Comments that matter

[Karnaugh]

There has been lots of media at the moment which has been copied around, quoted and bent etc. So I feel the need to quote a few my self.

"In view of this, Knott-Craig recommended “light-touch regulation”, where regulation is used to create competition. Once that is achieved, a regulator would no longer be required except to administer the issuance of licences, spectrum and numbers.
“Successful regulators should all but disappear, not grow overly enthusiastic.”"" - iTWeb. August 4, 2005.

"Smuts says a once-off installation fee would presumably have to be enormous to cover capital and operational expenditure, and would stop broadband rollout: ”Icasa is surely not expecting Telkom to provide free broadband.”" - Money Web. August 3, 2005.


" “The underlying issue is that there is no competition.” He likened the situation to prescribing a headache tablet to someone suffering from malaria." - Money Web. August 4, 2005.

"The fixed-line monopoly, facing competition from a second network operator, all three mobile providers and Sentech, can't afford to miss out. This segment may only make up a small amount of Telkom's revenues now, but it is being sold as the market of the future.

If Icasa follows through and starts to regulate for lower charges Telkom will no doubt take legal action. This will keep Telkom's charges higher for longer" - Business Report. August 4, 2005

"Marc Furman, legal manager at Internet Solutions, said Telkom's reaction to the findings shows that if one operator holds all the cards, online consumers lose out. "Telkom reaction highlights the critical importance of expediting real competition in the telecoms market, and broadband in particular." " - Finance 24. Aug 04 2005

-- Karnaugh

 

[london]

Karnaugh, start a thread on each of these quotes.They are gems

 

[Karnaugh]

I think they are all very acurate actualy. And not one of them, even Internet Solutions' Mark Furman, says anything about placing further regulation on Telkom

 

[nOhIwAy]

Yes, I agree these statements are fair, however ......

At this juncture some matter not ...

It is universally accepted that "a light touch regulator" becomes relevant when there is competition.

"a light touch" regulator is irrelevant when there is a monopoly.

ICASA has applied the relevant touch.

Where a monopoly is entrusted with the provision of all or some of the services, one of the main objectives of regulators is usually the protection of the public against exploitation from the monopolist. This is usually expressed in terms of some form of price control and performance objectives.
Where competition is allowed, the main task of regulators is usually to ensure that a "level playing field" is developed and maintained in the competitive areas...

from : The Ministry of Posts, Telecommunications and Broadcasting - 1995 !!

 

[ettubrute]

"In view of this, Knott-Craig recommended “light-touch regulation”, where regulation is used to create competition. Once that is achieved, a regulator would no longer be required except to administer the issuance of licences, spectrum and numbers.
“Successful regulators should all but disappear, not grow overly enthusiastic.”"" - iTWeb. August 4, 2005.

Are they senile or something? The OPTA, the Dutch version of ICASA, has never been as busy as at present, mainly to force KPN (Dutch equivalent of Telkom) to lower the bulk prices charged to the competition for equipment use, and secondly, to prevent cartels from forming!

 

[nOhIwAy]

Are they senile or something? The OPTA, the Dutch version of ICASA, has never been as busy as at present, mainly to force KPN (Dutch equivalent of Telkom) to lower the bulk prices charged to the competition for equipment use, and secondly, to prevent cartels from forming!

Yes, and in Netherlands you can get : ... wait for it ....

2000 minutes fixed line phone calls for 10 EUROS !!!!!

and basic broadband dsl for 25 EUROS !!!!!

ICASA is striving to become a WORLD CLASS REGULATOR, we should support them instead of quoting drivel from Dene Smuts as statements which matter.

 

[ettubrute]

and basic broadband dsl for 25 EUROS !!!!!

You forgot to mention the specials for ADSL:

• Planet Internet - Six months ADSL Economy for Eur 16.95, free modem, no connection fee, and safety package included
• DirectADSL - First month free, free multi-PC modem with Go, free wireless modem with other packages, no connection fee and no data limit
• HetNet - first 6 months basic package for Euro 9.95, no connection fee, free modem and no data limit
• XS4All - same kind of goodies...
• ...

For DirectADSL, KPN's own service, the speeds and prices are:

• Go - 800/256 - Euro 21.95 = R 176
• Lite - 1600/512 - Euro 29.95 = R 240
• Basic - 3200/768 - Euro 49.95 = R 400
• Extra - 8000/1024 - Euro 74.95 = R 600

Further, they are gearing up the exchanges for ADSL2+, the new generation DSL. Private consumers can already pre-order.

 

[bwana]

lol - these crack me up - Vodacom against regulation - Duh - they're probably next in ICASAs cross-hairs.

Smut's diatribe could have been a telkom press release.

Marc Furman of IS actually finished his statement with

"We would like to see ICASA moving quickly to implement regulations that would be of greatest benefit to the online industry and consumers"

http://www.moneyweb.co.za/business_today/469541.htm

ICASA should use the light touch of a sledgehammer.

 

[Karnaugh]

I can only shake my head in dismay at how blind people are.

Fine, lets force Telkom to give us free internet. Lets force the regulations that impose Telkom as the sole **** provider of crap internet, at next to nothing. Lets prevent competition for another 10 years, and allow our country to fall further behind - after all, technology is free, fibre is cheap. No one needs to earn any money to expand networks, and since its free there will be even more selfish noisy brat kids screaming for more free bandwidth.

The world does not work in this way, and it saddens me that MyADSL has become a place which encourages this behaviour. Truly sad.

