bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

articlePageQuery

filter

article

articleBaseAdvertisingInfoArticle

articleListArticle

articleSeoArticle

hooksArticleAcknowledgementGateOverlayArticle

hooksTrackPageViewArticle

hooksContentInterestArticle

articleLinkingDataContent

hooksAmpRedirectArticle

articleSchemaContent

liveArticle

advertZone

sentiment

contentLock

topics

types

sections

paywallTypes

createdDate

publishedDate

urlAlias

moreOnThisArticles

sponsorType

commentCount

authorLocations

authors

corrections

displaySlideShow

multimediaEmbed

printHeadline

seriesContainer

articleSpeeches

socialHeadline

headline

images

flag

firstTopic

glossary

flattenTypeIds

image

relatedLinks

relatedNewsletters

__typename

sponsor

pdfFiles

seriesReverseOrder

series

disableOffPlatformContent

published

updatedDate

summary

subHeadline

body

keywords

readingTime

customTimezone

liveContents

Stop the presses! An annual Asia-Pacific survey by the National University of Singapore has identified the most competitive telecoms hub. Surprise, surprise! It turns out to be Singapore.

 Hong Kong finished third behind Australia, with Japan coming in fourth.

 Now, to most observers this may be a little strange. All of the countries mentioned, apart from Singapore, have virtually fully deregulated markets.

 According to the survey: 'Hong Kong was rated well on service and pricing but fared poorly on choice.'  Let us just consider for one minute the choice of providers available in the SAR.

 Hong Kong has six mobile providers, offering 11 network choices - undoubtedly the most competitive in the world for the size of population.

 There are four providers of fixed-line local services, and now about 40 companies licensed to offer international services using international simple resale (ISR).

 At least another three facilities-based external licences will be awarded this year to start on January 1 next year.

 Compare that with Singapore.

 Singapore Telecommunications (SingTel) still has a monopoly over all fixed services and will continue to do so until April next year. Then only one other operator will be allowed to offer local and facilities-based international calls.

 ISR licences are considered an unlikely option.

 In addition, Singapore has only one mobile company apart from SingTel. Again, not until April next year will one other company be permitted to operate.

 The criteria used by the survey to determine 'competitiveness' of the markets conveniently does not include mobile telephony or local voice services.

 In the SAR, local calls are free. In Singapore they are not. Clearly some perspective is needed.

Those who doubt the viability of mobile telephony delivered by global satellite networks have been provided with hard figures to help underline their fears.

 Iridium, so far the only one to launch and begin offering services, this week reported that in the final quarter of last year it had a turnover of just US$186,000.

 Net losses were $440 million and long-term debt stood at $1.7 billion.

 As of December 31, and two months into operation, it had 3,000 subscribers.

 The company operates a system of 66 low-Earth-orbit satellites designed to allow true global communications.

 In upbeat fashion, the company declared that 'significant revenues' start to come this year.

 The company needs to sign up customers quickly to make the best of its lead to market.

 This year competitor Globalstar is scheduled to start its services, followed next year by another rival, ICO. The problem for all operators is the widespread availability of roaming using GSM technology.

 There are relatively few developed places in Europe/Asia that are not covered by a GSM-style network.

 Why pay a premium for satellite air-time when roaming charges are much lower? 



Singapore appears to have its wires crossed on issue of competitiveness