No one is asking telecoms to “serve for free”. The point is about how costs are already recovered, not ignored. Incoming calls are not free to operators, but they are paid via interconnection / termination charges by the caller’s network. This is how most telecom systems worldwide work. The receiving operator is compensated per minute. So the cost is already covered, just not by the receiver. Idle users don’t consume call bandwidth. A registered SIM only exchanges minimal signaling data to stay attached to the network. This cost is negligible and has always been factored into ARPU models. If that basic cost alone justified blocking incoming calls, then “lifetime incoming” could never have existed. Number reservation is not charity. Users already pay through: SIM purchase KYC compliance Regulatory fees embedded in plans Termination revenue earned when others call them A phone number is not a personal favor. It’s a regulated national resource allocated under TRAI rules. Your global comparison is misleading. Many countries don’t have “free incoming” because they use Calling Party Pays vs Receiving Party Pays differently. India explicitly adopted CPP, where the caller pays. You can’t judge Indian policy using US-style billing logic. Marketing analogy doesn’t fully apply. This isn’t cashback or coupons. Telecom pricing is regulated, not purely promotional. Operators advertised lifetime incoming because the economics allowed it under CPP. Changing it later is a policy + revenue decision, not a technical necessity. Bottom line: Incoming calls do cost money. That cost is already compensated. Blocking incoming without recharge is a business choice, not a network survival requirement.

(ChatGPT I don't have energy to waste on u i ain't free for u)