While the newly tabled National Integrated Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) Policy White Paper contained a lot of “good” principles, a Telkom executive has warned that government’s push to open up the market, increase customer choice, reduce the cost to communicate and improve universal access may backfire.
The Department of Telecommunications and Postal Services-driven policy was approved by Cabinet in October – to mixed reviews from the market – to guide the next decade of modern communications infrastructure access and services and narrow the digital divide.
“There is a lot that is good in [the paper]. There is some stuff that is concerning. And there is some stuff that is dangerous, potentially,” Telkom chief commercial officer Dr Brian Armstrong said at the MyBroadband Conference, in Midrand. He told delegates that regulations should only be amended where necessary or in cases of market failure.
“Our investors look for predictability and certainty in the market,” he said, noting that its processes should be legally and procedurally sound, underscored by policy coherence that saw all industry players evolving, through the promotion of competition and investment.
The new ICT White Paper’s proposal, however, for the return of assigned spectrum would be “problematic” and likely reverse investments, as no company would invest billions of rands on spectrum only to return it in five years, Armstrong said.
However, many concepts highlighted in the White Paper were positive, said Armstrong, pointing to the significant focus on openness and customers, and the call for evidence-based regulatory intervention.
The White Paper included the proposed restructure of the regulator, the “wait-and-see” approach to over-the-top players, as opposed to a “hard-handed approach”, and open access principles, which, for the most part were good, particularly for the fixed-line market.
The policy highlighted a single wireless open access network, which was an appropriate response to access to the underserviced rural and deep rural regions where it could provide efficiencies and a greater degree of access to far-flung areas, but it was an inappropriate intervention in an established market, he said.
The established urban market, which Armstrong conceded was grappling with its own bottlenecks, was essentially working and the implementation of the single wireless network would not be the best way to improve efficiencies.
Further, the nature of the network was not defined, with uncertainty surrounding its structure, including where the contributions would come from, where financial responsibilities would lie and what role each contributor would have to play, he explained.
Armstrong believed that a monopoly and shifting competition to the service level was not the answer to improve customer experience and would not promote innovation.