Open Letter To Ratan Tata

Discussion in 'Politics & Society' started by S.A.T.A, Dec 9, 2010.

  1. S.A.T.A

    S.A.T.A Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2009
    Messages:
    1,804
    Likes Received:
    453
    Open Letter To Ratan Tata

    Mr. Ratan N. Tata,
    Chairman, Tata Sons Ltd.

    Dear Mr. Tata,

    It is with considerable concern and some confusion that I have watched your recent Television Interviews and press statements following the 2G scam and the exposure of the infamous Nira Radia Tapes.

    I, as countless other Indians, have held the house of Tatas in great esteem and respect – have seen them as being different from so many other Indian corporates that play by a different set of rules and values. I, along with many Indians, consider JRD Tata as one of the true builders of modern India.

    So, it is with considerable sadness and dismay that I am constrained to write this open letter to you. I trust you will not consider this as personal, since my letter has to do with issues of principle and conduct that are disturbing.

    In your recent press interactions, you have made the point that the 2G scam needs to be investigated and have made several sub-points, including:

    1. Out-of-turn allocation of spectrum;
    2. Hoarding of spectrum by incumbent operators; and
    3. Flip-flop of Policy

    Let me wholeheartedly agree with you. Many in media and public life including me, have been saying this for several years now, so your belated realization of these critical issues is very welcome.

    I sympathize with your concern about public-policy making in our country sometimes resembling that of a Banana Republic. But the forces behind this are helped considerably by the fact that people with power and influence remain silent and passive spectators to this. So many including I would have welcomed your intervention much earlier, as in the case of the alleged bribing offer 15 years ago, of Rs 15 Crores that you referred to only recently. You will agree that speaking out against corruption is most effective when it is happening and not decades or years later. Because then it becomes an intellectual post mortem, and not active resistance.

    Since I was previously a telecom entrepreneur, there will be a temptation for those that advise you, to attribute agenda and motivations to this letter of mine. But I assure you that there is none. I write because I believe that there is a need to join you in this debate and necessarily bring to your attention the contradictions between your stand and the position of the Tata Telecom companies, that you may be unaware of, given your senior position in your organization.

    1. Out-of-Turn Allocation of Spectrum

    According to the CAG Report, the potential loss to the Exchequer on account of dual technology licenses at 3G rates is Rs. 37,154 crores. By virtue of dual technology - according to the CAG – your company has caused a loss to the Exchequer to the tune of approx. Rs. 19074.8 crores.

    But it is not just this. It is a fact that the Tata Group is a beneficiary of out-of-turn spectrum. In fact, one of the biggest of them all.

    It is a fact admitted by the Government on affidavit that 575 applications were received for 2G spectrum by 01 October, 2007. Using an illegal and arbitrary cutoff date, Mr. Raja processed only 122 applications received till 25 September, 2007. 110 were rejected and 343 applications were put in abeyance. Given the fact that there is no 2G spectrum available, these applications received till 01 October, 2007 (within the date represented by the Government) have now been put in the dustbin. In fact, the TRAI had already recommended on 11 May 2010 that no more UASL license with bundled spectrum can be given. This means that these 343 applications will never be processed and will never see spectrum.

    In the meantime, 19 days after these 575 applications were received, the dual technology policy was announced through a press release by Mr. Raja. The Tatas put in their dual technology applications around 22 October. So, in effect, their application went in three weeks after the 575 2G applications were received.

    Today, Tatas already have GSM spectrum allocated and GSM service launched in most of the circles – But the 343 applications submitted three weeks before the Tata Group have neither been processed nor have any chance of ever being processed – so much for First Come, First Serve.

    You will accept that this seems to be a case of arriving late, forming a new queue, jumping the priority and accusing others of getting priority on spectrum allocation and meets your point of out-of-turn allocation of spectrum. I am sure the 373 applicants who were rejected for no fault of theirs, will agree - while the Tata Group has sold its equity for billions of dollars to NTT Docomo based on its out-of-turn GSM allocation on dual technology policy.

