‘Vital’ for state to intervene in telecoms zone

Should the state intervene in telecoms?

  • Yes

    Votes: 53 71.6%

  • No

    Votes: 21 28.4%
  • Total voters
    74
Hi rpm

Could we not have more options on the poll e.g. nationalise the network, improve regulations, licence infraco, stay out, etc?
 
well, again... I have to say yes and no. There is some initial intervention necessary, then once that is done they should get the hell out of it.

1) They need to fire the entire ICASA board and replace the regulator and re-commission them with a new mandate. ICASA is a shocking failure.
2) They need to force the unbundling of the local loop or fund/subsidise the laying of new fixed line.
3) They need to refund Neotel for their license fees and the failed promise of the cables that were eventually given to Infraco.
4) They need to set up Infraco to seek private funding and sell off the company as soon as possible.
5) The government should make internet connectivity a human right, easily accessible and uncensored. It should be promoted in schools and training should be prioritised.

That's all I can think of right now... :p
 
Well, to get the ball rolling intervention is required.

These are for-profit companies, who simply will never make a move that will reduce profit.
They need to be forced.
 
I voted Yes, also, because the reins are currently firmly in the State's hands and the state would have to 'intervene' by letting them go... But there's a lot to be said for laying the foundation of an open arena first. With enough political will, we could become the next Korea. Their government didn't wait for the private sector to fund and establish national infrastructure. Their government said that it must be done, and went ahead and did it. Now those are tax dollars I wouldn't mind seen spent.

Juice
 
There has to be government intervention - who else is going to break up telkom a'la Ma Bell in the 70's. Who else is going to disband ICASA?

The real question is do we have a government who can achieve any of what needs to be done?
 
Oh, and not to mention that the private sector's way of spelling competition is c-o-l-l-u-s-i-o-n. See the banks, the cellular operators, NeoKom, the motor vehicle industry, the big four shopping market franchises... Wow, that's quite a list.

Juice
 
Garyvdh said:
well, again... I have to say yes and no. There is some initial intervention necessary, then once that is done they should get the hell out of it.

1) They need to fire the entire ICASA board and replace the regulator and re-commission them with a new mandate. ICASA is a shocking failure.
Click to expand...
Not going to work, we don't even need an ICASA, all we need is a competitions commission that works, just scrap ICASA. Now that anyone can pick up a license (why do you need a license anyway) what exactly is ICASA's function?
2) They need to force the unbundling of the local loop or fund/subsidise the laying of new fixed line.
Click to expand...
+1
3) They need to refund Neotel for their license fees and the failed promise of the cables that were eventually given to Infraco.
Click to expand...
+1
4) They need to set up Infraco to seek private funding and sell off the company as soon as possible.
Click to expand...
+1
5) The government should make internet connectivity a human right, easily accessible and uncensored. It should be promoted in schools and training should be prioritised.
Click to expand...
NO. Internet connectivity is not a human right. By making internet connectivity a human right you are cheapening the concept.

Human rights include (among other things), equality before the law, the right to food, the right to education, the right to work, the right to safety and security. How, in the name of all that is good and sweet in Odin's beard, can you say that internet connectivity is a human right. I have seen this mentioned before and the very idea that you think it should be a human right sickens me. You do not require an internet connection to survive, or to live with dignity, therefore why should it be a right?
 
porchrat said:
NO. Internet connectivity is not a human right. By making internet connectivity a human right you are cheapening the concept.

Human rights include (among other things), equality before the law, the right to food, the right to education, the right to work, the right to safety and security. How, in the name of all that is good and sweet in Odin's beard, can you say that internet connectivity is a human right. I have seen this mentioned before and the very idea that you think it should be a human right sickens me. You do not require an internet connection to survive, or to live with dignity, therefore why should it be a right?
Click to expand...

because it is vitally linked to freedom of speech in our modern age. Sure you have to pay for access. But nobody should be denied access or the freedom to use that access for speech.
 
