Abracadabra!

A good article but there is a problem. People must get off the idea that a monopoly is doing well to look out just for shareholders. Yes, government must ballance things in the absence of competition but even if it does nothing there is something called social responsibility. Telkom is neglecting its consumers by abusing them! Period! It has to come back and take a chunk out of Telkoms hind courters!
 
Antowan : I do wholeheartedly agree with you. But that doesn't mean they can't do the schools and endorsments/sponserships as well. Many great companies such as SAB and VodaCom do, without losing focus on their core competencies.

But their greatests social gift would be lower telecoms costs
 
antowan said:
People must get off the idea that a monopoly is doing well to look out just for shareholders.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately this is the way it is. The shareholders own the company, it's theirs, so the people they hire to run it on their behalf (like the CEO) have only one major responsibility and that's to maximise the value for the owners (which roughly means maximising Earnings Per Share). This is their mandate; they 'have to' do this, and if they don't the owners can kick them out and hire people who will. Thus it's the shareholders that one should be expecting ethics from, yet unfortunately that is idealistic and unrealistic. (Of course government is the major shareholder here, doesn't that imply that it's government themselves may be dictating the "screw the public and the economy" policy right from the top?)

In a free market with competition, what's good for the shareholders is usually also good for those other major stakeholders, the customers. In a monopoly situation (like this, or e.g. Microsoft), what's good for the shareholders is often bad for customers, and when something is good for customers it's usually only incidental.

Governments thus usually focus on creating and maintaining a competitive free market. In SA however Ivy and her cohorts actively focus on preventing and delaying a free market situation. (Whether this is corruption (likely) or pure incompetence (unlikely) there appears to be no accountability.)

(My problem with those token "social responsibility" sponsorships is that they for a very low cost allow Telkom to 'look like' they care, when, putting it in perspective, they make enough money to probably build a friggin' school in just a few hours ... it's like you or me giving 10 cents to charity and then getting to say we're great people.)
 
Last edited:
Looking after there share holders is what is going to bring Telkom down... a perfect example to this would be - General Motors. They are still paying the price for it, and thought they where untouchable. That is why Telkom needs to look else where for money, hence the move into Africa.

They have pissed off far to many consumers in SA

Is going to be funny though.
 
JStrike said:
Antowan : I do wholeheartedly agree with you. But that doesn't mean they can't do the schools and endorsments/sponserships as well.
Click to expand...

It does if their aim with building schools and supporting sporting events is to calm people down to a degree where they do not insist on changing the status quo...


If they build the schools and support local sport from the heart because they feel it is their duty in society it is a good thing. If that were true though, they would have dropped prices in exchange for more market penetration. Then they would balance out the profit issue by gaining more customers at a lower price. This isn’t happening. JStrike it is time for us to admit this company is a dead loss for the average man on the street! This company (no matter what the excuse) needs to be brought to book. **** ITS SHAREHOLDERS! I FEEL NOTHING FOR THEM! THEY ARE A BUNCH OF BLOOD SUCKING VAMPIRES AND THEY KNOW IT!

I don't care for their return on investment! Ordinary South African's TAX money started that company and now we are being raped for it! This is NOT RIGHT! It seems to me like the Minister of the DoC is taking very good care of the shareholders! She is doing that so well that she is neglecting the true reason for the existence of her JOB! TO PROTECT SOUTH AFRICANS AND MAKE SURE THE COUNTRY IS BOOSTED BY TELECOMS AND NOT HURT! WE ARE BEING DROWNED BY TELKOM IN A SEA OF BLOOD MONEY!

Why can't people see this?

Telkom as a protected company is nothing but a 50's style racketeering club infested by people with nothing but dollar signs in their eyes and a ministry I suspect are supporting them for corrupt means or due to plain ineptness!

If she has so little backbone as to be bamboozled by whomever to continue delaying proper market liberalization then she doesn't belong in her position. She is one of the worst ministers on the face of this planet and we all know it! ICASA is probably in the same ballgame with her and only makes the right noises when the pressure gets a bit itchy.

What do we have to do to get things moving here? We are supposed to be a country aspiring for greatness! Instead we tolerate inept and possibly corrupt government officials when they are on a go slow to protect somebody elses if not their own interests. Imagine the growth and the creative boost in local ingenuity we could have seen by now had we a properly qualified minister and ministry officials!

NOTE THAT THESE ARE MY OWN OPINIONS AND NOT NECESSARILY THOSE OF MYADSL!
 
Last edited:
Abracadabra! .....an interesting article by new Teklom employee Belinda Anderson as published on MoneyWeb, 17 November 2005. Comments can be send directly to Belinda at [email protected] or at 0800bullsh!t
 
Last edited:
@Turtle

No it is not a free market when the incumbent monopoly has not paid for its infrastructure, it simply inherited it from the state, and the share holder is player, coach, linesman and umpire.
 
What a load of (more and more) ****.

Lost for words.....
Until such time as the Gov and Gov only empowers ICASA and changes the Comms Act we will NEVER see true competition in SA and prices coming down.
You seriously think that the SNO will bring competition, think again, they will only go for the bigger corps. to offer them alternative services and share the profits. Why do you think that it took so long to get the SNO off the ground. Reason was that no major international investor wanted a stake in the SNO, with the Gov the other share holder?!?!?!? Do you see the British Government having a share in British Telecoms??? Why would the Gov regulate it self?!?!

So don't blame Telkom, if it were my business and I was allowed to charge what Telkom is charging and get away with it, I would do it. Believe you me, RPM would be getting thesame bull from me as Papi is giving him right now.
Sad but true.
 
antowan said:
A good article but there is a problem. People must get off the idea that a monopoly is doing well to look out just for shareholders. Yes, government must ballance things in the absence of competition but even if it does nothing there is something called social responsibility. Telkom is neglecting its consumers by abusing them! Period! It has to come back and take a chunk out of Telkoms hind courters!
Click to expand...

I agree with you 100% antowan. I have previously said that Telkom needs to be more socially responsible. One should also bear in mind that there is a fine line between corporate social responsibility and advertising. Once the playing field has been levelled I don't care how much profit Telkom makes.
 
Sick of it... if it goes on will have to cancel my dsl account (and my telephone - good bye telkom - wish.)

Plain fact: direction has to come from the top - from Mbeki - he has to have an AHA moment - same as Tony Blair did - it was direction from the top that brought decent access prices to the UK - and the only true way to get decent access prices is by unbundling the local loop - which only goverment can do... and they stall and stall forever - they think us rich people are supporting the country through our high telecoms cost - without seeing the big picture - that all this is counter productive in the long term.

Some references - especially the article on the role of business:
->
Tony Blair on a vision for the country, the internet, the future:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lab99/Story/0,,202189,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/analysis/story/0,,259452,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/analysis/story/0,,291977,00.html

and this very interesting article on the role of business:
->http://society.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1378775,00.html
Businesses' economic performance is increasingly tied to their conduct as corporate citizens, argues Nick Tilston in this year's winning Guardian/Ashridge Business School MBA Essay - so they must be persuaded that it is in their interests to be act progressively

and just came across this:
http://www.bridges.org/e-policy/comments/voip_wifi/
In South Africa, it appears as if Government policy-makers either do not understand the development potential offered by these technologies, or they are just not ready to let go of the entrenched revenue streams from Telkom's stranglehold on the market.

and just found this on the Department of Trade and Industry:
->http://www.safrica.info/doing_business/investment/oppurtunities/sectors.htm
Over the next five years, the current 4,03 million exchange lines will grow to around 7 million. About 2 million of these additional lines will be aimed at increasing telephone penetration in under-serviced urban and rural areas. The remaining 1 million lines will cater for growth in developed areas.

What a joke - in a country of 45 million people.

No excuses - no reasons - just do it!
 
Tomasz-London said:
So don't blame Telkom, if it were my business and I was allowed to charge what Telkom is charging and get away with it, I would do it. Believe you me, RPM would be getting thesame bull from me as Papi is giving him right now.
Sad but true.
Click to expand...

It is a sad statement. How can anybody be so unpatriotic?
 
well thats the sentiment everywhere in SA at the moment, its hard to find someone who won't be tempted to overcharge for a service. They busy building here by me and supprise, supprise we have to watch how much freaking plaster the guy puts on the wall cause he wants to lower his production costs and rake in the profit etc.

Anyways. companies do it not so much for doing good, but rather the positive spin off they get. Also they can later claim ans say that they spent money on development in south africa, sort of giving back to the community etc.
 
never mind unpatriotic. what about unethical? and i don't mean that being a capitalist is unethical. But abusing a monopoly position to rip of your customers is.
 
Turtle said:
have only one major responsibility and that's to maximise the value for the owners they 'have to' do this

Government's thus usually focus on creating and maintaining a competitive free market.

(My problem with those token "social responsibility" sponsorships is that they for a very low cost allow Telkom to 'look like' they care, when, putting it in perspective, they make enough money to probably build a friggin' school in just a few hours ... it's like you or me giving 10 cents to charity and then getting to say we're great people.)
Click to expand...

Companies have no legal obligation towards shareholders. Furthermore companies have to balance greed against the requirements of the society that provides them with the environment in which they do business. You'll find that responsible companies recognise that they're nothing without their employees, nothing without the long-term support of their customers and most importantly nothing without the supprting infrastructure that the people, through the government, provide.

Shareholders can try to make changes at a company, but they don't have the immediate direct control necessary to micromanage. The delay in changes the shareholders try to make means it is possible to ignore their demands long enough to effect changes. You can add to this shaming them if they try to put profit above social responsibility. Also if you're out to make changes you can spend time getting shareholders on your side. Papi is a profiteer, out to earn himself an obscene sum.

So-called social responsibility spending typically comes out of the marketing budget and commonly pales in comparison to money spent on other forms of marketing.

Governments should not get too enamoured of the notion of the free market. You have to be careful to have enough interference and regulation to prevent business from running amok, but not so much that you prevent anyone from doing any business. You should always favour an environment of numerous small businesses over one dominated by a handful of extremely wealthy players.

Telkom makes a profit of R16 million per day, so yeah they can easily build a decent size school with a day's profits.
 
Tomasz-London said:
antowan, wtf, what is unpatriotic about that statement?
Click to expand...

Perhaps I sound a bit harsh in that statement Tomasz. You are not in Papi's shoes which is perhaps a blessing for you, but it is rather unpatriotic for anybody to step into a vital service provider (like Telkom) and say they will abuse their fellow countrymen because they can, don't you think?

What would you call that Tomasz, a service to the nation?
 
When I read an article that has His /Her in it.... I chuckle and think... ahhh now there is a mind that is starting to open, but is not there yet - Reading the rest of the article just confirms that

' financial journalist specialising in ICT ' Ohhh please - open your mind some time in the future (the sooner the better)

The rest of what this poor soul has to say is equally just the hazy ramblings of a plea for understanding in a mechanised ethos type of BS and really needs to try and justify the time and money that was spent getting them to the place were they thought they could cope with the real world, and actually write something that would be worth while

Sadly you cannot polish a Richard - This article is an embarrassment
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X