Telecoms conspiracy - or worse?

I have probably watched too many science fiction movies, or possibly read one too many trashy novels, but I cannot shake the feeling that a massive conspiracy is under way.

Having reported on the ins and outs of SA`s convoluted telecoms industry for 18 months now and having kept a close eye on it for at least as long prior to that, I feel fairly comfortable with the beat, which is why I can`t get rid of the conspiracy idea.

It started several years ago, when members of my family were advised to keep their eye on Cell C - with a view to investing in the company - by a senior member of the ANC, which doesn`t sound strange until you learn that this advice was given at the beginning of the bidding process for the third cellular licence, not when it was awarded.

The obvious conclusion here is that someone in government already knew that Cell C would win the bid, which is why they knew it would be an investment opportunity.

Then we have the second national operator (SNO) licence, which would have been awarded years ago in a truly liberalised environment, but of course then government wouldn`t have been able to make a tidy sum out of Telkom`s IPO.

Nonetheless, it should have at least been granted soon after the IPO, except for the fact that by that stage, the telecoms market had slumped, and the 'Daddy Warbucks` investor that the Department of Communications was hoping would come in and throw loads of cash around failed to materialise.

On top of that, the two consortiums bidding for the licence in the second process were both considered by the regulator to be not good enough.

And even though a different set of criteria were applicable on the second bidding process, the regulator adjudged the consortia to be "too weak" based on the criteria for the first round of bidding and also on a flawed report on the two bidders by Next Generation (NG) Consultants.

The consortia accused NG of exceeding its mandate by comparing the two bids, making recommendations regarding a possible outcome and proposing alternative processes, when it was meant to do no more than analyse the bids` compliance with certain criteria.

I`m sure everyone is aware of the continuous problems that have dogged the process since, and when one considers that the only real beneficiary of this is Telkom, and in light of a Sunday Times report that suggests senior government officials are jostling over who will get to purchase a large number of the monopoly`s shares from Thintana shortly, leads one straight back to a conspiracy.

Considering that, without a viable SNO under way, Nexus is also losing out, one has to ask what the company stands to gain from further delaying the process.

Rodney Weidemann, Journalist, ITWeb

As does the news I received from an industry insider recently that suggested that the communications minister was involved in appointing new directors to the board of Telkom.

If this is true, it is at the very least a gross conflict of interest, considering that Ivy Matsepe-Casaburri has mostly been at fault for the extensive delay in the issuing of the SNO licence, and at worst it once again takes us into the murky depths of plots and scandals.

There is also the ongoing court case that SNO partner Nexus Connexion has brought against the Department of Communications.

Considering that, without a viable SNO under way, Nexus is also losing out, one has to ask what the company stands to gain from further delaying the process. Possibly it is nothing, or possibly there are a group of secretive 'men in black` pulling strings behind the scenes.

Then we have the fact that the report justifying the recent liberalisation of the industry is dated 11 December 2003.

Which begs the question why, if the report - which states the case for deregulation right at the beginning of its 180-page length - was ready last year, did we have to wait almost a year for the liberalisation announcement, which will now only come into effect in 2005?

It couldn`t have anything to do with the fact that a major player in the South African IT industry, which also happens to have a major interest in providing voice over IP, has recently installed a chairman designate who is a former director-general of the communications department, could it?

I don`t know whether it is a conspiracy of titanic proportions, or complete and utter incompetence from the department, the regulator and the minister - and worse, I`m not sure which is the scarier thought.

But I`d better cut short my 'Deepthroat` routine now and head for the hills, before the aliens from Roswell or the man on the grassy knoll gets me!