-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Have you ever been to an airshow?
Money For Nothing
- Thread starter rpm
- Start date
stoke
Honorary Master
Eh ... so now that this exists, why are people still pointing fingers at teklom for rural implementation ?
Sheesh ...
Fsking governmint coverup and waste !
Sheesh ...
Fsking governmint coverup and waste !
stoke said:
Slow down. The lack of competition is to blame for Telkom's slow and mostly retracting rollout in rural areas. Personally I understand this 100% but Telkom is still to blame even in the absence of competition because it is simply unpatriotic not to do it. It should be considered part of their social responsibility. Instead of rolling out communication services to rural areas they build schools with no means of communicating to the outside world... Go figure!
Competition is just a simple method of allowing the market to act responsibly. If proper competition comes in for Telkom you will see Telkom rolling out services at near to cost etc...
Remember a company doesn't do social responsibility out of the good of its heart. Individuals do, but companies like Telkom will do that if it will warm customers to them. At the moment they try to (and I am affraid people are falling for it) do it via advertising. Have you noticed Telkom rarely includes pricing in their advertising? That is one way to spot ads by monopolies...
They give you stories of the warm and fuzzy things people do with "their" technology. Clever ploy but intelligent people should not fall for it.
I still hold the individuals running that company personally responsible for the lack of delivery (over which they have control) because it is part of every citizens civil duty to care for your country. When you are in control of such a vital company, you must act responsibly. No excuse!
The answer lies in proper competition. Then they will have no choice, patriotic or not...
If they don't, the competition will.
Last edited:
Debbie
Banned
1) The USA has been around since about 1997.
2) Telecoms operators do not 'donate' or 'give' money to the USA out of the kindness of their hearts, nor do they do it out of 'wanting to look good' to the public. They are required to put this money into the USA by terms of the Telecoms Act as well as their licence conditions.
3) I can understand that the major operators would be a little p*ssed off when this money is not used appropriately. But at the same time, it is a bit of a case of the pot calling the kettle black, because there would be no need for a USA if these bloody companies didn't charge so much.
Edit: 4) The major problem with the telecentres has been the enormous costs associated with keeping such centres up and running. Its kind of like pouring money down a well. It should be rather obvious that such telecentres will not survive so long as telecoms costs remain at their outrageous prices.
2) Telecoms operators do not 'donate' or 'give' money to the USA out of the kindness of their hearts, nor do they do it out of 'wanting to look good' to the public. They are required to put this money into the USA by terms of the Telecoms Act as well as their licence conditions.
3) I can understand that the major operators would be a little p*ssed off when this money is not used appropriately. But at the same time, it is a bit of a case of the pot calling the kettle black, because there would be no need for a USA if these bloody companies didn't charge so much.
Edit: 4) The major problem with the telecentres has been the enormous costs associated with keeping such centres up and running. Its kind of like pouring money down a well. It should be rather obvious that such telecentres will not survive so long as telecoms costs remain at their outrageous prices.
Last edited:
Freeloaders employed to make excuses.
Our telecoms dilemma all starts with the Government/DoC being ineffective to basically manage South Africa's dawdle forward.
I'm tired of people like Sam Gulube, or orginisations like this being shown up time and again for doing buggerall despite their mandate, only to then turn round and blame a myriad of other orginisations, stumbling blocks or laws for their woeful inefficiency.
Who's running the show here? A seriously big broom is needed to sweep clean starting with Ivy and Roy's offices.
You cant afford to have ineffectual business units in any orginisation. You either perform or make way for somebody that will. Its high time somebody wakes up in the ivory towers and starts to adopt a similar mindset.
Our telecoms dilemma all starts with the Government/DoC being ineffective to basically manage South Africa's dawdle forward.
I'm tired of people like Sam Gulube, or orginisations like this being shown up time and again for doing buggerall despite their mandate, only to then turn round and blame a myriad of other orginisations, stumbling blocks or laws for their woeful inefficiency.
Who's running the show here? A seriously big broom is needed to sweep clean starting with Ivy and Roy's offices.
You cant afford to have ineffectual business units in any orginisation. You either perform or make way for somebody that will. Its high time somebody wakes up in the ivory towers and starts to adopt a similar mindset.
BandwidthAddict
Expert Member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2005
- Messages
- 2,402
- Reaction score
- 252
Can anyone here provide an example of a government agency set up to "provide for the poor" that actually uses the majority of it's funds to provide for the poor?
<Rant on>
The Natal lottery, a private enterprise, was shut down to make way for the national lottery. As far as I remember, the Natal Lottery was the best run charity fund raising event of it's kind in the world. I believe that only 5% was used for administration with the rest going to the winner and charity. (Can anyone confirm that, I cannot find information on it and I am relying on memory). The national lottery on the other hand, cannot seem to find a way to spend the money. They use exactly the same excuse as the USA.
Is this government's playbook? What does it say for the viability of this country. Everything to-date is exactly in line with the death of African countries when the "revolution" was won.
Then, of course, there was this gem:
Nice. Methinks government does not like private enterprises. I mean we might actually help the poor, educate them and then allow them to provide for themselves; thus think for themselves. No more vote buying and, shock horror, they will be able to see through the simple excuses that goverment have been dishing out. Goodbye gravy train, hello actual work.
<Breathe, breathe, breathe>
Ok. I'm done.
</Rant off>
Peace.
<Rant on>
The Natal lottery, a private enterprise, was shut down to make way for the national lottery. As far as I remember, the Natal Lottery was the best run charity fund raising event of it's kind in the world. I believe that only 5% was used for administration with the rest going to the winner and charity. (Can anyone confirm that, I cannot find information on it and I am relying on memory). The national lottery on the other hand, cannot seem to find a way to spend the money. They use exactly the same excuse as the USA.
Is this government's playbook? What does it say for the viability of this country. Everything to-date is exactly in line with the death of African countries when the "revolution" was won.
Then, of course, there was this gem:
Nice. Methinks government does not like private enterprises. I mean we might actually help the poor, educate them and then allow them to provide for themselves; thus think for themselves. No more vote buying and, shock horror, they will be able to see through the simple excuses that goverment have been dishing out. Goodbye gravy train, hello actual work.
<Breathe, breathe, breathe>
Ok. I'm done.
</Rant off>
Peace.