Why Deregulate?

**ASF** · 12-09-2003 02:50 PM

You are 100% correct. We need a systematic and total deregulation of the industry based on a defined process and timetable.

But 1st we need a Minister of Communication who is / has:
1. Not a self-confessed technophobe! - Go figure - how can this individual have a passion for a technical industry?
2. The backbone to stand up to Telkom when they urinate on ICASA rulings.
3. A true understanding of communications issues - mabey Ministers should actually be qualified for the posts they hold - no hang on that won't work - no office except the Ministry of Corruption would have suitable candidates....

**paf** · 13-09-2003 10:06 AM

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Today, it is a nightmare. Europe has 50 or more country codes, which can be one digit long (Russia is country code 7), or as long as 3. Different countries divided up their numbers differently. Some have area codes, some have exchange codes, some have city codes, some have all or more. Some have 3 digit city codes, some have 5, some have 4, some have variable sizes of city or area or whatever codes.

Can you imagine the nightmare it is just to keep the routing tables in telecom switches up to date? They are now trying to fix this up by giving Europe a new country code... 371 I think. They want to combine all the EU member states' numbering plans and manage it. Noble idea, but err... I'll wait and see.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I see you suddenly change the topic. I believe we were talking about cellular networks.

Anyway, regarding this, that may be so, but as a consumer I never noticed a problem. I lived in Europe for 14 years, worked in Switzerland, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, France and the UK.
I did not once come across this supposed nightmare you describe. They may be struggling internally, but it's not affecting me as a consumer. So what do I care.

Your description of what Germans and Frenchmen do is very quaint but simplifies in a way that tells me you don't know the first thing about politics in Europe. Are you aware that we are dealing with sovereign states here that were shooting at eachother only 60 years ago? Today they are trying to build up something new, and of course it's hugely complex. Luckily they won't allow some elephant state to just dictate what everyone else must do (not as long as the US stays out of the EU anyway [;)]). There are much bigger issue than routing tables in telephone switches.

**Jerrek** · 13-09-2003 05:36 PM

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Anyway, regarding this, that may be so, but as a consumer I never noticed a problem. I lived in Europe for 14 years, worked in Switzerland, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, France and the UK.
I did not once come across this supposed nightmare you describe.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Gee. I suppose that is because I'm in the telecom industry and notice these things. Last time I was in Europe it took me all of 2 hours to figure out that things aren't quite as cool as it is back home.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">They may be struggling internally, but it's not affecting me as a consumer. So what do I care.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Expensive phone calls?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Your description of what Germans and Frenchmen do is very quaint but simplifies in a way that tells me you don't know the first thing about politics in Europe.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
It is meant to be simplified. I wasn't talking about politics either. Get it straight.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Are you aware that we are dealing with sovereign states here that were shooting at eachother only 60 years ago?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"> The United States has 50 sovereign states and Canada is another sovereign state. Now admittedly the last time these states shot at each other was in 1864, but that didn't prevent them from coming up with a solution together. The point you're making is irrelevant.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">There are much bigger issue than routing tables in telephone switches.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
What does this have to do with the price of tea in China? We were talking about the telecom industry, not the "bigger issues" of the European Union.

**paf** · 13-09-2003 08:34 PM

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Gee. I suppose that is because I'm in the telecom industry and notice these things. Last time I was in Europe it took me all of 2 hours to figure out that things aren't quite as cool as it is back home.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Yes, you did mention your boss was a hot-shot at AT&T. Frankly, I don't give a toss if you're the great-grandson of Alexander Bell. What I'm saying is that you are wrong in painting a picture as if the Telecommunications in Europe was dysfunctional. Yes, it may be more expensive than it should be, a lot of things are, and the reasons again are varied. But bottom line is, it works well enough for most people. And the prices are affordable.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
I wasn't talking about politics either. Get it straight. The United States has 50 sovereign states and Canada is another sovereign state. Now admittedly the last time these states shot at each other was in 1864, but that didn't prevent them from coming up with a solution together. The point you're making is irrelevant.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
No, I think you need to get it straight. Politics matters a great deal. First of all, you cannot compare the sovereignty of the states in the US to that of Europe. And Canada is being pragmatic, which is just as well, because when it comes to the crunch, the US would just piss all over you anyway. Take the blackout you had. Didn't the Americans first try and blame it on Ontario, when the problem probably originated somewhere in Ohio? Secondly, there wasn't much of a Telco industry back in 1864, was there? So they could start out in the green, and get it right. Good for you. Unfortunately, Europe is not quite as simple. That's the point I'm making. Every little thing they want to standardise on takes a lot of negotiation. That's why a state is called sovereign.
And another thing: If you are all so great over there, how come you have all the interoperability problems on your cellular network? You want to tell me Europe lags North America in that regard? GSM is the standard in Europe, and it worked very well everywhere I was.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
What does this have to do with the price of tea in China? We were talking about the telecom industry, not the "bigger issues" of the European Union
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Don't even start with agriculture. In case you haven't noticed, those bigger issues affect the telecomms industry in a big way.

