what is 2g scam all about

8/6/2019 What is 2G Scam All About

1/22

0 G

Mobile radio telephone systems preceded modern cellular mobile telephony technology. Sincethey were the predecessors of the first generation of cellular telephones, these systems aresometimes retroactively referred to as pre cellular (or sometimes zero generation) systems.

Technologies used in pre cellular systems included the Push to Talk(PTT or manual), MobileTelephone System (MTS), Improved Mobile Telephone Service (IMTS), and Advanced MobileTelephone System (AMTS) systems. These early mobile telephone systems can be distinguishedfrom earlier closed radiotelephone systems in that they were available as a commercial servicethat was part of the public switched telephone network, with their own telephone numbers, ratherthan part of a closed network such as a police radio or taxi dispatch system.

These mobile telephones were usually mounted in cars or trucks, though briefcase models werealso made. Typically, the transceiver (transmitter-receiver) was mounted in the vehicle trunk andattached to the "head" (dial, display, and handset) mounted near the driver seat.

They were sold through WCCs (Wireline Common Carriers, AKA telephone companies), RCCs(Radio Common Carriers), and two-way radio dealers.

[edit] Origins

Early examples for this technology:

Motorola in conjunction with the Bell System operated the first commercial mobile telephoneservice Mobile Telephone System (MTS) in the US in 1946, as a service of the wireline telephone

company.

The A-Netz launched 1952 in West Germany as the country's first public commercial mobilephone network.

First automatic system was the Bell System's IMTS which became available in 1962, offeringautomatic dialing to and from the mobile.

The Televerket opened its first manual mobile telephone system in Norway in 1966. Norway waslater the first country in Europe to get an automatic mobile telephone system.

The Autoradiopuhelin (ARP) launched in 1971 in Finland as the country's first public commercialmobile phone network

The B-Netz launched 1972 in West Germany as the country's second public commercial mobilephone network (but the first one that did not require human operators to connect calls)

[edit] Radio Common Carrier

Parallel to Improved Mobile Telephone Service (IMTS) in the US until the rollout of cellularAMPS systems, a competing mobile telephone technology was called Radio Common Carrieror RCC. The service was provided from the 1960s until the 1980s when cellular AMPS systemsmade RCC equipment obsolete. These systems operated in a regulated environment incompetition with the Bell System's MTS and IMTS. RCCs handled telephone calls and wereoperated by private companies and individuals. Some systems were designed to allow customersof adjacent RCCs to use their facilities but the universe of RCCs did not comply with any single


2/22


3/22

Although both systems use digital signaling to connect the radio towers (which listen to thehandsets) to the rest of the telephone system, the voice itself during a call is encoded to digitalsignals in 2G whereas 1G is only modulated to higher frequency, typically 150 MHz and up.

One such standard is NMT (Nordic Mobile Telephone), used in Nordic countries, Switzerland,

Netherlands, Eastern Europe and Russia. Others include AMPS (Advanced Mobile PhoneSystem) used in the North America and Australia,[1]TACS (Total Access CommunicationsSystem) in the United Kingdom, C-450 in West Germany, Portugal and South Africa, Radiocom2000[2] in France, and RTMI in Italy. In Japan there were multiple systems. Three standards, TZ-801, TZ-802, and TZ-803 were developed by NTT, while a competing system operated by DDIused the JTACS (Japan Total Access Communications System) standard.

Antecedent to 1G technology is the mobile radio telephone, or 0G.

[edit] History

The first commercially automated cellular network (the 1G generation) was launched in Japan byNTT (Nippon Telegraph and Telephone) in 1979, initially in the metropolitan area of Tokyo.Within five years, the NTT network had been expanded to cover the whole population of Japanand became the first nationwide 1G network.

In 1981, this was followed by the simultaneous launch of the Nordic Mobile Telephone (NMT)system in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden. NMT was the first mobile phone networkfeaturing international roaming. The first 1G network launched in the USA was Chicago-basedAmeritech in 1983 using the Motorola DynaTAC mobile phone. Several countries then followedin the early-to-mid 1980s including the UK, Mexico and Canada.

2G (or 2-G) is short for second-generation wirelesstelephonetechnology. Second generation 2Gcellular telecom networks were commercially launched on the GSM standard in Finland byRadiolinja (now part ofElisa Oyj) in 1991.[1] Three primary benefits of 2G networks over theirpredecessors were that phone conversations were digitally encrypted; 2G systems weresignificantly more efficient on the spectrum allowing for far greater mobile phone penetrationlevels; and 2G introduced data services for mobile, starting with SMS text messages.

After 2G was launched, the previous mobile telephone systems were retrospectively dubbed 1G.While radio signals on 1G networks are analog, radio signals on 2G networks are digital. Both

systems use digital signaling to connect the radio towers (which listen to the handsets) to the restof the telephone system.

2G has been superseded by newer technologies such as 2.5G, 2.75G, 3G, and 4G; however, 2Gnetworks are still used in many parts of the world.


4/22

[edit] 2G technologies

2G technologies can be divided into TDMA-based and CDMA-based standards depending on thetype ofmultiplexing used. The main 2G standards are:

GSM (TDMA-based), originally from Europe but used in almost all countries on all six inhabitedcontinents. Today accounts for over 80% of all subscribers around the world. Over 60 GSM

operators are also using CDMA2000 in the 450 MHz frequency band (CDMA450).[2]

IS-95aka cdmaOne (CDMA-based, commonly referred as simply CDMA in the US), used in theAmericas and parts of Asia. Today accounts for about 17% of all subscribers globally. Over a

dozen CDMA operators have migrated to GSM including operators in Mexico, India, Australia

and South Korea.

PDC (TDMA-based), used exclusively in Japan iDEN (TDMA-based), proprietary network used by Nextel in the United States and Telus Mobility

in Canada

IS-136 a.k.a. D-AMPS (TDMA-based, commonly referred as simply 'TDMA' in the US), was onceprevalent in the Americas but most have migrated to GSM.

2G services are frequently referred as Personal Communications Service, or PCS, in the UnitedStates.

[edit] Capacity

Using digital signals between the handsets and the towers increases system capacity in two keyways:

Digital voice data can be compressed and multiplexed much more effectively than analog voiceencodings through the use of various codecs, allowing more calls to be packed into the same

amount of radio bandwidth.

The digital systems were designed to emit less radio power from the handsets. This meant thatcells could be smaller, so more cells could be placed in the same amount of space. This was also

made possible by cell towers and related equipment getting less expensive.

