[kictanet] Fwd: SV: [AfrISPA.Discuss] Undersea cableplantangled in acrimony inSouth Africa

[bitange at jambo.co.ke]

Mr. Manthi,
Even South Africans know that your proposals are a mathematical
imposibility (see article below from SA).  Economics teach us that the
only way to bring down cost is not by owning but by creating a competitive
environment.  All we need from the cables is bandwidth to create wealth. 
Our current problems in Africa emanate from our past mistakes with
respects to our view on economic development.

If those you call Nyangaus refuse to buy your flowers, your coffee, your
tea and protect their people from travelling to our part of the world, we
shall all perish.  The world is a small place where we all must share that
which is available.  If you take a nap as we did in the 19th Century,
someone else will take advantage of you.  In essence we should blame
ourselves for all that happened in the past and that way we shall approach
the future with love and wisdom.  When you blame someone else, you fill
yourself with hate and darkness.  Below find the article for your perusal.

Bitange Ndemo.

12 September 2007

Cable policy slammed
BY PAUL VECCHIATTO , ITWEB CAPE TOWN CORRESPONDENT
 •
[ Johannesburg, 12 September 2007 ] - Opposition parties, the Democratic
Alliance (DA) and the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP), have railed against
communications minister Ivy Matsepe-Casburri's stance on undersea cable
ownership, saying she wants to control telecommunications.

They were reacting to the minister's speech, delivered earlier this week
at Telkom's Southern African Telecommunications Networks and Applications
Conference, held in Mauritius. She said government would require all
undersea cables landing here to be majority-owned by South African
companies.


Matsepe-Casaburri also announced that guidelines would be drawn up and
they would be consistent with SA's foreign policy, and take into account
the country's security.

DA communications spokesperson Dene Smuts said the Mauritius
“clarification” on undersea cables confirms the Department of
Communications' (DOC) desire to get a slice of the pie and to control
telecommunications.

“Her insistence that all cables landing here must be majority South
African-owned is a mathematical impossibility if each African country
makes similar demands. It is also contrary to SA's interests to prevent
the landing of the capacity we need,” she said.

Suzanne Vos, IFP communications spokesperson, said: “This kind of power
politics has to stop. The country desperately needs bandwidth to meet its
own economic development objectives and to ensure the guarantees signed by
the minister for the 2010 Soccer World Cup are met.”

Vos added: “It is no wonder that public enterprises minister Alec Erwin
has stepped in as the country's alternative communications minister,
because the incumbent can't get things done.”

She also referred Matsepe-Casaburri to the Electronic Communications Act
that effectively brings government interference in the telecommunications
sector to an end.

Smuts said the DOC's championing of the Nepad ICT Broadband Infrastructure
Network has already blocked the East African Submarine Cable System cable.

“The minister said in Mauritius that any cables landing here would have to
become part of the Nepad Network. That network will operate under a
protocol that gives each signed-up African government a controlling golden
share.

“She has already told her DG [Lyndall Shope-Mafole, DOC director-general],
who is the driving force behind the protocol, to take SA's landing
guidelines to the interim intra-governmental assembly.”

Smuts concluded by saying: “No one can make head or tail of the minister's
thinking, or her DG's initiatives. The only thing that is clear is that
both SA telecoms ministries-public enterprises and communications are
reinstating state telecoms against the tide of liberalisation and modern
economic trends.”

Vincent Gore, who was communications spokesperson for the Independent
Democrats, refused to comment as he was in the process of crossing the
floor to the African National Congress.








> Kai,
> This has nothing to do with SA. It is Kenya's job to protect Kenya and
> not SA. If Kenya does not want the SA satellites broadcasting in
> Kenya, they can block it. All SA is saying is that if there any cables
> landing in SA, it should be majority owned by SAfricans. Any African
> country can do the same.
>
> And yes any cable landing in SA (or Kenya) is the national asset of SA
> (or Kenya). Every SA (or Kenyan) should have access to it. And judging
> by the pricing of some of these cable, it is unlikely that majority of
> SA (or Kenyans) will be able to afford it.
>
> Shouldn't SA (or Kenyan) governments be concerned about the pricing
> and therefore ownership of these cables?
>
> Yes - these cables are national assets. Let me see - who owns the
> cables entering the Federal Republic of Germany? Germany of course.
> Why should you then, a German national, deny the South African
> Government of deciding who should own these cables.
>
> Remember that SA has the experience of SAT3.
>
> Joe
>
> On 9/13/07, Kai U. Wulff <kai.wulff at kdn.co.ke> wrote:
>> Since when is International Connectivity a national asset?
>>
>> A cable comes, you don't like the price you don't buy .. Why did nobody
>> insist on SA ownership of the Satellites that are broadcasting