The major local telecommunications companies have picked apart the Department of Communications' (DOC's) guidelines for landing submarine cables.
They have taken issue with almost everything - from the name of the document to ownership.
Neotel, Telkom, Cell C, Vodacom and MTN collaborated to compile their response to the DOC's "Rapid Deployment Guidelines", which was issued for public comment on 27 February. The deadline was last Friday, 11 April.
"It is quite unusual for all of them to work together on a response of this nature and it shows just how seriously they think of it and just how flawed they perceive the document to be," an industry insider says.
However, Gartner analyst Will Hahn says that, while the companies have a point in rejecting the guidelines, they may be looking to keep their pricing structure concealed. This would enable them to perpetuate the advantages they have due to owning their domestic networks and the resulting economies of scale, he adds.
In their response, the major operators accuse communications minister Ivy Matsepe-Casaburri of introducing another licence class for submarine cable networks.
"If this is indeed that case, then the minister is firstly subverting the powers of ICASA [Independent Communications Authority of SA], and secondly, of undermining the Act [Electronic Communications Act], which lays out the licensing framework [on which the entire industry is based]," the response document says.
The major operators go on to say that the minister is acting 'ultra vires' (beyond the scope of her powers), and so they do not regard these guidelines as having any legal standing.
The issue of ownership was also attacked and they describe the aim of having submarine cable networks 51% African-owned as impractical under certain instances.
Misnomer
The response emphasises that these guidelines do little to promote the development of infrastructure, instead serving the deployment of electronic communications facilities by adding further bureaucracy to an already adequately functioning state of affairs.
It points out that the title of the DOC document, "Rapid Deployment Guidelines", is a misnomer and should be called "Landing Cable Authorisation".
Hahn says that, while the operators appear to point out several serious flaws in the regulatory guidelines, he is particularly worried about the issue of the 51% African ownership requirement.
"If ownership cannot be restricted by such arbitrary guidelines, how then can it be essentially restricted to just this set of carriers and their backers, when it comes to how pricing is set? If the government has any right to take an interest in submarine cables as 'essential facilities' (as is generally admitted worldwide and historically) then the floodgates are open and 'open access' regulations of some sort are a logical succeeding step."
Hahn says carriers who invest in laying and maintaining cables must recognise they incur an obligation to open their pricing structures to public scrutiny, and provide satisfaction that they charge no more to outside customers for wholesale bandwidth than they would to themselves.
Share