    In my humble opinion, evidence suggests that the Tatas have benefited from out-of-turn spectrum allocation. The dispute between Tatas and Reliance Comm inter se on the allocation sequence cannot dilute the primary fact of bypassing other early applicants to this spectrum.

    2. Hoarding of spectrum by incumbent operators

    This is an important point you have raised. I concur with you that there is a need for Telcos, old or new, to pay market rates for spectrum. I also completely agree that the subscriber linked criteria allocation of spectrum is flawed and is encouraging fudging and false subscriber numbers. But I bring to your attention, that this is existing Government policy – flawed or unfortunate as it may be, and the only solution to this is to replace this with a new policy.

    If by hoarding, you mean having more spectrum than number of subscribers that can be serviced – then please note that Tata holds spectrum both for GSM and CDMA. Based on the spectrum that Tata has, its average efficiency is perhaps the lowest amongst the large operators. Equally, that the CDMA spectrum that Tata holds is 3-4 times more efficient than the GSM operators – by its own admission, which I recall during the WLL scam. Moreover, Tata has received CDMA and GSM spectrum at 2001 rates. So even if the hoarding charge was to apply, it would also apply to the Tatas for having maximum cumulative efficiency (CDMA and GSM) to serve the least number of subscribers amongst the incumbents.

    Again, I fully support the need to price spectrum beyond 6.2 MHz with incumbent operators at market rates. But the charge of hoarding that you make applies equally to Tata Tele – whether it is total spectrum held, or subscribers served based on that spectrum, or price paid to acquire such spectrum, vis-à-vis the cumulative efficiency of CDMA and GSM.

    3. Flip-flop of Policy

    In your interview, you have pointed out that a lot of the current dysfunctionality in Telecom has arisen from Policy changes and flip-flops. You would recall that one of the most horrific distortions of Policy was the infamous WLL scam in 2001– where Telecom companies with Fixed service licenses managed to muscle their way into cellular with active support of Policy makers of that time – and not to forget that it was all done in the name of benefit to the common man! You will further recall that in 2003, a convenient set of recommendations by the TRAI and Government allowed this illegality to be regularized through the UASL policy, opening the gates to unprecedented and unique (and unheard of) First Come, First Served form of licensing - bypassing tenders (a form of auction) that were the norm for obtaining cellular licenses till then.

    Your company was the beneficiary of this ‘policy flip-flop’ and you chose to accept the benefits of this flip-flop at that time - despite this blatant violation and distortion. I am personally aware because I led the fight against it and remember being immensely disappointed at the Tata Group’s remarkably self-serving position. Further, in one of the most mysterious and indefensible acts, Tata Group took on board as a consultant, the very individual, who as the Chairman of TRAI was the architect of this UASL and other shames.

    So in summary and respectfully, your positions in the recent interviews seem to be in stark contrast with the actual conduct, performance and position of Tatas’ Telecom companies in each of the three points you have raised.

    There are several other questions that deserve answers, including why a group like Tata with its sterling character and reputation requires outside lobbyists to lobby on their behalf! That, in itself, is enough to shatter one’s confidence!

    I reiterate that this letter is not meant to tarnish or disrespect or distract from the many achievements of the Tata Group including the acquisition of International Brands like Land Rover, Jaguar and its increasingly global footprint. But I believe, on behalf of many erstwhile supporters of the Tata group, that it is my duty to seek and spotlight the truth. The Tata Group has a responsibility, and indeed, owes it to its many admirers in India to actually live up to its image of ethical conduct, otherwise your statements and actions will seem to be hypocrisy – something that’s already available in plenty in our public and corporate life.

