According to the Secretariat Report, India allows 74% foreign ownership for internet service providers and 100% foreign ownership for infrastructure service providers.
As far as Korea understands, India explained that infrastructure service providers were internet service providers in its previous communications. Yet a category titled "internet service providers" exists separately from "infrastructure service providers" in the Secretariat Report. Could India provide the definition of infrastructure service provider and explain how it is different from internet service provider?
In general, telecom regulators do not regulate service providers that do not have any network infrastructure or telecom facilities. Hence, internet service providers without gateways can be considered as value added service providers that are subject to little or no foreign investment restrictions. Could India provide the reasons of maintaining foreign ownership restrictions for the internet service providers without gateways?
It appears that India's revised offer on services allows only 49% foreign ownership for basic services and 74% foreign ownership for value added services. Meanwhile, foreign equity ceiling for value added services is 100% in its relevant domestic law. Does India have a plan to reflect what is in the existing domestic law in its services schedule?
Reply: Infrastructure providers are passive infrastructure providers like telecom tower, duct and dark fibre providers. For infrastructure providers 100% FDI is permitted subject to certain conditions. For Internet service providers 74% FDI is only permitted.
