This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 PRETORIA 003001 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
DEPT FOR AF/EPS AND AF/S/KGAITHER 
COMMERCE FOR 4510/ITA/ANESA/OA/JDIEMOND 
TREASURY FOR BCUSHMAN 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ECON EINT ECPS EINV PREL XA SF
SUBJECT: SOUTH AFRICA: HIGH TELECOM PRICES, LITTLE RELIEF 
IN SIGHT 
 
REF: A. PRETORIA 1441 
 
     ¶B. PRETORIA 710 
     ¶C. 04 PRETORIA 5556 
     ¶D. 04 PRETORIA 4028 
 
(U) This cable is Sensitive But Unclassified.  Not for 
Internet distribution. 
 
¶1. (U) Summary.  President Mbeki condemned South Africa's 
high fixed telephone line prices in his February 2005 State 
of the Nation address by stating that they cost ten times 
more than in developed countries.  Mbeki's assertion was 
mainly directed at Telkom, the de facto monopoly for fixed 
line telecom and broadband services.  The mobile phone market 
also shares in the blame for high telecom prices despite the 
fact that three mobile phone operators compete for business. 
In April 2005, Genesis Analytics completed the latest in a 
series of studies on high telecom prices in South Africa. 
Out of the 15 developed and developing comparison countries 
selected, telecom charges in South Africa were 37% to 399% 
percent higher than the average costs in 9 out of 10 
categories.  The South African Government's Department of 
Communications (DOC) responded by quickly organizing a 
two-day colloquium on the pricing of telecom services in 
July.  The colloquium concluded that slow steps are being 
taken in the right direction to reduce high telecom prices, 
such as the imminent introduction of a Second National 
Operator (SNO), changing Value-Added Network Service (VANS) 
provider regulations, the Convergence Bill, and the recent 
cap of Telkom prices at 3.5 percentage points under 
inflation.  Unfortunately for the consumer, the DOC plans to 
hold another colloquium in October, which means that little 
will be done in the immediate future to speed up telecom 
reforms and introduce effective competition to jump start the 
industry.  End Summary. 
 
Wrong Numbers 
------------- 
 
¶2. (U) In his February 2005 State of the Nation address, 
President Mbeki condemned South Africa's high fixed telephone 
line prices, stating that they cost ten times more than in 
developed countries.  Mbeki's goal was to pressure Telkom, 
the 38% government-owned de facto monopoly for fixed line 
telecom services, to lower prices.  Since the late 1990s, 
Telkom has cut costs by slashing jobs and taking on new 
technology, but has passed on only a fraction of these 
savings on to the consumer.  Consumers have grown 
increasingly frustrated watching Telkom generate R40.8 
billion ($6.5 billion) in revenue and take home R6.3 billion 
($1.0 billion) in pre-tax profits in 2004.  One of the 
starkest examples of Telkom's damage is that of the 2.8 
million fixed telephone lines rolled out since the late 1990s 
to serve primarily previously disadvantaged (black) areas, 
70% of them have been disconnected for non-payment.  Many 
South Africans simply could not afford the over 300% price 
increase in peak-rate local calls from 1997 to 2003, and as a 
result, the number of residential lines per 100 people fell 
from 6.5 in 1997 to 5.3 in 2003. 
 
¶3. (U) Even though three mobile phone operators compete for 
business, the mobile market has not fared much better than 
the fixed line market.  The Communications Users Association 
of South Africa (CUASA) has termed mobile phone charges as 
"obscene."  The telecom regulator, Independent Communications 
Authority of South Africa (ICASA), noted that Cell C's 
introduction to the market to compete with Vodacom and MTN 
did not result in a fall in real prices.  (Note: Telkom owns 
50% of Vodacom and Vodacom has over a 50% mobile phone market 
share.  All mobile phone operators must make use of Telkom 
leased lines for calls to landlines, international 
destinations, and certain national locations.  End Note.)  On 
July 18, ICASA released a discussion document on this topic 
stating its determination to establish whether high mobile 
charges are justifiable and if regulatory intervention is 
necessary. 
 
Dialing for Dollars 
------------------- 
 
¶4. (U) A number of studies have highlighted the high telecom 
prices faced in South Africa when compared to other 
countries.  Genesis Analytics completed the latest assessment 
of the industry in April 2005.  To fend off some of the 
criticisms of past reports, Genesis compared South Africa to 
both developed and peer group countries that adhered to "best 
practices."  Developed countries included Canada, Hong Kong, 
Israel, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, South Korea, and the 
United States.  Peer group countries included Brazil, India, 
Malaysia, Morocco, Philippines, and Thailand.  Below is a 
summary of how South Africa compared: 
 
Telecom                       Comparison to     Times Greater 
Service                       Average Cost      Than Low Cost 
---------------------   -------------     ------------- 
Int'l Leased Lines            399% Higher 31 
Business - Local Calls  199% Higher 11 
Business - ADSL         148% Higher 9 
Retail - ADSL                 139% Higher 8 
Business - Mobile       107% Higher 23 
Domestic Leased Lines   102% Higher 15 
Retail - Local Calls    79% Higher  8 
ISP Fees                      45% Higher  5 
Retail - Mobile Calls   37% Higher  11 
Business - Int'l Calls  14% Cheaper 3 
 
(Note:  ADSL = Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line allows 
broadband Internet access over existing copper telephone 
lines.  ISP = Internet Service Provider.  Most service 
comparisons include all 15 countries; however, some 
comparisons include as few as 11 countries.  End Note.) 
 
¶5. (U) The Genesis study painted a grim picture of high 
telecom prices in the South African market.  Charges in South 
Africa ranked the highest in five of the ten categories.  The 
five categories included Int'l Leased Lines, Business - Local 
Calls, Business - ADSL, Retail - ADSL, and Domestic Leased 
Lines.  Charges in South Africa were the second highest in 
Business - Mobile Calls and ranked fourth or fifth highest in 
the remaining categories.  Costs of international calls from 
South Africa fared the best due to the competition from Voice 
Over Internet Protocol (VOIP) and call-back options in the 
market. 
 
¶6. (U) The Genesis study concluded that, while regulatory 
changes in process are a step in the right direction (Refs A 
through D), more needs to be done to bring down prices.  The 
study pointed out that no one had yet addressed Telkom's 
ongoing monopoly of international bandwidth and the non-VOIP 
voice market.  Value-Added Network Service (VANS) providers 
had gained some regulatory ground, but they had not yet 
attained a level playing field with Telkom.  For example, 
while VANS could offer VOIP, Telkom still controlled the 
bandwidth necessary for this service.  In addition, Telkom's 
ISP did not pay the same price as independent ISPs for 
bandwidth.  Overall, Genesis warned of the draining effect 
high telecom prices would have on the economy and advocated 
for increased competition in the telecom market and increased 
ICASA intervention where competition is not feasible. 
 
Can We Talk? 
------------ 
 
¶7. (U) The South African Government's (SAG) Department of 
Communications (DOC) responded to public outcry by quickly 
organizing a two-day colloquium on the pricing of telecom 
services.  On July 14 and 15, the DOC directed a program of 
speakers and breakout sessions to about 250 participants from 
the public and private sectors.  The speakers included 
representatives from the DOC, ICASA, and CUASA. 
 
¶8. (U) DOC Deputy Minister Radhakrishna "Roy" Padayachie 
opened the colloquium calling on everyone to "open (their) 
minds" in regard to pricing issues in the telecom sector.  He 
emphasized the need to lower the costs for the average 
citizen and advocated state intervention to merge the first 
and second economies.  Padayachie also stressed the 
importance of lowering the cost of doing business in order to 
increase growth and foreign direct investment (FDI) in South 
Africa.  He singled out the call center and outsourcing 
industries as means to create jobs and curb unemployment. 
(Note:  Industry analysts project that the call center 
industry could create between 65,000 to 100,000 jobs by 2009. 
 End Note.) 
 
¶9. (U) Padayachie wavered back and forth on whether he 
thought previous studies had provided appropriate country 
comparisons for South Africa.  The strongest statements he 
made were that South Africa's prices "could in fact be stated 
as high" in comparison to other countries and that South 
Africa compared "very poorly" to Brazil and India.  He did 
state, however, that Telkom's charges, which "could be 
described as unaffordable," have driven consumers to the 
mobile market (even though mobile charges are high as well) 
and are hampering the roll out of the Internet.  In 
conclusion, Padayachie made his pitch for "collaborative 
solutions" between the DOC, ICASA, and operators.  The DOC's 
focus in this collaboration will be on policy development and 
ensuring that an adequate regulatory framework and 
infrastructure are in place.  Padayachie urged ICASA to take 
a more active role and focus on the Convergence Bill (Ref A) 
and imminent Second National Operator (SNO) licensing 
agreement (Ref B). (Note: Padayachie said the SNO licensing 
agreement would be finalized in a "matter of weeks."  End 
Note.) 
 
¶10. (U) Dr. Tracy Cohen, an ICASA Councilor, took the stage 
to make a hurried presentation from the regulator's point of 
view.  Cohen began her talk stating that a "much needed 
dialogue" was needed on telecom pricing.  She echoed 
Padayachie's calls for attracting FDI and improving consumer 
welfare.  She noted ICASA's recent achievements of capping 
Telkom's prices to 3.5 percentage points less than inflation, 
upcoming SNO introduction, and VANS regulations.  At the same 
time, Cohen warned that costs will take time to decrease and 
wondered if more could be done to overcome the regulatory 
challenges.  Cohen announced the July 18 release of a public 
discussion document on mobile pricing and an upcoming 
discussion document on ADSL findings.  In summary, Cohen 
expressed ICASA's mutual concern on telecom pricing issues 
and willingness to play its part in attaining lower, but 
sustainable prices in the future. 
 
¶11. (U) After government stated its opinions, consumer 
advocates and operators offered their take on the situation. 
CUASA representative Ray Webber detailed CUASA's gripes, 
including the long, unknown wait for the SNO to enter the 
market, Telkom's lack of per second billing, high mobile 
phone charges, and the fact that ADSL is out of reach for 
most users.  The five main telecom operators, Telkom, Sentech 
(wireless Internet provider), Vodacom, MTN, and Cell C, 
participated in a panel discussion.  The operators had little 
to offer in terms of substance or alleviation from its high 
prices.  Telkom came out on the offensive, highlighting the 
fact that telecom prices are a small part of inflation, some 
tariffs are way below international standards, and that it is 
not making "super economic profits."  Telkom also noted that, 
as of August, its retail ADSL prices will decrease by 30%, 
its overall prices will be reduced as a result of ICASA's new 
price cap, and that telecom costs of compliance are high. 
(Note: In accordance with ICASA's new price cap, Telkom 
recently presented its revised pricing structure for 
approval.  Telkom plans to reduce overall prices by 3%, 
however, certain service charges will increase while others 
decrease.  End Note.)  Vodacom welcomed public debate on 
pricing issues; Cell C regurgitated the regulations mobile 
operators had to comply with, while MTN assured us that its 
executives were "spending hours on pricing" issues in the 
boardroom. 
 
Can We Talk Some More? 
---------------------- 
 
¶12. (U) At the end of the colloquium's first day, three 
breakout sessions were held to seek resolution on the issues 
of policy and regulatory framework, affordable broadband, and 
affordable universal access.  The breakout groups reported 
their findings back to the group on the second day.  The 
groups commonly expressed the need to for more information 
sharing with the public, annual benchmarking studies with an 
agreed comparison group, and making competition effective. 
Under competition, the groups emphasized the need for 
unbundled access to local loop telecom lines and facilities 
and consumer options to readily switch operators. 
 
¶13. (U) The common theme surrounding the colloquium was that 
steps are being taken in the right direction to reduce high 
telecom prices, such as the introduction of the SNO, changing 
VANS regulations, the Convergence Bill, and the recent cap of 
Telkom prices at 3.5 percentage points under inflation.  The 
pace of the steps, however, needs to be quickened and more 
can be done.  When DOC Deputy Minister Padayachie closed the 
colloquium, he crushed this promising theme in describing the 
way forward.  He announced that there would be another 
colloquium on this issue held on October 14 - 16.  The 
October meeting would be held to discuss the paper from the 
first colloquium, prioritize issues from this paper, and 
gather further input from peer countries.  Padayachie went on 
to take nominations for a telecom pricing working group to 
address these issues and mentioned plans of completing more 
benchmark studies by the end of the year.  Essentially, the 
DOC plans to hold another meeting to discuss the first 
meeting and do additional analysis on this topic.  This plan 
fulfills the breakout groups' desire to increase information 
sharing and conduct additional studies.  This plan, however, 
does nothing to expedite current reforms in place or provide 
a roadmap to effective telecom competition in South Africa. 
 
 
Comment 
------- 
 
¶14. (SBU) This colloquium had great promise, but failed to 
bring about potential long-term resolutions to high telecom 
prices.  The DOC seems intent on continuing to identify and 
study the problem ad nauseam instead of implementing 
efficient and effective solutions.  Conducting another study 
is going to result in telling the DOC, ICASA, and the 
operators what they already know -- effective competition 
needs to be introduced so that telecom prices can be reduced. 
 Without these measures, universal affordable access will 
never be attained and foreign business will continue to 
invest elsewhere.  The real work lies in identifying the best 
way to implement effective competition and let private sector 
led growth lead the charge. 
HARTLEY