![\"\"](\"https:\/\/mybroadband.co.za\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/Ivo-Vegter.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p>\n
MTN challenged this so-called \u2018opt-in\u2019 round in court claiming, quite reasonably, that all the best spectrum would have been cornered by the time they got to bid.<\/p>\n
Most of those rats and mice will end up hawking their spectrum to the large mobile operators for roaming agreements regardless, while running bargain bin network infrastructure themselves.<\/p>\n
This creates a layer of middle-men profiteers that reduce the quality and raise the price of products that will ultimately reach end-users.<\/p>\n
Telkom has been the most consistently obstructive over the years and has been raising complaints on the exact opposite grounds: that the auction process will entrench the power of its larger competitors, that its larger competitors will be unfairly advantaged, and might even \u2013 heaven forbid! \u2013 get to upgrade their networks and improve their service to customers.<\/p>\n
The former state-owned monopolist does not deserve any sympathy, but it does raise another important point: that the 700MHz and 800MHz bands, which are to be freed by the final switch-off of analogue television broadcasts, are currently encumbered by legal action by e.TV \u2013 which after being given notice a hundred years ago is not yet ready for the transition to digital broadcasts.<\/p>\n
The provisions in the invitation to apply for spectrum run to 91 pages of complex bureaucratese, and even so, everyone has complaints, some of which are entirely valid.<\/p>\n
How tradeability will help<\/h3>\n
The solution to all this central-planning madness is simple: make all spectrum in the IMT bands tradeable.<\/p>\n
There\u2019s probably no way one could convince the government not to auction it off at a fat profit to pay for VIP security and \u2018security\u2019 upgrades at politicians\u2019 houses, but if the spectrum is tradeable, at least an auction isn\u2019t the final, irrevocable commitment that it otherwise would be, and wouldn\u2019t entrench any operator at the expense of another.<\/p>\n
If spectrum sold at auction, either through outright ownership or long-term leases, remains tradeable, then it does not matter how spectrum is initially allocated.<\/p>\n
Market forces will in due course produce the most efficient allocation.<\/p>\n
Instead of everyone suing the regulator, they could just fight it out among themselves.<\/p>\n
If that strengthens major players in the market, so be it.<\/p>\n
Ultimately, it is the interest of customers that matters, and customer interests are not served by rigging the market or artificially sustaining smaller operators who exist only to lease their networks to the major players in any case.<\/p>\n
Tradeability of spectrum also incentivises spectrum owners to use their spectrum more efficiently, to minimise interference with neighbouring bands, and to maximise the network performance extracted out of any particular sliver of spectrum.<\/p>\n
Most of all, it would remove from Icasa\u2019s shoulders the impossible burden of keeping everyone including the ruling party socialists happy.<\/p>\n
It would invalidate most of the challenges against its auction process and turn its \u2018invitation to apply\u2019 from a lengthy book of lawyer-bait into a simple notice it could publish as a small newspaper advert.<\/p>\n
Ultimately, businesses and consumers would benefit by putting a swift end to the endless rounds of litigation and not creating a layer of middle-men in the name of \u2018competition\u2019.<\/p>\n
Competition is not something a government can create. It is what happens when you set the market free.<\/p>\n
\n