It seems incredible that the initial process to license a second national operator (SNO) lasted many months, giving potential bidders ample time to study the pros and cons, prepare their bids and get everything in tip-top shape. Yet only two bids were eventually forthcoming.
The Independent Communications Authority of SA (ICASA) ultimately rejected both the Goldleaf and Optis bids because they were considered to be too lightweight.
Following that rejection, the Department of Communications instituted a new process, which has seen applicants indicate their intention to bid. One-on-one negotiations are being conducted between each of the bidders and the SNO working committee.
This time, with only 30 days from the time the department opened the floor for applicants to express interest to the cut-off period when bids had to be submitted, an incredible five applicants have now come forward.
Admittedly the CommuniTel bid includes several of the parties originally involved in Goldleaf's failed bid, indicating that they at least have been involved in the process for some time, but the remaining four are new to the SNO bidding.
This suggests one of three things: either the new batch of submissions are even more haphazardly thrown together this time around, and as such the players submitting them are nothing more than chancing their luck; otherwise the requirements have been made less stringent by the department; or possibly they are only hoping for a smaller slice of the pie.
The reason I say this is because the SNO working committee has already stated that it is prepared to combine the best parts of several bids into one "super bid", for want of a better phrase.
While the concept itself may seem admirable - especially given that the initial bids were rejected - it raises more questions than it answers.
For starters, surely any bidder that did not feel strong enough to bid the first time around could not throw together a bid in 30 days, unless the consortium is hoping only to have certain parts accepted into the working committee's "super bid".
Besides that, there are the ethical dilemmas raised by pulling apart a consortium in order to combine its best attributes with those of one or more of the other bidders.
How would an issue like this affect shareholder agreements and partnerships within the consortiums?
And what will happen to the partners in any of the bids who are not involved with the elements selected from their bid - will they be summarily dropped from the "super bid"?
There are the ethical dilemmas raised by pulling apart a consortium in order to combine its best attributes with those of one or more of the other bidders.
Rodney Weidemann, journalist, ITWeb
Another problem could occur if an equal element (in terms of equity valuation) is taken from each bid and combined into the "super bid". Who would then be the lead company in such a consortium?
The real apprehension that exists is that, should the SNO committee decide to combine elements from several of the submitted bids, we will not see a successful awarding of the licence before the end of this year.
While the majority completely support the need for a competitor to Telkom, it does seem worrying that we may be sacrificing process to achieve this goal.
We should not forget that the third cellular licence process was dogged by accusations and court actions that ultimately saw the awarding of the licence delayed by over a year.
My fear is that the current process has the potential to go down that very same road, and the only one smiling at that prospect is the incumbent monopoly - and the lawyers.
Share