-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Google Maps vs Waze vs Apple Maps vs physical paper maps?
What happens when you do things right
- Thread starter hArTh
- Start date
Right - so here are my thoughts on how this would work here - very simplistically put, but I think you'll get the gist of it:
1. Government to buy-back all shares held by other foreign telcos in Telkrap;
2. Government to buy-back all shares held by institutional investors with substantial interests in foreign telcos or in competitor services offered by foreign telcos locally;
3. All buy-backs to be under-pinned by the principle that total Government ownership is desired once more;
3. Government then to offer a minimum of 51% of the shareholding in Telkrap to the public, maybe on the same basis as the IPO done previously;
4. The remainder to be available to institutional investors, with preference to those that are local and with a broad individual investment base, and not financial investment power-brokers or those with large government investment portfolios, whether local or foreign;
5. Government to legislate/regulate to assign similar regulatory, licensing and prosecutorial powers to ICASA as the Brits have given to OfCom;
6. Government to make the whole process fully transparent, speedy and expeditious.
That's it, in a nutshell - do it now, dammit!!! Forget about masturbating on issues of the SNO, prostituting yourselves on issues of ownership of the Thintana shares, or being gay about the ICANN/AfriNIC mechanism - we're all suffering on a par equal to that of the victims of our disgraceful HIV/AIDS situation, in case you can't see it! Maybe this comparison is somewhat over the top, but enough is enough, dammit!!
1. Government to buy-back all shares held by other foreign telcos in Telkrap;
2. Government to buy-back all shares held by institutional investors with substantial interests in foreign telcos or in competitor services offered by foreign telcos locally;
3. All buy-backs to be under-pinned by the principle that total Government ownership is desired once more;
3. Government then to offer a minimum of 51% of the shareholding in Telkrap to the public, maybe on the same basis as the IPO done previously;
4. The remainder to be available to institutional investors, with preference to those that are local and with a broad individual investment base, and not financial investment power-brokers or those with large government investment portfolios, whether local or foreign;
5. Government to legislate/regulate to assign similar regulatory, licensing and prosecutorial powers to ICASA as the Brits have given to OfCom;
6. Government to make the whole process fully transparent, speedy and expeditious.
That's it, in a nutshell - do it now, dammit!!! Forget about masturbating on issues of the SNO, prostituting yourselves on issues of ownership of the Thintana shares, or being gay about the ICANN/AfriNIC mechanism - we're all suffering on a par equal to that of the victims of our disgraceful HIV/AIDS situation, in case you can't see it! Maybe this comparison is somewhat over the top, but enough is enough, dammit!!
mbs,
I had to read your post 3 times to get rid of the knee-jerk reaction I had to "Government to buy-back all shares..." (I do not own shares in Telkom).
In theory you have a good plan.
It isn't blazingly clear though, whether you feel government should be allowed to hold onto a controlling block of shares in Telkom.
I think you are saying government should not hold shares in Telkom, if so I agree 100%.
IMO, the reason there is no SNO, and high Telkom prices, no cracking of the whip by ICASA: not in government's interests because Telkom is a major revenue collecting cash-cow.
As far as I'm concerned 40% of: the difference between what we are paying Telkom and what we should be paying Telkom is actually a stealth tax.
Like I said in theory your plan should work, in practice I have grave doubts, because the fly in the ointment is government - they are not going to let go of their cash-cow, and cannot be trusted, hence the reason why there is no SNO.
I had to read your post 3 times to get rid of the knee-jerk reaction I had to "Government to buy-back all shares..." (I do not own shares in Telkom).
In theory you have a good plan.
It isn't blazingly clear though, whether you feel government should be allowed to hold onto a controlling block of shares in Telkom.
I think you are saying government should not hold shares in Telkom, if so I agree 100%.
IMO, the reason there is no SNO, and high Telkom prices, no cracking of the whip by ICASA: not in government's interests because Telkom is a major revenue collecting cash-cow.
As far as I'm concerned 40% of: the difference between what we are paying Telkom and what we should be paying Telkom is actually a stealth tax.
Like I said in theory your plan should work, in practice I have grave doubts, because the fly in the ointment is government - they are not going to let go of their cash-cow, and cannot be trusted, hence the reason why there is no SNO.
IC - heehee 
- like I said, 'simplistically put' - but you're right: the objective being, that Government ultimately does not own a single share in Telkrap, but indeed maintains control through legislative/regulatory means. After all, the assets belong to all of our citizenry, not a privileged few (and I'm also not one of them!).
I really have no idea whether this will work in practice, but I don't see why not. Again very simplistically put - after ownership has passed on the basis proposed, Government should appoint the Management for this new telco that now has real broad-based ownership, in the form of a management services contract of sorts, with guaranteed returns over the period of the contract, tied to clear oversight and governance mechanisms that remain instruments of Government.
Concerning the SNO, methinx Government should trash the idea of a holding company - take the same approach I've proposed towards Eskom and Transtel, and then let the likes of Two and Nextel buy-in if they want to. Couple this to unrestricted issuance of the necessary licenses, and institute/maintain oversight and governance mechanisms on the new operating entity.
Of course, all of this is merely pie-in-the-sky, but what the hell - allow me some freedom of thought and the oppotunity to dream, much like CURRY...
- like I said, 'simplistically put' - but you're right: the objective being, that Government ultimately does not own a single share in Telkrap, but indeed maintains control through legislative/regulatory means. After all, the assets belong to all of our citizenry, not a privileged few (and I'm also not one of them!).I really have no idea whether this will work in practice, but I don't see why not. Again very simplistically put - after ownership has passed on the basis proposed, Government should appoint the Management for this new telco that now has real broad-based ownership, in the form of a management services contract of sorts, with guaranteed returns over the period of the contract, tied to clear oversight and governance mechanisms that remain instruments of Government.
Concerning the SNO, methinx Government should trash the idea of a holding company - take the same approach I've proposed towards Eskom and Transtel, and then let the likes of Two and Nextel buy-in if they want to. Couple this to unrestricted issuance of the necessary licenses, and institute/maintain oversight and governance mechanisms on the new operating entity.
Of course, all of this is merely pie-in-the-sky, but what the hell - allow me some freedom of thought and the oppotunity to dream, much like CURRY...
Way way waaaay o/t:
I too am looking at the clouds right now, and they are not exactly white, somewhat more gloomy looking, day-dreaming that it might actually rain, Curry where is that research you were supposed to do, it's time Curry told us why rainbows exist and such like?
I too am looking at the clouds right now, and they are not exactly white, somewhat more gloomy looking, day-dreaming that it might actually rain, Curry where is that research you were supposed to do, it's time Curry told us why rainbows exist and such like?
Sort of back on topic again:
mbs, having thought a bit more about what you've said, naturally I agree that government has a role to play in the telecomms sector, and any other sector for that matter.
I view the role of the minister and the Department of Communications as being purely legislative - they should be drafting new laws and ammending old ones.
I really don't think the DOC/government are all too good at oversight/control of Telkom in particular. The DOC should be kept busy enough with purely legislative activities.
Let the department legislate in consultation with the telecomms roleplayers, ICASA, and also public bodies that the voters could join to have their views represented (dare I suggest this forum?).
I would prefer that such oversight & control be implemented indirectly by ICASA though (not Department of Communications), naturally ICASA should be handed a set of sharpened dentures to really bite down hard with.
Let ICASA answer to the people by answering to government, in particular the DOC.
I would also like to know if ICASA were represented at the ICANN meeting, and if not, why not?
Now for a blatantly sarcastic comment from myself: I think the minister only pitched up at the ICANN meeting with that overrated speech because there was a free lunch on offer.
mbs, having thought a bit more about what you've said, naturally I agree that government has a role to play in the telecomms sector, and any other sector for that matter.
I view the role of the minister and the Department of Communications as being purely legislative - they should be drafting new laws and ammending old ones.
I really don't think the DOC/government are all too good at oversight/control of Telkom in particular. The DOC should be kept busy enough with purely legislative activities.
Let the department legislate in consultation with the telecomms roleplayers, ICASA, and also public bodies that the voters could join to have their views represented (dare I suggest this forum?).
I would prefer that such oversight & control be implemented indirectly by ICASA though (not Department of Communications), naturally ICASA should be handed a set of sharpened dentures to really bite down hard with.
Let ICASA answer to the people by answering to government, in particular the DOC.
I would also like to know if ICASA were represented at the ICANN meeting, and if not, why not?
Now for a blatantly sarcastic comment from myself: I think the minister only pitched up at the ICANN meeting with that overrated speech because there was a free lunch on offer.
I concur with what you're saying, IC - the role of Government is primarily to make policy and legislate. Regarding oversight and governance, independent agencies such as ICASA are the ideal mechanisms to ensure compliancy, provided they have the means and the wherewithal, as stated previously using other terms. Unfortunately, the direct organs of state (like the DoC and any other Department you may think of) do not consider such agencies as being of any consequence, and in fact see them as being subordinate to their own activities and status in the bigger scheme of things. When it comes to the DoC, I place the blame for much of this scenario squarely on the shoulders of the previous DG - technically a very solid resource, but a power-broker par excellence, as recent events have proved.
There are in fact oversight committees that sit in Parliament, and to which both ICASA and Telkrap have to report. There are also what are called 'clusters' in Government - these are inter-departmental forums, where matters of common concern between departments are discussed. I'm not sure who sits on the Communications cluster these days, but I think besides the DoC, the other departments are the GCIS, the Office of the Presidency, DoPW and DTI - I may be wrong, though.
Anyways, bottom line is that somebody has to 'crack the whip' - I recall posting some time ago last year that the way to fix things, is to fire the asses of the executive and the top decision-makers at Telkrap: and this, well before Sizwe's exorbitant salary and the obscene profits made by Telkrap came to light! Thankfully, the liberalisation directives of Dr Ivy hold out much promise of effective change, albeit not soon enough in the opinion of most - there is some light at the end of the tunnel, however!
There are in fact oversight committees that sit in Parliament, and to which both ICASA and Telkrap have to report. There are also what are called 'clusters' in Government - these are inter-departmental forums, where matters of common concern between departments are discussed. I'm not sure who sits on the Communications cluster these days, but I think besides the DoC, the other departments are the GCIS, the Office of the Presidency, DoPW and DTI - I may be wrong, though.
Anyways, bottom line is that somebody has to 'crack the whip' - I recall posting some time ago last year that the way to fix things, is to fire the asses of the executive and the top decision-makers at Telkrap: and this, well before Sizwe's exorbitant salary and the obscene profits made by Telkrap came to light! Thankfully, the liberalisation directives of Dr Ivy hold out much promise of effective change, albeit not soon enough in the opinion of most - there is some light at the end of the tunnel, however!
mbs,
Actually I did not know about the clusters and exactly how it all works - I would rather watch golf on TV than watch parliament live, not that I have time for either one, and I find golf just about the most boring thing to watch whether on TV or not.
The whole clusters / oversight committee thing is starting to sound vaguely American, and if that's what we've got, maybe we should just form lobby groups to influence these committees, in particular the one that ICASA and Telkom report to.
The problem with Telkom - it is the tail which has been wagging-off-the-dog for way too long now, things need to be thrown back into balance ASAP.
So, if we are all serious about forcing a change, we need to consider trying the lobby group angle.
That means you, the person that has just read this, and everyone else on MyADSL/MyBroadband.
We need to start communicating beyond ourselves, expand our sphere of influence, get in touch with the influential political figures that have any kind of sway in these committees / clusters, we need to highlight bottlenecks to progress & propose practical implementable changes.
How? Where do we start? Your ideas please. If you disagree - I repeat - your ideas please!
Actually I did not know about the clusters and exactly how it all works - I would rather watch golf on TV than watch parliament live, not that I have time for either one, and I find golf just about the most boring thing to watch whether on TV or not.
The whole clusters / oversight committee thing is starting to sound vaguely American, and if that's what we've got, maybe we should just form lobby groups to influence these committees, in particular the one that ICASA and Telkom report to.
The problem with Telkom - it is the tail which has been wagging-off-the-dog for way too long now, things need to be thrown back into balance ASAP.
So, if we are all serious about forcing a change, we need to consider trying the lobby group angle.
That means you, the person that has just read this, and everyone else on MyADSL/MyBroadband.
We need to start communicating beyond ourselves, expand our sphere of influence, get in touch with the influential political figures that have any kind of sway in these committees / clusters, we need to highlight bottlenecks to progress & propose practical implementable changes.
How? Where do we start? Your ideas please. If you disagree - I repeat - your ideas please!
Last edited:
hArTh
Expert Member
Man creates problems. Government and bureaucrats magnify them 100 times.
--George Van Valkenburg
--George Van Valkenburg