Shocking news for customers: Jio to charge 6 paise per minute for outgoing calls to Airtel, Vodafone
Here are all new plans
New Delhi: There has been an ongoing debate on the IUC (Interconnect Usage Charge) in the telecom industry for a while and the last we talked about it, both Airtel and Jio had reduced the ring time for outgoing calls to 20 seconds.
However, the case is dealt with by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) and while the outcome may take some time, Reliance Jio has already taken a move to offset the losses it has been incorporating due to the IUC.
In a surprising move, Jio has announced that it will charge customers for levying the IUC charge on all outgoing calls to other networks for the time being. The IUC charge set by TRAI is currently at 6 paise per minute and Jio will pass this expense to its customers if they are calling someone from another operator. Jio has come up with a few IUC plans that customers can purchase in order to make calls to other networks. The new Jio regulations have been implemented from Wednesday.
If you didn't understand that, here's the simple explanation.
If you have a Jio number and you call someone using an Airtel or Vodafone-Idea number, you will be charged 6 paise per minute till the time you keep ringing. The calls will still be free to all other operator but you will have to pay 6 paise per minute till the time you ringing the other person.
However, if you are making a call to a Jio number or a landline number, then you don't have to pay anything. Also, all incoming calls, as well as WhatsApp calls, will stay unaffected from this. The IUC charge will also be applicable to postpaid users and it will be added to their billing cycle.
New Jio IUC plans
Jio is offering four new IUC plans with extra data benefits. Here are all the plans listed with the benefits:
--Rs 10 plan will offer 124 minutes of IUC minutes to non-Jio numbers and 1GB data.
--Rs 20 plan will offer 249 minutes of IUC minutes to non-Jio numbers and 2GB data.
--Rs 50 plan will offer 656 minutes of IUC minutes to non-Jio numbers and 5GB data.
--Rs 100 plan will offer 1,362 minutes of IUC minutes to non-Jio numbers and 10GB data.
What is IUC?
IUC or Interconnect Usage Charge is the amount a telecom operator has to pay to the other telecom operator if a customer makes an outgoing call to a customer of the other telecom operator. The TRAI decides the IUC charge and currently, all operators have to pay 6 paise per minute.
Why is Jio doing this?
Jio wants the TRAI to go for zero IUC charge and that seems to be happening by early 2020. While other operators charge their customers for calls, Jio offers free calls on its network and hence, it has to bear losses as Jio pays the IUC charge for every call made to another network.
"The amendment to the IUC Regulations in 2017 was after considerable deliberations and consultations. In this background the consultation paper has created Regulatory uncertainty and therefore Jio has been compelled, most reluctantly and unavoidably, to recover this regulatory charge of 6 paise per minute for all off-net mobile voice calls so long as IUC charges exist," says Jio.
When will the IUC charges end for Jio customers?
"Jio again assures its 35 crore customers that the 6 paise per minute charge on outgoing off-net mobile calls shall continue only till the time TRAI abolishes IUC, in line with its present regulation," says Jio.
Courtesy: www.indiatoday.in
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
SC stays CBI probe into West Bengal govt officials' role in teacher recruitment scam
New Delhi, Apr 29: The Supreme Court on Monday stayed a Calcutta High Court order directing the CBI to probe the role of West Bengal government officials in a teacher recruitment scam. It, however, refused to stay for now the cancellation of the appointment of over 25,000 teachers and non-teaching staff.
The top court was hearing a plea by the West Bengal government against a high court order invalidating the appointment of 25,753 teachers and non-teaching staff made by the School Service Commission (SSC) in state-run and state-aided schools.
A bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, however, refused to stay the high court order cancelling the appointments and said it will hear the matter on May 6.
Observing that taking away the jobs of about 25,000 persons is a serious matter, the top court asked if it is possible to segregate the valid and invalid appointments on the basis of the material available and who the beneficiaries of the fraud are.
"We will stay the direction which says the CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) will undertake further investigation against officials in the state government," the bench said.
Calcutta High Court had said the CBI would undertake further investigations with regard to the persons in the state government involved in approving the creation of supernumerary posts to accommodate illegal appointments.
If necessary, the CBI will undertake custodial interrogation of such persons involved, it had said.
Challenging the order, the state government, in its appeal filed before the top court, said the high court cancelled the appointments "arbitrarily".
"The high court failed to appreciate the ramification of cancelling the entire selection process, leading to straightaway termination of teaching and non-teaching staff from service with immediate effect, without giving sufficient time to the petitioner state to deal with such an exigency, rendering the education system at a standstill," the plea said.
Calcutta High Court last week declared the selection process as "null and void" and directed the CBI to probe the appointment process. It also asked the central agency to submit a report within three months.
"All appointments granted in the selection processes involved being violative of articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, are declared null and void and cancelled," the high court said in its April 22 order.
The high court said those appointed outside the officially available 24,640 vacancies, appointed after the expiry of the official date of recruitment, and those who submitted blank Optical Mark Recognition (OMR) sheets but obtained appointment to return all remunerations and benefits received by them with 12 per cent interest per annum within four weeks.
Observing that it had given "anxious consideration to the passionate plea" that persons who obtained the appointments legally would be prejudiced if the entire selection process was cancelled, the bench said it hardly had any choice left.
The high court held that all appointments involved were violative of articles 14 (equality before law) and 16 (prohibiting discrimination in employment in any government office) of the Constitution.
"It is shocking that, at the level of the cabinet of the state government, a decision is taken to protect employment obtained fraudulently in a selection process conducted by SSC for state-funded schools, knowing fully well that, such appointments were obtained beyond the panel and after expiry of the panel, at the bare minimum," the high court had said.
It said unless "there is a deep connection between the persons perpetuating the fraud and the beneficiaries" with persons involved in the decision-making process, such action to create supernumerary posts to protect illegal appointments is "inconceivable".
The division bench had also rejected a prayer by some appellants, including the SSC, for a stay on the order and asked the commission to initiate a fresh appointment process within a fortnight from the date of the results of the ongoing Lok Sabha elections.
The bench, constituted by the high court chief justice on a direction of the Supreme Court, had heard 350 petitions and appeals relating to the selection of candidates for appointment by the SSC in the categories of teachers of classes 9, 10, 11 and 12 and group-C and D staffers through the SLST-2016.
In its 282-page judgment, the high court had said retaining appointees selected through "such a dubious process" would be contrary to public interest.
