Jubie Matlou
The creation of a technology-free regulatory regime for information and communication technologies is what occupies the mind of Victor Moche most of the time.
“The law is still technology specific. There is a need to move towards the licensing of services as opposed to the licensing of technologies,” he says.
For Moche, flexibility in regulation is ideal. That would allow underutilised or unused frequencies to be used for purposes other than those they were allocated for. An example would be for underutilised broadcasting frequencies in rural areas to be available for rural telephony.
He lobbies for this in his interaction with policy-makers, the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (Icasa) and telecommunications stakeholders.
“For any telecommunications operator to provide optimal services to customers, it is important for a service provider to be technology neutral. What counts for the customer is the service that is being delivered irrespective of the technological platform used. That is why Telkom calls for the licensing of services as opposed to the licensing of technology. Hence, licence requirements would impose obligations on operators to provide quality and affordable services.”
For Moche, as Telkom’s group executive in charge of government and regulatory relations, this is the gist of his stand in all forums that deliberate on telecommunications.
It is the need for a technologyneutral regulatory regime that would make Telkom’s rural telephony service delivery affordable. Icasa has allocated the global sytems mobile frequencies to the mobile phone service providers. Moche says technology and the spectrum are like twins it is no use to have cheaper technology when the frequency for its utilisation is not available.
“From an efficiency perspective, and from a cost-effectiveness perspective, it is ideal for Telkom to operate in some GSM frequencies. The use of GSM frequencies would allow Telkom to work with cheaper technologies. At the moment we cannot optimise the cost of digitally enhanced cordless telephony for the provision of telephony services to rural areas,” Moche says.
Other regulatory areas in which Moche would like to see changes introduced include the pricing of the frequency spectrum.
“The price charged for service is determined by the costs an operator pays the regulator for use of that frequency spectrum. If the spectrum is expensive, so will the costs filter down to the consumer. Like any other national asset, such as air space, the busier the route the more expensive it becomes. However, it is the government, not the market, in this instance, that determines frequency spectrum pricing,” Moche says.
In terms of legislative amendments, Moche wants the law to be concept specific, not as broad as the Telecommunications Act of 1997. The law should provide precise definitions and better articulation of the rights of licensees. Otherwise, the result will be “self-interested interpretations of the law that lead to conflict and conflict would destabilise the market,” Moche says.
Moche sees a solution to these challenges as lying in identifying barriers of access to information and communication technologies, and bringing these down. One option is for the state to introduce zero taxation, over a limited period, for imported equipment.
“During that limited period of time there would be a massive uptake of information and communication technologies to drive tele-education, electronic commerce and tele-medicine. This zero-taxation period will also benefit small and emerging enterprises that seek to establish themselves in the sector. By so doing a big market is created manufacturers would be happy to see a massive increase in the sale of equipment and the consumers will also be happy to have access to cheaper services,” he says.
Moche is quick to dismiss suggestions that Telkom used its public utility connections to put pressure on the government to revert to its earlier position of introducing one instead of two fixed telephony service providers. He argues that every telecommunications operator interested in entering the market had an equal opportunity to present its case.
“Some people were vocal on certain issues, quiet on others depending on their interest. It is up to the government to balance those different interests,” Moche says.
In the same vein, he argues that Telkom in its 10 years of existence was never a virtual monopoly that operated in a comfort zone.
As a corporation it began operations without a state subsidy, and pays tax and dividends to its shareholders.
Moche says during these 10 years there had been telecommunications operators that provided services that were “anything beyond basic voice and data”.
He cites customer-care services such as telephone switchboard equipment and value-added services such as electronic mail, electronic commerce and network management as examples.
The process to list Telkom on the Johannesburg Securities Exchange has generated a lot of criticism. However, it is subject to competencies and stages spread over a number of government departments.
Telkom’s operations involve the Department of Communications as the main shareholder and policy-maker; the Department of Trade and Industry regarding Telkom’s impact on the broader telecommunications industry; the Department of Public Enterprise regarding the sale of government shares in public utilities; and the Department of Environment Affairs and Tourism regarding the impact of the corporation’s signal distribution and relay equipment on the country’s landscape.
Moche pointed out that any disposal or sale of government assets and shares to the public and private sector was individualised, informed by conditions that obtained in a particular sector be it the transport or telecommunications sector.
Moche is also the point of contact between Telkom and the International Telecommunications Union the United Nations’ agency for the allocation and regulation of the international telecommunications frequency spectrum.
ENDS