 

[rpm]

Hi Karnaugh

While I agree that competition is the main goal, regulation is certainly needed in a monopolistic environment. Should we simply wait for competition (since 2002 for that matter) and take whatever a greedy monopoly is throwing our way? What if an effective duopoly is formed after the SNO? I think strong regulation is of paramount importance whenever dealing with a monopoly, especially if the company in question has profit responsibilities towards shareholders.

What path would you suggest?

Regards,

RPM

 

[ettubrute]

AFAIK we're asking for reasonable pricing, not for free internet! That won't work anyway.

But, the technnology is there, the network is there (and paid for!), the prices of DSLAM equipment is coming down worldwide, and ADSL is still as expensive as it is in SA? Something must be wrong...

 

[sybawoods]

Fine, lets force Telkom to give us free internet. Lets force the regulations that impose Telkom as the sole **** provider of crap internet, at next to nothing. Lets prevent competition for another 10 years, and allow our country to fall further behind - after all, technology is free, fibre is cheap. No one needs to earn any money to expand networks, and since its free there will be even more selfish noisy brat kids screaming for more free bandwidth.

Mmm - no matter how I read the ICASA findings (and the MyADSL submission), donot see anything akin to what you have summarised. Unless of course you are deliberately taking things to the extreme to make your point.

I think a regulator has an important role to play in a monopolisic environment. Of course, competition is the ideal... but until then? Do we allow consumers to be ripped off, in a form of unadulterated capitalism? Keep the shareholders happy at all costs?

Perhaps an inappopriate comparison, but assuming there was no regulator in the electricty supply market. A supplier could sell a package that ensured electricty is only supplied between certain hours, that consumers would be disconnected once they've used a supply beyond a certain threshold, there would be no guarantee of service etc... Like I said, not an appropriate example, but everyone agrees that an energy regulator is needed to guarantee reasonable prices, quality of service etc from our electricty supplier. That is the role of a regulator in a monopoly. Why the big deal about regulating communications (also an essential service) to ensure that consumers aren't ripped off?

 

[nOhIwAy]

I can only shake my head in dismay at how blind people are.

Can you not see why knot-craig said what he said ?

Fine, lets force Telkom to give us free internet.

Do you see or hear anyone saying this ??

Lets force the regulations that impose Telkom as the sole **** provider of crap internet, at next to nothing.

Do you see anyone trying to do this ?

Lets prevent competition for another 10 years, and allow our country to fall further behind - after all, technology is free, fibre is cheap.

I'm not blind and can see noone doing this

No one needs to earn any money to expand networks, and since its free

again it will never be free, can't you see this ??

there will be even more selfish noisy brat kids screaming for more free bandwidth.

Kids are the future and they are the ONLY future the world has ever or will ever have - things change you see.

The world does not work in this way,

Take a good objective look around you and see what is being done in other parts of the world

and it saddens me that MyADSL has become a place which encourages this behaviour. Truly sad.

I think you seeing things which are not happening

 

[bwana]

The whole idea that regulation will stifle development is absolute nonsense. The UK had a similar situation after the privatization of BT but they were and continue to be regulated effectively. Regulation has been proven to work abroad and it can certainly work here.

Its time people realized that free market economies do not exist outside of textbooks and economic models.

 

[mbs]

The whole idea that regulation will stifle development is absolute nonsense. The UK had a similar situation after the privatization of BT but they were and continue to be regulated effectively. Regulation has been proven to work abroad and it can certainly work here.

Its time people realized that free market economies do not exist outside of textbooks and economic models.

Very well said, indeed. Of note is the need for regulation to assure the redressing of social inequities, given that we do not have the luxury of time to permit market force-driven change. This is vital and of primary consideration, with pricing issues merely secondary, imho.

 

[Haggle]

mbs, I think you have it the wrong way around. Our government is much more interested in the telecoms market as a cash cow than as an empowerment tool. They have shares in all the major players: Telkom, Sentech, MTN, Vadacom, so they have both the fixed line as well as the cell phone market covered. They even have the SNO covered with Transtel and Esitel in the event that the SNO should become successful. The government wants them to remain highly profitable in order to generate as much income as possible. The government does not trust the free market system and therefore believes it must play Robin Hood, taking from the haves to give to the have-nots. Much the same logic sits behind the reason why our Reserve bank keeps the Rand so strong.

 

[ettubrute]

play Robin Hood, taking from the haves to give to the have-nots

If only they would do that, and not (like now) create a new, super-rich elite, consisting of a very small percentage of the population!

 

[mbs]

Haggle: None of which I dispute, and a justified approach in our current context, methinx. Boosting the treasury coffers is vital to ensure the redressing of inequities. The problem lies with the degree to which regulation can be employed to ensure an equable balance within a constrained time period, without serious negative impact either way. That's the basic problem of Government - I wouldn't wish to be in their shoes. Bringing it down to a real practical instance, our Telkrap monopoly must be regulated, as past and current evidence points to skewed imperatives. The same thing must apply to mobile operators, banks, vehicle manufacturers, life assurers, and all other business which feels it has a right to obscene profits at the expense of the consumer, particularly given the societally-fractured context within which they operate...

 

[mbs]

If only they would do that, and not (like now) create a new, super-rich elite, consisting of a very small percentage of the population!

Can only agree 150%. Current policy is formulated on the principle that the deliberate stimulation and growth of a previously-disadvantaged capitalist class will give impetus to the redressing of inequities across a broader spectrum. Current evidence disputes this, most clearly evidenced in the reasons behind recent industrial action. Time for Government to take stock, imho, and adjust policy appropriately...