[edit] Advantages

The lower power emissions helped address health concerns. Going all-digital allowed for the introduction of digital data services, such as SMS and email. Greatly reduced fraud. With analog systems it was possible to have two or more "cloned"

handsets that had the same phone number.

Enhanced privacy. A key digital advantage not often mentioned is that digital cellular calls aremuch harder to eavesdrop on by use ofradio scanners. While the security algorithms used have

proved not to be as secure as initially advertised, 2G phones are immensely more private than

1G phones, which have no protection against eavesdropping.


5/22

[edit] Disadvantages

In less populous areas, the weaker digital signal may not be sufficient to reach a cell tower. Thistends to be a particular problem on 2G systems deployed on higher frequencies, but is mostly

not a problem on 2G systems deployed on lower frequencies. National regulations differ greatly

among countries which dictate where 2G can be deployed. Analog has a smooth decay curve, digital a jagged steppy one. This can be both an advantage

and a disadvantage. Under good conditions, digital will sound better. Under slightly worse

conditions, analog will experience static, while digital has occasional dropouts. As conditions

worsen, though, digital will start to completely fail, by dropping calls or being unintelligible,

while analog slowly gets worse, generally holding a call longer and allowing at least a few words

to get through.

While digital calls tend to be free ofstatic and background noise, the lossy compression used bythe codecs takes a toll; the range of sound that they convey is reduced. You will hear less of the

tonality of someone's voice talking on a digital cellphone, but you will hear it more clearly.

[edit] Evolution

2G networks were built mainly for voice services and slow data transmission.

Some protocols, such as EDGE for GSM and 1x-RTT for CDMA2000, are defined as "3G"services (because they are defined in IMT-2000 specification documents), but are considered bythe general public to be 2.5G or 2.75G services because they are several times slower thanpresent-day 3G services.

[edit] 2.5G (GPRS)

2.5G ("second and a half generation"

[citation needed]

) is used to describe 2G-systems that haveimplemented a packet-switched domain in addition to the circuit-switched domain. It does notnecessarily provide faster services because bundling of timeslots is used for circuit-switched dataservices (HSCSD) as well.

The first major step in the evolution of GSM networks to 3G occurred with the introduction ofGeneral Packet Radio Service (GPRS). CDMA2000 networks similarly evolved through theintroduction of1xRTT. The combination of these capabilities came to be known as 2.5G.

GPRS could provide data rates from 56 kbit/s up to 115 kbit/s. It can be used for services such asWireless Application Protocol (WAP) access, Multimedia Messaging Service (MMS), and for

Internet communication services such as email and World Wide Web access. GPRS data transferis typically charged per megabyte of traffic transferred, while data communication via traditionalcircuit switching is billed per minute of connection time, independent of whether the useractually is utilizing the capacity or is in an idle state.

1xRTT supports bi-directional (up and downlink) peak data rates up to 153.6 kbit/s, delivering anaverage user data throughput of 80-100 kbit/s in commercial networks.[3] It can also be used forWAP, SMS & MMS services, as well as Internet access.


6/22

[edit] 2.75G (EDGE)

GPRS1 networks evolved to EDGE networks with the introduction of 8PSK encoding. EnhancedData rates for GSM Evolution (EDGE), Enhanced GPRS (EGPRS), or IMT Single Carrier (IMT-SC) is a backward-compatible digital mobile phone technology that allows improved data

transmission rates, as an extension on top of standard GSM. EDGE was deployed on GSMnetworks beginning in 2003initially by Cingular (now AT&T) in the United States.

EDGE is standardized by 3GPP as part of the GSM family and it is an upgrade that provides apotential three-fold increase in capacity of GSM/GPRS networks. The specification achieveshigher data-rates (up to 236.8 kbit/s) by switching to more sophisticated methods of coding(8PSK), within existing GSM timeslots.

3G or 3rd generation mobile telecommunications, is a generation of standards for mobilephones and mobile telecommunication services fulfilling the International MobileTelecommunications-2000 (IMT-2000) specifications by the International Telecommunication

Union.[1]

Application services include wide-area wireless voice telephone, mobile Internetaccess, video calls and mobile TV, all in a mobile environment. To meet the IMT-2000standards, a system is required to provide peak data rates of at least 200 kbit/s. Recent 3Greleases, often denoted 3.5G and 3.75G, also provide mobile broadband access of several Mbit/sto smartphones and mobile modems in laptop computers.

The following standards are typically branded 3G:

the UMTS system, first offered in 2001, standardized by 3GPP, used primarily in Europe, Japan,China (however with a different radio interface) and other regions predominated by GSM2G

system infrastructure. The cell phones are typically UMTS and GSM hybrids. Several radio

interfaces are offered, sharing the same infrastructure:o The original and most widespread radio interface is called W-CDMA.o The TD-SCDMA radio interface, was commercialised in 2009 and is only offered in China.o The latest UMTS release, HSPA+, can provide peak data rates up to 56 Mbit/s in the

downlink in theory (28 Mbit/s in existing services) and 22 Mbit/s in the uplink.

the CDMA2000 system, first offered in 2002, standardized by 3GPP2, used especially in NorthAmerica and South Korea, sharing infrastructure with the IS-95 2G standard. The cell phones are

typically CDMA2000 and IS-95 hybrids. The latest release EVDO Rev B offers peak rates of 14.7

Mbit/s downstreams.

The above systems and radio interfaces are based on kindred spread spectrum radio transmissiontechnology. While the GSM EDGE standard ("2.9G"), DECT cordless phones and MobileWiMAX standards formally also fulfill the IMT-2000 requirements and are approved as 3Gstandards by ITU, these are typically not branded 3G, and are based on completely differenttechnologies.

A new generation of cellular standards has appeared approximately every tenth year since 1Gsystems were introduced in 1981/1982. Each generation is characterized by new frequency


7/22

bands, higher data rates and non backwards compatible transmission technology. The firstrelease of the 3GPP Long Term Evolution (LTE) standard does not completely fulfill the ITU 4Grequirements called IMT-Advanced. First release LTE is not backwards compatible with 3G, butis a pre-4G or 3.9G technology, however sometimes branded "4G" by the service providers. Itsevolution LTE Advanced is a 4G technology. WiMAX is another technology verging on or

marketed as 4G.

