munwaal
Senior Member
mmmm!!! I can't wait to MARCH! 
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Main reasons you wouldn't get an EV?
Telkom Activist Group and Website Startup
- Thread starter w1z4rd
- Start date
Spamtheman
Senior Member
And myadsl the mouth in the middle, muttering about revenge...
Also can't wait for the march! We as consumers are being raped around every corner, and Telkom is the biggest rapest around.
I'm well aware that there are many places with links and news articles containing the facts. However, I want to bring them all together in a formal document from which it is easy to find specifics. I'm going to try and collect as many facts as I possibly can from these various sources, but a little help will be appreciated.
I'm well aware that there are many places with links and news articles containing the facts. However, I want to bring them all together in a formal document from which it is easy to find specifics. I'm going to try and collect as many facts as I possibly can from these various sources, but a little help will be appreciated.
Okay heres an update and a suggestion:
The following proposed mission statement was written by Debbie, and she used information from her own honours paper to do it. (Shot debbie!)
Its still in draft form, and we would like your opinion on it:
Mission statement
The ultimate goal of antitrust.co.za is full liberalisation of the telecommunications sector in both high-level and basic telecommunications services.
Antitrust.co.za believes that the current telecommunications situation in SA is unacceptable. The excessive prices of services are a major constraint on South Africa’s economy. South Africa fairs poorly against peer countries in terms of access to basic services and Internet connectivity. The digital divide in South Africa is being accentuated and thus the poor in SA are being further marginalized.
Antitrust.co.za believes that South Africa’s telecommunications policy as expressed though the 1996 White Paper and subsequent 1996 Telecommunications Act (Act 103 of 1996) have failed in achieving the majority of goals set out in these documents. Antitrust.co.za believes that there are numerous reasons for this failure, the most significant of which are:
1) Failure to establish an independent regulator with the requisite authority.
2) Failure to adequately separate control of the industry from those with substantial investment in the industry.
It is unacceptable to antitrust.co.za that the Minister of Communications continues to have so much power over the telecommunications industry when the government owns 38% of Telkom.
Consumers have waited patiently for years for the industry to be opened to competition. While antitrust.co.za welcomes the liberalisation measures effective as of 1 February 2005, we believe that these measures do not go far enough.
The mission to speed up liberalisation of the sector is underpinned by the belief that rapid advancements in technology over the past two decades means that the idea that telecommunications is a “natural monopoly” sector no longer holds true. Antitrust.co.za believes that the citizens of South Africa would best be served by a liberalized telecommunications industry – i.e. a telecommunications market characterized by competition.
Antitrust.co.za believes that the most significant benefits of telecommunications liberalisation are :
1. More efficient – Companies are forced to become efficient and economical, because if they are not, then they will not survive. A telecom company operated by the government in a non-competitive market can always rely on government to ‘bail them out’ if the company is financially mismanaged. This is not the case in an open market. Competing telecoms companies cannot afford to waste money by being inefficient and unproductive.
2. Cheaper services – A truly liberalised environment is a competitive one. Companies lower their prices in order to compete with one another and make themselves more attractive to the consumer. More competition translates into lower prices (though there is a threshold).
3. More pricing options – Companies in a competitive environment attempt to capture specific markets, and so tailor their prices to suit such consumers. This means that there are more pricing options available, and customers can choose which one suits their usage best.
4. More services – Service providers expand their list of services offered in order to attract more consumers. Liberalisation also stimulates product innovation, meaning that more products are offered to the consumer.
5. Better and more reliable technology – An open telecommunications environment allows for foreign firms to participate in providing services. Such foreign firms bring with them new technologies. The customer gains further because the research and development costs have already been paid for.
6. Better customer service – A telecoms service provider competing in an open market has incentives to provide good customer service, because if they do not, then the customer can easily switch to another service provider.
Policy
Antitrust.co.za supports all non-violent, legal means which further our aim of speeding up liberalisation of the telecommunications sector.
A major factor which antitrust.co.za believes will help in this mission is to draw attention to Telkom’s practices and the general regulations in the sector which allow Telkom’s behaviour. In this regard, it is the general policy of antitrust.co.za to make as much information about Telkom available to all stakeholders. “Stakeholders” include: any South African citizen or resident, Telkom customers, all industry players, business, political parties, and media outlets.
Antitrust.co.za believes that, while Telkom is not fully responsible for the state of the telecommunications industry in South Africa, Telkom is the major beneficiary of the crisis that is ensuing. Telkom is profiting at the expense of every citizen in the country, regardless of whether or not they are a Telkom customer.
The following proposed mission statement was written by Debbie, and she used information from her own honours paper to do it. (Shot debbie!)
Its still in draft form, and we would like your opinion on it:
Mission statement
The ultimate goal of antitrust.co.za is full liberalisation of the telecommunications sector in both high-level and basic telecommunications services.
Antitrust.co.za believes that the current telecommunications situation in SA is unacceptable. The excessive prices of services are a major constraint on South Africa’s economy. South Africa fairs poorly against peer countries in terms of access to basic services and Internet connectivity. The digital divide in South Africa is being accentuated and thus the poor in SA are being further marginalized.
Antitrust.co.za believes that South Africa’s telecommunications policy as expressed though the 1996 White Paper and subsequent 1996 Telecommunications Act (Act 103 of 1996) have failed in achieving the majority of goals set out in these documents. Antitrust.co.za believes that there are numerous reasons for this failure, the most significant of which are:
1) Failure to establish an independent regulator with the requisite authority.
2) Failure to adequately separate control of the industry from those with substantial investment in the industry.
It is unacceptable to antitrust.co.za that the Minister of Communications continues to have so much power over the telecommunications industry when the government owns 38% of Telkom.
Consumers have waited patiently for years for the industry to be opened to competition. While antitrust.co.za welcomes the liberalisation measures effective as of 1 February 2005, we believe that these measures do not go far enough.
The mission to speed up liberalisation of the sector is underpinned by the belief that rapid advancements in technology over the past two decades means that the idea that telecommunications is a “natural monopoly” sector no longer holds true. Antitrust.co.za believes that the citizens of South Africa would best be served by a liberalized telecommunications industry – i.e. a telecommunications market characterized by competition.
Antitrust.co.za believes that the most significant benefits of telecommunications liberalisation are :
1. More efficient – Companies are forced to become efficient and economical, because if they are not, then they will not survive. A telecom company operated by the government in a non-competitive market can always rely on government to ‘bail them out’ if the company is financially mismanaged. This is not the case in an open market. Competing telecoms companies cannot afford to waste money by being inefficient and unproductive.
2. Cheaper services – A truly liberalised environment is a competitive one. Companies lower their prices in order to compete with one another and make themselves more attractive to the consumer. More competition translates into lower prices (though there is a threshold).
3. More pricing options – Companies in a competitive environment attempt to capture specific markets, and so tailor their prices to suit such consumers. This means that there are more pricing options available, and customers can choose which one suits their usage best.
4. More services – Service providers expand their list of services offered in order to attract more consumers. Liberalisation also stimulates product innovation, meaning that more products are offered to the consumer.
5. Better and more reliable technology – An open telecommunications environment allows for foreign firms to participate in providing services. Such foreign firms bring with them new technologies. The customer gains further because the research and development costs have already been paid for.
6. Better customer service – A telecoms service provider competing in an open market has incentives to provide good customer service, because if they do not, then the customer can easily switch to another service provider.
Policy
Antitrust.co.za supports all non-violent, legal means which further our aim of speeding up liberalisation of the telecommunications sector.
A major factor which antitrust.co.za believes will help in this mission is to draw attention to Telkom’s practices and the general regulations in the sector which allow Telkom’s behaviour. In this regard, it is the general policy of antitrust.co.za to make as much information about Telkom available to all stakeholders. “Stakeholders” include: any South African citizen or resident, Telkom customers, all industry players, business, political parties, and media outlets.
Antitrust.co.za believes that, while Telkom is not fully responsible for the state of the telecommunications industry in South Africa, Telkom is the major beneficiary of the crisis that is ensuing. Telkom is profiting at the expense of every citizen in the country, regardless of whether or not they are a Telkom customer.
Debbie
Banned
To continue Pan's post, with a slight revisement:
"Antitrust.co.za believes that, while Telkom is not fully responsible for the state of the telecommunications industry in South Africa, Telkom must take a large part of the blame. Telkom is the major beneficiary of the crisis that is ensuing. Furthermore, it is the opinion of antitrust.co.za that Telkom continues to pursue policies that are against the spirit in which the White Paper was written. For this reason, a large part of antitrust.co.za’s campaign will focus on bringing Telkom’s policies and actions into public debate.
Telkom is profiting at the expense of every citizen in the country, regardless of whether or not they are a Telkom customer. Telkom, as the monopoly landline provider, has been found guilty of abusing their monopoly position by the Competition Commission. We believe that this guilty verdict rendered by the Competition Commission is indicative of Telkom’s general attitude towards their customers. It is the opinion of antitrust.co.za that Telkom cannot be allowed to continue with their abusive practices.
Antitrust.co.za hopes to draw attention to Telkom’s practices, and while this is an objective in itself, it is hoped that by placing the spotlight on Telkom, public interest in the government’s legislation/regulations will grow."
Constructive comments/criticisms?
"Antitrust.co.za believes that, while Telkom is not fully responsible for the state of the telecommunications industry in South Africa, Telkom must take a large part of the blame. Telkom is the major beneficiary of the crisis that is ensuing. Furthermore, it is the opinion of antitrust.co.za that Telkom continues to pursue policies that are against the spirit in which the White Paper was written. For this reason, a large part of antitrust.co.za’s campaign will focus on bringing Telkom’s policies and actions into public debate.
Telkom is profiting at the expense of every citizen in the country, regardless of whether or not they are a Telkom customer. Telkom, as the monopoly landline provider, has been found guilty of abusing their monopoly position by the Competition Commission. We believe that this guilty verdict rendered by the Competition Commission is indicative of Telkom’s general attitude towards their customers. It is the opinion of antitrust.co.za that Telkom cannot be allowed to continue with their abusive practices.
Antitrust.co.za hopes to draw attention to Telkom’s practices, and while this is an objective in itself, it is hoped that by placing the spotlight on Telkom, public interest in the government’s legislation/regulations will grow."
Constructive comments/criticisms?
Because in my opinion, antitrust.co.za should be supported by everybody that is affected by Telkom and that includes avery business in this country, every competitor to Telkom too. The Competition Commissions findings are hugely relevant to consumers as well as competitors to Telkom as it underpins the motivation for forming this body irrefutably.
stoke
Honorary Master
The LAST-MILE-PROVISION propoganda.
A lot has been said in the media concerning the provision of communication infrastructure to underdeveloped sections of the country. It is commonly known that providing high-speed broadband access to a point on the fringes on the outside of the community is easily done, where-as the actual provision of the final piece from that Fringe Point to the customer is problematic. This extra piece of the network is known as the LAST-MILE. Each supplier ends up investing huge sums of money in wired or wireless technology that provides the LAST-MILE functionality. In addition, this technology is upgraded constantly, increasing the cost and effectively increasing the complexity.
This is complete and utter rubbish. Since the early eighties, community managed MESH networks have existed, and can still be effectively utilised today to provide the LAST-MILE connection to the customer. The MESH network consitst of a once-off payment of around R5000.00, and a LOW monthly electricity usage. It's lifespan would be about 10 years. One MESH access point can easily service 20 surrounding residences.
Every time privision of services is discussed, MESH network's are completely ignored as a means of providing the LAST-MILE access. This is blatent profiteering. The MESH solution does work, and it's cheap and efficient.
Community run MESH networks are illegal in this country. This is nonsense.
NOW - IS IT LEGAL FOR A BLACK PERSON TO RUN A MESH NETWORK ?
Thoughts - use it / don't.
A lot has been said in the media concerning the provision of communication infrastructure to underdeveloped sections of the country. It is commonly known that providing high-speed broadband access to a point on the fringes on the outside of the community is easily done, where-as the actual provision of the final piece from that Fringe Point to the customer is problematic. This extra piece of the network is known as the LAST-MILE. Each supplier ends up investing huge sums of money in wired or wireless technology that provides the LAST-MILE functionality. In addition, this technology is upgraded constantly, increasing the cost and effectively increasing the complexity.
