SNO Telecoms in starting blocks

Here we have it

But objections by Sentech over the use of frequency spectrum could scupper its hopes of providing telecom services affordably.
Click to expand...

That's government again don't forget...
 
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!
 
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!
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah - I see... but:
For 1), I have a low latency requirement for my job, and so far latency of all wireless offerings have sucked, so while they roll out for 2 years I am stuck with Telkom.

2) Is this official? I know TATA owns a chunk of the cable, but I thought Telkom wanted to control landing points and there was no move (by DoC, ICASA) to stop this.
 
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
Click to expand...

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!
Also seeing as though the SAT-3 cable is so underutilised we could also expect caps inline with the OECD std's as highlighted by Dr Kelly!

Ooohh, hang on I have to rush, Heidi Klum is standing at my front door naked trying to get in!
 
If we wanted wireless you would have joined sentech .
 
SNOT is going to invest in an aging CDMA technology, instead of going WiMax? Whats up with that?
 
evil_bender said:
SNOT is going to invest in an aging CDMA technology, instead of going WiMax? Whats up with that?
Click to expand...

The one is proven to work, the other not...
 
look, this is the goold old SA. when are people going to learn that we always get shafted. no matter who promises you what you gonna need vaseline. so just accept it and move on. ever since i stopped caring about my friends with 20mb lines and no caps and my other friends who can make a call and not have to mortgage their houses to pay for it i find that my life is a lot happier.

that reminds me. i must buy more shares in vaseline.

/end sarcasm
 
AcidRaZor said:
The one is proven to work, the other not...
Click to expand...

There is abundance of field proven CDMA equipment available at rates minus the development costs.

Nothing prevents SNOt to slowly switch over to WiMax after Telkom has sorted out the WiMax teething problems. That is if the advantages of WiMax over CDMA justifies the additional cost.
 
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?
Click to expand...


no this is propably your arial, or a tree blowing in the way of your ariel at some time of the day :)
 
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?
Click to expand...

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?

Do we know that mobile technologies can even operate at low frequencies, and that doing so is in accordance with international norms? If not, then the cell providers have not been hard done by. Looking at the annual profit of Vodacom and MTN is enough to assure you that their business model and operating costs are quite manageable.

Further, even if getting access to this low frequency band is "special treatment" (which I don't think it is), then maybe the government should do so to give the SNO a chance against Telkom. I think the SNO needs every bit of help it can get.
 
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?
 
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?
Click to expand...

not like anything is rushing them......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X