Enabling the Economic Impact of the Internet


VIKRAM CHANDRA: Ladies and
gentlemen, let us start with the first of our panels. We are going to be taking a look
at the economic impact of the internet. We’ve been talking about some of
the transformation that is perhaps possible. Is it going to end up
transforming the economy of India, and if so,
in what manners? And I’d like to invite a very
special panel up here. I want to begin by Anu
Madgavkar, who’s the senior fellow at McKinsey
Global Institute. Anu, why don’t you come up? She has done a lot of work in
researching and investigating the full scope of the internet
here in India. Elizabeth Bramson-Boudreau,
from the “Economist” Intelligence Unit, has been
really looking at a number of sectors and specifically
what’s going to happen on the internet. Deep Kalra, founder and CEO of
makemytrip.com, perhaps one of the most successful internet entrepreneurs here in the country. Deep, please do join us. Right, there used to be a time
when if you were doing a panel like this, we would be all
sitting in a room, having a conversation. Now, look at the power of
the internet already. This is buzzing all over the
place in a number of manners, and no one would have thought. I’ve been seeing people. A lot of people right here
in this room are tweeting about it. This is rolling out live
on indiatv.com. It’s going out on the air. There’s discussion
on cyberspace. The entire concept of having
a conversation now is increasingly becoming a public
and an internet conversation. And now if Mr. Pitroda– what
Mr. Pitroda says actually does work out, and we do get that
sort of an infrastructure, it will transform society. I guess a big question that we
are here to answer in the next 30, 40 minutes is is it
going to transform the economy as well? If so, to what extent? And how far will that
process go? Will it only be a section of
people who will benefit from the internet, or will it
actually go down all the way to the most remote of
villages and to the bottom of the pyramid? Anu, why don’t you start off
first, because you have done some research on this. What have been your findings? ANU MADGAVKAR: So McKinsey has
been looking at this issue quite hard over the last year or
so, in terms of what really is the economic impact
of the internet. And as we look at it, we realize
that you have to actually look at it in almost
three steps, or there are three layers to the
economic impact. The first layer is sort of the
direct economic impact, the impact that comes because
households, individuals like you and me, SMEs, large
businesses, all of us invest in hardware, software, services,
and telecom, because these enable us to use internet services that we value. And even if you just look at
the direct impact of that level of spending, it’s
actually huge. So globally, we estimate that
if you thought about all of the spending as an industry,
like you did many other industries, it would be roughly
3% of global GDP, which is about $1.7 trillion
worth of spending which is internet motivated. And in India, that number
currently would be about $30 billion, which is about 1.6% of
our GDP, projected to rise to about $100 billion, to your
question in terms of what’s the forward looking potential
of this– about $100 billion by 2015,
which would make just direct internet related economy at
least as big as the health care sector in terms
of share of GDP. It would make it bigger than
the education sector. So the first order impact
itself is huge. And in addition, there is a sort
of a multiplier impact that it has on other sectors,
which is roughly 1.6 to 2 times, and then an equivalent
impact of another $100 billion potentially, which is through
productivity savings and productivity gains that using
the internet impacts on those who actually use it. VIKRAM CHANDRA: Elizabeth, do
you want to add to that to the extent that lets us
take a look at some of the more advanced– if you like– internet economies, where a
lot of things are really moving there, whether it’s the
United States, South Korea, places like that– to what extent has the internet
had an impact on their economies, and what
percentage of their economy would now be internet centric? ELIZABETH BRAMSON-BOUDREAU:
Well, first of all, thank you for having us here. I actually think that the
particular statistics around the impact of the internet in
the economies of some of these developed markets are perhaps
more of the sorts of things that the McKinsey Global
Institute research has shown. I think, obviously, the internet
is far more advanced in the Western world. But within Asia, certainly
in Japan and Korea– those are two particular
markets that we’ve been looking at in some
of our research. So what we’ve been doing
at the “Economist” Intelligence Unit– we are the business research arm
of the “Economist” group that produces the “Economist”
magazine– is looking at what is happening
in terms of internet development, what some of
the local players– the platform players, the
content providers– what they’re doing and what some
of the issues are that they’re running into that might
be perhaps inhibiting or perhaps not enabling internet
development to go quite as far as they might have liked. What we definitely see is,
certainly within Asia, South Korean and Japanese
entrepreneurs and business leaders experience quite a
