‘a Retrograde Step’

[rpm]

http://www.mybroadband.co.za/nephp/?m=show&id=443

A great article from Duncan regarding Mandla Langa & ICASA.

 

[TheCynick]

Another bill that proposes to hand more power to the Executive branch of government. Admittedly, the Legislative branch is a lame duck rubber-stamping organisation, but at least they go through the motions, however trivial that may be.

IMHO, this bill is in a simmilar vein to bills to those that are proposed to enable "tranformation of the judiciary"
(see http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/article.aspx?ID=BD4A42207). I certainly don't believe that this is being proposed in the name of efficiency. But then, I am know to be cynical.

Bills like this are nothing less than a systematic attack of the separation of powers that is supposed to underpin our constiutional democracy. And that is rather worrying.

 

[mbs]

As far as I'm aware, the parliamentary oversight committee will remain in place - this means that governance issues will continue to be addressed, which will include the machinations of the executive in this regard. Methinx it's an option with potentially real and useful consequences, which has to be at least tested - ANYTHING to get rid of the current inefficiencies! Decision by directive always works better than decision by committee in terms of realisation, even in the face of disagreement on decisions so made...

 

[rpm]

Headless Icasa

http://www.moneyweb.co.za/news/tech_stocks/458393.htm

 

[nOhIwAy]

mbs,

mostly I find your writings confusing :

Firstly you write :
"the parliamentary oversight committee will remain in place"
I understand that you view this is a good idea.

Then you go on to say :
"Decision by directive always works better than decision by committee in terms of realisation"
I understand that you think the committee is not so useful.

Then having read Langa's statement :

Langa laments the slow pace at which government is introducing competition.
"Competition could have been introduced much earlier," he says.
"If there had been a lessening of the hold on the reins . . .
a lot more services could have been brought about
and the underserviced areas would have benefited."

Here I understand Langa to say that government has hindered and delayed liberalisation of the communications sector.

Do you not agree with Langa ? - I think he is sounding a warning to us all.

 

[mbs]

mbs,
mostly I find your writings confusing :

OK, perhaps in my endeavours to be suitably concise and laconic I've confused the reader - let me try and explain myself further...

Firstly you write :
"the parliamentary oversight committee will remain in place"
I understand that you view this is a good idea.

Yes. Any mechanism designed to ensure good governance can only be viewed positively.

Then you go on to say :
"Decision by directive always works better than decision by committee in terms of realisation"
I understand that you think the committee is not so useful.

Methinx you've misread me slightly - an oversight committee is not responsible for realisation, but instead for governance, i.e. have those tasked with the job done the job properly?

Then having read Langa's statement :

Langa laments the slow pace at which government is introducing competition.
"Competition could have been introduced much earlier," he says.
"If there had been a lessening of the hold on the reins . . .
a lot more services could have been brought about
and the underserviced areas would have benefited."

Here I understand Langa to say that government has hindered and delayed liberalisation of the communications sector.

Do you not agree with Langa ? - I think he is sounding a warning to us all.

Nothing wrong with his statement - he makes his standpoint quite clear, viz. that he resents the hold that Government has on realisation of aspects of our telecomms scenario. Quite understandable, as his own regulatory authorities were not supported to the extent he may have wished them to be. It is in this light and further to the posting by TheCynick that I made my statement about 'decision by directive' versus 'decision by committee'. Decisions that may be made as directives emanating directly from the Presidential Office would very likely occur more speedily than decisions whch have to go through the machinations of the Department of Communications, the Ministry and the various departmental clusters, and finally through the parliamentary portfolio committee. As I said, this would probably be better, even if the wrong decisions are made and issued by directive, due to the inefficiencies of the current process. Hell, think about the fact that Telkrap's legal monopoly actually expired a long time ago, how long realisation of the SNO is taking, and so the list goes on... At the end of the day, we need a process that works much faster than at present, as long as oversight and governance mechanisms are not discarded along the way...

 

[Gerry]

romantic wording for an afwfull outcome. Which ever what ever, the marxist plan WILL be implemented. (rise the temprature quickly - people react. rise it slowly - people sleep)

 

[ic]

The problem I have with the Presidency issuing Telecoms decrees, is that the relevant Oversight Committe is not likely to be telling the President's Office that the President made a bad decision & messed up...what good is a streamlined decision if it's the wrong decision and will not be subjected to critique?

Langa says that during his time at Icasa he became fascinated with the concept of power and what it means. He says he plans to write a nonfiction book on the subject.

Somehow I think her Poisonous Ivyness is not the only dictator that should quiver in their booties over this . All the best Mandla Langa, I will be most interested in such a book - will it be available to purchase on the Internet...?

 

[mbs]

The problem I have with the Presidency issuing Telecoms decrees, is that the relevant Oversight Committe is not likely to be telling the President's Office that the President made a bad decision & messed up...what good is a streamlined decision if it's the wrong decision and will not be subjected to critique?

That's the beauty of it - at the moment much of the decision-making process seems to be shrouded in mystery, and the public only gets to hear about decisions made via ministerial announcement, once the DoC has done their tardy thing, the inter-departmental clusters have put their tuppence-worth in, and Ivy has consulted with her bosses. Such announcements are then further delayed for opportune moments either as a parliamentary notice or as a speech at some official function or the other (the political imperative), or delayed until the parliamentary portfolio committee officially meets. It's that process which I'm hoping will be short-circuited - I don't think the Presidential Office is subject to such process constraints.

Sure, there is the likelihood that the oversight committee will be hesitant to tell the chief that he's screwed up (after all, he will be appointing the new ICASA head, so there's yet another potentially sycophantic factor), but the saving grace is that the proceedings of the oversight committee are visible to the public eye and recorded in Hansard as far as I'm aware. Ah well, it's all just speculation at this stage...

Somehow I think her Poisonous Ivyness is not the only dictator that should quiver in their booties over this . All the best Mandla Langa, I will be most interested in such a book - will it be available to purchase on the Internet...?

Yup - me too will be interested in his book, particularly since I sense a measure of petulence in his frustrations verbally expressed of his time at ICASA: did the small taste of power whet his appetite for more?

 

[nOhIwAy]

Hi mbs,

well you've read Langa as I have :

"he resents the hold that Government has on realisation of aspects of our telecomms scenario"

Then you wrote :

"an oversight committee is not responsible for realisation"

And then you support direct presidential involvement :

"It's that process which I'm hoping will be short-circuited - I don't think the Presidential Office is subject to such process constraints."

Langa is warning us against such steps in which you have confidence -
for many years telecomms liberalisation has been CONSTRAINED by government.

It seems to me that you and Langa have opposing viewpoints ?

 

[ic]

I get what mbs said, and to an extent it could be useful ITO cutting down on the red tape, bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo, ministerial double talk, and hidden agendarism etc, all of which is typical of the DoC and her Poisonous Ivyness...

Like mbs says, the Presidency should hopefully be able to bypass the tug-of-war going on there, but I have my doubts about this introducing transparency...and even if it did expose the public to government's policy, the Presidency is not likely to admit mistakes on its part and reverse or correct a bad decision - a case in point is the fact that the Presidency has still not fired her Ivyness' lazy @ss & replaced it with a more competent one...

The solution IMO would be to ditch her Ivyness and whoever else within the DoC keeps holding ICASA back, change the law to give ICASA more independence - rather make ICASA answer to the Communications Oversight Committee and not whoever is running the DoC...

 

[mbs]

Hi mbs,

well you've read Langa as I have :

"he resents the hold that Government has on realisation of aspects of our telecomms scenario"

Then you wrote :

"an oversight committee is not responsible for realisation"

And then you support direct presidential involvement :

"It's that process which I'm hoping will be short-circuited - I don't think the Presidential Office is subject to such process constraints."

Langa is warning us against such steps in which you have confidence -
for many years telecomms liberalisation has been CONSTRAINED by government.

It seems to me that you and Langa have opposing viewpoints ?

Not really - our viewpoints are the same, but for different reasons. We both have a problem with the current scenario, but Langa wants more unfettered authority for ICASA, whereas I want speedier decision-making and action (read: realisation) on the part of Government, with current oversight mechanisms remaining in place - that's how we differ.

Given the bad experiences of the past, with Government setting-up covert agencies to pursue its deviant agendas, I view any kind of mechanism designed to give state agencies additional authority without real accountability, with justified suspicion. As it is, methinx we have too many of them anyway, all instituted with their own defining legislation (have a look at the listed entities in Sections A, B and C of the Public Finance Management Act).

Getting back to ic's tentative solution, nothing wrong with the suggestion, except for the fact that this is dependent upon giving ICASA more independence, which I view as a potential problem (see above). Also, at present ICASA has to appear before the oversight committee anyway. The way I see it, the problem lies not with ICASA, but with the governmental process as it stands at the moment. It is this which needs to be addressed, given the long, drawn-out 'decision by committee' process.

Much of the alleged incompetence of Ivy and her Ministry, as well as that of the civil service component in the form of the Doc and the DG, is actually the result of considerations external to her Ministry, and possibly raised via the cluster mechanism, or other fora. Methinx this would be usefully short-circuited if the Presidential Office takes the reins to ride the horse to the finishing line. As a case in point, the continued Telkrap shenanigans provide ample evidence of this - they don't really give an airborne procreational past-time about what ICASA says, with the obvious conclusion being that other interests (besides the public ones) are being served. Methinx this has much to do with the multi- and bi-lateral arrangements of Government - the only reasonable non-conspiratorial conclusion that one can come to. Those arrangements ultimately fall directly under the Presidential Office, as I understand it, whether initially insitituted by Trade and Industry, Foreign Affairs, Safety and Security, or any other Ministry.
Ah well, it's all speculation anyway...

 

[dominic]

Not really - our viewpoints are the same, but for different reasons. We both have a problem with the current scenario, but Langa wants more unfettered authority for ICASA, whereas I want speedier decision-making and action (read: realisation) on the part of Government, with current oversight mechanisms remaining in place - that's how we differ.

i see nothing wrong or contradictory about getting both...

Given the bad experiences of the past, with Government setting-up covert agencies to pursue its deviant agendas, I view any kind of mechanism designed to give state agencies additional authority without real accountability, with justified suspicion. As it is, methinx we have too many of them anyway, all instituted with their own defining legislation (have a look at the listed entities in Sections A, B and C of the Public Finance Management Act).

i appreciate and generally support the sceptism re state agencies but would suggest that the mere fact of the government shareholding in telkom makes it imperative that the regulator exhibit independence. I do not support an argument that there is of necessity an inversely proportionate relationship between the degree of independence of an agency and its accountability. ICASA as it now stands is imo a very transparent organisation which is compelled by law to publish just about everyt document it drafts and submission it receives

Getting back to ic's tentative solution, nothing wrong with the suggestion, except for the fact that this is dependent upon giving ICASA more independence, which I view as a potential problem (see above). Also, at present ICASA has to appear before the oversight committee anyway. The way I see it, the problem lies not with ICASA, but with the governmental process as it stands at the moment. It is this which needs to be addressed, given the long, drawn-out 'decision by committee' process.

agreed other than for the potential problem

Much of the alleged incompetence of Ivy and her Ministry, as well as that of the civil service component in the form of the Doc and the DG, is actually the result of considerations external to her Ministry, and possibly raised via the cluster mechanism, or other fora. Methinx this would be usefully short-circuited if the Presidential Office takes the reins to ride the horse to the finishing line. As a case in point, the continued Telkrap shenanigans provide ample evidence of this - they don't really give an airborne procreational past-time about what ICASA says, with the obvious conclusion being that other interests (besides the public ones) are being served. Methinx this has much to do with the multi- and bi-lateral arrangements of Government - the only reasonable non-conspiratorial conclusion that one can come to. Those arrangements ultimately fall directly under the Presidential Office, as I understand it, whether initially insitituted by Trade and Industry, Foreign Affairs, Safety and Security, or any other Ministry.

