jannievanzyl
Telecoms expert
And it's still higher than what the average prepaid user pay today on Vodacom.
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: How do you normally pay for purchases in stores?
Cell C is lying about MTRs: Vodacom, MTN
- Thread starter QuintonB
- Start date
marine1
Honorary Master
Prepaid??? What about loyal contract subscribers that are your bread and butter and pay your OOB shark?
You guys have your priorities completely screwed up
Contract subscribers should be rewarded not prepaid
Oh wait its us who fund the prepaid discounted prices right?
HideInLight
Expert Member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2006
- Messages
- 4,600
- Reaction score
- 1,061
They did say 99c would be reduced to 79c I believe.
Jola
Honorary Master
O
I have just changed to prepaid and am now paying R1.20 per minute. Still a lot more than 79c per minute.
My contract rate was R2.70 per minute.
I have just changed to prepaid and am now paying R1.20 per minute. Still a lot more than 79c per minute.
My contract rate was R2.70 per minute.
marine1
Honorary Master
Jola
Honorary Master
Which provider?
Vodacom
I disagree:
[1]Price fixing by a regulatory body is a bad thing so having call termination rates which are regulated by fiat is a bad place to start. However we have had the termination rates fixed since the inception of telecommunications in South Africa and any plea from the BAUT really is tantamount to a prison gang complaining about the warders regulating the trade of cigarettes in the prison - they aren't wanting a free market what they want is to be the gang of thugs.
[2]All that asymmetry has to dictate is the costs structure of wholesale access to a voice network. The underlying network infrastructure (particularly the facilities that make up the network) and the retail operations (the price paid by consumers) are both structurally different to the charges by one service provider on another to terminate calls. Multiple service providers can use the same network infrastructure.
If there is a benefit enjoyed by a service provider having a smaller market share over providers having a large market share that comparative advantage leads to service provider firms springing up and you have a growth of VMNO. Both MTN and Vodacom have adopted a retail structure which works on holding high market shares, this was a decision taken and it can be transformed without causing any harm to the underlying network operations or investment - look at the TM-MTN deal ...
[3] The CTR regulations don't represent a new tax because nothing in the regulations coerces the payment beyond what the operators have already agreed to in their licence applications (speaking of which, Telkom very responsively answered a query on the anomaly of ICASAs published license list whilst Vodacom have not and of course I would like to glean over the licence documentation and imagine that same could be relevant in court and the Neotel transaction ...) particularly on the obligation to interconnect on a commercial basis which the CTR regulations are built around. Moreover tax funds Broadbank Infraco so Telkom has a greater cause for complaint and the only reason (following in 2) why the operators have an asymmetry disadvantage is because they did not adopt a policy of a diversified retail sector. I am not aware of Vodacom fighting about paying tax in principle although I do know MTN has recently had defeats in the SCA.
[3] MTN in particular, but I am sure I can find evidence of Vodacom advancing the same contention particularly with the unbundling from Telkom, have insisted that the regulator compel Telkom to be split between a wholesale and retail component. What is good for the goose is good for the gander ...
Of course I don't see the need for rigid splitting at all in any of the players but the recognition of proper costings structures and layered components of networks on which services run is a good thing.
The sooner one of the major player's management (or their management consultants) wake up and understand the real issues and stop having a grade 1 barney on the playground the sooner one of about a dozen solutions can be implemented. Having read the notice in the government gazette I think Currie has put the MNOs on the ropes:
"... to make regulations without prior notice if the public interest requires that the should be made without delay"
that the MNOs failed to deliver costing information and were belligerent on price determination to the scope of launching legal proceedings and are demonstrably acting against the public interest in a brawl with each other really does fit squarely to the public interest without delay standard.
Ultimately however the principal-agent problem is built into the remuneration and ego problem that seems to pervade. This little tiff is bad for the long term value of the companies but declaring super profits serves the companies' leadership. A free market would have prevented a failure in the first place but it is high time we hold VC and MTN accountable for their representations and actions.
