Something smells fishy

So it seems that our esteemed minister of communications has become tired of all the bad press she has been receiving, not to mention the likely flak she was taking from within government, and has finally decided to begin doing things.

First we had the surprise liberalisation of the market, which Ivy Matsepe-Casaburri announced at the beginning of the month, followed by last week`s awarding of the licence to the second national operator (SNO), subject to a number of conditions.

But has her awarding of the licence actually moved the process further along the road, or has she simply hit the ball into the regulator`s court, effectively passing the buck to the Independent Communications Authority of SA (ICASA)?

I believe this is further evidence of Matsepe-Casaburri`s "Pontius Pilate" attitude. She is simply washing her hands of the entire process and leaving it up to ICASA - which will have to approve the SNO`s still-to-be-formulated business plan and shareholders agreement and finalise the licence conditions - to deal with the total mess the SNO process has become.

After all, how can the SNO be expected to come up with a realistic business plan and shareholders agreement, when the majority shareholder has yet to be identified by the minister?

Also, how feasible is it for the minister to actually award the licence when there are still the court actions brought by the SNO`s empowerment shareholder, Nexus Connexion, and original bidder Optis?

How can the SNO be expected to come up with a realistic business plan and shareholders agreement, when the majority shareholder has yet to be identified by the minister?

Rodney Weidemann, Telecoms editor, ITWeb

Nexus Connexion has asked for a judicial review of the process that saw the minister grant a reduced percentage of the original 51% strategic equity to rival bidders CommuniTel and Two Consortium, while Optis also wants a share in the SNO, as it claims there is no difference between itself and the other two, whose bids were also found to be inadequate by ICASA.

These court actions, which could see both Two Consortium and CommuniTel excluded from the SNO should the Nexus action succeed, are equally bizarre.

While it is understood that Nexus is no friend of the above two organisations, and vice versa I`m told, it would seem logical that they rather put their differences aside and concentrate on creating a viable opposition to Telkom, in a market where the SNO`s potential footprint is gradually being eroded, particularly with the liberalisation date set for 1 February.

Unless, of course, there are shadier reasons for this.

After all, I have to ask what Nexus really stands to gain from this legal action, which seems detrimental to no one but the SNO - of which Nexus is supposed to be a member.

Optis, on the other hand, is nothing more than chancing its luck and hoping for some kind of payout, I am sure.

Could this also be the reason why the 19% shareholder is also delaying the process, or is Nexus chairman Kennedy Memani`s nose out of joint because at one point he thought his company would have the largest shareholding and thus have control of the SNO?

As Bob Dylan once said, the answers, my friend, are blowing in the wind. But between the minister`s buck-passing, the infighting and legal actions, I can say for sure that the one thing that can be found in the wind is the smell of something decidedly fishy.

On another not-entirely-unrelated note, I have to ask why, after years of telling us they have no choice but to keep their prices high - even while reassuring us that their prices are among the most competitive in the world - our friends at Telkom have changed their monopolistic little minds?

The slightest whiff of competition (fishy though it may be at present) and the bigwigs at the country`s resident monopoly have immediately requested a reduction in bandwidth prices from the regulator, and are already looking into reducing the costs of international and local long-distance calls.

So they are unable to do anything about their prices, until there is the potential for competition, but then they can immediately begin slashing call and bandwidth costs? And they still have the gall to argue they do not operate in a monopolistic manner!

Or as a former colleague of mine so succinctly put it: "Oh, so it was possible after all? Screwing SA was a deliberate strategy of monopoly exploitation? Not that we object, or anything. We just don`t like bald-faced liars who insult our intelligence by mouthing public-spirited niceties and flaunting Proudly South African badges."

I couldn`t have put it better myself.