Telkom 'milks' Joe Public

BTTB

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
8,413
Reaction score
1,049
Location
iKapa
http://www.finance24.com/Finance/Companies/0,,1518-24_1643307,00.html

Telkom 'milks' Joe Public
05/01/2005 12:36 - (SA)

John Samson and
Shoks Mzolo (I-Net Bridge)
Johannesburg - In expressing its dismay at Telkom's new tariffs for 2005, the Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu) on Wednesday accused the fixed-line monopoly of 'milking' poor South Africans to support tourists.

Despite raking in a profit of R2.77bn for the six months to September 2004, Telkom pushed through tariff increases disadvantaging local consumers.

Telkom has made much fanfare of the fact it would only increase tariffs by an average of 0.2%, but a breakdown of the tariff increases reveals that while certain charges have been drastically reduced, residential users are in fact subject to stiff price increases.

With effect from January 1, Telkom increased the cost of local calls and calls to mobile destinations while reducing international destination-bound rates by an average of 28%.

Telkom also increased the cost of local peak calls by 5.5% and increase monthly residential subscriptions by 6.3%.

It seems incongruous that Telkom increased the cost to rent a telephone line, as the number disconnections since 1997 indicates the average person is struggling to afford Telkom's basic charges.

A recent trade union study commissioned by Solidarity shows that Telkom has installed 2.85m new lines since 1997, yet only 600&nbsp000 of these lines are still in use.

While outgoing calls to cellular services have risen to R1.89 a minute, calls to Australia, Canada, France, Greece, Ireland, UK and the US now cost R1.70 a minute.

It costs R1.66 a minute to call Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, the San Marino Republic, Sweden and Switzerland.

Telkom charges the same rate for calls to neighbouring states such as Botswana, Lesotho and Namibia.

Cosatu spokesperson Advocate Paul Notyawa argued it was obvious that Telkom based its tariff adjustments on tourism and big business trends.

"The message is clear, they are saying to tourists 'come to South Africa, it will be cheaper to call home'. They are continually extorting money from our poor masses to subsidise rich people and others from abroad," he said.

"It's quite embarrassing. It's a continued immoral stand that is prepared to sacrifice poor people for the benefit of people with money."

According to Statistics South Africa, 5.9 million employed people earn up to R800 a month while the South African Reserve Bank said the official unemployment rate is at 28.8% in a country which is home to 44 million inhabitants.

Notyawa said Cosatu will soon issue a statement on points such as the "double exploitation" wrought by Telkom's new rates.

It will also re-iterate its call - to the ministry, phone monopoly and other stakeholders - for a need to explore an amicable settlement that will ensure "our masses as well" benefit from tariff adjustments.

The union federation, which will mark its 20th anniversary in March, is one of the Proudly South African Campaign's founding members along with Telkom and a host of other organisations.
 
What I personally find the funniest about this entire situation is that it is cheaper to make an international call than it is to make a local cellular call. If it was at all possible I'd consider doing business overseas as it would cost me less to call my clients there than it does here. Its almost impossible not to laugh that we find ourselves in a situation where an absolute minority is subsidised by an ever decreasing majority. I can't even understand what they are trying to do, as it stands it seems they want to make having a telephone line in your home a luxury. I mean how could it make any possible sense to a company to go about the cost of installing 2.8million line only to leave 600000 in use? It can truely only be in south-africa where the cost to 600000 people is equal to the loss of 2.2million. If I could personally choose I would rather have 2.2million people paying an affordable R200 a month than just 600000 who try and keep their accounts down and pay R500 a month. But then again it comes down too the simple issue that if your not happy with Telkom, who do you go to then?
 
Once again, i only say this from memory, but a highly respectable company defended Telkom charges based on business practise. The way the specific newspaper(i forget once again) represented the story was a buncha bullshit. I'm am perfectly sure that what was meant was that from a purely profit orientated view(and short term at that), Telkom would make more money, despite more disconnections. This is simple first year economics.
What this means is that if Telkom charges two rand with five cutsomers, then it earns ten rand. If that but if it raises it's charges to five rand with two disconections, it earns R15. This means that what matters is not that disconection A and B may be a small business with huge long term potential for the economy. What matters is that it makes R5 extra.
What i liked about the change in legislation regarding cell companies and the transfer of numbers is that it was a very good strategic move in a time when the cell companies are established and well managed and capable of facing this new challenge. Hey, maybe at the end of the day, it will cheaper to use a cellphone to make a local call.
 
AFAIK, the need to introduce Number Portability has been driven by the need for a SNO.

A SNO cannot function without Number Portability.

As a spin-off of Number Portability, the cellular network operators will be forced to compete with each other.

IMO, Vodacom, MTN, CellC have not been competing with one another, they have merely been co-existing together, and victimising their customers by locking them into 24 month contracts.
 
One thing that drives me crazy are 24 month contracts.

All the problems we have here regarding telecoms (and other stuff), you can firmly put the blame on the bunch of comedians running the country IMHO. This should and could have been sorted years ago (SNO,# portability, ending forced Telkom interconnecting, VOIP etc), yet still to this day Ivy and co cannot or *do not* want to implement any serious changes. Telkom should have actually been broken up.

The end result in SA is now a technlogy backwater with crippling business costs, (seriously undermining our world competitiveness and hindering job creation), not to mention the lack of opportunity for the young or unemployed to advance their education etc.

Telkom are only doing what they have been allowed to. And thensome.
 
Hi

I agree with the idea that Telkom should have been broken up. We do not need a new company when this parastatal could have been chopped up into 3 or 4 pieces that already are up and running. They should all then have been assigned new top line executives with legislation preventing one telco merging with the other. There should also be no dual ownership. If you have shares in one, you cannot have shares in another if you end up with controlling shares in more than one. The market should be open and fair, meaning that anybody from South Africa can buy shares in any of the telco's and even start a new telco in the market. Cooperation agreements may not include price fixing, but can include collective ownership of overseas communication links. There should also be no limit to the amount of links that can be obtained by any one company. If another company buys a said amount of bandwidth, another company can buy the same if not more... In other words, there should not be control over bandwidth as is the case now.

Cheers
Ant
 
I also agree that Telkom should've been split up, but that is more hindsight in my case bcos I never paid much attention to them until they started bleeding me dry after their "privatisation" (if government still owns 40% is that really privatisation?).

Lets learn from this bcos sooner or later Sentech will probably be "privatised" as well, and that's definitely a company that needs to be split up into much smaller bite-size chunks.
 
In my mind, it comes down to ethics. A business needs to make a profit, else it is a charity, but is it right to screw people over repeatedly so that you can make obscene profits?
Do any of you who run your own businesses do this? If so, then you should have no problem with the Telkom "I can and am gonna screw you over" attitude.

If people could not afford telephone lines, rentals and call charges, what exactly was the government really thinking in forcing Telkom to install them? So the lines could be stolen and people not able to afford it? I think they need to look at the reality of helping the poor. The method of helping the poor is different... the company will make less profit or even a loss on those customers. It all looks like a charade to me.. to buy more time... and more votes.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X