Icasa loses its linchpin

[ic]

...
The reality is that we cannot expect to attract or retain high-calibre public servants if we do not pay them a competitive, market-based salary. It is important to note is that increasing ICASA salaries is not a guarentee that skilled candidates will come knocking. However, not increasing salaries is virtually a guarentee that they won't, as demonstrated by Barendse.

Is it really surprising to some that Barendse took up a more generous (and inappropriately 'timeous') offering from Telkom?

An irony here that has not yet been pointed out, is that the force which is to blame for this sort of thing is the very same force we collectively propose as the 'panacea', the 'solution', the 'instant antidote' to SA telecoms problems: the free market.

*ICASA Councillor salaries constitute approx 150% of MPs salaries. Last time I checked, that is.

//not done on this

Firstly, it is interesting that the article was removed from M&G's site, at this point I think we need to know why that action was taken by M&G - is there an interdict or court order that we don't know about - one can only speculate...

Secondly, based on the following wording in the article:

...new communications authority Icasa councillor Andrew Barendse took matters to a new level when he didn’t even pitch up for his first day of work.

Barendse confirmed to the Mail & Guardian this week that he would not be taking up his position as Icasa councillor because he has been poached by the regulator’s biggest headache, the fixed-line incumbent, Telkom.

IMO that implies that AB didn't even inform ICASA or the PPCC that he was [again] a minion of Telkodemonopolies, and that ICASA was left wondering why he hadn't arrived for his first day of work. That is the impression that I got, did any other forumites get the same impression? My point is that it might not be the full story.

It takes a special kind of person with altruistic intentions, to do the job that is expected [by consumers] of an ICASA councillor, and the fact that AB has defected to the enemy [Telkodemonopolies has made itself the enemy of consumers], whether for more money, or whatever reason, is an indication that AB could have done more harm behind the scenes at IncompetentCASA, whilst we consumers were all naively hoping AB would be independent from guavamint and telecoms operators, and do the job of establishing & enforcing fair and unbiased regulations that promote competition in the telecoms sector - instead of [mis]managing it to death.

 

[bwana]

For anyone defending this turncoat on the grounds of remuneration I have to say that I'm pretty sure he would have be well aware of the the amount he was to receive when he accepted the position.

 

[Peter7]

// points D2 towards the gap

My vote as well. They need a consumer activist in there to get things cooking!

 

[Debbie]

/me hold memorial for MyADSL posts regarding AB that I wrote but never posted as I thought it would be inappropriate under the circumstances.

I agree it is strange that the article was removed.

(Three weeks ago I noted a concern that we had not yet heard news of AB's formal acceptance). The idea that good candidates would refuse the appointment to ICASA is something that has been a worry since the process started - however, this concern (the "whispered topic") was not readily discussed on MyADSL, hence in the MyADSLWorld it did not exist and thus some are 'surprised' when the appointment is refused by AB and he is instead snapped up by Telkom.

C'mon people, did no-one else ever really consider the possibility that Telkom was sitting in on these frikking ICASA interviews with the full intention from the beginning of identifying and effectively 'eliminating' any candidates that could pose a problem to them? Oh! for lengthy and critically analytical posts I never posted!

Oh, to be a fly on the wall in AB's Telkom salary negotiations!

I'm not saying it is 'right' or 'wrong' what AB has done - the morality of his actions is for him alone to judge. I also do not know judge whether the free market is 'right' or 'wrong' in this instance - I simply wish to point out that when it comes to public service salaries, this is an all-too-common and virtually 'to-be-expected' outcome (not unlike a govt school teacher taking up a position at a pvt school because of the salary difference).

What I do feel a very strong judgement of is, once again, Telkom and government.

How much more sh1tting on the democratic system is Telkom going to be allowed to get away with? What I'm having difficulty with is understanding what level of utter bloody ridiculousness we have to reach in this country before we stand up and stop these corporations from 'buying out' our democracy.

For Telkom to:
1) *Suddenly* require Dr Barendse's 'regulatory experience' services at a time when word on the street is that Telkom has just showed half their regulatory department the door;
2) *Calculatingly* sit in on the ICASA interviews, and then proceed to headhead the one candidate the consumer had expressed hope in, and the only candidate, I believe to have received the support of all political parties for his ICASA nomination,
3) And for Telkom to do all this at a time when the state of the regulator is widely acknowledged as being weak, ineffective, barely holding up;

.............................does this not somehow take Telkom's anti-competitive, democracy-undermining actions to a whole new level altogether? And where are our institutions of democracy that are supposed to defend and promote the democratic ideal?

Telkom looks more and more like a mafia organisation, a mafia organisation for which the 'checks and balances' of democracy have, in fact, no adequate 'checks and balances'... .

 

[kilo39]

Telkom looks more and more like a mafia organisation, a mafia organisation for which the 'checks and balances' of democracy have, in fact, no adequate 'checks and balances'... .