Begging your pardon, but at some point economic sense will have to prevail. If we are not careful in arbitrarily assigning rights, then you might end up having to connect Oom Pietie from Tweebuffelsmeteenskootdoodgeskietfontein for no other reason than it being his right. Would you be happy, as a taxpayer, to lay million-rand infrastructure to connect just one reclusive hermit living on the outskirts of civilsation? No. I think Oom Pietie should get a satelite phone.

Juice
 
Garyvdh said:
because it is vitally linked to freedom of speech in our modern age. Sure you have to pay for access. But nobody should be denied access or the freedom to use that access for speech.
Click to expand...

I agree that everyone should have the right to freedom of speech, but no one is required to give you a technologically-advanced means to express that right.

As an analogy: Many countries regard the right to return to your country whenever you want to as a human right (provided you are a citizen of that country and you are not current;y incarcerated or something), that doesn't mean you have the right to an aeroplane or a ticket to ride in one.

You have the right to freedom of speech, in that you should be able to use whatever means you have access to to voice your opinion and not fear repercussions from your government or parties that disagree with you, but by no means are you entitled to an internet connection as a human right. Not having an internet connection does not rob you of your right to free speech.

Juice said:
Begging your pardon, but at some point economic sense will have to prevail. If we are not careful in arbitrarily assigning rights, then you might end up having to connect Oom Pietie from Tweebuffelsmeteenskootdoodgeskietfontein for no other reason than it being his right. Would you be happy, as a taxpayer, to lay million-rand infrastructure to connect just one reclusive hermit living on the outskirts of civilsation? No. I think Oom Pietie should get a satelite phone.

Juice
Click to expand...

+1 Gary if you think internet is expensive now, wait until we declare it a human right and you have to fork out for everyone in the coutnry that can't afford to pay for it.

This may seem heartless, but really declaring internet connectivity a human right is just silly and unrealistic, there are many more important things that need to be done.

EDIT: I apologise if I come across as aggressive on this topic, but I really feel quite strongly about human rights, and I do feel that talk of incorporating internet connectivity as a human right cheapens the whole concept.
 
Last edited:
that's why I said the payment part is your responsibility, but the freedom to connect is your right. You may not be denied that right. This was confirmed recently in France when the French Supreme Court ruled that internet access is a human right (the government wanted to disconnect some people).

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/is_internet_access_a_fundamental_human_right_franc.php

Cory Doctorow said...

Here's a prediction: in five years, a UN convention will enshrine network access as a human right (preemptive strike against naysayers: "Human rights" aren't only water, food and shelter, they include such "nonessentials" as free speech, education, and privacy). In ten years, we won't understand how anyone thought it wasn't a human right.
Click to expand...
 
porchrat said:
Human rights include (among other things),
1.equality before the law,
2.the right to food
3.the right to education
4.the right to work
5.the right to safety and security.
Click to expand...

we have the right to work? i have been without work for 3 years now please tell me where is the right. to whom will i go and demand that i want a job, because it is my right.

Where i live there are homeless people all around me, what happened to there right to food?

please there's no right
 
porchrat said:
+1 Gary if you think internet is expensive now, wait until we declare it a human right and you have to fork out for everyone in the coutnry that can't afford to pay for it.

This may seem heartless, but really declaring internet connectivity a human right is just silly and unrealistic, there are many more important things that need to be done.
Click to expand...

you have the wrong end of the stick. You are misunderstanding what I am saying.

I never said the government has to provide everyone with a connection. I said the government cannot deny them a connection. Big Difference.

If you want to exercise your free Speech by buying space with a full page in every major newspaper around the world that is your right... but I don't have to pay for it. Nobody can deny you that right... but you still have to fork out the bucks.

Same with internet... how you connect is not my problem.... but your right to connect is a human right. The government does not have to provide ADSL for everyone but they cannot deny ADSL to anyone. Provided you have the money to connect, your ability to connect should be free.
 
Garyvdh said:
that's why I said the payment part is your responsibility, but the freedom to connect is your right. You may not be denied that right. This was confirmed recently in France when the French Supreme Court ruled that internet access is a human right (the government wanted to disconnect some people).

