<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: More India Telecom Flip Flopping</title>
	<atom:link href="http://gigaom.com/2006/09/30/more-india-telecom-flip-flopping/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://gigaom.com/2006/09/30/more-india-telecom-flip-flopping/</link>
	<description>The Business of Technology</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 23 Nov 2008 10:48:04 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=MU</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Shefaly Yogendra</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2006/09/30/more-india-telecom-flip-flopping/#comment-65986</link>
		<dc:creator>Shefaly Yogendra</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Nov 2006 08:37:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/09/30/more-india-telecom-flip-flopping/#comment-65986</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;In response to dridsankalp, opening up a sector for first time investment is quite different from allowing a mature sector to handle its investment issues. A Spanish telecomms firm buying a majority stake in a UK mobile operator is not called FDI in Europe; it is called consolidation in the telecomms sector. &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;However not all potential investors are created equal. BT for instance has had business relationships and presence in India (through partnerships) for nearly 2 decades and in an effort to show their continued intent of investing they have announced plans to hire 6000 more staff in India. When the sector is opened up formally, firms like BT will have an advantage that new entrants waiting till the formal day will not.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In response to dridsankalp, opening up a sector for first time investment is quite different from allowing a mature sector to handle its investment issues. A Spanish telecomms firm buying a majority stake in a UK mobile operator is not called FDI in Europe; it is called consolidation in the telecomms sector. </p>
<p>However not all potential investors are created equal. BT for instance has had business relationships and presence in India (through partnerships) for nearly 2 decades and in an effort to show their continued intent of investing they have announced plans to hire 6000 more staff in India. When the sector is opened up formally, firms like BT will have an advantage that new entrants waiting till the formal day will not.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: AJ</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2006/09/30/more-india-telecom-flip-flopping/#comment-65985</link>
		<dc:creator>AJ</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Nov 2006 10:08:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/09/30/more-india-telecom-flip-flopping/#comment-65985</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;All FDI's are not the same. Some are goverened by investment motives and others by politics.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Consider this Orascom, an Egyptian company wants to own a majority in India or Chinese companies through Mauritius offshore entities.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Compare that with China where majority Foreign Telecom does not exist even in thoughts and in US where they have to take senate approval.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The difference is that in Europe or US the local legal framework and regulatory oversight is quite effective resulting in companies abiding by the law. &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Even senate representatives are actual representatives of the public. In India average population will not be able to influence its senate on such issues.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;In India the legal system is not effective and with high endemic corruption the nonconfirmers can get away scott free.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Hence eventhough in principal there should not be a limit, but one should measure the pros and cons rather carefully.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The question remains whether India Inc. can raise financing for these large projects on its own?&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>All FDI&#8217;s are not the same. Some are goverened by investment motives and others by politics.</p>
<p>Consider this Orascom, an Egyptian company wants to own a majority in India or Chinese companies through Mauritius offshore entities.</p>
<p>Compare that with China where majority Foreign Telecom does not exist even in thoughts and in US where they have to take senate approval.</p>
<p>The difference is that in Europe or US the local legal framework and regulatory oversight is quite effective resulting in companies abiding by the law. </p>
<p>Even senate representatives are actual representatives of the public. In India average population will not be able to influence its senate on such issues.</p>
<p>In India the legal system is not effective and with high endemic corruption the nonconfirmers can get away scott free.</p>
<p>Hence eventhough in principal there should not be a limit, but one should measure the pros and cons rather carefully.</p>
<p>The question remains whether India Inc. can raise financing for these large projects on its own?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dridsankalp</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2006/09/30/more-india-telecom-flip-flopping/#comment-65984</link>
		<dc:creator>dridsankalp</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Oct 2006 03:37:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/09/30/more-india-telecom-flip-flopping/#comment-65984</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;wrt the security issue it would be interesting to know what the policies of other countries are. Do US/UK/China/Japan allow unlimited investment in the telecom sector even if the investor is partially owned by a foreign government?&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>wrt the security issue it would be interesting to know what the policies of other countries are. Do US/UK/China/Japan allow unlimited investment in the telecom sector even if the investor is partially owned by a foreign government?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
