Matthew Tagg: To regulate or not to regulate

Government interventions in regulating an idustry are seldom succesful in the medium to long term. Competition should prevail.

However in the case of an oligopily (Telkom MT VC) regulation is often the only way to break the stranglehold.

Let's hold thumbs.
 
Sure we don't want guavamunt regulating the industry, this is why there's a (supposedly) Independent Communications authority that's supposed to do just that.
Unfortunately, to date, they are toothless and don't regulate, they bend to the will of the monopoly, i.e. Telkom, because guavamunt had, and still has, massive shareholding.
Get rid of guavamunt being player, regulator, supplier and let there be free and fair competition.
Yes, that includes LLU so that other providers (and yes, the same as with the fibre story and how not everyone can afford to do that) can and will supply it, limited at first to businesses unfortunately (as usual) and then to guaranteed community revenue streams, but, like everything, it has to start somewhere.
Also, once LLU happens, people can connect wirelessly and, in essence, supply their own last mile if they so choose.
Vote with your wallet folks, that'll teach 'em!
 
The only way I see LLU happening properly would be for the government to create a Not-For-profit company and for Telkom to hand over the physical network to them. This company would supply the physical cable to all service providers at the same price. Telkom would become a real service provider alongside IS, Mweb etc etc. The infrastructure company would be responsible for growing the network into rural areas and all service provider would be charged according to their usage of the network. This companies financials would also be open to public scrutiny.

Does this make sense? What comments? Yes I know I will catch a fat guy in a red suit coming down my chimney at the end of December before this would happen, but it's the only fair way I see it happening.
 
The only way I see LLU happening properly would be for the government to create a Not-For-profit company and for Telkom to hand over the physical network to them. This company would supply the physical cable to all service providers at the same price. Telkom would become a real service provider alongside IS, Mweb etc etc. The infrastructure company would be responsible for growing the network into rural areas and all service provider would be charged according to their usage of the network. This companies financials would also be open to public scrutiny.

Does this make sense? What comments? Yes I know I will catch a fat guy in a red suit coming down my chimney at the end of December before this would happen, but it's the only fair way I see it happening.

Instead of making the not-for-profit company responsible for infrastructure layout to rural communities and having other people pay them for the network (which is essentially what telkom does now)

I'd say, yes, not-for-profit-company that handles the infrastructure HOWEVER companies are responsible for laying cable if there is none and installing the ADSL line (or phone line) to the residence when there's an existing network/cable.

They'll oversee who uses what and where someone is allowed to install or whatever so that you don't get 5 companies laying cable on the same spot just to self-provide but rather use each others networks.

Bringing me to the point of standards, there should be a standard on cabling done by any company so that other companies may use/piggy back off of it without having issues with capacity.

no interconnection rates or silly ****

In turn, the government then gives subsidies/kickback to the companies who:

a) Do the most installations of broadband per year (talking physical cable to house etc): This can be per installation as well to offset the cost
b) Give kick back to the first cable/network to reach and connect rural areas

and the list can go on.

The government can even give some kind of tax break or incentive to the company who keeps their costs affordable to the rural communities (and everyone else, mainly so rural communities can afford the phone lines)...

And then this will promote healthy competition between the communications companies. They'll start competing in products and value added services whilst receiving kickbacks for what they bring to the south african people... instead of wondering how they can anally rape the little people who do have phone lines/adsl these days for more profit. (or having to resort to unreliable wireless services)
 
Instead of making the not-for-profit company responsible for infrastructure layout to rural communities and having other people pay them for the network (which is essentially what telkom does now)

I'd say, yes, not-for-profit-company that handles the infrastructure HOWEVER companies are responsible for laying cable if there is none and installing the ADSL line (or phone line) to the residence when there's an existing network/cable.

They'll oversee who uses what and where someone is allowed to install or whatever so that you don't get 5 companies laying cable on the same spot just to self-provide but rather use each others networks.

Bringing me to the point of standards, there should be a standard on cabling done by any company so that other companies may use/piggy back off of it without having issues with capacity.

no interconnection rates or silly ****

In turn, the government then gives subsidies/kickback to the companies who:

a) Do the most installations of broadband per year (talking physical cable to house etc): This can be per installation as well to offset the cost
b) Give kick back to the first cable/network to reach and connect rural areas

and the list can go on.

The government can even give some kind of tax break or incentive to the company who keeps their costs affordable to the rural communities (and everyone else, mainly so rural communities can afford the phone lines)...

And then this will promote healthy competition between the communications companies. They'll start competing in products and value added services whilst receiving kickbacks for what they bring to the south african people... instead of wondering how they can anally rape the little people who do have phone lines/adsl these days for more profit. (or having to resort to unreliable wireless services)

See there is the problem. The Tax break or kickback would have to be more than the cost of actually rolling out physical infrastructure otherwise the rural areas will not get any services because there is no garantee of critical mass. If the NFP company rolls out the network then a whole village gets new infra with their dirt road only been dug up once, guaranteed connection to the rest of the country and the service providers all have equal access to sell their services. Why would IS cable up a village in the North West and then give access to MWeb? The cost of roll out would be subsidesed by the money made from the whole network and not just that portion eliminating the critical mass issue.

Telkom does this network expansion but not on a not for profit basis. :sick:
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X