The draft version of the Convergence Bill that was made public in December illustrates again that no matter how good intentions are, the telecommunications industry is over-regulated with bad laws.
Confusion has been the hallmark of almost all the telecommunications and broadcasting legislation that has been introduced since 1994.
And as the country warms up to the anniversary of 10 years of democracy and celebrates the achievement of an open society that tolerates all forms of expression and free speech, one may wonder why there is so much communications-related regulation.
The proliferation of broadcasting and telecoms Acts, coupled with a department that makes no bones about over-riding the regulator when it suits it, does not do much for building confidence in the country and its communications structures.
Confusion has been the hallmark of almost all the telecommunications and broadcasting legislation that has been introduced since 1994.
Paul Vecchiatto, Cape Town correspondent, ITWeb
An example of the telecoms confusion is the delay in the awarding of the second national operator licence that has set back competition by several years. Illustrating the confusion in broadcasting was that a person using DSTV equipment illegally was charged under the incorrect broadcasting Act. Then there was the fiasco of the Internet inspectors of a year ago - a situation that has been quietly forgotten.
Government has acknowledged that the success of the cellular phone industry to bring relatively low cost communications to the masses has been far superior to that of a protected entity supplying fixed-lines. It also has clearly stated the ICT sector is of strategic importance to the economic development of the country. Yet it seems as though every effort is made to place obstacles in its path.
There were strong hopes that the Convergence Bill would be a start in clearing up the mess of the previous Acts. That government would realise that its prime role should be to create a level playing field that would allow all to participate in a free manner allowing for strong industry competition that would ultimately benefit the consumer.
One specific objective of the Convergence Bill is to move from a licensing system based on specific technologies to one based on content and services provided. However, the draft does not state exactly what it means by licensing content providers and just how that kind of licence would be issued.
Leon Louw, executive director of the Free Market Foundation, says the Convergence Bill is the epitome of the type of harm excessive legislation can do. He says the Bill is flawed in several key areas and wonders what government means when it calls for a strong regulator.
The Free Market Foundation says it is asking the industry to consider three issues, namely: a regulator with unlimited discretionary powers; class licences that are currently undefined and discretionary; and finally, violation of property rights placed on licence-holders by the regulator.
It is time that the telecommunications industry forms a body that can effectively lobby and engage with government to put in place legislation that makes sense, is workable and ultimately enforceable, while allowing for a competitive playing field that will allow the country to prosper.
Share