Legal

Are Wireless networks accross properties legal? If so I would be very interested to setup a node. I stay in Parkview near Westcliff, don't think many people stay near me though :/

Its legal, but if it crosses a public road it's not

ICASA has NO way of enforcing this on Joe Public, there's just too many too handle, and it's not really like you can help it that your wireless network goes beyond your property and accross a public road. This is going to change.

So put it up, who cares, and if they try sueing you, claim ignorance... it's a VERY good excuse, just look at government and ICASA (and sentech *spoeg*)

<font size="1">
Selling my soul to Telkom for better internet speeds.

Person Me = New Person();
while (Me.Alive)
{
try
{
Me.Drink(Alcohol.Any);
}
catch (HeaveException h)
{
Me.PrayToCeramicGod();
Me.Promise("Never again");
}
}
Me.Dispose();
</font id="size1">

ICASA
“ONS VLERKIES IS GEKNIP WAT BETREF WIRELESS..... ”
18 Feb 2004 , Andries Matthysen , Icasa

“People are to afraid to question authority, which is good for my business model....”
Sept 2004
David , CEO of www.uninetwork.co.za

Advocate Pillay is the advocate for Aerosat, a WISP that had their equipment confiscated by Icasa in 2004. The advocate represented the Wisp in their civil counter suit against Icasa to get their equipment back. They won their civil case and presented Icasa with a legal bill of R200 000. Icasa counter sued in the High Court . At this point www.uninetwork.co.za acquired Aerosat and Uninetwork must appear in the High Court on 11 October 2004. David the CEO is confident that they will win the case, leaving Icasa with a R 700 000 bill to foot.

There is no criminal investigation of the Wisp's, the police has ignored Icasa on the issue of Wi-fi and Fiber Optics crossing the road. Only the provider of a Telecoms service can have charges laid against them by Icasa, not the end users. The end user is under no obligation to know Icasa interpretation of the Telecoms Act. Icasa does not raid the houses of the subscribers, they try and confiscate the high site towers and servers of the commercial Wisp selling you the service. You as the subscriber are immune from prosecution. This presents a massive legal loophole for an opensource commons setting up their own network: Create fronting companies that 'sell' a telecoms service to the opensource commons, ensuring legal immunity from prosecution.

Andries Matthysen chief anti-Wi-Fi induna at Icasa laid charges against Cisco SA for importing Access Points years ago. The police just ignored him. Mr Matthysen is still toy-toying over the Airports company wi-fi facilities to travelers with the police and Airports company simply ignoring Icasa. Years later Icasa formally legalized AP for home use because they we made to look like fools with everybody including the police ignoring them.

Icasa has been remarkably successful in spreading the myth through the media that you don't dare lay a Fiber optic cable over the street or set up a high site, or Icasa will order the SAPS to arrest you. This is simply not the truth , this whole issue is a civil matter not a criminal one. Should the police ever wish to clamp down on Wi-Fi and Fiber optic deployment across the road, they will give ample warning through the media. They have never made a single statement on this issue. They also really can't because then they would have to prosecute Transnet for bypassing Telkom and selling international bandwidth to www.uninetwork.co.za. They would have to prosecute local council ect... You can't selectively hunt down www.gin.co.za and www.uninetwork.co.za and not prosecute quasi government.

There has been no rulings by a Judge, no criminal cases prosecuted by the police concerning wi-fi and laying Fiber Optics across the road, so we have no idea what Telecoms Act 1996 says concerning it, only views. Laws have to be interpreted by a Judge in precedent setting cases before we really know what it 'says'. It is my view that Telecoms Act 1996 does not forbid Fiber Optics across the roads, Icasa has a different view.

Megawan , Uninetwork have instituted civil legal action against Icasa in the past and won their cases. Www.uninetwork.co.za equipment was ceased by Icasa in July 2003. Icasa had to return the the equipment after Uninetwork won their civil case against them.

FACT: EVERY SINGLE LEGAL ENCOUTER ICASA HAS HAD WITH A COMMERCIAL WISP, IT HAS LOST. In many instances the relevant WISP had counter sued Icasa obtaining an injunction against Icasa from ever confiscating their equipment again.

