How useful is ICASA?

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.
Click to expand...
None of these address the fundamental flaw which is the level of incompetence already enshrined at ICASA. Handing them more money is not the answer.

There comes a time when its more feasible to simply clean house and start again.
 
What has icasa really done? what have been created for?
 
Useful? dont even ask!

IMHO it would be easier to say how useless they are, facts and proof abound!
 
rpm said:
Hi Geoffr
...
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.
...
Click to expand...

Partially agreed, except that ICASA has not arguably achieved anything during their tenure? and to be utterly honest lobbying a majority lead goverment is unfortunately in practice like pissing in the wind...
 
I have a lot of choice words to describe ICASA, but only one is needed: USELESS.
 
One cannot rate how useful a spineless entity is - however their level of uselessness rates 10/10.
 
This thread has potential even if ICASA doesn't.

about as useful as:
a poopie flavored lollipop,
a fart in a spacecraft,

and my personal favourite to quote Rowan Atkinson,

about as useful as a one-legged man at an arse-kicking contest.
:D
 
My Carte BLanche request below. Sorry, don't know if this is the right place to post this but was reading this thread and it seemed as good a place as any!

---To Carte Blanche---------------------
I dont have a specific story, but this is just a request to investigate the mess at ICASA and the DoC and the state that the SA telecoms industry is in (i.e. excessively high Telkom/bandwidth prices), due to the de facto Telkom monolopoly which they allow and perpetuate.

The ADSL regulations which were recently gazetted are a disgrace, and are not even worth the paper they were printed on.

Somewhat related is the lack of backbone that ICASA displays in allowing the cellular networks to do as they please with regards to exorbitant prices.

Etc... the list goes on and on.

Thanks!
 
Laughing all the way to the bank

The party and family own large blocks of shares and the pale minority are the majority suffering and paying.

If you believe ICASA EVER intended to do anything then you must also believe in the tooth fairy. It's only about money,money, money.

After April 07 SAT3 will still be in the hands of the party.

Things will only start to happen the day AFTER it's all too late.
 
rpm said:
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
Click to expand...
Rudolph,

I'm not suggesting that it is your job to fight ISPs' battles. ISPs are busy doing that. What I am suggesting is that it is necessary for everyone to be congnisant of the indirect effects of their actions.

This means, for instance, that if Telkom's service delivery becomes more expensive, rightly or wrongly this strengthens Telkom's argument that we as consumers are not being overcharged.

Many people on this forum have suggested that ICASA is not acting as an effective regulator. Yet, they are expecting ICASA to represent their interests. Yes, we are all subject to the regulator's dictates. However, would it be preferable to ask ICASA to regulate retail prices, and then have to turn to ICASA to lodge a complaint when price regulations are not observed, or would you rather have a position where there is a healthy wholesale market, which in turn creates a competitive retail environment, and gives consumers the right to vote with their feet.

We only need to look at the dialup Internet access market to see how competition has benefited the consumer, where prices have dropped considerably over the years.

Ultimately, we all need to be aware of the unintended consequences of our actions. All the focus on periodic resets by consumers and ISPs alike was probably misdirected effort. (Something that I myself am guilty of.) In reality implementing the requirement to stop periodic resets will cost a lot of money, and increase Telkom's costs. I can already hear a lot of people shouting that they don't care about Telkom's costs - that is however naive - we all can benefit from Telkom keeping their costs down, as that gives us a bigger stick to beat them with when it comes to excessive pricing.

I think we could all do well to examine the content of Tracey Cohen's presentation at the recent iWeek conference, to understand better some of the reguator's actions. While much of the mistrust of the regulator is well grounded, much of the mistrust which the regulator has for consumers and industry players is well-grounded too. It is not only up to the regulator to work on building trust. It is up to all of us.
 
@ geoffr

I think we could all do well to examine the content of Tracey Cohen's presentation
Click to expand...

Would you be able to post a link if you have one for the presentation? I would like to get a better understanding of you're argument as there are one or two point I’m struggling with

Like…
ICASA to lodge a complaint when price regulations are not observed, or would you rather have a position where there is a healthy wholesale market
Click to expand...


If there isn’t a healthy wholesale market (as we are currently sitting with) what else can we do other than expect ICASA to regulate pricing?

This is just a matter of opinion so don't beat me for it, but how closely do you really think cost is linked to retail pricing for Telkom. By all accounts their mark ups are so high that they should easily absorb the costs of periodic resets, amongst other things
 
Last edited:
When you have a monopoly player abusing their position it is the responsibility of regulators to step in and beat them down. This is true in any country. Regulators need to have serious powers, particularly when dealing with extremely wealthy companies.

Furthermore if a company fails to provide requested documentation, for instance financial information on costs, then the facts must be assumed to be favourable to the case of those bringing a complaint. In this case it should have been assumed that Telkom's costs are very low - ICASA could just peg it at any low figure they see fit - and their prices capped accordingly. Tough luck to the company for withholding the requested information. Companies that misbehave must be punished, harshly. Allowing them to walk away is just condoning corruption.

It is all very well to talk about competition, but there isn't any real competition yet, and for 5 years the regulator has been failing to keep Telkom in check while they siphon money out of the economy just like a mafia street racket.

A regulator mistrusting the public sounds a lot like making excuses for being ineffective.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X