[edit] Overview

The following common standards comply with the IMT2000/3G standard:

EDGE, a revision by the 3GPP organization to the older 2GGSM based transmission methods,utilizing the same switching nodes, basestation sites and frequencies as GPRS, but new

basestation and cellphone RF circuits. It is based on the three times as efficient 8PSK modulation

scheme as supplement to the original GMSK modulation scheme. EDGE is still used extensively

due to its ease of upgrade from existing 2G GSM infrastructure and cell-phones.

o

EDGE combined with the GPRS 2.5G technology is called EGPRS, and allows peak datarates in the order of 200 kbit/s, just as the original UMTS WCDMA versions, and thus

formally fulfills the IMT2000 requirements on 3G systems. However, in practice EDGE is

seldom marketed as a 3G system, but a 2.9G system. EDGE shows slightly better system

spectral efficiency than the original UMTS and CDMA2000 systems, but it is difficult to

reach much higher peak data rates due to the limited GSM spectral bandwidth of

200 kHz, and it is thus a dead end.

o EDGE was also a mode in the IS-135 TDMA system, today ceased.o Evolved EDGE, the latest revision, has peaks of 1 Mbits/s downstream and 400kbits/s

upstream, but is not commercially used.

The Universal Mobile Telecommunications System, created and revised by the 3GPP. The familyis a full revision from GSM in terms of encoding methods and hardware, although some GSM

sites can be retrofitted to broadcast in the UMTS/W-CDMA format.

o W-CDMA is the most common deployment, commonly operated on the 2100 MHz band.A few others use the 900 and 1850 MHz bands.

o HSPA is a revision and upgrade to W-CDMA UMTS, used by AT&T Wireless, Telstra andTelecom NZ, typically broadcasting on the 850 MHz band. HSPA requires updates to the

HSPA+ a revision and upgrade of HSPA, can provide peak data rates up to 56Mbit/s in the downlink in theory (28 Mbit/s in existing services) and 22 Mbit/s in

the uplink. It utilises multiple base stations to potentially double the channels

available utilising MIMO principles.

The CDMA2000 system, or IS-2000, standardized by 3GPP2 (differing from the 3GPP, updatingthe IS-95 CDMA system, used especially in North America and South Korea.

o EVDO Rev. B is the latest update, offering downstream peak rates of 14.7 Mbit/s. It isused primarily by the US carrier Verizon.

While DECT cordless phones and Mobile WiMAX standards formally also fulfill the IMT-2000requirements, they are not usually considered due to their rarity and unsuitability for usage withmobile phones.


8/22

[edit] Detailed breakdown of 3G systems

The 3G (UMTS and CDMA2000) research and development projects started in 1992. In 1999,ITU approved five radio interfaces for IMT-2000 as a part of the ITU-R M.1457Recommendation; WiMAX was added in 2007.[2]

There are evolutionary standards (EDGE and CDMA) that are backwards-compatibleextensions to pre-existing 2G networks as well as revolutionary standards that require all-newnetwork hardware and frequency allocations. The cell phones used utilise UMTS in combinationwith 2G GSM standards and bandwidths, but do not support EDGE.[3] The latter group is theUMTS family, which consists of standards developed for IMT-2000, as well as theindependently developed standards DECT and WiMAX, which were included because they fitthe IMT-2000 definition.

History

The first pre-commercial 3G network was launched by NTT DoCoMo in Japan, branded asFOMA. It was first available in May 2001 as a pre-release (test) ofW-CDMA technology.[7] Thefirst commercial launch of 3G was also by NTT DoCoMo in Japan on 1 October 2001, althoughit was initially somewhat limited in scope;[8][9] broader availability of the system was delayed byapparent concerns over its reliability.[10]

The second network to go commercially live was by SK Telecom in South Korea on the CDMA-based 1xEV-DO technology in January 2002. By May 2002 the second South Korean 3Gnetwork was by KT on EV-DO and thus the Koreans were the first to see competition among 3Goperators.

The first European pre-commercial network was an UTMS network on the Isle of Man by ManxTelecom, the operator then owned by British Telecom, and the first commercial network (alsoUTMS based W-CDMA) in Europe was opened for business by Telenor in December 2001 withno commercial handsets and thus no paying customers.

The first commercial United States 3G network was by Monet Mobile Networks, on CDMA20001x EV-DO technology, but this network provider later shut down operations. The second 3Gnetwork operator in the USA was Verizon Wireless in October 2003 also on CDMA2000 1x EV-DO. AT&T Mobility is also a true 3G UMTS network, having completed its upgrade of the 3Gnetwork to HSUPA.

The first pre-commercial demonstration network in the southern hemisphere[dubious discuss]

wasbuilt in Adelaide, South Australia by m.Net Corporation in February 2002 using UMTS on2100 MHz. This was a demonstration network for the 2002 IT World Congress. The firstcommercial 3G network was launched by Hutchison Telecommunications branded as Three inMarch 2003.

Emtel Launched the first 3G network in Africa.


9/22

By June 2007, the 200 millionth 3G subscriber had been connected. Out of 3 billion mobilephone subscriptions worldwide this is only 6.7%. In the countries where 3G was launched first Japan and South Korea 3G penetration is over 70%.[11] In Europe the leading country is Italywith a third of its subscribers migrated to 3G. Other leading countries by 3G migration includeUK, Austria, Australia and Singapore at the 20% migration level. A confusing statistic is

counting CDMA2000 1x RTT customers as if they were 3G customers. If using this definition,then the total 3G subscriber base would be 475 million at June 2007 and 15.8% of all subscribersworldwide.

The 2G spectrum scam in India involved the issue of 1232 licenses by the ruling Congress-ledUPA alliance[1] of the 2G spectrum to 85 companies[1] including many new telecom companieswith little or no experience in the telecom sector at a price set in the year 2001.

