Bid to bypass Icasa spurs legal morass

AirWolf

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
24,404
This whole process is really messed up:( IMO the 4year exclusivity deal would go some way in helping Neotel compete more effectively with Telkom but Neotel owning the infrastructure would be a much better option. I did catch a bit of this fiasco on the news during the week and couldn't help but laugh at Paris "Halt All" Mashile's attempt at asserting ICASA's incompetent authority over the said licencing issue.
 

ic

MyBroadband
Super Moderator
Joined
Nov 8, 2004
Messages
14,805
This whole process is really messed up:( IMO the 4year exclusivity deal would go some way in helping Neotel compete more effectively with Telkom but Neotel owning the infrastructure would be a much better option. I did catch a bit of this fiasco on the news during the week and couldn't help but laugh at Paris "Halt All" Mashile's attempt at asserting ICASA's incompetent authority over the said licencing issue.
The reason I think Infraco is going to be a disaster, is that Infraco is going to be a parastatal, and all previous appendages of guavamint under the current and previous regimes, have managed to screw up in major ways, and it isn't just a South African problem with parastatals - they generally are inefficient and clunky and have a smell of incompetence about them no matter what country and government they are attached to.

Infraco would be responsible for managing the bandwidth including routing, repairing faults timeously, and generally making sure that NeeTel has a decent level of national QoS in order to compete with Telkodemonopolies. Somehow I suspect that when a fault occurs, Infraco will sit on its arse and do nothing until Alec Irwin gets an irate call from NeeTel's Ajay Pandey.

IMO Infraco is just going to be another Sentech, and just look at what Sentech did with broadband, ok sure guavamint also refused funding for MyWireless expansion, but between both guavamint and Sentech, they managed to kill MyWireless quite effectively and without really trying too hard. I'm still waiting for the day when Sentech decides it wants to run its own WiMax network as per the decree of the Grim Poisonous Ivyness Creep...:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

zambussi

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2006
Messages
405
I can't wait till the world cup, when companies trying to broadcast the match to the rest of the world, manage the 1st 2 minutes, before they hit the Telkom imposed Cap, while Poison Ivy blames the "private sector" for the mess she and Alec (Boltman) Erwin have created.........................

Why we need another state owned enterprise to reduce the unaffordable price of communication imposed by another state owned enterprise is impossible for me to understand - but then again I lack the intelligence (or rather lack of it), that would allow me to understand what our politicians do...............
 

AirWolf

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
24,404
I was also thinking about 2010 and the shock foreign visitors will get from using our hairs breadth broadband and what hotels will be charging for this service :rolleyes:
 

ads

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
777

The whole InfraCo scandal is driven by a clash of political ideologies at the highest level within the ANC, and self-serving attitudes amongst a few consultants to the Department of Public Enterprises with questionable backgrounds. To date, the Minister of Communications has more or less toed the line with the mainstream policy of telecoms liberalisation that was the original goal of the Mbeki government, in line with a mildly socialist, but broadly non-interventionist view of the economy. The only obvious anomaly in this plan has been Sentech, which breaks the rule of government being a direct player. All other government holdings (Telkom, Neotel, even MTN) have been reduced to non-controlling stakes (on paper, at least). Although there has been concern raised over the government stake in many operators, this has been balanced by private holdings, at least to some extent.

As the current government moved towards a more interventionist, actively socialist approach, Alec Erwin took the chance to show his true colour (red, that is), and proposed the concept of InfraCo, which effectively involved retaining assets built for Neotel by Eskom and Transnet (off their own balance sheets, NOT directly from taxpayers' money), and created a new Public Enterprise. He further seeks to fund this Public Enterprise, at least in part, directly from taxpayers' money (i.e. your and my money). This goes far beyond any interventions to date, and has the potential to cause a collapse of the liberalised telecoms model that is being created, since government could actually force private players out of business using state resources. Far from improving the market, it simply damages it.