England's Midas Telecoms is a new entrant providing Wi-fi Internet with www.locustworld.com meshboxes, they have consulted specialists lawyers on our Telecoms law and are confident that their multi million rand investment are safe from Icasa's meddling.

Megawan has argued in the past that South – Africa is a signatory to an international treaty to keep the 2.4ghz band license free and therefore they can send data where they want in this band. And by placing arbitrary limits on the distance such a signal might travel , you are violating the treaty. Icasa differs in their view, it is for a judge to decide who is right.

Local council have argued that the streets belong to them so they can send data where they want. The bottom line is that the SAPS are not going to get involved in investigating people laying Fiber Optics or sending data with parabolic antenna's, because the equipment is not illegal..

Icasa obviously differs in their view, since no Judge has made a ruling concerning this as Act 1996 stands, providing the commercial Wisp's with free reign in their deployment of Access Points.

Icasa recently legalized AP for home use. Their interpretation of Act 1996 is that the data can't jump the street, but Telecoms legal specialist Advocate R. Pillay's interpretation differs. Icasa's view is that Wi-fi be only allowed to cover a 'short distance'. A definition the lawyers are having a field day with when they sue Icasa to get their clients equipment back in court.

The fact that the police are not investigating Wi-Fi as a criminal issue - leaving Icasa powerless to act, a situation the commercial Wisp's who had access to expert legal council exploited. It is incredible that Icasa has through sheer bluff been able to retard the growth of Wi-fi and private across the road Fiber Optic deployment, ironically eliminating would be competitors to our established Wisp's: www.wo.co.za, www.gin.co.za, www.wavestream.co.za, www.aerosat.co.za and www.nettek.co.za

Look Telecoms Act 1996, Convergence Bill should be viewed in the same light as the law against Jacaranda trees in your garden. All these laws has tacked on as an afterthought the threat of jail time and fine. It is preposterous to envision Waterkloof Police arresting people over Jacaranda's in their garden, no they are simply ignoring the law. In the same manner they will ignore the Convergence Bill and have been ignoring Telecoms Act 1996 as it applies to Wi-Fi. Should there ever be a clampdown on Jacaranda trees , they will give a WARNING first. Should the police wish to test Icasa's interpretation of Telecoms law, they will issue a warning first.

It is not in the commercial interests of WISP's that the opensource commons deploys fiber optic cables.

Wavestream are openly defying Icasa's 100mw rule with their high site's transmitting signals over a long distance over hundreds of roads. They obtained an injunction against Icasa from confiscating their high site towers, using lawyers. specializing in our Telecoms law.

The police only gets involved if illegal frequency's ( like 101Mhz) or equipment is used. Fiber optic cables, Access Points, and parabolic antenna's are not illegal equipment.

Go ahead and phone Andries Matthysen or Lee Ann Cassy at 011 321 8377 at Icasa's and ask them just one question: Who are the investigating officers on Aerosat, Uninetwork, Wavestream and www.wo.co.za?
ANSW: None!

Aerosat was responsive to the suggestion of partnering with an opensource commons with a need for bandwidth, the opensource mesh are not commercial competitors.

The opensource commons could partner with a commercial WISPS or their own fronting company and let them take full legal responsibility for the parabolic on the roofs. . They will take the rap, never the end-user as I have explained.

The ideal solution is to interconnect as many neighbors as possible with fiber optics and provide bandwidth via Wi-Fi, Adsl and Diginet lines. Fiber optics, Linksys WRT54G , Locust meshboxes and Proxim Tsunami 5ghz Access Points must be combined for a telecoms solution. Www.duxbury.co.za are the distributors for Proxim gear.

The legal arguments concerning wi-fi can be extended to laying fiber across boundaries or the road. No judge has ruled on the issue, so Icasa's view is just that: An opinion. Whatever the law says is academic, an opensource commons would just create their own fronting company to dig the trenches or partner with a commercial WISP to take the legal blame.

Johannesburg CBD businesses could also lay their own fiber across roads from building to building in partnership with local council for purpose of relaying CCTV street monitoring. Again fronting companies claiming to have permission to do this is the solution, you are under no obligation to determine such a company's claim. Under our Telecoms law , the end user is under no legal obligation to determine the legality of a telecoms service provided by a company. It is 100% the responsibility of the directors of the relevant telecoms company. So by setting up our own fronting companies to 'sell' us a service, we guarantee legal immunity from prosecution. Anybody can obtain permission from local council to cut through a tar road.

