Forward to the past

The new year beckons and we get to celebrate the tenth anniversary of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. I was about to cut my wrists at the prospect of more of the same, when I received a newsletter from the Cato Institute in Washington, lamenting the anniversary of their own 1996 Telecommunications Act.

I did a double take as I read their complaints about the law - poor technical definitions, different regulatory treatment of technology, outdated and economically harmful monopolies. "What`s the difference, between telecommunications and information services?" Cato asks. A bit is a bit is a bit, right?

I love this country and we`ve got too many poor people in it. We need jobs and an economy running on high-octane.

Neil Emerick, consultant, Leap Consulting

Well, US law creates the verbal distinction, but now struggles with the reality of modern equipment. The US Supreme Court was recently split on a decision that ruled that "cable access" to broadband services was an "unregulated information service", but high-speed digital subscriber line (DSL) was a "telecommunications" service. The difference is important. One comes handcuffed to a ton of licences and obligations; the other doesn`t. Understandably, the regulated players are crying "unfair".

So politicians agree they screwed up and have been thinking about taking another crack at this thing. In Parliamentary committees the world over, we now have convergence Bills, amended telecommunications Acts, or just plain old communications regulation Bills under scrutiny. The goal is to amend the laws that create vertical, techno-functional constructs, and create a "new regulatory framework that reflects the Internet`s horizontal network layers".

Oh, jeez! When did this great idea percolate through the soggy minds of our legislators? It`s even described by MCI as "a horizontal leap forward". Forgive me while I reach for my vomit-bowl. If we suffered such terrible economic harm by distinguishing between voice and data in the past what would lead a sane person to believe tipping one`s legal head on its side will rescue us now?

Vertical, horizontal - these are meaningless orientations in the world of communications. If there has to be a regulatory framework for communication service providers, over and above the business laws that regulate every other form of commerce, then surely it should focus on market-dominance or consumer abuse? Any artificial legal distinction between businesses will create opportunity for regulatory arbitrage, and that just means more time wasted getting this country out of its communication straitjacket.

But let`s be patient and see what spews out of the Parliamentary process early in the new year. Perhaps there are other things we can look forward to. We do have a second national operator leaping into action. However, if the granting of a licence to Mercury UK several years ago is representative of the success of duopolies, then perhaps, like Rip van Winkel, we should go back to sleep for another ten years. Only when the UK opened the market to full-blown competition did consumers win any kind of gain. Did you know you can now get 2MB broadband in the UK for 15 pounds a month? There, there. Don`t cry.

Okay, I don`t want to be the grinch of Christmas, or mouth "humbug" at the department of non-Communication. But understand, I love this country and we`ve got too many poor people in it. We need jobs and an economy running on high-octane. High-value telecommunications services would position SA in an important spot in the global market place, if only we can convince our politicians to back off. Copying and pasting laws from other countries will take us nowhere but forward to the past.