Why is it that everyone is behaving as if the Minister is some kind of white knight, who should be given the discretion to impose arbitrary rules on companies that he feels aren't behaving? Isn't this exactly the kind of environment we've just got out of, and we need to avoid at all costs?
Why does everyone believe that these big bad guys that have been milking consumers for so many years are suddenly going to become good guys when asked to agree on a lower interconnection rate? Hasn't it crossed people's minds that they would only ever agree to a rate that doesn't really hurt them too badly, in return for maintaining these new rates for 5 years?
all valid points. for myself a blended rate of 90c held for 5 years is really only about the depth of the gouging.
i am not sure that government intervention to lower interconnect rates could be classified as arbitrary - consider that it was government which legitimised the current rate in the first place they should do something about it. And it is hardly without precedent - the UK did something similar not long ago
Why are people so eager to run to the constitution when they feel their rights have been infringed, but when there is a real prospect of a Chapter 9 (i.e. independent) institution being able to impose a pro-consumer regulation, they'd rather have a political solution? When the right thing is for ICASA to formally reduce interconnection rates, through the correct legal process, why does everyone want to throw the constitution out of the window, and let a cartel of big operators come to some cosy arrangement with the minister?
putting your hopes in ICASA's hands is not going to work. they have basically admitted that they are helpless given the "complexities" of the law and the power of the mobile companies.
when would this "independent" entity get effective action?
1. amend the Act as they wish to: 18-24 months if you are very lucky
2. redo the already completed market study on call termination rates (
http://www.ellipsis.co.za/inquiry-into-wholesale-call-market-termination/) including the public participation process (6 - 12 months based on the assumption that they will reuse what they have and the conclusions are dead simple anyway)
3. undertake the chapter 10 process of drafting pro-competitive conditions / interconnection pricing principles for call termination which will apply to the licences of those found to have Significant Market Power - given that the market is defined as e.g. call termination on Vodacom's network, this is all three mobiles + telkom (+?) who have 100% market share of termination on their own networks (not sure about the timing here but will be a very contentious public process as this will involve setting the rates and the manner in which they will be reduced so 12-18 months is an optimistic guess)
@ the end of which you will have litigation unless there is then sufficient media and political pressure to prevent this
reality check: the only people benefiting from this are shareholders (and, it would be argued, the country in terms of reinvestment into the network) while there are millions that it is directly disadvantaging
