Not going to happen :). Cabinet’s decision is to the effect that no state-owned enterprise will be involved in the retail market. Telkom – rightly or wrongly – is not viewed as an SoE

I would definitely go with wrongly here. If their reasoning is that Telkom is not an SoE because it is not entirely state owned, then Broadband Infraco isn’t an SoE either, because they also have private investment.

I am a firm supporter of functional separation and believe that this is in fact what the ECA requires when providing for IECNS and IECS licences. I believe that ICASA are ignoring how to distinguish between Telkom the IECS and Telkom the IECNS licensee and that this is going to have some pretty fundamental implications in the future.

From my non-lawyer perspective this boundary between ICASA and CC’s role seems a bit fuzzy… If ICASA awards two licenses to one company, isn’t it’s job done? Isn’t it then someone else’s responsibility to ensure that competitors are protected from vertical integration in a powerful quasi-SoE, regardless of the industry?

Anyway, thanks for the (regular) valuable insight. I agree that whatever comes next is interesting :-)

Regards,
Simeon.

>>Does that mean the state will dispose of their Telkom shares?

Not going to happen :). Cabinet’s decision is to the effect that no state-owned enterprise will be involved in the retail market. Telkom – rightly or wrongly – is not viewed as an SoE

>>Although highly unlikely, if there is a coherent government plan to put an end to the turf war between the DPE and the DOC and get their telecoms house in order, it might be in the form of what Hahn is talking about.

I am a firm supporter of functional separation and believe that this is in fact what the ECA requires when providing for IECNS and IECS licences. I believe that ICASA are ignoring how to distinguish between Telkom the IECS and Telkom the IECNS licensee and that this is going to have some pretty fundamental implications in the future.

interesting times, as ever

dominic