Disputing Trai’s data that found mobile operators having failed on call-drop tests, the companies said their figures tell an opposite story and asked the telecom regulator to withdraw its test reports.
The operators argued that Trai’s data, which were published on the regulator’s website yesterday, do not portray the actual performance of their networks and there was a wide divergence between the results of the tests done by them and those by the regulator.
Questioning the findings of the audit on call drops done at the behest of Trai, the telecom players, through industry bodies COAI and AUSPI, have justified their position, saying their own drive test reports are at odds with the regulator’s.
According to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai), most telecom operators, including state-run MTNL, failed random drive tests conducted by it to check quality of their network and services as part of its efforts to rein in the call drop menace.
As per the test report, none of telecom operators showed improvement in call drops in Mumbai, Pune and Bhubaneswar.
The operators contended that the results put up on the website do not provide the actual picture as results of the quality of service (QoS) parameters varied.
“This is despite the fact that tests were conducted on the same routes and using the same methodology as adopted by the Trai-appointed agencies,” the letter said.
The letter further said even though its member operators’ comments, along with drive test reports depicting the contrary results, have been published on the website, these do not find any mention in the reports of the agencies appointed by Trai, which “gives out a wrong impression to the public”.
On their part, the operators have asked for drive test logs and other details from the regulator, but so far Trai has not obliged.
“It is disappointing that instead of providing the logs to telecom service providers, Trai has chosen to publish our request to provide the logs. This method of publishing unratified drive test reports and operator comments alongside is misleading, incorrect and misrepresentative of actual performance of QoS parameters of the member operators’ network,” the letter said.