    Respectfully,

    RAJEEV CHANDRASEKHAR
    Member of Parliament

    New Delhi
    06 December, 2010
     
  2.  
  3. smarterone

    smarterone New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2010
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nobody in this country talks about Pramod Mahajan & his mission to kill BSNL/MTNL & favors toward Reliance. I'm not here to defend Raja. He is bloddy corrupt as is his party & its mentors but lets be fair.
    Reliance was given a CDMA license (which was then a limited mobility license) but they offered full mobility to customers. Instead of stopping & punishing them, Pramod Mahajan granted them a full mobility license at a throwaway price.
    Was not that loss to the exchequer?
     
  4. SHASH2K2

    SHASH2K2 New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,711
    Likes Received:
    723
    Location:
    Bihar, BanGalore , India
    yes move of NDA government definitely caused some loss to exchequer. But you need to remember the fact the Reliance was first company to foray into CDMA field while no one else was ready to even give it a try . Reliance being only a single player in CDMA business there was no competition and hence forget about bidding and potential of getting high return from allocation of spectrum. At that point of time India just woke up to Telecom boom and setting up infrastructure itself was a big financial task for companies. Anyone saying that NDA government sold spectrum at throwaway price is just trying to divert attention.
     
  5. SHASH2K2

    SHASH2K2 New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,711
    Likes Received:
    723
    Location:
    Bihar, BanGalore , India

    The 2G spectrum allocation controversy has sparked a no-holds barred corporate war. Rajya Sabha MP Rajeev Chandrasekhar, a former telecom entrepreneur, has responded to Tata group chairman Ratan Tata's open letter, accusing him of "ducking" the "main issues" in the 2G controversy and making 'intensely personal' attacks on him.
    Tata, one of the country's most powerful businessmen, on Thursday denied allegations Chandrasekhar had made in a letter on Tuesday that the telephone unit of the Tata empire had unfairly gained from the government's telecoms policy.

    Tata also denied allegations that his company benefited in 2G spectrum alloaction scandal.

    "Your affiliation to a particular political party is well-known and it appears that political aspirations and their endeavour to embarrass the Prime Minister and the ruling party may well have been the motivation behind your letter," Tata told Chandrasekhar, who was backed by the BJP and JD(S) four years ago during his election to the Rajya Sabha.

    Chandrasekhar responded to Tata's rebuttals on Thursday by writing a second letter in which he accused him of "attempting to shoot the messenger".

    "I am only disappointed, but no longer surprised, that in sharp contrast to my efforts to go out of the way to keep this debate relating to facts and policy discussions -- your letter is intensely personal, attributes feeble motives (including amusing political ones) and most unbecoming of the House of Tatas. I can only think that this is a lapse in good judgment," said Chandrasekhar.

    "Your response is a typical one that ducks the main issues and instead attempts to shoot the messenger!

    "On facts, your letter is not just exceptionally weak, but in fact, refuses to engage on the issues that I had raised - the yawning gap between what you say in public and what your companies do. While those remain unanswered, I will certainly reply shortly with my response. I promise to rebut your allegations, claims and innuendo - chapter and verse in the public domain," said Chandrasekhar.
     
  6. SHASH2K2

    SHASH2K2 New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,711
    Likes Received:
    723
    Location:
    Bihar, BanGalore , India
    Full text of Ratan Tata's letter on 2G scam

    December 8, 2010


    Dear Rajeev,

    I am currently overseas and have just seen a copy of the open letter you have addressed to me with copies to the entire media community. This is of course in keeping with the current trend of attempted character assassination through widespread media publicity couched in pain and concern for upholding ethics and values. Your letter is based on untruths and distortion of facts and l feel compelled to place the real facts, as bluntly as possible before you. l hope this will also be broadly disseminated to the same audience as your letter. l am of course well aware that some media houses will choose not to publish or air my response in deference of their owners, who are the real gainers in the telecom sector, with whom you have unfortunately aligned to provide a massive diversion of attention away from the real culprits in the telecom space.