More importantly lets assume that CellC is going to be killed off if there is no asymmetry and that is what motivates the opposition to a asymmetry, enterprises conspiring to kill a competitor is pretty much illegal in this country and penalties from the competition authorities would follow in the ordinary course, and ICASA can well push a competition review in the market. It would be better for the shareholders of all players to get some finality and certainty rather than having a dragged out process that the accountants should be making contingency for. Also Vodacom cannot expect a smooth acquisition of Neotel (and the precious spectrum) if they persist in demonstrating themselves adverse to competition in the market.
The change in MTRs is not going to automatically translate into lower retail costs to consumers but greater competition in the market is tothe benefit of the consumer and the main reason the CTR regulations are needed by CellC is because they've already built in lower pricing to grow market share - based on the reasonable expectations created by government activity.
But lets face it Vodacom hasn't even properly sorted out the OOBShark (and there are standing offers on this forum on sorting it out) so we shouldn't have any real hopes that their engineers will be able to get management to stop cocking up
[1]Price fixing by a regulatory body is a bad thing so having call termination rates which are regulated by fiat is a bad place to start. However we have had the termination rates fixed since the inception of telecommunications in South Africa and any plea from the BAUT really is tantamount to a prison gang complaining about the warders regulating the trade of cigarettes in the prison - they aren't wanting a free market what they want is to be the gang of thugs.
[2]All that asymmetry has to dictate is the costs structure of wholesale access to a voice network. The underlying network infrastructure (particularly the facilities that make up the network) and the retail operations (the price paid by consumers) are both structurally different to the charges by one service provider on another to terminate calls. Multiple service providers can use the same network infrastructure.
If there is a benefit enjoyed by a service provider having a smaller market share over providers having a large market share that comparative advantage leads to service provider firms springing up and you have a growth of VMNO. Both MTN and Vodacom have adopted a retail structure which works on holding high market shares, this was a decision taken and it can be transformed without causing any harm to the underlying network operations or investment - look at the TM-MTN deal ...
[3] The CTR regulations don't represent a new tax because nothing in the regulations coerces the payment beyond what the operators have already agreed to in their licence applications (speaking of which, Telkom very responsively answered a query on the anomaly of ICASAs published license list whilst Vodacom have not and of course I would like to glean over the licence documentation and imagine that same could be relevant in court and the Neotel transaction ...) particularly on the obligation to interconnect on a commercial basis which the CTR regulations are built around. Moreover tax funds Broadbank Infraco so Telkom has a greater cause for complaint and the only reason (following in 2) why the operators have an asymmetry disadvantage is because they did not adopt a policy of a diversified retail sector. I am not aware of Vodacom fighting about paying tax in principle although I do know MTN has recently had defeats in the SCA.
[3] MTN in particular, but I am sure I can find evidence of Vodacom advancing the same contention particularly with the unbundling from Telkom, have insisted that the regulator compel Telkom to be split between a wholesale and retail component. What is good for the goose is good for the gander ...
Of course I don't see the need for rigid splitting at all in any of the players but the recognition of proper costings structures and layered components of networks on which services run is a good thing.
The sooner one of the major player's management (or their management consultants) wake up and understand the real issues and stop having a grade 1 barney on the playground the sooner one of about a dozen solutions can be implemented. Having read the notice in the government gazette I think Currie has put the MNOs on the ropes:
"... to make regulations without prior notice if the public interest requires that the should be made without delay"
that the MNOs failed to deliver costing information and were belligerent on price determination to the scope of launching legal proceedings and are demonstrably acting against the public interest in a brawl with each other really does fit squarely to the public interest without delay standard.
Ultimately however the principal-agent problem is built into the remuneration and ego problem that seems to pervade. This little tiff is bad for the long term value of the companies but declaring super profits serves the companies' leadership. A free market would have prevented a failure in the first place but it is high time we hold VC and MTN accountable for their representations and actions.
More importantly lets assume that CellC is going to be killed off if there is no asymmetry and that is what motivates the opposition to a asymmetry, enterprises conspiring to kill a competitor is pretty much illegal in this country and penalties from the competition authorities would follow in the ordinary course, and ICASA can well push a competition review in the market. It would be better for the shareholders of all players to get some finality and certainty rather than having a dragged out process that the accountants should be making contingency for. Also Vodacom cannot expect a smooth acquisition of Neotel (and the precious spectrum) if they persist in demonstrating themselves adverse to competition in the market.
