Basic Telephone Service Amendment Regulations, 2019

advtanmoy 01/11/2019
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) on Friday fixed phone call ring time at 30 seconds on mobiles and 60 seconds for landline phones, in case the call is neither answered nor rejected by the susbcriber.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Standards of Quality of Service of Basic Telephone Service (wireline) and Cellular Mobile Telephone Service (Seventh Amendment) Regulations, 2019

New Delhi, the 1st of November, 2019: Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI)today notified the standards of quality of service of basic telephone service (wireline) and cellular mobile telephone service (seventh amendment) regulations, 2019 (8 of 2019) that is proposed to specify the duration of call alert for called party in telecommunication networks.

With the enactment of these amendments, Access Provide would have to maintain the time duration of alert for an incoming voice call, which is neither answered nor rejected by the called party, to thirty seconds for Cellular Mobile Telephone Service and sixty seconds for Basic Telephone Service. The terminating network shall, on expiry of thirty second in case of Cellular Mobile Telephone Service and sixty seconds in case of Basic Telephone Service, release the incoming voice call and transmit the call release message to the originating network. However, originating network may release an unanswered call after ninety seconds in case the call release message is not received from the terminating network.

Standards-of-quality-of-service-of-basic-telephone-service-and-cellular-mobile-telephone-service-regulations-2019[pdf]Download

Next Post

Freedom of Speech and Crime of Seditious Libel

Sat Nov 2 , 2019
Under the law of libel, including the law of seditious libel, not merely is the author of the libel responsible. Responsibility also extends to the publisher and printer and, indeed to every vendor of the publication.
Freedom

You May Like

  • A judge is the pillar of entire justice system and public has a right to demand virtually irreproachable conduct from a judge (SC-10/12/2019) - A person discharging judicial duties acts on behalf of the State in discharge of its sovereign functions. Dispensation of justice is not only an onerous duty but has been considered as akin to discharge of a pious duty, and therefore, is a very serious matter. The standards of probity, conduct, integrity that may be relevant for discharge of duties by a careerist in another job cannot be the same for a judicial officer. A judge holds the office of a public trust. Impeccable integrity, unimpeachable independence with moral values embodied to the core are absolute imperatives which brooks no compromise. A judge is the pillar of the entire justice system and the public has a right to demand virtually irreproachable conduct from anyone performing a judicial function. Judges must strive for the highest standards of integrity in both their professional and personal lives.
  • A daughter has no right u/s 14 of Hindu Succession Act of her father’s property if it is occupied by her brother through adverse possession (SC-28/08/2023) - A Hindu daughter has no right u/s 14 of Hindu Succession Act on the property of her father if it is occupied by her brother through adverse possession (SC-28/08/2023)- [See Pritam Singh v. State, AIR (1950) SC 169: (1950) SCR 453, Hem Raj v. State of Ajmer AIR (1954) SC 462: (1954) SCR 1133, Bengal Chemical & Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Employees, AIR (1959) SC 633: 1959 Supp (2) SCR 136: (1959) 1 LLJ 413, Municipal Board, Pratabgarh and Anr. v. Mahendra Singh Chawla and Ors. (1982) 3 SCC 331: (1983) SCC (L&S) 19, Taherakhatoon (dead) by LRs v. Salambin Mohammad (1999) 2 SCC 635]

Jurisprudence

Recent Updates

%d bloggers like this: