The Russian government wants locals operators to ensure 85 per cent of their equipment is produced in the country by 2020 as the telecoms industry’s dependence on foreign manufacturers poses a security risk.According to a report by the RBC news agency, a special group of the government also wants local producers of telecom equipment to be charged less VAT and income tax, as well as less social insurance tax. The latter is levied on both employers and employees to fund social security programmes.Customs duties for imported components of equipment will be reduced and a plan has been proposed to change licensing requirements for operators, which will include limitations on the use of foreign equipment.The move has received criticism from some who believe it could lead to higher prices for telecom services and a decline in quality.However, the proposal fits within a wider trend in Russia, where the government last year met Sailfish as it looked to lessen the dominance in the country of Google’s Android.Back in July, VimpelCom, MegaFon and MTS argued that a new law that gives the government wide-ranging surveillance powers could leave the mobile industry facing a bill for $34 billion, on top of damaging civil liberties. Thrive – News Related Apple tipped for Russian app first Russia fines Apple for apps market abuse Saleha Riaz AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to LinkedInLinkedInLinkedInShare to TwitterTwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookFacebookShare to MoreAddThisMore 12 SEP 2016 Previous ArticleMTN rolls-out scheme to increase black ownershipNext ArticleBlog: Smart city debate shifts to talk of humanising services Author Saleha joined Mobile World Live in October 2014 as a reporter and works across all e-newsletters – creating content, writing blogs and reports as well as conducting feature interviews…More Read more Home Russian government urges operators to use local equipment GSMA tips 5G to gain Eurasia foothold within 5 years Russia Tags
Email A pair of trees that have stood sentinel outside the original Flathead County Courthouse for a century are likely in their final days after the county determined the damage and rot in one of the trees makes it a safety hazard.The Flathead County Commission discussed the issue with county parks Director Jed Fisher during a scheduled hearing earlier in the month. Fisher informed the commission that taking down the trees would likely cause a bit of public outcry, given the special way they frame the courthouse doors.Fisher noted that he had written to the commission before with concerns about the tree on the west side of the lot, which had been hit by a driver a few years ago and has been dying and rotting ever since.He said he was particularly worried about how the tree would respond to recent wind episodes, during which the wind whipped up to about 35 mph. There is potential for the tree to fall and damage property or injure someone, he said.And Fisher also noted the likelihood that both trees would be removed if one goes.“There’s this long talk about having an aesthetically pleasing look and (symmetry) and both trees being removed,” Fisher said.At least two tree-focused professionals – one a logger, one a forester – have shown concern for the trees – one reached out to Commissioner Phil Mitchell, and the other from the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation wrote a report for the county about the rot in the westerly tree.Fisher said the problem with both trees is that they’ve been topped for so many years as a form of maintenance that they’re now “very top heavy.” Topping trees is considered the least healthy way to maintain trees, according to the Arbor Day Foundation; it’s the chopping off of branches and the top of the tree, which actually promotes rapid growth of new branches, the foundation said.With both trees now top heavy, Fisher said they could topple onto the recently refurbished historic courthouse, or the new lawn, or even an unlucky person.But, given the trees’ high profile placement on the U.S. Highway 93 couplet right in downtown Kalispell, Fisher said he wanted to ease into the process so as not to alarm the public. He said that while it is the county’s job to maintain its property, he wanted to let the public know why the trees were facing removal before going in and chopping them down.“My guys are very leery of just pulling out there early in the morning and just taking out two established trees,” Fisher told the commission.Mitchell, who said he has a horticulture degree and is thus a fan of trees, said he understood the necessity for removal, even if he didn’t like the idea of it.“I want trees,” Mitchell said. “I’m sorry, these are not good trees to keep.”The commission did not make a decision on the trees during the meeting, and a timeline to determine their future has not yet been set. Stay Connected with the Daily Roundup. Sign up for our newsletter and get the best of the Beacon delivered every day to your inbox.