louiss
Active Member
http://www.finance24.co.za/Finance/Companies/0,,1518-24_1488780,00.html
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Have you ever ordered a product online and received a fake knock-off?
Telkom could be in serious trouble
- Thread starter louiss
- Start date
And to think that they are listed as Proudly South African.
Read this relevent link. Getting Telkom struck off ProudlySA list
People on this forum including myself sent emails to PSA, but alas as usual, no replies. Telkom as a founding sponsor of PSA obviously must have some sort of immunity.
I think the whole Telkom Ballsup needs immediate emergency government intervention.
This info deserves to go to the News Section of MyADSL.
<b><hr noshade size="1"></b><font size="2"><font color="red"><b>You can take Telkom out of the Post Office but you can't take the Post Office out of Telkom.</b></font id="red"></font id="size2">
Read this relevent link. Getting Telkom struck off ProudlySA list
People on this forum including myself sent emails to PSA, but alas as usual, no replies. Telkom as a founding sponsor of PSA obviously must have some sort of immunity.
I think the whole Telkom Ballsup needs immediate emergency government intervention.
This info deserves to go to the News Section of MyADSL.
<b><hr noshade size="1"></b><font size="2"><font color="red"><b>You can take Telkom out of the Post Office but you can't take the Post Office out of Telkom.</b></font id="red"></font id="size2">
Care to post the text? That website blocks all foreign traffic and requires $$$ to view.
<font color="blue"><b>The clock is ticking................... <i>1,174 kb/s</i> - I brake for no one</b></font id="blue">
http://home.cogeco.ca/~johannj/net_stuff/cogeco.jpg
<font color="blue"><b>The clock is ticking................... <i>1,174 kb/s</i> - I brake for no one</b></font id="blue">
http://home.cogeco.ca/~johannj/net_stuff/cogeco.jpg
Amanda Visser
Johannesburg - Telkom may be fined by more than R3bn for its uncompetitive actions against value added networks (VAN).
The Competitions Commission found in an investigation that Telkom abused its dominant position to deny these networks access to its facilities.
The Commission requested, among other things, an administrative fine of 10% of the telecommunications' giant's annual turnover.
At least 20 networks, under the auspices of the association for value added networks (SAVA) filed a complaint against Telkom with the commission in 2002.
The commission has referred its guilty verdict to the Competitions Tribunal for a final ruling.
The commission said Telkom was guilty of contravening the Competitions Act, and asked the tribunal to forbid Telkom from continuing with its uncompetitive practises.
The commission also asked that Telkom pay an administrative fine of 10% of its annual turnover.
The investigation
Advocate Menzi Simelane, commissioner, said the investigation found that Telkom set unreasonable conditions to make its telecommunication services available to these networks.
These networks provide services that compete with those of Telkom, such as e-mail, electronic data swapping and internet service provision.
The networks are totally dependent on Telkom to deliver services to their clients.
The commission found that the networks had no choice but to adhere to Telkom's conditions because they could not function without the telecommunications' giant's line facilities.
The fact that Telkom also competes in the networks' market, places it at a "strategic advantageous position" compared to its competitors.
SAVA's complaints
SAVA's complaints against Telkom include one that it refused to make facilities (such as cables or telecommunication lines) available to certain networks.
Also, that it refused to rent out access facilities directly to network providers, and that it refused to provide facilities necessary for the interlinking of independent networks for internet service providers.
OmniLink, a subsidiary of Internet Solutions, argued that Telkom itself offered the network service to one of its clients.
The price it charged was less than what it would cost OmniLink to do it through Telkom.
Telkom takes note
Telkom said it took note of the commission's decision, and would react as soon as it receives the notices.
Mandla Ngcobo, Telkom's head of legal affairs, said his company made its communication facilities available to the networks within the legal and regulatory frameworks as set out by the Independent Communication Authority (Icasa) in their earlier findings.
He said Telkom was convinced that it did not abuse its dominant position.
The conflict with SAVA was related to aspects that were still pending with Icasa.
Telkom took some of the networks to task, and claimed that they had contravened their licensing conditions.
