dominic
04-03-2005, 09:43 AM
http://www.internet.org.za/ICASA_2.4_GHz_warning_notice.pdf
MaD's analogy of not being able to fart across a public road comes to mind...
MaD's analogy of not being able to fart across a public road comes to mind...
View Full Version : ICASA statement on legality of wisps using ISM band
stoke
04-03-2005, 10:27 AM
<">It could not be used on a commercial basis to provide service to other persons or from one property to other properties,</">
Commercial=
1.1. Of or relating to commerce: a commercial loan; a commercial attaché.
1.2. Engaged in commerce: a commercial trucker.
1.3. Involved in work that is intended for the mass market: a commercial artist.
2. Of, relating to, or being goods, often unrefined, produced and distributed in large quantities for use by industry.
3. Having profit as a chief aim: a commercial book, not a scholarly tome.
4. Sponsored by an advertiser or supported by advertising: commercial television.
So - according to their statement, NON COMMERCIAL use is ok. But, they don't specifically say that. Why not damnit.
Commercial=
1.1. Of or relating to commerce: a commercial loan; a commercial attaché.
1.2. Engaged in commerce: a commercial trucker.
1.3. Involved in work that is intended for the mass market: a commercial artist.
2. Of, relating to, or being goods, often unrefined, produced and distributed in large quantities for use by industry.
3. Having profit as a chief aim: a commercial book, not a scholarly tome.
4. Sponsored by an advertiser or supported by advertising: commercial television.
So - according to their statement, NON COMMERCIAL use is ok. But, they don't specifically say that. Why not damnit.
ic
04-03-2005, 10:38 AM
Whether comercial or non-comercial ICASA is saying that use must still be limited to one property belonging to the natural person or legal entity involved. So I wonder what happens when you are renting the property?
dominic
04-03-2005, 10:43 AM
imho it is a nonsensical regulation which is being widely disregarded...the sooner it goes the better (but will probably only be once telkom wimax is fully rolled out)
Compl33t
04-03-2005, 02:37 PM
Yeah, bu then again...*looks into future*...Telkom may have the sole right to do this.
/me puts gun to head and pulls the trigger...KABLOOEY.
/me puts gun to head and pulls the trigger...KABLOOEY.
arf9999
04-03-2005, 02:49 PM
So - according to their statement, NON COMMERCIAL use is ok. But, they don't specifically say that. Why not damnit.
Well actually they say pretty much ANY use:
"It could not be used on a commercial basis to provide
service to other persons or from one property
to other properties, which would be
illegal and constitute a criminal offence"
Well actually they say pretty much ANY use:
"It could not be used on a commercial basis to provide
service to other persons or from one property
to other properties, which would be
illegal and constitute a criminal offence"
louisp
04-03-2005, 02:50 PM
These people are like communists!!
The Authority is anxious to ensure that the rule of law is respected and that the rights of licensees are protected.
Bugger the basic rights of the population, as long as the government make money, its ok. It should be a basic human right to share in the technological advances if possible. This is to the better of all. Making communications available/easier would ensure a Better Life For All...
:)
The Authority is anxious to ensure that the rule of law is respected and that the rights of licensees are protected.
Bugger the basic rights of the population, as long as the government make money, its ok. It should be a basic human right to share in the technological advances if possible. This is to the better of all. Making communications available/easier would ensure a Better Life For All...
:)
ic
04-03-2005, 03:10 PM
Face it, the only reason this regulation exists is to protect Telkomonopoly's monopoly. If people were "allowed" to connect across public boudaries they would also be allowed to share their internet connectivity, which would result in less profit for Telkomonopoly, certainly in the case of ADSL rental.
bb_matt
04-03-2005, 03:13 PM
In summary :-
1. You can't make bucks from it - fair enough
2. It can't link across the border of your property - insane and actually, there's no way this can be policed effectively.
If you had a reasonably powerful wireless router running on the frequency indicated, inside a block of flats, it's totally feasible that at least one of your neighbours would be able to "see" your wireless LAN across property borders.
I think there's a huge grey area here that's open to interpretation and I also reckon it's as likely to be policed about as well as people driving while using a cellphone without a hands free kit - in other words, SAPS would rather be out targeting real crime instead of going after Daffy or TheRodent running a community based WUG.
1. You can't make bucks from it - fair enough
2. It can't link across the border of your property - insane and actually, there's no way this can be policed effectively.
If you had a reasonably powerful wireless router running on the frequency indicated, inside a block of flats, it's totally feasible that at least one of your neighbours would be able to "see" your wireless LAN across property borders.
I think there's a huge grey area here that's open to interpretation and I also reckon it's as likely to be policed about as well as people driving while using a cellphone without a hands free kit - in other words, SAPS would rather be out targeting real crime instead of going after Daffy or TheRodent running a community based WUG.
qDot
04-03-2005, 03:17 PM
Oh but dont you know ?
It is soo much easier to police law abiding citizens than violent criminals.
Same reason Metro Police would rather mount speedtraps than pull over taxis and looking out for road hazards
It is soo much easier to police law abiding citizens than violent criminals.
Same reason Metro Police would rather mount speedtraps than pull over taxis and looking out for road hazards
stoke
04-03-2005, 03:20 PM
arf9999 : You're saying:
"It could not be used (on a commercial basis to provide service to other persons) or (from one property to other properties), which would be illegal and constitute a criminal offence"
This means that I could broadcast to one property, not properties, and i'd be cool.
i'm saying:
"It could not be used on a commercial basis to provide (service to other persons or from one property to other properties), which would be illegal and constitute a criminal offence"
But I think that you're right. Can these people even spell clarity.
I think that they don't even know what the LAW/ACT is saying because so much of it is implied and not clear.
"It could not be used (on a commercial basis to provide service to other persons) or (from one property to other properties), which would be illegal and constitute a criminal offence"
This means that I could broadcast to one property, not properties, and i'd be cool.
i'm saying:
"It could not be used on a commercial basis to provide (service to other persons or from one property to other properties), which would be illegal and constitute a criminal offence"
But I think that you're right. Can these people even spell clarity.
I think that they don't even know what the LAW/ACT is saying because so much of it is implied and not clear.
bb_matt
04-03-2005, 03:26 PM
Oh but dont you know ?
It is soo much easier to police law abiding citizens than violent criminals.
Same reason Metro Police would rather mount speedtraps than pull over taxis and looking out for road hazards
Well, ya, there is that - well put.
But the experience needed by the SAPS wouldn't be there - rather, ICASA would have to police it independently and report offenders to the SAPS.
It's really not viable - but sure, it's possible. It would require an initial case to set the precedent and that would almost certainly result in a lengthy court case, depending on the person being acused access to legal services.
Does this touch on the freedom of speech issue ?
Shouldn't ICASA rather require people who wish to participate in non-commercial WUGs to get a yearly license ? - a nominal fee, R200 or whatever ?
Why stifle community freedom of speech - heck, if they are so worried about what goes through those wireless channels, then we really are in big stum regarding our civil liberties and rights !
It is soo much easier to police law abiding citizens than violent criminals.
Same reason Metro Police would rather mount speedtraps than pull over taxis and looking out for road hazards
Well, ya, there is that - well put.
But the experience needed by the SAPS wouldn't be there - rather, ICASA would have to police it independently and report offenders to the SAPS.
It's really not viable - but sure, it's possible. It would require an initial case to set the precedent and that would almost certainly result in a lengthy court case, depending on the person being acused access to legal services.
Does this touch on the freedom of speech issue ?
Shouldn't ICASA rather require people who wish to participate in non-commercial WUGs to get a yearly license ? - a nominal fee, R200 or whatever ?
Why stifle community freedom of speech - heck, if they are so worried about what goes through those wireless channels, then we really are in big stum regarding our civil liberties and rights !
arf9999
04-03-2005, 03:30 PM
Shouldn't ICASA rather require people who wish to participate in non-commercial WUGs to get a yearly license ? - a nominal fee, R200 or whatever ?
Good idea...send it as a suggestion to ICASA and Doc Ivy.
Good idea...send it as a suggestion to ICASA and Doc Ivy.
reech
04-03-2005, 04:46 PM
Why should a NFP wireless community need to get a licence? This is getting ridiculous and smacks of state interferance.