PH's 3rd telco: It's pros and cons



Now down to 3, What can it do for us once the 3rd telco is officially approved? 

Comments

  • EgozumEgozum Member ✭✭✭

    Senators wary about 3rd telco


    Updated November 8, 2018, 9:17 PM



    Opposition senators on Thursday raised the security issue against a decision of the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) to award as the provisional third telecommunications player in the Philippines to a joint venture that included state-owned China Telecom.

    “We don’t want a China Telecom joint venture to be NBN-ZTE Part 2 ($329 million) and North Rail project ($421 million) in our midst. If not exposed, it will rob the people billions of pesos,” Senate Minority Leader Franklin M. Drilon and Senators Francis N. Pangilinan, Antonio F. Trillanes IV, Leila de Lima, and Risa Hontiveros said.

    Senate President Franklin Drilon Jacqueline Hernandez  Manila Bulletin File Photo

    Senate President Franklin Drilon 

    “Our telecommunications need more industry players for the sake of the tens millions of Filipino consumers who deserve quality Internet and mobile services,” the senators said in a statement sent to Senate reporters.

    “We long for a time when Filipinos would have free access to the Internet, when we could use our mobile phones without experiencing drop calls, when text messages would arrive on time, and when our private data would not be used without our knowledge or consent for commercial and intelligence. That’s why we need to do things right,” they pointed out.


    The five senators maintained that the selection of the joint venture of a Davao-based businessman Dennis Uy and China Telecom as the provisional third telcoplayer should be examined carefully.

    The senators fired the following questions:

    • What qualified it in the first place?
    • Why were the other bidders booted out?
    • What is the track record of the winning bidder in the telecommunications business?
    • Was the government opening up the bidding to other players just a formality? Masabilang that the government went through the process?
    • In December 2017, Malacanang said it wants the government to ensure that China Telecom can begin its Philippine operations by the first quarter of 2018. Is this it?

    They stressed that the government should be transparent about these matters because “allowing the joint venture to enter the industry means giving them access to our daily communication activities, a security issue for our country and our people.”

    The NBN-ZTE and North Rail contracts were signed during the Arroyo administration.

    The NBN-ZTE contract was aborted due to allegations of bribery while the North Rail contract was discontinued for alleged lack of technical expertise on the part of the Chinese contractor.

    Meanwhile, Malacañang said that President Duterte has nothing to do with the selection of a consortium as the third telecommunications player in the country.

    Presidential spokesman Salvador Panelo rejected speculations that the President’s ties with Uy influenced the bidding process for the new major telco player, saying Duterte does not meddle in government transactions.

    “I think it’s a baseless assumption because given the character of this President, it’s far-fetched. As we all know, relationship, alliances, friendship do not matter with this President,” Panelo said during a Palace press briefing.

    “What matter to him is you follow the law and I’ll be with you. You don’t follow it and I’ll be against you,” Panelo said,” he added.

    Panelo maintained that the Mislatel consortium passed the preliminary screening for new major player without any intervention from the President


  • gotta lick itgotta lick it Member ✭✭✭

    yan na ninyo yun UDENNA maging 3rd TELCO

    since there are 2 other bidders, give them a bandwidth each and let there be a 4th and 5th TELCO.



    THE MORE COMPETITION THE CHEAPER AND BETTER THE SERVICE.

    THE TELCO WHO BULSHEETS ITS SUBCRIBERS WILL LOSE BECAUSE THEY WILL TRANSFER TO THE OTHER PROVIDERS. fair warning to GLOBE and SMART.
  • peterinpeterin Member ✭✭✭

    Is this what people want the country to end up to?

    Well, this is the direction the people trusts the President to bring them to, right?

     

    The Philippines has a territorial dispute with China.  There is no sign that the engagement of friendship of the President towards China is going towards us getting our full enjoyment of our sovereign rights.

    And yet, the President lets the aggressor handle, even dominate our national communication system?  Is national security the least priority of the President right now?  And our Congress, the HOR in particular, the representatives of the people does not even voicing concern?

    Is this the fate of our nation: To become a satellite of China?  Is this where the President will be bringing us?  

