Icasa won case against Aerosat

[captainwifi]

Mr Mfundo at 011 321 8377 informs me that the High Court
has awarded Icasa the case against Aerosat. www.uninetwork.co.za
must now fork over R700 000 to cover legal costs.

In addition a criminal prosecution has been launched against the directors
of Aerosat NOT THE SUBSCRIBERS. Remember what http://icasa.blogspot.com
says about fronting companies.

So if you are a subscriber to Uninetwork I would ask DAvid Jarvis
and his lawyer Dominic to play open cards with us.
Ms Cindi at 011 321 8377 has the database of all VANS license holders.
Ms Cindi will tell me on monday if www.webintact.co.za has a VANS license.
Mr Mfundo told me that it is Icasa's view that it is illegal for VANS holders
to self-provide.

Is Icasa bluffing? What are the true facts? Dominic how about telling us mmmh?
Phone: 0861 UNINET (0861 864638)
VOIP : 196.28.89.226(H.323)

[dominic]

Mr Mfundo at 011 321 8377 informs me that the High Court
has awarded Icasa the case against Aerosat. www.uninetwork.co.za
must now fork over R700 000 to cover legal costs.

In addition a criminal prosecution has been launched against the directors
of Aerosat NOT THE SUBSCRIBERS. Remember what http://icasa.blogspot.com
says about fronting companies.

So if you are a subscriber to Uninetwork I would ask DAvid Jarvis
and his lawyer Dominic to play open cards with us.
Ms Cindi at 011 321 8377 has the database of all VANS license holders.
Ms Cindi will tell me on monday if www.webintact.co.za has a VANS license.
Mr Mfundo told me that it is Icasa's view that it is illegal for VANS holders
to self-provide.

Is Icasa bluffing? What are the true facts? Dominic how about telling us mmmh?
Phone: 0861 UNINET (0861 864638)
VOIP : 196.28.89.226(H.323)

you are probably missing your true calling as an investigative reporter for the National Enquirer or die son...

1. yes the eastern cape division of the high court has ruled in favour of icasa on the matter of whether, in short, hard drives and certain other equioment can be construed as radio equipment for the purposes of the telecomms act
2. the matter was decided against aerosat - uninet had no material involvement with aerosat at the time the matter arose
3. the figure of r700 000 is a thumbsuck - no costs have been specified yet afaik
4. the matter is being appealed - imho there are good grounds for the appeal
5. its dominic with a small d
6. the vans licencee database is and has for some time been available on the icasa web site
7. ICASA is welcome to their view that VANS self-provision is illegal - i know from personal conversations with councillors that it is a view not shared by all of them, including the outgoing chairman. IMHO the opposite is true.

pls bear in mind that i try to "play open cards" but there are some minor inconveniences such as legal privelege which mean that i cannot show you anyone else's cards

and if you are looking for the truth - find it where you find everything else - google

[arf9999]

LOL @ dry legal humour

[DFantom]

Guess this blows all the WISP's away that said it was a grey area?

[dominic]

Guess this blows all the WISP's away that said it was a grey area?it is of absolutely no significance to the legal standing of wisps - zip, nada, zero....a confiscation was contested in part because it was contended that some of the equipment confiscated was not radio equipment

the court ruled for aerosat on an urgent basis then for icasa at the return date - as stated the matter has been appealed

[Manie]

Shame another good one bite the dust I trully see her as my insparation and rollmodel,but guess what boys and girls she is going bigger!!!

[dominic]

Shame another good one bite the dust I trully see her as my insparation and rollmodel,but guess what boys and girls she is going bigger!!!nobody's biting the dust

as for the rest do tell us more

[MaD]

Can ICASA not leave the WISP's the hell alone? One would think they would focus on doing work, instead of depriving consumers of cheaper options.

[LordVega®]

Well the ones previously biting the dust was guys with Wi-Fi illegal phones and no bussinesses and names mentioned but they got hard from it that is what i've heard for thus far...They are more focussed on that and not on the wireless that much as silks!

[LordVega®]

Thank lord not me but the real one up there for 802.16!!!

[arf9999]

huh? LordV you taking english lessons from killadoob?