I don't care what Icasa interpretation of Act 1996 are, does anybody realistically expect the police to start digging up peoples gardens looking for fiber optic cables on the instructions of some bureaucratic tin pot “sprinkaan beampte” trying to save himself from irrelevance.?

THE POLICE INTERPRETATION OF TELECOMS ACT 1996:
If no illegal equipment are used, we don't care what you do with it or how many roads you criss-cross. (Parabolic grid antenna's, Fiber Optic cables, Access Points on the 2.4ghz and5.4ghz band.... ). We are not going to be commandeered by bureaucrats trying to entrench their posts. We resent the attempt at being used by fat cat companies to protect their commercial interests from fair competion. We are here to fight crime not to ensure that the CEO of Telkom gets his performance bonus. We are a law unto ourselves and we arbitrarily decide what laws we will and will not enforce.

ICASA'S INTERPRETATION OF TELECOMS ACT 1996:
We expect the police to waste their time proving that the Legal Access point sent data 30km across the street with a parabolic grid antenna or to stop business from laying Fiber Optics. We are trying to protect our bureaucracy from becoming irrelevant, and ensuring job security for our enforcement division. Our entire existence is dependant upon on selling licenses and making rulings that people obey , if we are simply ignored we could loose our jobs.

HIGH COURT INTERPRETATION OF TELECOMS ACT 1996:
in cases involving civil suits against Icasa by Megawan, www.uninetwork.co.za, www.aerosat.co.za and www.wavestream.co.za The HIGH COURT has ruled against Icasa and for the applicants to get their confiscated equipment back. Icasa had to pay legal fees of R200 000 in each case.

ICASA CAN'T EVEN WIN A CIVIL LAWSUIT AGAINST THE WISPS, HOW WILL IT WIN A CRIMINAL CASE WHERE THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS MUCH HIGHER?

There are many laws the police simply ignores and will never enforce. South-Africans should not be so easily intimidated ! If Icasa could not convince the police to obey them prior to the liberalization of Telecoms in Sept 2004, then why would the police attempt to prepare a precedent setting case to a prosecutor to test Icasa's view in a court of law. (Remember we don't know what the law 'says', a judge must decide that for us.)

The whole VANS licensing phenomena is irrelevant – ask www.wavestream.co.za they operate without a VANS license. You only should be concerned with licensing issues if you are making a commercial investment and need legal clarity – the opensource commons does not need legal clarity since the financial layout is so small for each participant.

When the CEO's of M-web, IS said that they are to terrified to sell bandwidth from their peering points ect. , they were not specific. They did not mean terrified of the SAPS but afraid of risking millions without absolute legal clarity and losing any CIVIL suites against Icasa or risk Telkom cutting of their bandwidth. We the opensource commons should have no such concerns. The absolute worse that could happen is Icasa sealing one of our R4000 high sites with a court ordered plastic bag. You obviously can't just remove the plastic bag , you have to challenge this in a CIVIL case in court. After paying Advocate R. Pillay R200 000 you will win your case and your high site will up and running again. Icasa will have to foot the legal bill. It is totally ridiculous to imagine Icasa obtaining court orders to seal the R400 parabolic antenna on the www.nodedb.com participants roofs.

At present telecoms companies are dealing with each of us as individuals, leaving us the opensource cooperative commons with little bargaining power. By organizing ourselves into a interconnected power block via 17meg bandwidth 5ghz Intersil Access Points implemented on www.locustworld.com meshboxes we will eventually be in a position to rival MTN and Vodacom as a telecoms provider by and for the people. Transtel , Transnet telecoms arm provides international bandwidth, as a wireless community we can negotiate bandwidth from them. M-web, IS are to terrified to do this, since Telkom can take retribution. And why has the police not arrested Transtel's directors for selling international bandwidth? Doesn't Icasa's interpretation of Telecoms Act 1996 forbid anybody but Telkom from providing international bandwidth?

In the highly unlikely event that the police actually do test Icasa's interpretation of Telecoms law and investigate Airports company, Transnet , Uninetwork etc. , certain procedures will be followed by them. They will prosecute only ONE SINGLE OPERATOR. Not the 200 houses listing their nodes at www.nodedb.com all at one go. For arguments sake lets assume that after a few months they obtain a conviction against David from Uninetwork. They come to my house and try obtain evidence like parabolic antenna on my roof. But by then I would have removed the parabolic antenna and tell the police: Antenna what antenna? To present a criminal case you need to prove beyond all reasonable doubt your case. For this the police must have the offending equipment. No equipment – no case: And the best of all is that the equipment is legal !

They will publicly signal their intention to prosecute WISPS before they actually pounce on Uninetwork against whom Andries pressed criminal charges. FIRST THEY WILL MAKE A MEDIA STATEMENT. Investigating Airports company for ignoring Andries Matthysen will not be a Scorpions style sting , with sirens and flashing lights and the director being dramatically handcuffed like is done in a drug bust. There is not a single precedent setting case or conviction for the police to base such a Wi-Fi-is-evil-and-Telkom-is-good case on. They will issue a statement warning Airports company, Transnet to stop making Icasa look ridiculous or else.... They and the rest of the country will wait for Airports company's response and then only after Airports company tells the police that they won't shut down their networks will the police act. Until that warning form the South African police services to Airports company and www.uninetwork.co.za arrives we can do what we want. And only after a criminal conviction is obtained against Airports company establishing a precedent would we have to remove the parabolic antenna sending data across the street on our roofs. Get it ? Good!

A critical point to understand is that Icasa is only focusing on commercial Telco / Wisps selling bandwidth and completely ignoring Andries Matthysen frantic toy -toying that he the self appointed gatekeeper of communication gets his cut of the money stream. A community based effort is not on the radar screens of Icasa. They only try (not getting anywhere ) to take action against the directors of a commercial WISP or Telco company, which as I have said is a huge legal loophole for an opensource commons: Set up your own fronting company – ensuring legal immunity from any potential prosecution.

Aerosat had their equipment confiscated via a court order obtained by Icasa, nothing has happened or will happen to their subscribers. Whether Aerosat was a fronting company or not is irrelevant, the directors would have to take the full legal fallout, should there be any.

This whole argument can be extended to the Convergence Bill. Nobody has discussed it with the police and they will simply ignore it like they are doing with the present Telecoms law. The Convergence bill sole purpose is for Icasa to be self funding. Icasa's interpretation of the bill once enacted can simply be ignored by the opensource commons. This is why Icasa is so hysterical over Wi-max and Wi-fi, it is impossible to force compliance with the multitude of 'licensing fees' etc. And guess what Icasa : IT IS NOT the SAPS PROBLEM !!! They don't care how many convergence bills parlement amuses itself with if the equipment is not illegal, no testing of Icasa's interpretation of any laws will be entertained by the National commissioner of the police. If only the South- African consumer would realize this.

These IT laws are just a means of enabling the police to crack down on terrorist networks , hackers etc. As long as a community network is not being used for illegal activities, nothing will be done about it as opposed to America's legal regime which is much more stringent in their enforcement of moronic laws.

The bottom line is that the police will give community networks ample warning directly and through the media that they are going to test Icasa's interpretation of these laws in court in attempt to establish the first precedent setting case, and we should shut down our networks and stop laying fiber optic cables across the road and stop making Icasa look like a bunch of fools. Until that warning arrives we can do what we want. And if they do decide, they will prosecute www.wavestream.co.za first to establish a precedent setting case, not everybody at one go. And with our fronting companies we are immune from prosecution. How on earth could they possibly prosecute the many wisp's all at one go? They must have the offending equipment to begin with. NO equipment no case. Logistically and practically you can only possibly therefore go after ONE SINGLE WISP , giving everybody ample warning to shut down their networks.

The reason large commercial ISP's can't ignore the Convergence Bill, is that they need legal clarity before investing millions not because they are terrified of the police ! Commercial ISP's and consumers who differ with Icasa's interpretation of telecoms law are not on the priority list of the Scorpions. Www.nodedb.com participants investing in a R400 parabolic grid antenna doesn't need the same legal clarity as M-Web does.

An opensource wi-fi commons establishing their own nationwide supercharged www.locustworld.com 4G network that will rival anything MTN could furnish, needs some way to protect their high site towers from being sealed by an Icasa obtained court order. It is trivial to win the legal case when suing Icasa to have the plastic bags sealing the equipment removed. But it will cost around R200 000 in legal fees. We must set up a nationwide legal trust fund to engage Icasa in court should any of our community member high sites be targeted. At the moment Icasa is playing the divide and conquer game.

The 2.4 spectrum is being polluted by WISP attaching power amplifiers to 19dbi omni antenna's , we as a community must take action against this by jamming their signal with Yagi' connected to power amplifiers. Icasa is powerless to act against these Wisp's violating the 100mW rule.

Icasa does not confiscate the client devices on residential rooftops , which is ideal for www.locustworld.com mesh box deployment. Their sole focus is hunting down commercial WISP's high sites.

When the benefits of a grassroots self built 4G network finally begins to dawn on South Africans we could present a case to business to help in financing such roll out, where every rooftop gets freely 'donated' to establishing South Africa as a progressive cooperative society.

Wi-max the new 802.16 Wi-Fi standard pioneered by Intel will be used to bridge wireless and Fiber Optic mesh networks at distances of up to 50km and provide the back-haul broadband connectivity. Telkom has been allocated the 3.5ghz spectrum, but the government singed a treaty in 2004 making the 5Ghz band license free. Community networks will be able to use 2.4ghz and 5Ghz for Wi-max deployment. The ultimate goal is to provide voice, data and video anywhere at any time at cost effective rates, even for free. This will reduce crime to acceptable levels by monitoring our streets with CCTV camera's over the networks.

Network redundancy will be a prime consideration for business. Redundancy and network uptime can be guaranteed for point-to-point communication by installing multiple mesh networks on rooftops, should one link go down, then the next residence will relay the signal.

The present telecoms regime from Telkom is a hidden tax which business passes on to us the consumers. By donating some of your time, rooftops and resources you are making your small contribution to fortifying South Africa's economy.

Icasa is not concerned with Telkom, Icasa is concerned with Icasa's eventual demise and irrelevance if an opensource and business cooperative commons succeeds in setting up their own 4G mesh network that pays no licensing fees and asks nobody's permission to communicate with the world. Icasa is concerned with being dethroned as the self appointed gatekeepers of uncensored and free communication.

This document is an attempt to explain to South Africa that the we should not roll over on our backs like an abused poodle every time some bureaucratic juts makes idle threats over how he will instruct the police to nail us. The police will not allow themselves to be used as the extortion arm of petty bureaucrats scheming behind South-Africa's back crafting their own personalized laws (Convergence Bill) to entrench their little fiefdom at the expense of fairness to the country.

The police has a very simple rule of thumb: If you what are doing it not immoral or unethical , we won't enforce special interest laws against you. Now who do you think holds the moral high ground: Telkom or the opensource commons laying fiber optic cables across the road to protect their family/business against crime with CCTV camera's ?

Everybody in life has an agenda. Lawyers don't want you to know that the police will not enforce certain laws, they might let you in on the secret only after you have paid them thousands in consulting fees. The commercial WISP's, don't want the public to know that you can lay fiber optic cables across property boundaries , it places the public in a position to bargain over the cost of bandwidth and empowers them to use alternative technology . The fixed line ISP's can't afford to get involved in something that risks having their bandwidth cut off by Telkom and the WISP's are taking away M-Web's clients . Icasa is fighting for their longterm survival and can't afford an opensource commons deploying a combination of Fiber Optics , WRT 54G Linksys routers, Proxim Tsunami AP and www.locustworld.com meshboxes without paying any licensing fees.

Each of these might invoke 'spook stories' about how cloud-coo-coo lands police service will arrest us, just so that their commercial interests can be protected.

South Africa does not have the same legal regime as America does. Icasa does not have the powers of arrest. Like David CEO of www.uninetwork.co.za we should boldly challenge bureaucracy's trying to extort money from business and consumers. I say we can lay Fiber Optic cables over the roads, Icasa says no ...

