Telecom’s NUF debate, Stuffcool ChargeCube 65, and a near miss| Business News

Opening thoughts. The first bullish communication from Vodafone Idea, in many years, regarding a future roadmap of investment. And more to the point, an intent to not just stay around, but compete. The government’s help has, well, helped.

The company confirms a ₹45,000 crore infusion focused on capital expenditure over the next three years. Network upgrades are essential, and imperative. I had pointed out in my Tech Tonic column last year that letting Vi fail would be detrimental to consumers. I’m glad it was heard, in the corridors of power.

The Department of Telecommunications’ recent decision to defer Vi’s AGR (Adjusted Gross Revenue) dues for four years is the basis for the brighter outlook, one that the telecom company needed to compete with its rivals Reliance Jio and Bharti Airtel. That said, even before Vi can talk of competing, they first need to ensure coverage (map and quality) matches rivals across telecom sectors, and fix the 5G gaps that still exist. It is only then they can hope to attract customers—particularly the premium base—into their fold.

Some of you may be young enough to not remember when the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India introduced the Network Capacity Fee (NCF) for direct to home (DTH) services in the country. In an instant, the mess that it created between the computation of pricing for bouquets, add-on packs and individual channels in a subscription meant that an all-channel inclusive package, which would cost anywhere between ₹500 to ₹700 per month, started to be priced upwards of ₹1,000 per month.

Which is why when the New Delhi-based technology think-tank Esya Centre sent its latest report my way, I was only too interested in this otherwise complex matter.

At the core of this conversation is that the Cellular Operators Association of India petitioned before the Department of Telecom as far back as in November 2022, suggesting that content and application services (CAPs, think of these as anything from Netflix to Spotify and YouTube) should bear part of the network infrastructure costs. For this, COAI suggested CAPs contribute through a network usage fee (NUF) computed based on the data traffic generated by them on telecom networks.

The report authored by Eysa Centre’s Director Meghna Bal, along with Adjunct Fellow Vikash Gautam, and economic researcher Kunal Tyagi, makes three things very clear.

First, charging a network usage fee to OTTs is detrimental for consumers since it will undoubtedly increase subscription costs.

Secondly, any NUF will have an impact on freedom of expression for creators and users because not only does it represent a barrier to entry for smaller platforms, but it can potentially limit any ability of larger platforms to invest in content, which directly impacts creators who wish to distribute their content.

Third, there is an understanding that NUF will not deliver any significant efficiency gains for India’s telecom and internet services. In fact, according to the report, “A compelling 79% of experts predict a moderate to extreme decline in efficiency in the CAP industry.”

For a global context, just last month, the European Union announced it will not require Big Tech to pay telecom operators for infrastructure costs, despite increasing industry pressure. This was part of its broader Digital Networks Act proposal, and in line with what was agreed as part of the tariff deal with the United States. This should be seen as a rejection of calls for any “fair share” fees, while regulators nevertheless progress with network modernisation plans.

We also circle back to the age-old debate of net neutrality, and views depend on who you ask. But the moment an NUF element is introduced, based on data consumption on a telecom network, there is the very likelihood of financial incentivisation of service providers to favour or disfavour certain types of internet traffic, depending on who is willing to, and indeed the volume of the fees.

And if there is a two-tiered system where some platforms pay a fee and some don’t (due to the size of the user base, or data usage, for instance), the chasm between the haves and the have-nots may widen further.

The new ChargeCube 65 launches at the same ₹2,999 price tag as its predecessor’s launch price, but is now better suited for flagship smartphones, as well as tablets and even laptops.

The ChargeCube 65 is a rather convenient accessory that lets you plug in as many as five devices at the same time—there are three AC mains plug points, one USB-C port and one USB-A port. The mains are universal points, including support for flat pin plugs and configurations from various countries.

This itself makes this a travel accessory too, if you do move around with a lot of gadgets that need to be plugged in at some point (photographers and creators, a likely demographic). Even at a workstation, quite useful for plugging in a monitor, a printer, a lamp and so on, leaving the USB ports free to plug in phones or tablets.

While Stuffcool hasn’t detailed the specifics, my understanding based on experience is that the Type-A port tops out at 20 W while the Type-C can deliver most of the remaining 45 W, when both ports are in use simultaneously. The more sensible way would perhaps be to stick with using just the Type-C port at a time, utilising the faster 65 W charging speeds.

A final note on the versatility: This power strip can also be wall mounted. The switch to black colour (from the predecessor’s white) may elicit opinions, but the reality is simple—Stuffcool has put in a lot of effort on getting the build just right, unlike many traditional designed power strips that tend to struggle with ill-fitting sockets and loose switches.

Back in 1978, NASA scientist Donald Kessler warned of a potential domino effect in the earth’s low orbit wherein two satellites may collide with each other, resulting in space debris. Known as the Kessler Syndrome, the risk is that the Low Earth Orbit (LEO) becomes unstable as a result of collisions and resulting debris.

In December, a Chinese rocket carrying a satellite into space, had a near miss with a SpaceX Starlink satellite. According to Michael Nicolls, this was a close miss at 200 metres with STARLINK-6079 (56120) orbiting at 560 km altitude. Since then, the company has been at work, reducing the constellation orbit from around 550 km to around 480 km. Not a mean feat for a constellation that is at present 9,000 strong.

“Lowering the satellites results in condensing Starlink orbits, and will increase space safety in several ways,” explains Nicolls, adding that increased atmospheric density at the new altitude will mean a slightly faster ballistic decay window, while the number of debris below the 500 km mark are significantly lower.

Wired Wisdom goes beyond the noise to take a closer, human look at personal technology in the age of AI. Want this newsletter delivered into your inbox. Subscribe here.