The scam involved allegations regarding

the under pricing of the 2G spectrum by the Department of Telecommunications which resultedin a heavy loss to the exchequer, and the illegal manipulation of the spectrum allocation process to favour select companies

The issue came to light after the auction of airwaves for 3G services which amounted to677,190 crore (US$151.01 billion) to the exchequer.[2] A report submitted by the Comptrollerand Auditor General based on the money collected from 3G licenses estimated that the loss to theexchequer due to under pricing of the 2G spectrum was 176,379 crore (US$39.33 billion).[3]

The scam came to public notice when the Supreme Court of India tookSubramaniam Swamy'scomplaints on record [With Case type:Writ Petition (Civil),Case No:10, Year:2011].[4] it is a

very dangerous scam by A Raja. There still many licenses sold from A Raja

[edit] Civil Servants, Politicians and Corporations Involved in scam bad

All the accused have been booked under sections 120(B) (criminal conspiracy), 468 (Forgery forpurpose of cheating), 471 (using as genuine a forged document or electronic record), 420(cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) and 109 (abetment if the act abetted iscommitted in consequence, and where no express provision is made for its punishment) of theIndian Penal Code.[5]

[edit] Politicians, Ministers and Parliamentarians involved

Andimuthu Raja, Union Cabinet Minister for Communications and Information Technology :The Comptroller and Auditor General holds Raja personally responsible for the sale of 2G

spectrum at 2001 rates in 2008, resulting in the previously mentioned loss of up to Rs. 1.76 lakh

crores (US$40 billion) to the national exchequer.[6] In August, 2010, evidence was submitted by

the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) showing that Raja had personally signed and

approved the majority of the questionable allocations.[7]


10/22

Kanimozhi Aravindhan, Member of Rajya Sabha : On April 25, 2011 Kanimozhi was named as aco-conspirator in the supplementary chargesheet filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation

(CBI) in connection with the 2G spectrum case. The chargesheet submitted before the Supreme

Court establishes how Rs 200 crore connected with the scam traveled from a partnership firm of

businessman Shahid Balwa of Swan Telecom to the Karunanidhi family-owned Kalaignar TV.[5]

She has been charged with section 7 and 11 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The sections

deal with acceptance of alleged gratification.[8]

[edit] Bureaucrats involved

Siddhartha Behura, Civil Servant (IAS officer of 1973 batch UP cadre) : He was the Telecomsecretary who served in the DOT at the time of the 2G allocation.

Pradip Baijal, Civil Servant (IAS officer of 1966 batch MP cadre) : He is alleged to haverecommended policies that favored certain Telecom companies when he was heading the TRAI.

Post retirement, Baijal joined Noesis, a consulting firm.[9][10] Raja has made references to Baijal's

decisions in 2003 as the basis for his decisions in 2008; something which has been attacked by

Arun Shourie and several media pundits. The houses and offices of the bureaucrat were

recently[when?] visited by the Central Bureau of Investigation as part of their investigations.[11]However, Baijal is expected to get a clean chit in this issue [12]

R K Chandolia, Civil Servant (IES officer of 1984 batch cadre) : He was private secretary of Rajaduring UPA-I when the licences were awarded. When Raja became the Telecom Minister once

again in UPA-II, Chandolia had been promoted to the Joint Secretary rank. Raja re-designated

him Economic Adviser, that gave him the charge of all important policy-related work. Chandolia

interacted with all the licensees. It is said that it was Chandolia who, from DDG-access services A

K Srivastava's room, had handed out letters of intent to representatives of various companies.[13]

[edit] Corporations involved

Allianz Infra[14] Aircel Dishnet Wireless Loop Mobile Sistema Shyam Mobile (MTS) Sistema Mobile Russia Reliance Communications S Tel Swan Telecom Tata Tele Services Unitech Group Videocon Telecommunications Limited

Vodafone Essar Virgin Mobile India

[edit] Corporate personalities involved

Anil Ambani - Reliance Group (ADAG)[15] - Ratan Tata Shahid Balwa - Swan Telecom (now Etisalat DB)


11/22

Vinod Goenka - Swan Telecom (now Etisalat DB) Venugopal Dhoot - Videocon Group Prashant Ruia - Essar Group Sanjay Chandra, Managing Director ofUnitech Ltd and Unitech Wireless

All of them have either been questioned by the CBI or are prospective suspects in the scam.

[edit] Media persons and lobbyists involved

Nira Radia, a former airline entrepreneur turned corporate lobbyist whose conversations withpoliticians and corporate entities were recorded by the government authorities. The contents

were later leaked by unknown parties creating the Nira Radia tapes controversy

[edit] Politicans, Ministers and Parlimentarians involved

Dayanidhi Maran, former Union Cabinet Minister for Textiles : The main allegation revealed byTehelka magazine and followed up in several other reports, is that Maran forced C Sivasankaran,owner of Aircel, to sell the telecom company to Maran's Malaysia-based friend T Ananda

Krishnan in 2006. The reports allege that Maran deliberately delayed issuing spectrum licenses

to Aircel's sister concern, Dishnet Wireless, when it was owned by Sivasankaran. He issued the

licenses soon after it changed hands to Ananda Krishnan who owns Maxis.[16]

P. Chidambaram, current Union Cabinet Minister for Home Affairs : Subramaniam Swamystates that when the 2G Spectrum rate was finalised, P.Chidambaram was the finance minister

of India and he had a major role in deciding the spectrum price with A.Raja. Subramaniam

alleges that Chidambaram had received kickbacks and undervalued the spectrum cost.[17]

[edit] Petitioners to 2g scam

Subramaniam Swamy, activist lawyer and politician, whose letters to the Prime Ministerdemanding action and affidavits and cases in the Supreme Court brought the issue into the

public limelight.

Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, a journalist who was one among the very first to write on theirregularities in the awarding of 2G spectrum allocation by the Telecom Ministry. He is also one

of the petitioners in the 2G PIL currently being heard in the Supreme court.[18]

Prashant Bhushan, on behalf of the Centre for Public Interest Litigation. Anil Kumar, on behalf of the civil society organisationTelecom Watchdog Others:Several eminent people like former chief election commissioners J.M. Lyngdoh, T.S.

Krishnamurthy and N. Gopalaswami and former central vigilance commissioner (CVC) P. Shankar

are also petitioners in the suits filed by civil society groups.[14]

[edit] Loss to Exchequer

The Controller and Auditor General of India used three different methods to assess thepresumptive loss to the exchequer resulting from not auctioning 2G spectrum.[19]


12/22

The first method was based on the fact that S Tel, one of the licensees, explicitly offered to paysignificantly higher license fees for the spectrum. Based on the fees offered by S Tel, the CAGestimated the loss to the exchequer at 67,364 crore (US$15.02 billion)

The second method was based on the price recovered by the 3G auction in 2010. The CAG

reasoned that since 2G is really 2.75G (EDGE), its price should be comparable to that of 3Glicenses. Based on this method, the CAG estimated the loss to the exchequer to be 176,000crore (US$39.25 billion)

The third method was based on the fact that some of the licensees received FDI in the form ofequity, shortly after the spectrum allocation. The CAG reasoned that this equity infusion wasentirely due to the value of the allocated spectrum; this can be construed as re-sale of thespectrum by the licensee, and hence was a valid basis for assessing loss to the exchequer. Basedon this method, the CAG estimated the loss to the exchequer to be anywhere between 57,666crore (US$12.86 billion) (based on Etisalat's investment in Swan Telecom) and 69,626 crore(US$15.53 billion) (based on Telenor's investment in Unitech).

