Section 65 in Telecommunication Interconnection Regulations, 2018
65. The supporters of the provision of service-specific interconnection and interconnection agreement have stated the following to substantiate their views:
(a)With respect to service-specific interconnection agreement: While the License may permit offering a wide range of services, interconnection agreement should be service-specific because interconnection for different services involves different technical and commercial aspects. The interconnection agreement includes the charges incurred on the set-up of an interconnecting network such as port charges, set-up charges etc. These charges vary as per the applicable set-up/interconnection scenario and, hence, there can be no standard interconnection agreement that covers all scenarios. The charges are required to be agreed upon, on a case-by-case basis.(b)With respect to the service-specific interconnection (points of interconnection/trunk groups): The type of traffic, an interconnecting TSP hands over to the other interconnecting TSP at the POI, depends upon the terms of the interconnection agreement. ATSP may have a POI at a designated location for various services with other TSP; however, the Trunk Groups (TGs) are to be kept separate for different services to ensure that only the traffic from services meant for a particular TG is handed over. While TSPs are equipped with a CDR-based billing system, a unified POI with no demarcation would induce the TSPs to tamper with the CLIs, leading to a loss to the terminating TSP. In such a situation, the TSP will have no means to check and block such traffic. The routing, numbering, IUC charges etc. are also all service specific and any attempt to have service agnostic interconnection would result in misuse and arbitrage. The CDR at terminating exchange/network does not have the provision to identify the location of calling subscriber, leading to billing disputes between TSPs.
