The Good, The Bad and The Ugly in the Data Wars
By L. T. Nkomo
Legal
Practitioner and ICT Law Consultant
The year 2017 began
with drama in the mobile telecommunications sector with the aborted
implementation of new tariffs for increases in both data and voice services in
Zimbabwe. This was then followed by a media spat between the Minister of
Information Communication Technology, Postal and Courier Services, Supa
Mandiwanzira and Econet, the biggest telecommunications operator in Zimbabwe. Econet
which has customers in excess of 8 million was the only Mobile Network Operator
(MNO) which complied with a POTRAZ directive to increase the new data and voice
tariffs. However, Econet reversed the implemented tariffs within 48 hours.
However, what is interesting to note out of this whole debacle is that the two
MNOs namely, NetOne (100% owned by Government of Zimbabwe) and Telecel (60%
owned by the Government of Zimbabwe) neither published nor advertised the
proposed new tariffs. Both networks remained mum on this matter when the dust
arose but the acting NetOne Chief Executive Officer, Brian Mutandiro only
indicated a few days after Econet had reversed its new tariffs that they had
not implemented the new tariffs because they had petitioned POTRAZ on the
matter. What is interesting is that all the three networks met as the
Telecommunications Operators Association of Zimbabwe (TOAZ) and agreed on a
common position in support of the fixed floor prices for both data and voices
services. However, what is raising suspicion is why both NetOne and Telecel
either failed or neglected to comply with POTRAZ’s directive, an action which
could be construed as a collusion on the part of Government-owned entities to
expose Econet as greedy and as a cheap marketing strategy. Regrettably, Econet
fell for it and their image was badly damaged by the resultant backlash.
The Postal and
Telecommunications Regulatory Authority of Zimbabwe (POTRAZ) fixed floor prices
of data and voice calls as follows:
- US$0.12c per minute for voice
- US$0.02c per megabyte of data
According to
POTRAZ’s Director-General, Dr Machengete, this move was intended to ensure the
sustainability of the mobile telecommunications sector notwithstanding that
customers would have to pay through the nose. (Read Dr G.K. Machengete’s
interview on the POTRAZ’s website on this link: https://www.potraz.gov.zw/index.php/categorylinks/147-response-on-the-set-floor-prices-on-voice-and-data).
What Dr Machengete fails to recognise in his interview is POTRAZ’s obligation “to promote the interests of consumers,
purchasers and other users, in respect of the quality and variety of postal and
telecommunication services provided and telecommunication apparatus supplied;”
as stipulated in s4 (1) (g) of the Postal and Telecommunications Act (PT Act),
Chapter 12:05. There is no evidence, at least in the public domain that the MNOs
have been complaining about viability issues. If they did, then it would have
been necessary for POTRAZ to look at their cost structures before
implementation of these tariffs.
Whilst, it is
admitted that POTRAZ does use a cost based approach in approving tariffs, it
looks like this was a half-hearted attempt at securing tariff increases which
would eventually benefit them by way of increased license fees. If indeed
POTRAZ was genuinely convinced that there was need for a tariff review, as the Regulator
they should have vigorously defended their position before the Minister of
ICTs, Postal and Courier Service in light of the fact that one of their key
mandate in accordance with the provisions of s4 of the PT Act is maintaining
viability in the telecommunications sector.
However, as things
stand and in the absence of compelling information pertaining to issues of
viability of their business, it would appear that the customers were, on the
face of it, being forced to pay for the inefficiencies and high cost structures
of MNOs as well as POTRAZ’s by virtue of the Regulator being funded from the
licence fees being contributed by MNOs. It would be interesting to note that in
terms of the new licensing regulations each licensee is obliged to contribute
1.5% of its gross revenue as annual licence fees to POTRAZ. Therefore, the
higher the revenues of the MNOs, the better the income of POTRAZ by way of
licence fees. POTRAZ was complicit in this respect and it appears that as a
regulator they did not act in the public interest to protect consumers from the
predatory pricing manoeuvres of the MNOs.
