Altech fights ‘roughshod’ licence move

Question is whether the SA broadband market is 'principled' enough to stomach the potentially large delay this action will have on the rollout of competitive networks other than than Altech's?
 
I think thats the biggest problem, this could put a serious spanner in the works in terms of getting the licenses issued, and they've taken to damn long already.
 
I think the outcome of this action is critical, more so in terms of ICASA than the MoC (as she's probably on her way out anyhow).

In terms of obeying the law, what Altech is doing is nothing shy of ultruism IMO.

I'm sure a company like VOX is absolutley happy to oppose the application as it means Rands to them, damned be the consequences if the minister and ICASA can do as they please and ignore any legal means to get them in the right.

D
 
damian24 said:
In terms of obeying the law, what Altech is doing is nothing shy of ultruism IMO.
Click to expand...
altruism - Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.

Pull there other leg. More like caught napping during the conversion submission process and now resorting to desperate tactics.
 
Some larger players have apparently received a quiet indication that their licences will be converted into the full build-your-own version. Yet Icasa has said operators must apply for those licences, with no guarantee of success.
Click to expand...

interesting....

Roman4604 said:
Question is whether the SA broadband market is 'principled' enough to stomach the potentially large delay this action will have on the rollout of competitive networks other than than Altech's?
Click to expand...

principle my ass :rolleyes:

why they did not go both ways is beyond me - @ least participate in the process even if it is flawed (which i believe it is, fatally so) and go to court if you don't get the result you want

altruism...nope: there is already an application for self-provision which has been lodged and the rest of it is all about Altech really
 
Personally I think this action by Altech is rather sad, it will delay the license granting process with almost no significant gains to anyone other than themselves.

Further more, even if they have a case, they are fighting precedent. Yes there were flaws with the process, everyone knows it, but there is also precedent that has been set where the courts have ruled in favor of a flawed process in cases where the process, even while flawed, has benefited the involved parties.

Personally I hope for the sake of us all, this gets thrown out of court, and in my view, it amounts to little more than altech trying to strong arms things for their own good.
 
What you telling me Ivy doesn't know what she is doing? :eek: my word! :confused:


bah! we all know telkom does what it wants, icasa is a toothless dog, and ivy is a old *censored* gravy rain rider(like most in the government)
 
My personal opinion is that all licences under the ECA should allow self provisioning. I mean does it really make a difference if a company has the right or not? a LOT of current ISP's would be more than happy to spend the cash to drop fibre everywhere and that not a bad thing. Some of the smaller guys couldnt be bothered dropping their own fibre or just plain cant afford it.

If they all go ahead and start dropping fibre it might just scare the big boys into actually lowering prices to a level that is a slight bit more affordable.

just my opinion anyway.

I know this would never happen as it would mean that companies that the doc doesnt have a share in will have networks in the country and then ivy and co get none of that lovely extorted cash. also would mean they couldnt let the people know if there was a tsunami
 
The underlying principles (legal, that is, not moral) are quite complex here. ICASA's role (believe it or not) is to ensure a sustainable, competitive market. The EC Act, for all its flaws, creates a framework for such a market. The underlying policy is not a completely open market for infrastructure (ECNS) competition. Whilst there is nothing wrong with a completely open market in principle (moral, that is, not legal), it isn't the most efficient in economic terms, which is why such markets are rare around the world.

A typical effective regulator (let's exclude ICASA for the moment) will establish a licensing model that ensures competition between players who are likely to be able to make a difference, and actually compete. In particular, scarce resources (like spectrum, or, eventually, space for ducts in roads) should not simply be allocated to anyone who walks through the door, or is a friend of the minister.

So, to take the Altech case:

There are plenty of calls for a completely open market for infrastructure competition. This is equivalent to calling for the scrapping of the EC Act, and its replacement by a couple of somewhat confused statements by a minister. That would fly in the face of the (fairly open and fair) parliamentary process that created the Act in the first place.

Altech's stand is therefore (in legal, and probably moral, terms) a defence of the entire democratic process. We elected a parliament to create laws that give us the best outcome based on multiple social, economic and legal inputs, not to have these laws overridden by ministers on a bad hair day.

Whilst Altech's case may delay the final implementation of the Act, the alternative is not as great as it sounds. Currently, there are players like Smile (yes, you should be asking, "Who?") who have been earmarked for ECNS licences, yet a player like Altech (read, Autopage, Netstar, UEC [DSTV decoder manufacturer] etc) has been (probably intentionally) excluded from the minister's private list. Players like IS are on the list not because of any inherent good that the represent economically, but because they have friends in high places. Is this the kind of legal framework we want in telecoms? Well done, Altech. Now we just need to get the legal system working a bit faster.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X