hitting the wire*

Incompetence, gross incompetence, and the DMA's website poll.

The National Consumer Commission are asking us, the citizens of South Africa, to tell them if we think it is good idea to appoint the Direct Marketing Association as the custodians of the "opt-out" database that is planned as a result of the Consumer Protection Act coming into being. 

Say what?
They actually have to ask that question?
OK, so while we're at it, why not ask if it isn't a great idea to get the inmates to run the asylum?!

Seriously?! Here we have an organization that exists to look after the interests of the folk behind the commercial offers you receive by email, SMS and phone. And the NCC wants them to look after our personal information.

I’m not going to go on a long rant about them - Ivo Vegter, a far more erudite writer than I, has written an informative piece on ITWeb. Give it a read. Any outfit that has not worked out that circulating the actual data rather than hashes of the data is a really stupid idea, and allows our personal data into the wrong hands, should not be allowed anywhere near the opt-out database.

Then of course there’s the DMA’s pathetic response to my lodging a complaint against 8.ta for calling me twice in two days when a) my number is on the DMA’s existing “do not call” list and b) they happily claim to be DMA members when I challenge them. The woman from the DMA tells me that it is not sufficient that I supply the time of the call, the CLI, the name of the call centre, and the first names of the telemarketer and his supervisor; she is not prepared to do anything unless I can give her the surnames of both. I’m surprised she did not want me to supply ID numbers as well!

An amusing ridiculous side-plot to all of this that played out today was the farce surrounding the poll on the DMA’s website. They posted a poll asking if the visitors to their website thought it was a good idea for them to run the opt-out database. Ivo Vegter mentioned this on Twitter mid-morning. The fact was repeated on Twitter and at least one IT mailing list.

The survey, when I first viewed it late morning, was sitting at 70% of visitors thinking it was indeed a good idea to set the fox to guard the henhouse! By 14h00 that figure had sunk to 4%. It was patently obvious that the DMA in their diligence had forgotten to ensure only one vote per person. I mean it is not as if they tend to be careful about data protection is it?

Some one obviously woke up to that fact that the poll was not going their way at all as by 18h09 49% of visitors supposedly supported the DMA to run the database. By 18h46 an entirely new poll had appeared in its place and the final results indicated that in fact 87% of people had voted “Yes”. Wonderful! Now they can publish that and we can all rest easy that the matter is settled.

Of course, you have until the end of tomorrow to let the NCC know what you really feel about the matter. What they’ll do with your email, who knows - maybe it will get nuked by their spam filters, but hey, give it go - just maybe there’s someone with integrity, competence and wisdom in that outfit. E-mail the National Commissioner of the National Consumer Commission, care of Prudence Moilwa, at pmoilwa@thedti.gov.za (quoting reference number NCC/EOI/0003), and tell the bureaucrats all of this. You have until tomorrow, 29 July, to stop this farce from becoming law.

Email her now! Go! Go! Go!

This URL provides a detailed history of the poll until the DMA supposedly took it down.

The screenshots below tell a similarly interesting tale.

Telecoms

When is YOUR Telkom number not a Telkom number…?

.... when it’s been ported.

Changing to a VoIP service provider used to mean keeping your existing Telkom lines to receive calls on the number you have always had on your business card and letterhead. That, or opting for an 087 number that half of South Africa probably still thinks belongs to a sex line. No longer. At last count 8 entities were able to port geographic numbers between each other and well over 100,000 landline numbers have been ported between traditional telcos and VoIP service providers in South Africa.

The Altech court case in 2008 that forced ICASA and the DoC’s hands, and allowed every ISP and VANS in SA to get a full telco license had major implications for the SA market that have still not percolated through to consumers. One of those rights is that of the use of a portion of the geographic number range within South Africa. ICASA are cautious about handing out geographical numbers - the remaining ranges are not large, and there are a lot of licensees out there. That is not a constraint though. Once you have a range of geographic numbers, no matter how small, you have the right to participate in Geographic Number Porting.

Most people are aware that it is possible to keep your mobile number and move to another mobile network operator. It is not as well known that the same has been true for landline numbers for some time now. You can keep your Telkom number and move to Neotel, or the likes of MWEB, IS, ECN, Switch Telecom and other alternative telco’s too.

If you’re a VoIP service provider and in possession of an I-ECS license, you should seriously consider jumping though some of the administrative and technical hoops involved to participate in Geographic Number Portability. You’ll need to make adjustments to routing and billing, you’ll need to set up the processes to interact with the Number Portability Company’s CRDB - the central register of ported numbers, which is not trivial, but…. you will find it easier to sell VoIP services AND you will benefit from interconnect revenue from Telkom! If you have a call centre or two on your VoIP service for outgoing calls and they have some significant incoming traffic, you’d need you head examined not to take a good hard look at how much extra revenue you can make from porting their Telkom numbers. [One caveat though - Smartcall numbers are not portable]

It is good to see one more shift towards a more competitive market and lower telecoms costs.