The change in MTRs is not going to automatically translate into lower retail costs to consumers but greater competition in the market is tothe benefit of the consumer and the main reason the CTR regulations are needed by CellC is because they've already built in lower pricing to grow market share - based on the reasonable expectations created by government activity.
But lets face it Vodacom hasn't even properly sorted out the OOBShark (and there are standing offers on this forum on sorting it out) so we shouldn't have any real hopes that their engineers will be able to get management to stop cocking up
OGroteKoning
Honorary Master
/snip
But lets face it Vodacom hasn't even properly sorted out the OOBShark (and there are standing offers on this forum on sorting it out) so we shouldn't have any real hopes that their engineers will be able to get management to stop cocking up
Why would they? All they care about is the bottom line. They are not driven by morals or anything else - they are solely driven by money and that is all that matters to them.
because not being able to sort out the OOBShark makes getting Internet adoption a problem - the number of people I know who simply refuse to use their phones for connectivity and others who having had an OOB bite (quite a few parents with kids at stellies) reappropriated their dongle from potentially higher revenue usage is frightening. Also they have repeatedly represented that they don't have the OOBShark as milking exercise ...
jannievanzyl
Telecoms expert
Only after I posted this and mainly because they're running out of arguments in court. Up to now they insisted pricing would not come down.
Nope they've quite often given hints at a price reduction of negligible proportions and in fact have been quite explicit on the pricing on their infinity product
but - and this has been repeatedly set out - if the CTRs are not adjusted CellC will have to end their promotional pricing so prices could go up and the discounting has been built into pricing.
OGroteKoning
Honorary Master
They don't want to sort out the OOBShark! Jannie said last year that he will make OB costs = IB costs. VDC couldn't care less about lowering any costs for the consumer. Instead they hide behind a useless app and incorrect usage info on their website and then they have the audacity to tell users it is their fault if they don't monitor their usage. I had to fight tooth and nail to get my money back. To top it all, suddenly OOB is now R2. 100% up! If what you said is true, Jannie's promise would have realised, but it turned out quite the opposite. I will say this again, VDC does not care about the consumer. All they care about is money and how they can milk the consumer.
![[)roi(]](/forum/data/avatars/m/8/8711.jpg?1563828683){kind=avatar}
As hinted to in many posts; the affordability target should be the reduction of data costs; SMS and traditional voice calls are on a steady path to irrelevancy; more specifically that boat had already sailed years ago; so any chance for ICASA to provide consumer benefit is practically going to be limited to the short term at best.
IMO to save the consumers money in the medium to long term: ICASA / DOC should rather be focusing all their attentions on data: flexibility aside, it's an area where the termination crap is no longer relevant.
IMO to save the consumers money in the medium to long term: ICASA / DOC should rather be focusing all their attentions on data: flexibility aside, it's an area where the termination crap is no longer relevant.
OGroteKoning
Honorary Master
[)roi(];12372142 said:
Now I understand why the OOB cost went up. More people using data - voice calls specifically. Very valid point you are making
OGroteKoning
Honorary Master
I fear both of you may be failing to appreciate Grey's law
Touché
jannievanzyl
Telecoms expert
So you drop your prices to unsustainable low levels and then try and get the regulator to bail you out? Balsy but risky in the extreme, betting the farm on one single event.
You might recall Cell C did this before. Lars dropped the 2GB data pricing forcing the others to follow. When the numbers did not materialize (sound familiar?), he 'left' and the new CEO put the prices back up causing such an outcry he had to put the promos back. We're seeing the same movie right now with similar results.
If you are dropping on an expectation that you'll be able to get regulatory shift you deserve to be smacked - and remember the discussion last year when CellC did just that. However when reasonable expectations of a CTR change to provide for tariff reductions on terminating on large mobile networks causes you to build in pricing changes you are simply doing good business.
What VC and MTN are asking for is that the regulator turn away from very publicly stated intentions that they had more than 18 months to have set aside and failed to until the horse had bolted ..
I fear both of you may be failing to appreciate Grey's law
Lol... You're such a card!
Mirroring my sig.