    I wonder.

  • yan na ninyo yun UDENNA maging 3rd TELCO

    since there are 2 other bidders, give them a bandwidth each and let there be a 4th and 5th TELCO.



    THE MORE COMPETITION THE CHEAPER AND BETTER THE SERVICE.

    THE TELCO WHO BULSHEETS ITS SUBCRIBERS WILL LOSE BECAUSE THEY WILL TRANSFER TO THE OTHER PROVIDERS. fair warning to GLOBE and SMART.
    There should be no limit. If ten people want to enter the telecom business, they should be allowed to do so. 
  • gotta lick itgotta lick it Member ✭✭✭

    FYI ....

    monthly rental for a celsite property is about 15-20K. sa probinsya pa iyan.

  • buddywbuddyw Member ✭✭✭

    Australia prepares to ban Huawei from 5G project over security fears


    SYDNEY (Reuters) - Australia is preparing to ban Huawei Technologies Co Ltd from supplying equipment for its planned 5G broadband network after its intelligence agencies raised concerns that Beijing could force the Chinese telco to hand over sensitive data, two sources said.

    Western intelligence agencies have for years raised concerns about Huawei’s ties to the Chinese government and the possibility that its equipment could be used for espionage. But there has never been any public evidence to support those suspicions.

    Huawei, the world’s largest maker of telecommunications network gear and the No. 3 smartphone supplier, has promised that Canberra will have complete oversight of 5G network equipment, which could include base stations, towers and radio transmission equipment.

    That sort of oversight model has been accepted by other countries - notably the U.K., where a special laboratory staffed with government intelligence officials reviews all Huawei products.

    Other Western countries, including the New Zealand, Canada and Germany, also say they have sufficient safeguards for assuring that Huawei equipment does not contain “back doors” or other mechanisms for secretly monitoring or collecting information.

    But Australian intelligence agencies have told lawmakers that oversight will not allay their concerns, two political sources who have been briefed on the matter told Reuters.

    “It is a Chinese company, and under Communist law they have to work for their intelligence agencies if requested,” said one of the government sources. “There aren’t many other companies around the world that have their own political committees.”

    Both sources declined to be identified because they were not authorized to speak to the media.

    Huawei has already been mostly shut out of the giant U.S. market over national security concerns. Its business serving small, rural telecom operators is now at risk after new attacks on the company in recent weeks by some U.S. lawmakers. The move to ban Huawei in Australia comes as tensions mount over China’s growing power and ambitions in the region.

    Relations between the two countries are at an all-time low after Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull last year accused Beijing of meddling in Canberra’s affairs, and China responded by slowing some Australian imports.

    Australia’s 5G service will require a dense network of towers that would then be leased to mobile providers such as Telstra Corp (TLS.AX).

    Mobile carriers typically have access to sensitive personal information, such as internet search history or emails. But in Australia and most other countries, there are strict laws governing when and how they can do so.

    Australia’s intelligence agencies fear that if mobile operators rely on Huawei’s equipment, the Chinese company could develop a means of collecting data or even undermining the stability of the network. Chinese law requires organizations and citizens to support, assist and cooperate with intelligence work.






  • ArnoldZArnoldZ Member ✭✭✭
    buddyw said:

    Australia prepares to ban Huawei from 5G project over security fears

    ......

    Mobile carriers typically have access to sensitive personal information, such as internet search history or emails. But in Australia and most other countries, there are strict laws governing when and how they can do so.

    Australia’s intelligence agencies fear that if mobile operators rely on Huawei’s equipment, the Chinese company could develop a means of collecting data or even undermining the stability of the network. Chinese law requires organizations and citizens to support, assist and cooperate with intelligence work.






    A Trojan horse as others may see it!
  • ArnoldZArnoldZ Member ✭✭✭

    FYI ....

    monthly rental for a celsite property is about 15-20K. sa probinsya pa iyan.

