Forget Telkom and Sentech

High-speed broadband Internet access has become an emotive topic, with increasingly heated debate around the subject and continual vilification of Telkom and Sentech.

While launching endless salvos against the management of these two companies may be cathartic for the attackers and amusing for many observers, it is also all rather pointless.

As tempting as it may be, becoming embroiled in the squabbling over broadband offerings and issues such as capping to prevent "network abuse" is a bit like being lured into buying cold remedies in winter.

It may make people feel as if they are doing something about their predicament if they are swallowing various potions, some may even enjoy doing so (particularly those potions with significant alcohol content), but in the final analysis, all they are succeeding in doing is palliating symptoms, not dealing with the cause.

Unfortunately, as yet, there is no real cure for the common cold. However, there is a more effective strategy for dealing with our broadband woes than sniping at the likes of Telkom and Sentech.

The most important argument in favour of effective broadband is that it could contribute significantly to social and economic development in our country, which provides the key to solving the problem, or at least points to a way of developing a more effective strategy.

The time has come to recognise that the whole broadband issue is quite simply a political one, and it is about time action groups began targeting a more worthwhile target: government.

It is government that holds the key to making the changes necessary for SA to join the rest of the broadband-enabled world and the sooner everyone realises this, the better. Why waste time and effort attacking the Telkoms and Sentechs when these have no real power to change anything?

Like it or not, government buy-in is crucial. This has been demonstrated in many countries around the world.

Warwick Ashford, technology editor, ITWeb

Only government has the power and resources to surmount the three main obstacles to broadband, namely cost of bandwidth, restrictive legislation and lack of competition. Therefore it may be argued that it is time to forget about Telkom and Sentech. Instead, all lobbying efforts should be directed at government. Only where government has recognised the potential and importance of broadband, have the necessary changes taken place to make it available to the people.

Like it or not, government buy-in is crucial. This has been demonstrated in many countries around the world. Even in the UK, broadband became a practical reality only when government subsidies were introduced.

Searching the Internet, I found that as recently as 2001, a survey showed that 71% of big business in the UK reported that the lack of broadband services was an inhibiting factor and 89% of respondents said British Telecom should be forced to speed up the delivery of ADSL.

Local broadband activists should take two lessons from this: one, we are not alone in having to fight for broadband, and two, the success of their UK counterparts can probably be ascribed to the fact that they recognised fairly early on that instead of wasting time taking shots at British Telecom, they needed to get government involved.

Interestingly, the struggle continues. As recently as March, broadband lobbyists were calling on the British government to "address the digital divide that will get wider without more broadband subsidies to give greater IT access for rural villages, schools, libraries, industry and commerce". It would seem, therefore, the digital divide is not an exclusively African phenomenon.

Speaking of Africa, some countries in the continent have already overtaken us when it comes to broadband. According to the International Telecommunications Users Group (INTUG), nations such as Egypt, Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia already have effective broadband.

Surely we need to pressure government to take action before SA falls even more behind these other African countries? INTUG estimates there are about 20 000 broadband lines available locally, but China is adding about one million new broadband lines every month.

Other examples of countries where government has been the catalyst to delivering effective broadband include the US, Canada, France, Australia, and even Tasmania, to name but a few.

For anyone still doubting that broadband is a political issue above all else, consider the fact that Democratic US presidential nominee John Kerry has throughout his preliminary campaign proposed a national broadband strategy to promote fast Web connections, suggesting that broadband should be available alongside other utilities such as electricity and water.

In neighbouring Canada, the government launched a rural broadband programme in September 2002 with the aim of eventually providing high-speed Internet services to rural and northern Canadian communities.

As recently as this week, the French government approved a reduction in high-speed Internet access rates "in an effort to accelerate the development of high-speed infrastructures and improve coverage of rural areas". The French government says the number of Internet users with access to high-speed lines doubled in 2003 and is set to double again in 2004. This would probably not be possible without government support.

Although it appears to have been a long and hard road, broadband activists in Australia eventually succeeded in getting the government to establish several schemes to reduce the costs associated with a broadband service in regional Australia and to encourage further broadband investment in the delivery of government services such as education and health.

A search of the Internet also turned up a document from Tasmania, in which the government commits to "support the creation and delivery across Tasmania of low-cost bandwidth for information-intensive industries, new economy service sectors, education and health sectors, and for research and higher education".

It is time our government wakes up to the truth and starts making investments where they are truly needed instead of pouring millions into bonuses for people merely doing their jobs. If so many governments around the world can see the developmental benefits of liberalising legislation around broadband, why is the government of the world`s favourite new democracy so intransigent, uninformed and effectively undemocratic when it comes to technology?

Hopefully it will not be long before local broadband activists redirect their efforts more profitably towards government and push the authorities to get real about this issue, and acknowledge that the lack of technology and related lack of competition is damaging the economy, affecting the development of services, and threatening our future.

If we are to avoid being left behind forever, we need to concentrate our efforts on guiding government to recognise the importance of broadband and to take action before it is too late.