Telkom and Dimension Data throw down over spectrum auctions

those who are [-]spectrum[/-] rich want to continue being rich while those who are [-]spectrum[/-] poor want “a piece of the action.”
Click to expand...

Isn't this the problem with the world in general? Doh.
 
Last edited:
Ngcaba argued that auctions aren’t the best option because they exclude operators who may have the technical expertise to roll out networks on those frequencies, but don’t have the cash on hand to compete in an auction.
Click to expand...

*Facepalm*. I am not particular convinced that auctions are the best way, but this argument is nonsense. If somebody does not have the cash on hand for the license then they certainly won't have the cash for an infrastructure roll-out. In fact, auctions might not be the best idea because it drains money from infrastructure. BUT I think there should be a regulation on minimum proven capital commitments before somebody can get a license. If you are not willing to spend R1 billion on CAPEX and have the money in some form available somewhere then get off my lawn.

The worst thing that can happen is a lot of companies with no means to build a network, but holding the licenses hostage.
 
Last edited:
Johand said:
The worst thing that can happen is a lot of companies with no means to build a network, but hold the licenses hostage.
Click to expand...

Indeed, Sentech is profoundly proficient at spectrum squatting, enough to make other operators Scream(er) :)
 
Johand said:
*Facepalm*. I am not particular convinced that auctions are the best way, but this argument is nonsense. If somebody does not have the cash on hand for the license then they certainly won't have the cash for an infrastructure roll-out. In fact, auctions might not be the best idea because it drains money from infrastructure.
Click to expand...

Ngcaba did later make the point that the money blown on the auction means money not spent on infrastructure. From what I undersand, the argument about cash on-hand is made because investors are happy to spend money on infrastructure so long as there's a sound model for recouping those costs.

So in essence you're building a network with your investors' money. The large sums of money paid for spectrum on an auction can't be recouped, the detractors of spectrum auctions argue - it's just so much that it gets written off.

Johand said:
The worst thing that can happen is a lot of companies with no means to build a network, but holding the licenses hostage.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. This is where those "use-it-or-lose-it" regulations come in. Hopefully ICASA makes them strict enough, i.e. a promise of doing something eventually (Sentech's national broadband network) isn't enough and if your venture tanked the spectrum needs to be reallocated somehow.
 
Last edited:
Jan said:
And to be fair to everyone... Aki was funnier (and better looking) than them all.
Click to expand...

Aki looks damn cute on his 702 profile pic. :-)

I am getting a bit gatvol of this spectrum issue. Dear god people...can we please stop talking and debating and actually DO SOMETHING???? Jeez...at this rate we will still be bitching and moaning about this while the rest of the world has switched to telepathy! urg
 
Johand said:
*Facepalm*. I am not particular convinced that auctions are the best way, but this argument is nonsense. If somebody does not have the cash on hand for the license then they certainly won't have the cash for an infrastructure roll-out. In fact, auctions might not be the best idea because it drains money from infrastructure. BUT I think there should be a regulation on minimum proven capital commitments before somebody can get a license. If you are not willing to spend R1 billion on CAPEX and have the money in some form available somewhere then get off my lawn.

The worst thing that can happen is a lot of companies with no means to build a network, but holding the licenses hostage.
Click to expand...

Even if you have the money to show, it will not mean effective use of the spectrum. (Look at Sentech) By doing it by way of auction, you are effectively killing any community network possibilities. I think it must be done by way of the beauty contest, but with very strict use-it-or-lose-it rules. So even if a company like Vodacom or MTN or Telkom gets it, they will need to use the spectrum efficiently (capacity wise), otherwise they must lose it. This will open the door to some nice special deals from them, to ensure they are using the capacity.
 
"Ngcaba argued that auctions aren’t the best option because they exclude operators who may have the technical expertise to roll out networks on those frequencies, but don’t have the cash on hand to compete in an auction."

Sooo....

He's saying that Joe Public should be able to own part of the frequency, regardless of the fact they have no viable monetary way to use it? o_O
 
She suggested a model where some of the spectrum would be auctioned to operators who wish to build their own networks while a portion would be allocated for the deployment of an open access national wireless network.
Click to expand...

Most sensible thing that Telkom has said over the last decade. Thank you Pinky. Perhaps there is a small slither of hope for Telkom.

On the flip-side, whenever there is that small slither of hope from a Telkom Executive who shows even the slightest bit of capability and foresight, they get axed due to political in-fighting, or by shareholders who are unwilling to spend money to upgrade infrastructure and technology and face reality, but would rather keep the entire country back so that they can profiteer for a few more years. Over a decade later, and al these "few more years" have added up.

Pinky seems to be exactly what Telkom needs, and ironically, I believe that this will be the cause of her ultimate downfall. My fingers are crossed for her.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X