M&G: Convergence: The search for speed

tanks - summary: great article showing just how nowhere & useless the DoC is
 
if you say you've 'given up reading' and 'just skim' - well as long as you don't expect anyone to take you seriously on an intellectual or intelligent level, about anything else you might say from here on - then hey, your choice :P
(Its a bit like saying
"I Admit I Is Stupid - But Listen To Me On These Other Things I Promise I Is Clever With And Know About."
 
I think it's not so much an article about the Bill, but about the policy making process and the F#$% up of a process our dimwit Ivy ran.
 
This is an excellent article covering the whole convergence bill and ICASA amendment bill messup, with the compliments of the DoC of course.

For me, the most important phrase in it is, "...it looks as if the department is being either capricious or beating a control-freak path. Why? Because there is no policy spelling out the whys and wherefores of ministerial power."

I think this is one of the main reasons why the industry has been highly critical of the DoC over the past several years. The fact that Poison Ivy seems to think that she has the "license to control" everything that comes her path in the communications sector. This includes ICASA (soon to be eCASA), an authority that is constitutionally supposed to be Independent. The unfortunate part, of course, is that she's been getting away with controlling whatever she's seeked to control.

The article also makes another excellent point in stating that the DoC's "managed liberalisation" phrase is not a policy, but a "strategic orientation." That is why so many people are confused whenever Poison Ivy opens her mouth and blurts out that "managed liberalisation" is needed to ensure that the communications sector thrives in the long run. However, what the hell does this mean in relation to the convergence bill??? Or the role of ICASA in the long term??? Or simply put, how can this "managed liberalisation" be put into practice to yield proper legislation that will effectively regulate the communications industry. Regulation is needed in this industry, the only problem is ensuring that properr regulation is put in place to yield the kind of results we want to see in this industry. Namely: affordable and efficient telecommunication services.

Poison Ivy is a control freak. It's as simple as that. Whereas other departments draft up laws in relation to proper policies they've set in place, Poison Ivy doesn't see the reason to do that. It's only up until recently that she has stated that she will soon be releasing "policy directives" which will hopefully lower telecoms costs in this country. The question is... why the hell is she only NOW stating these directives. Where the hell has she been all along??? Oh I forgot... eating doughnuts and attending Telkom-sponsored functions really does consume one's time from performing the duties they were elected by the people to do.
 
yip - also a telling point that the only "liberalisation" milestone achieved to date happened as a result of pressure from above

in very simple terms -
1. the DoC settled on "managed liberalisation" in 2002 (to give them the benefit of the doubt as the 1995/1996 white paper process is probably the origin of this)
2. as pointed out this does not constitute a policy and the last piece of telecomms policy proper, as settled on in the 1996 white paper (last draft), can very easily be demonstrated to have been a naive and colossal failure which we are now paying for

my question - what has been liberalised since 2002?
- cell providers can self-provide
- voip
- third mobile licence to cell c
- sentech and wbs getting amplified licences
- ? [help me out if i am missing something here but there is still no SNO]

from personal experience and involvement with some of the licencees i can say wothout doubt that the entire USAL process has been an unmitigated cock-up

what does this add up to and how has it liberalised the market?
if you sit back and look at the process objectively is there any evidence of any intentional management of this "liberalisation"?

this is the tragedy in the leap to convergence issues at the expense of rethinking and reforumlating telecomms policy...how do we achieve universal access and facilitate efficient use of telecommunications as both a business-enhancer and a human right? the answers, as far as the DoC are concerned, remain as unclear as they ever were
 
Last edited:
LoneGunman said:
if you say you've 'given up reading' and 'just skim' - well as long as you don't expect anyone to take you seriously on an intellectual or intelligent level, about anything else you might say from here on - then hey, your choice :P
(Its a bit like saying
"I Admit I Is Stupid - But Listen To Me On These Other Things I Promise I Is Clever With And Know About."
Click to expand...
Sorry, can someone summarise this? ;)

Ok, let me clarify. I have tons of things on my plate so I can't dedicate as much time to keeping up with stuff as what I'd like. The article looked interesting but I personally didn't feel like reading the whole thing, hence the summary request which was not specifically for me but for others that might not feel like wading through it.

Of course I haven't given up reading entirely. That would be insane. Its just that faced with information overload one is forced to filter out all but the most high priority items for thorough digestion, or be faced with never getting anything done. This is in fact how most people read on the web.

In summary: Yes, I'm lazy :D .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X