It threatens them because :ignacio said:I don't get it - so after all this time, SNOt turns out to be a wireless broadband provider.... much like Sentech, Iburst, MTN, Vodacom... and this threatens Telkom somehow? Give us broadband over power cables or fibre to the curb, you SNOt chumps!
Yeah - I see... but:AcidRaZor said:It threatens them because :
1) They can roll out faster in the 2 year period that they actually have to pay Telkom for the fixed line (local loop) is "fixed" by law.
2) They have their own landing points and bandwidth to the SAT3 cable, meaning, they don't go via Telkom to get to international bandwidth, meaning, they can shape as much or as little as they want and charge whatever they want instead of adding their profit margin to Telkom's already over-inflated prices
3) See #1. This is for end-consumers. I bet they have fixed line offerings for business users, just till they can get to the local loop without having to pay Telkom.
So what you are effectively saying is that if they charge us anymore than R10/Gig they are no better than Telkom and ripping the citizens of this country a new one everytime they try and connect!AcidRaZor said:2) They have their own landing points and bandwidth to the SAT3 cable, meaning, they don't go via Telkom to get to international bandwidth, meaning, they can shape as much or as little as they want and charge whatever they want instead of adding their profit margin to Telkom's already over-inflated prices
There is abundance of field proven CDMA equipment available at rates minus the development costs.AcidRaZor said:The one is proven to work, the other not...
ic said:Does this explain why SABC3 goes vrot for me and then later comes back picture perfect whilst SABC1 & SABC2 are completely unaffected? - a case of SNOTty SABC3?
I think the SNO is trying to do things according to international norms and finding that locally bandwidth has been allocated incorrectly. As to your question about why they should be afford this "luxury", perhaps it is not a luxury at all?ic said:SNOT's complaint about having to put in more base-stations if licensed for a higher frequency, is IMO unacceptable - why should SNOT be given advantages and access to prime low frequency when its existing competitors were not allowed this luxury? - they've all had to put in lots of base-stations & towers which has considerably increased their operating costs. Why should SNOT be the only company allowed to under-invest in infrastructure and feast on a high profit margin?
not like anything is rushing them......Freshy-ZN said:I just cant believe that the SNO hasnt got its ducks in a row already. They are still 'looking' at implementing various technologies? Shouldnt they have already specified how they want to provide their services before they were issued with a license?