The debate regarding the respective realms of competition law and economic regulation is not new. In the Indian context, complaints filed against the telecom incumbents Airtel, Vodafone and Idea by Reliance Jio before the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India and the Competition Commission of India bring to the fore such an example. This case is analysed primarily through the legal standpoint, and it is argued that competition law intervention is warranted only in “gap” cases: where the regulatory regime cannot account for consumer welfare. Where the regulatory and competition agency reach conflicting decisions, the issue can be resolved by a third body whose decision is binding on both the regulator and the competition agency.
Whatever be the policy instrument through which we adopt the principle of net neutrality, India’s de-facto position on this will emerge only as we begin to see new services and business models tested against the proposed principles.
The second amendment to the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Amendment Act passed in Parliament in December 2011 mandated that the distribution of signals of cable and satellite television, from the local cablewala to subscribing households, be exclusively in the digital mode. Four years after the act was passed, and after completion of three phases of the digital migration, the aim is to find out if the emergent regulatory framework did anything at all to enhance the television-viewing experience for cable and satellite TV subscribers.
India established several independent regulators in sectors like electricity, telecommunications and insurance after economic liberalisation. This article discusses how these regulators can be effectively scrutinised and oversight by legislative bodies strengthened.
The Indian telecommunication network and services have become a minefield where competing companies, some of them state-owned, are trying to get market share by exploiting various factors. How can the conflicts be resolved?