different set of challenges. They’re much more competitive
challenges. Here in India, the challenges
are of a different sort and are much more about really
trying to get a lot of momentum built in
the first place. VIKRAM CHANDRA: All
right, Deep. Deep, for starters, always
gets a slightly nervous expression on his face when I’m
about to start asking him a question. Because we were in school
together, and he wonders what horrible stories that I’m going
to suddenly throw out into the internet for
everyone to know. Deep, my lips are sealed. DEEP KALRA: So are
mine, Vikram. VIKRAM CHANDRA: I won’t
tell anybody anything. I promise you, certainly not
when it’s out on the internet like this. Tell us about the internet
economy, seeing as you perhaps more than anyone else here
has really benefited massively from it. DEEP KALRA: Sure, sure. Before that, Vikram, you’re
not my only senior on the panel, so as I know,
by the way. VIKRAM CHANDRA: You’ll
have other stories. DEEP KALRA: Yeah. VIKRAM CHANDRA: We’ll
come to that too. DEEP KALRA: So I have tons of
stories to tell everyone. But let’s tell the internet
story so far, I think. I think the stats shared by
Anu and by Elizabeth are really compelling. It indeed is true that this is
probably one of the fastest growing sectors in itself,
today, worldwide. When all other sectors are
pretty much stagnating, you have the internet really
powering on– 8% in developed countries, 18%
in developing countries. And in India, too, I think what
Sam said is very true. We should really focus
on what lies ahead. Because if we look back, I think
there are only a couple of things which have probably
gone right. And in all fairness, I think you
have to give credit to the government for a couple of
things they did right. A lot has not been done, but
I’d like to give credit, because I think that was
his closing note. VIKRAM CHANDRA: Seeing as
their own allies aren’t necessarily giving them credit,
you might as well. DEEP KALRA: Exactly, I think
IRCTC has been a great example of what the internet can do
in a country like India. And I think everyone who has
lived in India– and for the benefit of Elizabeth, others who
don’t know India– so this is our Indian railways portal
which went live, I guess, in 2002, 2003. And basically just showed the
full power of the internet in a terribly fragmented
kind of market. I mean, the convenience of the
internet, the fact that the alternative cost was very
painful, just from a cost point of view, because
eventually that tremendous savings which are actually
accruing to the railways, therefore to the government,
because of this. And everyone’s pretty much a
happier rail traveler, at least in a sense. So I think those are the kind
of things which you could do on commerce side. I think e-Choupal and not so
much credit to the government, but as a pretty interesting, I
think, joint exercise, largely ITC is a great example where
you can see trickle down. And you’ve seen tremendous
impact actually going down all the way to farmers. Apparently, I think about a
fairly large number, I think 5 to 10 million farmers
already touched. The plan is to touch maybe 25,
30 million farmers through e-Choupal, and really
tremendous savings. Because the middleman
commissions are just pretty much gone away. And there are some similar
initiatives down south, which are on a PPP model like
[? e-Sago, ?] and all are doing pretty well. So I think that’s been the stuff
which has happened well. But overall, I think
the scorecard, Vikram, is quite dismal. And I’d be happy to say that,
because I do say that wearing a NASSCOM Internet working group
hat or any of the other industry hats. We’ve done nothing about helping
broadband to grow. I think it’s a big fallacy
when we say that 10% of India is online. 10% of India is on
narrow band. That’s not online. You don’t begin to harness the
true potential of the internet if you’re on narrow band. 1% of India is truly online,
is on broadband, and that’s the part which has to grow
leaps and bounds. And dare I say, I think that
thunder’s is going to get probably stolen completely by
the mobile, simply because not enough has been done around the
broadband policy from the government. So I think there we’ve
had a really, really sad track record. And it would have been a
different story right now. We’ve had enterprises. You’ve had a few enterprises
who have– I think, like we used to say for
the IT sector– done well despite the government, but not
because there have been benefits from the government. And the exciting thought is what
if we had all the right incentives? You would have 100
such companies. You would have a much, much
deeper proliferation of e-commerce across. And then deep down the trickle
down, I think, to the villages, to all parts, would
have been tremendous. So I think you can be optimistic
like we have to be, and as an entrepreneur
I am optimistic. So I just love what Sam says. I’ve heard him before. And I think they
mean business. So if we manage to get our act
together, just like so many levels in the government,
this one can be a huge game changer. VIKRAM CHANDRA: All right, I
think you made some very interesting points. Let me ask both of
you on that. Anu, at the end of the day, we
all know what the promise of the internet is. And we all know how much it
could transform everything. But as Deep says, the actual
