Could state meddling rescue SA telecoms?

Do you think state meddling can rescue SA telecoms?

  • Yes

    Votes: 20 45.5%

  • No

    Votes: 24 54.5%
  • Total voters
    44
If state meddling got us into this mess... State meddling will only make it worse... Be it now or in ten years time...

Only state "meddling" I'd like to see being done involves them privatising the sector entirely.
 
So far we have a lot of poor, misguided and ineffectual meddling from the state. But the world throws up many examples of proactive state intervention and regulation that has boosted broadband infrastructure and slashed costs and prices.

As we have seen, businesses in SA have no will whatsoever to reduce prices. Quite the contrary.

I doubts if Infraco is it, but something hugely dramatic has to happen in SA to get the ball rolling. At the moment there is complete pricing inertia. Everyone is feeding very nicely indeed from the Telkom-per-gigabyte trough. No-one is budging a muscle.

Attempts to organise mass consumer action against providers will be as successful as herding cats.

Which pretty much leaves the state to force the necessary fireworks up incumbent backsides.

I'm hoping against hope that General MoC puts on his jack boots and starts kicking some posterior down at ICASA.
 
but is Infraco complete state owned or state investment + semi private behind doors % too?? Seems to me that when there is 'non true state money' piggy backing on state investments, which seems to happen a lot come to think of it, then we have lesser response and the doing good is reduced to doing good with a return.. and in SA that return is usual premium.
 
Depends on what is meant by meddling.


1. If it means the state has to authorise any and all technologies in future and control who can deliver services, then NO!!!!

2. If it means government makes sure there are no limitations to competition or new entrants to the marketplace, then YES!!!!

:)


Simple really.
 
antowan said:
Depends on what is meant by meddling.


1. If it means the state has to authorise any and all technologies in future and control who can deliver services, then NO!!!!

2. If it means government makes sure there are no limitations to competition or new entrants to the marketplace, then YES!!!!

:)


Simple really.
Click to expand...

I can live with that :)
 
antowan said:
Depends on what is meant by meddling.


1. If it means the state has to authorise any and all technologies in future and control who can deliver services, then NO!!!!

2. If it means government makes sure there are no limitations to competition or new entrants to the marketplace, then YES!!!!

:)


Simple really.
Click to expand...

From experiance I would have to say they would be aiming at your point no 1
 
Staff Writer's prejudice is already apparent in the headline. Is that responsible journalism?
The simple fact remains that there will always be state intervention. The debate is not of whether or not, but the nature of it.
 
risingtide said:
Staff Writer's prejudice is already apparent in the headline. Is that responsible journalism?
The simple fact remains that there will always be state intervention. The debate is not of whether or not, but the nature of it.
Click to expand...

I agree... and the poll is also asking a loaded question. "Meddling" is a very emotive term, and is likely to cause people to vote negatively. This question is in fact very similar to the question that was asked the other day... "Should the State Intervene in the Telecomms sector"? ... but there the word "Intervene" is far less emotive.

So you will probably see two different outcomes for basically the same question.
 
Nah...

Garyvdh said:
I agree... and the poll is also asking a loaded question. "Meddling" is a very emotive term, and is likely to cause people to vote negatively. This question is in fact very similar to the question that was asked the other day... "Should the State Intervene in the Telecomms sector"? ... but there the word "Intervene" is far less emotive.

So you will probably see two different outcomes for basically the same question.
Click to expand...

I think "meddling" is pretty spot on, as I reckon most would agree that the state should not really be directly involved in telecomms sector in the 1st place.
 
We had Sentech a few years ago (driven by one or two visionaries in the company) introducing their broadband wireless at good speeds and lower prices with an aggressive national rollout.

This really stimulated broadband usage in the country and was a great intervention. However it fizzled out due to service and technical problems.

I wonder if Infraco will at least do the same - have a few passionate visionaries create this lower cost, high bandwidth alternative which creates a rash of industry developments, and then gradually die off and leave others to take up the staff

This scenario is not great but also not the end of the world. As long as they can get enough customers to switch to force the incumbents to respond with improved value props.
 
rpm said:
Could state meddling rescue SA telecoms?

IT WAS a surprise to see Internet Solutions support a move that increases the state’s intervention in the telecoms sector
Click to expand...

IS was the least supportive of all those who presented but basically the fact that Infraco will get licences is pretty much a done deal (the argument happened about two years ago)

now it is really a question of trying to ensure that ICASA applies specific terms and conditions to their licences to restrict them to their mandate and stop them from distorting the market in the future (bearing in mind Infraco starts with a 11 000 odd kilometres of fibre + rights of way + the right to expropriate land + R950 million in public money). ICASA were actually pretty good at the hearings on Monday ...

if anyone is interested the submissions made by telkom, vodacom, is, ispa and the meraka institute can be found at http://www.ellipsis.co.za/?p=703
 
Devo-sa said:
I think "meddling" is pretty spot on, as I reckon most would agree that the state should not really be directly involved in telecomms sector in the 1st place.
Click to expand...
Well, government have successfully implemented a nation wide communications network that connects all the municipalities together. This network is saving the taxpayers a fortune every month.

Government does have the potential to provide useful services.
 
Devo-sa said:
I think "meddling" is pretty spot on, as I reckon most would agree that the state should not really be directly involved in telecomms sector in the 1st place.
Click to expand...

Then why didn't the previous thread also use the word "meddling"? At least they could be consistent, even if they are not going to be objective?
 
davemc said:
Well, government have successfully implemented a nation wide communications network that connects all the municipalities together. This network is saving the taxpayers a fortune every month.

Government does have the potential to provide useful services.
Click to expand...

Physically, there are only two national backbone networks currently - Telkom and Neotel. I assume that you are referring to the SITA network that is provided by Neotel, which is used by multiple government departments. According to the original press release, it is 8.5 times cheaper than the previous connectivity provided by Telkom, so I guess it is saving taxpayers a fortune.
 
No, I am talking about the network that used to belong to Eskom(Esitel) and Transnet.

It is now owned by Infraco.
Infraco = 100% state owned.

That network now supports NEOTEL, it is still state owned.
NEOTEL do not own the network, government does.
i.e. It is ours.

http://www.itweb.co.za/sections/telecoms/2009/0906241050.asp?S=IT in Government&A=ITG

This network has potential from here to Ciaro and back, but it is being closely guarded by government for reasons that are not clearly defined.
 
ads said:
OK. So we are talking about the same network.
Click to expand...
Except that you misrepresented this network as belonging to Neotel.
Your misrepresentation is misleading, and makes my previous comment about government providing for itself look incorrect.

I have no idea why I am being so fickle.
Perhaps I should cut back on the coffee.
:o
 
Has anyone read the representations as per the link supplied?

If Infraco are given the go-ahead as is, it will result in another Telkom excepting that Infraco can cherry pick its customers with no obligation to providing services as per its mandate in the Act.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X