My reply to Icasa's assertion:
Which precedent setting criminal conviction are you referring to Andries Matthysen to base your biased and self serving interpretation of Telecoms law? And who is the investigating officer who agrees with your interpretation and which SINGLE company is this policeman investigating in an attempt to present your interpretation to a prosecutor in the hope of obtaining a precedent setting conviction. And please Andries Matthysen would you stop telling us lowlife peasants what the law says. Legally we don't know what it says: A judge must decide that for us.

The background to this entire issue was that government wanted disadvantaged communities to share in the digital revolution. Gauteng was forced to fund a multi billion dollar roll-out to under serviced areas. It was a spectacular failure. Telkom simply could not afford to provide services that were not paid for and the constant theft of their infrastructure finally forced them to suspend services. The opensourrce Wi-Fi commons is in a unique position to help the government achieve this original goal. For example disadvantaged schools can be linked to private schools and receive real-time lessons over a Wi-fi video link.

One private school has implemented this in Gauteng with funding from the department of Education. They used Motorola mesh technology and no Andries Matthysen did not give them permission, nor will he. So what is he going to do? Legally he can confiscate the equipment, but he won't – he would be challenging the ANC. But if this school is allowed , then why can't the the opensource commons set up their own networks ? And if the police are really , really going to crack down on Wireless as Andries threatens so often , then why is this schools headmaster not in jail?

The community that built Linux did not know that a side-effect of their 'free' efforts would be the creation of a resource that in the next 50 years will eliminate organized crime, car hijacking, murder and enable governments to fairly tax and redistribute a country's resources. (If you have no idea what I am talking about ..... I will give you a clue: Aplitec, smart cards Listing your rooftop at www.nodedb.com is the first step to creating our own community based wi-fi network in partnership with a Wisp or our own fronting company.

a bit of topic .. but don't the police and courts have enough REAL criminals to chase in this country !?!?!

We are Telkom - Resistance is Futile - You will be Assimilated

Apparently not. I think like 80% of the police are assigned to catching people using cellphones in their cars. At least they don't shoot at you.


Not that I'm bitter or anything.

well I guess for them it's basically a money issue.. if they catch a guy robbing your house, they have to feed him and clothe him while in jail, if they catch a guy in a merc speeding or using his cell .. well they just slap him with a fine and they make a profit ...


We are Telkom - Resistance is Futile - You will be Assimilated

As of Feb 1st it should be completely legal to do any kind of wireless link you like, at least that is the way I've understood the press releases so far, maybe I should do some more reading of icasa's site.

John - impressive stuff

my experience is much of what you say - ICASA is drowning at exactly the same time as the department of comms is stepping out, publicly stating that it will be largely up to ICASA to regulate; one of ICASA's many problems is a seeming intention of government to retain tight control over it through funding restrictions...it is a supposedly independent body but is funded by the dept of comms

which leads me to a note of warning - the real threats to establishing a network of the nature you propose - an ideal which i think any individual with an ounce of real awareness would support - have nothing to do with ICASA (or ICASA as we see it now)

there is no government in the world right now which actually wants a medium offering complete freedom of expression without any govt control. in SA we will soon have the implementation of major provisions of the new Regulation of Interception Act (RICA). without getting hysterical about it, one of the objectives of the Act is to clearly lay out the circumstances under which indirect communications (email, telephone etc) may be intercepted or monitored by govt/law enforcement and, so that this can be done, it will be a crime to offer ISP type services or private network services which are not capable of monitoring and intercepting communications; the definitions of the terms internet service provider and telecommunications service provider in the Act is IMHO ludicously wide

the potential penalties are huge

the trick in winning the battle is to keep organisation localised and low-profile - organising through sites and new media; as soon as something becomes formalised and govt is (a) threatened & (b) not collecting revenue it will deploy resources and it will close things down and generally toss its toys about

call me crazy but i think this is where things will start to go straight to science-fiction...i do not believe that the Orwellian-type idea of telecommunications police will seem so strange in 10 years time

(BTW some of the legal info in your post is not quite accurate - as far as i know aerosat initially got granted an urgent interdict for the return of non-radio equipment only (why ICASA acted they way they did in the case and then opposed what was, IMHO, self-evidently a good claim and wasted their money who knows?) - not sure what the outcome was of the latest round but cannot see it being different - will post a result up soon)

dominic

Well I'm reading up on the new legislation for work purposes anyway so and later that will go to the legal types so once I hear their opinion I'll let everyone know

Dominic your point over the terrorism is valid and I had not
thought about it. What we should do is contact Advocate Rushia Pillay
She defended Aerosat against Icasa, according to David CEO of Uninetwork who acquired Aerosat because they could not afford the
R500 000 legal tab to defend themselves against Icasa's counter suit
in the High Court. David should be able to tell by now what happend.
But David and Basil from www.gin.co.za clam up after I ask to many
questions over the phone. They are not telling us exactly what they do and how they torpedo Icasa in court. They only give through half of the truth, because they don't want everybody to realise how easy it is to set up a WISP with the backing of expert legal council -- It is a commercial threat to them.

I do sound a bit over the top,but this is just blow of steam over how succesfull Icasa was in bluffing everybody into submission for nearly 8 years under the present legislative regime.

Now what you say concerning the anti-terrorism thing is really
disturbing to me. They would want to use 'anti-terrorism' as a ruse to silence critics. I think what it will boil down to in
the end is that you must personally make sure your network is not
used for 'subversive' activities. So you might be technically breaking
the law, but they will only throw the book at you, if you make
'trouble'.

Rest assured that Uninetwork, www.wavestream.co.za are talking to
government to make certain that they are not put out of business by
such a law. They are a lobbying powerblock. Now any system that
they would implement an opensource commons could also do to comply
with legislation.

One would also have to talk to prosecutors and senior police,
to guage just how strict they would be on a cooperative mesh breaking
the law. At present they don't give a lick what you do. If they
are not to strict, we could use unemployed people to 'sell' us a
service. The supplier of a Telecoms service must take full legal
blame, not the end user. This is a huge legal loophole for the
opensource commons to exploit. It is critical that people understand this pillar of our legal system. Commercial providers obviously
can't work like this.

Remember we could create our own WISP to comply with all such legislation and each member of the opensource mesh would set up his high site under license from this WISP.

There would in practice be no way to discerne between an opensource
mesh and a commercial mesh. The government would have to totally
forbid all mesh operators. I think the thrust of the law would be to regulate the Internet backbone bandwidth suppliers like IS, Telkom
But I think we have speculated to much, lets talk to expert legal council about this.

Well the trick would be to put a mesh in place and then allow companies to sell bandwidth via the mesh, if they own none of the equipment it would make for an interesting legal issue

as a legal type person i have had some dealings with WISPs and ICASA (and still do for that matter) - all i am prepared to really say is that the law surrounding WISPs and the legality of the services which they offer is as clear as mud

what is clear from the last few posts and from my experience as a lawyer in the ICT area is that the law does not have a snowball's hope in hell of keeping up with tech developments...expect the two years after 1 feb to be completely chaotic from the legal side and therefore there will be opportunities for information anarchists and other people to offer alternatives so long as they are clever and do not stick their heads out too far

the whole situation with ICASA being toothless is extremely unfortunate as it would be great to have at least some guidlines based on the law as opposed to telkom's interpretation thereof as conveyed to the masses through ICASA - at the moment they cannot even offer a sensible interpretation of the law let alone enforce it

in the time of accelerated change which will shortly be upon us i think there is a lot of scope for the envelope to be pushed, but do not underestimate the resources which govt (and telkom) will direct towards this battle if they feel it is (a) detrimentally affecting their revenue and (b) beyond their ability to control

(John - i do not think david at uninetwork has any secrets with regard to WISP legalities that he is not sharing with you....))

just to let you know that judgement in the High Court in PE in the matter between Aerosat and ICASA was reserved - will let y'all know what the learned court eventually decides

dominic

there are no experts - we are all flying by the seats of our pants

Spoke to the chaps at Icasa concerning the High Court's pending decision on Aerosat.
The person was very defensive, I think they are taking strain. We are all biting our
nails, if Uninetwork looses this case.... ag well that will be the end of high site towers.
Icasa is approaching the deregulation of Telecoms with the same enthusiasim as taking cough
medicine. There is just no way Icasa will formalise/legalise what we are doing and the commercial
WISP's are doing: Leaving our towers wide open for attempted confiscation by Icasa for the
next 50 years...