For its part, the Congress-party led government has publicly defended itself on this count andKapil Sibal, who replaced A. Raja as the communication minister, has refuted the CAGreasoning.[20] He has also justified his government's decision not to auction 2G spectrum as beingin line with the policy guidelines laid down by the 10th Five-Year Plan.[21][22]

[edit] Relationship between media and government

Main article: Nira Radia tapes controversy

Media sources such as OPEN and Outlookreported that Barkha Dutt and Vir Sanghvi knew thatcorporate lobbyist Nira Radia was influencing the decisions of A. Raja.[23] The critics alleged

that Dutt and Sanghvi knew about corruption between the government and the media industry,supported this corrupt activity, and suppressed news reporting the discovery of the corruption.[23]

[edit] Ratan Tata petitions over leak

The tapes leaked to the public include conversations between Nira Radia and Ratan Tata. Tatapetitioned the government to acknowledge his right to privacy and demanded accountability forthe leak, with the Minister for Home Affairs, CBI, Indian Income Tax Department, theDepartment of Telecommunication, and the Department of Information Technology asrespondents in the petition.[24]

On April 4, 2011 Indian Parliament's Public Accounts Committee (PAC)questioned Tata SonsChairman Ratan Tata and corporate lobbyist Niira Radia regarding their roles in 2G Scam.[25]

[edit] Response to scam

In early November 2010 Telecom Minister A Raja resigned.


13/22

In mid November the controller Vinod Rai issued show-cause notices to Unitech, S Tel, LoopMobile, Datacom (Videocon), and Etisalat to respond to his assertion that all of the 85 licensesgranted to these companies did not have the up-front capital required at the time of theapplication and were in other ways illegal.[26] Some media sources have speculated that thesecompanies will receive large fines but not have their licenses revoked, as they are currently

providing some consumer service.

[26]

In response to the various allegations, the Govt of India has replaced the then incumbentTelecom minister, A. Raja with Kapil Sibal who has taken up this charge in addition to being theUnion minister for Human Resources Development.Mr Sibal contends that the "notional" lossesquoted are a result of erroneous calculations and insists that the actual losses are nil.[20][21]

The CBI conducted raids on Raja and four other telecom officials - former telecom secretarySiddharth Behura, Raja's personal secretary R K Chandolia, member telecom K Sridhar and DoTdeputy director general A K Srivastava on 8 December 2010.Kanimozhi, DMK MP andKarunanidhi's daughter, was arrested and sent to Tihar jail by a Delhi court which dismissed her

bail plea in the 2G spectrum scam, saying there was a possibility of witnesses being influencedconsidering the "magnitude" of the crime.[27]

[edit] Arrests and Chargesheets

On February 2, 2011, the Central Board of Direct Taxes arrested former TelecommunicationsUnion Minister Andimuthu Raja. The CBDT also arrested R.K. Chandolia, Raja's personal aide,and Siddharth Behura, the former Telecom Secretary.[28][29] Both Raja and Chandolia are heard inconversation with Niira Radia in the released Radia tapes.

On February 8, 2011, the CBI arrested Mumbai based Dynamix Balwas (DB) group managing

director Shahid Usman Balwa in connection with the 2G spectrum allocation scam. The CBI hasevidence from the Income Tax department that Shahid Usman Balwa, considered close to Raja,was instrumental in channelling the kickbacks allegedly received by the former telecomminister.[30]

On March 29, 2011, in Delhi, the CBI arrested Asif Balwa (younger brother of the arrestedformer Managing Director ofDB-Etisalat Group, Shahid Balwa) and Rajeev Agarwal for theiralleged involvement in money transfer to the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam's (DMK) KalaignarTV channel.[31]

On April 2, 2011, the CBDT filed its first 80,000 page chargesheet in the 2G spectrum scam

before a Special Court in Delhi naming nine individuals and three companies. It said thewrongful acts of the accused deprived the government exchequer of possible revenues amountingto INR Rs 30,985 crore (USD $ 6,983,322,233). The accused include the followingindividuals:[32]

1. Andimuthu Raja, former Telecom minister2. Siddharth Behura, former Telecom Secretary3. R.K. Chandolia, Raja's former personal secretary


14/22

4. Shahid Usman Balwa, former Director ofSwan Telecom (now Etisalat DB)5. Sanjay Chandra, Managing Director ofUnitech Ltd and Unitech Wireless6. Gautam Doshi, Group MD, Reliance Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group7. Hari Nair, Senior Vice-President, Reliance Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group8. Surendra Pipara, Senior Vice-President, Reliance Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group and Reliance

Telecom Ltd

9. Vinod Goenka, Director, Swan Telecom (now Etisalat DB)The three companies named are:

1. Swan Telecom2. Unitech Wireless3. Reliance Telecom

In the first chargesheet, the CBI had named lobbyist Niira Radia and 124 others as witnesses.

On 25 April 2011, in its second chargesheet in the scam, the Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI) named five more accused individuals:[33]

1. Kanimozhi - Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament (DMK) and daughter of Tamil Nadu ex-ChiefMinister M Karunanidhi

2. Sharad Kumar ofKalaignar TV3. Karim Morani ofCineyug Films4. Asif Balwa ofKusegaon Realty5. Rajiv B Agarwal of Kusegaon Realty

On 20 May 2011, Special CBI Judge O P Saini of the Delhi court ordered the arrest ofDMKMember of Parliament Kanimozhi and Kalaignar TV Managing Director Sharad Kumar after

rejecting their bail pleas in the 2G spectrum case.[34]

[edit] P.A.C. (Public Accounts Committee)

