rpm said:
This is actually the point I am making in the article: Why do they not allow all other cables from continuing within placing hurdles in their way, bringing much needed competition. Instead they warn other cable systems that they will not be able to land if this or that, and propose an elaborate $ 2-Billion super cable hoping the others will just join them (and be controlled?).
There is EASSy (not even mentioned by Nepad), SEACOM, InfraCo…why not just welcome these and go along with their plan if needed?
Well, our minister is first and foremost a politician. Have you ever heard a politician simply say "Yes"? Of course, she is going to put as many conditions on it as she can, not for your benefit maybe or my benefit, but for the political objectives that she and her electorate holds dear. It's a balancing act... She hasn't said "No" either.
I disagree strongly that this is ‘my’ stake (on behalf of the people). I did not benefit at all from this stake, and if it was beneficial to South Africans why is it such a controversial issue? Why is the DoC continually asked from various organizations to let go of this stake? Are they all delusional?
If you are a taxpayer, you certainly have and continue to benefit financially from the Telkom stake. Taxes are marginally lower directly because of Telkom dividends and the initial sale proceeds that were used to reduce the national debt. There can be no question that you benefit.
The rub is that as a Telkom client (directly or indirectly), you have suffered far more from Telkom's monopolistic practices than you have benefited as a taxpayer.
But if 100% of Telkom had been sold off originally, do you really think we would be better shape now? I don't think so at all. A monopoly is state hands is bad enough. A monopoly in private hands is complete and utter disaster (which is pretty much what we've endured.)
Would you also say that Telkom’s monopoly benefited South Africa (or at least would have) as argued by the DoC, or that managed liberalization is the way to go?
I believe Telkom should not have been sold off at all. Not even 1% of it. Not until the market had been fully and speedily liberalized first. We should have had an SNO and a TNO long before Telkom was privatised. But think back, who was it that was clamouring for Telkom to be privatized so prematurely? The unions? No. The ANC? No. The DA? Yes. Big Business? Yes. The "white" media? Yes. Every delay was hailed as a national embarrassment in the press. We need the foreign investment! Face it, we needed the foreign investment like a hole in the head. But on the upside I know many an investment banker who made a huge killing from the Telkom "deal"...
A competitive environment is surely the way to go, and Government’s share in Telkom has in the past, and will most likely in the future, prohibited this from happening.
A competitive environment is where we are heading, but all too slowly. It is not the objective of private enterprise to bring cheap, affordable broadband to the masses. It is private enterprises objective to make a buck. And that's how it should be.
But governments do have an important role to play in providing infrastructure for broader social and political goals. ie Gautrain. ie WC2010 stadiums, Channel Tunnel, Roads, NASA etc, etc. Where the strategic importance of the projects far outweigh the mere commercial considerations, government pay a pivotal role.
A competitive environment is surely the way to go, and Government’s share in Telkom has in the past, and will most likely in the future, prohibited this from happening.
Certainly, one cannot dispute the fact that the guarantees given to Telkom shareholders (monopoly status, delayed SNO, SAT-3 exclusivity, etc) as part of the original privatisation agreement were onerous, short-sighted, and fully responsible for having put SA into the Telecommunications dark ages.
But current policy objectives and initialtives, the ECA, LLU, Sat-3 declarations, Nepad, Neotel, Infraco, Sentech wireless, etc, etc, are in no way supportive of the Telkom stake, in fact they are the very opposite.
Its not that I agree with all these initiatives, nor do I think that Ivy is a particularly good minister. She really isn't. What I find tiresome, almost as tiresome as the long wait for cheap broadband in SA, are the endless conspiracy and corruption theories. And the intimation that everything done by ICASA, Ivy and the DoC is solely to line their own and their cronies' pockets.
Unless you have evidence of it, why even go down that road? There are so many other roads, rhymes and reasons to explain the current ITC landscape. It does this website no credit to pedal in silly speculation. All it does is damage your credibility.
We want fast, cheap, affordable broadband.
Big business, the cellular operators, ISP's are not our friends in this. Telkom is not our friend. Neotel is not our friend. Cheap prices and affordability are not their objectives. Maximizing profits is what drives them. Business is never revolutionary, and they are a powerful lobby against change, unless it is change that will up their bottom line.
Yes, ultimately in an open market one would
hope that competition would drive prices lower. But has it done so in SA's banking industry? Or in SA's motor vehicle industry? We are still paying way above international norms for many, many consumer goods and services, despite the supposed competition.
You may scoff all you like, but old Alec, Thabo, her Ivyness, the DoC, sleepy ICASA, TAG, and the more consumer oriented members of the press are the only friends that we (MyADSL) have in our desire for an SA bathed in cheap, affordable bandwidth.
And that, whether we like it or not, is just the way it is.
Sign up with Google
