Call for sweeping changes to Icasa

[Debbie]

There's no guarantee that !CASA will deliver one way or the other, but removing Poison Ivy and her plants [Haha!] from the equation is something that has to be done - otherwise we will still be discussing the exact same issues next year and the year after that ad infinitum - also let's not forget that Poison Ivy will have a successor at some point, and that person could be even worse for SA's telecoms than Poison Ivy has been - hard to imagine I know, but it's not impossible considering the vast pool of incompetents there is to choose from - just imagine Shope-Mafole as MoC...

ic, the thing is that we are on the brink of competition- all 'imminent' jokes aside- and, well, messing around with anything remotely related gives them a year or two, maybe even three worth of MORE STALLING (hey, nice timing for 2010...). If we look at the history of telecoms liberalisation in SA (starting 1989 with the precusor report...de villiers??), this history is best summed up in one word: delays. This is how they've stuffed things up- not necessarily through bad policy, but through poor, delayed implementation of policy.

I'm in favour of a constitutional amendment to entrench ICASA as a chapter nine institution explicitly, as well as removing the Minister's influence as dictated by the ICASA Amendment Act, but if this is to be done it should be done as a long-term project, in the background, not of concern to ICASA at all for at least a few years- ie first present a workable, coherent plan to amend the Constitution and legislation without causing disrupt to ICASA's daily activities, then I'll say 'hell yes' with enthusiasm to your argument.

 

[Debbie]

ic- have you seen the DoC's arguments on page 207?

The DoC believes that:

i. The Authority is not listed in section 181 of the Constitution and, consequently, can be distinguished from the other institutions described in Chapter 9 of the Constitution;

ii. The constitutional criteria of fairness, efficiency and diversity were intended to apply to broadcasting, and not to telecommunications or to electronic communications...

 

[ic]

ic, the thing is that we are on the brink of competition- all 'imminent' jokes aside- and, well, messing around with anything remotely related gives them a year or two, maybe even three worth of MORE STALLING (hey, nice timing for 2010...). If we look at the history of telecoms liberalisation in SA (starting 1989 with the precusor report...de villiers??), this history is best summed up in one word: delays. This is how they've stuffed things up- not necessarily through bad policy, but through poor, delayed implementation of policy.

I'm in favour of a constitutional amendment to entrench ICASA as a chapter nine institution explicitly, as well as removing the Minister's influence as dictated by the ICASA Amendment Act, but if this is to be done it should be done as a long-term project, in the background, not of concern to ICASA at all for at least a few years- ie first present a workable, coherent plan to amend the Constitution and legislation without causing disrupt to ICASA's daily activities, then I'll say 'hell yes' with enthusiasm to your argument.

Sorry but I must be missing something - my understanding is that the whole issue of !CASA's current lack of independence requires a review before The Constitutional Court, and since ANC MPs have no authority in The Constitutional Court, they would soon be turfed out on their ears for trying to disrupt proceedings, and whilst The Constitutional Court is reviewing !CASA's current lack of independence as well as whether the IAA etc contradicts The Constitution, !CASA and Poison Ivy will still go ahead with their usual inaction - regardless...

As for Infraco, which hasn't really been discussed yet - in this thread, the fact that guavamint is attempting to bypass !CASA in the licensing of Infraco, effectively means that guavamint will do whatever it wants - even if it means breaking promises made to NeeTel.

Nutshell: I just don't see a valid delay strategy scenario of sufficient substance that might hold water.

ic- have you seen the DoC's arguments on page 207?

The DoC believes that:

It sounds like an old argument used by the DoC last year.

 

[Debbie]

I have no idea what kind of process they're following here- I don't know enough about the Constitutional Court's procedures for taking cases. Do they do pre-review of bills before passed or do they work like an appeal court- ie retroactive review of potentially Constitutionally-conflicting legislation?

 

[ic]

I have no idea what kind of process they're following here- I don't know enough about the Constitutional Court's procedures for taking cases. Do they do pre-review of bills before passed or do they work like an appeal court- ie retroactive review of potentially Constitutionally-conflicting legislation?

My interpretation: The Constitutional Court is the highest legal authority in SA, so parliament cannot contradict a ruling by TCC, parliamentary bills are not submitted to TCC prior to being signed into law by Mbeki, so it works like a review process where an act that has been signed into law can be subjected to review by TCC.

 

[dominic]

pretty much what ic said re the CC powers of review (here is iirc a mechanism for submitting prior to enactment as well)

ic, the thing is that we are on the brink of competition

a quick diversion - i am probably privy to more of the people and internal workings at ICASA than many others and my sincere belief is that debbie is absolutely correct. my belief is that, while there will no doubt be court actions and heel dragging and increasingly blatant (read "desperate") interference a la seacom, that within the next 6-12 months we will have at the very least 8 licencees with the same licence and powers under it. All of these - and the chances are fair there may be as many as 14 or 15 if the larger VANS get in - will be entitled to build and operate fixed or mobile networks and international gateways. this is certainly the intention and plan of influential people high up within ICASA who are well aware of the dynamics and who are nobody's puppet.

don't get me wrong - icasa is far from what is should be but it is also far closer to being what it can be under current conditions. my understanding of the regulation coming out and my conversations with people within ICASA leave me very optimistic that the tipping point has arrived which, once exceeded, will make the industry infinitely more difficult to control