Public Accounts Committee, a 21-member committee, with chairman as Murli Manmohar Joshi,was formed to investigate, independent of other committees like JPC. The chairman submitted adraft report on 2G scam to Lok Sabha Speaker on Saturday 30-04-2011, and insisted that it betabled in the Parliament. UPA members' claimed that the report had been "rejected", and 11 MPsof same committee(majority out of 21) had "rejected" the report - which was termed as"unconstitutional" by MM Joshi pointing out that such a possibility does not exist till the reportis "read" by members and "discussed" para by para. Defending his action of calling witnessesfrom diverse fields in connection with the 2G scam probe, Joshi said it was the duty of the PACto "trace and examine the way the money of common man is spent". He alleged that on 28-04-2011, during the last meeting of the committee, ministers passed on "chits" and called up PACmembers to speak and behave in a particular manner; that said trouble started when a decisionwas taken to call top officials of the PMO, Cabinet Secretary, Attorney General and CBI directorfor questioning. A minister reportedly commented that the PAC draft report will be thrown in thedustbin, to which the chairman regretted and questioned if Parliament's proposals and thenSupreme Court orders would be given the same treatment.[35]


15/22

[edit] Impact on stock markets

The first casualty in Stock Markets once Raja was arrested was DB Realty.[36] 20% fall in thestock prices of DB Realty. Sun TV had its shares fall by 10%.[37] Sun TV COO refused theallegations. Swan Telecom Chief Balwa was arrested on Feb 8 [38] and this led to rumours of

links with Anil Ambani's Reliance ADAG and it led to 20% fall of his stocks . Its reported thatnearly 2 Billion USD was eroded from his stocks .[39] Spicejet stocks went down after reports ofinvestigation on Maran's recent takeover of Spicejet .[40]

What is 2G spectrum scam?

New Delhi: From the time allegations of misappropriation during the bidding for allocation of2G spectrum surfaced, till Telecom Minister A Raja's ouster, high drama charged both politics inDelhi and Tamil Nadu. So what exactly is the Spectrum Scam that led to all this?

WHAT IS SPECTRUM SCAM?

2G licenses issued to private telecom players at throwaway prices in 2008 CAG: Spectrum scam has cost the government Rs. 1.76 lakh crore CAG: Rules and procedures flouted while issuing licenses

WHAT ARE THE CHARGES ON FORMER TELECOM MINISTER A RAJA?

CHEAP TELECOM LICENSES

Entry fee for spectrum licenses in 2008 pegged at 2001 prices Mobile subscriber base had shot up to 350 million in 2008 from 4 million in 2001

NO PROCEDURES FOLLOWED

Rules changed after the game had begun Cut-off date for applications advanced by a week Licenses issued on a first-come-first-served basis No proper auction process followed, no bids invited Raja ignored advice of TRAI, Law Ministry, Finance Ministry TRAI had recommended auctioning of spectrum at market rates


16/22

FAVOURITISM, CORPORATES ENCASH PREMIUM

Unitech, Swan Telecom got licenses without any prior telecom experience Swan Telecom given license even though it did not meet eligibility criteria

Swan got license for Rs. 1537 crore, sold 45% stake to Etisalat for Rs. 4200 crore Unitech Wireless got license for Rs. 1661 crore, sold 60% stake for Rs. 6200 crore All nine companies paid DoT only Rs. 10,772 crore for 2G licences

OTHERS IN THE NET

DMK chief M Karunanidhi's daughter and MP Kanimozhi who has been named by theCBI as a co- conspirator with A Raja

Shahid Balwa, the promoter of Swan Telecom, who the CBI believes had a central role inthe 2G spectrum scam. He has been accused of colluding with former Telecom Minister

A Raja by allegedly channelising kickbacks Raja got from the spectrum sale into the realestate Unitech chief Sanjay Chandra and DB Realty founder Vinod Goenka who have been

chargesheeted for cheating and conspiracy Three senior executives of Anil Ambani controlled ADAG, Gautam Doshi, Hari Nair and

Surendra Pipara. All these are currently lodged in Tihar Jail Former telecom secretary Sidharth Behura, who allegedly shut counters to physically

block other telecom companies, faces the same charges as Raja. And so does Raja'sPersonal Secretary RK Chandolia

THE ROLE OF KALAIGNAR TV

One of the companies named by the CBI in the 2G scam - Swan Telecom - allegedly sent MrRaja a Rs. 214-crore kickback that was routed through a maze of companies but rested finallywith Kalaignar TV channel in Chennai that is owned mainly by Kanimozhi and Dayalu Ammal.Together, they have 80% stake in the company. Sharad Kumar, the Managing Director ofKalaignar TV, owns the balance and has also been accused of conspiring with Mr Raja.

What is the 2G scam all about?

The 2G spectrum licences allocation scandal is one of several to have emerged in the past few months,

tarnishing the reputation of Prime Minister Manmohan Singhs government


17/22

New Delhi: A court on Wednesday put on trial the first set of officials and businessmen indictedin the countrys biggest corruption case, a multi-billion dollar telecom scandal that has weakenedthe government and put off some foreign investors.

The 2G spectrum licences allocation scandal is one of several to have emerged in the past few

months, tarnishing the reputation of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, whose government hasgone on the defensive against an emboldened opposition.

While corruption itself has been largely shrugged off by investors, the regulatory uncertaintyfrom the review of past government decisions is a source of concern to investors.

Present at the hearing are former telecom minister Andimuthu Raja as well as officials from theIndian joint ventures of Norwegian telecom firm Telenor and the United Arab Emirates Etisalat.

Three executives from Reliance ADA, owned by Indian billionaire Anil Ambani, are also on trial

in the case which police investigators said involved awarding companies valuable telecomlicences at rock-bottom prices. The state auditor Comptroller Auditor General (CAG) estimatesthe scam to have cost the government up to $39 billion in lost revenue.

Here are some questions about the scandal:

What is this all about?

Police say that millions of dollars were paid in bribes to ensure favours for certain firms in 2007-08 when India issued 122 new licences to offer mobile phone services in the worlds fastestgrowing telecom market.

The CAG estimated India may have lost up to $39 billion in revenue -- equivalent to the defencebudget -- due to violations during the allocation process.

Several licences were issued to firms who were ineligible, or who had no prior experience in thesector, or who had hid material facts while applying, the auditor said.

The telecom ministrys process of issuing licences lacked transparency and was undertaken inan arbitrary, unfair and inequitable manner, the auditor said.

What are the charges?

Police have charged the accused of cheating, conspiracy and other crimes.

The accused include Sanjay Chandra, the managing director of Telenors India partner Unitechand Shahid Balwa, the vice chairman of Etisalats India operations.


