ICASA explains its Vodacom decision

And we care why exactly? It's not going to help bring down costs of access and removal of caps now is it?
 
Bwaaahahahaha ... ICASA can time-travel.

The order was sought ahead of the Vodacom listing so that a court could reach a decision on the correctness of the decision taken by the Authority on 16 April 2009.

The Authority, in a letter dated 14 April 2009, then asked Vodacom whether in the light of COSATU’s challenge, Vodacom intended proceeding with the intended listing and on its views on the implication of the listing on the court process.
Click to expand...
Back to the back to the back to the back to the futuuuuuuure!

EDIT: Okay, so besides the time-travelling, ICASA has now admitted that the initial decision was not transparent, and that there was perhaps a chance that the initial decision was flawed. Does this mean that we can assume the same on all of their decisions? Perhaps get them to fix the damn ADSL regulations?
 
Last edited:
The Authority, in a letter dated 14 April 2009, then asked Vodacom whether in the light of COSATU’s challenge, Vodacom intended proceeding with the intended listing and on its views on the implication of the listing on the court process. Vodacom responded saying that it would not delay the listing, at which point the Authority decided to rescind its decision of April 16 2009 and to request that the matter be brought before a court on an urgent basis.
Click to expand...

So ICASA changed their mind because Vodacom (rightfully) saw no reason to halt the listing?

Thanks for clearing that up ICASA. We've always though you were a clueless, puppet of the state. But now we have it in writing once again.
 
davemc said:
Bwaaahahahaha ... ICASA can time-travel.

Back to the back to the back to the back to the futuuuuuuure!
Click to expand...
Seems to me like there was a lot of haste over at !CASA to publish this media release - I suspect it means that Paris Mashile obtained inspiration whilst on holiday in Uganda and jetted back to SA with new-found spin doctoring skills, or maybe I'm giving him too much credit and it was all the idea of one of his minions.
It should be noted that the Authority’s primary function is to regulate the electronic communications sector in the public interest. It is for this reason that the Authority deemed it fit, in the interest of transparency, that a public process be followed to allow all interested parties to be heard on the transaction before a decision was taken on the matter.
Click to expand...
Still does not explain away the reason for !CASA's decision to quickly rip off its sheep skin [very thin independence disguise] clothing - revealing the wolf beneath, and hop into a hotbed of legal action alongside COSATU, followed by many of the !CASA councillors leaving the country for a week.

Who else wants to see the legal papers lodged with the court by !CASA - specifically where it says that !CASA was not opposing Vodacom's listing on the JSE and was only taking legal action 'in the interests of transparency and regulating in the public's interests'?
 
Maybe there's two entities at loggerheads - the new entity from the Zuma regime, and the old entity from the Mbeki regime, and they're fighting each other.

The Zuma one wants the process to be fully open, the Mbeki part wants the process to be hidden.
 
I wonder how much ICASA paid consultants to produce this statement.
It is clear that they thought (and paid) long and hard about this statement except for the April 14 typo (which I take to mean May) before deciding to issue it. Looks workshopped indeed.
 
ICASA - this statement is a croc full of brown smelly stuff....if the authority did not want to oppose it why did it not oppose COSATU with Vodacom and the government. This is yet again proof of the debilitating impact some regulators have on the economy to the detriment of the people living in the real economy.:mad::mad::mad:
 
Last edited:
This is so familiar. Remember when ICASA initially said VANS could self-provide, then, after the late Ivy got in the way, they back-tracked and suddenly claimed VANS could not self-provide, and then they encouraged all and sundry to take the matter to the courts so that a higher authority could make the decision and save them the burden (which thankfully happened).

All of this is indicative of a weak regulator. One that (a) doesn't have sufficient familiarity with the law and its own regulations to come to clear decisions based on defendable interpretations; (b) one that is easily influenced by political meddling and large corporates; and (c) one that is too scared to take a decision and stand by it, even if it upsets government, trade unions or large corporates.
 
After careful consideration of the matter in terms of the Regulations in Respect of the Limitation of Ownership and Control of 2003 and on the basis of two external legal opinions, the Council of ICASA came to the conclusion that the transaction did not require its approval and published a notice on its website to this effect on the 16th of April 2009.
Click to expand...

careful consideration + 2 legal opinions. makes sense...

The order was sought ahead of the Vodacom listing so that a court could reach a decision on the correctness of the decision taken by the Authority on 16 April 2009.
Click to expand...

correctness? why now? what changed?

...at which point the Authority decided to rescind its decision of April 16 2009 and to request that the matter be brought before a court on an urgent basis.
Click to expand...

COSATU's careful consideration, and ZERO legal opinions...
 
^^ yip

my reading of this: as things stand ICASA have not changed their minds about changing their minds which means that the transaction was illegal but we have to wait because Cosatu are challenging ICASA's decision before they changed their minds. Now we know that the reason ICASA changed their decision was because Cosatu challenged it and that they were then of the same mind and went off together to court over the weekend to protect the interests of consumers and workers respectively.

some time in the next few months a court will hear a case in which Cosatu challenges ICASA's original decision, which has been rescinded

teh mind boggles
 
Last edited:
Once again Icasa proving they are weak simpletons, that have no independent bearing on regulatory matters.
 
ICASA has just proven again that they are spineless. They listen to Vodacom, WTF? Shouldn't it be the other way around?????
 
dominic said:
my reading of this: as things stand ICASA have not changed their minds about changing their minds which means that the transaction was illegal but we have to wait because Cosatu are challenging ICASA's decision before they changed their minds. Now we know that the reason ICASA changed their decision was because Cosatu challenged it and that they were then of the same mind and went off together to court over the weekend to protect the interests of consumers and workers respectively.
Click to expand...

At least we have a stable regulatory environment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X