SA Post Office to send bills via email and SMS

[Jamie McKane]

SA Post Office to send bills via email and SMS

The South African Post Office has entered into an agreement to send over 10 million digital messages which can include municipal bills to Johannesburg residents per year.

The agreement will see Spanish electronic communications company Lleida.net - which specialises in email and SMS notifications - provide technology for certified electronic communications to be sent by the City of Johannesburg.

 

[Jet-Fighter7700]

since were so useless.

fat tenders coming soon comrades,

 

[Illegal Allien]

Totally redundant for COJ, why not utilise and promote the city's eservices portal? Another tender for the boys?

 

[Swa]

We don't need the PO to duplicate what's already being done because of its own uselessness. We need a functioning Post Office.

 

[Kung Fu Porkchop]

Can't we just kill the SAPO? It's not like it's been of any use over the last +-2 decades?

 

[chrisc]

Been receiving Municipal invoices, Telkom (when we had it), insurance invoices by email since 2012, been using electronic banking since 1990 (remember Beltel), so what is new?

 

[ShaunSA]

Sleepy Hollow municipality sends us bills via email. Why does COJ need a Spanish middle-man?

 

[SilverCode]

Can't we just kill the SAPO? It's not like it's been of any use over the last +-2 decades?

That's not true. If I want to permanently get rid of something that I don't want to end up in a landfill, I just use the Post Office to send it to myself. Once you drop it off in the post box, it stops existing according to the people I've spoken to at the Post Office regarding some of my shipments from China.

 

[deweyzeph]

There's no such thing as a "certified" sms message.

 

[j4ck455]

The service will be provided through Zaliwa TA Dijithali, a Lleida.net distributor and an agent of the SA Post Office.

Why is my first thought about POPI compliance and my data ending up in the hands of unauthorised 3rd parties?

I already know I'm paranoid, but for good reason.

We don't need the PO to duplicate what's already being done because of its own uselessness. We need a functioning Post Office.

As much as I would like to punt Postnet as an alternative, unfortunately Postnet still has SAPO in the loop, I wish SAPO would cease to exist.

 

[Swa]

As much as I would like to punt Postnet as an alternative, unfortunately Postnet still has SAPO in the loop, I wish SAPO would cease to exist.

We need a Post Office. No country can function well without a working PO. The problem in SA is like all our other state entities ours isn't working.

 

[skimread]

The service will be provided through Zaliwa TA Dijithali, a Lleida.net distributor and an agent of the SA Post Office.

Lleida.net’s solutions include registered email communication as well as registered SMS, which provides legal proof of the content of the message in question.

The big question is will be how the courts view this legal proof technology? Thinking here of traffic fines and e-toll bills.

 

[j4ck455]

We need a Post Office. No country can function well without a working PO. The problem in SA is like all our other state entities ours isn't working.

I agree that we need a working post office, I would just prefer that it's not SAPO (as in not state owned).

 

[TheRoDent]

since were so useless.

fat tenders coming soon comrades,

Well, was there a tender for this? There are several local companies such as Striata that offer the same kind of service....

 

[Swa]

I agree that we need a working post office, I would just prefer that it's not SAPO (as in not state owned).

Who will own it? A post office must be state owned to fulfill its mandate of not being profit driven or else there's no difference between it and the couriers we now have. Our issue is the bloody clown in charge.

 

[Fuzzbox]

Only in SA.
You cant make this crap up.
And they believe there is a market for this.

 

[j4ck455]

Who will own it? A post office must be state owned to fulfill its mandate of not being profit driven or else there's no difference between it and the couriers we now have. Our issue is the bloody clown in charge.

Good point, I don't have an answer because the state we have is a disaster and anything it owns it turns to crap, wait I think the answer is that we need a proper government not driven by greed, corruption and rhetoric (or at least a lot less than the one we have now).

As for who is in charge, I'm still convinced that it's really NDZ squeezing everyone's nuts and Zuma playing her for a puppet.

 

[envo]

WHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

cue their email server being blacklisted. come now, they can't even deliver the NORMAL mail, what makes anyone think they're capable of delivering an EMAIL WHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA

 

[Arthur]

Who will own it? A post office must be state owned to fulfill its mandate of not being profit driven or else there's no difference between it and the couriers we now have. Our issue is the bloody clown in charge.

Not so. State ownership is not necessary under SA law.

Since the 1920s legislation permits the establishment of public utilities that are not for profit, do not have shares, and are not State-owned or owned by anyone but themselves. Their surpluses ("profits") are only used internally to improve their utility and never distributed externally.

This was the status of Escom/Evkom (before it was renamed Eskom in 1987). Many a blustery interventionist Nat minister had to be told in blunt terms (often by a senior relative of mine, on the Escom board) that the state did not own Escom and to butt out and quit reckless prattle - Escom owned itself in terms of the public utility act, and did not have a shareholder or owner such as the state. Though the president appointed the GM, always as proposed by the General Board, Escom/Evkom ab initio and for decades raised its own finance on local and intl capital markets, was self-funding and never took a cent of taxpayer money until it was nationalised.

Rather laughably and embarrassingly, the ANC didn't fully appreciate this fact for several years, which is why their 1994-9 plans to split Eskom into 9 REDs (regional leccy distis) and REGs (regional leccy generators) came to nought. Eskom was finally nationalised by the ANC through the Eskom Conversion Act 13 of 2001, which converted it from a public utility without shares (and hence no owner) to a company with shares, with all shares owned by the state.

 

[envo]

Not so. State ownership is not necessary under SA law.

Since the 1920s legislation permits the establishment of public utilities that are not for profit, do not have shares, and are not State-owned or owned by anyone but themselves. Their surpluses ("profits") are only used internally to improve their utility and never distributed externally.

This was the status of Escom/Evkom (before it was renamed Eskom in 1987). Many a blustery interventionist Nat minister had to be told in blunt terms (often by a senior relative of mine, on the Escom board) that the state did not own Escom and to butt out and quit reckless prattle - Escom owned itself in terms of the public utility act, and did not have a shareholder or owner such as the state. Though the president appointed the GM, always as proposed by the General Board, Escom/Evkom ab initio and for decades raised its own finance on local and intl capital markets, was self-funding and never took a cent of taxpayer money until it was nationalised.

Rather laughably and embarrassingly, the ANC didn't fully appreciate this fact for several years, which is why their 1994-9 plans to split Eskom into 9 REDs (regional leccy distis) and REGs (regional leccy generators) came to nought. Eskom was finally nationalised by the ANC through the Eskom Conversion Act 13 of 2001, which converted it from a public utility without shares (and hence no owner) to a company with shares, with all shares owned by the state.

I was just about to say the exact same thing (lol, no but seriously, a lot of people tend to forget the past, or just don't know how it used to work)