Meanwhile, the TDSAT headed by its Chairman Justice S B Sinha said that Vodafone can approach it again after the guidelines have been finalised.
The Department of Telecom (DoT), through a July 3 circular, had issued guidelines that allow existing players to pay the amount discovered in spectrum auction for being able to use the airwaves for any technology for providing telecom services.
It had said the service providers may be allowed to use their existing 1800 MHz 2G spectrum towards a liberalised usage for a period of 20 years on payment of the auction-determined price.
A liberalised spectrum means the airwaves can be used for providing any service within the scope of respective service licences, using any technology.
In its petition, Vodafone had requested TDSAT to "strike down and quash the impugned decision of the DoT".
Vodafone had said that both DoT and telecom regulator Trai have said several times that spectrum is already technology neutral and services can be provided based on all technologies in the given band.
It had also requested TDSAT to pass an interim order to "restrain DoT from giving effect to and/or implementing the impugned decision" related to liberalisation of spectrum for the existing ones till the final order is passed.
Vodafone, iiNet call for cable rivalry after Pacific Fibre fails - National Business Review
BUSINESSDESK: Vodafone New Zealand and iiNet back more competition among international cable networks, though neither is prepared to bear the brunt of Pacific Fibre abandoning its plans after struggling to attract funding.
Pacific Fibre shelved plans to build another international cable linking New Zealand's internet infrastructure with the rest of the world after failing to raise the $400 million it needed to fund the project.
That was in spite of it attracting $US200 million in committed sales from five foundation customers, including mobile phone operator Vodafone and Australian internet service provider iiNet.
Vodafone and iiNet shared their disappointment of the project falling over, but neither will be adversely affected by Pacific Fibre's failure.
"There's no impact at all – we hadn't put any cash on the table," iiNet chief business officer Greg Bader told BusinessDesk. "We're disappointed it didn't get up, especially for New Zealand."
Vodafone said it is "very disappointed that the project hasn’t come to fruition" and is "still in favour of a second international cable to help break down the digital divide between New Zealand and the rest of the world".
ASX-listed ISP, iiNet, extended its capacity supply agreement with Southern Cross Cables last week, though Mr Bader said it was unrelated to Pacific Fibre's collapse as there was always going to be a gap in their capacity needs.
Pacific Fibre chairman Sam Morgan says the board believed it would be able to attract funding as it was a long-term infrastructure investment.
"We feel like we've done everything we can to succeed and we are all hugely disappointed that we have not managed to get there."
Rival Southern Cross Cables doesn't expect Pacific Fibre's failure to get off the ground will impact on its own business, as it continues to upgrade its own facilities in the face of accelerating technology gains.
"We've got five cables out of Australia, and that's been competitive for quite some time," said Ross Pfeffer, director of sales and marketing at Southern Cross Cables. "It's difficult for a new cable to take off."
Southern Cross has built up the bandwidth speed on its cable network to 40 gigabits a second from 2.5 Gbps a decade ago, and expects it to increase to 100 Gbps by the end of this year, rising to 400 Gbps in two years.
Mr Pfeffer said Southern Cross has taken a measured approach, building ahead of demand, but not locking itself into technology that might need to be replaced too quickly.
The improvement in the capability of new technology mean it is hard to predict what kind of demand New Zealand's ultrafast broadband and rural broadband initiatives will deliver, though Southern Cross will be able to deliver with its network expected to last beyond 2025.
Microsoft to Motorola: The way to 'patent peace' - CNET News
The ongoing Microsoft-Motorola patent saga continues to play out, but now Microsoft has published its concept for "patent peace" between the two companies.
In a blog post by Microsoft general counsel Brad Smith and deputy general counsel Horacio Gutierrez, the two top lawyers said Google "mounted a public relations and lobbying campaign deflecting attention from its refusal to honor its promise to standards bodies to license standards-essential patents on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms," which led to authorities on both sides of the Atlantic in the U.S and the EU to investigate.
In order to come to an agreement, a "lasting solution of these disputes will not be reached by leaking settlement positions through the press," Microsoft's lawyers said, adding: "Patent peace will be found through good faith engagement."
Microsoft has always been, and remains open to, a settlement of our patent litigation with Motorola. As we have said before, we are seeking solely the same level of reasonable compensation for our patented intellectual property that numerous other Android distributors -- both large and small -- have already agreed to recognize in our negotiations with them. And we stand ready to pay reasonable compensation for Motorola's patented intellectual property as well.
The patent wrangles have a complicated history: earlier this year more than a dozen Android-powered Motorola devices were banned from being imported to the U.S. for sale because Motorola was found to have infringed Microsoft's ActiveSync patent, thanks to a ruling by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC).
More recently, a German court banned the sale of all Motorola devices running Android because the smartphone maker infringed a Microsoft-owned patent relating to file storage.
Meanwhile Motorola secured an injunction against Windows 7 and the Xbox in Germany over H.264 video codecs, though the sales ban will not be enforced immediately. Microsoft said it wanted to use the video compression technology, but Motorola would charge in the region of $4 billion in annual royalties -- which Microsoft said was not at the market rate.
In the new blog post, Smith and Hutierrez went on to detail the two principles to so-called "patent peace," that continues to eat up both companies' time, money and energy, namely that any agreement "must be comprehensive." The second issue relates to H.264 video codecs, one of the most popular codecs available, in which the license fees "must be based on market rates."
But the lawyers warned Google that litigation now "stands at a crossroads."
With its phones and tablets now subject to injunctions in the U.S. and Germany, Google can no longer doubt the relevance of Microsoft's patent portfolio to Motorola's products. Google can take one of two paths: it can choose either to engage in serious discussions to search for patent peace or persevere in its diversionary tactics. We hope it will choose the first course, and we stand ready to engage in good faith if it does.
Motorola was unavailable for comment outside U.S. business hours.
When the O2 mobile network 