(If anyone needs guidance on the process of setting up and automating GNP - feel free to give me a call)

Telecoms

wither the windmills?

If ever there was a time for the South African telecoms industry to pop a bottle of bubbly, it is this weekend.  Yesterday was the deadline for the Minister of Communications to lodge an appeal against the ruling in the Altech case with the Supreme Court of Appeal.  She has not and the DoC has posted this bit of PR.

The entire release is so typical of a bunch of political bureaucrats living in denial and justifying their actions with sanctimonious puffery, I'm not sure whether to laugh or throw up.  Considering the historic moment, I'll opt for a guffaw.

"...The Minister has been made the villain over the past few months for opposing Altech’s court action to obtain a network license. ..."

"...If the Minister continues with a petition, the risk is that ICASA will not be able to convert licenses by 19 January 2009 as required under the ECA, irrespective of the outcome of the petition. This will then require an amendment of the ECA to extend the license conversion period, and may effectively delay license conversion to late 2010. This result is not in anyone’s interest and will not best serve the ICT sector, operators and consumers. ..."

1st you make regulatory changes which enable self-provision by VANS and then cause total confusion by saying (the day before it is effective) that it was not your intention, then when you're challenged in court and found wanting, you appeal, lose the appeal and then decide to drop the whole matter because you suddenly have an attack of conscience (albeit a sulky one) and recall you have stakeholders who are interested in more competition and lower prices?  Ah yes, but they have things called votes do they not, and you have cope with elections next year?

I still think the main problem (as I reiterated to Lloyd Gedye of the M&G just recently) is that the DoC have never been able to communicate in a clear and unambiguous manner what their vision for the future ICT market is (assuming they have one).

One thing I do know, is that an enterprise of any sort without a clear, commonly shared vision of the future is doomed to go nowhere at top speed.  Even King Solomon seemed to know that!

I wonder which windmills will be tilted at next?

PS.

yes, the lack of an "h" after the "w" in the first word of the title of the post was originally a typo, but then I decided I quite liked the pun, so I left it! ;)

eish, but pushing back telecoms into the 20th century is hard work!

This just in from one of the ISPA regulatory guys:

"Judgement has just been handed down in the High Court on the DoC’s application for an interdict against ICASA issuing individual ECNS licenses.  The judge ruled against the DoC and awarded costs against them as well.  ICASA has yet again been ordered by the Court to issue licenses.

The DoC does still have the option to petition the Chief Justice but there has not yet been ny indication that it intends doing so."

C'mon Ivy.  Either come up with a real plan for driving down telecoms costs in this country or stand back and let competition take its course!

Big shoes to fill.

Duncan McLeod's article in Financial Mail reminded me of something was aware of but had forgotten (easy to do when you're not quite so active in regulatory issues any more!): two of ICASA's councillors end  their tenure at the end of June.  And not just any two, but in my humble opinion two who have overshadowed the rest in engaging with the sector and making strides to move the industry forwarded.  Albeit more slowly than mst of us would have liked, but forward nevertheless.  Tracy Cohen and Zolisa Masiza.  Hamba Kahle.

Is your mobile phone bugging you?

Bretton picked up this story in c|net news.com.

The FBI seem not only to be able to turn on your mobile phone's microphone remotely and use it to monitor any conversations within range, but they are allowed to do so and use the evidence in court!

The technique is called a "roving bug".

"Kaplan's opinion said that the eavesdropping technique "functioned whether the phone was powered on or off." Some handsets can't be fully powered down without removing the battery; for instance, some Nokia models will wake up when turned off if an alarm is set.

...

Because modern handsets are miniature computers, downloaded software could modify the usual interface that always displays when a call is in progress. The spyware could then place a call to the FBI and activate the microphone--all without the owner knowing it happened. (The FBI declined to comment on Friday.)

...

Security-conscious corporate executives routinely remove the batteries from their cell phones.

...

Malicious hackers have followed suit. A report last year said Spanish authorities had detained a man who write a Trojan horse that secretly activated a computer's video camera and forwarded him the recordings.

"

Can you imagine confidential business meetings from now on where everyone is expected to haul out their phones and pull out the battery, leaving both lying on the table?!

Technically, very neat, but from a right to privacy point of view, seriously frightening.

When will they ever learn?

The DoC have recently invited comment on the Draft Electronic Communications Amendment Bill.  Their invite is reproduced verbatim below.  I'd like to draw your attention to one paragraph:

"The Bill will also provide a forward looking legislative framework, which facilitates government's intervention in the ICT sector in line with a developmental state."

