Skip to main content

False Hypes

The Government of India is almost going to be able to wipe away its entire deficit with the money it's getting from the auctioning of the 3G spectrum — 67,000 crores plus or whatever.

It's all a false hype of course. I am sure that the government is not going to receive all that mullah. The companies will take us all for a ride. This has happened before too.

Recall when the original licensing happened for starting mobile telephony services in India, companies promised to pay outrageous amounts to the government for acquiring a license. And once they had got the license, they simply told the government that they are unable to realize their revenue projections and hence they would go bankrupt if the government were to insist that they pay their 'committed' license fees. The government of course took pity on the companies and they were left off the hook. So, basically the companies made a promise and then reneged on that promise without paying any penalties whatsoever. Then, we saw the onset of the 'revenue sharing' formula.

That's how early 'pioneers' entered the telecom sector in India and made a killing by being early birds.

The same thing is going to happen with all these promises of 3G licensing fees. Companies who do get licenses will plead with the government later that their 'projections' were rather unrealistic and they are not getting the kind of revenues they were hoping to get and therefore it would be 'unrealistic' for the government to expect the companies to cough up what they had promised to cough up.

Wait six months. Wait a year. Wait three years. Let me assure you, this is what is going to happen. Nothing more, nothing less. And then I will say: 'I told you so.'

Jai Ho India!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Longforms and 'Best of 2017' Lists and Favorite Books by Ashutosh Joglekar and Scott Aaronson

Ashutosh Joglekar's books list. http://wavefunction.fieldofscience.com/2018/03/30-favorite-books.html Scott Aaronson' list https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3679 https://www.wired.com/story/most-read-wired-magazine-stories-2017/ https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2017/12/the-best-books-we-read-in-2017/548912/ https://longreads.com/2017/12/21/longreads-best-of-2017-essays/ https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/21/world/asia/how-the-rohingya-escaped.html https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-journalists-covered-rise-mussolini-hitler-180961407/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/artificial-intelligence-future-scenarios-180968403/ https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1997/01/20/citizen-kay https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/where-we-are-hunt-cancer-vaccine-180968391/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/dna-based-attack-against-cancer-may-work-180968407/ https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/12/22/dona...

Why Do We Have A Name?

Humans across religious, cultural and national differences all have names. At least all modern humans have this. I wonder if the lost tribes in the Amazon jungle or the tribes who live in the Nicobar Islands cut off from civilization since the last many thousands of years have a similar naming convention as the rest of us humans do. And we humans often choose to have system of naming that consists of a first name and a last name. the last name often indicates a person’s or a family’s occupation and remains the same from generation to generation. All the offspring of one family get the same last name as the parents — usually the last name of the father. In some cultures, the first names can be the same as that of the father too. In some cultures, the name of the village, and other names too get added to the child’s name and it grows rather long. But consider for a moment how it all would have started and taken hold among humans in deep antiquity. Humans would have acquired...

Ayn Rand Was Right

Do we exalt the John Galts and Howard Roarks among us or despise them? Do we admire the ultimate, self-centered and selfish capitalists or the selfless, self-sacrificing altruists? Oh sure there are the Martin Luther King, Jr.s and Mahatma Gandhis and Nelson Mandelas and Aung Sun Suu Kyis we like to point to as icons and worthy role models for our children. But look deeply and we find that we are obsessed with the wealthy. And who are the wealthy? Why do we let the Robert Rubins, Sandy Weills, Jakc Welchs, Jamie Dimons and their Wall St. brethren keep their millions? Because we consider that right and their right. Let alone the hedge fund people whose entire purpose is to become billionaires. How many people explicitly make life choices that will lead to a life of service -> not be a charlatan like Mother Teresa but just helping the underprivileged without trying to 'achieve' greatness by so doing. So Lance Armstrong and Greg Mortensen and the Evangelical Christ...