The fixing of
floor prices of both voice and data services which was followed by tariff
increases above the minimum set by POTRAZ was presumably intended to finance
high salaries and huge debts being carried by MNOs especially Government-owned
networks, something which could be avoided by the Government disinvesting from
these MNOs including the unnecessary acquisition of Telecel which effectively
reverses the indigenisation policy embarked on by the Government in the
mid-1990s. Not only does it reverses the
indigenisation programme but it also reverses the liberalisation of the
telecommunications industry which began worldwide in the 1990s. Most governments,
including the Government of Zimbabwe, liberalised the telecommunications
industry and licensed new telecommunications operators to compliment the former
Posts and Telecommunications operators. Liberalisation of the
telecommunications industry also witnessed the separation of regulation from
operation of telecommunications services through the establishment of
Independent Regulators and the commercialisation of the former Posts,
Telegraphs and Telecommunications entities. In some cases, other governments
pursued privatisation of the same entities as a consequence of the
liberalisation process in order to make them more efficient and competitive
with the emergence of private competitors. The benefits of liberalisation of
the telecommunications industry have been tremendous. Liberalisation of the
telecommunications industry revived growth in the telecommunications industry in
one or more of these ways depending on the country concerned:
- Improvement in tele-densities;
- access to telecommunications services even by those in remote places due to quick deployment of technologies such as mobile telecommunications;
- reduction in prices of services due to technological improvements;
- innovation in telecommunications products and services;
- improvement in GDPs rates;
- economic efficiencies in the majority of the economic sectors;
- employment opportunities both in the industry and downstream initiatives; and
- the rise of global players such as MTN, Vodacom, Orange and Airtel, Orascom.
The Government
of Zimbabwe has been struggling to recapitalise companies like NetOne and TelOne.
Since their inception, the Government of Zimbabwe has never invested direct
capital into either NetOne or TelOne. These two Telcos have been funded from
debt and they are both heavily geared. NetOne has over the years been
technically insolvent due to its high gearing ratio. Telecommunications is a capital intensive
business which requires a huge chest of capital which the Government of
Zimbabwe does not have. To make matters worse, the Government of Zimbabwe recently
acquired 60% equity portion in Telecel Zimbabwe (Pvt) Limited and this was an illogical
manoeuvre as it worsens the funding burden of the Government in relation to
these entities. As noted above, the same Government has been failing to recapitalise
its existing businesses and it is also presiding over a struggling economy.
The decision by
the Government of Zimbabwe to acquire 60% equity in Telecel also has the
implication of reversing the gains of the benefits of liberalisation of the telecommunications
and a return to government monopoly in the telecommunications sector which situation
was rejected in the Retrofit (Private)
Limited vs Minister of Information and the Posts and Telecommunication
Corporation 1995 (2) ZLR 422 (S). NetOne and TelOne are being financed by huge
foreign debts whilst Powertel, another baby which is a subsidiary of ZESA Holdings
(Private) Limited is also struggling with capitalisation issues and has not
been able to carry out expansive infrastructure development programme.
Powertel, should have been competing with Liquid Telecommunications in the
development of optic fibre backbone for the country but it is failing to do so
due to capital-related issues.
