Hell Bent On Change

antowan

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 1, 2003
Messages
12,972
As usual a very good article by Duncan. Loads of contradictions on the part of government, which is upsetting. They honestly believe the silly things they say and never impliment the really GOOD things they do come up with at times. Come on GOVERNMENT!

This says a lot about government's point of view:

FM: What's the advantage of managed liberalisation?

Shope-Mafole: Often you have to cushion the negative impact of liberalisation.

FM: Such as what?

Shope-Mafole: Such as people who get laid off.

FM: But in a competitive market, other operators would snap up those people.

Shope-Mafole: No, they wouldn't.

WTF?!!??? How can we move forward with a dumb ass statement like that by government? If that is their attitude we will NEVER see the changes we need. The industry will not grow and SA will shrivel up and be a bottom feeder...
 
Last edited:

AdLo

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2004
Messages
1,190
Where does the DoC dig up these incompetents?

Some of the statements Lyndal Shope-Mafole (director-general of the DoC) makes are just shocking! :eek:
 

rpm

Admin
Staff member
Joined
Jul 22, 2003
Messages
65,435
I personally think this one is the winner:

Shope-Mafole: I don't think it's a change as such. It's just that there are certain policy determinations you have to take at certain points in time. Why were we protecting Telkom? [It was] so that we could get big value for it because it was going [public on the stock market].
 

pupa

Banned
Joined
Dec 5, 2003
Messages
3,891
If g@d dished out all the neurons available, I think some of the DoC leadership were last in the queue, won't say names, they received moron-genes not neurons
 

pupa

Banned
Joined
Dec 5, 2003
Messages
3,891
TheRoDent said:
I've said it before. This woman is a cook.
Oh, I see she must have broiled her brains, to much heat thinking I presume
 

bekdik

Honorary Master
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Messages
12,859
biltonguy said:
Shocking responses, but it must be hard defending something so stupid ;)
Too true,Bilton. Never a truer word than that spoken in jest.
 

Sneeky

Honorary Master
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
11,207
Duncan does ask the right questions all the time hehe.
But communications department director-general Lyndall Shope-Mafole promises the process will be fast-tracked.
ROFL, the same way that they fast tracked the SNO, what is this , comedy hour or something?
To top it off the SNO shareholders have already agreed that they will do their level best NOT to get into any form of price based competition with Telkom.
The only thing that is being 'fast tracked' is the governments total control over ICASA. Our government doesnt like being put in the spotlight for anything negative, so it looks like ICASA will go the same way as that of the Scorpions.
Last time I checked the cost of broadband is still on the up and up in a big way. I dont see the government doing anything whatsoever about it, NOTHING, contrary to all this hot air about them having a change of heart and being commited to cheaper telecoms, LIES.
Our illustrious Ministers is by her own admission, not to concerned about tarrifs increasing or decreasing as she does not pay her own way, 'people just tell her these things'. Perhaps that just sums up the just how much our government has its finger on the pulse of the Telecommunications industry in South Africa. eish.
All the points raised by the industry and ICASA have just been ignored or swept under the carpet.
Can we not get all these people (Shope-Mafole, Ivy, Roy, Lulu, etc) to a live forum where we can throw rotten tomatoes and naartjies at them.
 
Last edited:

RVFmal

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2004
Messages
1,943
FM: But is it government's responsibility to look after the shareholders of a private company?

Shope-Mafole: You must remember that government is a shareholder, too.

FM: Ah, but there's the conflict.

Shope-Mafole: It's not a conflict. Some of the public, very poor people, invested in Telkom. It got lots of people into the economy.
It is these same poor people who still do not have telephones. Would it not be more beneficial to the population in general to have access to a cheap telecommunications infrastructure as opposed to having shares in a monopoly that eats away at your dividends ten fold (if not more)?

Shope-Mafole: Yes, but it's not as tight as it was in the previous act. The minister gets involved to ensure that the economy is able to handle it, if I can put it that way. But as a Vans operator you will be able to apply for [an infrastructure] licence.
Should she not have said "if Telkom's share price can handle it? The economy NEEDS it and is very capable of coming to grips with more competition.
 

mancombseepgood

Executive Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2004
Messages
9,351
"Shope-Mafole: I don't think it's a conflict. It's not as if the dividends are pocketed by the ministers. There would be a conflict if it were just a few people benefiting; if the money were not used to build more schools and hospitals. "

Aaahhh... more schools and more hospitals... if only the existing hospitals were managed properly and teachers didn't have to work for free, there may be some merit in this statement....
 

