From SNO to GNO

GNO - Guavamint Network Obliterator...

And guavamint's obsessive interfering with & monopolizing [for the gravy-train bling bling] of the telecoms sector continues...

Say tata to our chances of decent prices and services and multiple fixed line operators all competing with one another...
 
Still there is a perverse logic behind this deal. If SNO really couldn't raise the R2,3bn that is needed...
 
Telkom has expressed its unhappiness with the mooted alliance, stating that the government should wholly own the infrastructure company.
Click to expand...
If it upsets Telkom then it must be a good thing. I'm 26% happy...
 
Gavament being involved in both parties means one thing... Price fixing. I can almost guarantee now that prices will somehow magically be the same as Telkom's just like we see with the Cell providers.
 
Tata is an Indian conlomerate now making significant investments in South Africa.
Click to expand...

I don't believe it!! How this writer could make that spelling mistake, and then it even got past the editor is amazing! :eek:

I am sure he meant conglomerate. One can just laugh at some of the little gremlins creeping out into the newspapers today, and then we must believe what they write too. :p
 
Deiphos said:
I don't believe it!! How this writer could make that spelling mistake, and then it even got past the editor is amazing! :eek:

I am sure he meant conglomerate. One can just laugh at some of the little gremlins creeping out into the newspapers today, and then we must believe what they write too. :p
Click to expand...

Why don't you joint the national spelling league and fix all the mistakes for us /sarcasm off
 
*sigh*

This time round I really do hope that we does not get screwed again... and that this announcement is to the best of our interests...

But we will have to wait and see, I suppose... *sigh*

GNO sounds like it's got some sort of venereal disease... :eek:
 
Last edited:
LabAnimal said:
Why don't you joint the national spelling league and fix all the mistakes for us /sarcasm off
Click to expand...

I don't mind spelling mistakes, I even make them myself, but when this happens to a newspaper with as much reputation and standing as the Mail & Guardian you have to be wondering what is going on ;)
 
i am not at all sure that this is a bad idea - there has been recognition in many parts of the world that the privatisation of national infrastructure in the 90's was, in many ways, a mistake and that [efficient] govt control of national facilities and international links is, at the end of the day, necessary to ensure a competitive market based off the infrastructure. govt can then perhaps also subsidise universal access directly as opposed to trying to do so indirectly through ill-conceived interventions in the market

of course there is a glaring problem - no evidence whatsoever of the DoC or Public Enterprises being in any way able to pull it off....almost all indications point the other way
 
Why is the government even concerning itself with the telecommunications market in the first place? Surely they have more important things to worry about than keeping an abundance of shares?

Oh wait, I forgot about the Tsunamis.

Silly me.
 
Perhaps they're occupying themselves with the telecoms industry because it is arguably the most important factor in a country's ability to develop and grow.

EDIT: Plus, where there's money to be made...
 
Aw c'mon give the government a chance. I mean it's not like they have mismanaged the entire telecoms sector so far...
 
...
Bahahahhahaha :D

I don't really care what their intentions are. Guavamint owning 74% of anything involving my telecommunications makes me very, very wary.
 
I think this is very worrying, and so far sounds exactly as I suspect/predicted. Government will now not only own large parts of both "competing" telecoms companies, but will own 74% of the company from which SNO will have to lease infrastructure, giving them the power to control prices (i.e. prevent competition), while simultaneously siphoning off huge amounts of money no doubt into the pockets of a few politically well-connected BEE directors. This CAN ONLY be bad --- government should get OUT of telecoms already and free the damn market, this is 'crony capitalism' at it's worst. It's sick.

dominic: Privatisation "failed" because there is NO FREE MARKET, not because privatisation was wrong. Government privatised but created a legally enforced monopoly, giving you the worst of both worlds.
 
Last edited:
I don't like it, its almost as if in SA the gov wants to own + be in control of everything, this is yet another attempt to get a cash flow direct from the citizens?
 
Turtle said:
I think this is very worrying, and so far sounds exactly as I suspect/predicted. Government will now not only own large parts of both "competing" telecoms companies, but will own 74% of the company from which SNO will have to lease infrastructure, giving them the power to control prices (i.e. prevent competition), while simultaneously siphoning off huge amounts of money no doubt into the pockets of a few politically well-connected BEE directors. This CAN ONLY be bad --- government should get OUT of telecoms already and free the damn market, this is 'crony capitalism' at it's worst. It's sick.

dominic: Privatisation "failed" because there is NO FREE MARKET, not because privatisation was wrong. Government privatised but created a legally enforced monopoly, giving you the worst of both worlds.
Click to expand...
you misunderstand me - "privatisation" (in the sense i was referring to, i.e. strictly in the sense of placing control of infrastructure in the hands of the private sector) is viewed as a mistake in many other countries for the simple reason that the major downturn in the markets in the late nineties left most telecomms companies that had been privatised or purchased infrastructure previously held by the government left these companies with little capital to spend on the expansion and maintenance of the infrastructure. it is seen as a mistake mostly from the perspective that, in many countries, it has had a significant negative effect on providing universal access

what the SA govt did was not necessarily wrong on a policy level (especially if you try to forecast as opposed to the benefit of the hindsight we now have) but there was not the political will to do it properly

certainly it can be said that govt in SA, despite the overwhelming evidence and despite the lipservice which it pays, has not thrown the necessary resouces and expertise at controlling the monopoly - whether you care to ascribe this to incompetence, BEE or something more malign like profiteering by govt this is the central problem
 
Skip said:
Aw c'mon give the government a chance. I mean it's not like they have mismanaged the entire telecoms sector so far...
Click to expand...
ROFL, you were obviously joking :D.
Turtle said:
...
dominic: Privatisation "failed" because there is NO FREE MARKET, not because privatisation was wrong. Government privatised but created a legally enforced monopoly, giving you the worst of both worlds.
Click to expand...
IMO dominic was referring to privatisation across the planet, IOW not just in SA and not just the telecoms sector. <added>Ooops, should've refreshed the page for new posts before posting.</added>
 
Telkom has expressed its unhappiness with the mooted alliance, stating that the government should wholly own the infrastructure company.
Click to expand...
They would be! They want the GVT to wholly own the infrastructure as they know the can be bribed with another overseas sponsored trip to maintain the status quo! That's why the current new legislation fall far from what is required to free the Telkom stranglehold on Telecoms locally and have them smiling with relief!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X