It is inconceivable for anyone to pay taxi fare, apartment rent, or salaries to parties he does not employ, or to live in an industrial area.
It is inconceivable that several different lines of supply of gas, electricity and water to consumers be extended and companies established under the pretext of competition and the free market.
It is unacceptable for a single company to have a monopoly on supplies and services that provide electricity, water and gas to consumers in a long-term that harms competition.
For example, is it possible for the electricity company to provide customers with an invoice containing different tariffs for electricity consumption for lighting, TV and refrigerator? Of course not
Is it possible to set up different sales outlets for each type of bread, eggs, or tomatoes, and for each outlet to have expenses, employees, fees and advertisements? Of course not
If all these are clear and logical, then why there are several telecommunications companies providing the same basic services in endless number of mixed bundles of calls, messages and the Internet?
Any telecom company has only 3 products and these are calls, messages and internet services. So why does any company invent a large number of packages? And keep spending money and ads on fictitious products!
Is it not more effective, economical, and easier to separate the costs of calls, internet, and messages from each other, leaving the consumer to determine purchases and consumption?
Any telecommunications company provides services over a specific frequency band allocated to it, and via their own towers that broadcast their specific signals, frequencies and radiation
So, any subscriber to the services of one tele company and who has its own mobile SIM card lives under the coverage of signals from other companies without justification, unnecessary multiple bombardment.
Living in the field of other companies’ frequencies, systems’ costs, service management, employees, offices and engineers are directly and indirectly incurred by the economy and the citizen
It is better, possible, logical, and healthier for citizens to live under the coverage of a single better network, facilities, staff, and outlets that provides only 3 services than having multiple providers without competition
The state, the economy, and the citizen bear the burdens of dividing and allocating frequency bands for each telecommunications company and their costs of facilities, outlets, advertisements and staff.
The state, economy, and citizens lose the advantages of competition, quality control and cost-cutting as a result of long-term corporate licensing for several providers. They are not like cars manufacturers.
It is more expedient to keep the entire infrastructure, towers, buildings and outlets for a unified network owned by the state and operate by one single company in wide bands and sufficient towers
State’s ownership and control of a unified national network of telecommunications have many returns and not only financial, economic and administrative, but they have very important security benefits
The multiple communication towers pick up and transmit various signals and it is necessary for security purposes to deal with them with caution and transparency.
What are happening from the distribution of the communications network, the packaging of services, and inventing of mixed bundles is manipulation and tricky moves targeting the public using technology.
My suggestion to solve all this is to integrate the components and infrastructures of the various telecom companies and to put the entire telecom network in a bid for operation, say, every 3 years
In addition to this, the company that wins the bid to operate the national network is prohibited from merging and mixing the costs of calls, internet and messages into confusing packages.
With this solution, the number of towers and outlets will multiply; coverage and frequency capacity will expand; costs and confusion will decrease; and quality, security and performance control will increase.
Unifying the communications network and putting it forward in a single periodic bid will certainly increase the state’s profits and true honest competition and reduce costs and expenditures.
Owning and managing the entire telecommunications network by a government company has the same disadvantages, and perhaps, less than dividing the communications network between several companies for long periods
The best, cheapest, beneficial, profitable, and healthier solution is to unify the communications network ownership and put it forward in a unified operation bid for a specific period under continuous evaluation.