    You will appreciate that the Governments stated telecom policy of 1999 set out the principles of a technology neutral environment. When cellular mobile telephony was introduced, the first set of operators, including yourself, chose GSM, the broadly used European technology at that time. The first set of cellular mobile operators received their licenses based on an auction process in circles for which some of them and their partners submitted very high bids. Later in July 1999, in a BJP-led NDA Government, in accordance with the recommendation of a Group of Ministers headed by Mr. Jaswant Singh, the fixed license fee regime was changed to a revenue share regime (which exists even today). lf a hypothetical amount was to be calculated, similar to one which has been done in the CAG report, at that point of time, the loss to the exchequer would be about Rs.50,000 crores and the exchequer would have been deprived of this amount. Realistically, however, the revenue share system would have recouped some amount over time and this important change most probably has been responsible for the greater growth of the industry as it enabled tariffs to be reduced.


    CDMA technology (a newer and more spectrum efficient technology), was utilized by some operators for fixed wireless operations such as PCOS and for last mite wireless connectivity for 'fixed line phones. The first attempted deviation of stated policy was in January 2001 when the then telecom minister, Mr. Ram Vilas Paswan, in a NDA Government, sought to allow the fixed wireless application of CDMA - for limited mobility on the grounds that it would be available to the public at a lower price. The GSM operators led by you mounted a campaign lobbying against this on the grounds that it would be unfair to the incumbents who had made investments and who had enjoyed first mover advantage.


    You will recall that you and Nusli Wadia approached me in the Chambers in Taj Mumbai in July 2002 to sign an appeal to the then Prime Minister, Mr. A. B. Vajpayee, Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Advani and Finance Minister Mr. Jaswant Singh not to allow fixed mobile service providers to provide mobile services. I enclose a copy of your fax dated July 12, 2002, requesting me to sign and the draft letter which l was supposed to sign. In para 2 of this letter your objective amongst other things was to reach a 50 million subscriber base by 2006. To refresh your memory, l enclose a copy of the letter dated August 16, 2002, that l wrote to you expressing my inability to sign such a letter as it would block the introduction of CDMA technology and l believed that the telecom industry needed to be technology neutral but what l agreed with you was that any new operator should pay the same fee as the incumbents so that all operators were equalized and that no one was disadvantaged. As a result of a technology agnostic policy we achieved more than 100 million subscribers in 2006 and to date 700 million. l am also enclosing a copy of my letter to Mr. Vajpayee dated January 12, 2001, in which l advocated an open, transparent process giving all parties a chance to be heard - a stance that I have not changed till date. This had angered you and the other operators who were not interested in a level playing field and lobbied aggressively through COAI to ensure that a technologically agnostic environment would not come to pass. lt is obvious that an industry driven by technology cannot confine itself to a single technology only because that was the technology employed by a handful of operators who derived early mover advantage, enjoyed high ARPUS and in fact thwarted new - admittedly more efficient technology like CDMA. China, Korea and even the U.S. have built their large subscriber numbers on the utilization of both CDMA and GSM technologies. Growth could have been far greater had incumbent operators like yourself risen above their self-interest of protecting their investment and allowing the existence of all technologies on an equal footing.


    However, in pursuance of the spirit of NTP 1999, the Government did indeed implement the technology neutral policy in November 2003. The minister involved was Mr. Arun Shourie in the same BJP-led NDA government under Mr. Vajpayee. This was implemented through the creation of the UASL regime which enabled existing license holders to migrate to UASL license providing freedom of choice of technology and where a pan-*India license could be obtained for a fee of about Rs. l,650 crores, the same fee paid by the successful fourth cellular mobile operator. Mr. Shourie needs to be commended in implementing this far sighted policy, which has enabled technology to be the driver of the industry, rather than technology protected growth.


    I will now briefly touch on the points you raised regarding TTSL and the alleged advantage they gained. I have requested TTSL to address those issues in greater detail to you directly.


