That is not a problem but an advantage which gave equal footing and rights to all participating telcos which had shared equal ownership in it.

TM HSBB was a fine example of a monopoly failure.

It was awarded the right to build a so called OPEN access fibre network that gave equal access to all participating telco yet it also ran a retail service provider (RSP)/consumer ISP against all other telcos that used the open network?

The result?

Unfair access to other telcos who were renting from them, everyone had to use their wholesale equipment and couldn't use spare dark fibres for their own system deployment, every other telco could only access Layer 3 onwards. They could not connect spare fibres as equal share holder to the network with their own head end equipments.

All participating ISPs are subjected to TM's wholesale monopoly pricing which was known to favor their own ISP while other players were given the short end of the stick.

Why do you think Time until now refused to sell their service on TM's HSBB wholesale network?

DNB resolved that very issue. By giving all participating telcos EQUAL shareholding, no other player has advantage or monopoly against the rest of the members. DNB as the infra owner does not run their own telco which competes with the rest of the telco players.

Now that Umobile is repeating the very same failure which TM did, and burdened with the entire investment themselves I do have doubts about it.

Again that mistake was never learned.

Awarding a chunk of big frequency to some unproven company which is less known just to do rent seeking from desperate big players that really need those extra frequency bands for expansions.

It's bound to happen again with 5G with Umobile now monopolizing another 100MHz of bandwidth just for themselves.

If all telcos decide to boycott and choose to avoid renting from them what will happen? Are they financially strong enough to build a better and wider 4G network on their own without passing on the cost to consumers?

There is a major difference. All telcos are not prohibited to build their own fibre infrastructure back then, TM building it with gov assistance but other telco can build their own to prevent monopoly if they want to. TIME and MAXIS have their own infrastructure. So is not considered as monopoly. Telcos made a strategic decision to rent from TM instead build their own.

5G is totally different ball game cause without spectrum, telco not allowed to build 5G infrastructure. CDB, UM and Maxis been announcing their infra is 5G ready waiting for spectrum award but MOF (not sure why they made the call) awarded to DNB prematurely without MCMC knowledge only later MCMC forced to accept. And telco not allowed to reuse their tech agnostic spectrum for 5G - forcing monopoly to use DNB only.

Note the highlighted statement.

"Other telco can build their own infra if they want to prevent monopoly"

The BIG question now is why then DNB2 just awarded solely to UMobile alone?

Instead a better idea would be why not allow any telco willing to expand their own footprint beyond DNB1 if they wish to with their own equipment to cover exclusive in-building and blindspots coverage according to their customers market while DNB continues to serve the existing 82% with equal ownership rights.

Why allow just one telco the rights to do rent seeking from others just as where the TM HSBB idea failed miserably?

TM HSBB, though may look the same but slightly different. It is build with the assistance of government, but the infra is managed wholely by TM. Hence they have the extra advantage to set pricing and also other network provisioning. If the HSBB is build jointly by TM, Time, U Mobile etc, the story will be quite different.

No one in the general public can answer that big question. In Malaysia, anything can happen. Rightly DNB2 should be jointly build by a few telcos.

That's right.

The correct way was supposed to be that both DNB1 and DNB2 were supposed to be of 2 different consortium teams of telcos to promote healthy competition.

That way Consortium 1 vs Consortium 2 will compete fairly in different approach to network build-outs, Western vs China vendors, pricing and competitiveness.

Let's not get too deep into that. Just a suggestion for healthy competition.

They did... For congested area... But maxis complain gao gao before um win... Coz maxis ad plan to win the 2nd dnb...
In the end... DNB turn it off and left behind like this...

Now DNB only can keep adding physical site instead of add spectrum due to UM 2nd network...

It comes back typical 4g era where the speed is split..

