Why the Simba-M1 Deal Collapsed—and What Happens to Customers Now

What the IMDA investigation is about

Mobile-network operators are expected to use only spectrum assigned to them, unless they have prior regulatory approval. IMDA said the alleged use of unassigned bands could constitute unauthorised spectrum use and breach Singapore’s Telecommunications Act 1999 and the conditions of Simba’s Facilities-Based Operations Licence.

The allegation is not a final finding of wrongdoing. IMDA suspended the merger review because the investigation’s conclusions could materially affect its assessment of the proposed consolidation. It said enforcement action would follow if a breach were established, but the supplied evidence does not show a final enforcement decision or confirmed fine.

One published account cites a potential financial penalty of S$1 million or 10% of the licensee’s annual turnover, but that figure should be treated as a possible statutory exposure rather than a penalty imposed on Simba. The eventual outcome could depend on what the investigation establishes.

Why the 21 May deadline ended the transaction

The regulatory review was suspended just days before the agreement’s long-stop date. With approval unlikely to be obtained before 21 May, Keppel said it would allow the agreement to lapse rather than extend it.

Tuas subsequently confirmed that the conditions required to complete the acquisition had not been fulfilled or waived by the deadline and terminated the agreement.

The collapse immediately affected investor sentiment. Tuas shares fell about 60% after news of the suspended review, according to Reuters. Tuas shares were also reported down nearly 10% in early trading after the termination announcement, while Keppel shares rose 5.11% over the week to close at S$10.91 on 22 May. Those figures cover different time periods, so they are not a direct like-for-like comparison.

What consumers would have received if the merger had closed

The proposed benefits were commitments and forecasts from Simba and M1—not outcomes, because the transaction did not complete.

A larger combined network

The companies argued that combining Simba’s cost position with M1’s capabilities would create a stronger competitor, support network investment and improve innovation. Their proposal described broader indoor and outdoor coverage, greater capacity and resilience, faster downloads and stronger 4G and 5G connectivity through combined sites, spectrum and dynamic spectrum sharing.

Simba and M1 also proposed keeping the two brands separate over the long term while simplifying and combining underlying network, IT and customer-service systems.

Price protections for existing customers

The proposal included a commitment not to increase the prices paid by Simba and M1 customers with active services or contracts at completion for two years. The applicants also said customers would not face adverse mid-contract changes.

The companies said the combined operator would continue offering popular S$10 and S$12 mobile plans to new subscribers for at least two years after completion.

Because the merger failed, these proposed protections and pricing plans do not become merger commitments for the future. Existing customers should rely on the terms of their current plans and later announcements from their telcos instead.

Competition and MVNO uncertainty

Simba and M1 argued that the transaction would not substantially lessen competition because neither operator had significant market power and customers could switch providers relatively easily.

The proposed deal also raised questions about mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs), particularly because a combined operator would have had a larger position in the wholesale market. However, the supplied evidence does not establish a specific final MVNO remedy or access obligation. It is therefore not possible to say that MVNO terms would have improved, worsened or stayed unchanged.

M1’s 90-day “Plan B”

With Keppel retaining majority ownership, M1 moved to an alternative 90-day programme intended to strengthen competitiveness and improve run-rate EBITDA through lower costs while maintaining customer experience.

The plan includes:

• Structural rightsizing and product simplification: M1 intends to streamline operations and reduce complexity.
• Technology and AI savings: The company plans to lower technology-platform and network costs and increase automation, including agentic workflows for some customer-relationship and campaign-management tasks.
• Lower future capital expenditure: Management said M1’s 5G deployment is complete, so future spending should focus more on operations and maintenance than on building out the core 5G network.
• Network-cost rationalisation: M1 plans to work through its Antina joint venture with StarHub to rationalise network deployment, operations and maintenance costs.
• Reduced external spending: The programme includes lower creative and advertising-agency costs.

This is a cost and operating plan, not a substitute for every benefit proposed in the merger. Its effect on network performance will depend on how M1 balances efficiency with maintenance, capacity and future investment.

What Plan B could mean for service quality and security

Lower capital expenditure does not automatically mean a worse network, particularly when a major 5G deployment is described as complete. But the available material does not provide enough evidence to guarantee that coverage, speeds or reliability will improve—or remain unchanged—in every location. Those results will depend on execution and investment decisions.

Keppel framed the programme as one that would maintain customer experience, while product simplification and automation could make service easier to deliver. At the same time, rightsizing and greater automation can create execution risks if customers have less access to effective human support.

The proposed merger would also have aimed to unify protections such as spam and phishing filters, SMS firewalls and call-blocking protocols. The Plan B information supplied here does not contain an equivalent detailed security commitment, so those merger-specific benefits should not be assumed to follow from the failed transaction.

Should Simba or M1 customers switch telcos?

The deal’s collapse alone is not a reason to switch. Customers should compare their own indoor and outdoor coverage, prices at renewal, roaming needs, handset compatibility, customer-service experience and any early-termination charges.

The merger’s promised price and network improvements are no longer guaranteed because the transaction ended before completion. For now, the practical decision is to judge the service currently available at the customer’s home, workplace and usual travel routes—and to reassess when the existing plan is due for renewal.