独家
印度电信部长阿什维尼·瓦什纳(Ashwini Vaishnaw)努力改变行业进程
Vaishnaw告诉印度经济时报记者Anandita Singh Mankotia，政府希望通过其最新的改革举措改变电信行业的进程，并使其对投资者可行。
欧盟电信部长表示，政府对降低5G频谱价格的想法持开放态度，但不能触及电信资费，因为这是电信公司和用户之间的问题Ashwini Vaishnaw说。Vaishnaw告诉印度经济时报记者Anandita Singh Mankotia，政府希望通过其最新的改革举措改变电信行业的进程，并使其对投资者可行。编辑摘录:
政府宣布如此广泛改革的原因是什么?是因为困境吗沃达丰(Vodafone)主意吗?
首相的愿景非常明确。他希望弥合数字鸿沟，而强大的电信网络是为边缘化和偏远地区服务的关键。为了在该国拥有强大的网络，该行业需要处于良好状态，它需要大量的资本注入。我们不希望只是暂时的缓解，而是要找出影响这个行业发展的深层次问题并加以解决。
我们的分析显示，根本原因是AGR(调整后的总收入)、每月复利的方式、罚款的施加、如何共享频谱、电信公司的频谱使用费(SUC)将上升0.5%、批准的方式等问题。
这些改革是否会为现有的电信公司带来投资，甚至可能吸引新的参与者?
当然，我认为这些改革的直接影响是行业扩张、技术升级和更多创新。可以肯定地说，这些改革清楚地展示了政府的意图，这种明确性肯定会给投资者注入信心。至于吸引更多玩家，这是一个明显的可能性。我没有任何具体的建议，但我相信人们会认为这些改革改变了电信行业的方向。
只有SUC被取消了，而许可证费用保持不变……
SUC类似于双重征税。当电信运营商已经为无线电波付费时，为什么还要每年支付频谱费呢?但是，收取许可费的原则与SUC有很大不同。
缓解沃达丰的想法:内阁批准4年暂停电信费用;改变AGR定义
周三，内阁宣布了一项电信救助计划，其中包括改变有争议的调整后总收入(AGR)的定义，并暂停四年的利率。
业界对无线电波的定价感到不安5 g技术过高。政府会降低利率吗?
电信监管机构目前正在研究定价方面的问题，所以我认为此时对此发表评论不合适。然而，如果为了公众利益而需要合理化，政府为什么不这么做呢?
该行业一直在寻求提高关税。有什么进展吗?
这是产业和消费者之间的事情。关税是需求和供给的函数。电信公司和消费者必须共同决定资费。关税不是我们的职责。
![\"](\"https:\/\/st.etb2bimg.com\/Themes\/Release\/images\/responsive\/ettelecom-default.jpg\")
The government is open to the idea of lowering 5G spectrum prices but cannot touch telecom tariffs as that is a matter between telcos and subscribers, Union telecom minister Ashwini Vaishnaw<\/a> said. Vaishnaw told ET\u2019s Anandita Singh Mankotia that the government hopes to change the course of the telecom sector through its latest reform move and make it viable for investors. Edited excerpts:
What was the trigger for the government to announce such wide-ranging reforms? Was it the plight of Vodafone<\/a> Idea?
<\/strong>
The Prime Minister\u2019s vision was very clear. He wishes to bridge the digital divide and robust telecom networks are key to serving the marginalised and far-flung areas. To have robust networks in the country, the sector needs to be in good shape, it needs massive capital injection. We didn\u2019t wish to just give some temporary relief, but to go after the underlying malaise afflicting the growth of this sector and solve it.
Our analysis showed that the root causes\u2026were issues such as the AGR (adjusted gross revenue), the way interest was compounded every month, penalties were imposed, how for sharing spectrum, spectrum usage charge (SUC) for telcos would go up by 0.5%, the way approvals were given.
<\/div><\/div>When we presented our findings to the PM, he boldly supported our efforts to usher in reforms. AGR has been a legacy issue in the sector, it has been there for 20 years. However, the PM gave us full support to overhaul the sector and steer it towards reforms to make it viable and attractive.
Will these reforms bring investment into existing telcos and maybe even attract new players?
<\/strong>
I certainly see expansion in the sector, technological upgradation, and more innovation as the direct impact of these reforms. One can safely say that the reforms clearly demonstrate the government\u2019s intent, and this kind of clarity will certainly infuse confidence among investors. As for attracting more players, that is a distinct possibility. I don\u2019t have any specific proposals with me, but I believe people would look at these reforms as something that changed the direction of the telecom sector.
Only the SUC has been scrapped, while the licence fee has remained unchanged\u2026
<\/strong>
SUC was akin to double taxation. When a telecom operator has already paid for the airwaves, why should it still be paying an annual spectrum charge? However, the principle of charging a licence fee is very different from that of the SUC.
Will these reforms bring investment into existing telcos and maybe even attract new players?
<\/strong>
I certainly see expansion in the sector, technological upgradation, and more innovation as the direct impact of these reforms. One can safely say that the reforms clearly demonstrate the government\u2019s intent, and this kind of clarity will certainly infuse confidence among investors. As for attracting more players, that is a distinct possibility. I don\u2019t have any specific proposals with me, but I believe people would look at these reforms as something that changed the direction of the telecom sector.
Only the SUC has been scrapped, while the licence fee has remained unchanged\u2026
<\/strong>
SUC was akin to double taxation. When a telecom operator has already paid for the airwaves, why should it still be paying an annual spectrum charge? However, the principle of charging a licence fee is very different from that of the SUC.
<\/div><\/div>