[LordVega®]

802.16=WiMax?or not arf9999

[arf9999]

Well the ones previously biting the dust was guys with Wi-Fi illegal phones and no bussinesses and names mentioned but they got hard from it that is what i've heard for thus far...They are more focussed on that and not on the wireless that much as silks!
I meant this one :confused:

[captainwifi]

An appeal could take months. In the meantime the Convergence bill will
become law. I presume that the Appeals court will hear the case in terms
of Act 96. This means that Uninet is so deep in trouble that only their noses
are sticking out of the horse manure. If they lose the Appeals case they could
go to the Constitutional court. Fact is that hundreds of thousands of rands
are at stake. If Icasa loses the appeal it would set a precedent and finally
we would have some sort of clarity. But by then the Convergence would have
replaced Act 96. David was confident that he would win the Aerosat case. Perhaps Icasa swallowed their pride and got a lawyer who did not graduated with one
thigh parallel to the ground to handle the High court case ...... Icasa had been losing case after case why did they suddenly decide to appeal this one to the High Court ?

The Economist had an article about the shenanigans going on in our courts.
The Economist states that some judges are held in such contempt that the moment
the litigants find out who the judge is they go for arbitration. Who were the judges in the two cases? Where can I get a transcript and how much will it cost, this would provide all the relevant facts. This is public knowledge and I am sure you could upload it to a web page so that needless speculation can stop. (This would be for Rodents sake :))

The Eastern Cape is a fascinating place to get tangled up in the legal
system. There was a case where the prosecutor 'had a dream' that the armed robber
was guilty. The judge said that since he 'cant read dreams he will convict the
defendant'... (or something to that effect) Needless to say the Appeals court overturned such nonsense.

There is a major stumbling block to the adoption of mesh. Www.locustworld.com
is the benchmark , but even though it is opensource the information on setting up
your own boxes are very difficult to obtain, but it can be obtained. No matter
how good your Linux you won't be able to get up to speed without the
proper documentation.

And LordVega would you please stop writing rubbish on this forum.
Goodness admin this guy is obviously trying to spam this thread.

[DFantom]

it is of absolutely no significance to the legal standing of wisps - zip, nada, zero....a confiscation was contested in part because it was contended that some of the equipment confiscated was not radio equipment

the court ruled for aerosat on an urgent basis then for icasa at the return date - as stated the matter has been appealed
sorry i'm not sure i understand the case right then, is the case about the confiscation or the running of the wisps? I was assuming it was the running of the wisp...

[dominic]

An appeal could take months. In the meantime the Convergence bill will
become law. I presume that the Appeals court will hear the case in terms
of Act 96. This means that Uninet is so deep in trouble that only their noses
are sticking out of the horse manure. If they lose the Appeals case they could
go to the Constitutional court. Fact is that hundreds of thousands of rands
are at stake. If Icasa loses the appeal it would set a precedent and finally
we would have some sort of clarity. But by then the Convergence would have
replaced Act 96. David was confident that he would win the Aerosat case. Perhaps Icasa swallowed their pride and got a lawyer who did not graduated with one
thigh parallel to the ground to handle the High court case ...... Icasa had been losing case after case why did they suddenly decide to appeal this one to the High Court ?

The Economist had an article about the shenanigans going on in our courts.
The Economist states that some judges are held in such contempt that the moment
the litigants find out who the judge is they go for arbitration. Who were the judges in the two cases? Where can I get a transcript and how much will it cost, this would provide all the relevant facts. This is public knowledge and I am sure you could upload it to a web page so that needless speculation can stop. (This would be for Rodents sake :))apologies if this is blunt. it is obvious from this part of your post that you have not bothered to actually read what i have written & i belive that would be immediately apparent to anyone reading the thread. you would appear to have a pathological desire to sensationalise the irrelevant and to throw names, urls and implications together into a flimsy fabric of scatological innuendo. the facts are as posted above.

[dominic]

sorry i'm not sure i understand the case right then, is the case about the confiscation or the running of the wisps? I was assuming it was the running of the wisp...its about a technical interpretation - it has nothing to do with the overall legalities of running a wisp with a VANS licence

in other words the judgement on an interdict regarding a technical interpretation in no way creates precedent on the licensing and regulatory aspects of running a wisp

[captainwifi]

Yes dominic is absolutely correct this is not a criminal issue.
I phoned Icasa to ask them about the Aerosat case. They only told me half of the story the appeals part they left out. The criminal prosecution was another Miro type Wimax fantasy. (Thanks dominic for clearing that up for me. This process is like extracting teeth.) Mr Mfundo simply told me a boldfaced blatant lie. Phone him tomorrow and ask him who is the investigating officer. There is none.