Worse, it is not just telkom, their hybrids are just as odorous: vodacom, and the rest of the cartel. Look at the cost of cellphone calls in this country - how is this good for business or basic communication. We are still living in the dark ages perpetrated by the past and supported in this day by telkom, etal.

STINKS.

 

[Paul_S]

We are still living in the dark ages perpetrated by the past and supported in this day by telkom, etal.

Perpetrated and supported by the CURRENT government.
Remember the days when phone calls in SA were nearly free?
i.e. The tax payers payed for the infrastructure and everyone benefited - even those who didn't earn enough to be taxed.

Contrary to popular belief, Telkom aren't the problem - they're just the product of a government protected environment.

Look at what they managed to achieve in the UK when the government put their mind to sorting the problem out. Unbundle the local loop and open the market for a total free for all - the competition will sort the rest out.

 

[Debbie]

Perpetrated and supported by the CURRENT government.
Remember the days when phone calls in SA were nearly free?
i.e. The tax payers payed for the infrastructure and everyone benefited - even those who didn't earn enough to be taxed.

This is not quite an accurate picture Paul_S! Phone calls were 'nearly free' because 'telkom' back then was something of a govt dept which used the practice of tariff cross-subsidising. Certain sectors of society (i.e. business) paid a heavy price (remember the price of an international call fifteen years ago...?), while other sectors reaped benefits. And of course, the whole racial thing where thirty million citizens weren't politically recognised as 'citizens' also meant that the vast majority of people didn't have access to a telephone, and hence could not make any of these 'nearly free' phone calls in any case. It was thus not quite the situation that 'everyone benefitted'.

Contrary to popular belief, Telkom aren't the problem - they're just the product of a government protected environment.

I agree that Telkom is the product of the govt-created environment, of that there can be no doubt. But lets consider the ways in which the student may have outgrown it's master.....?

 

[ic]

...
I agree that Telkom is the product of the govt-created environment, of that there can be no doubt. But lets consider the ways in which the student may have outgrown it's master.....?

There is a lot of evidence supporting the theory that guavamint has lost control of semi-privatised Telkodemonopolies [i.e. that Telkodemonopolies has outgrown guavamint], and certainly Telkodemonopolies behaves as if it is a law unto itself:

1. Where is the mythical Register of Members as required by the Companies Act as amended?
2. Why was Telkodemonopolies not forced [by guavamint] to honour the terms & conditions of its telecoms licences & the repealed Telecoms Act where under-serviced areas were supposed to be provided with fixed line services in exchange for the extended monopoly status?
3. Why was it even necessary to introduce USALs?
4. Why has Telkodemonopolies refused to abide by even the most basic of ADSL regs? - the clauses that are not ambiguous.
5. and the list goes on and on and on...

But, behind all of that illegal behaviour and non-compliance, by Telkodemonopolies, is guavamint, failing to enforce the law and conditions under which Telkodemonopolies is required to operate...

The only things that her Poisonous Ivyness manages to liberate, are doughnuts & tax payer's money & time that could be better spent opening up the telecoms sector to full-blown competition .

 

[Debbie]

To add to your excellent list, ic:

6. Why, when Telkom was found guilty of grossly uncompetitive actions and market position abuse by the Competition Commission, have they been able to weasel into a position where they can effectively ignore the ruling of a Constitutionally-mandated 'Protector of Democracy'? Telkom does not supersede the Constitution in theory, so why does it happen in practice? It's been three years since the CC recommended the maximum fine they could, which was 10% of Telkom's gross turnover. Telkom has not paid a single cent of this fine, and they still refuse to recognise the legitimacy of the Competition Commission's findings or the CC's authority over them.

7. Why was Telkom allowed to lie to government without consequence, when they told govt they could not produce the SAT3 Shareholders Agreement due to it's confidential nature. It later emerged that part of the SAT3 Shareholders Agreement states that the confidentially of the Agreement does NOT extend to those cases where the recognised government of the country formerly requests access to the Agreement. Why was there been no consequence for Telkom's blatant lying to the government? Why has Papi Molotsane not been hauled before parliament and asked to explain why he lied about something which is of enormous financial consequence to our nation?

Who is really in control here?

If there were a coup de tat in SA tomorrow (and that, however unlikely, is not impossible), then what kind of a position would Telkom be in? Telkom controls the communications networks in our country. Think about the possibility of a coup de tat in SA just for the sake of understanding the true extent of Telkom's power in SA.

 

[-toady-]

*Who is really in control here?*

If Debbie2 could just fly down here to Durban I would be able to show her things that might point her to an answer to her question.
Course I'm totally barmy and I have no-one but my own incoherence to blame here, but it IS maddening to read this forum and KNOW that a LOT of the answers lie right here in this so fabbulus city heheh....

toady