18/22

Raja is also accused of taking bribes to favour the local partners of Telenor and Etisalat.Investigators say the bribes were routed through a television channel run by Rajas DMK party, akey member of the ruling coalition led by Singhs Congress party.

All the accused deny any wrongdoing. Telenor and Etisalat say the events described occurred

before they invested in India.

What is the fallout?

The scandal has tarnished the Congress-led UPA governments image, spooked investors and hasled to the Norwegian Prime Minister writing to his Indian counterpart seeking fair treatmentfor Telenor.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was reprimanded by the Supreme Court for not acting quicklyenough against Raja and the opposition all but shut down an entire Parliament sessiondemanding a joint parliamentary committee (JPC) to probe the scandal.

The government gave in to that demand. A separate parliamentary committee PAC (publicaccounts committee) is also investigating the graft scandal.

PAC last week summoned Ratan Tata and Anil Ambani -- two of Indias most high-profilebusinessmen -- to answer questions on the licence allocations.

The telecom ministry is considering whether to cancel 85 licences issued in 2008, includingthose held by Telenor and Etisalat.

The scandal could dent Congress chances in Wednesdays elections in Tamil Nadu, which is

ruled by the DMK, as voters may decide to punish it over the role senior party member Rajaplayed in the corruption scandal.

What does this mean for investment in India?

Regulatory uncertainty is worrying investors, as so many business deals are being investigatedand there is the possibility that some may be scrapped.

This concern has hit the stock market, which ended the March quarter as the worlds worstperformer.

If the telecom ministry does decide to cancel some or all of the 85 licences it is scrutinizing,questions will be raised over whether foreign investors can trust Indian government contracts.

Norways PM has said Telenor should not be penalized for errors others have committed inIndia.


19/22

It is early to say whether licences will be cancelled, but pressure will be on the government notto do so because operators have invested millions of dollars in rolling out networks andcancelling them will inconvenience subscribers.

2G Scam: Power of having big "Surname" in India like Tata, Birla and AmbaniRecent scams in India not only tell about the free loot of scarce resources but also show thepower of having big Surnames like Tatas, Birlas and Ambanis. It seems that India has beentaken over by corrupt politicians in alliance with corrupt bureaucrats and businessmen. Numberof PSUs (Balco, VSNL, Modern Food, Hindustan Teleprinters, etc.) has been divested atthrowaway prices. Since liberalization from Licence Permit Raj, few industrial housesmanaged by people having big Surnames, have grown exceptionally by exploiting India'sscarce resources, be it mines, oil, land, ports or spectrum, in alliance with the political masters.Small and medium entrepreneurs are going out of business, because of monopoly created byestablished industrial houses by lobbying with the government. When public becomes angry over

revelations of such scandals, the strategy often employed is to start targeting second-tierselectively while protecting top-tier who can buy India democracy with the vast wealth gained bycorruption. Recent example is 2G spectrum scam.

When things were going as per the whims and fancies of Tatas, Birlas and Ambanis in telecomsector, there was no scam and no inquiry from CBI, ED, Income Tax, PAC or JPC. The momentnew players entered in this sector, they were killed by these big people with the support of Indianbeaurocratic system. People know that big corporate houses, like Ambanis, Tatas and Birlas, notonly control the government but also play a major role in the formation of government andallocation of ministries, as apparent from the Radia leaked tapes.

TATALets start with Tata first who has been shown as victim of DMK leader A. Raja policies in theCBI first chargesheet. Surprisingly, in the same chargesheet, CBI estimated loss of Rs.8,448.95crores to the exchequer from Tatas dual technology licenses. Tata not only got 19 dualtechnology licenses but also got 3 new licenses in 2008 at 2001 price for which loss to theexchequer is estimated to Rs.22,535.6 crores. Till recently, two senior DMK leaders (PVKalyanasundaram and VRS Sampath) were helping Tata by acting as director in TataCommunications. A. Raja considered Tata applications for dual technology licenses even thoughthese applications were filed after last date. It shows, Tata was the biggest beneficiary of A. Rajapolicies and major contributor of loss to the exchequer claimed by CBI in its chargesheet. Tatashand-written letter of November 13, 2007 (delivered personally through Niira Radia) to the then

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister praising A. Rajas action defies the CBI story of Tata as victim. Inthis letter, Tata had complained about some powerful vested interest groups in the telecomindustry but Tata had forgotten that he is also part of the same class. For this reason only, Tatagot a clean chit in Unitech-Tata Realty deal and Voltas land deal with Karunanidhi family, andon the contrary, shown as victim. When unsecured loan from DB Realty to Kalaignar TV can bequid pro quo, then why not Voltas land deal?


20/22

Recently, Tata regretted that his conglomerate couldn't enter the growing aerospace industry inIndia because his attempts to enter the segment were thwarted by corruption. Why is Tatacomplaining now in November 2010? Why he is not disclosing the names of the 3 PrimeMinisters he approached and the minister who asked bribe from him? Why had he not filed anycomplaint against such minister if he really wanted to remove corruption? Does it mean that all

private aviation operators are part of corruption or is he trying to show that Tata has created a bigempire without being part of corruption? If it is true, why does Tata need to hire corporatelobbyist Niira Radia? Surprisingly, CBI had failed to unearth anything incriminating againstNiira Radia whose leaked conversations with assorted bigwigs have riveted the nation.

BIRLAIdea Cellular (Aditya Birla Group company) was also issued 9 GSM licenses in 2008 at 2001price and accordingly, it has also contributed in the loss to the exchequer like others. But, CBIhas found no evidence against Idea Cellular to prove any wrongdoing may be, because IdeaCellular is owned by Birlas or CBI is not sure about its calculation of loss to the exchequer. CBIalso failed to investigate Idea-Tata connection (like Swan-Reliance connection) when it applied

for license in Mumbai circle. Idea applied for this license in August 2005 when Tatas wereproviding telecom services in Mumbai and also holding more than 10% stake in Idea. Instead ofrejecting Ideas application (being in violation of Indian telecom rules), DoT favoured Birlas byputting this application on hold till Tatas exited the company in 2006. Now, CBI is favouringBirlas by saying that its application for Mumbai circle was kept in abeyance for 6-month periodto comply with DoT rule. While giving this clean chit, CBI has failed to check that there is noprovision in DoT guidelines to keep the applications in abeyance.

