When ICT, business and politics converge

As strange as it may sound, one cannot divorce technology from politics. While one can be said to be science-based and the other is a means of manipulation, they are intertwined through the use of business cases to achieve certain goals.

People, being the social animals they are, have an overwhelming desire to communicate, and because of that, information is a valuable commodity in its own right, especially in specific circumstances.

And one of those circumstances is in business cases that can lead to rewards for select groups of people - such as company shareholders - meaning profit.

Recently, some of ITWeb's readers have been asking why we seem to be writing more about politics than technology. The fact is that the lines between business, politics and technology have become blurred to such an extent that it is becoming impossible in many cases to write about one without mentioning the influence of the others.

The most obvious connection between the three at the moment is that of broadband. SA has laboured under the weight of the high cost of connectivity and put broadband out of reach for the majority.

While there is merit to the argument that Telkom has deliberately constrained broadband to ensure the profitability of its operations, it is not the only factor. Government policies, or the lack thereof, or the muddled implementation of them, has also allowed this situation to persist.

The need for lower connection costs, and for the rapid deployment of broadband are well known. Communications minister Ivy Matsepe-Casaburri has said the rolling-out of broadband and cheaper telecommunications services would contribute an extra two percentage points to the country's gross domestic product.

Other government departments agree and that is why it is mentioned in the overall economic policy, called the Accelerated Shared Growth Initiative for SA, and this policy heavily emphasises the lowering of telecommunications costs.

Companies that propose business cases, such as laying another undersea cable that will alleviate the broadband issue, are forced to lobby government through either the executive, in this case the Department of Communications (DOC), or to approach other avenues, such as Parliament, when it is drafting laws that affect the industry.

Four years ago, international research firm Gartner, whose comments can be used as a litmus test of foreign sentiment, caused a stir when it recommended that anyone wishing to do telecoms business in SA should bypass the regulator (the Independent Communications Authority of SA) and go straight to the DOC. It has not changed this stance.

Governments, by their very nature, like to interact with large organisations. Maybe it is because there is some kind of bureaucratic brotherhood, but it is certainly because large organisations do not have the immediacy of need that a smaller company has, and they are also able to fund the hiring of expensive lobbyists.

The lines between business, politics and technology have become blurred.

Paul Vecchiatto, Cape Town correspondent, ITWeb

So when the news breaks that a person with the public stature of someone like Cyril Ramaphosa is linked to a project, such as Seacom, to build an undersea cable that could have a profound effect on the cost of broadband, it is logical to conclude that he has the money to be a serious investor - along with the likes of Johan Ruperts' Venfin - and the political influence to lobby government on allowing the project to succeed.

Communications minister Ivy Matsepe-Casaburri's and her director-general, Lyndall Shope-Mafole's, stance over ownership criteria and other stipulations, such as national security, have to be questioned now.

Why only when there is a real possibility of a privately-funded cable being landed, are they suddenly talking about guidelines? Are they trying to protect their own Nepad ICT Broadband Infrastructure Network, or the business case for Infraco? Or are they opposed to either Mr Ramaphosa's politics or the political faction he supports?

These and other questions smack of conspiracy. However, the issue is that while business and government are both less than forthcoming about what they really want and how they are going to achieve it, they are part of an important national debate.

Because without the lowering of broadband prices, other companies and organisations will have higher input costs to using technology to develop their own business cases and generate profits. This means less overall wealth generation that will lead to international and local investors shunning the local market, which means lower job creation, leading to higher social security spending by the state and increasing the tax burden.

Government and business now have to realise that the debate over broadband and technology has become far bigger than them. It is time for public honesty and to allow all to grow economically by using the various technologies at their disposal.