If it would cut out all the crap and at least bring a degree of decisiveness to decision-making in what is increasingly obviously a fundamentally import sector then i am all for it

government's disregard for ICASA's point of view i.e. their interpretation of policy as expressed by the Minister goes to the heart of what really pisses me off about the situation, viz. the sham of an "independent" regulator which has been created and which is a complete betrayal of the sentiments expressed in the 1996 white paper on telecommunications policy. the control of govt - again the majority shareholder in the monopoly etc etc - was never designed to be anything short of comprehensive (funding, infrastructure licensing / self-provisioning) from the word go

i cannot see this latest bill changing anything to the extent that government control over the "managed""liberalisation""process" would be endangered. i have no evidence to support any conspiracy theory but the simple fact is is that it is all too easy to draw the wrong conclusion as regards the motivation behind government action. certainly their expressed primary objective of universal service has not been well-served by their actions...

at the end of the day i go for lack of experience in managing and regulating an extremely complex environment + poor policy implementation but i would be pretty sure that leaves me in a minority

Ah well, it's all speculation anyway...

hypothetically speaking of course

 

[mbs]

Hey dom, thought you were quaffing french wine?!

i see nothing wrong or contradictory about getting both...

Hhhmm... you're actually quite right, thinking a bit more about it. My viewpoint is clearly coloured by past experience, with a natural suspicion of those who want authority to do their own thing - Eschel Rhoodie and Eugene de Kock being prime examples of the danger involved. As long as governance mechanisms remain in place and can be reinforced as necessary, it would make sense to have both...

i appreciate and generally support the sceptism re state agencies but would suggest that the mere fact of the government shareholding in telkom makes it imperative that the regulator exhibit independence. I do not support an argument that there is of necessity an inversely proportionate relationship between the degree of independence of an agency and its accountability. ICASA as it now stands is imo a very transparent organisation which is compelled by law to publish just about everyt document it drafts and submission it receives

As long as ICASA remains fully accountable to Parliament, including divulging the unspoken and unrecorded reasons for pursuing prosecutorial action against private ventures destined to eat into Telkrap's margins, and also explains why no similar actions are taken against Telkrap for their regulatory non-compliance. No doubt, this is due to Government's shareholding in Telkrap and the sacrifice of the universal service imperative in favour of profit generation - and there lies the nub of the problem, methinx. If it can be assured that increased independence and concomitant authority given to ICASA, coupled to governance mechanisms remaining in place and being reinforced as necessary, would indeed result in real action, then I'm all for it.

i cannot see this latest bill changing anything to the extent that government control over the "managed""liberalisation""process" would be endangered. i have no evidence to support any conspiracy theory but the simple fact is is that it is all too easy to draw the wrong conclusion as regards the motivation behind government action. certainly their expressed primary objective of universal service has not been well-served by their actions...

No doubt. The universal service imperative seems to have been side-lined for what appears to be macro-economic and other reasons...

at the end of the day i go for lack of experience in managing and regulating an extremely complex environment + poor policy implementation but i would be pretty sure that leaves me in a minority

Methinx there's a lot more to it than that, as the players are not ignorant. Some are extremely well-versed in the machinations of government and socio-political dynamics, others in economic and financial imperatives on a macro level, with years of international experience to boot...

hypothetically speaking of course

Heehee - it all remains one big hypothesis until you produce a scanned pdf...

 

[dominic]

scanned pdf scanned pdf aaaaaaaaargh & bleeeeugh

croissants and wine a forthcoming attraction - turkish coffee whilst sailing on the bosphorous as of saturday

 

[ic]

This coming Saturday, or Saturday last?

Assume you're on holiday, but if you're going to be posting from exotic plekke, please update your location along the way...

Have a gr8 time .

 

[dominic]

This coming Saturday, or Saturday last?

Assume you're on holiday, but if you're going to be posting from exotic plekke, please update your location along the way...

Have a gr8 time .

2moro - its all work (only a holiday in the sense that the kiddies aren't coming ) and very little time for fun or exploration other than that needed to get to grips with turkish keyboards

 

[rpm]

Typical engineer?

http://www.moneyweb.co.za/news/tech_stocks/459218.htm

 

[Kei]

Well, most of Telkom's upper management claim to be engineer this and engineer that, and look what a bunch of greedy bastards they are.

All I can say is, G0d help us!

 

[ic]

http://www.moneyweb.co.za/news/tech_stocks/459218.htm

A good thing I skimmed through that article - I had assumed that Paris Mashile is a woman - would've been very embarassing if I'd called him Ms or Mrs Mashile...