    On the issue of various allegations you have made on the so called benefits gained by TTSL, so called out-of-turn allotment that you claim have been given by DoT, you have chosen to misrepresent the facts as they suit you to justify the claims you have made. The true position is that TTSL has not I repeat not been advantaged in any way by Mr. Raja or any earlier Minister. The company has strictly followed the applicable policy and has been severely disadvantaged, as you are well aware, by certain powerful politically connected operators who have willfully subverted policy under various telecom ministers which has subsequently been regularized to their advantage. The same operators continue to subvert policy: have even paid fees for spectrum, even before the announcement of a policy, and have “de-facto ownership” in several new telecom enterprises. Licenses were granted to several ineligible applicants. Several licensees have spectrum in excess of their entitlement as per license conditions and not on the self-styled capacity spectrum efficiency that you have chosen to mention. This is the smoke screen that I am referring to as these subverters of government policy continue to do so to their advantage and their acts are being ignored or condoned. TTSL, on the other hand, as an existing licensee, applied for spectrum under the dual technology policy after the policy was announced on October 19", 2007 and is still awaiting allotment of spectrum in Delhi and 39 key districts for about three years whereas operators who applied - and paid the fee even before the policy announcement were not only considered ahead in line but were allotted spectrum with amazing alacrity in January 2008 itself. I am surprised that you have chosen to sidestep this very important aspect


    The investment by NTT DoCoMo in TTSL was not based on a zero base valuation, like others, but was based on the performance of the company with 38 million subscribers, pan-India presence of network, offices, channel, turnover of Rs.6,000 crores, 60,000 km. of fiber: - and the potential growth of the company. The valuations are on the basis of a due diligence and service evaluation of the company’s service quality by DoCoMo.


    On the question of hoarding of spectrum to which I have referred, you will no doubt remember that in 2005 i made an issue of the fact that spectrum was a scarce resource and needed to be paid for rather than given free as was being proposed. The government policy entitled operators to no more than 6.2 MHz on the basis of their license conditions. All additional spectrum should have been returned or paid for. Even TRAI has recommended this in July 2010. l believe that TTSL was the only operator that returned spectrum when demanded by DoT. The CAG report clearly indicates which of the powerful GSM operators are holding spectrum beyond their entitlement free of cost and to the detriment of the other operators


    On the question of many disadvantaged new applicants who have supposedly been denied licenses in 2007, you are well aware that many of the applicants were proxy shareholders in high places, and were applying to enter the sector with a view to monetize the license once received. Even those that were granted license and spectrum have failed to effect any meaningful rollout of services. Strangely, you have chosen to ignore this fact and singled out TTSL who have, in fact, put in place a network supporting 82 million subscribers, despite the fact that they have been deprived of spectrum in Delhi and the 39 key districts over the past 3 years as mentioned earlier. How could you or anybody possibly consider this to be a beneficial situation for TTSL?


    Let me address the question of the Tatas' need for an external PR service provider. Ten years ago, Tatas found themselves under attack in a media campaign to defame the ethics and value systems of the group which held it apart from others in India. The campaign was instituted and sustained through an unholy nexus between certain corporates and the media through selected journalists. As Tatas did not enjoy any such “captive connections” in this environment, the Tata Group, had no option but to seek an external agency focused at projecting its point of view in the media and countering the misinformation and vested interest viewpoints which were being expressed. Vaishnavi was commissioned for this purpose and has operated effectively since 2001. You yourself have interacted with Niira Radia on some occasions in the past and it is therefore amazing that you should now, after nearly nine years, seek to denounce Tatas’ appointment of Vaishnavi. Also, the statement regarding Tatas employing Mr. Baijal is completely false. Vaishnavi is neither owned by the Tata Group nor is the Tata Group Vaishnavi’s only client. Mr. Baijal, whom you apparently have a dislike, is part of Noesis, (an affiliate of Vaishnavi in which Tatas have no ownership) and, as facts will show, on various occasions has differed with the Tata Group during his period in office and has not advocated or influenced Telecom policy for the Tata Group in any way.