**Jerrek** · 13-09-2003 11:22 PM

Yes, it may be more expensive than it should be, a lot of things are, and the reasons again are varied. But bottom line is, it works well enough for most people. And the prices are affordable.
You just don't get it, do you? Yes, that is true, but that is not the point I was making. I'm saying that it is a mess there compared with North America and that things are not as well developed and designed as it could have been.

And, put South Africa into that paragraph: But bottom line is, it works well enough for most people. And the prices are affordable.

Politics matters a great deal.
Did I ever say it does not matter?? NO. Go read what I posted six times again. I did not say that. It wasn't even the point I was making. I have no idea why you suddenly wanted to drag politics into this.

First of all, you cannot compare the sovereignty of the states in the US to that of Europe.
Why not?? They are sovereign states by themselves. Republic of Texas. Commonwealth of Massachusettes.

Take the blackout you had. Didn't the Americans first try and blame it on Ontario, when the problem probably originated somewhere in Ohio?
Oh for crying out loud. You're talking about things you don't know again. In 1975, when the blackout originated in Canada, Canada blamed the U.S. and the U.S. blamed Canada. JUST like the blackout this year. Canada blamed the U.S., and the U.S. blamed Canada.

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China??

Unfortunately, Europe is not quite as simple.
Exactly, and why not? Because (1) telecom companies were state-owned monopolies, and still are in a lot of countries, and (2) because it is state-owned, politics came into play and they couldn't agree on anything.

In the United States and Canada the telecom industry was never state-owned or operated and THAT is what caused growth and expansion. You seem to miss the point.

If you are all so great over there, how come you have all the interoperability problems on your cellular network?
Please elaborate on this.

You want to tell me
I want to tell you nothing that I didn't say. Quit putting words in my mouth.

PAF, have you ever been in North America? Have you ever lived here? I have lived in North America, Africa, Europe, AND Asia. I am basing my statements on first-hand experience and from knowledge that I obtained from working in the telecom industry. What do you base your opinions on?

**Quazzi** · 13-09-2003 11:49 PM

Erm, no offence here, but I'm with Jerrek on this one ;)

**paf** · 14-09-2003 12:40 AM

Let's not forget what my original objection was. The fact that you talk about Europe as if it were one, homogenous entity.

I also didn't care for your sneering comment about Germany not wanting to do what Italians want and so on.

You did also say the industry in Europe was in a mess. You also made another sneering comment about match-box size countries, which I reckon is pretty irrelevant as far as GSM networks go (you did make that comment in conjunction with that). For an industry that is in a mess, they 1) made a surprisingly good job of mobile networks and 2) seem to shield the customers quite well from this supposed mess, because I never did have or hear of major problems with Telecommunications. Note that I am talking from the viewpoint of a consumer.

The point I want to make is 1) that Europe is just a complicated place, which has bad effects on quite a few things. No doubt about that. And 2) that the quality of Telecomminications varies significantly across the continent. So I don't accept condescending, blanket remarks that call it a mess and laugh about how stupid they must be just not being able to agree on anything (I know you didn't say that, but that's how it comes across). Especially when it takes a guy like you 2 hours to figure out what's wrong. That's pretty stunning.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
You're talking about things you don't know again.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I don't think I need to take that from you. Tell me, what other things don't I know about? And from what you say, apparently I was right, afterall.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Why not?? They are sovereign states by themselves. Republic of Texas. Commonwealth of Massachusettes.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Are you serious? Ok, let's see. Texas and Massachusettes share
- a currency
- a federal reserve
- a president, secretary of state etc.
- an army
- a senate+house of representatives
- a language
- a constitution and a supreme court
- federal intelligence services (FBI, CIA etc.)
- various federal authorities such as the FDA, FCC etc.
- national holidays
- significant parts of quite a short history
Must I go on? All of these things are only starting to fall into place in Europe, and only for a minority of European states. And almost none of these were in place in the advent of the Telecommunications industry.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Quit putting words in my mouth.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I'm not. I was asking a question.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
PAF, have you ever been in North America? Have you ever lived here? I have lived in North America, Africa, Europe, AND Asia. I am basing my statements on first-hand experience and from knowledge that I obtained from working in the telecom industry. What do you base your opinions on?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Another condescending remark. No I never lived in North America, though I spent a couple of months in the States on projects. But I lived in South America, Europe and Africa, and I too speak from experience.