    Usually attached with a provision of twenty years contract and a renewable option. Owner of the land where a cellsite is to be installed sometimes require that after the contract and there is no renewal, all improvement and infrastructures will be the property of the landowner.
  • gotta lick itgotta lick it Member ✭✭✭
    ArnoldZ said:

    FYI ....

    monthly rental for a celsite property is about 15-20K. sa probinsya pa iyan.

    Usually attached with a provision of twenty years contract and a renewable option. Owner of the land where a cellsite is to be installed sometimes require that after the contract and there is no renewal, all improvement and infrastructures will be the property of the landowner.
    iyan ang kulang ng Chavit group kasi hindi sila handa. the technology is easy. it is what the foreign stakeholder are bring into the table but it is difficult to show you have a network of properties to build your celsites.

    UDENNA got insider information and acquired all the necessary requirements even before the bidding.



    again, why stop at "3" if you could go for "4 & 5?"

    IF THEY ARE WILLNG TO PROVIDE FASTER AND CHEAPER SERVICE THAN THE EXISTING PROVIDERS.
  • Having a third telco does not destroy the oligopoly, it is creates a new one. There should be no restriction to the number of new entrants.
  • RazorhawkRazorhawk
    edited November 12
    ArnoldZ said:

    FYI ....

    monthly rental for a celsite property is about 15-20K. sa probinsya pa iyan.

    Usually attached with a provision of twenty years contract and a renewable option. Owner of the land where a cellsite is to be installed sometimes require that after the contract and there is no renewal, all improvement and infrastructures will be the property of the landowner.

    And they still have to pay property taxes on those cell sites. This is why taxation is so sinister. All property taxes should be abolished. 
  • badJayebadJaye sitting.. wishing.. waiting ✭✭✭
    ArnoldZ said:

    FYI ....

    monthly rental for a celsite property is about 15-20K. sa probinsya pa iyan.

    Usually attached with a provision of twenty years contract and a renewable option. Owner of the land where a cellsite is to be installed sometimes require that after the contract and there is no renewal, all improvement and infrastructures will be the property of the landowner.
    iyan ang kulang ng Chavit group kasi hindi sila handa. the technology is easy. it is what the foreign stakeholder are bring into the table but it is difficult to show you have a network of properties to build your celsites.

    UDENNA got insider information and acquired all the necessary requirements even before the bidding.



    again, why stop at "3" if you could go for "4 & 5?"

    IF THEY ARE WILLNG TO PROVIDE FASTER AND CHEAPER SERVICE THAN THE EXISTING PROVIDERS.
    Why only 3? The available frequencies is enough only for the 3rd telco. that is why. Unless the spectrum rationalization becomes a law, there will be no 4 or 5 or so on... 
  • gotta lick itgotta lick it Member ✭✭✭
    badJaye said:
    ArnoldZ said:

    FYI ....

    monthly rental for a celsite property is about 15-20K. sa probinsya pa iyan.

    Usually attached with a provision of twenty years contract and a renewable option. Owner of the land where a cellsite is to be installed sometimes require that after the contract and there is no renewal, all improvement and infrastructures will be the property of the landowner.
    iyan ang kulang ng Chavit group kasi hindi sila handa. the technology is easy. it is what the foreign stakeholder are bring into the table but it is difficult to show you have a network of properties to build your celsites.

    UDENNA got insider information and acquired all the necessary requirements even before the bidding.



    again, why stop at "3" if you could go for "4 & 5?"

    IF THEY ARE WILLNG TO PROVIDE FASTER AND CHEAPER SERVICE THAN THE EXISTING PROVIDERS.
    Why only 3? The available frequencies is enough only for the 3rd telco. that is why. Unless the spectrum rationalization becomes a law, there will be no 4 or 5 or so on... 

    paano yun frequency na binigay kay Ramon Ang (SMB)/Telus

    na binenta lang sa Globe?




    DAPAT NOON PA TAYO MAY MABILIS NA INTERNET SPEED PROVIDER PERO Trinaydor ANG TELUS AT GOBYERNO.
  • badJayebadJaye sitting.. wishing.. waiting ✭✭✭
    ^^ well thats the purpose of the bill... to prevent frequency holding and not using it. No companies should able to hoard or keep frequencies and not use it. its a limited resources. 

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file