experience has not necessarily been as great as we thought. If you look at the broadband
penetration that he’s talking about, the numbers that you are
at right now, the numbers that we were hoping and
expecting five years or six years ago– that’s the
actual number. And increasingly, to the extent
that people are getting onto the internet, as, again,
he said, is largely on the mobile phone, which is not
ready the broadband. It’s certainly not Google
Fiber in Kansas. But it’s not even what a lot of
other places would consider acceptable internet. It’s really tough to
get connected in good quality speeds. ANU MADGAVKAR: I agree with you,
Vikram, and I agree with what Deep has said. I think one of the things that
really comes out through our research, where we benchmarked
India with a pool of 57 other countries, which is a fair mix
of both advanced economies as well as developing countries
at similar levels of GDP per capita. And we found that in terms of
almost all the enablers of a strong internet ecosystem,
India actually was bottom quartile, and in many cases 50
and 52 ranked out of 57. And this really reflects a lot
of the traditional historical lacunae in internet
infrastructure above all else. I think what’s really impressive
is that despite that, we have a vibrant
ecosystem of internet entrepreneurs. And because demographic factors
are in our balanced or in our favor, you do actually
have urban and young India adopting the internet
in larger numbers. So if you just double click on
the 10% internet penetration, you actually find that rural
penetration is less than 2%. Urban penetration is actually
reasonably good at about 25%. And you compare that then to the
Philippines or Vietnam or parts of Brazil, which
are more urbanized. You actually find that adoption
rates are quite high. VIKRAM CHANDRA: If I could
just interrupt you, the penetration might be 25%. But as he said, at
what speeds? What’s the connectivity? What can you actually do with
that internet connection is another point. Because struggling to get
email on it, then that’s rather sad. ANU MADGAVKAR: No, and that’s
born out by the facts as well, which is that typically an
Indian online consumer is spending 1/4 the time of
his Southeast Asian counterparts online. And the quality of that
experience is not great. But I think potentially, there
is another module that we have to plan for for India. Even in a best case, even if you
don’t think about internet going to 200,000 villages, if
you just think about the number of internet users going
up 3 times to about 350 million, I think India will be
unique in that 3/4 of this growth is likely to be mobile
and tablet only. And it’s almost the only country
in the world which has this kind of outlook. Because most of the other
developing countries would have 10 to 15% mobile
only usage. So what I’m trying to say is
that this is almost in the best case, and therefore this
is something that all the ecosystem participants will have
to sort of design for, in terms of what does it mean
to have small screens? What does it mean to
have low text? What does it mean to have the
whole interface being mobile driven? it’s maybe a different
type of evolution of applications, for example. VIKRAM CHANDRA: I think
that’s already happening, Deep, right? A lot of people who are in the
internet in India have already realized this sometime back,
and their focus is really largely mobile driven or device
driven, certainly. DEEP KALRA: Yeah, absolutely, I
think Anu is right in saying that in India, people are
going mobile first, and because there is no alternative
in a sense. So we actually have some really
exciting apps happening in India right now and
developments happening in India which are mobile only. There are some in the US, a few,
but a lot of folks have taken a cue from those. So if you look at a very
exciting company out here called Zomato, which is modeled
on OpenTable, in the US, Zomato has seen growth
rates of their mobile penetration going absolutely
berserk. So apparently, they’ve gone from
like 30, 40% to 60% in the last six months. Now, if someone was to take a
cue from that– and it could be a local cab company. It could be someone aggregating
taxis– they’d say, why should
I build a big screen application at all? What’s the need? Why won’t I just go mobile only
and focus, because we all know it’s all of our focus out
here, whether it’s this phenomenal company called Google
or anyone else, it was all about focus on one thing. So if you get the focus right
on the mobile– and then you let the other people just do– like the iPad has a 2x
iPhone experience on the iPad or whatever. So people are really going
mobile to large, so mobile and tablet a lot, which
is indeed true. But that won’t solve all the
problems, is what I feel. So just for a minute, if we
stick with SME, which is so exciting for our country,
because our country is really going to get driven
by the SME engine. And that’s pretty clear
to everybody. So if you look at SMEs– and I think there’s a McKinsey
study or probably one of the other folks, who said that small
and medium enterprises that embraced the internet
over the last, I guess, decade grew 10%. However, those who didn’t
actually declined. So I think the message
is clear. For small and medium
enterprises, you either embrace the internet, you
internetize your business, or you run the risk of perishing. Now that’s the kind
of business which may not take off. And I’m going to take an example
which necessitates me taking two bad words
in one sentence. But I’m going to talk about
China and Alibaba together, so no offense. But if you think about
it– and from Google’s point of view. So if you think about Alibaba in
China, that company is just phenomenal in terms of the fact
that millions of SMEs have come on board this
platform almost. It’s a company. But it’s actually a platform– and have reached out to millions
of customers round the word they could
have never done. And this has helped the
overall economy. And I find that one example
could work so beautifully for India, because we’ve got these
tiny SMEs, manufacturers all across the country. India has grown up with
industrial [? barracks ?] in Punjab and in smaller remote
parts of each and every state down south, et cetera. There are handicrafts coming
from all over the country. How do these folks find a great
market and an exciting market, and a global market
beyond the folks who visit those places or the
local markets? And something like that perhaps
will not happen that well if you’re mobile only. For that, you probably need a
big screen experience or a mid screen experience. You need hand holding. I think Google’s program– and I’ve been involved a bit
from the side with Rajan when he’s talked about
100K start ups. I just think it’s so exciting,
because that’s what the country needs. And I think in some sort of way,
you guys are trying to address that very same thing. There’s a lot of talent
out there. Let’s help them come up. In this case, those 100,000
start-ups will come up on the internet. But I think at the same point
of time, you can have a million existing companies,
which are SMEs, leverage the internet. VIKRAM CHANDRA: So there
are two side aspects. One is the extent to which the
internet economy itself works. And a second is the extent to
which the internet will enable other companies in the offline
world to really transform their businesses. So I’ll take both of
them in a minute. But, Elizabeth, if I could just
come to you on the other point that we were just
talking about– to the extent that in India,
the full potential of the internet is still a promise and
not an actuality, taking from global experiences, what
do you think that India has done wrong so far which it
might try and fix now? And we’ve actually been hearing
from the government for a long time. This is the big task
focus area. And it should be. What have they been
doing wrong? ELIZABETH BRAMSON-BOUDREAU: So
our research, which looked at what internet entrepreneurs,
platform providers, and content companies
around Asia– what they felt was preventing
them from becoming truly global players– so why don’t
we have an Indian Google? Why don’t we have
an Indian Apple? So the questions that we asked
were about what are the explanations? Is it about talent? Is about regulation? Is it about infrastructure? And there were a lot of
interesting points that I want to just share that get to
answering your question. So generally speaking, the
feeling was that within Asia, so within their sort of home
region, oftentimes within the home market, there were big
enough challenges that the global frontier had not yet
become something that really made sense to put
on the agenda. So we’ve got enough to
handle here in India. We’ve got enough to handle here
in Thailand, in China, whatever it was, that going
regionally was going to present some challenges,
things like having to think about– obviously, Asia Pacific is an
extremely heterogeneous region, unlike Western Europe
where there’s much more commonality in terms
of culture. Languages might be disparate,
but the culture is really quite homogeneous. Obviously, North America
is quite homogeneous. So there are some particular
inhibitors there. So the other thing is that in
general, there was a feeling that there are some real
challenges on the monetization side, which I wonder about
your perspectives here. So for example, if you want
to develop a real content business, getting people to
understand that sort of paying for content is something that
one might need to do is a bit a cultural disconnect. And also there’s obviously
some issues with piracy. And so if you’re able to
get pirated content, why would you pay? In fact, sometimes it was the
difficulty of finding a good way to pay for content
that led people to go to pirated solutions. But interestingly as well, I
think there are challenges in terms of online payments, this
difficulty of there’s relatively low credit
card penetration. Then there’s a lot of fraud. We talked to someone in
Indonesia who runs an e-commerce site. And as soon as they enabled
online credit card transactions, immediately 40%
of the next sort of three or four days– time period– of
transactions were fraudulent. So obviously, they
shut that down. But there’s obviously some
concerns about how to go forward with this. Regulation is something
that came up. So in terms of what the
government’s done wrong, I think the feeling was, I think
on the telecom side, in terms of the telecom infrastructure
and the uncertainty and the opacity around what exactly
is going on with both the wireless as well as things
in terms of the broadband development? Those are things that were
certainly cited. In terms of regulating the way
that, for example, third party providers need to
police content, there’s a lack of clarity. So entrepreneurs that we spoke
with and internet leaders here in India said, well, we’re
not even sure if we’re liable anymore. Are we liable for third
party content or not? And there tends to be an
inclination to shut down the site rather than to ask for
the, perhaps, fraudulent content to be removed, which
might be perhaps a little bit of an overreaction. And so there are some concerns
around really taking those risks. And so, for example, there was
an entrepreneur that we spoke with here who runs a site that
puts classified ads online. And they have 100 people. And I realize numbers in India
are not the same as they are in, say, the United
Kingdom or the US. But, still, 100 people
is a lot of people policing content. Now the question is would those
resources be better used somewhere else? Most definitely. So those are the sorts
of things that came out of the research. And although we’re sort of
reluctant to get into a it’s the government’s fault or it’s
not the government’s fault kind of argument, what we’re
trying to do is bring out what we heard from the people
who are actually doing business here. VIKRAM CHANDRA: Right,
Deep, you probably relate to a lot of that. And let’s start out with
monetization for the pure internet companies. In India, there seems to
be a real problem. Because if you look at the
amount that’s going in advertising, for example, the
listing for the content players, the amount that you’re
getting for advertising is almost laughable when you
compare to equivalent benchmarks anywhere
else in the world. And then you have the
transactional sites, so the e-commerce sites. And other than you or a couple
of others, most have really struggled to make money. So how do you monetize the
internet in India if you’re an internet only company? DEEP KALRA: Yeah, I think
that was a fair comment. I think if you are largely a
content play in India, it’s not that easy, simply because
it’s linked to the kind of time and the quality
of time you’re spending on the internet. So it comes back actually to a
whole rich media experience. If you have the ability
to enjoy rich media– VIKRAM CHANDRA: But actually,
even if you are offering rich media, even in that section,
it’s not necessarily that easy to monetize, even if you’re
looking at people who are watching video streams and the
others, you’re not getting advertisers to pay for that,
what you might be able to get in the United States
or anywhere else. DEEP KALRA: Yeah, I think in one
of the many roles you’ve had at NDTV, I think you’ve
seen that for yourself. It’s not been easy. You guys offer rich media. I’m saying the point is how
many guys can consume that rich media in the way that you
want them to consume it? And the moment it ceases to be
a pleasure, then that affects the experience. There’s also a cultural
thing out here. And I think most of us Indians
know that we don’t like to pay for stuff which we can get
away without paying. I mean, it doesn’t
happen so easily. So I don’t think the
“Economist,” with their premium subscriber program out
here, would do that well. It just wouldn’t, because we’d
find ways of getting that content to us in more
interesting ways. However, there’s a point that
you made earlier, which I think is actually something
which needs to be clarified, Elizabeth. So actually, today payments
is not an issue at all. So payments in India– and
again, I’ve got to give credit to government out here,
because two factor authentication changed the game
for e-commerce payments in India and fraud in India. Two factor authentication
was one of the boldest moves they made. It was 2 and 1/2 years ago. I remember transactions for
everyone fell off a cliff. You had some time to prepare for
it, but then after that, it’s fraud which has completely
nose dived. So it’s actually got under
control over the last couple of years, much lower than– so we also have a US
site, and a site in some other countries. And we see fraud levels being
much higher there, and thanks to two factor authentication. You can argue that it becomes
a little limiting for small value transactions, and there’s
work being done around that, and I think the
couple of bodies– again, NASSCOM internet
association, [? Subos ?] right here, doing a lot of
work try to convince the government there are certain
smaller value recurring payments which should not
come under that net. So again, subscriptions. The other point is that while
credit card holders are only probably 20 million with 40
million credit cards, two per head, but we have about 200
million people with debit cards which are now allowed to
be used on the internet as well as net banking. So there’s actually no
issue out there. We have more people who can pay
via plastic or online than people who are actually
online. So that’s not an issue today. Vernacular is an issue today. I think in vernacular, there’s
actually a huge opportunity today, because we don’t have
good quality content beyond news on vernacular sites. So there’s a lot of
interest there. But I think in terms of
monetizing, Vikram, we will see media pick up. I think the challenge will be
as our internet growth gets driven largely on the smaller