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/is_internet_access_a_fundamental_human_right_franc.php

Cory Doctorow said...
Click to expand...

Well gee if Cory said it it must be true :rolleyes:. If it is a human right then it must be provided to you whether you can pay for it or not. You cannot deprive someone of food without violating their human rights. If they have no means of attaining food for themselves then food must be provided to preserve their right to food. The same would be required of an internet connection if it were to be declared a human right.

You cannot say that internet connectivity is a human right, but you need to pay for it. If you need to pay for it then it isn't a human right.

Internet access is not a right. I agree that you should have a right to see the information on the internet if you possess the means to do so, but you do not however have a right to that means. In that case declaring that a human right doesn't stop the ISPs etc. from disconnecting you because all they are doing is taking away the means, not the information, so I really don't see the point.
 
Last edited:
GuileX said:
we have the right to work? i have been without work for 3 years now please tell me where is the right. to whom will i go and demand that i want a job, because it is my right.

Where i live there are homeless people all around me, what happened to there right to food?

please there's no right
Click to expand...

pleas go back and read carefully and properly. Everybody has a right to food, but some people can't afford. Nobody is denying them anything. A "right" is not the same thing as "guarantee" or a "means"
 
Garyvdh said:
pleas go back and read carefully and properly. Everybody has a right to food, but some people can't afford. Nobody is denying them anything. A "right" is not the same thing as "guarantee" or a "means"
Click to expand...

Actually a human right is like a "guarantee". If you are denied a human right in our country then you may use the Bill of Rights in a court:

Anyone listed in this section has the right to approach a competent court, alleging that a right in the Bill of Rights has been infringed or threatened, and the court may grant appropriate relief, including a declaration of rights. The persons who may approach a court are -

1. anyone acting in their own interest;
2. anyone acting on behalf of another person who cannot act in their own name;
3. anyone acting as a member of, or in the interest of, a group or class of persons;
4. anyone acting in the public interest; and
5. an association acting in the interest of its members.
Click to expand...

It most definitely is a guarantee provided your country has a Bill of Rights and that the particular right being infringed upon is contained within that Bill of Rights.
 
porchrat said:
Actually a human right is like a "guarantee". If you are denied a human right in our country then you may use the Bill of Rights in a court:

It most definitely is a guarantee provided your country has a Bill of Rights and that the particular right being infringed upon is contained within that Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...

so now you are saying the government is supposed to feed, house and clothe everybody? A moment ago, you were saying it is not the government's responsibility, now you are saying it is guaranteed? :rolleyes:
 
Garyvdh said:
so now you are saying the government is supposed to feed, house and clothe everybody? A moment ago, you were saying it is not the government's responsibility, now you are saying it is guaranteed? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

When did I say it wasn't the government's responsibility? EDIT - I have looked back on the previous page and I cannot find where I have said this, could you please point it out to me?

It is most definitely their responsibility if that right is contained within the Bill of Rights. I find it rather disturbing that you know so little about human rights.

Why do you think concern is voiced over the way our government fails to help the people of this country? They literally have a legal contract with the people to do so.

This is why people have started suing our government over not being supplied with housing and a safe environment. They are not being provided with houses. Their rights are being infringed upon.

EDIT:
GuileX said:
we have the right to work? i have been without work for 3 years now please tell me where is the right. to whom will i go and demand that i want a job, because it is my right.

Where i live there are homeless people all around me, what happened to there right to food?

please there's no right
Click to expand...
To clarify, as far as I know we don't list the right to work as a human right in our Bill of Rights, some countries do though. We do however list the right to "not perform forced labour" as a human right.
 
Last edited:
[4) They need to set up Infraco to seek private funding and sell off the company as soon as possible.[/QUOTE]

Well according to SA market forces the new company will just go the same way as telkom and Neotel. They will prob be shortsighted just as the rest of them and go in for the quick buck.

I think Infraco should be made a non profit company that sells capasity just to brake even.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X