SIMBA Telecom discussion thread

[beng035]

stupid question but i would like to ask users here.

$10/30 days - next roll over is every 30 days
$30/90 days - next roll over is at every 30 days or 90 days?

just want to be bird sure

 

[TyL3r_DuRd3n]

stupid question but i would like to ask users here.

$10/30 days - next roll over is every 30 days
$30/90 days - next roll over is at every 30 days or 90 days?

just want to be bird sure

$30/90 days - next roll over is at every 30 days.

 

[JAYSCS]

yes. In the first place, why would they allow simba to climb up to roof to install the equipments, when they can straight up reject them access?

The $699k ($698,594.50) fine/damages Simba was ordered to pay the iFly Building operator (Altitude Xperience) was because a High Court ruled they were trespassing. Simba refused to vacate after a previous agreement ended, and their defense that they could use the space rent-free under national telecom rules was rejected.

Simba was slapped with the damages rather than being allowed to use the rooftop for free due to the following reasons:

• The specific area was not classified as "unused": Under the Code of Practice for Info-communication Facilities in Buildings (COPIF), building owners must provide free space for telcos, but this only applies to designated or "unused" spaces. The IMDA ruled that the specific rooftop space on the iFly building did not qualify.
• Actual business damages were proven: The 4.51 square meters of equipment on the rooftop prevented the building owner from installing air-conditioning. This directly resulted in lost revenue because they could not host events during the day.
• The expired oral agreement: Simba had previously occupied the space under oral or short-term licensed agreements that eventually expired. When the lease ended, Simba continued occupying the spaces without a valid license.

Why other telcos use rooftop spaces
Other major telcos (Singtel, StarHub, M1) often use rooftop spaces without these legal disputes because they secure proper commercial contracts or coordinate through building management rather than relying solely on the COPIF rent-free clauses.
In situations where a telco does need space, they also regularly share base stations or work out site-sharing agreements to cover difficult spots (like the Sentosa beach and forested areas Simba was targeting).

All-in-all, Simba is quite unfortunate in refusing to pay the requested rent (to save cost) by iFly and end up losing the case.

 

[sango65]

The $699k ($698,594.50) fine/damages Simba was ordered to pay the iFly Building operator (Altitude Xperience) was because a High Court ruled they were trespassing. Simba refused to vacate after a previous agreement ended, and their defense that they could use the space rent-free under national telecom rules was rejected.

Simba was slapped with the damages rather than being allowed to use the rooftop for free due to the following reasons:

• The specific area was not classified as "unused": Under the Code of Practice for Info-communication Facilities in Buildings (COPIF), building owners must provide free space for telcos, but this only applies to designated or "unused" spaces. The IMDA ruled that the specific rooftop space on the iFly building did not qualify.
• Actual business damages were proven: The 4.51 square meters of equipment on the rooftop prevented the building owner from installing air-conditioning. This directly resulted in lost revenue because they could not host events during the day.
• The expired oral agreement: Simba had previously occupied the space under oral or short-term licensed agreements that eventually expired. When the lease ended, Simba continued occupying the spaces without a valid license.

Why other telcos use rooftop spaces
Other major telcos (Singtel, StarHub, M1) often use rooftop spaces without these legal disputes because they secure proper commercial contracts or coordinate through building management rather than relying solely on the COPIF rent-free clauses.
In situations where a telco does need space, they also regularly share base stations or work out site-sharing agreements to cover difficult spots (like the Sentosa beach and forested areas Simba was targeting).

All-in-all, Simba is quite unfortunate in refusing to pay the requested rent (to save cost) by iFly and end up losing the case.

which came to my point in my earlier post:-

https://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/threads/simba-telecom-discussion-thread.6243080/post-159386359

All their consultants / professionals are sleeping on their jobs and did not inform SIMBA on the legal issues?

 

[skazzz]

which came to my point in my earlier post:-

https://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/threads/simba-telecom-discussion-thread.6243080/post-159386359

All their consultants / professionals are sleeping on their jobs and did not inform SIMBA on the legal issues?

It could also be due to Simba outsourcing the role or the in-house team lacking the necessary expertise.
There are many possible explanations.
Ultimately, the only party that benefit is the lawyer handling the case, who earns revenue from it.