Uninet had no choice but to appeal. If Icasa can win just a single case in confiscating their equipment then they will shut down all the wisps. Remember Icasa had to return Uninets stuff that they took in 2003. Icasa lost that case.

Quote:”
its about a technical interpretation - it has nothing to do with the overall legalities of running a wisp with a VANS license. In other words the judgment on an interdict regarding a technical interpretation in no way creates precedent on the licensing and regulatory aspects of running a wisp”
Correct because only our SA police can criminally
charge a Wisp for operating without a VANS. This was a civil case not a
criminal case. Icasa obtained a court order to confiscate the equipment.
So if Uninetwork loses the case they will have to pay dominic's costs and
Icasa's costs. The stakes are very high, neither side can afford to lose.
Even if Icasa wins , the police won't get involved. You see the equipment itself
is legal but was used in an illegal way according to Icasa. Based on this
they got a court order. The police's view is that if the equipment is legal then there is no case, VANS or no VANS. Data crossing boundaries or roads
via legal frequencies and legal www.paradyne.com DSLAM servers without a license impacts on Icasa's revenue. What our dearest Police want's to know from Icasa is what exactly this has got to do with them.

The medicines R26 debacle shows that our lower courts must be girating a lot. I believe Uninetwork will win the Appeals case, those judges graduated with both feet on the ground just ask the pharmacists. This is good and bad. It will finally show for once and for all that Icasa has no teeth. The opensource commons is a much greater threat. A starnetwifi 12dbi AP/bridge/repeater CPE network costs R700. A couple of these connected to a locust mesh peered to a www.bentlywalker.net 2meg link are reducing the barriers to entry. This case has Zero impact on the wi-fi/Dslam commons.
It merely shows that the worst possible outcome is equipment confiscation.
But who would actually appeal the confiscation of a R2500 meshbox ? Icasa is not going to waste their time raiding the www.nodedb.com participants.
If only they were to comprehend this and list their emails so we can discuss
if we will use mesh or AP for a particular setup. :)

[dominic]

i must clarify


Uninet had no choice but to appeal. If Icasa can win just a single case in confiscating their equipment then they will shut down all the wisps. Remember Icasa had to return Uninets stuff that they took in 2003. Icasa lost that case. a flight of fantasy


Icasa obtained a court order to confiscate the equipment.
So if Uninetwork loses the case they will have to pay dominic's costs and
Icasa's costs.uninet are not involved in the matter. at all. neither am i.

The stakes are very high, neither side can afford to lose.
Even if Icasa wins , the police won't get involved. You see the equipment itself is legal but was used in an illegal way according to Icasa. Based on this
they got a court order. The police's view is that if the equipment is legal then there is no case, VANS or no VANS. Data crossing boundaries or roads
via legal frequencies and legal www.paradyne.com DSLAM servers without a license impacts on Icasa's revenue. What our dearest Police want's to know from Icasa is what exactly this has got to do with them. utterly lacking in factual content

very tabloid

[captainwifi]

Quote:" Flights of fantasy"
ok dominic whatever. When will the appeal be heard? Ultimately the judges will decide.
And if Icasa loses this one... I will phone Icasa to try and findout.
O boy but is difficult getting info out of Icasa and Uninet. I wonder why ? ;)

[MaD]

This thread could go on forever by the looks of it

[Tunasashimi]

..... Icasa has no teeth. The opensource commons is a much greater threat. A starnetwifi 12dbi AP/bridge/repeater CPE network costs R700.

Please please please please please tell us more!!! I Sorry, will go google shortly.... I knew this is possible.... HURRAY!!



A couple of these connected to a locust mesh peered to a www.bentlywalker.net 2meg link are reducing the barriers to entry. This case has Zero impact on the wi-fi/Dslam commons.

Whats that link about? BTW that site doesnt exist!

[Tunasashimi]

starnetwifi 12dbi AP/bridge/repeater CPE network costs R700.


Cool. You supply these?

I Buy.

This is your first order for 50 units.

Will pay in whatever format you prefer. If you prefer insulsts as currency, google for "the best webpage in the universe".

[captainwifi]

Yip www.starnetwifi.com sells the pigtials mmcx-to-n-female
etc for virtually nothing. Why don't you go to the website and check it out?
mmcx-to-n-female pigtail is $3.4. A senao 200mw PCMCIA card is $29
A PCItoPCMCIA adaptor is around $18. Our miro wimax chaps wants nearly R1000
for these. Do the math and your CPE box/antenna/pigtail/ AP works out to R700.
But they hardly speak english and after two attempts to explain to them they must
post the stuff to SA , I am about to give up. www.moskaluk.com has had more
luck though. Their premises is not in Nigeria but in Hong Kong, so this is not some sort
of scam. Moskaluk has verified the quality of their products, he is a major contributor
to the locust mesh.

[captainwifi]

Sorry that is www.bentleywalker.net
They sell a 2meg international line for R8000
Entry level 512k is $247

[TheRoDent]

it is obvious from this part of your post that you have not bothered to actually read what i have written & i belive that would be immediately apparent to anyone reading the thread. you would appear to have a pathological desire to sensationalise the irrelevant and to throw names, urls and implications together into a flimsy fabric of scatological innuendo. the facts are as posted above.

The penny drops. :D

[arf9999]

"scatological innuendo"
Does this mean that dominic thinks that capt'n wifi is talking *****?

[TheRoDent]

I think that would be a fair, and correct assumption arf9999 ;)

[dominic]

:D early monday morning bellylaugh

[LordVega®]

Captian WiFi if you had a close look to that card you will see that it is not external compatable but instead it has a 3db built in antenna so line of site you will gain up to 1200m and to import those aren't a problem but what happens when you have a warrenty issue on that you need to send it back right and for one? they will look at it and laugh at you...

[LordVega®]

o yes just one question what antenna are you going to use in what enclosure and with what cable loss are you going to sit with,thanks i am very happy with Miro cpe's they carry quite a good tech support on them asswell and never had a warrenty issue on that though.

[MFour]

domonic, you seem to be the one to ask. Where does all this leave Uninet? I think my layman's mind can't quite grasp all this, or it's too cold and early on a Monday morning.

If I understand correctly Uninet is not effected by this (the case) and it is still quite legal to make use of their services. Can you please clarify that point for me. Thanks :confused:

[dominic]

domonic, you seem to be the one to ask. Where does all this leave Uninet? I think my layman's mind can't quite grasp all this, or it's too cold and early on a Monday morning.

If I understand correctly Uninet is not effected by this (the case) and it is still quite legal to make use of their services. Can you please clarify that point for me. Thanks :confused:correct that uninet is not affected by this case and neither is any other wisp and that the outcome of the case makes no difference to the legality of services provided.

[please note - the aforegoing is a tricksy lawyer statement]

[MFour]

correct that uninet is not affected by this case and neither is any other wisp and that the outcome of the case makes no difference to the legality of services provided.

[please note - the aforegoing is a tricksy lawyer statement]
mmm yes thanks domonic, noted. ;)

[fergus]

Sorry to be blunt but if wisps are illegal how come there are so many and why doesn't icasa do something about. I know of wisps that have been around for years. (I'm all for wisps btw)

[MFour]

correct that uninet is not affected by this case and neither is any other wisp and that the outcome of the case makes no difference to the legality of services provided.

[please note - the aforegoing is a tricksy lawyer statement]

domonic, thought about it again, let me refrase.

If I was to make use of Uninet's WDSL64 service, signed up, paid instalation fees (quite steep btw), and monthly subs, would I stand to loose my intial "investment" in the near future and find myself accoutable to breaking the law?

[freeek]

you might loose your initial investment but not accountable to breaking the law.... Ther service provider might be found accountable to breaking the law!

[freeek]

Another thing the hardware you receive is pretty useful ..... can connect to a friend that had uninet in ur area and have own little lan

[MFour]

Another thing the hardware you receive is pretty useful ..... can connect to a friend that had uninet in ur area and have own little lan
thanks freeeeek. Suppose you are right about the WAN thing, but is that not agianst the law? something about not legal to braodcast outside the boundries of your own property, or some such like.

[dominic]

domonic, thought about it again, let me refrase.

