GS – 2
How indigenously developed technology can reach remote Indian villages by bridging the 5G digital divide. Explain in detail.150 Words
In the News:
- A technical working group of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) approved an application for recognition of the 5G Radio Interface Technology (RIT) submitted by Telecom Standards Development Society, India (TSDSI) as a candidate 5G standard, along with the RIT submitted by 3GPP.
- TSDSI is an autonomous Indian standards setting body, comprising industry and academia recognised by the DoT.
Digital divide:
- The highlight is that it improves the network to bridge the digital divide, by providing enhanced performance for ITU’s Low Mobility Large Cell (LMLC) rural use case. This enhanced RIT incorporating patented innovations of Indian researchers is otherwise fully compatible with the 3GPP RIT in every respect.
- India’s relatively late but vital contribution towards under-served populations has cleared hurdles to acceptance as a global 5G standard.
- It primarily seeks to bridge the digital divide by enabling affordable 5G broadband through indigenous technology, leveraging India’s rural optical fibre network Bharat Net. This brings 95% of India’s villages into the coverage regions of base stations deployed at gram panchayats (GPs) served by Bharat Net.
- The LMLC requirement mandated by ITU is only a 3 km coverage radius, insufficient for India’s rural areas and those of many other countries. The higher coverage is achieved with minimal but innovative enhancements to the 3GPP specifications, at negligible additional cost.
Developmental needs:
- Indigenous technology development in India often encounters scepticism about our technical capacity and lack of global scale and volume. It is a well-formulated and harmonious response to the pressing developmental needs of a very large number of consumers, who unfortunately often escape global attention.
- Sooner rather than later, the enhancements proposed in the TSDSI RIT will get folded into the 3GPP RIT (as originally intended by India) and a single global standard will address everyone’s needs, including those on the wrong side of the digital divide.
Why import substitution industrialisation is doomed to flounder and it is not a great idea to resurrect failed policy. Comment 250 Words
In the News:
- A consensus has emerged that India needs to distance itself from China in its international trade. There are three possible policy driven avenues to this goal: tariffs that apply to imports from China alone; tariffs on all imports of products of which China is the principal current supplier; and more favourable treatment of imports from non-China sources through free trade agreements.
Available options:
- The first of these options will require invoking the national security clause of WTO rules, which India can justifiably do given the hostilities on the border. But it will most surely invite retaliation by China, which may include restrictions on its exports to India of products that only it can supply or supplies at costs far below those of the next best alternative. The third alternative is non-disruptive and supportive of India’s growth and jobs imperative. If the agreements are forged and strengthened with entities such as the EU, UK, Japan, Australia, Canada and eventually the US, they will complement our strategic relationships.
- But it is the second option that seems to find the greatest favour in India at present. For it nicely fits into the broader import substitution instincts of many in India, both in the government and outside.
- But hard-nosed economic analysis and critical assessment of available evidence reveals it to be the most treacherous route.
Better chances of success:
- If a country feels compelled to pursue industrial policy, it has far better chances of success if it targets products that are already exported or on the verge of becoming exports. Such a strategy benchmarks domestic firms against the best in the world.
- Since the luxury of sustained large export subsidies (as opposed to high tariffs under ISI) is not there due to possible retaliation or countervailing duties by importing countries, making a success of such a policy automatically forces the government to address reform of domestic policies.
- It feels greater compulsion to remove bottlenecks such as high land and electricity prices, labour market inflexibilities and infrastructure bottlenecks.