Telkom vs Neotel vs Vodacom vs MTN

I think Dominic is right. There's nothing automatic about Vodacom and MTN being allowed to offer fixed line services, and it can only really happen once new ECNS and ECS licences are issued.

However, if this is the case, then obviously Neotel (and Telkom, FWIW) can offer mobile services. ;)
 
ads said:
I think Dominic is right. There's nothing automatic about Vodacom and MTN being allowed to offer fixed line services, and it can only really happen once new ECNS and ECS licences are issued. However, if this is the case, then obviously Neotel (and Telkom, FWIW) can offer mobile services. ;)
Click to expand...
Good point - it will be interesting to see Neotel removing their current roaming and handover restrictions to allow subscribers to use a SIM based service on a dual GSM/CDMA handset. The new I-ECNS licenses may just shake up the telecoms space after all :D
 
Good point. I was thinking about this. They -could- perhaps use and abuse municipalities if worse comes to be. Ivy really made many loop holes, a mistake that might turn out to be a silver lining.
 
Good point. I was thinking about this. They -could- perhaps use and abuse municipalities if worse comes to be. Ivy really made many loop holes, a mistake that might turn out to be a copper lining.
 
Something to think about:

When Vodacom decided to create Vodacom Business, a complete business plan was obviously drawn up detailing the exact services and the money to be invested.

As it involved many billions, obviously the Vodacom board had to evaluate it and approve it.

50% of this board is from Telkom. And they approved the deal.

So, Telkom Executive approved the VB structure and the type of services it will offer, yet now a Telkom spokesperson say it's not allowed? :confused:
 
I heard the other day that Telkom is going to aggresively role out a WCDMA network that will at first provide fixed wireless connections, but depending on what happens with the sale of the 50% Vodacom stake, they will also then be able to compete as a cellular provider under the new licences.
 
vodacom3g said:
50% of this board is from Telkom. And they approved the deal.

So, Telkom Executive approved the VB structure and the type of services it will offer, yet now a Telkom spokesperson say it's not allowed? :confused:
Click to expand...

The Telkom exec on the board gets bonuses from Vodacom, while the one complaining gets his bonus from Telkom.
Confusion, over.
:p
 
vodacom3g said:
Something to think about:

When Vodacom decided to create Vodacom Business, a complete business plan was obviously drawn up detailing the exact services and the money to be invested.

As it involved many billions, obviously the Vodacom board had to evaluate it and approve it.

50% of this board is from Telkom. And they approved the deal.

So, Telkom Executive approved the VB structure and the type of services it will offer, yet now a Telkom spokesperson say it's not allowed? :confused:
Click to expand...

some might say that is par for the course from Telkom...

point taken. I am also sure that Vodacom took some extremely heavyweight expert opinion on this which advised them they could go further. The problem being that the regulatory state of affairs is so chaotic with little to no guidance being provided by the regulator that the issue is arguable from both sides and, given what is at stake, it may become an issue.

@ ic: the issue is more whether Vodacom (or any other MNO) with its NMCTS and VANS is allowed to self-provide fixed lines outside of the interconnection of its public land mobile network is concerned, not about whether they are one or separate entities
 
ic said:
My bad, I meant to quote the following contextual waffle from Telkodemonopolies which relates to what I posted:http://mybroadband.co.za/news/Telecoms/4411.htmlIOW, Telkodemonopolies seems to think [or rather wants everyone to think] that Vodacom Business is a separate registered entity and therefore falls far from the Vodacom family tree and is not entitled to take advantage of Poison Ivy's proclamation on 2005-01-31 that the cellular network operators would be allowed to self provision their own network infrastructure...

I didn't intend to get caught up in the whole VANS issue with my earlier post.
Click to expand...

:) not sure we are quite on the same page yet

my take is not that Telkom is trying to draw a distinction between Vodacom and Vodacom Business as separate entities and on that basis argue that they are not entitled to self-provide outside of their own public land mobile network

rather the argument is that Vodacom itself, with a VANS and MCTS, is not entitled to self-provide outside of their own public land mobile network and therefore Vodacom Business, even relying on the Vodacom licences, cannot either
 
ic said:
I fully understand your point, but my point is a separate issue that aims not to tackle the legality of Poison Ivy's 2005-01-31 unclarification speech, but rather that Vodacom is entitled to self provision based on Poison Ivy's 2004 proclamation that VANS would be allowed to self provision from 2005-02-01, which in the specific cases of Vodacom & MTN & CellC, is not diminished by Poison Ivy's 2005-01-31 unclarification speech - and that is all that Poison Ivy's speech on 2005-01-31 was - it was IMO not a proclamation in the legal sense by the MoC, but rather just a confusing speech that has no legal standing whatsoever.
Click to expand...

The Minister in her affidavit in the Altech matter acknowedges that her unclarification is meaningless so i think we can now safely confine that to the graveyard of ministerial irrelevance (if any space remains available).

i am not sure what you mean by the bolded bit: the 2004 policy directions / determinations of date contained
- setting of date from when VANS could self-provide
- setting of date from when MCTS could self-provide the fixed links required to operate their GSM network

now, to roll out fixed links to customers (i.e. which are not part of its GSM network) what is VC relying on? The VANS - in which case it is at odds with what ICASA and the Minister believe the law to say (something which would be very important for VC). Or the MCTS - in which case there is an argument that this licence does not give them the right to do this.

this is complicated by the deeming provision that says that at this time VC is deemed to have an individual ECNS licence...so the third option is VC justifying the links on the basis that it has an IECNS. this as i understand it is what they are actually saying. The position however remains unclear as their MCTS licence remains valid and it seems untenable that they should be enjoying a whole range of expanded rights without any corresponding obligations


what a mess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X