Mukesh Amabani, is mostly raising money because he had simply too much debt, and he is also getting old. It could also be a part of larger succession planning. His kids are not that much hands-on into business as much as he was with his father. It makes sense to have a Tata Sons Trust like scenario where professional managers runs the companies while the companies are owned through a holding trust owned by his children.
The experiment with Anil Ambani's mismanagement and the state he has left his business is a lesson for Mukesh to not let it repeat with his own children.
My bet - nothing cheaper comes along. Because Reliance's biggest competitive advantage is close links with the government, regardless of the party in power. A hypothetical competitor would find it difficult to get spectrum allocated, have trouble with land usage rights, tax issues like Vodafone had.
There is a reason foreign companies set up joint ventures with Reliance, Tata, Birla etc. Ostensibly it's because these companies "understand" the Indian market. In reality, it's because they have spent decades "lobbying" political parties and will continue doing so for several decades more. A company like Sky wouldn't know how to get started with political lobbying, wouldn't be comfortable with outright bribery, can't make a long term commitment to staying in India. So they set up Tata Sky - they supply the tech, Tata supplies the connections.
So eventually if you want to be profitable and sell more services, you have to offer a good price.
It's just the way it is. I even know people who look at fares and then decide if they want to take their own two wheeler or an Ola. Online food delivery works the same way. People hunt for deals and only order through that.
Sure some people pay for services. But those are generally rare.
Can you elaborate how did that work? I never heard about this method
So firms would advertize a missed call number on the radio.
People could give that number a missed call, and they would soon get a call back from the firm - thus never spending any money at all.
The more common interpersonal example was one person having more money than the other, or being on a company plan - so they would get missed calls from their family/friends, and they would then call back.
The cost was thus borne by the firm/richer person/person with more talk time.
Actual Example from my life: My dad had a cellular plan that had lots of free minutes of calling. So, I would just give him a missed call and he would call back. This was the early 2000s I think.
[1] https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article-pdf/13/1/1/22316427/jj...
0. https://www.counterview.net/2016/09/top-telecom-cartes-airte...
An auction exposes market pricing information which was hidden before.
In case people aren't aware, the Indian mobile sector was one of the cheapest and most pioneering markets of its time.
People created the 0 cost phone call - farmers and mobile users could give a missed call to a number they heard on the radio, and then they would get a call back.
Stuff that was in sharp contrast to the mobile plans and service packs around the world.
While people argue about data, they forget how hard it is to set up the infrastructure and the massive boost forward simple phone calls were for people.
That was the era I am talking about, not post the SC verdict.
Not sure in what way you mean pioneering but it was definitely not the cheapest! Everything cost money. Text messages, phone calls, data, roaming between states, out-of-state phone calls. Everything. All this in addition to the cost of the cell phone itself - no bundled offers with phone like AT&T did with Apple in the US.
Furthermore, you could get away with a connection from private companies like Airtel and Vodafone if you lived in a big city. Rural coverage by these players was notoriously bad. The only substitute available was the one provided by the government itself - BSNL - which got a reputation of having the "best coverage".
All that changed dramatically when Reliance came up with a Rs.500 phone which included a connection with free unlimited calls between two Reliance phones. That was the beginning of true mass adoption of cell phones in India.
> People created the 0 cost phone call - farmers and mobile users could give a missed call to a number they heard on the radio, and then they would get a call back.
This is not an example of a model working well. This is an example of a workaround to mitigate high call costs.
The 0 cost phone call is an example of the market working well - people at the bottom of the pyramid have no money to spend, and given what ARPU was, expecting even lower prices is the stuff of fantasies.
This is innovation at work. I don't know what people are expecting when what they had was already impressive for the time.
Further all 3 major firms are in massive debt, and after the SC interpretation of how they have to pay their dues, they are pretty much dead firms unless they get money.
You can already see them creating new packages to target users who have more disposable income.
I'd say make hay while the sun shines. The structure of a market dictates the strategies and tactics which work. With 3 players collusion is the norm, not competition.
If you're concerned about your privacy, it's usually known in India in the tech circles to stay away from Jio related products.
https://in.reuters.com/article/reliance-telecoms-jio/from-bi...
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/reliance-jio-...
They cant be allowed to fall, because then the only name in town is reliance, which would be even worse.
What people are forgetting is that 1) Firms already raised prices and 2) that its not about data.
Its about a competitive market. We used to have this, and it even created the thriving VAS industry for a while. That died because of classic rent seeking behavior by telecoms over the VAS firms, killing that entire engine of ingenuity.
Telecom industries are know for bad results (see America, or Australia) when its not structured correctly.
Everyone who is focusing just on prices is unaware of the number of failures and missed opportunities resulting from bad telecom market structures.
Take Net neutrality, given the telcos way, it would have long been lost and rent seeking structures would have grown on top of it - it would recreate the bundled world of cable television over the net.
This means that poor users would never get a chance to look at products which compete purely on features and value - they would look at products that are "Jio Free" or "Vodafone plus", where having a hook up with the ISP is more important than features.
Looking at it in terms of "hey prices are low" is missing the great risk this industry is in.
I hope India does grow at a large enough rate for such services to be profitable.
I think their biggest advantage is their cheap (earlier free) data services.
These competitors are the same companies who had 'cartelized' the telecom industry[0] and had refused to bring down data prices in order to ensure their profits. I wonder why questions weren't raised against TRAI back then. Once Jio entered the scene, they did bring down the prices.
0. https://www.counterview.net/2016/09/top-telecom-cartes-airte...
A few passing birdies told me that Sundarajan was far more enthusiastic about China, then India, and that he had quite some amount of aversion to his home market.
Then there is an average indian feeling pride about how Jio is able to attract such investments. So, some of us may have considered it, and would have spoken about it, but a lot are not really aware. When people do speak against these, they are usually tagged as cynical or contrarian because speaking against a public figure in India is sometimes considered speaking against India.
P.S. Sorry for being so vague, but this requires a lot of context to ascertain why it is this way. I dont blame whatsapp or Facebook, just that we are a vulnerable bunch and usually believe what we want to believe.