendor that provides in-building solutions (IBS) for underground stations and associated tunnels.

Right of Way (RoW) permissions refer to the necessary permits and approvals required for telcos to deploy their infrastructure.

The Telecommunication Act, 2023 is a law that regulates the telecommunication sector in India and ensures fair, non-discriminatory access to public infrastructure for licensed TSPs.

TSPs refer to the telecom service providers in India, such as Reliance Jio, Bharti Airtel, and Vodafone Idea.

IBS stands for in-building solutions, which refer to the systems and infrastructure required for telecommunication services within underground stations and associated tunnels.