3G license to Berjaya Umobile
4G spectrum to Berjaya REDtone, Berjaya UMobile
5G-dua to Berjaya Umobile

This post has been edited by JLA: Jul 1 2025, 03:20 PM

U talk too much , nanti kena gaogao …

The second license was done as “open” tender , telco free to partner to submit but it didnt happen cause every telco wants it for their own in this case … CDB is largest telco, in theory Maxis shall partner with UMobile but since UM probably knows who will win before game begins so no reason to share cake with Maxis. Not to mention MOF the orchestrator of the failed DNB need CDB and Maxis to cover the bad debt and bail out DNB, CDB and Maxis both have stellar financial so best candidate as water fish. MCMC and MOF killed 2 birds with one stone - the pre-decided winner won, DNB found its bail out saviors …

What is so open when the award went to a telco which is not even a Big 3 and a single company not a consortium tender?

Open means it must allow justification, queries and fair competition.

If every telco wants its own then the only fair approach is consortium based to create 2 different competing groups for healthy competition. Not solely award to just ONE telco which will even cause more complications in future such as rent seeking and speculations to get it sold off to interested buyers for debt reduction.

It's kinda defeat the purpose of consortium when the 2nd network is literally a single MNO only. Weird why MCMC and Fahmi going towards the current rollout instead of the split consortium where every MNO spend fairly instead of suddenly one MNO holding the burden of creating a duplicate networks which expert in the news already said, it will be financially destructive.



This post has been edited by OfficiallyAhmad: Jul 5 2025, 07:59 PM

Because none of the telco are submitting proposal as konsortium and partnership, all want to do it alone. In telco world spectrum is like lifeline, without spectrum, the company is towards end of life. All tech innovation, differentiation and optimization based on how well they play the spectrum and make it more efficient. Malaysia 5G has been stagnant for 4 years as compared to other countries due to DNB and situation of telco not having control of the 5G technology … typical people only look at speed and 5G icon on the phone but true potential of 5G is beyond speed but not something achievable by DNB Konsortium.

Umobile 5G with their own infra and spectrum will eventually be the true 5G that put Msia on par with rest of the world …

Maxis and CDB financial will definitely be impacted to cover bailout DNB debt and their spent heavily to refresh the incompatible Ericsson 5G network to suit their own. End of an era for Maxis and CDB, three once most powerful telco in Msia screwed by the gov. Nett nett the winner of the DNB saga is Ericsson, they sold junk to Msia government that eventually too lousy to be used and not future proof with local telco, now gov asking Maxis and CDB to pay the bill …

One may argue telcos not doing good in rural area but MCMC made it mandatory for all telcos contributing USP funds (i think % of their revenue) for MCMC to decide build coverage for underserved/rural … wonder where the fund went to provide rural coverage cause no report how much was spent and where is the coverage is … one may ponder how the fund was spent if rural coverage still poor…

MCMC if back in 2018 award the 200Mhz spectrum to Maxis (50Mhz), CDB (75Mhz), Umobile (50Mhz), Unifi(12.5Mhz) and YES (12.5Mhz) to force them to work together to form konsortium of their choice will be much cleaner … note that none have enough spectrum to realize 5G full potential therefore they will have no choice to work together. And most importantly have the tech knowledge to select the best 5G solution compatible to their network.

That is just plain excuse and failure to even provide proper requirements with their open tenders.

It would not have happened if the open tender requirement(s) only accepted tenders from consortiums among the industry telcos. Any telco who submit their tender alone will straight be rejected or disqualified.

How could that even be allowed to slip to pass? Very unprofessional and lame excuse.Or it was actually intended that way.

Anyways like many have said we prefer to ignore what is passed and move on. Our bed at home is more comfortable than the stone cold one.

Nowadays DNB introduce Fake SA eh
B28 totally no transmission at all

RMK13: Government Targets 5G Coverage to Reach 98% Rate by 2030

https://amanz.my/2025527492

What's the current 5G coverage??

🤔

Even 4G not fully covered yet.... Some places don't have....

Make it viral, SKMM MCMC will come in

10 tahun pencawang rosak, penduduk Sungai Relai terputus akses telekomunikasi
Julai 14, 2025


MCMC addresses connectivity issues in Kampung Sungai Relai
Regulator identifies steps to improve mobile coverage in Gua Musang village after site assessment confirms lack of service

30 Jul 2025

it's like stagnant since last year. DNB don't bother to update it's coverage map for a year now.

This the problem of total monopoly....

But hopefully would change after U Mobile start to deploy their own 5G network.....

And increase the overall coverage.....