DOC slammed for VANS appeal

By Paul Vecchiatto, ITWeb Cape Town correspondent

Cape Town, 22 Sept 2008

Opposition political parties have reacted strongly to the Department of Communications' (DOC's) decision to appeal the High Court ruling that value-added network services (VANS) are allowed to build their own networks.

Statements were received from the official opposition, the Democratic Alliance (DA), and the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) members of the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Communications. African National Congress (ANC) members were not available for comment this morning.

DA communications spokesman Dene Smuts says the communications minister has not managed, but mismanaged liberalisation of the telecoms sector.

"It is deeply ironic that she now wishes to appeal acting judge N Davis's ruling in the Altech case on the argument that her managed liberalisation policy would be undermined."

Smuts says the judge found convincingly that Ivy Matsepe-Casaburri had misapplied her one last remaining power to influence the pace of liberalisation under the new Electronic Communications Act.

"That section relates to the rate at which networks of national scope can be licensed. She tried to apply that provision to the licence conversion process, but the law expressly forbids any ministerial involvement in ICASA's licensing functions."

Her statement continues: "Judge Davis also brought years of messy ministerial interventions and reversals, starting in September 2004, on the status of value-added network service licensees, to an end by ruling they may build networks.

"The minister should now let it rest. In fact, I believe the minister does want to rest, and that it is probably director-general Lyndall Shope-Mafole who is threatening to disrupt liberalisation again."

Ruling the roost

Smuts points out that Shope-Mafole is a member of the ANC's post-Polokwane national executive committee, but no one should interpret her anti-competitive stance in this case, or the case of undersea cables, to leftist leanings.

"Like her predecessor [former director-general Andile Ngcaba], who also ruled Ivy's roost, she strikes us as a BEE capitalist, and an ambitious one. Communications minister Ivy Matsepe-Casaburri needs to be asked: just whose interests is she trying to protect in challenging the recent court judgment allowing VANS licensees the right to build their own networks?" Smuts asks in her statement.

Suzanne Vos, of the IFP, asks is this yet again another attempt to let the snouts of Telkom and Neotel shareholders (including the state) continue to snuffle in the highly lucrative and monopolistic telecoms trough?

"Why is she [Matsepe-Casaburri] so determined to ensure that only hand-picked players will be allowed to build networks? Who, exactly, does she have in mind?"

Vos says poor service, appalling access to bandwidth and high prices plague long-suffering South African consumers and seriously impede economic development.

"There is no doubt that the department's attempts to implement a new licensing regime (and ICASA's inability to perform in this regard) have dissolved into a fiasco.

Probe the interference

"It is as if the ministry still hasn't grasped the fact that all around the world the provision of accessible and affordable telecommunications services are key economic drivers. War-torn Rwanda has got the message loud and clear, and is provisioning services and de-regulating at such a rapid rate it is earning praise throughout the continent."

Vos says South Africans need to be told why the department consistently defies logic by bungling one project after another.

"For instance, we have the farce (largely driven by Shope-Mafole) which continues with regard to the undersea cable initiative (a decision was made that unless the investment vehicles were predominantly African-owned, the cable would not be allowed to land in SA).

"The DG's well-known and consistent interference in keeping the status quo needs probing. What, exactly, is her version of 'managed liberalisation'? The attempt to provide USALs with licences (under-serviced area licences) was an admitted disaster," Vos says.

She asks if the DOC really wants to liberalise the sector or, in fact, keep state control and dole out licences to "party-political pals and other elites".

About-turn

"Flip-flop seems to be the name of the game being played in the department. In 2004, the minister made determinations, which for the first time liberalised the telecommunications sector and allowed for self-provisioning.

"In 2005, the minister said to the effect 'Oops, I didn't mean that' and back-tracked. Yet again (post the recent court judgment), the minister now says she is going to 'amend legislation to remove any ambiguity'. What ambiguity? The intent of the EC Act is clear: we must liberalise and allow competition," Vos says.

She says greater competition and lower prices are the name of the game. The IFP agrees with comments that it is "absolutely crazy" for the minister to appeal the judgment which has given companies the right to build their own networks instead of having to rent from Telkom, Neotel or certain cellular operators.

"It is nonsense that 'managed liberalisation' will be compromised if all operators are permitted to self-provide and that a free-for-all may follow. It doesn't take a genius to know that it costs huge sums of money to roll out networks and that there will only be a select few who will be able to do so."