【观察】将虚商拒之门外——印度电信市场

 

考虑到印度现有的电信运营商的数量，以及他们的网络的普及程度，太多虚商进入市场的机会就相当渺茫。

 

即使这样，仍然是非常值得尝试的，尤其是公共部门国有电信运营商MTNL和BSNL有许多的空间，可以让虚商帮忙出售。

 

由于虚商主要从大型电信运营商那里购买大量的宽带然后售卖。在较大型公司不感兴趣的地区，虚商政策能够更好地帮助网络传播，能够帮助印度在乡村和一些小城镇的进一步数字化。从全球来讲，虚商已经与高端零售品牌结合起来，像沃尔玛、乐购以及像维珍、虎航的一些航空公司。在大部分案例中，虚商也有利于加强品牌效应。

 

虚商的政策问题已经显现，然而成本是受限制的。10年一个阶段的入场费7500万卢比，例如，使之像全推出电信牌照一样贵，虚商的费率已经是微不足道了。

 

政府准备向牌照方收费，包括电信运营商以及虚商，但起不到什么作用。所以，如果MTNL卖R100的宽带给一个虚商收费R80，虚商在零售市场上就可以卖R90，这样一来，MTNL为R80，而对于虚商来说则是R90，使这项实践受到抑制。

 

由于害怕虚商收费更低，较大型的电信运营商会利用这个漏洞去付政府更低的税。然而，由于大公司不大可能将利润转给虚商，因为这样会伤害他们的市场，所以这是难以达成的。如果政府需要虚商，那么就要更加实际靠谱点。

 

Editorial: Shutting out MVNOs

 

Such stiff entry terms will ensure most keep away

 

Given the number of telecom players India has, and how widespread their networks are, the chances of too many mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) entering the market are quite poor to begin with.

 

Even so, it is an experiment worth trying, especially since the public sector MTNL and BSNL have lots of spare capacity which MVNOs could help sell.

 

Since MVNOs basically buy bulk bandwidth from big telcos and then retail it, an MVNO policy could also help spread the internet better in areas where large firms are typically not interested in—that is, it could help further Digital India in villages and small towns. Globally, MVNOs have been linked to top retail brands like Walmart and Tesco and airlines like Virgin and Tiger Air—in most such cases, the MVNO also serves as a brand-enhancing exercise.

 

The problem with the MVNO policy that has been announced, however, is that the costs are prohibitive. The entry fees of R7.5 crore being sought for a 10-year period, for instance, makes this as expensive as a full-blown telecom licence while globally, the rates for MVNOs are near negligible.

 

It doesn’t help that the government plans to charge licence/spectrum charges from both the telco and the MVNO—so if MTNL sells R100 of bandwidth to an MVNO for R80 and the MVNO is able to hock this for R90 at the retail level, the charges will be levied at R80 for MTNL and R90 for the MVNO, making the exercise prohibitive.

 

The reason for this is the fear that were MVNOs to be charged a lower rate, larger telcos may use this loophole to pay the government lower revenues. This, however, is far-fetched since big telcos are unlikely to shift revenues to MVNOs as this will hurt their market capitalisation more. If the government wants MVNOs, it needs to be more realistic.