It is sad that
the Government is failing to see reason in this regard and at the same time initiating
and approving pricing models which effectively punish consumers with high
service tariffs because of its failure to take efficient decisions with regards
to these Government-owned telecommunications operators. The two options which
the Government should seriously consider are:
- A merger of all the Government-owned telecommunications operators which have been competing for market share as well as capital funds for infrastructure expansion. A merger of these companies is in line with industry trends especially with the Fixed to Mobile Convergence (FMC) trend that is taking place worldwide. FMC is a way whereby mobile phones are connected to the fixed telecommunications infrastructure and this is intended to make it possible for telecommunications operators to provide services regardless of location or access technologies. Thus, FMC provides customers with uniform experience both on the go and at home. A key benefit of FMC is the reduction in costs of calls and wireless minutes can be pulled off the wireless network and redirected as Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) minutes over a Wi-Fi network.One wonders why voice calls have to be fixed at 12c per minute when all MNOs are now operating data networks and they should be able to provide VoIP calling services which are much cheaper. POTRAZ needs to explain to the public the cost structures of these MNOs because there is no doubt that under the current circumstances these services may be provided at lower rates and the businesses would still remain viable. Telecommunications is a volume based business and therefore, the cheaper the service, the more the users and the more the Telcos generate in terms of revenue.Furthermore, MNOs have to be more innovative in ensuring that they monetise data services in order for them to generate more revenues to replace the dwindling voices revenues which were once the mainstay of the success of telecommunications operators. MNOs do not need the Regulator’s helping hand in this regard. For instance, with the availability of optical fibre, they should be able to offer mobile television or Internet Protocol Television (IPTV) services either as an On-Demand or live streaming service. Econet is ready for this development especially with the ubiquity of its optical fibre around Zimbabwe’s urban centres and the establishment of Kwese.Com, which has managed to secure brilliant television content.However, the fixed floor prices will inhibit innovation of this kind as MNOs should be free to package their services as they deem fit and in response to the market demands. Regulatory intervention must be kept to the minimum. It is regrettable that under the current regulatory regime, it appears that the telecommunications sector in Zimbabwe is over-regulated and yet regulators worldwide are employing light touch regulation and they are intervening only when it is absolutely necessary. MNOs must compete on the basis of their services with minimum or no regulatory interference.Nevertheless, I recommend that NetOne be merged with TelOne and Powertel so that these three Government-owned telecommunications operators may take advantage of each other’s strengths to enable them to compete more effectively with Econet. Currently, the competitive efforts of the Government-owned companies are fragmented because of technological silos derived from the existing regulatory model as provided for in terms of the PT Act. On the other hand, POTRAZ must begin to think about changing the existing licensing regime to provide for Unified Licences as the current licensing regime is promoting technological silos which are now outdated.
- Another alternative would be for the Government of Zimbabwe to dispose the whole or part of its equity in NetOne, TelOne and Powertel to a larger operator like MTN, Vodacom or Airtel who are already operating on the African continent and have a better understanding of the African market. This option will enable these Government-owned Telcos to enjoy one or more of the following advantages:
- economies of scale in terms of procurement of hardware and software equipment;
- skills transfer and access to other special technical and marketing skills;
- riding on the power of dominant global brands which may instil fear in their local competitors; and
- recapitalisation of businesses which are reeling under debt and the restructuring of their balance sheets.
It is regrettable that option (b) has been resisted
by Government over the years. Between 2001 and 2002, an attempt was done to
dispose part of Government equity in NetOne and TelOne and invitations for
offers were done but none of the submitted bids qualified.
In 2007, the Ministry of Transport, Communications
and Infrastructure Development which was under Minister Christopher Mushohwe, refused
an offer from MTN to operate as a Mobile Virtual Network Operator (MVNO) riding
on NetOne’s network. At the time, Minister Christopher Mushohwe seemed to be
interested in courting one of the big Chinese MNOs, China Mobile and China
Unicom. Again, between the year 2009 and 2011, in an effort which was widely
publicised in the local media, MTN[1]
pitched a determined bid for NetOne which included a thorough diligence on
NetOne and a submission of an offer for 49% equity in the business. However, their
offer was either ignored or rejected by the Government. During this exercise
the Government also undertook its own private valuation of NetOne as part of
the process and to prepare for price negotiations with MTN.
However, it is not clear whether the Minister responsible
then, Hon Nicholas Goche eventually submitted MTN’s final offer to the cabinet
for approval. MTN’s offer included an option to recapitalise the business and
the rebranding of NetOne with the powerful MTN brand among the many benefits of
this strategic partnership. During this period, Econet got wind of what was
happening at NetOne and they (Econet) responded by embarking on a massive
network expansion programme which saw them increasing their subscriber capacity
and deploying the first 3G network and mobile internet services in Zimbabwe as
a strategic response to entrench their market dominance in anticipation of an
onslaught by MTN. Meanwhile, NetOne had no funds to respond to Econet’s
aggressive network development manoeuvres and this explains why Econet went on
to acquire customers in excess of 8 million against NetOne’s 2.4 million as at
the end of 2013. The intended transaction fell through and the real
beneficiaries were Econet because they were able to use that window to expand
their network and bring in new 3G technology which included mobile internet.
NetOne eventually got a loan from China Exim Bank in
the amount of US$218 million[2]
but the real benefits of this loan were not realised until the beginning of the
year 2015. However, the whole transaction was beset by litigation and bickering
thereby causing massive delays in the signing of loan agreements and the
eventual implementation of the project by Huawei Technologies by people who
should have supported the project but who maliciously accused the management of
NetOne at the material time of accepting high prices charged by Huawei[3].
This loan could have been avoided if the MTN offer had been accepted because
they were going to focus on capital investment over a period of five years as
part of the transaction. The Government of Zimbabwe has never injected capital
into NetOne, which has since inception been funded by debt[4]
and for this reason, I submit that the Governments can run viable commercial
businesses especially with red tape and bureaucracy associated with Government
operations. Therefore, my view would be for the Government to disinvest in
NetOne and TelOne and sell these entities whilst they still have value. It is
better for one to hold 1% of an elephant than 1% of an ant.
Further details of this saga ended up with public
statements being issued by both Econet and the Minister of ICT, Postal and
Courier Services, Supa Mandiwanzira. In its statement, Econet accused POTRAZ of
driving the agenda to fix floor prices for data and voice calls. The public
view was that this initiative was driven by corporate greed rather than the
need to keep MNOs viable. It now appears that the agenda was premised on the
need to compensate for the loss of voice revenues arising from the impact of “Over
The Top Players” (OTTPs) like WhatsApp and Facebook. This was an unwise
collusion between the regulator and the MNOs. Most operators are finding
solutions to monetise data in order to compensate for the reduction in voice
revenues whilst Zimbabwe’s MNOs are attempting to go against the grain.
This idea of fixing floor prices for data was in the
long run going to stifle innovation. This is the age of innovation and that is
the message which the GSM Association has been preaching to the whole world of
mobile telecommunications. The fixing of floor prices was a myopic solution for
sustainability in this data age. Instead, the Regulator should have been encouraging
MNOs to become more innovative rather than colluding with them to fleece the consumers
through the proposed pricing model of fixing floor prices for data and voice services.
It can also be argued that the Regulator went beyond his call of duty in its
attempt to protect corporates like Econet who are still making profits. For
instance, Econet made a profit in the amount of US$40 million[5]
(2015-2016 financial year). Other Companies like NetOne remain unprofitable[6]
due to their funding structures and operational inefficiencies and this has
been so even before the advent of OTTPs. NetOne and TelOne require urgent
restructuring of their balance sheets which should include identification and
implementation of ways to retire the legacy debt as well as disinvestment by
the Government from these companies as it is unable to inject unencumbered
funds to help the business to overturn their gearing ratios which have caused
them to be technically insolvent.
Econet further accused the Minister of ICTs, Postal
and Courier Services of capturing the Regulator for his own interests and for
“inconsistency and duplicity”[7].
Econet further argued that “…since the Minister’s appointment, it appears that
he has only been the Minster of Government-owned entities alone, and he has
been relentlessly attacking us without just cause and reversing the gains that
the sector has made over the years.[8]”
The question that needs to be addressed is whether POTRAZ as the Sector
Specific Regulator is able to discharge its mandate independently without the
influence of the Minister? The problem with the PT Act is that it makes both
the Minister and POTRAZ co-regulators in terms of the provisions of s26 of the
PT Act which empower the Minister to reverse, suspend or rescind by way of a
directive, any decision which the POTRAZ board would have made if it is not in
the public or national interest. The Minister also has wide regulatory powers
reserved for him in terms of Section 99 of the PT Act. This makes it difficult
for POTRAZ to regulate the sector without making reference to the Minister of
ICT, Postal and Courier Service because the Minister has power to vary or
rescind any decision which POTRAZ would have made. For this reason, it will be
impossible to believe that Minister Supa Mandiwanzira was not aware of the
fixing of the floor prices for data and voice calls, this being a completely
new regulatory pricing model. Minister Mandiwanzira was or should have been in
the know. Furthermore, it is statutory practice that no MNO or any licensed
telecommunications service provider can publish and implement any tariff unless
it has been approved by POTRAZ in terms of s100 of the PT Act. An operator must
apply to POTRAZ for approval of its tariff and POTRAZ has 14 days to either
approve or reject the proposed tariffs. If POTRAZ fail to respond within the period
of 14 days as stipulated in s100 (3) of the PT Act, then the tariffs shall be
deemed to have been approved. Therefore, what cannot be denied by both the Minister
and POTRAZ is that the tariffs which were published and implemented by Econet
were approved and if the tariffs were horrendously steep, why did POTRAZ
approve them? POTRAZ may have been complicit in this matter. I therefore
persist with my contention that POTRAZ, therefore, failed as a matter of duty to
protect the consumers as required of them under s4 (g) of the PT Act which
states as one of the obligations of POTRAZ as “to promote the interests of
consumers in respect of telecommunications services and equipment provided by
licenced operators”, when it approved Econet’s new tariffs. In light of this
provision Econet cannot, therefore, be left alone in the mud. The three parties
namely, Minister Mandiwanzira, POTRAZ and Econet all have issues to answer
regarding this fiasco. In fact, on the part of POTRAZ, their new Director-General,
Dr G.K. Machengete is on record as having vigorously defended the fixing of
floor prices for data and voice services[9]
in a public interview on the POTRAZ’s website. POTRAZ was thus in the forefront
of the crusade against innovation. Business survival in this age can only be
achieved through innovation. The simplicity of voice communication as a model
for high revenue generation and business survival is no longer relevant.
Furthermore, if the directive to apply fixed floor
prices was issued by POTRAZ to MNOs then it would also have applied to NetOne
and Telecel. However, their inaction to either publish or implement the floor
prices is suspicious especially their deafening silence. Hours after the publication
of the new tariff I twitted directly to Strive Masiyiwa and told him that this
may be a set up. Now they are left to clean the mud on their faces and the
Minister seemingly appeared as a hero that saved the public from a perceived
act of greed by Econet and was acting as if he was not aware of what was
happening. It may be untruthful of anyone to say that the Minister was unaware of
this new development until there was an outcry in response to Econet’s new
tariff. The impression that was created in the public domain was that Econet
somehow acted on its own in implementing the new tariffs. That cannot possibly be
true for the reasons which I have already advanced in the preceding paragraph pertaining
to the procedure that must be followed in the approval of new service tariffs
under s100 of the PT Act and the fact that the Minister of ICTs, Postal and
Courier Service is also a regulator in his own right under the PT Act make it
impossible to believe that he was unaware of the new tariffs that were proposed
by all operators even though the duty to approve those tariffs fell within the
jurisdiction of POTRAZ. Thus, it is not far-fetched to submit that both POTRAZ
and the Minister were aware of this development and they must both own up and
accept responsibility for this debacle.