If I was to make use of Uninet's WDSL64 service, signed up, paid instalation fees (quite steep btw), and monthly subs, would I stand to loose my intial "investment" in the near future and find myself accoutable to breaking the law?i love "hypothetical" scenarios :)....imho i do not believe that you are in any great danger of losing your initial investment and you are not breaking the law by using the service nor do you own any of the customer premises equipment (i.e. there is no way you can be criminally charged for using the service)

whether you can be criminally charged for providing the service?? let's just say i have yet to see any prosecution of a wisp with a VANS licence attempted under the telecomms act....all i am aware of is an unsuccesful prosecution based on a piece of legislation dating back to the 1950's...it disappeared without a trace as soon as difficult questions started to be asked

apologies - i cannot be more specific

[freeek]

thanks freeeeek. Suppose you are right about the WAN thing, but is that not agianst the law? something about not legal to braodcast outside the boundries of your own property, or some such like.

MFour why would icasa care about to people setting up a lan to share things making absolutely no money out of the "lan". Its a non profit setup, they can't care about people who don't have $$$.

Like my ICT Project Manager lecturer would say its all about the $$$

[MFour]

i love "hypothetical" scenarios :)....imho i do not believe that you are in any great danger of losing your initial investment and you are not breaking the law by using the service nor do you own any of the customer premises equipment (i.e. there is no way you can be criminally charged for using the service)

whether you can be criminally charged for providing the service?? let's just say i have yet to see any prosecution of a wisp with a VANS licence attempted under the telecomms act....all i am aware of is an unsuccesful prosecution based on a piece of legislation dating back to the 1950's...it disappeared without a trace as soon as difficult questions started to be asked

apologies - i cannot be more specific

No problem, thanks for that. Nice intro btw ;) I think that gives me what I need. Thanks again.

[freeek]

Also the police couldn't care. Since this is all a waste of their time. You are using items that you purchased and was ICASA stamped to be legal equipment

[fergus]

Thanks dominic

[MFour]

MFour why would icasa care about to people setting up a lan to share things making absolutely no money out of the "lan". Its a non profit setup, they can't care about people who don't have $$$.

Like my ICT Project Manager lecturer would say its all about the $$$

Suppose you're right. Just playing devils advocate. :p

[dominic]

@fergus and MFour - http://www.mybroadband.co.za/vb/showpost.php?p=220508&postcount=79

[MFour]

@fergus and MFour - http://www.mybroadband.co.za/vb/showpost.php?p=220508&postcount=79
Thanks, out the horses mouth :)

[fergus]

Thanks again, dominic. But doesn't that contradict the minister's comments re vans self-providing??

[dominic]

Thanks again, dominic. But doesn't that contradict the minister's comments re vans self-providing??didn't the minister's comments re vans self-providing contradict the minister's comments re VANS self-providing??

all very confusing no? i have stated my take on the whole issue many times - see http://www.nicciferguson.com/journalentry.q?journalId=101

[captainwifi]

Everything dominic said here is true. Only the part about having a VANS license
is wrong according to Mr. Mfundo from Icasa. VAns or no vans nobody is allowed
to self provide according to Icasa. Icasa lays the criminal charges with the Police.
The police themselves wont do anything unless Icasa asks them.
The NDPP or the head of prosecutions decides if there will be a prosecution. Why don't we stop this speculation and just phone the National director of public prosecutions and ask him if he really, really intends arresting top ANC officials, department of education, Maria Ramos head of Airports company, Major of JHB for turning the
CBD into an economic success via video data crossing the street mmh???

Airports company in particular has been a gadfly in the eyes of ex-Icasa official Andries Matthysen. You see the fun part about criminal prosecutions are that once you
start you can't stop. And once you have a precedent , all our beloved police will
do the whole day is take instructions from Icasa, hunting down AP after AP leaching
data accross the street. Furthermore to stop this speculation, why doesn't somebody get the actual court transcript of Icasa vs. Aerosat.
I phoned Mr.Mfunda and he knew nothing of an appeal. He said he will check it
out with his legal department.

Read this thread from the beginning for clarity.

[TheRoDent]

Why don't we stop this speculation and just phone the National director of public prosecutions and ask him if he really, really intends arresting top ANC officials, department of education, Maria Ramos head of Airports company, Major of JHB for turning the
CBD into an economic success via video data crossing the street mmh???


Finally. Something that you may be good at, and actually achieve. Why don't you phone them and pose that question?



..various ramblings removed...
Read this thread from the beginning for clarity.

I thought that you brought "the clarity" to this section of MyADSL? :rolleyes:

[captainwifi]

(041) 502 - 6606 is the phone number of the PE High Court where David
Jarvis lost their case. Ask to speak to the registrar of the High Court. She will be able to tell you if an appeal has been lodged in the case Aerosat vs. Icasa or
Uninetwork vs. Icasa . I don't know which it will be . I tried to get through but
no success. Would anybody else please try and report back ?
Rodent sir please you are spamming the forum and it is evident that your forgot
to drink your happy pills this morning. Please reconsider if you want to come across like this as the public face of Jawug.

[dominic]

(041) 502 - 6606 is the phone number of the PE High Court where David
Jarvis lost their case. Ask to speak to the registrar of the High Court. She will be able to tell you if an appeal has been lodged in the case Aerosat vs. Icasa or
Uninetwork vs. Icasa . I don't know which it will be . I tried to get through but
no success. Would anybody else please try and report back ?
Rodent sir please you are spamming the forum and it is evident that your forgot
to drink your happy pills this morning. Please reconsider if you want to come across like this as the public face of Jawug.FFS you are beginning to p!ss me off mightily and i am beginning to think you must have some kind of agenda because no one could possibly be as much of a dumbass as you most evidently are. Read ffs.

[arf9999]

....dry lawyer sense of humour failure...:)

[dominic]

....dry lawyer sense of humour failure...:)complete and utter

the provocation was of an extraordinary degree m'lord

[Gig]

From all the documentation I have read, Acts, Laws, applications, etc there does not seem to be some loophole that allows WISPs to operate without boundaries. For those that believe they can it could become a legal battle and unless they have found te loophole (*** willing), then for now its really a no-no for WISPs. unless of couse yo are WBS and do the lotto then you can do it.

[captainwifi]

Ms Cindi at PE High Court 041-502-6606 referred me to
Ms. Mdomekaya at Grahamstown Court -- 046-603-5000

And did AEROSAT lodge an Appeal ?:
According to Ms. Mdomekaya --- NO!
dominic instead of throwing sticks Why don't you give us
the appeal case number ?

There is no appeal which means Uninetwork has accepted the judgment
by the High Court and dominic's information was wrong. It's no wonder Icasa are pressing for criminal charges. The outcome is actually fantastic. Icasa can't ever hope to proceed with a criminal case if don't win the civil case first.

This whole event establishes a precedent also for the Convergence Bill.
If Aerosat director does not go to jail under Act 96 then why would the police bother prosecuting anybody else under the Convergence bill.?
In my view even if David gets charged, this thing won't ever get past
the prosecutor. It cost Uninetwork R700 000 to really show us how
toothless Icasa is. The chaps from Megawan lost all they had , but they paved the way for Uninetwork. Now www.uninetwork.co.za are paving the way for the opensource commons. Thank you David , thank you. Go and install your parabolic s , hiding behind your fronting companies. What do I mean by a 'fronting company' ? Read the thread from the start.

There is this widespread hallucination amongst the www.nodedb.com
participants that if Icasa spots a parabolic on your roof, they are 'coming
to get you' No, that same parabolic can be used to connect to
Sentech. Icasa has no hope of getting a court order based on grid sitting on
your roof that can double as something to “braai choppies” with.
They only gun for www.wavestream.co.za
who are openly advertising a service, to take down their high sites.
So this is the next question. When will wave stream have their towers sealed
with a court order? And if not why not ?

But with locust mesh connected to www.bentleywalker.net nobody even has to know that 30 surrounding houses have a 2meg international line.

[MaD]

capatainwifi, who are you in real life?

[dominic]

if i throw a stick will you go away?

@ all readers of this thread - for the record
1. uninet have not lodged an appeal because they are not involved - aerosat have lodged the appeal
2. neither uninet nor david jarvis have been charged under the telecomms act

[dominic]

capatainwifi, who are you in real life?second that

[Gig]

second that
Me too.

[captainwifi]

Not true. You see I spoke to Aerosat employees long long ago when
Uninetwork took over Aerosat(thanks Mad), they are employed by Uninet.
David took over Aerosat and took all Aerosat's liabilities.
It shortly after this time that I spoke to David on the phone. He told
me he will win the case against Icasa. And he did, then Icasa appealed to
the High Court. And that is where the paw-paw hit the fan.
Notice how dominic, Mad, Rodent are trying to flood this thread instead
of posting the High Court case nr and the nr. for the Appeals, which as I
have pointed out by phoning Ghramstown court does not exist. They are
all involved in the Wisp business and don't want the true facts out.
The fact is that David must now pay all legal costs which could be over
R1 000 000. Why did Icasa suddenly decide to challenge this case to the
High Court? They knew they would win. Why? We want answers to these
questions. Why was David so confident he would win? Who were the
judges ? Perhaps if we could get the case nr this speculation would stop. I tried to get it from the court registrars but no luck. I won't stop till I get to the bottom of this. I will get all the cases of Icasa vs. whatever wisp they zap.
Mr. Mfundo is adamant that he he has a criminal investigation against the
ex. Aerosat director.