And after all that, we do agree on one thing: free markets are better than monopolies.

**kobie** · 14-09-2003 03:47 AM

I agree with paf, the only thing Europeans all have in common is that they live around/on the same peninsula.

And after all that, we do agree on one thing: free markets are better than monopolies.

wait a minute this is going to far. Imagine if SA government decided to let the rail industry be run on a purely competitive bases....do you think we could still travel by train from jhb to cpt after that??? no sane company would ever build tracks across SA, it's financial suicide, but our economy would be crippled without them...surely you must agree that some state sponsered monopolies must stick around? Im not saying that the "invisible hand" won't improve certain industries but maybe its not best always to rely on it.

**paf** · 14-09-2003 08:33 AM

Ok, let me rephrase that: free markets work better than monopolies in most markets, and I think Telecomms today is one of them.

**ASF** · 14-09-2003 09:56 AM

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">surely you must agree that some state sponsered monopolies must stick around?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">free markets work better than monopolies in most markets, and I think Telecomms today is one of them.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I agree with both the above. There are certain state sponsered monopolies that are needed (the example of the railways is a good one) however the telco industry has reached the point where it is in the consumer and countries interest to have a deregulated environment. There are many examples from other countries that prove this....

**Jerrek** · 14-09-2003 07:11 PM

Are you serious? Ok, let's see. Texas and Massachusettes share
Netherlands and France share:

- a currency (Euro)
- a federal reserve (European Central Bank)
- a president, ministers etc. (President of the EU)
- a senate+house of representatives (EU Parliament)
- a constitution and a supreme court (EU Constitution and EU Supreme Court)
- federal intelligence services (EU intelligence services)
- various federal authorities such as the FDA, FCC etc. (same in Europe)
- national holidays (Europe to some extent too)

Must I go on?

- a language? WTF does this have to do with anything? England and Australia share a language too.

Your point it moot.

And after all that, we do agree on one thing: free markets are better than monopolies
You make an excellent attempt to hide that though. I was pointing out how that is true, and along comes you disagreeing with what I'm saying and the comparisons I'm drawing.

Imagine if SA government decided to let the rail industry be run on a purely competitive bases....do you think we could still travel by train from jhb to cpt after that??? no sane company would ever build tracks across SA, it's financial suicide, but our economy would be crippled without them...surely you must agree that some state sponsered monopolies must stick around? Im not saying that the "invisible hand" won't improve certain industries but maybe its not best always to rely on it.

Bull****. The rail industry wasn't regulated in North America, and look: we have more rail roads than any other country in the world.

Now all of those that advocate a monopoly in the telecom market, you go ahead and pay your hundreds of dollars for a stable connection 64k or whatever. I will live in my deregulated industry and get my 5 Mbps for $45.

Just look at how damn expensive broadband is in Germany. Or France. Or Italy. It is a highway robbery compared to the price of broadband in North America. All thanks to a nice deregulated system.

**paf** · 14-09-2003 07:30 PM

How long has the Euro existed? And the other institutions? And how long has the Telco industry existed, and to when does the mess you described in the Telco industry date back? And do you know how much power the so called European president has?

You like quoting and responding out of context.

Blah, this isn't going anywhere.

Just one more thing.

I was pointing out how that is true, and along comes you disagreeing with what I'm saying and the comparisons I'm drawing.

If you go back and read my first response (maybe read it six times) you'll see that I never disagreed with you about the monopoly/state-run thing to begin with. Mostly I dislike the way you say things.

**kobie** · 14-09-2003 08:16 PM

Bull****. The rail industry wasn't regulated in North America, and look: we have more rail roads than any other country in the world.

Jerrek please note we are talking economies of scale here with the rail industry and a slightly different history.

**microfast** · 14-09-2003 08:25 PM

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by paf
 Mostly I dislike the way you say things.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Hi paf,

Jerrek is stating his view with passion - I like and respect that. I have enjoyed both your contributions to this forum.
Personally I agree that ANY form of government control or ownership can only be detrimental.

A government competing with its own people is just a formula for failure for any country. This has never worked historically and never will.

**paf** · 14-09-2003 09:28 PM

Yes, well, that's what makes these forums so much fun.

The railway thing is debatable actually. On major lines, such as CT to Jo'burg, where the infrastructure is essentially already in place, it might actually be viable. I know this is exactly the kind of debate that is going on in some countries.

But public transport is not just an econmic good, it's also a public good. So there is demand also from remote areas that needs to be met, but you would never find private money chasing that. So you'd have a market failure there which leaves only the state to run it.

Thread: Why Deregulate?

Thread Tools

Display

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions