Problem of BSNL as Executing Agency 1. As per clause 3.1.4 of the draft scheme of the DoT, BSNL has been indicated as the Executing Agency with a dedicated project implementation team. It would be the vehicle for implementation of the National optic fibre network at this stage. Significantly, the policy decisions, supervision and control of BSNL will be carried out by the HLC/USOF.
2. While the objective appears to realise speedy and efficient execution of the programme, the Department of telecommunications would need to consider whether the Public Sector Undertaking, given its autonomous status, can be controlled in terms of decisions and supervision by the HLC or USO fund. The possibility of severe criticism in this regard is to be considered.
3. It is noticed from the composition of the high-level committee given in paragraph 3.1.1 of the draft scheme that BSNL would be a Member of the
committee. Since crucial decisions -- the scope of work, execution strategy, funding requirement and timeframe -- would be decided by the High-level committee, the possibility of a conflict of interest between BSNL as executing agency and as a member of the HLC needs to be considered.
4. BSNL is essentially a Telecom service provider. Given the extreme importance of the project and the close supervision by two high-powered bodies, it is possible that the energies of the senior management of BSNL would be diverted away from its core task of managing Telecom services. Already, BSNL has been registering losses in the last few quarters and there is need for BSNL to utilise all its energies in restoring the health of the enterprise.
5. BSNL is currently one of the service providers. If it is the executing agency including the maintenance of the network, there is a serious problem of the lack of level playing field vis-a-vis other service providers. This would be critical since the optic fibre network is envisaged as providing non-discriminatory access. There is a serious risk of anti-competitive behaviour setting into the network management.
6. In the light of the above, the Department of telecommunications would be well advised to review its proposal to make BSNL the executing agency. It would be worthwhile setting up a special purpose vehicle for execution of the programme.
7. No clarity is given in the DoT proposal regarding handing over of traffic to other service provider by the executing agency after incremental network. There is need to make the provision for handing over traffic to other service providers at least at district level to maintain level playing field and competition.
2. While the objective appears to realise speedy and efficient execution of the programme, the Department of telecommunications would need to consider whether the Public Sector Undertaking, given its autonomous status, can be controlled in terms of decisions and supervision by the HLC or USO fund. The possibility of severe criticism in this regard is to be considered.
3. It is noticed from the composition of the high-level committee given in paragraph 3.1.1 of the draft scheme that BSNL would be a Member of the
committee. Since crucial decisions -- the scope of work, execution strategy, funding requirement and timeframe -- would be decided by the High-level committee, the possibility of a conflict of interest between BSNL as executing agency and as a member of the HLC needs to be considered.
4. BSNL is essentially a Telecom service provider. Given the extreme importance of the project and the close supervision by two high-powered bodies, it is possible that the energies of the senior management of BSNL would be diverted away from its core task of managing Telecom services. Already, BSNL has been registering losses in the last few quarters and there is need for BSNL to utilise all its energies in restoring the health of the enterprise.
5. BSNL is currently one of the service providers. If it is the executing agency including the maintenance of the network, there is a serious problem of the lack of level playing field vis-a-vis other service providers. This would be critical since the optic fibre network is envisaged as providing non-discriminatory access. There is a serious risk of anti-competitive behaviour setting into the network management.
6. In the light of the above, the Department of telecommunications would be well advised to review its proposal to make BSNL the executing agency. It would be worthwhile setting up a special purpose vehicle for execution of the programme.
7. No clarity is given in the DoT proposal regarding handing over of traffic to other service provider by the executing agency after incremental network. There is need to make the provision for handing over traffic to other service providers at least at district level to maintain level playing field and competition.