MFour

Expert Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2005
Messages
2,902
Just more hot air being blown out of their, you know what. Brings fond memories of people pitching up at companies (after the '94 elections) demanding that they get the jobs that was promised to them. They tell the people what they want to hear, but we do as we like policy, will be the downfall of SA. Have they not realised that it does'nt work for the country?

For me the biggest tragedy is that Gov is still using this form of governing, as apposed to putting in some work and getting the problem solved. If they don't know how, just get someone who does know and get the job done.

Enough talk, we need more action!
 

R4tt3xx

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2005
Messages
696
If Vans want to apply for a licence to provide infrastructure, they can do so.
Cool :) Time to apply for the infrastructure license and cut into some roads :)
 

mozez

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2005
Messages
356
Hell bent on change... if it doesn't hurt Telkom that is.

Shope-Mafole: I don't think it's a conflict. It's not as if the dividends are pocketed by the ministers. There would be a conflict if it were just a few people benefiting; if the money were not used to build more schools and hospitals.
This shows that the Government is guilty for doing excatly what people were warning it not to do... using revenues derived from Telkom to support other development areas. Some might argue that the Government's revenues from Telkom are used for a good cause, so it's OK. But where do you draw a line between the government expecting more and more revenues from Telkom (hence their higher Telecoms prices) to support these other areas and actually looking out for the telecoms consumers in this country???

Why were we protecting Telkom? [It was] so that we could get big value for it because it was going [public on the stock market]. It had to do with bringing investors into a company that is South African.
That statement clearly confirms accusations against the Government for allowing Telkom to maintain it's insane prices. I can't believe Shope-Mafole actually admitted it. She actually used the word "Protect"... protect Telkom from what??? Cheaper telecoms companies who can offer reasonable telecoms services to South Africans???

Shope-Mafole: Yes, but it's not as tight as it was in the previous act. The minister gets involved to ensure that the economy is able to handle it, if I can put it that way. But as a Vans operator you will be able to apply for [an infrastructure] licence.
Until those words come directly from the incompetent Poison Ivy, I won't believe it for a second. After all, how many times has our minister being "misunderstood"???

Shope-Mafole: Some governments give everything to the market. Others don't. We have taken the middle course. You don't want an economy where 50% of your companies fail. Different governments impart their policies in different ways. We have decided on the middle road - we call it managed liberalisation.

FM: What's the advantage of managed liberalisation?

Shope-Mafole: Often you have to cushion the negative impact of liberalisation.

FM: Such as what?

Shope-Mafole: Such as people who get laid off.

FM: But in a competitive market, other operators would snap up those people.

Shope-Mafole: No, they wouldn't.
And why not...???

I really don't like being SO negative with the Government regarding the communications sector in our country, after all, too much complaining ain't good for the soul. But do we really have reason to be optimistic that the DoC will actually do it's job??? Some of these promises were made ages ago but were then swept under the carpet in order to protect Telkom. How can a Government be SO ignorant and incompetent??? Surely this is illegal and some action can be taken to kick these incompetent fools out of power??? SIGH.
 
Last edited:

h0ll0w

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Messages
1,314
shocking.

I think this interview became an argument after the last statement. :p
 

Keith

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2005
Messages
173
How many times have we seen this in government interviews...empty/unfulfilled promises, defense of outdated/stupefying policies/decisions, mediocrity, etc, etc.

To say that I'm disillusioned and frustrated is the understatement of the year! :mad:
 

R4tt3xx

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2005
Messages
696
It does not matter, the facts are in print. VANS can apply for a license to build their own infrastructure. If you want change to happen, do it yourself.
 

DVDA

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2004
Messages
234
I have been waiting for this day for a long time. FINALLY someone in the government had told it like it is. We have all known governments reasons for stalling, and now this dolt has finally just admitted it all.

The top brass of our Communications Department really should have gone to a real university and got real degrees in economics rather than the faux honourary doctorates and back-slaps that they have.

FM: But is it government's responsibility to look after the shareholders of a private company?

Shope-Mafole: You must remember that government is a shareholder, too.

FM: Ah, but there's the conflict.

Shope-Mafole: It's not a conflict. Some of the public, very poor people, invested in Telkom. It got lots of people into the economy.
How the hell can they think that one dividend payout per year for the absolutely miniscule percentage of poor people who actually hold Telkom shares can be of greater benefit to the country than cheap communications for all?!?!? HOW IS THIS ****ING POSSIBLE! Am I going mad?

She basically admitted that government is ****ing over the entire country to protect the shareholders of Telkom (themselves included). Thank you Director-General. That is what we have all been waiting for - some truth.

I feel sick.

PS: Well done to Duncan McLeod though. What a well thought-out and challenging interview.
 
Top