    You and many others have focused your attention on Ms. Radia as a corporate lobbyist. I would like to draw your attention to the following-


    You parked yourself at the Taj Mahal Hotel Delhi, for several months since 2002 which was the centre of operations for you to prevent entry of VVLL Limited Mobility and CDMA as well as to interact with the polity and bureaucracy and with other operators to forge telecom policy of your choice. You did this in your own capacity as also as President of COAI.


    You also constantly solicited support of CII.


    Would you not consider this as an endeavor to influence or subvert policy? To influence politicians or solicit support from selected corporates? l take it that in your view this would not constitute lobbying.


    Your affiliation with a particular political party is well known and it appears that their political aspirations and their endeavor to embarrass the Prime Minister and the ruling party may well have been the motivation behind your letter and the insinuations which you make. We should all note that many of the flip flops in the telecom policy occurred during the BJP regime. Whatever may be said, it must be recognized that the recent policy broke the powerful cartel which had been holding back competition and delaying implementation of policies not to their liking, such as growth of CDMA technologies, new GSM entrants, revision in subscriber based spectrum allocation norms, and now even number portability. You yourself have publicly commended in November 2007 such initiatives and the minister for breaking the cartel and reducing the cost of service to the customer.


    The 2G scam ostensibly revolved around Mr. Ragas alleged misdeeds and some parts of the CAG report were quoted as having indicted the minister. Much has been made about the hypothetical loss to the exchequer in the grant of new licenses and the grant of spectrum on the basis of 3G auction prices, (which were not known or even foreseen at the time of granting such licenses and spectrum). However, the media and even you have chosen to ignore the rest of the CAG report in which excess possession of spectrum, the disadvantages to TTSL by name, the irregularity in allotment of licenses to most players whose applications were ineligible to be considered in the first place have been clearly stated in detail. You have also not noticed that the CAG has not ascribed value to 48 new GSM licenses issued to incumbents between 2004-08 and 65 MHZ of additional spectrum allotted to incumbents during this period even though the CAG was supposed to cover the period from 2003. l would have thought that all this would have been of public interest and should have been widely reported. l support the ongoing investigations and believe that the period of investigation be extended to 2001 for the nation to know the real beneficiaries of the ad hoc policy-making and implementation.

    Finally, you have chosen to lecture me on the responsibilities of upholding the ethics and values which the Tata Group has honored and adhered to through the years. l can say categorically that we have not wavered in upholding our values and ethical standards despite the erosion in the ethical fabric in the country and despite the efforts of others to draw us into controversy and endeavor to besmirch our record. When the present sensational smokescreen dies down, as it will, and the true facts emerge, it will be for the people of India to determine who are the culprits that enjoy political patronage and protection and who actually subvert policy and who have dual standards. I can hold my head high and say that neither the Tata Group or l have at any time been involved in any of these misdeeds.


    The selective reporting and your own selective focus appear to be diversionary actions to deflect attention away from the real issue which plagues the telecom industry, in the interest of a few powerful politically connected operators. Perhaps it is time that you and members of the media de some introspection and soul searching as to whether you have been serving your masters or serving the general public at large.


    With warm regards,


    Yours sincerely,


    Ratan Tata
     
  7. SHASH2K2

    SHASH2K2 New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,711
    Likes Received:
    723
    Location:
    Bihar, BanGalore , India

    Rajeev Chandrasekhar responds to Tata's letter


    Rajya Sabha MP Rajeev Chandrasekhar has written a letter in response to Ratan Tata's reaction to his open letter. Read the full text. Dear Mr Tata, I welcome your joining this debate. It is an important one and needs to be settled in full public view. Unfortunately, your response is


    a typical one that ducks the main issues and instead attempts to shoot the messenger!
    I am only disappointed, but no longer surprised, that in sharp contrast to my efforts to go out of the way to keep this debate relating to facts and policy discussions - your letter is intensely personal, attributes feeble motives (including amusing Political ones) and most unbecoming of the House of Tatas. I can only think that this is a lapse in good judgment. I particularly find your self-appointed defence of the Prime Minister and Government very irrelevant.

