How useful is ICASA?

[rpm]

http://www.mybroadband.co.za/nephp/?m=show&id=4370

 

[kissingmybbgoodbye]

They are very effective in protecting the interests of Telkom, you have to give them praise to that

 

[raVid]

 

[Sneeky]

Despite numerous requests - both oral and written submissions - that ICASA should deliver a clear and unambiguous set of ADSL regulations, it Gazetted a watered down version of the ADSL Draft Regulations, leaving various loopholes and great uncertainty.

Paris Mashile and the henchmen/woman over at ICASA are by no means the sharpest tools in the shed, but they are a step or 2 up from single celled organisms and the ambiguity in the regulations is without doubt intentional.

The draft looked far better, then there was a date given for the release of the official regulations. That date came and went and I would hazard a guess that 'certain stakeholders' got a whiff (or a unsigned copy in the post for their own perusal) of what was about to happen and quickly pulled up the handbrake.

Paris and his merry men/woman then buckled under the pressure, spineless useless incompetent lot that they are.

 

[HosstheBoss]

...Paris and his merry men/woman then buckled under the pressure, spineless useless incompetent lot that they are.

I doubt they buckled under pressure so much as what they had specially designed “Paris back-step” hinges that allow for easy folding!

 

[pjj]

That useless lot are funded with our tax money. They work for us. They achieve nothing. FIRE THEM!!

 

[bekdik]

I had a long converation (?) with an ICASA guy at the Futerex show yesterday.

He agreed that Telkom was a problem. He stated that the same complaints arise on a regular basis.

I asked him why then did ICASA not regulate and I am still waiting for an answer.

When I suggested that maybe the DOC should take over regulatory issues he replied that then the regulator wouldn't be independent.

So, to answer your question: How useful is ICASA? About as much as a bicycle is to a fish.

 

[dualmeister]

Yip just yet another deparment waisting money by the millions and getting nothing done. Well except putting their little stickers under Telkom phones saying "ICASA approved".

 

[ic]

It is therefore very unlikely that we will see a truly liberalized telecoms environment anytime soon, and we may just have to hope that ICASA gets more funding, that it is given true independence and that the few competent senior staff left do not also depart in search of greener pastures.

I've come to the conclusion that the way to sort ICASA out is to
1. [without any doubt] enshrine ICASA's independence and
2. give ICASA less funding
that way ICASA should be forced to heavily fine telecoms companies left & right & centre in order to stay afloat, IOW ICASA would be forced to do its job and at most could ask guavamint for temporary loans to stabilise its cashflow...

 

[geoffr]

They are very effective in protecting the interests of Telkom, you have to give them praise to that

I don't think that it is an accurate statement that ICASA always protect Telkom's interests. ICASA have ruled against Telkom in a number of processes before the regulator, and also tried to oppose the minister on the issue of self provisioning for VANs (unfortunately without success).

The recently gazetted ADSL regulations are however an example of an action by ICASA that favours nobody. ICASA has put the onus on Telkom to implement regulations, which it turns out will increase Telkom's cost to deliver ADSL. This will have the knockon effect of prejudicing ISPs and consumers.
for instance, for Telkom to quote contention ratios will cost Telkom a lot of money, and, in the end provide meaningless information, since contention ratios provide no indication of the quality of service provided to the subscriber.


Unfortunately either ICASA did not have the facts available, or chose to ignore the facts when gazetting the ADSL regulations. While ICASA did take a number of elements of the regulations that they gazetted from presentations, which were made in ignorance, they did take the due diligence to verify that the presenters were not presenting information that was factually solid.

It seems that a lot of people just want to lay the blame at ICASA's door for the mishaps in our industry. There are however other parties, including consumer lobbyists who do also share a part of that blame, because of their ignorance in lobbying ICASA.

 

[jontyB]

*sigh*

 

[jontyB]

This will however mean that companies like Telkom and Neotel’s profits may shrink, something that Government, which has a large stake in both these companies, does not want to see.

That is the crux isn't it?

 

[bekdik]

The be all and end all is that the regulator having made a regulation needs to regulate.

 

[BTTB]

Isn't this question a misnomer.
Or two words that shouldn't be in the same sentence.

 

[antowan]

With ICASA as it stands now, the consumer is ****ed! Even worse is the fact that those who government seek to empower are not getting a sniff of Telkom's services due to cost! The relative value of mobility at a higher price entices them more than getting stuck with a fixed line phone from Telkom that is way overpriced...

 

[rpm]

Hi Geoffr

Thanks for the feedback.

I agree that the regulations as it stands now do not do much to protect consumers, but I disagree that consumers groups or whoever else is to blame for ICASA’s poor set of regulations or their lack of action when it comes to clarifying the regulations.

ICASA was given the facts, pure and simple. There were many presenters, each trying to push its own agenda. The intentions of the regulations was however to protect consumers, and this could have been achieved. While such a set of regulations may have harmed Telkom’s profitability or the ability of ISP’s to compete effectively against Telkom, it is beside the point.

