Vodacom, MTN, Cell C, and Telkom must pay their spectrum tax

Weasley

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2007
Messages
1,608
can someone explain this? so icasa saying the cell providers are not paying enough tax on spectrum when the reuse all ready paid for spectrum? or am i missing something?
 

Hummercellc

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
3,446
DOC - Holding back the Telecommunications industry yet again
Networks would not have to re-farm spectrum if the Government released spectrum.
The DOC want to punish networks for their own incompetence and short comings?
 

cavedog

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
20,864
Shocking... They paid for it let them ise it they way they want. When spectrum is going unused for 2G because 2G is dying then they should be allowed to refarm and roll out 3G or LTE if the technology permits why do they nees to pay again because they already paid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yuu

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
30,819
So they do actually care so they can milk the cow even more. Spectrum should remain technology agnostic.

can someone explain this? so icasa saying the cell providers are not paying enough tax on spectrum when the reuse all ready paid for spectrum? or am i missing something?
Yes. There are different fees for different spectrum. Like radio communications for alarm systems would be different from cellular. Where Icasa is making the mistake is assuming different technologies rather than the same class of technologies. So 2G, 3G and LTE should all be classes as the same and operators should be able to freely decide which spectrum they use for which. This is nothing but another money grab so they can charge more for the high demand 4G bands. It should rather be based on purpose than on technology and a simple notification to Icasa should be enough rather than requiring them to approve refarming.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yuu

Weasley

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2007
Messages
1,608
So they do actually care so they can milk the cow even more. Spectrum should remain technology agnostic.


Yes. There are different fees for different spectrum. Like radio communications for alarm systems would be different from cellular. Where Icasa is making the mistake is assuming different technologies rather than the same class of technologies. So 2G, 3G and LTE should all be classes as the same and operators should be able to freely decide which spectrum they use for which. This is nothing but another money grab so they can charge more for the high demand 4G bands. It should rather be based on purpose than on technology and a simple notification to Icasa should be enough rather than requiring them to approve refarming.
thanks
 

sajunky

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 1, 2010
Messages
13,124
Sure they must.
Shocking... They paid for it let them ise it they way they want. When spectrum is going unused for 2G because 2G is dying then they should be allowed to refarm and roll out 3G or LTE if the technology permits why do they nees to pay again because they already paid.
They paid for this spectum when spectrum was dirty cheap and now they want to expand profit by increasing utilisation?

Wrong. Spectrum is not their property, even they paid for it. Technology has advanced since. They want more profit, they must agree to pay more taxes. The new rates should not discourage from updating technology, though.
 
Last edited:

cavedog

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
20,864
Sure they must.

They paid for this spectum when spectrum was dirty cheap and now they want to expand profit by increasing utilisation?

Wrong. Spectrum is not their property, even they paid for it. Technology has advanced since. They want more profit, they must agree to pay more taxes. The new rates should not discourage from updating technology, though.

But that is exactly what it's doing. It would have been more beneficial if the conditions where set clearly like cheaper prices and rural coverage. What is the point of having them pay more? What are DoC going to achieve? They will simply get more money. Operators have to pay more money but not their own money the end user will have to pay up.
 

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
30,819
Sure they must.

They paid for this spectum when spectrum was dirty cheap and now they want to expand profit by increasing utilisation?

Wrong. Spectrum is not their property, even they paid for it. Technology has advanced since. They want more profit, they must agree to pay more taxes. The new rates should not discourage from updating technology, though.
I don't know about "dirt cheap" but there's licensing fees as well. Icasa just wants to double dip again and costs will be passed on to the consumer one way or another.
 

sajunky

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 1, 2010
Messages
13,124
I don't know about "dirt cheap" but there's licensing fees as well. Icasa just wants to double dip again and costs will be passed on to the consumer one way or another.
It was dirty cheap licensing cost in the past, it is exactly what I said.
 
Top