I think I prefer William Stucke's interpratation of that innocuous statement:

"The Bill seeks to provide an opportunity for Government to increase its meddling in the telecommunications market in RSA, and to further undermine ICASA ..."

Here's your invite:

Communications Ministry invites written comments to the Draft Electronic Communications Amendment Bill

19 September 2007

The Minister of Communications, Dr Ivy Matsepe-Casaburri, invites members of the public to submit written comments to the draft Electronic Communications Amendment Bill due to be introduced in Parliament before the end of 2007.

The minister issued the general notice (No: 1200 of 2007) published in the government gazette on 17 September 2007. Members of the public have 30 working days to submit their written comments. The objective is to amend the Electronic Communications Act, of 2005, so as to empower the minister to issue a policy direction; and to provide an opportunity for government to make strategic interventions on infrastructure investments whenever it deems necessary.

In amending the Act, government will be able to address pertinent issues in the Information and Communications Technology (ICT) sector such as reducing the cost to communicate by providing infrastructure at wholesale rate to other operators, link New Partnership for Africa's Development (Nepad) Broadband with Africa/Latin America and Europe and provide the much needed bandwidth for strategic projects and consumers in general.

The Bill will also provide a forward looking legislative framework, which facilitates government's intervention in the ICT sector in line with a developmental state.

To access the draft bill, visit http://www.doc.gov.za, under news.

Telkom missing... but is that a bad thing?

The DoC was castigated recently (yes, there are people other than me who do chuck brickbats their way from time to time) for throwing a lavish party "to mark the occasion of the delivery of my vote in the National Assembly." according to Madame Matsepe-Casaburri.

ITWeb today reports that she has revealed that although the event cost R395 315.06, only R96,000.00 came from the DoC... the rest from corporate sponsors.

Who are they?  Acc. to ITWeb:

The companies which sponsored the department's event are: Dimension Data, Vodacom, Cell C, MTN, GijimaAST, ForgeAhead, Microsoft, Business Connexion, Neotel, Multichoice and Nokia Siemens Networks.

Telkom conspicuous by their absence.  Was it because they found it distasteful to fund a party for the telecoms policymakers of the land or did they decide they have no reason to suck up to government, or were they not approached?

I know lobbying government is part of life, but quite frankly, I'm not sorry that Storm's name is not on that list.  There are more constructive ways of spending money right now and when we see some real progress in making SA Telecoms more competitive I'll be ready to celebrate. 

Right now, I'm wondering what the fuss is about.

There is something you can do about Telkom.

Michael Alachouzos, a New York attorney and an SA advocate, was a surprise speaker at today's iWeek 2007 Conference (presentations available here).  He has asked me to make his contact details available for anyone who is interested (see below).

Why would you be interested?  Seems Michael has extensive experience of bringing  monopolies to book through shareholder rights.  If he can get a group of more than 100 like-minded Telkom shareholders together (you only need one share), there are certain obligations that Telkom have w.r.t. being more transparent and accountable.

He is offering shares in Telkom that Mark Shuttleworth will apparently pay for!

If you want to get hold of him:

Michael Alachouzos
011-886-0191
076-818-2653
smda (at) mkohlhaas.org
64 Waterfall Avenue, Craighall, 2196, JHB

I'm intrigued!

Errata

Seems I got the bull by the udder on a few points - please see Michael's comments on this post for clarification.  The concept of getting involved as shareholders in any public entity in order to influence accountability and transparency and general good governance is a good one if time and money allow.

Telkom were "above the law"

Bretton Vine recently posted an article from Business Report by Ann Crotty on IOZ.legal. 

Willie Currie, a former counsellor of the Independent Communications Authority of SA; and Robert Horwitz, a member of the department of communication at the University of California in San Diego have authored an article entitled "Another instance where privatisation trumped liberalisation: the politics of telecommunications reform in South Africa - a ten year perspective".

In it, they claim that the shareholders' agreement signed by the government when it sold a 30 percent stake in Telkom to the Thintana Communications consortium placed both companies above South Africa's laws.  It also outlines how Southern Bell Company (SBC) played a significant role in slowing down the process of deregulation in order to extend Telkom's monopoly and their opportunity to milk the SA consumer to the profit of SBC.

I was working for the dark side at the time and recall finding the SBC guys who were brought in at exec level to be a generally arrogant and aggressive bunch.

We were ripped off.  By our own people too.  Makes my blood boil.

Update:

The academic paper "Another instance where privatisation trumped liberalisation: the politics of telecommunications reform in South Africa - a ten year perspective" can be found here.