The lack of true competition in the fixed line telecoms space means that consumers suffer, and the only real way to address it, apart from opening up the market, is to regulate price and service levels. We have already seen that the other option, namely leaving it up to Telkom and other players, does not work.

As consumers we had no choice but to lobby ICASA (what else…just sit quietly and hope for the best?). The solution that MyADSL suggested, namely a price capped default offering in line with international standards, would have worked well. We also asked to a retail- model which will allow for fair competition in the ISP space. While first tier ISP’s may suffer with such a solution, this is a consumer issue and these bigger ISPs surely have the resources to have their own fight in the wholesale/ISP space.

Unfortunately the ADSL Draft Regulations were not refined and made fool proof in the final version, but rather watered down and opening more holes… No good.

Regards,

RPM

 

[ou812ltd]

I still say the scorpions must investigate the whole adsl regulation process to see if there was no foul play(bribes, blackmail,share handouts etc) that contributed to the poor content of the regulations which ultimately made all the efforts of many over the past 2.5 years NULL and VOID! There must be a snake in the grass!!! Paris can't be that dumb or can he?

 

[Sneeky]

I think its quiet accurate to think that ICASA protects Telkom interests most of the time, be it by their own doing or on instructions from the DoC.
Hell, Telkom even have reps sitting in on ICASA interviews!
The ADSL regulations favour the current status quo which in turn favours Telkom, the monopoly, which is where we started in the beggining!

ICASA relying on Telkom to implement anything that is going to cost the monopoly money is hopeless, really lets get serious here.

Contention ratio's impact directly on the efficiency of the product they supply and charge premium for.
The only way that making this data public / or setting a maximum ratio will negatively impact on the cost for consumers is if the service at the moment is horrendously oversubscribed already, or if Telkom in their infinite wisdom don't know what they are in the respective areas that have ADSL.
20:1, 50:1, the public is not asking for state secrets here. The public wants to know what the quality of the service is that they are paying for. It seems reasonable enough and from what I have read appears to be a common practice globally.
Its far from meaningless.

The fundamental issues of price, bandwidth shortages and costs thereof were conveniently just ignored.
Paris claims there is no proof, yet he chooses not to investigate the books, why? What a cop out.
A lot of people do want to lay the blame at ICASA's doorstep because they have effectively wasted everyones time for the last 2 or so years formulating garbage.

Telkom are profiteering to the nth degree and bandwidth on SAT-3 lies dormant while the country pays premium for pittance.
Affordable broadband in this country can have a massive positive impact for education, health, ICT, entrepreneurs and the like, yet despite the obvious inflated costs for the service, the pseudo line rental charges, the evidence presented by respected individuals in the global telecoms arena supporting the complainants and the false bandwidth shortage caused by Telkom's grip on SAT-3, ICASA reckon that they wont get stuck in and investigate the costs.
I think they must stick to chasing people that have CB radio's without a license, in little white panel vans like the old Post Office used to do. Maybe, and I say maybe, they can handle that.

 

[Tux]

Icasa? As useful as tits on a bull's back

 

[ic]

...
The recently gazetted ADSL regulations are however an example of an action by ICASA that favours nobody. ICASA has put the onus on Telkom to implement regulations, which it turns out will increase Telkom's cost to deliver ADSL. This will have the knockon effect of prejudicing ISPs and consumers.
for instance, for Telkom to quote contention ratios will cost Telkom a lot of money, and, in the end provide meaningless information, since contention ratios provide no indication of the quality of service provided to the subscriber.

I must have missed something, how will the beast's [running?] costs increase now that it is required to publish contention ratios? this is information that should already be at the beast's fingertips or otherwise easy to calculate. If Neotel was actually offering an ADSL service [which Neotel is not], then one could argue that there is a competitive price-tag attached to publishing contention ratios, but both the beast and Neotel would have to publish - not just one or the other. Furthermore, IS and Verizon Business should be compelled to publish their contention ratios for their ADSL ISP accounts.

Having said all that, I would prefer to use <added>unshaped</added> [low & stable] latency as a measure of QoS instead of contention ratios, but the point is that the beast has repeatedly refused to supply ICASA with its ADSL contention ratios, so it doesn't surprise me that ICASA decided to create a regulatory means of forcing the beast to supply its ADSL contention ratios...

Unfortunately either ICASA did not have the facts available, or chose to ignore the facts when gazetting the ADSL regulations. While ICASA did take a number of elements of the regulations that they gazetted from presentations, which were made in ignorance, they did take the due diligence to verify that the presenters were not presenting information that was factually solid.

which presentations are you referring to [specifically]? - I assume not the beast's presentations bcos it didn't really have anything to present other than a bunch of useless lawyers & stalling tactics...

It seems that a lot of people just want to lay the blame at ICASA's door for the mishaps in our industry. There are however other parties, including consumer lobbyists who do also share a part of that blame, because of their ignorance in lobbying ICASA.

Please elaborate & clarify.

ICASA is the industry regulator, and is responsible for the decisions that it makes, and must be held accountable for those decisions - shifting blame onto consumers for ICASA's ADSL regs abortion, is not constructive.