    Nevertheless, I promise to keep my response dignified and steadfastly refuse to fall to your level of personal attacks.

    On facts, your letter is not just exceptionally weak, but in fact, refuses to engage on the issues that I had raised - the yawning gap between what you say in public and what your companies do. While those remain unanswered, I will certainly reply shortly with my response. I promise to rebut your allegations, claims and innuendo - chapter and verse in the public domain.

    Best regards,

    Rajeev Chandrasekhar

    Member of Parliament

    New Delhi

    09 December, 2010
     
  8. smarterone

    smarterone New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2010
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sir if you have to support the BJP in any case then I can't help it. But to put your facts right Tata & BSNL/MTNL were already providing CDMA/WLL (in limited mobility mode) services in various part of India including the National Capital when Reliance (RIM) was launched.
    Read these stories in the Hindu Business Line

    Reliance Launch
    thehindubusinessline.com/2003/05/01/stories/2003050102560900.htm

    same day Tata & BSNL revise WLL tariffs
    thehindubusinessline.com/2003/05/01/stories/2003050102290100.htm

    And I just wanted people to be fair while accepting that Raja is corrupt and sure had done a big scam.
     
  9. SHASH2K2

    SHASH2K2 New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,711
    Likes Received:
    723
    Location:
    Bihar, BanGalore , India
    Buddy I never said that what BJP did is completely justified and if there was a will they could have done better . When CDMA technology was launched they were faster but they were not energy efficient . Even now cost per unit between CDMA and GSM will prove you that CDMA is still very costly to maintain . BSNL/MTNL were rolling out CDMA services but it was due to government policies to provide connection in remote areas. getting money is all about Demand and supply. when services were being roled out there were not many players intrested in CDMA . regarding reliance utilizing the loopholes to get pan India license its really something that should be looked into .
     
  10. tarunraju

    tarunraju Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2009
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    3,896
    Location:
    Hyderabad
    Duh...spectrum is the same for GSM or CDMA. Those are just protocols, but use a common radio spectrum (hence it's referred to as "unified"). Doesn't it strike you, that if CDMA had a different spectrum (which would be cheaper, since there are lesser CDMA operators and hence lesser competitors and lower prices), that at least half the mobile operators would have transitioned to CDMA?

    Besides, Reliance wasn't the only CDMA operator. TATA Indicom has been a CDMA operator all through, BSNL had the Tarang CDMA mobile serive, and started operations not much later than Reliance.
     
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2010
  11. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,117
    Likes Received:
    23,545
    Location:
    Somewhere
    All these scams and all these exposures is actually cleansing our system.

    The country is realising what foundations we stand on!
     
  12. sob

    sob Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2009
    Messages:
    6,359
    Likes Received:
    3,665
    Location:
    New Delhi
    Mr.Tata has made a big mistake IMO by replying to this letter. He would have been better served if somebody else within the TATA Group would have replied on behalf of the Group.
    It is akin to fighting with the Pig and realising some time later that the Pig is enjoying it wile your clothes have also become covered with muck.

    It is an open secret that all the Industrial houses do lobby the Govt. and they do it for their own advantage, one just needs to see all the top industrialists trooping in to the FMs office prior to the budget. The only purpose is to ensure that the policies unveiled by the Govt. favour these gentlemen and the public be dammed.
     
  13. sob

    sob Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2009
    Messages:
    6,359
    Likes Received:
    3,665
    Location:
    New Delhi
    It is a proven fact CDMA is more efficient technology than GSM, but the very fact that GSM being an older technology is the dominant technology in sheer numbers. IMO the sheer popularity of GSM and the relatively smaller number of CDMA subscribers worldwide, made GSM more popular in India also.
     

Share This Page