The AGR dispute highlights the urgent need for clear regulatory frameworks and proactive risk management to maintain the competitiveness and integrity of India's telecom sector.
Sir,have been following the telecom sector very closely for 6-7 yrs now and Bharti is my largest equity holding cince 5 yrs now.This is the best summary have come across of this entire saga in this much time.The only word which can describe this situation and handling of the matter is "bizzare".This Govt has been in puwer for over 10 yrs now and still not been able to manage this.Its like this matter is only meant to drive Vodafone Idea into the ground.The PSU's have been exempted,Rjio was allowed to buy all Rcom assets cheap without AGR liability of Rcom and no one is bothered that most of AGR is lost to companies which have already gone bankrupt. Have also been a holder of Vodafone Idea shares in part bcoz I truly believe in the telecom story of India and its potential.Only reasonable answer I have right now for the mismanagement of this issue is that Govt wants Vodafone ( a foreign company) out of the strategically important telecom sector. I cannot fathom why SC wouldn't allow recalculation where there is already a moratorium of 4 yrs and even after that there is no guarantee that Govt can actually get any money.I mean, if after the calculations, the figures "of the provisional" demand are correct than so be it. There is something deeper at work here and no one can make sense of it how the Govt and SC have handled this issue. It has been incredibly frustrating to see the ups and downs of this sector and it continues.Cannot see how Bharti is going to agree to pay the Rs.43k cr which is their agr liability either.Bizzare is truly the word.
Thank you for your insights. You're absolutely right. The real question is: Who benefits? Certainly not the disputing party—the DoT—which finds itself unable to collect revenues. Describing the situation as “bizarre” barely scratches the surface, particularly when considering that the DoT persisted for 20 years only to later reverse its stance on clubbing telecom and non-telecom revenues. If this issue was so critical, why did the DoT relent? Ultimately, what did they achieve? It seems like nothing was gained after all this turmoil.
Sir,have been following the telecom sector very closely for 6-7 yrs now and Bharti is my largest equity holding cince 5 yrs now.This is the best summary have come across of this entire saga in this much time.The only word which can describe this situation and handling of the matter is "bizzare".This Govt has been in puwer for over 10 yrs now and still not been able to manage this.Its like this matter is only meant to drive Vodafone Idea into the ground.The PSU's have been exempted,Rjio was allowed to buy all Rcom assets cheap without AGR liability of Rcom and no one is bothered that most of AGR is lost to companies which have already gone bankrupt. Have also been a holder of Vodafone Idea shares in part bcoz I truly believe in the telecom story of India and its potential.Only reasonable answer I have right now for the mismanagement of this issue is that Govt wants Vodafone ( a foreign company) out of the strategically important telecom sector. I cannot fathom why SC wouldn't allow recalculation where there is already a moratorium of 4 yrs and even after that there is no guarantee that Govt can actually get any money.I mean, if after the calculations, the figures "of the provisional" demand are correct than so be it. There is something deeper at work here and no one can make sense of it how the Govt and SC have handled this issue. It has been incredibly frustrating to see the ups and downs of this sector and it continues.Cannot see how Bharti is going to agree to pay the Rs.43k cr which is their agr liability either.Bizzare is truly the word.
Thank you for your insights. You're absolutely right. The real question is: Who benefits? Certainly not the disputing party—the DoT—which finds itself unable to collect revenues. Describing the situation as “bizarre” barely scratches the surface, particularly when considering that the DoT persisted for 20 years only to later reverse its stance on clubbing telecom and non-telecom revenues. If this issue was so critical, why did the DoT relent? Ultimately, what did they achieve? It seems like nothing was gained after all this turmoil.