SNO Telecoms in starting blocks

mancombseepgood

Executive Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2004
Messages
9,352
Here we have it

But objections by Sentech over the use of frequency spectrum could scupper its hopes of providing telecom services affordably.
That's government again don't forget...
 

ignacio

Banned
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
593
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!
 

feo

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
13,382
Nah I want FTTH (Fibre To The Home)...Japan has like 4 MILLION FTTH subscribers... :(
 

guest2013-1

guest
Joined
Aug 22, 2003
Messages
19,809
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!
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.
 

ignacio

Banned
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
593
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.
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.
 

Sneeky

Honorary Master
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
11,064
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
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!
 

kaspaas

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2003
Messages
3,739
The proof is in service delivery. If they can deliver reliable broadband and telephony at world class rates using fixed wireless, why not?
 

evil_bender

Active Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Messages
57
SNOT is going to invest in an aging CDMA technology, instead of going WiMax? Whats up with that?
 

friedpiggy

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2005
Messages
972
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
 

kaspaas

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2003
Messages
3,739
AcidRaZor said:
The one is proven to work, the other not...
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.
 

albert123

Expert Member
Company Rep
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
1,909
SNO Telecoms in starting blocks
correct me if i'm wrong but based on the article, it seems more like they are wearing illegal shoes or something and not allowed to run yet?
 

albert123

Expert Member
Company Rep
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
1,909
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?

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

DVDA

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2004
Messages
234
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?
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.
 

Freshy-ZN

Executive Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
5,730
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?
 

albert123

Expert Member
Company Rep
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
1,909
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?
not like anything is rushing them......
 
Top