That's the bad news. The good news is that InfraCo alone is likely not be very effective at all at reducing prices (as state-owned telcos are far too conservative to compete aggressively), and hence is unlikely to be a real threat to the other players in the market. The only real hope is that Neotel remains an exclusive conduit for InfraCo to the market, and with the backing of strongly competitive shareholders like VSNL, it will be much more likely to influence pricing. If real competition does take hold (i.e. the various incumbents actually react, and prices start to move downward, rather than upward, as they always have in SA), then the market will take off. InfraCo on its own would likely be left behind, unable to react, as has been typical of state-owned telecoms enterprises globally.
 

ic

MyBroadband
Super Moderator
Joined
Nov 8, 2004
Messages
14,805
The whole InfraCo scandal is driven by a clash of political ideologies at the highest level within the ANC, and self-serving attitudes amongst a few consultants to the Department of Public Enterprises with questionable backgrounds. To date, the Minister of Communications has more or less toed the line with the mainstream policy of telecoms liberalisation that was the original goal of the Mbeki government, in line with a mildly socialist, but broadly non-interventionist view of the economy.
Not aimed at yourself but please excuse me for a moment whilst I either puke or laugh or a combination of both...alright, I have sufficiently recovered to reply:

The Grim Poisonous Ivyness Creep [aka whichdoctor of the DoC] has forcibly imposed her policy of [mis]managed [telecoms] liberalisation, which is extremely interventionist and has actively harmed the economy.

It is debatable as to whether it was out of self-interest [Ivy's anonymous A&B shares] or Ivy's incompetent narcolepticism that resulted in Telkodemonopolies' wired fixed line monopoly being effectively extended by 6 years, and that is just one of the things that Ivy managed to royally [and most likely deliberately] screw up...
The only obvious anomaly in this plan has been Sentech, which breaks the rule of government being a direct player. All other government holdings (Telkom, Neotel, even MTN) have been reduced to non-controlling stakes (on paper, at least). Although there has been concern raised over the government stake in many operators, this has been balanced by private holdings, at least to some extent.
Guavamint effectively controls 6 out of the 10 seats of Telkodemonopolies' board of directors - that is hardly non-interventionist, guavamint had the power to fire Papi Moletsane, which is so far the best and only thing that Mbeki has actually done where Telkodemonopolies is concerned - the rest is just talk and no actions...

IMO guavamint has always been extremely interventionist where telecoms is concerned, the problem is that those interventions were self-serving and aimed at benefiting a handful of people that control A&B shares.
 

ads

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
777
IMO guavamint has always been extremely interventionist where telecoms is concerned, the problem is that those interventions were self-serving and aimed at benefiting a handful of people that control A&B shares.

In practice, I agree, although the laws put in place by parliament (including the EC Act, still not really in effect) have been supposed create competition, not make government a player everywhere. But InfraCo just shows that it could be worse. It's only one more step to nationalise the mobile networks...
 

AirWolf

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
24,404
In practice, I agree, although the laws put in place by parliament (including the EC Act, still not really in effect) have been supposed create competition, not make government a player everywhere. But InfraCo just shows that it could be worse. It's only one more step to nationalise the mobile networks...

Nationalisation = great recipe for inefficiency and poor service delivery:rolleyes:
 

ic

MyBroadband
Super Moderator
Joined
Nov 8, 2004
Messages
14,805
Nationalisation = great recipe for inefficiency and poor service delivery:rolleyes:
If my interpretation is correct, then ads will agree that nationalisation === bad, at least in this particular case.

Ultimately, it is companies that are forced to compete for their market share of the attention and money of consumers of products and services within that market, that results in better products and services and usually affordable pricing thereof.

In SA, the guavamint way, is to to interfere with the telecoms sector by buying large amounts of shares in each company, which undermines competition and entrenches market failure as a result of oligopolistic policies.
 
Top