This is complete and utter rubbish. Since the early eighties, community managed MESH networks have existed, and can still be effectively utilised today to provide the LAST-MILE connection to the customer. The MESH network consitst of a once-off payment of around R5000.00, and a LOW monthly electricity usage. It's lifespan would be about 10 years. One MESH access point can easily service 20 surrounding residences.
Every time privision of services is discussed, MESH network's are completely ignored as a means of providing the LAST-MILE access. This is blatent profiteering. The MESH solution does work, and it's cheap and efficient.
Community run MESH networks are illegal in this country. This is nonsense.
NOW - IS IT LEGAL FOR A BLACK PERSON TO RUN A MESH NETWORK ?
Thoughts - use it / don't.
Last edited:
Debbie
Banned
Adlo - thanks for your comments. I personally think it is critical to include the Competition Commission's findings. The point I am trying to make above is that the CC's finding with regard to the VANS complaint are "indicative" of Telkom's general behaviour, i.e., if Telkom is guilty of gross abuse of power towards the VANS, then this points to how Telkom behaves towards their customers. How do others feel about this?
SA's WTO commitments - yes, essential, I forgot about that. I need to read up more about these. As far as I understand, SA is signatory to one international agreement in particular, I think it's the WTO General Agreement on Basic Services Liberalisation. I may be incorrect here, but from what I understand SA's obligations as a signatory to this treaty are to establish an independent regulator and some very vague obligations about taking steps towards liberalisation. SA may be fulfilling these latter commitments, but it is my opinion that SA is not fulfilling the commitment to establish an independent regulator (yes yes, we have ICASA, but this is meaningless as Minister has to approve everything Icasa says). I do need to read up more, thanks for bringing that up.
We do need to include information about the 'last mile' and MESH networks. I however am completely unable to do this - I don't understand enough. Will someone else volunteer to write a thing on this? Stoke, can we simply copy and paste what you have said here? Is the information 100% accurate? Who is to blame for this, govt or Telkom or both?
Thanks for the comments.
SA's WTO commitments - yes, essential, I forgot about that. I need to read up more about these. As far as I understand, SA is signatory to one international agreement in particular, I think it's the WTO General Agreement on Basic Services Liberalisation. I may be incorrect here, but from what I understand SA's obligations as a signatory to this treaty are to establish an independent regulator and some very vague obligations about taking steps towards liberalisation. SA may be fulfilling these latter commitments, but it is my opinion that SA is not fulfilling the commitment to establish an independent regulator (yes yes, we have ICASA, but this is meaningless as Minister has to approve everything Icasa says). I do need to read up more, thanks for bringing that up.
We do need to include information about the 'last mile' and MESH networks. I however am completely unable to do this - I don't understand enough. Will someone else volunteer to write a thing on this? Stoke, can we simply copy and paste what you have said here? Is the information 100% accurate? Who is to blame for this, govt or Telkom or both?
Thanks for the comments.
A Mesh
from my limited yet informed knowledge of a mesh what makes it so apt for our south african situation is that it obviates last 10 mile delivery.
Take the INDRANET model for example. Houses install minder boxes - a radio/wireless receiver and transmitter. In INdranets case delivering 2Mb up and down stream, voice, data and video. These minders talk to each other (obviously) and the more that are installed the wider and more reliable becomes the network. Super users install bigger boxes with larger capacity. this in turn increases the integrity of the mesh, eventually they all talk to each other and obviate the need for ANY OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE other than the mesh itself. Even if UTHINGO type operators start with minder boxes in the townships, even these will increase the capacity and capability for the townships...it doesnt matter where or who the boxes are that you are linking through.
MW-POP please please can you post some more relevant and accurate info for us?
from my limited yet informed knowledge of a mesh what makes it so apt for our south african situation is that it obviates last 10 mile delivery.
Take the INDRANET model for example. Houses install minder boxes - a radio/wireless receiver and transmitter. In INdranets case delivering 2Mb up and down stream, voice, data and video. These minders talk to each other (obviously) and the more that are installed the wider and more reliable becomes the network. Super users install bigger boxes with larger capacity. this in turn increases the integrity of the mesh, eventually they all talk to each other and obviate the need for ANY OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE other than the mesh itself. Even if UTHINGO type operators start with minder boxes in the townships, even these will increase the capacity and capability for the townships...it doesnt matter where or who the boxes are that you are linking through.