devices, media becomes a bigger challenge. And that’s what’s happening. So on the mobile, everyone’s
struggling. The biggest of companies, the
smartest of companies around the world are trying to figure
out how do I monetize my mobile content and what people
are seeing on the mobile? So I think that’s going
to be the challenge. So I don’t think we’ll ever
hit the kind of percentage rates that e-commerce sites
will make from media. In our business, the kind of
money that — let’s say– Expedia makes is a percentage
of the overall revenue for media, is many times
higher than ours. And we struggle. And we’re trying to figure
out ways around it. But dollar to dollar,
it’s difficult. VIKRAM CHANDRA: All right. We have about three, four
minutes more to go. So if I can just ask you on one
of the other things that did emerge from what both the
minister, [INAUDIBLE] Sam Pitroda was saying, it’s
about the extent to which the internet can transform lives of
people in the most remote parts of the country and at
the bottom of the pyramid. What’s the sort of research
and finding– is anything happening on that? Is it really transforming
people’s lives or not yet? I mean, e-governance, I guess,
is making an impact, but how about in other areas? ANU MADGAVKAR: I think, there
again, the promise is immense. There are some of these
critical enablers. The pipes need to be laid, and
the last mile connectivity needs to be there. And then you need a host of
vernacular based applications. But there are several areas
where we’ve seen– so for example, this whole
enablement of cash transfers, direct cash transfers, which
in a way is enabled through internet based platform– has
this huge impact in terms of really plugging leakages, which
can be as high as 50% in many of these cases. In the social sector, in health
and education, some models that we’ve seen which do
leverage the internet bring down the cost per consultation
or the cost per child education intervention down some
to 20% or 10% of what the offline cost would be. So the potential is
just immense. I think in addition to
everything, this whole notion around digital literacy, and
maybe thinking about how do you really make SMEs, small
ones, or individuals going forward, if you’re thinking
about 500 million Indians online and using these services,
just there is a huge agenda in terms of digital
literacy, maybe this [? carter ?] of para technicians
or someone to act as sort of intermediaries to
help people navigate this whole system. Maybe banking coordinators, for
example, in rural areas could become these guys. So there is this whole rural
ecosystem which will flourish around this, provided the
basics are in place. VIKRAM CHANDRA: Elizabeth, there
used to be a time you used to say the internet is
going to increase inequality, sharply so, the digital
divide. Now what we seem to be hearing
is actually, it could potentially work
the other way. ELIZABETH BRAMSON-BOUDREAU:
Which is to say, reduce inequality. VIKRAM CHANDRA: Yeah. ELIZABETH BRAMSON-BOUDREAU:
Well, I think one of the things that we’ve seen,
certainly in developing markets elsewhere in the world,
is the extent to which the internet has given a voice
to perhaps populations that haven’t necessarily been
able to speak. So for example, the events in
the Middle East during the Arab Spring were certainly
exemplary in terms of the extent to which people were able
to understand that they weren’t alone, and that there
was, in fact, a whole range of other people feeling the same
level of distrust and unease. And obviously, we covered
that very closely at the “Economist” and at the
“Economist” Intelligence Unit. And I think we all believe
that the extent to which connectivity and the internet
needs to be given a great deal of credit for the events
that took place there. So I think that’s some of it. VIKRAM CHANDRA: Deep, final
thoughts for you? A lot more people traveling
now on your portal than were earlier. DEEP KALRA: Yeah, clearly I
think business has been good. It could be better,
of course, always. But I think more important than
just traveling, I think it’s that default go to space. So I’ve got a 13-year-old
and 11-year-old. And the harshest punishment we
can give them when they’ve done something wrong
is a no screen day. So a no screen day is a
complete shut down of everything they do, except if
they have to use it for work. So they can go to Wikipedia, and
they can do it for work. And if you think about it– and
I was just thinking about this, driving out here,
look at our lives. I don’t think there’s
one of us– and this is obviously
a skewed audience. But imagine a day without the
internet at home, not up in the hills, not out on the sea. It’s just something
we can’t imagine. And for most of us, we got
experience to this thing not so long ago. So I think it’s just fascinating
how it’s changing our lives. I think the fact that you can
be in a remote part of the country and you can watch
cricket being streamed on your mobile phone is pretty
exciting if you think about it. So you’re no longer
disconnected. So I think the future
is very bright. VIKRAM CHANDRA: Right, and let’s
hope the connectivity continues to improve, so you
don’t end up in no screen days for factors other than being
punished because you did something wrong.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *