Telecom Transparency: TRAI Advocates Caller Name Display to Enhance User Security

Pratik Das, PuneThe proposal by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) to introduce Calling Name Presentation (CNAP) as an optional service in the Indian telecommunications network has sparked debate among key stakeholders. TRAI suggests that individual network providers, such as Airtel or Jio, conduct trials in one Licensed Service Area (LSA) to assess the feasibility of this feature, allowing callers to display their names during regular phone calls.One of TRAI’s focal points is ensuring the alignment of displayed caller names with the ones registered during number registration. To address situations where a subscriber’s name has changed, TRAI proposes guidelines for updating names, requiring verifiable government-issued identity documents. Additionally, TRAI recommends that for bulk and business connections, subscribers should have the option to showcase their “preferred name,” aligning it with government records, including trademark names or trade names.In the ongoing discussions initiated by TRAI since November 2022, Truecaller, a company significantly impacted by this decision, has responded positively. The spokesperson from Truecaller appreciates CNAP as a service that complements, rather than competes with, their existing features. With over 374 million users, Truecaller sees TRAI’s recommendations as a potential catalyst for growth in India, introducing more users to their diverse offerings, backed by technology and AI capabilities.However, major telecom providers, including Airtel, Jio, and Vodafone Idea, have expressed concerns. They argue that implementing CNAP could lead to longer call set-up times, and increased latency, potentially impacting overall service quality, and necessitating substantial investments. Privacy concerns have been a focal point, with the Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI) underlining potential compromises and impacts on women’s safety.Jio, in particular, notes that customers may have valid reasons for not wanting to disclose their names, citing concerns about fraud, abuse, misbehavior, and social media stalking. Airtel emphasizes the significant expenses associated with establishing a dedicated server for CNAP, while Vi expresses concerns about the compatibility of legacy nodes and the capability of feature phones and landlines to display the information required by CNAP. These considerations underscore the complex challenges surrounding the potential implementation of CNAP in the Indian telecommunications sector, with various stakeholders weighing in on technical, privacy, and financial aspects.