Building on your point, I came across an interesting observation regarding address formats—some use block / unit / postal, while others insist on block / unit / building name / postal.
So your Simba example could simply come down to understanding what is required versus what isn’t.

 

[BBCWatcher]

All their consultants / professionals are sleeping on their jobs and did not inform SIMBA on the legal issues?

It's possible everyone acted in good faith per their best understanding of the applicable laws and regulations, and that SIMBA received legal advice that they had done no wrong. Nonetheless, the court simply ruled in favor of the building owner.

We don't have all the submissions and facts available to the court. That said, based on the news reporting (only) I'm as puzzled as @Jurong640 is. A mobile network installer cannot parachute onto the top of a building and install equipment without somebody granting building access. The installation and character of this equipment shouldn't have been a surprise to the building owner. But OK, the court ruled. So it goes.

 

[skazzz]

It's possible everyone acted in good faith per their best understanding of the applicable laws and regulations, and that SIMBA received legal advice that they had done no wrong. Nonetheless, the court simply ruled in favor of the building owner.

We don't have all the submissions and facts available to the court. That said, based on the news reporting (only) I'm as puzzled as @Jurong640 is. A mobile network installer cannot parachute onto the top of a building and install equipment without somebody granting building access. The installation and character of this equipment shouldn't have been a surprise to the building owner. But OK, the court ruled. So it goes.

Based on the earlier summary post, it appears to be a case of expired usage that was not removed—similar to a tenant refusing to vacate after the lease has ended.

As for whether it’s right or wrong, that’s another side of the story.
If based on the lease, it seems to be a straightforward case.

 

[BBCWatcher]

Based on the earlier summary post, it appears to be a case of expired usage that was not removed—similar to a tenant refusing to vacate after the lease has ended.

Maybe, but then it's possible SIMBA received legal advice that they didn't need to vacate, that the COPIF covered them. Until it didn't. Sometimes you can do everything you think is right and still lose.

I suppose it's also possible SIMBA has business insurance that covers this loss, or some of it.

 

[skazzz]

Maybe, but then it's possible SIMBA received legal advice that they didn't need to vacate, that the COPIF covered them. Until it didn't. Sometimes you can do everything you think is right and still lose.

I suppose it's also possible SIMBA has business insurance that covers this loss, or some of it.

In terms of insurance, it is likely insurer will leverage the court case to contest or invalidate claims arising from hoarding.

 

[Habrosus]

Post in thread 'Eight Telecom discussion thread'
https://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/threads/eight-telecom-discussion-thread.7023112/post-159381744

Sight over reality?

 

[SongManKranji]

now only hv 1 simba 5sgd... I hv port over to ZYM & gomo... signal better locally..


Life is v short. Ai song song kao tuas & Changi.

 

[hwsstx]

This new month (2nd Rollover month) SIMBA hasn't Rollover my data for APAC & Global yet.

But Local & IDD mins & Main Data, were rolled over.

Previous month (1st time Rollover) all were rolled over.

 

[tingcher]

Simba wifi calling on iPhone seem to be working now. I call still received and call out while on airplane mode with wifi on while connected to wifi.

 

[Jurong640]

This new month (2nd Rollover month) SIMBA hasn't Rollover my data for APAC & Global yet.

But Local & IDD mins & Main Data, were rolled over.

Previous month (1st time Rollover) all were rolled over.

i think they still don't have the app UI updated yet.

SMS 2 to 1218 for more precise usages

 

[beng035]

any difference between the older sim card and the "upgrade 5g ultra" sim card in terms of connection and speed?

 

[Asus80]

any difference between the older sim card and the "upgrade 5g ultra" sim card in terms of connection and speed?

5G sim support SA. older sim only support up to NSA/4G

 

[ekardo]

those who changed to the new 5G sim, did you leave the network setting as provider setting, or changed APN back to "TPG" ?

 

[hwsstx]

i think they still don't have the app UI updated yet.

SMS 2 to 1218 for more precise usages

No difference

 

[miragez]

those who changed to the new 5G sim, did you leave the network setting as provider setting, or changed APN back to "TPG" ?

I let my phone auto set the APN and its “internet” speed no difference.

 

[drkleva]

5G sim support SA. older sim only support up to NSA/4G

Does the new 'Utra 5g' sim card design looks the same as the old one?
TIA.