One of the measures is giving utilities monopoly rights in return for their servicing rural areas.
This is an interesting observation. In South Africa, Telkom, the state monopoly had its monopoly status extended in return for rolling out services to rural areas. What really happened was that cellphones rapidly overtook landlines, and the common perception is that most of the landlines have been stolen and used for copper (although that isn't entirely true, I think, our maid has a cheap line in a rural area). Telkom's monopoly has expired, and it is crumbling, but South African telecoms were set back significantly.
Although most think that there was a purely ulterior motive in granting the monopoly, your comment makes me wonder if they were trying to replicate the de facto American model.
It should be noted that SBC was one of the child companies of AT&T before their anti-trust breakup -- SBC envisioned a new AT&T taking over South Africa, and succeeded beyond their expectations (AT&T was broken up before home internet and DSL even existed).
Somehow, AT&T was allowed to repurchase SBC, so now it's just AT&T again.
This is an interesting observation. In South Africa, Telkom, the state monopoly had its monopoly status extended in return for rolling out services to rural areas. What really happened was that cellphones rapidly overtook landlines, and the common perception is that most of the landlines have been stolen and used for copper (although that isn't entirely true, I think, our maid has a cheap line in a rural area). Telkom's monopoly has expired, and it is crumbling, but South African telecoms were set back significantly.
South Africa's telecoms law was written with much input from SBC, an American corporation that bought a stake in Telkom ( http://twentythirdfloor.co.za/2007/08/27/telkom-sbc-and-a-fe... ).
Although most think that there was a purely ulterior motive in granting the monopoly, your comment makes me wonder if they were trying to replicate the de facto American model.