It is regrettable that in his response to Econet’s
public statement, Minister Supa Mandiwanzira appeared to want to use the
political card. The Minister argued in his statement that Econet’s statements were
highly political even though there was nothing political about the statement
save to state their displeasure at the actions of the Minister in so far as how
he had handled matters pertaining to Econet in the recent past including this
matter. It would appear that Minister Mandiwanzira may have been upset by what
appeared to be a stern judgment on his performance as the minister responsible
for the telecommunications sector. Secondly, POTRAZ reports to the Minister
since it is not an independent regulator who reports to a parliamentary
committee. Therefore, Econet seemed to insinuate the possibility of Minister
Supa Mandiwanzira’s influence over the Regulators decisions by alleging
regulatory capture. It is also disturbing that the Minister says Econet must
stay away from politics when as a Minister and a political appointee he
represents government as a Shareholder in the three Government-owned telcos
namely NetOne, TelOne and Telecel. In addition to that the Minister has
unfettered powers to appoint the Boards of Directors of NetOne and TelOne who will
serve at his pleasure. Furthermore, POTRAZ reports directly to the Minister of
ICTs, Postal and Courier Service and the latter also appoints its Board of
Directors. Inadvertently, his political functions as a Minister and as the shareholder
representative affects the way Econet as a licensee in this sector does its
business. What is also suspicious is how NetOne and Telecel reacted to this
development with inaction and deafening silence as if someone told both of them
not to implement the new tariffs in order to set-up and expose Econet. Consequently,
I contend that POTRAZ is not an independent regulator both in practice and how
its structure and powers are set out in the PTA Act. Therefore, whilst there
may be no evidence to confirm this point, it would appear that the allegation
of regulatory capture is not out of this world. This is a fair point which the
Minister should fairly address in light of the delicate equipoise required of
him as the Minister of ICTs, Postal and Courier Service, co-regulator under the
PT Act, Shareholder representative and the appointing authority in relation to
how he treats and regards other licensee in the telecommunications industry.
The allegation of the Minister being biased in favour of Government-owned
entities may therefore not be far-fetched. It is a reflection of a seriously
flawed governance structure requiring a review of the current PT Act.
It is also unusual that when the Minister received
complaints about Econet’s malpractices he neither investigated nor acted on the
complaints, yet he was prepared to talk about it in his public statement. Both
the Minister and POTRAZ as regulators have responsibilities under the PT Act to
ensure that such allegations are investigated and the alleged offender should to
be brought to book if the allegations are found to be true in terms of s4 (i)
of the PT Act. Billing integrity is a regulatory matter, which POTRAZ must deal
with if there are allegations of malpractices against a licensee and not for
the Minister to wait for a moment like this to raise such issues in the public
press. Innocent bystanders and every other reasonable person would regard it as
a ploy to expose POTRAZ’s regulatory incompetence. On the other hand it could
be that these allegations are unfounded and therefore, there was no basis for
them to be investigated.
Again, the Minister argues that Econet must explain
to their public why their prices were higher than the fixed floor prices. Is it
the Minister’s argument that Econet published and implemented unapproved
tariffs in violation of the provisions of s100 of the PT Act? It is trite
practice that notwithstanding the existence of the fixed floor prices, any tariff
which a licensee may intend to charge its customers whether it was the fixed
floor prices or some other prices higher or lower than the floor prices, that
tariff would still have to be approved by POTRAZ under s100 of the PT Act.
Econet would have justified their tariffs to POTRAZ and possibly the Minister
would have been informed about the new tariffs which POTRAZ would have approved.
Therefore, I contend that all the three parties namely, Econet, POTRAZ and the
Minister must explain to Zimbabwe why Econet’s proposed tariffs were approved
by POTRAZ if they were outrageous as it turned out to be.
Econet cannot be defended as well because they are
well aware of the adverse economic situation prevailing within the country and
for them to fix their prices way above the minimum set as the floor prices by
POTRAZ was unreasonable and it borders on greed. This practice cannot be
supported by anyone. It shows that they are insensitive to the struggles of the
market which they are serving. Telecommunications is a public utility service
and those who have been granted the mandate to provide this public utility
service have a moral obligation to ensure that they do not overreach their
customers. In this regard, Econet failed the test and their public statement
attempting to apportion blame to POTRAZ and even to the Minister is
hypocritical. They participated in this process and they also submitted tariffs
which they published and implemented for approval by POTRAZ. It is surprising
that they also went on to publish an article in which they appeared like they
were empathising with their customers by telling them that “they feel their
pain”. If they knew how painful this move was going to be on their customers,
why did they ask POTRAZ to approve an exorbitant tariff? These were crocodile
tears coupled by a botched public relations stunt given that they applied for
the approval of the tariff on their own and justified their proposed prices
before POTRAZ. Nobody forced Econet to fix the prices at the levels they
advertised and implemented. Therefore, for Econet to say that “they share the
pain of their customers” was simply not an honest feeling on their part but a
hypocritical but decently disguised feeling.
