4 ms·
>the providers had to take out huge loans and had to re-pay them instead of being able to invest in building out the networks or offer affordable services! Wha
by tormeh 6y ago
>the providers had to take out huge loans and had to re-pay them instead of being able to invest in building out the networks or offer affordable services!
What's your alternative? Should the licenses have been given away to some blessed companies? I hardly think you can fault the regulator for holding a proper auction. The failing here was clearly on the companies' part as they overestimated the impact UMTS would have. That the companies then have the audacity to try to get the money back from the government is slightly shocking - "plz socialize these losses lol".
The problem is clearly solvable. The government could just pay for the coverage to be built out (payment pending operational towers, obviously).
- mschuster91 6y ago> Should the licenses have been given away to some blessed companies? Yes. Give them away for free, limited for a year and under condition of network buildout, and have interested companies submit business plans. The four with the best business plan win the frequencies. If they don't manage the required buildout, the license gets revoked.
- MrBuddyCasino 6y agoThis is the correct answer, and again and as usual downvoted on HN. The reason we have shitty coverage is due to gasp economical incentives, who would have thought. Same with DSL btw, but thats another story.