Customer service is the weakest link in India’s telecom ecosystem: Bejon Misra

Telecom services are an essential lifeline for India’s 1.1 billion mobile subscribers, yet consumers continue to face persistent challenges — from call drops and poor internet speeds to opaque billing and harassment by spam calls. Despite regulatory interventions, the gap between policy intent and consumer experience remains wide. A consumer policy perspective is crucial to understand why these problems endure, how systemic weaknesses undermine accountability, and what reforms are needed to place consumer rights at the centre of telecom governance. Excerpts from an interview with Bejon Misra – an internationally recognised consumer policy expert

Despite years of regulatory oversight, Indian telecom consumers continue to face issues like unreliable networks, billing fraud, and spam. Why do these systemic problems persist, and what gaps remain in enforcement?

These problems persist because regulatory oversight on the Quality of Service (QoS) has largely been piecemeal and reactive. Operators often comply with directives on paper but fail in practice, and enforcement mechanisms lack teeth. Consumers are left navigating a system where penalties for non-compliance are minimal, the recovery process is not transparent, grievance redressal is slow, and accountability is diffused. What we need is a shift from compliance-based regulation to consumer-centric regulation — where service quality, transparency, and grievance resolution are measured and published regularly. Independent audits, stronger penalties, and consumer ombudsman systems would ensure that operators cannot hide behind technicalities while millions of users suffer daily.

Recent studies show nearly 90% of mobile subscribers in India face call drops or connection failures. What structural reasons drive this, and is there a credible solution in sight?

The call drop crisis is not a mystery — it stems from overloaded networks, inadequate tower density, and spectrum congestion. Operators have expanded subscriber bases aggressively without matching infrastructure investment, simply to enrich themselves and profiteer. Regulators have set minimum quality standards, but enforcement is weak and consumers rarely see accountability. The solution lies in stricter monitoring, mandatory infrastructure sharing, and faster rollout of next-generation networks like 5G. Importantly, consumers must be empowered with transparent data on call drop rates by operator and region, so they can make informed choices and hold providers accountable. They should also be able to choose service providers based on credible information about performance and value for money. Consumers should not be taken for a ride based on misleading and deceptive data.

Indian consumers often complain of slow internet speeds, especially in rural areas and during peak hours. Why does India lag behind even less developed nations, and how can this be corrected?

India’s internet speeds lag behind global averages because of structural neglect. Indian talent provides world-class solutions to global players, yet the same skilled professionals are not adequately utilized by Indian telecom providers. Fibre penetration is uneven, backhaul capacity is limited, and rural areas are chronically underserved. Operators prioritize urban markets where returns are higher, leaving rural consumers with substandard service. Even in cities, high user density per tower leads to congestion during peak hours. What makes this worse is the gap between advertised speeds and actual speeds — a clear case of consumer deception and misrepresentation. Countries with smaller populations and stronger regulatory enforcement often outperform India despite fewer resources. The solution requires a two-pronged approach: consumer-funded rural infrastructure under the Universal Service Obligation (USO) Fund, and strict monitoring of advertised versus delivered speeds. Regulators must mandate disclosure of average speeds during peak hours, not just theoretical maximums, so consumers know what they are paying for. How many telecom consumers know about the USO Fund in India? Every consumer pays 10% of their bill amount toward the USO Fund, yet we never learn how that money is used.

Consumers frequently report weak signals and inconsistent coverage in dense urban zones and remote areas. How is the industry addressing accessibility challenges, and what innovations are being explored?

Coverage gaps are a direct result of cost-driven neglect. Operators hesitate to invest in remote or dense urban areas where returns are uncertain. While technologies like small cells, satellite broadband, and infrastructure sharing are being explored, rollout is painfully slow. Policy support is essential — mandatory coverage obligations in licenses, subsidies for rural tower installation, and incentives for satellite-based connectivity. Accessibility must be treated as a consumer right, not a business choice.

Billing disputes remain one of the biggest consumer pain points, with hidden fees and tariff misapplications. How are regulators and operators tackling inflated billing, and what safeguards can protect consumers?

Billing disputes are the single biggest consumer grievance in telecom. Hidden fees, tariff misapplications, and charges for unused services erode trust. While operators are required to provide itemized bills, enforcement is weak and consumers often struggle to decipher complex charges. Regulators must go beyond directives and enforce real-time billing alerts, independent audits, and strict penalties for misbilling. Safeguards should include a consumer dashboard where users can verify charges instantly, and an ombudsman-style mechanism for dispute resolution. Transparency is not optional — it is the foundation of consumer trust.

Consumers often face deductions for services they never consented to. What measures are being taken to prevent unauthorized activations, and how can trust be rebuilt?

Unauthorized activations are nothing short of unfair trade practices. Consumers should never face deductions for services they did not consent to. While TRAI has mandated double confirmation protocols, compliance is inconsistent. Stronger safeguards are needed: opt-in-only systems, mandatory refunds for unauthorized charges, and blacklisting of repeat offenders. Restoring trust requires visible enforcement and consumer education campaigns that make it clear — consent is the cornerstone of service delivery.

Spam calls and unsolicited messages remain a menace despite regulations. What concrete steps are being taken to curb this, and how can lasting relief be ensured?

Spam calls and unsolicited messages are a daily harassment for subscribers. The Do Not Disturb registry was a step forward, but enforcement against unregistered telemarketers remains weak. Regulators must adopt a zero-tolerance approach — leveraging AI-based spam detection, imposing stricter penalties, and collaborating with law enforcement to block repeat offenders. Consumers need easy reporting tools and assurance that complaints lead to action. Lasting relief will only come when spam is treated as a violation of consumer rights, not just a nuisance.

Customer service remains a weak link, with long wait times and unresolved complaints. What systemic reforms are needed to improve grievance redressal?

Customer service is the weakest link in India’s telecom ecosystem. Long wait times, unhelpful call centers, and unresolved complaints frustrate subscribers daily. This is not just an inconvenience — it is a denial of consumer rights. Operators must move beyond call centers to multi-channel grievance systems: apps, online dashboards, and independent ombudsman services. Regulators should enforce strict timelines for complaint resolution and publish operator-wise performance scorecards. Transparency and accountability will drive improvement. Consumers deserve timely, effective support — not endless transfers and scripted apologies.

Subscribers often complain of aggressive reminders even before due dates. How can communication be made fair and respectful?

Aggressive reminders before due dates are unacceptable. Communication must be factual, respectful, and proportionate. Regulators should mandate consumer-friendly communication codes, with penalties for harassment. Automated systems must be calibrated to avoid payment duplication and premature or excessive reminders. Billing harassment erodes trust and must be treated as a violation of consumer dignity. There are several examples of excess payments collected by providers in a deceptive manner, with refunds not made for years. Surprise audits should be conducted by TRAI to scrutinize the financials of telecom operators — especially regarding refunds of duplicate payments and deposits held beyond the stipulated time.

Consumers report bills being generated even after service cancellation. How can disconnections be processed promptly and fairly?

Generating bills after cancellation is a clear breach of consumer rights. Operators must implement real-time disconnection systems linked to billing platforms. Regulators should enforce strict timelines for closure requests and mandate refunds for post-cancellation charges. Independent audits and escalation channels must be available to consumers. Disconnection should be prompt, fair, and final — anything less is exploitation and unfair trade practice.