Conclusion
I submit that the whole saga was caused by the unholy
alliance between the MNOs and POTRAZ whilst Minister Supa Mandiwanzira cannot
be exonerated as well. The Minister was in the know and all the parties must
have known how the market was going to react. Consumers are now more
enlightened and they are likely to be more vocal in response to what they do
not like. There was no proper justification for the intended fixed floor
pricing and the MNOs should have been more sensitive to the state of the
market. Consumers are hard pressed from all directions and therefore, they
lacked sound judgment on this matter. At the same time, the failure by the Government-owned
entities to implement the new tariff structure coupled with their deafening
silence was rather weird and stinks of a collusion to expose the biggest
competitor in the market. They had marginal success because as tempers boiled,
Econet lost a huge portion of public sympathy and some subscribers may have
moved over to NetOne, although the numbers may not be known as most subscribers
have both NetOne and Econet SIM cards. The key lesson for all the MNOs and
other enterprises is that they must never take consumers for granted and that a
united consumers’ voice can thoroughly damage one’s goodwill. It shall be
difficult for Econet to restore the lost portion of public support they lost in
this matter. Finally, there are serious corporate governance matters that have
to be addressed between the line Ministry of ICT, Postal and Courier Services
and POTRAZ. The current legal framework seriously compromises independent
regulation because the Minister is both a regulator and policy maker. This does
not auger well for independent regulation as regulatory power is concentrated
in the hands of one office and further that the risk of regulatory capture is
real in that the Minister of ICT, Postal and Courier Services has power to
appoint the Board of POTRAZ as well as significant influence in the appointment
of senior officers of POTRAZ. Finally, the ownership by the Government of the
four entities albeit still smaller than Econet’s large base of subscribers when
combined, does not do well for a level playing field. As we speak, NetOne,
Telecel and TelOne have all not paid their licence renewal fees and they also
owe Econet huge amounts in terms of interconnection fees. The industry requires
urgent reforms.
#END
Email: Lyndon.Nkomo@gmail.com
Twitter:@TheMediaProf
[1] LSM
Kabweza ‘ “MTN set to acquire …” Rumours All Over Again. We Hope It’s a Solid
Deal This Time’http://www.techzim.co.zw/2010/01/mtn-set-to-acquire-rumours-all-over-again-we-hope-it%E2%80%99s-a-solid-deal-this-time/
[2] Victoria
Mtomba, “China Extends US$218 Million to NetOne” News Day, 4 April, 2014 https://www.newsday.co.zw/2014/04/04/china-extends-218-million-loan-facility-netone/
[3] Chris
Muronzi, “NetOne Violates Tender Laws in US$251m Upgrade”, The Zimbabwe
Independent, 6-21 December, 2013 Business Digest Page 1
[4] “Marufu,
NetOne Board Sticks to His Guns” http://www.technomag.co.zw/2015/07/20/marufu-netone-board-chairman-sticks-to-his-guns/#sthash.7baS3D1B.dpbs
Accessed on 5 February, 2017
[6] Nigel
Gambanga “NetOne posts US$5.8million against a 13.8% revenue increasein first
half of 2015” 11 October 2015 http://www.techzim.co.zw/2015/10/netone-posts-58-million-loss-against-a-138-revenue-increase-in-1st-half-of-2015/
.
[9] Bianca
Mlilo “Potraz Defends Data, Voice Calls Service Charges Increase” Chronicle, 11 January, 2017 http://www.chronicle.co.zw/potraz-defends-data-voice-call-service-charges-increase/
Accessed on the 7 February, 2017
