The intention to license content services as outlined in the Convergence Bill is ill-conceived, says Phukubje Pierce Attorneys partner Lucien Pierce.
He was addressing delegates at the two-day convergence conference organised by Trade Conferences International in Fourways this week.
It is preferable to allow self-regulation by online publishers rather than implementing licensing, according to Pierce. The sheer magnitude of licensing domain names makes it a waste of resources, he continued.
The licensing exercise is also futile, he said, as content providers may choose to move their operations offshore rather deal with the bureaucratic red tape.
Ordinary print media are allowed to self-regulate so why not allow online media to do the same, Pierce asked. Self-regulation will allow for a cheaper and faster mode of dispute resolution than through a regulatory authority, he said.
Property rights infringed
The Convergence Bill disadvantages landowners, through the provision for the compulsory acquisition of land by network service providers, according to Ramarumo Monama, a partner with Mashiane, Moodley and Monama.
Fixed-line and mobile operators are allowed to "expropriate" land in order to construct and maintain communication networks or communication facilities, Monama said.
This acquisition could be done on any land including streets, footpaths or land reserved for public purposes.
The right to compulsory acquisition is usually held by the State or organs of the State and must be exercised for the common good, Monama said. So far, Telkom is the only telecommunications company that qualifies to hold such power and to suggest that cellular networks also qualify as organs of the State is absurd, he said.
Related story:
Spectrum allocation 'key to convergence`
Share