Sign up with Google
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2003
- Messages
- 66,740
-
Ask a question and get free supportUnlock new privileges and see hidden discussionsWin prizes and earn reputation
-
Question of the day ~ How often do you braai?
-
Afristay giveaway.Win a 2-night stay for two people at an establishment of your choice with R1,000 in spending money. Enter here.
Mobile pricing models a ‘national concern’
- Thread starter rpm
- Start date
<Q>Among the issues Icasa was asked to investigate was why the introduction of Cell C has not reduced call costs, whether there is enough competition in the market, and the different interconnection charges between the three mobile networks, and the mobile networks and Telkom, which is cheaper.</Q>
Egzakkerey !
Egzakkerey !
<Q>“It is the authority’s view that interconnection charges agreed through the negotiations between operators remains unclear as the operators cannot explain the rationale behind the setting of current rates.”
Icasa says the fact that interconnection charges from Telkom to mobile networks are different from the three operators to Telkom “raises even more concern”.
“The only explanation that could be given for the difference in termination charges from mobile to mobile and from mobile to fixed is that of the use of more network intelligence which does not justify the high difference between the two.” </Q>
He he he he he he he - now - what can ICASA do about it ?
Icasa says the fact that interconnection charges from Telkom to mobile networks are different from the three operators to Telkom “raises even more concern”.
“The only explanation that could be given for the difference in termination charges from mobile to mobile and from mobile to fixed is that of the use of more network intelligence which does not justify the high difference between the two.” </Q>
He he he he he he he - now - what can ICASA do about it ?
No - correct answer is - NO ACTUAL COMPETITION - there is no incentive to actually compete. Voda cannot compete with MTN/CELL C cos voda will wipe-out MTN/CELL C, and Voda doesnt want to do that cos then Voda becomes a monopolee.
So now what ?
So now what ?
I think the problem is that the current profit margins of all three are so incredibly huge, that if any of the three were to trigger a price war, prices have so much room to fall that they would ALL lose far more money than any of them could possibly gain via any increase in market share that they would get from dropping prices. If current profit margins were lower then there might just have been an incentive for one of them to try a price war, but as it stands now there is a kind of "Mutually Assured Massive-loss-of-profits" that creates a kind of de-facto "price-fixing" stand-off, even if there isn't explicit price-fixing going on. I.O.W. all three understand that if any one of them starts a "price-war" box, they all lose profits. Also, for whatever reason (bribery?) government seems to have no intention of introducing new competitors, so they can all just relax and rake it in.
I think the solution is obvious - issue several more licenses. Say, three new licenses, one a year for the next three years, creating a threat of unknown new entrants. Why can a small & poor country like Malawi support six cellular providers -- we've been duped into thinking that South Africa can't support more than three.
I think the solution is obvious - issue several more licenses. Say, three new licenses, one a year for the next three years, creating a threat of unknown new entrants. Why can a small & poor country like Malawi support six cellular providers -- we've been duped into thinking that South Africa can't support more than three.
Market share
Vodacom defines a subscriber as anyone who has made or received a call in six months, while MTN defines it over three months in South Africa and an even tougher one month in Africa.
An independent HSBC re-evaluation finds that, if the same subscriber definition were used, Vodacom would have a 49% market share – and not 56% – MTN 39% and Cell C 11%.
Source:
http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/eng/features/aidc/?show=60698
published: 2005-01-14
Vodacom defines a subscriber as anyone who has made or received a call in six months, while MTN defines it over three months in South Africa and an even tougher one month in Africa.
An independent HSBC re-evaluation finds that, if the same subscriber definition were used, Vodacom would have a 49% market share – and not 56% – MTN 39% and Cell C 11%.
Source:
http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/eng/features/aidc/?show=60698
published: 2005-01-14
Insider said:
Interesting. Thanks.
Doesnt change the picture though.
VODA's deals are cheaper than MTN's. I didnt include CellC in my analysis picture.
This means that the only reason people are buying MTN at all is an underlying hatred of Teklom, cos it's finanically not beneficial.
Maybee if people stopped supporting MTN's overpriced product, then MTN would be forced to drop their prices and actually compete.
SA's economy is in the Top 50 in the world, why cant we have more choice?
1. United States 9602bn
2. Japan 4519bn
3. Germany 2064bn
4. United Kingdom 1460bn
5. France 1438bn
6. Italy 1163bn
7. China 1063bn
8. Canada 650bn
9. Brazil 610bn
10. Spain 595bn
11. Mexico 497bn
12. India 455bn
13. South Korea 421bn
14. Netherlands 398bn
15. Australia 388bn
16. Taiwan 283bn
17. Argentina 276bn
18. Switzerland 274bn
19. Belgium 252bn
20. Russia 241bn
21. Sweden 241bn
22. Austria 205bn
23. Turkey 202bn
24. Denmark 172bn
25. Poland 162bn
26. Norway 155bn
27. Saudi Arabia 150bn
28. Finland 130bn
29. South Africa 129bn
30. Greece 126bn
31. Thailand 122bn
32. Indonesia 120bn
33. Portugal 111bn
34. Iran 107bn
35. Israel 104bn
36. Venezuela 104bn
37. Singapore 99.4
38. Egypt 95.4bn
39. Ireland 86bn
40. Colombia 85.3bn
41. Philippines 78.8bn
42. Malaysia 78.7bn
43. Burma (Myanmar) 73.9bn
44. Chile 69.9bn
45. Pakistan 61bn
46. Czech Republic 53.9bn
47. Peru 53.4bn
48. New Zealand 49.8bn
49. United Arab Emirates 48.7bn
50. Algeria 47.9bn
Source http://www.cylist.com/List/400300820/
1. United States 9602bn
2. Japan 4519bn
3. Germany 2064bn
4. United Kingdom 1460bn
5. France 1438bn
6. Italy 1163bn
7. China 1063bn
8. Canada 650bn
9. Brazil 610bn
10. Spain 595bn
11. Mexico 497bn
12. India 455bn
13. South Korea 421bn
14. Netherlands 398bn
15. Australia 388bn
16. Taiwan 283bn
17. Argentina 276bn
18. Switzerland 274bn
19. Belgium 252bn
20. Russia 241bn
21. Sweden 241bn
22. Austria 205bn
23. Turkey 202bn
24. Denmark 172bn
25. Poland 162bn
26. Norway 155bn
27. Saudi Arabia 150bn
28. Finland 130bn
29. South Africa 129bn
30. Greece 126bn
31. Thailand 122bn
32. Indonesia 120bn
33. Portugal 111bn
34. Iran 107bn
35. Israel 104bn
36. Venezuela 104bn
37. Singapore 99.4
38. Egypt 95.4bn
39. Ireland 86bn
40. Colombia 85.3bn
41. Philippines 78.8bn
42. Malaysia 78.7bn
43. Burma (Myanmar) 73.9bn
44. Chile 69.9bn
45. Pakistan 61bn
46. Czech Republic 53.9bn
47. Peru 53.4bn
48. New Zealand 49.8bn
49. United Arab Emirates 48.7bn
50. Algeria 47.9bn
Source http://www.cylist.com/List/400300820/
Actually this info is dated, our economy was the 23rd biggest ($491bn) in the world in 2004 according to the CIA world factbook. So they have even less excuse. And I only just saw that the world as a whole is included in the rank, so as a country we actually have the 22nd biggest economy.neio said:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html