Cellphone service has markedly improved the lives of the very poor something most economists did not predict. In fact when India deregulated rates from some of the highest in the world (voice was around $.10 to $.20/min) most economists argued against it saying cellphones were a thing of the rich and the tax-losses to the govt from telecom revenue were not worth it. Deregulation was called a give-away to the telco companies and the rich etc. Instead, what came about was the biggest uptake in cellular and data usage and one of the cheapest rates in the world.
The poor benefit disproportionately in relative terms from access to cheap communications. Studies show cellphone and data usage to be highly correlated to improved markers in health, economic well being, education, etc. Poorly designed top-down auctions bankrupts companies and causes under-investment in infrastructure do directly cause suffering to hundreds of millions of very poor people. Maybe you find it snarky to point that out but I see it as a tragedy.
True, you can also argue that the auction revenue would have helped clean water and other developmental activities but that is an indirect effect.
This guy gets it... as an Indian that has lived in the USA / Canada for the last ten years, the mobile phone prices from before I left india and now are day and night .... used to pay around 12 -15 dollars for 2 gigs of data ... when I was in india this February, you could get 1.5 gigs of 4g data per DAY with almost unlimited calls for like 4 dollars a month ... it’s improved the lives of the people in so many ways ... so yeah maybe the government lost out on the auctions but it’s massively benefited the general populace ... and knowing how corrupt the Indian government is , I am happy with the way things turned out ...
when it costs almost nothing (remember, majority is loan here) to them why they need to charge. They take your data (totally unregulated) which is far more worth than the data ppl use. as an ISP, new apps, almost every industry under their control they got everyone's balls
Do you have a citation for your statement that economists opposed deregulation? That doesn’t sound like the default economics position — nor does not realizing that technology can transform poverty.
I’m not challenging you randomly here — usually the criticism of mainstream Western economists (especially those working with development) is that they overprescribe deregulation and underestimate the benefits of maintaining government revenue.
Economists != western economists! Western Economists did not care about the Indian telecom markets in the 90s and hardly carry any weight in Indian politics even now. India has enough economists unfortunately who can make a hash of things without help from Western economists ;)
It's appalling to hear that economists would think that improving the flow of goods and information would not benefit the economy.
But yeah, it's easy to miss. We've only had Roman roads, book printing, railroads, telephone, container shipping and the internet (to name a few) to point out this evident truth..
> Cellphone service has markedly improved the lives of the very poor something most economists did not predict. In fact when India deregulated rates from some of the highest in the world (voice was around $.10 to $.20/min) most economists argued against it saying cellphones were a thing of the rich and the tax-losses to the govt from telecom revenue were not worth it. Deregulation was called a give-away to the telco companies and the rich etc. Instead, what came about was the biggest uptake in cellular and data usage and one of the cheapest rates in the world.
Hard to believe and irrelevant to this discussion.
> Poorly designed top-down auctions bankrupts companies and causes under-investment in infrastructure do directly cause suffering to hundreds of millions of very poor people.
What is a top-down auction? Are there also bottom-up auctions?
That auctions bankrupt companies - why are they are participating if they can't afford to? - and that they cause under-investment - is a spectrum that's been bought in an auction less profitable? - sounds like propaganda from corporations that want spectrums for free. It neither makes economic sense, nor am I aware of any empirical evidence for it.
The poor benefit disproportionately in relative terms from access to cheap communications. Studies show cellphone and data usage to be highly correlated to improved markers in health, economic well being, education, etc. Poorly designed top-down auctions bankrupts companies and causes under-investment in infrastructure do directly cause suffering to hundreds of millions of very poor people. Maybe you find it snarky to point that out but I see it as a tragedy.
True, you can also argue that the auction revenue would have helped clean water and other developmental activities but that is an indirect effect.