While the department of telecommunications has publicly taken the stance that the telecom disputes tribunal's judgment does not ask it to restrict the mobility of wireless in local loop services, its legal opinion on the judgment makes it clear that the mobility of WLL operators has to be restricted to the local calling area or the short distance charging area (SDCA).

The opinion also states that handing over calls from one SDCA to another, or "roaming", is not to be allowed under any circumstances.

The opinion was sent to Telecom Secretary Vinod Vaish on September 22 by A Sinha, the department's joint secretary and legal adviser.

Vaish, on September 18, decided to seek legal opinion after the cellular operators sent him a letter stating that the tribunal's judgment said WLL services had to be restricted to the SDCA.

"The telecom department's continued inaction is nothing but a deemed stay in favour of fixed-line service providers, and compromises its neutrality in this regard," the cellular operators said in their letter on September 4.

The legal opinion puts the department in a bind because it makes it clear that it has taken a limited view of the tribunal's August 8 ruling.

The crux of the judgment by the majority judges was while WLL services were legal, "it was important to note that their operations were restricted to the SDCA". The minority judge, who was the tribunal's head, ruled that WLL services were illegal.

The judgment, in Para 67, said, "First and foremost it is important to ensure that mobility in the case of WLL services remains restricted to the SDCA and no hand-over from one SDCA to another is allowed under any circumstances."

In Para 68, it says WLL operators should be asked to pay higher entry fees, and so on.

Based on this judgment, on August 14, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) wrote to Vaish saying the government needed to limit the mobility of WLL services.

On August 18, however, the department sent a reference to Trai, citing just Para 68 of the judgment, the one about charging WLL operators a higher fee, and asked it to begin consultations and give its recommendations on the matter. It, however, took no action on limiting the mobility of WLL services.

It is in this context that the opinion given by the department's legal adviser last week cites what Para 68 of the judgment says.

It goes on to cite the operative parts of Para 67, and says, "From the observations made in Para 67, this appears to be an operative part of the order, on which action will need to be initiated."