Subscribe
  • Home
  • /
  • Telecoms
  • /
  • Telecoms policy 'an embarrassment we can ill afford`

Telecoms policy 'an embarrassment we can ill afford`

Ivo Vegter
By Ivo Vegter, Contributor
Johannesburg, 03 May 2001

The Department of Communications might find the road from telecommunications policy directions to law rockier than expected, if opposition members of the parliamentary portfolio committee on telecommunications have anything to do with it.

On the closing day for submission of public comments, many of which have raised serious concerns, Democratic Alliance (DA) spokesman and portfolio committee member Dene Smuts referred to the policy directions prepared by the Department of Communications as "an embarrassment we can ill afford".

In discussion with ITWeb at a dinner hosted by M-Cell, one of the industry players visited by the portfolio committee in a whirlwind fact-finding tour, Western Cape DA MP, JJ Dowry, said that in his experience there was a high level of opposition to the policy directions in the industry.

Smuts believes the policy directions were not well thought through, are not based on a logical framework or structure, and in some cases directly clash with the existing Telecommunications Act of 1997.

A significant point of concern is the definitions of "fixed mobile", wording used in the policy directions to describe the licence contemplated for the second national operator (SNO) and the amended licence for Telkom. All three cellular operators (Vodacom, MTN and Cell-C) have interpreted this to mean that the fixed-line operators will now also be permitted to operate cellular networks.

Smuts likewise understood the policy to be tantamount to "handing out cellular licences like Smarties". She also questions the use of a term which is clearly not commonly understood in the telecommunications industry.

Some have raised concerns about the legality of such licences, particularly in the light of Telkom`s stake in Vodacom, itself a mobile cellular telecommunications services licence holder.

An unnamed source with an existing cellular network operator said that if Telkom were allowed to provide cellular services, then the existing cellular operators should be given the freedom to operate international gateways, direct connect and other rights that would provide a more level playing field but are denied them under current legislation and licences.

Common concerns and questions raised in submissions from organisations as diverse as Cell-C, Vodacom, the Communications Users Association of SA, the Internet Service Providers` Association, and the South African VANS Association include:

  • The policy directions contemplate only one national operator licence, contrary to consensus reached at the Second National Telecommunications Colloquium that two additional national fixed-line operators be licensed - to avoid the dangers inherent in a duopoly and avoid a situation where a new licensee in 2005 will find it impossible to establish a network in the face of entrenched competition.
  • The inclusion of Eskom`s Esi-tel and Transnet`s Transtel divisions in the SNO will significantly entrench government shareholding in the telecommunications industry, and lead to conflicts of interest, among other problems.
  • The surprise continuation of the ban on voice-over-IP (VOIP) - with a limited exception -makes little sense now that its original intent, of protecting Telkom`s revenues during its exclusivity period, has been achieved.
  • Although VOIP is contemplated for regions with less than 1% teledensity as a means of facilitating universal service, the logic whereby this wouldn`t contribute to universal service elsewhere is lacking.
  • The pace of liberalisation as envisaged in the policy that led to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 has been markedly reduced in the current policy directions, notwithstanding widespread calls for more rapid introduction of vigorous and fair competition in the sector.

The role of the parliamentary portfolio committee on telecommunications will be to advise parliament in its consideration of legislation proposed by the Ministry of Communications. Parliament may return a bill to the Ministry with recommendations, should it decline to pass it into law.

(Note: The points mentioned are highlights gleaned from a reading of some of the submission documents. A more detailed summary of public comments will be published when a more complete selection is available to ITWeb.)

Related stories:
Industry fears heavy-handed ICT policies

Share