MW-POP please please can you post some more relevant and accurate info for us?
heya all,
if anyone in the johannesburg area can help out tomorrow. we have an NB meeting to get to with a good sponser. please email me directly at [email protected].
(meetings in the afternoon)
I kinda got hijacked not to long ago, and have issues with transport.
Shot
PS, site almost done, you can sneak a peak at http://www.antitrust.co.za/wiki
if anyone in the johannesburg area can help out tomorrow. we have an NB meeting to get to with a good sponser. please email me directly at [email protected].
(meetings in the afternoon)
I kinda got hijacked not to long ago, and have issues with transport.
Shot
PS, site almost done, you can sneak a peak at http://www.antitrust.co.za/wiki
Debbie
Banned
Pan posted the draft mission statement on another forum, started up a pretty lively discussion, and then made me reply to the 6 pages of questions (!) Lol Pan, just having a dig - you know I don't mind 
Anyway, I wrote quite a bit back, and thought I'd paste what I wrote here. Suggestions and comments as always welcome (though you know I draw the line at "You are fat and ugly and have no life").
Anyway, I wrote quite a bit back, and thought I'd paste what I wrote here. Suggestions and comments as always welcome (though you know I draw the line at "You are fat and ugly and have no life").
Debbie2 said:
Hello,
Just for the record... the ``other forum`` is not lost the ether...
We actually have been discussing this topic for the past few months... Maximus invited Pan to our forum to inform us about AntiTrust... so we all started to used that thread instead...
I cannot speak for the other memberz, nor do I even what that respon.... but I think AntiTrust can make a difference...
I am willing to assist in whatever way I can, and I would like to know what our current status is so that I may assist?
Debbie
Banned
Lol Wolvebain, my apologies. You see, I am very much a n00b when it comes to the internet and I struggle to find my way around. Like really struggle. Took me weeks to actually figure out properly what IRC was 
You'll have to speak to Pan re status.
You'll have to speak to Pan re status.
stoke
Honorary Master
Mesh + Last-mile
Sorry debs - i'm not ignoring you.
I'll need to research my "FACT's" properly.
I need till Saturday 28th May to do this - please hold.
Debbie2 said:
Sorry debs - i'm not ignoring you.
I'll need to research my "FACT's" properly.
I need till Saturday 28th May to do this - please hold.
I also need time to do research please. I am trying to get some useful info that may be of value to spread the word i.e. alert Telkom ADSL customers.
I am going to admit that I am scared! Telkom likes to sue, individuals especially.
I am going to admit that I am scared! Telkom likes to sue, individuals especially.
Kei said:
Funny thing happened this weekend. My credit card and my bank card were "eaten" by a Bob machine. I bank with Nedbank. The machine said my cardswere expired but they only expire in 2007, both of them. I was stuck at Gateway with my 3 year old (starving hungry for a very necessary ice cream) and no cash and no way of drawing any cash and no way of paying for my parking.
Guess who sat at the bank machine and sh@t herself thinking that Telkom had somehow done this to me? Talk about paranoia. Decided if this was the case it would make AWESOME press so dug around in the black hole of calcutta that is my handbag, found some change and went home.
Watch this space - phonecall to nedbank imminent.
bb_matt
Executive Member
Tell me what you think of the style of antitrust.co.za/wiki - spent a good few hours puzzling through the CSS code and the PHP templates, TikiWiki is an amazingly well documented piece of software. Not sure if I overdid the red ?
Is everyone happy with the logo ?
Spoke to Pan - thinking the bottom buttons should all be removed except for relevant ones like MyADSL and ITweb - after all, the site isn't about "Pear, PHP, RDF" and whatever - what do you all think ?
Ahh - just realised - need to put Hellkom.co.za in there too !
Must make a button - or see if MaD already has done one ...
Is everyone happy with the logo ?
Spoke to Pan - thinking the bottom buttons should all be removed except for relevant ones like MyADSL and ITweb - after all, the site isn't about "Pear, PHP, RDF" and whatever
- what do you all think ?Ahh - just realised - need to put Hellkom.co.za in there too !
Must make a button - or see if MaD already has done one ...