If our learned friend on this forum could please give us some feedback on just when the honourable judges will make a ruling.

Now all is not lost. If Icasa wins the case, Uninetwork, Wavestream are stuffed. The opensource
commons would then have to go in partnership with pres Zuma.
For example setting up a BEE company with Pres Zuma as the director and patron saint of our
high site towers...

If the high court decides wireless is illegal, then the high court may as well be done away with.


<font color="navy"><font size="1"><b>Where others have progress, we have Telkom.</b>
Hellkom website - www.hellkom.co.za</font id="size1"></font id="navy">

update - there has still been no news on the aerosat matter in PE i.e. still awaiting judgement

ICASA has been extremely busy hassling WISPS over the past month - there have, to my knowledge, been confiscations in Durban (ICASA got a blood nose), Bloemfontein and Jo'burg

not sure why this is happening now when it seems apparent that WISPS will be legal come 1 feb 2005

if you are interested in this check out the new VANS licence regulations published for comment by the Department of Comms - were published on 2 december and there is 14 days to get comments in..

http://www.icasa.org.za/default.aspx?page=1005 (first item on the page)

IMHO they look pretty good and seem to deal with self-provisioning and interconnections properly as also number allocations

if you are holding a temporary VANS licence there does not seem to be any provision for how these will be dealt with

...all is not lost - i think it has just been found

Please read this & make a difference by sending a simple email to ICASA

Apologies for hijacking this thread, but this actually is on topic, as well as very important & urgent

In case you are not aware of this- ICASA and the Department of Communications are trying to change the VANS regulations surrounding licencing, it is my sincere belief that the worst to be affected by these changes will be WiFi & WISPs.

Before you do anything else (reading the rest of my post here, is less important), make sure that you click here to read this thread on MyADSL: VANS regulations will kill the SMME sector.

ICASA have attached a (already extended) deadline of 7th January 2005 for submitting comments & views on the proposed changes, please make sure that you familiarise yourself with the new regulations (only 16 pages to read), and that you email feedback to ICASA before 7th January.

I believe that ICASA will use the new regulations to shutdown small WiFi & WISP operators, and they will win those battles in court because it will be based on operators not having paid the R30 000 to just apply for a VANS Licence.

Under the proposed new ICASA VANS Licence Regulations just about everyone that does any transmitting of anything in any form and by any means will have to apply for a VANS Licence.

In addition to the R30000 VANS Licence application fee, you would also be required to pay a percentage of your annual income to ICASA.

This is seriously bad stuff, make sure you challenge it now, rather than being sorry later that you didn't send an email to ICASA before it was too late.

dominic - are there any updates to this very interesting thread ?

Obelix said:

dominic - are there any updates to this very interesting thread ?

Click to expand...

most of it you will know - the minister's about-turn on VANS self-providing has seemingly been accepted by the industry (although nobody has convinced me that the current legal position is that they may not)...everyone awaits the convergence bill [which is perhaps a clear case of the more things change the more they stay the same]

as regards confiscations i have only come across a single case in cape town where the seizure warrant was based on information almost two years out of date

the aerosat matter continues but it is of limited value in that the crisp argument is really about what does and what does not constitute radio equipment for the purposes of the Act - an adverse ruling will in no way make any real difference to the regulatory landscape....ICASA, i am sure, is more concerned about getting a costs order in their favour

icasa's arguments against wisps remain relatively strong - their argument as i understand it from councillors is that they would be failing in their duties of protecting the licence fee and infrastructure investments of duly licensed operators...having said that the problem of effective enforcement and the technical difficulties of securing a succesful criminal prosecution under the telecomms act remain

the new VANS application with some terms and conditions has been released - there is a thread somewhere (sorry) - the application fee is roughly R5 700

i think there are 3 interesting areas at the moment in terms of wi-fi which are all pushing the regulatory envelope - private mesh networks, private-public partnerships being sought by municipalities to broaden access and lower internal operating costs, and the under-serviced area licencees - they may have an extremely tight business case but funding wi-fi infrastructure or better partnering with a wi-fi service provider will be explored by more than one of them

bruce,

You seem obsesed with Aerosat. Do you have any news with regards to what futher action ICASA may be planning against Aerosat.

Have there been any further developments, or comments from
David Javis ??