Government helped build Vodacom and MTN

That happens automatically when consumers are overcharged. Stupid comment.
Maybe he can elaborate as to where all this money ends up.
 
Did government increase call termination rates to those ridiculous rates just before Cell C was eventually allowed to enter the market? I thought we had only the duopoly to thank for that :confused:
 
MTN and Vodacom grew at the expense of investment in fixed line

massive prejudice to the growth of fixed line internet is the core consequence of this and a culture of asymmetry on CTRs was established
frankly until MTN and Vodacom are prepared to accept the implications to the structure of the industry and propose a methodology of incentivizing investment they really have no case to make against ICASA perpetuating asymmetry in CTR to their disadvantage.
 
It is true. Vodacom and MTN got "given" spectrum for 3G by Ivy, and the monopolistic licensing regime allowed them to grow uncontrollably. Combine that with the fixed-line monopoly that was given to Telkom, and the high interconnect rate colluded between MTN and Vodacom, and it's easy to see that this is indeed the case.

The problem is that it wasn't intentional, or "by design", which is what Cwele seems to be claiming. It was through pure misconduct and mismanagement that the duopoly grew to the size it is today.

The Altech court case was the only thing that had any positive effect in the industry, and government can certainly claim no credit for that.

So yes, true story. But false spin.
 
Except that the "allowance" for Vodacom and MTN in the early 90's had a union share angle to it

There is an element of design in giving preferential treatment against the emerging market and consumers to Telkom, and giving preferential treatment against Telkom to selected "compliant" new entrants

The next round in this sort of managed liberalization bastardization of ordoliberal economic policy is to put out to tender in trough licences for new preferential entrants and so the cycle continues.
 
The field is level. The licensees post Altech all have the same rights. The only remaining issue is Spectrum licensing, and both ICASA and the DOC know this, which is why we've seen no movement or change in spectrum licensing.

Even the lack of spectrum is being circumvented with licensees finding creative ways of making use of unlicensed spectrum in order to deliver. The proliferation of WISPs and Wi-Fi build-outs is proof of that.

The one thing that consumers and the public have to continue to fight against is more consolidation such as the Vodacom/Neotel deal, in order to insure that the historically advantaged behemoths don't continue their standard practice of eating up competition thus reducing the surface of diversity that the Altech win brought.
 
The field is now mostly level - there is still a problem of regulatory capture and a failure to enforce the facilities leasing regulations, the MNOs still have far to heavy an incentive to play kiss ass to the minister of the time and the CTRs issue needs to avoid getting into a cycle of nonsense.

The Vodacom / Neotel deal isn't inherently a problem. What is a problem is the obsession with circumventing what is quite clear about the ECA (which gives rise to the level playing field) in handling the transaction. Neotel cannot transfer other than as a going concern without the spectrum being returned to the general pool. In essence we have to break this culture of asking for a special dispensation every time somebody wants to innovate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X