Infraco to lay submarine cable

We must realise the SAT3 cable was developed in the era of telekoms liberalisation, i.e. no govt intervention. This has resulted in it being a privately owned commodity now (even if paid for by SA taxpayers and given for peanuts to Telkom). SA cannot "nationalise" it by declaring it a national asset. We will damage our international corporate image and make any future potential investor think twice before investing. I would imagine that after careful reading of the fineprint in all the various contracts / agreemnts the SA govt realised this too. But given the legal constraints to opening up international bandwith and the lack of capacity and slow pace of reform at the DoC and ICASA, the economic cluster decided to develop their own cable that is a national asset. This could even have been prompted by the example of the Kenyan govt pulling out of the EASSy project and developing their own.

Even if only this announcement forces Telkom's hand in dropping their prices of the SAT3 cable, we must rejoice. However, neither the battle nor the war is won. We must fight on:mad: .
 
i completely agree that the regulator ought to take a much more stronger stance on Telkom's anti-competitive practices which are well documented. But this requires a well resourced regulator with legal and technical skills to take on Telkom's legal team which i am told on its own, would make one of the best legal firms in South Africa today. However, the issue of SAT3 is complex and Oupoot does correctly highlight some of the difficulties around this that i mentioned earlier. So its easier to demand that govt should nationalise the gateway but the technically this is not practical for govt to do, at least not without a lot being put at stake. It does however serve as a lesson for SA, the Nigerians for example sort to work around this type of problem by attempting to keep SAT3 interest of the deal when selling NITEL, although this put off some potential buyers. But they did at the end ensure that the conditions did not offer a monopoly to NITEL after the sale was concluded.
 
Oupoot said:
...We will damage our international corporate image and make any future potential investor think twice before investing...
Click to expand...
Hmmm I think her Poisonous Ivyness and gauvamint have done significantly more damage to deter investors [both local & international] as a direct result of [mis]managed liberalisation of the telecoms sector and insisting on maintaining a dictatorial control of all things telecoms...

Gauvamint is lucky that Tata agreed to invest in SNOT.
 
Dene Smuts, spokesperson for the official opposition Democratic Alliance, called on Erwin to present the Infraco case to the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Communications.

“Finance minister Trevor Manuel's announcement under the medium-term expenditure framework of R1.4 billion or portion thereof for minister Alec Erwin's Infraco needs to be taken to public hearings by the Portfolio Committee on Communication and Public Enterprises. I do not blame minister Erwin for setting himself up as telephone minister number two, given communications minister number one's shortcomings,” she notes

LOL
 
nivek said:
Dene Smuts, spokesperson for the official opposition Democratic Alliance, called on Erwin to present the Infraco case to the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Communications.

“Finance minister Trevor Manuel's announcement under the medium-term expenditure framework of R1.4 billion or portion thereof for minister Alec Erwin's Infraco needs to be taken to public hearings by the Portfolio Committee on Communication and Public Enterprises. I do not blame minister Erwin for setting himself up as telephone minister number two, given communications minister number one's shortcomings,” she notes

LOL
Click to expand...
:D but I don't see that in the current article under discussion here...source?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X