AMBANIIn 2003, Reliance and Tata (fixed line operators) were allowed to offer mobile phone services, atfirst in the limited WLL mode (Wireless local loop) and later full mobility without paying thehefty fees paid by the earlier operators. Apart from Tata, the biggest beneficiary of change inpolicy was Ambanis Reliance Infocomm who gained thousands of crores of spectrum withoutpaying a dime in additional license fees, and the then telecom minister are reported to havereceived benami shares of Reliance Group companies as a gift.

Again in 2007, Ambani also got dual technology licenses (like Tata) in 2007 at 2001 price andthat too, a day before the announcement of policy, therefore causing loss to the exchequer goingby the CBI understanding. None of the companies which have got dual technology licenses, hasbeen booked so far by CBI. In fact, for Swan-Reliance connection, CBI has made smallemployees of Ambani as accused and kept him out of its loop despite having a statement ofICICI bank manager that only Anil Ambani and his wife were entitled to sign big cheques. Evenotherwise, it is unbelievable that these small employees were authorized to take decisions worththousands of crores of rupees without taking permission of Ambani. CBI has closed its mind on aquestion whether these employees were the beneficiaries?

RUIAComing to Ruias who have recently sold balance 33% stake in Vodafone-Essar to Vodafone fora whopping amount of USD 5 billion. The Ruias are under CBI scanner as they suspect Essar ofusing Khaitans as a front for ownership in Loop Telecom. Current regulations prevent any entity


21/22

from holding beyond 10% stake in more than one company in a circle. Essar was holding 33%stake in Vodafone-Essar when it applied for telecom licenses again through Loop. But it appearsthat CBI is not able to get hold of Ruias because of their name and fame. CBI in March 2011admitted before the Supreme Court that first chargesheet shall be filed in April 2011 against 2companies - MD of one company is already in custody and second company is linked to

Vodafone. But suddenly, Ruias managed to keep themselves out of the first chargesheet. Tilldate, no one from Essar or Loop has been booked by CBI despite having a written compliantfrom Indian High Commissioner to Mauritius, Madhusudan Ganapati, against Prashant Ruia andI. P. Khaitan, saying that both Ruia and Khaitan came to meet him under the pretext ofdiscussing the business environment in Mauritius but ended up asking him to share details on theLetter Rogatory sent by CBI to the Mauritius government. This incidence also took place beforefiling of first chargesheet but no action has been taken till date. On the one hand, CBI isopposing bail of 2G scam accused on an apprehension of interference in investigation whereas incase of actual incidence of interference, no action is being taken.

In terms of magnitude of the crime, that is loss to the exchequer, Loop has caused almost

equivalent loss as Datacom and Unitech has done. CAG also said that Loop was ineligible forlicense on the ground of objects clause and paid up capital. In case of Swan and Unitech, CBIhas filed the chargesheet pending reply of the Letter Rogatory but chargesheet against Loop isbeing delayed contending that reply on the Letter Rogatory is pending. For Loop, opinions fromthe Corporate Affairs ministry (MCA) and legal experts are being considered but no suchopinion was not taken for Swan-Reliance connection. In a recent communication, MCA hasreversed its stand of April 13, 2009 confirming violation of norms by Essar. Surprisingly, Loopis aware of such MCA communication but CBI is claiming its ignorance. Why CBI is receivingvarious representations from legal experts and politicians to save Ruias? Isnt it sufficient toshow how influential is the power of Surname in India?

DHOOTDhoot company (Datacom Solutions) also got 21 GSM licenses in 2008 at 2001 price andtherefore, has a fair contribution in the loss to exchequer claimed by CBI in its chargesheet.Despite having recorded statements of DoT officials (Kirthy Kumar, S K Saxena, S E Rizwi andS C Sharma) saying that Rajya Sabha MP Rajkumar Dhoot of Videocon group was present atDoT reception where applicants were completing formalities relating to LOI. In fact, Dhootpartner in Datacom, Mahendra Nahata, was creating "disturbance and chaos" on crucial day ofJanuary 2008. Datacom is the major beneficiary of tweaking in FCFS policy by coming atnumber 2 position from number 9 position. But, CBI is going cold on these issues and protectingDhoot brothers.

MITTALThough it is called as 2G Spectrum Scam, but investigation agencies are keeping their ears,eyes and mouth closed where the spectrum is. According to CAG report, old operators, includingSunil Bharti Mittal company, are hoarding spectrum of 150 MHz. Even in JPC, CBI stated thatSunil Bharti Mittal-led Bharti Airtel was allotted spectrum beyond 8 MHz in violation ofeligibility norms. Five months have gone in the preliminary inquiry registered in January 2011on allocation of 2G spectrum during 2001-07, but CBI is still busy in scrutinizing the documents,looking at the telecom policy and its implementation by telecom ministers. Justice Shivraj V.


22/22

Patil Committee report is also being looked into by CBI (sent to it by the Telecom Ministry earlythis year) which has reported many faults in the functioning of the previous telecom ministersand DoT officials favouring old operators. How much time does the CBI needs to read JusticeShivraj Patils Repot of 149 pages and to convert its PE into FIR. Shockingly, when CBI saysthat it is busy in looking at the telecom policy, then pending such review, how it can blame A.

Raja for tweaking the same, or is the CBI is again trying to protect some big names like Mittals.Recently, it was reported that documents related to the telecom policy of 1994 are untraceable inDoT. Could it be that the CBI is waiting for crucial papers to go missing and then to get intoaction?

Delay Tactics Adopted by Big InfluencersAs per recent media report on CBI performance, at least 2300 cases are pending unsolved formore than a decade. The agency has at least 1000 cases pending for more than 15 years and 381cases for more than two decades. As per K Madhavan, former joint director of CBI, "The pile-uphappens due to various tactics used by influential accused. They want to delay the case. This is amain reason why 99% of the cases move slowly in CBI courts." The latest example supporting K

Madhavan statement is 2G spectrum scam where persons like Balwa, Goenka and Chandra havebeen arrested. In case of Ambani, small employees have been arrested. In case of Ruias, the CBIchargesheet itself has got delayed, since this time, Loop was supposed to figure in thechargesheet. Why no action has been taken against big Surnames despite having all theevidences? Can someone believe that these small people, who have been arrested till date, wereinfluential enough to tweak the telecom policies in their favour and against the big people likeTatas, Birlas or Ambanis? This makes it very clear that it is easier to buy anything in India if youare carrying a big Surname.

what is 2g scam all about

Documents