<b><hr noshade size="1"></b><font size="2"><font color="red"><b>You can take Telkom out of the Post Office but you can't take the Post Office out of Telkom.</b></font id="red"></font id="size2">
Johannesburg - Telkom may be fined by more than R3bn for its uncompetitive actions against value added networks (VAN).
The Competitions Commission found in an investigation that Telkom abused its dominant position to deny these networks access to its facilities.
The Commission requested, among other things, an administrative fine of 10% of the telecommunications' giant's annual turnover.
At least 20 networks, under the auspices of the association for value added networks (SAVA) filed a complaint against Telkom with the commission in 2002.
The commission has referred its guilty verdict to the Competitions Tribunal for a final ruling.
The commission said Telkom was guilty of contravening the Competitions Act, and asked the tribunal to forbid Telkom from continuing with its uncompetitive practises.
The commission also asked that Telkom pay an administrative fine of 10% of its annual turnover.
The investigation
Advocate Menzi Simelane, commissioner, said the investigation found that Telkom set unreasonable conditions to make its telecommunication services available to these networks.
These networks provide services that compete with those of Telkom, such as e-mail, electronic data swapping and internet service provision.
The networks are totally dependent on Telkom to deliver services to their clients.
The commission found that the networks had no choice but to adhere to Telkom's conditions because they could not function without the telecommunications' giant's line facilities.
The fact that Telkom also competes in the networks' market, places it at a "strategic advantageous position" compared to its competitors.
SAVA's complaints
SAVA's complaints against Telkom include one that it refused to make facilities (such as cables or telecommunication lines) available to certain networks.
Also, that it refused to rent out access facilities directly to network providers, and that it refused to provide facilities necessary for the interlinking of independent networks for internet service providers.
OmniLink, a subsidiary of Internet Solutions, argued that Telkom itself offered the network service to one of its clients.
The price it charged was less than what it would cost OmniLink to do it through Telkom.
Telkom takes note
Telkom said it took note of the commission's decision, and would react as soon as it receives the notices.
Mandla Ngcobo, Telkom's head of legal affairs, said his company made its communication facilities available to the networks within the legal and regulatory frameworks as set out by the Independent Communication Authority (Icasa) in their earlier findings.
He said Telkom was convinced that it did not abuse its dominant position.
The conflict with SAVA was related to aspects that were still pending with Icasa.
Telkom took some of the networks to task, and claimed that they had contravened their licensing conditions.
<b><hr noshade size="1"></b><font size="2"><font color="red"><b>You can take Telkom out of the Post Office but you can't take the Post Office out of Telkom.</b></font id="red"></font id="size2">
This is serious for Telkom.
Each and every Telkom adsl / ISDN / 56K dial-up user
could form part of a class action suit against telkom.
imho Telkom is in complete violation of the Act in almost all respects.
Any fines should be paid to the people of South Africa.
We must fight for this.
read my post : http://www.myadsl.co.za/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=842
<font color="blue"><i>The law must take its course</i></font id="blue"> - [
]
Each and every Telkom adsl / ISDN / 56K dial-up user
could form part of a class action suit against telkom.
imho Telkom is in complete violation of the Act in almost all respects.
Any fines should be paid to the people of South Africa.
We must fight for this.
read my post : http://www.myadsl.co.za/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=842
<font color="blue"><i>The law must take its course</i></font id="blue"> - [
]<b>from archives 20th October 2003</b>
<font color="blue">
The Competition Commission is a statutory body constituted in terms of the Competition Act, No 89 of 1998 by the Government of South Africa empowered to investigate, control and evaluate restrictive business practices, abuse of dominant positions and mergers in order to achieve equity and efficiency in the South African economy
http://www.compcom.co.za/
Imho Telkom, ICASA, the government and the whole shooting match are all acting in violation of the law - The Competition Act.
Here is an extract from the Act:
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
No. 1392
30 October 1998
It is hereby notified that the President has assented to the following Act which is hereby published for general information:-
NO.89 OF 1998: COMPETITION ACT, 1998.
(English text signed by the President)
(Assented to 20 October 1998.)
ACT
To provide for the establishment of a Competition Commission responsible for the investigation, control and evaluation of restrictive practices, abuse of dominant, position, and mergers; and for the establishment of a Competition Tribunal responsible to adjudicate such matters; and for the establishment of a Competition Appeal Court; and for related matters.
PREAMBLE
The people of South Africa recognise:
That apartheid and other discriminatory laws and practices of the past resulted in excessive concentrations of ownership and control within the national economy, weak enforcement of anti-competitive trade practices, and unjust restrictions on full and free participation in the economy by all South Africans.
That the economy must be open to greater ownership by a greater number of South Africans.
That credible competition law, and effective structures to administer that law are necessary for an efficient functioning economy.
That an efficient, competitive economic environment, balancing the interests of workers, owners and consumers and focused on development, will benefit all South Africans.
IN ORDER TO-
provide all South Africans equal opportunity to participate fairly in the national economy; achieve a more effective and efficient economy in South Africa;
provide for markets in which consumers have access to, and can freely select the quality and variety of goods and services they desire;
create greater capability and an environment for South Africans to compete effectively in international markets;
restrain particular trade practices which undermine a competitive economy; regulate the transfer of economic ownership in keeping with the public interest;
establish independent institutions to monitor economic competition; and give effect to the international law obligations of the Republic. </font id="blue">
<font color="blue">
The Competition Commission is a statutory body constituted in terms of the Competition Act, No 89 of 1998 by the Government of South Africa empowered to investigate, control and evaluate restrictive business practices, abuse of dominant positions and mergers in order to achieve equity and efficiency in the South African economy
http://www.compcom.co.za/
Imho Telkom, ICASA, the government and the whole shooting match are all acting in violation of the law - The Competition Act.
Here is an extract from the Act:
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
No. 1392
30 October 1998
It is hereby notified that the President has assented to the following Act which is hereby published for general information:-
NO.89 OF 1998: COMPETITION ACT, 1998.
(English text signed by the President)
(Assented to 20 October 1998.)
ACT
To provide for the establishment of a Competition Commission responsible for the investigation, control and evaluation of restrictive practices, abuse of dominant, position, and mergers; and for the establishment of a Competition Tribunal responsible to adjudicate such matters; and for the establishment of a Competition Appeal Court; and for related matters.
PREAMBLE
The people of South Africa recognise:
That apartheid and other discriminatory laws and practices of the past resulted in excessive concentrations of ownership and control within the national economy, weak enforcement of anti-competitive trade practices, and unjust restrictions on full and free participation in the economy by all South Africans.
That the economy must be open to greater ownership by a greater number of South Africans.
That credible competition law, and effective structures to administer that law are necessary for an efficient functioning economy.
That an efficient, competitive economic environment, balancing the interests of workers, owners and consumers and focused on development, will benefit all South Africans.
IN ORDER TO-
provide all South Africans equal opportunity to participate fairly in the national economy; achieve a more effective and efficient economy in South Africa;
provide for markets in which consumers have access to, and can freely select the quality and variety of goods and services they desire;
create greater capability and an environment for South Africans to compete effectively in international markets;
restrain particular trade practices which undermine a competitive economy; regulate the transfer of economic ownership in keeping with the public interest;
establish independent institutions to monitor economic competition; and give effect to the international law obligations of the Republic. </font id="blue">
ajax
Executive Member
They should take the R3.7 billion and buy a 100 Gbits/sec fibre optics line to Europe. Then we NEVER have to hear the lame excuse of too expensive international bandwidth.
Ajax
Ajax
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">They should take the R3.7 billion and buy a 100 Gbits/sec fibre optics line to Europe. Then we NEVER have to hear the lame excuse of too expensive international bandwidth.
Ajax<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Sat3 will have ultimately 120gig capacity.
SAT-3/WASC
* Supply contract in force since March 2000
* Supplier: Alcatel Submarine Networks (France)
* System length: 14 350km
* System type: 4 fibre, OA, WDM
* System capacity: 120Gb/s ultimately
* 5.8 m simultaneous telephone calls
* Landings in Europe, West - and Southern Africa
* System design life of 25 year
SAFE
* Supply contract in force since December 1999
* Supplier: Tycom Submarine Cable Systems (USA)
* System length: 13 500km
* System type: 4 fibre, OA, WDM
* System capacity: 130Gb/s ultimately
* 6.3 million simultaneous telephone calls
* Landings in India, Malaysia, Mauritius, Reunion and South Africa
* System design life of 25 years
Look at this page for more info. safe-sat3
Also download the slideshow at the bottom. Its a local site for capped people.
<b><hr noshade size="1"></b><font size="2"><font color="red"><b>You can take Telkom out of the Post Office but you can't take the Post Office out of Telkom.</b></font id="red"></font id="size2">
Ajax<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Sat3 will have ultimately 120gig capacity.
SAT-3/WASC
* Supply contract in force since March 2000
* Supplier: Alcatel Submarine Networks (France)
* System length: 14 350km
* System type: 4 fibre, OA, WDM
* System capacity: 120Gb/s ultimately
* 5.8 m simultaneous telephone calls
* Landings in Europe, West - and Southern Africa
* System design life of 25 year
SAFE
* Supply contract in force since December 1999
* Supplier: Tycom Submarine Cable Systems (USA)
* System length: 13 500km
* System type: 4 fibre, OA, WDM
* System capacity: 130Gb/s ultimately
* 6.3 million simultaneous telephone calls
* Landings in India, Malaysia, Mauritius, Reunion and South Africa
* System design life of 25 years
Look at this page for more info. safe-sat3
Also download the slideshow at the bottom. Its a local site for capped people.
<b><hr noshade size="1"></b><font size="2"><font color="red"><b>You can take Telkom out of the Post Office but you can't take the Post Office out of Telkom.</b></font id="red"></font id="size2">
The sad and absolutely tragic aspect of all of this is the potential impact on Telkom's share value - there are probably tens of thousands of unsophisticates out there who bought into Telkom's share offer, out of a sense of patriotism and loyalty to the government.
I'm not sure about this, but wouldn't there be some governance issues if the 10% fine is affirmed, which shareholders could raise? This is maybe another 'pressure point', like a class action suit...
I'm not sure about this, but wouldn't there be some governance issues if the 10% fine is affirmed, which shareholders could raise? This is maybe another 'pressure point', like a class action suit...
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by mbs</i>
<br />The sad and absolutely tragic aspect of all of this is the potential impact on Telkom's share value - there are probably tens of thousands of unsophisticates out there who bought into Telkom's share offer, out of a sense of patriotism and loyalty to the government.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
See the worry on my face []. Those shares should have been sold once the nominal price doubled. Do we see another DiData lesson being learnt in the weeks ahead? The stock market is not for the faint hearted.
<br />The sad and absolutely tragic aspect of all of this is the potential impact on Telkom's share value - there are probably tens of thousands of unsophisticates out there who bought into Telkom's share offer, out of a sense of patriotism and loyalty to the government.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
See the worry on my face [
]. Those shares should have been sold once the nominal price doubled. Do we see another DiData lesson being learnt in the weeks ahead? The stock market is not for the faint hearted.I personally dont dabble in the stock market. I believe in a hard days work. I think one of the hardest lessons SA might still have over and above Telkom is Old Mutual. I own 13 Old Mutual policies and when they started this de-mutualisation, I was dead against it. The main reason I joined Old Mutual was because it was a Mutual Company. And all its interest belonged to its members. One wonders with losses Old Mutual has made in overseas companies, how much of my policy value has been eaten away. And I dont trust the stock market for long term growth. And when I bought policies this is what I wanted. Old Mutual shares are still R11 after several years. The point here is the SA public are easily fooled by the carrots corporations like Old Mutual and lately Telkom offer. People love this gamble. Its like the Lottery to them. But do they really understand how the stock market works.
Initially, like telkom it will seem like a bed of roses, but it will never last.
But out of principle I never bought Telkom shares. But this new R3bn revelation is the beginning I think. I predict this wont be the first fine telkom will get. This new verdict will bring more unhappy IT out people with their gripes. And if the general public had a go at Telkom one wonders how much cash they would have to pay the SA Concumer back.
<b><hr noshade size="1"></b><font size="2"><font color="red"><b>You can take Telkom out of the Post Office but you can't take the Post Office out of Telkom.</b></font id="red"></font id="size2">
Initially, like telkom it will seem like a bed of roses, but it will never last.
But out of principle I never bought Telkom shares. But this new R3bn revelation is the beginning I think. I predict this wont be the first fine telkom will get. This new verdict will bring more unhappy IT out people with their gripes. And if the general public had a go at Telkom one wonders how much cash they would have to pay the SA Concumer back.
<b><hr noshade size="1"></b><font size="2"><font color="red"><b>You can take Telkom out of the Post Office but you can't take the Post Office out of Telkom.</b></font id="red"></font id="size2">
For BTTB: sorry to hear about your Old Mutual situation. However, as a policyholder you probably have more rights and the added flexibility to manage your investments, than the unsophisticates who bought into Telkom shares - presumably they can only sell them at prevailing prices, or hold onto them...
Who gets the R3.7 billion?
If it goes to the government, who still own ~50% of Telkom they make R1.85 billion profit and the share holders loose 1.85 billion, plus the consumer has to come up with the full R3.7 billion through increased costs. Am I correct in my thinking here?
Rather than a fine, the money should be reinvested in bandwidth, infrastructure and education (for the help desk mainly) rather than going into the governments coffers.
It’s fun to see Telkom get hit, but this is a loose – loose situation for everyone but the lawyers and the government. Well in MHO at least.
Cheers
Chris
If it goes to the government, who still own ~50% of Telkom they make R1.85 billion profit and the share holders loose 1.85 billion, plus the consumer has to come up with the full R3.7 billion through increased costs. Am I correct in my thinking here?
Rather than a fine, the money should be reinvested in bandwidth, infrastructure and education (for the help desk mainly) rather than going into the governments coffers.
It’s fun to see Telkom get hit, but this is a loose – loose situation for everyone but the lawyers and the government. Well in MHO at least.
Cheers
Chris
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> Who gets the R3.7 billion?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
This is the big question. If it goes to the government, I would say this is a conflict of interest. How can the government receive money(fines) from a company it owns. Its like how can the government sue the government.
<b><hr noshade size="1"></b><font size="2"><font color="red"><b>You can take Telkom out of the Post Office but you can't take the Post Office out of Telkom.</b></font id="red"></font id="size2">
This is the big question. If it goes to the government, I would say this is a conflict of interest. How can the government receive money(fines) from a company it owns. Its like how can the government sue the government.
<b><hr noshade size="1"></b><font size="2"><font color="red"><b>You can take Telkom out of the Post Office but you can't take the Post Office out of Telkom.</b></font id="red"></font id="size2">
The scary thing is the second service provider has not even been around for a year and already Telkom has anti-competitive fines against them.
I agree that the money should be re-invested elsewhere. The governement should not see the money!
I agree that the money should be re-invested elsewhere. The governement should not see the money!
The proceeds from any penalty levied by the Tribunal must go to SAVA, to compensate for loss of business - this is the only reasonable and justifiable home for it. Of course, a portion will go to the Commission for its deliberations, the lawyers will take their cut, and so on. A portion should also go into a trust for further development of the SA telecoms industry (with an emphasis on education for responsible management), headed by somebody like Prof Melody, IMHO...
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by mbs</i>
(with an emphasis on education for responsible management)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I think the word is more like <b>rehabilitation</b>. There is an ethical way to do business and then...
(with an emphasis on education for responsible management)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I think the word is more like <b>rehabilitation</b>. There is an ethical way to do business and then...
Heehee - too true! [
] Keep the Trust clear of the criminals, however - let them pay their dues in jail and be rehabilitated by other means (if possible, though it's very difficult to change a value-set): rather use the money to ensure that future management understand the value of accountability, responsibility, ethics, and all those other good things that have to do with good corporate governance, including the correct alignment of the organisation within its social context...
] Keep the Trust clear of the criminals, however - let them pay their dues in jail and be rehabilitated by other means (if possible, though it's very difficult to change a value-set): rather use the money to ensure that future management understand the value of accountability, responsibility, ethics, and all those other good things that have to do with good corporate governance, including the correct alignment of the organisation within its social context...