Section 32 in Telecommunication Interconnection Regulations, 2018
32. The opponents of the interconnection seeker/provider concept are of the view that interconnection provision is mutually beneficial arrangement for both the interconnecting parties and, therefore, there should not be any concept of interconnection seeker/provider and both the interconnecting parties should bear their own cost for provision of interconnection whereas the cost of the interconnection link between the two networks should be shared by the interconnecting parties. Such stakeholders have opined that the current concept of interconnection seeker/provider has resulted in an anticompetitive situation where interconnection providers are able to dictate terms to the interconnection seekers. A stakeholder opposing the interconnection seeker/provider concept has contended that the seeker/provider concept was relevant in the initial days of liberalization, when only one incumbent TSP had alone to bear the cost of up-gradation to provide interconnection to all new entrants of that time; at that time the capacity of exchanges was limited and huge cost was involved in order to provide interconnection to the other TSPs; therefore, a cost causation principle was used and this led to seeker/provider concept; however, at present, competition already exists in the market and there is no such capacity constraint in the new technology exchanges, and so the seeker/provider concept is archaic. This stakeholder, however, holds such views only with respect to interconnection between access service providers and has argued that the National Long Distance operator (NLDO) and International Long Distance Operators (ILDOs) should always be treated as seekers vis-a-vis access service providers.
