Parliament and ICASA Independence

An independent regulator is particularly required to prevent conflicts of interest where government holds substantial interests in electronic communications licensees.

Independence is a critical attribute for a regulator to be effective. If the regulator lacks independence, its decisions will be neither objective nor transparent. Encroaching on ICASA's independence to lower interconnection rates will have short term benefits but, in the long term, we fear that industry (and, ultimately, consumers) will be prejudiced if the independence of ICASA is compromised.
Click to expand...

An extremely important point that we ignore at our peril for the long term future of the industry
 
They will cut the rates, but mark my words, they will charge us much more for a contract (talk time). They will just make up that billion rands somewhere else.

I wish Telkom would get kicked to unbundle the local loop...
 
holy moly... how much more evidence do you need that ICASA is as independent as a snotty two year old hanging onto it's mothers grimy legs???

Just look at every decision of ICASA over it's long sad history. Every decision has been influenced... by Telkom, by Ivy, by Cosatu... the list is endless.

Just freaking fire them already... stop wasting time with all this gabble. We are sick of it :mad:
 
mikef said:
An extremely important point that we ignore at our peril for the long term future of the industry
Click to expand...

It would be relevant if ICASA was at all independent in anything but name.
 
"Information Communication Authority of South Africa (ICASA)" OMG :eek: - this from the DM of C :rolleyes:
 
mikef said:
An extremely important point that we ignore at our peril for the long term future of the industry
Click to expand...

Well I argue that if ICASA were actually regulating the industry then this sort of intervention wouldn't be necessary.

ICASA just aren't doing their job, plain and simple.

What I don't understand is that if it has reached the point where other entities are required to put pressure on ICASA just to break it's inertia why has no action been taken with regard to removing the idiots running ICASA and replacing them with people that actually will regulate the communications sector with speed and efficiency?
 
icyrus said:
It would be relevant if ICASA was at all independent in anything but name.
Click to expand...

It is relevant as SA needs an independent regulator and even if ICASA seems to have many failings in this regard it is not the solution to further weaken this independence. Although we might support the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Communications’s (PPCC) viewpoint in this regard by praising them for ignoring the law and the Constitution, we would be on shaky ground next time the decision is not as popular.

Don’t get me wrong I fully support the need to reduce the current mobile interconnect fees, but I do think the impact of these high fees has been over hyped and a reduction in these fees of 65c will not lead to a reduction in retail rates of the same. As I have stated before if one assumed a “balanced” industry with symmetrical interconnect rates changing this rate has no effect on the bottom-line of the telcos. However reducing the average retail rate received per call by the same amount could potentially wipe-out the profitability of the telcos. Naturally should the interconnect rate go down it would stimulate competition and as long as the rate is not below the cost of providing the service (plus a fair profit) this should be welcomed.
 
Last edited:
There should be public outcry to have new 100% independent fearless councillors appointed in ICASA. We should have public interviewing and scrutiny similar to the appointment of the SABC board. Transparancy is what we need now more than ever!

Are ICASA's decisions 100% independent? There seems to be very little evidence that ICASA is effective. Current telecoms costs are proof enough.
 
I cant remeber when was the last time that ICASA did anything in favour of the consumer. Independent my @ss.
 
ECN attended the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Communications (PPCC) meeting on interconnection rates and was very impressed by the political will of Parliament to urgently deal with the issue of interconnection rates charged by Vodcaom, MTN and Cell C that are amongst the highest in the world.
Click to expand...

Typo on the news post . Fix please :D
 
"To the extent that ICASA regulates broadcasting, its independence is guaranteed by the South Africa's Constitution. The ICASA Act affirms that ICASA is independent and subject only to the Constitution and the law."

what happens if the people of SA do not want ICASA anymore? What happens if the people of SA are utterly dissatisfied with ICASA's performance? Surely if the public demands better then we should get better? Why on earth do we have to endure this? Is it not the publics' decision who should be president? Is it not the publics' decision what should be enshrined in the Constitution and is it not the publics' decision whether or not we feel telecoms costs are too high? I mean, why the f*&% should we have to put it up with this rubbish... pure abuse of dominance in the name of profits.. THIS IS NOT DESIRABLE, WE DO NOT WANT THINGS TO BE THIS WAY.. it isn't right. I mean there's millions of us and only a handful of people sitting in boardrooms making our lives miserable 'because they can'. Who do you think should win in the end??? Telecoms costs are stupidly high, I say we start a civil war with those responsible in the Telecoms Sector. They wouldnt stand a chance.... just who the hell do they think they are?
 
tjunyat said:
Fire the lot at !CASA and replace them with people who actually understand what they are doing!
Click to expand...

More like replace them with people that understand and know what they are supposed to be doing.
 
mikef said:
Don’t get me wrong I fully support the need to reduce the current mobile interconnect fees, but I do think the impact of these high fees has been over hyped and a reduction in these fees of 65c will not lead to a reduction in retail rates of the same. As I have stated before if one assumed a “balanced” industry with symmetrical interconnect rates changing this rate has no effect on the bottom-line of the telcos. However reducing the average retail rate received per call by the same amount could potentially wipe-out the profitability of the telcos. Naturally should the interconnect rate go down it would stimulate competition and as long as the rate is not below the cost of providing the service (plus a fair profit) this should be welcomed.
Click to expand...

If I recall correctly part of parliament's statement was that the drop in interconnect fees be directly reflected in the price consumers pay. ICASA has never mentioned anything connected to that at all which leads me to believe that they would'nt have stipulated that as a condition and the consumer would continue to get battered.

If this is done the way parliament has suggested then a 65c decrease in interconnect fees would reflect as a 65c drop in the price consumers pay for calls.
 
Have you got a link to parliament's statement - I don't remember seeing this requirement?
 
mikef said:
Have you got a link to parliament's statement - I don't remember seeing this requirement?
Click to expand...

Let me take a look and see if I can find it, perhaps I did recall incorrectly but I'm pretty sure I read something along those lines a few days ago.

EDIT: From an article by the dreaded Staff Writer (not a direct quote of parliament's statement, will try and track down the actual quote):

It will propose that mobile and telecoms operators drop the interconnection rates with effect from 1 November 2009 to 60 cents per minute during peak times.

It further wants interconnection rates to be reduced by 15 cents annually on 1 November for each successive year until 2012 and that this should results in reductions in the actual retail prices of telecommunications.
Click to expand...

Now that I look at it in more detail, could mean that only the subsequent annual 15c drops need to be reflected in retail prices. hmmmm.... :confused:

EDIT of the EDIT: The actual article that Staff Writer took this stuff from is here

YET ANOTHER EDIT: OK managed to track down a news brief on parliament's website and it is as I feared:

During the meeting the Committee agreed to call for public submissions on the following proposals:


* mobile and telecoms operators drop the interconnection rates with effect from 1 November 2009 to 60 cents per minute during peak times;
* interconnection rates be further reduced by 15 cents annually on 1st November for each successive year until 2012; and
* as a general rule the progressive reductions in interconnection rates between 2009 and 2012 should yield concomitant reductions in the actual consumer (retail) prices of telecommunications.
Click to expand...

I suppose it is still a little ambiguous, but it does seem to indicate that only the annual reductions would need to be reflected in the retail price.

Let there be LINKS!!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter