The year is reaching a crescendo, with a book deadline — yes, next year will see my first book — and lots of other work to wrap up. Between finishing the book and its publication by June, I’ll completely revamp this site to make it useful again. Meanwhile, all the links in my previous post remain valid. If you’re struggling to reach me, you can always find me on Twitter @IvoVegter.

Having said that, I think I ought to give up my half-hearted attempt to keep this blog current. Because I now write several columns a week for which I get paid, blogging in the sense that I used to write here is not on my agenda. I’ll let others compete with how I make a living by doing it for free.

I’m busier than ever — much busier than I expected to be when I left Johannesburg for the safer, quieter, cheaper and more beautiful environs of Knysna. However, I’m giving a lot of thought to how I can better use this site to tie my various activities together. It needs a major rebuild, both in functionality and design, after years first of loyal service, and then benign neglect.

Until I get around to all that, here is where I hang out:

The Daily Maverick — my flagship column can be found under “opinionistas” down the right-hand side every Tuesday (usually). It covers everything under the sun, though that is not a formal restriction. One column recently racked up 400 comments totalling 65,000 words in just one week, which is among the reasons this blog is losing the battle for my attention. Also, it’s a superb site, populated with some really brilliant writers. It’s as good to read as it is to write for.

ITWeb — my area of specialisation, if I can still be said to have one, is technology and telecommunications. It’s what I studied, and what I wrote about when I first, accidentally, became a journalist. My interest in IT, and my long association with ITWeb continues. Most Thursdays I have a column there.

Brainstorm magazine — I’ve been writing for ITWeb’s premier monthly title, Brainstorm, since its launch ten years ago. I still do, and still have great fun doing it. Besides my back-page column, there’s the White Noise page, which is where I get to take the mickey out of everything and everyone in the field.

CAR Magazine — I’m very excited to be writing a column for what has always been one of my favourite print titles. I hardly ever read anything in print nowadays, but I’ve always made an exception for CAR. It is a great honour to be writing for them now too.

Twitter — having publicly left Facebook years ago because of the noise and clutter (and because Microsoft bought a stake in it), my favourite social networking hangout is Twitter. You’ll find me there daily, as @IvoVegter, arguing about economics, media, politics, environmentalism, history and Manchester United.

That time is not now.

On The Daily Maverick, I recently wrote a column about “fracking” in the Karoo. It was, shall we say, explosive. It got hundreds of comments, many of which I tried to do justice with a reply. It took me four days to write the column, and another three — working 16-hour days — to keep up with the debate. Contrary to the allegations, I do not have the resources of Shell behind me. It’s just me.

However, since then, several posts have appeared challenging my views. Although I thought most of the points were mere rehashes of the great debate at The Daily Maverick, I did write a response to one of them. Since the M&G ThoughtLeader site does not permit comments longer than 250 words, and the author’s own blog doesn’t permit comments at all, some people have asked me to post my response elsewhere. So, here it is. It’s probably best to read them side-by-side:

Allow me to respond, point by point.

* I did not confuse the water use for exploration with total usage. I referred to the former because that is what the Havemann report objects to in calling for a total ban on exploration that could lead to hydraulic fracking. I was clear elsewhere that shale gas production regions typically account for 1.5% of local water use. I noted that this was not insignificant, especially in a dry region. I was also clear that I expect Shell to answer the question of where it will get this water, but that such a demand falls well short of banning drilling, now and forever.

* I did not state that we can trust Shell. What I said was that Shell has a motive not to give the public cause for complaints. I expect Shell to be held to its contractual commitments, just like anyone else.

* Regulatory capture can hardly be blamed on the companies that operate in the regulated space. It happens because of ill-conceived regulation, or outright corruption. Nowhere did I defend this.

* The precautionary principle logically contradicts itself, as I repeatedly stated in the comments to my column (which, despite their extraordinarily high number I kept replying to, as a matter of courtesy and responsibility). It is not possible to prove the absence of risk. Even if it were, not doing something because it might cause harm does not take into account the potential harm caused by not doing it. The precautionary principle says that the precautionary principle cannot be applied because we cannot know the risk of applying the precautionary principle. The point is: show a reasonable expectation of future harm, if you want to ban something. Citing lack of evidence for such harm as a cause to ban something would significantly delay or even block progress.

* If Bob says you stole his chocolate, and you say you didn’t, mere evidence that Bob no longer has his chocolate is not proof that you stole it. I’m sure most of us can see why the logic is perfectly fine.

* Vague allegations, without any specific evidence. Show the evidence.

* Noting that problems are not associated with hydraulic fracturing shows dishonesty, in that the objection is to “fracking”. If drilling is the problem, then say so, so we can argue honestly about the same thing. Of course, that risks having to face the fact that drilling is an even more ordinary activity, about which the risks are well-understood.

* The Environmental Protection Agency is not cited. In fact, doing so would be impossible, because all I said about it was that it would produce preliminary results in late 2012. (I did this to contrast Havemann’s rush job, and to suggest that it might be premature to call for a ban on all future exploration for shale gas.)

* I noted their objectives not to expose bias, but to show that their stated goals go well beyond expressing concern about specific risks. Yes, I’m ideologically a free-market advocate. My other opinions derive from this. I make no apologies for that.

* I attach little value to the greenhouse gas implications of shale gas drilling. Never mind that I don’t believe our own impact on climate change is alarming, but drilling for natural gas is hardly new, and the process against which the TKAG objects does nothing to increase the risk.

* On jobs, all I’d point out is that jobs created by market forces are sustainable. Those created by subsidies and handouts are not jobs, but charity for which everyone else pays tax.

Since you stopped using bullets, allow me to note what I placed in my postscript. I entirely support the right of Karoo farmers to make decisions about their own property. That they do not own their mineral rights, so that Shell does not have to negotiate with them and conclude binding contracts with all the guarantees and compensation clauses farmers might require is not the fault of farmers, nor of Shell, and certainly not of their technique for extracting shale gas. It is the fault of the government.

If you want to object to the powerlessness of Karoo farmers, aim your critique at the right target, and complain about the right problem.

Excuse the lack of formatting. I really am rather swamped at present, as interesting and important as this debate is.

South by South West is one of the world’s premier film, music and interactive festivals, attracting near 20,000 people to the delightful university town of Austin. The programme is packed with serious brain food and equally serious food and entertainment.

To pay for it all (courtesy of our sponsor, Old Mutual) we’ll be blogging and tweeting up a storm. The official Twitter account is @sxswsa, and I’ll be editing a blog at sxswsa.co.za. Follow along, and use the hashtag #sxswsa to facilitate searching. There’s also a Twitter list, at @sxswsa/sxswsa, with all the South Africans who are going along. This year, the effort will be lent much professionalism and polish by the addition to the team of two social media and marketing mavens, Catherine Lückhoff (@cluckhoff) and Gaby Rosario . They’ll both be writing and photographing their way around Austin. In addition, we’ll aggregate as much other South African content on the sxswsa blog as we can, to make it a one-stop shop for the South African invasion of Texas.

As an introduction, here’s a piece written for BizCommunity, one of the sites (along with Memeburn) which has kindly agreed to cover our trip: The South African invasion of Texas. I will likely write articles for other publications too, so keep an eye out for them.

Yesterday, I reported a problem with Vodacom internet access. The last time I did this, I had to call three times before an actual ticket was opened, but this one was assigned S2-DZW32-22J8E.

The symptoms were strange. My web browser, and several other applications that depended on http, did not work. Other data apps, like Twitter and Buzzbox, did work. I had already rebooted my mobile phone — an HTC Desire. I checked that I hadn’t been capped. Against both my wishes and better judgement, I followed the rather strange advice of the call centre agent to delete my cookies, cache and history, because (so they said) this takes up space and can make my internet access slow down or stop working. The “fix” didn’t work, obviously.

I was told there were no problems on the network, as always. The last time I reported an error and was told this — when they didn’t even bother opening a ticket — I called a network engineer in a nearby town, who had been helpful before. He promptly told me that they were already on site to solve capacity problems at my local tower. Nobody had bothered to inform the call centre, so the agents could tell me the problem was being seen to. No, it was my fault, my phone’s fault, or anyone else but Vodacom’s fault.

The time before that, the call centre also told me there were no problems on their network, and I should bring my phone in for repair. When the problem persisted for 48 hours, Vodacom’s CEO noticed my public complaints to @vodacom and got involved. It turned out a router 250km away from me kept falling over, affecting a huge region. It was such a critical network element that it could only be fixed and restarted after midnight.

So, when you call 082155 (Vodacom 3G Support) or 111 (Vodacom Customer Care), know that their default position is to lie to you. The call centre is never told anything by the network engineers, and refuses to listen to customers. Surely, when a customer explains in some technical detail what the symptoms are, an agent can skip the script designed for grannies with decade-old Nokias, or escalate the call to someone who actually has a clue?

This morning, the problem had been solved. Not because they fixed something, you understand. That would mean admitting there was something wrong with the network. I was going to let it slide, and then I received this smug SMS:

Message From Vodacom:The GPRS services have been tested and no problems were found.Pls check or activate your settings before further attempts to use the service.If your problem is ongoing pls consult with your closest Vodacare(Dial 125VODACARE Charged Call)in order to test your handset and the SIM.
Kind regards, Vodacom Customer Care E****** S***

You can sod right off, you lying bastard. Don’t blame my “GPRS” settings. And if you think I’m going to pay to “consult with Vodacare”, instead of reporting problems on your network, you’ve got another thing coming. (I blanked out the agent’s name, because it really isn’t their fault. It’s a systemic failure that is entirely management’s fault.)

Vodacom, sort out your business. I’m tired of being treated like fool whenever I use the proper channels to report problems. I’m tired of being lied to when your network monitoring systems or internal communications processes should have alerted you to the problem long before I happen to discover it. And I’m tired of having to abuse my position as a journalist by using contacts that ordinary customers don’t have, just to get a working service. You have millions of customers who don’t happen to have that level of access. They also pay good money for a working service. I have no more right to special treatment than they do.

Sadly, you can probably find/replace Vodacom and substitute any other telco’s name in this rant. I could switch, but I’ve done that before. I’ve used both MTN and Cell C, and they were no better (or worse). That’s the penalty consumers pay for the cosy cartel the government established. All one member has to do to keep customers is to be the least terrible choice. But that doesn’t give them the right to treat customers as annoyances to be fobbed off with lies and platitudes.

(Of course, now that I’ve complained in public, I’ve got the big shots on the case again. The Vodacom call centre called to apologise. A senior engineer called me from a skiing trip in Austria. Don’t you all wish you were that special?)

update: The ever-helpful Pieter Uys, the CEO of Vodacom, says that he has investigated the complaint, found the problem area, and will improve the service. His quick response does him credit, but I remain convinced that network or customer service issues too often land on his desk. It’s like going to the doctor: if you’re on first-name terms there’s probably something wrong.

You may also have missed a few holiday-season columns. The new year started with a piece on How to hire a hitman in SA. Before that, I was talking about taxis, traffic and road safety, in The oppression of taxis, and Arrive alive and neurotic. Earlier in December, I wrote two columns about WikiLeaks which proved to be sufficiently controversial to spark the interest of a few radio stations: One day we’ll all hate WikiLeaks and Protection of Information Bill and why WikiLeaks is so dangerous.

Hope you’re settling into the new year well. It promises to be a good one.