Mr. Mfundo stop bluffing. Who is the investigating officer? What commercial crimes unit of the SAPS does he work for ? Will he also investigate Maria Ramos, her Wi-fi Airports company setup is not exactly legal you know? If there is no criminal investigation then why not? The High Court has ruled in your favor. Surely you must see that if you can't even criminally prosecute somebody after a High Court ruling then how will you go after my parabolic pointing to my fronting company Wisp, the exact same antenna that can connect to Sentec ? The more you bluff mr. Mfundo and refuse to prove to us your threat of criminal prosecution of Aerosat , the more you lose your credibility. What happens here has a direct bearing on the Convergence bill. The Convergence bill will probably have it's life imprisonment tacked on as an afterthought. If the police won't nail Aerosat now under Act.96 then why would they in a similar situation under the Convergence Bill? Icasa you have to prove to us that the SAPS are not ignoring you. Telling us about these forever pending criminal prosecutions is looking like a lie.

Mad and Gig would you please stop inserting
one liners, either contribute some factual meaningfull data or stop spamming
the thread. Dominic lied to me no appeal has been lodged , the matter is
settled. Icasa has won the case against Aerosat, owned by Uninet

[Gig]

Great Al capitan. As a WISP I would be greatful if you helped get rid of the competition, that would make my job alot easier. Keep up the good work

[MaD]

Not true. You see I spoke to Aerosat employees. They now work for
Uninetwork. David took over Aerosat and took all Aerosat's liabilities.
Perhaps if we could get the case nr this speculation would stop. I tried to get
it from the court registrars but no luck. I won't stop till I get to the bottom of this. I will get all the cases of Icasa vs. whatever wisp they zap.
Mr. Mfundo is adamant that he he has a criminal investigation against the
ex. Aerosat director.
Is this a personal vendetta? Why not just leave it alone? I use Uninet and would be most ****ed off if they disappeared due to someone sniffing around and ****ing things up for everyone!

[TheRoDent]

But with locust mesh connected to www.bentleywalker.net nobody even
has to know that 30 surrounding houses have a 2meg international line.

Yes, but the transfer limits are ridiculous. I will quote from their Grade of Service documents:

Business Internet 2Mb/s : Daily usage allowance: 200MB
Home Office : Daily usage allowance: 50Mb.

This is from their small business offerings.

It does make it a bit useless. I don't have pricing on their "Unlimited/Enterprise" solutions, but I'm sure the price will be frightening.

[dominic]

Dominic lied to me no appeal has been lodged , the matter is settled. Icasa has won the case against Aerosat, owned by Uninet
yawn that's dominic with a little d - time to tell us who you are...a little good faith please (a pm will do the trick for me)

& when you get it right a small apology for the liar bit would be appreciated

[itachi]

Not true. You see I spoke to Aerosat employees.

This statement alone means you cannot give this statement


Mad and Gig would you please stop inserting
one liners, either contribute some factual meaningfull data or stop spamming
the thread.

Due to the fact that you are not giving us meaningful (note one 'l') data, but instead rumours on the affairs of Aerosat from Aerosat employees :rolleyes: ....

and thats my 2 cents

[Gig]

This statement alone means you cannot give this statement



Due to the fact that you are not giving us meaningful (note one 'l') data, but instead rumours on the affairs of Aerosat from Aerosat employees :rolleyes: ....

and thats my 2 cents

Yes sir, Mr forum Manager sir. I have not posted much in this forum and it was mostly on agreement to what others said. I have posted longer items in other threads, do a search and you will see. But, I hope this comment was within the prescribed requirement. Enjoy your day

[TheRoDent]

Mad and Gig would you please stop inserting
one liners, either contribute some factual meaningfull data or stop spamming
the thread.

Hello pot. Meet kettle.

[MaD]

Mad and Gig would you please stop inserting
one liners, either contribute some factual meaningfull data or stop spamming
the thread.
LOL dude i dont even read your entire posts so I missed that pearl of infinite wisdom which seems to have come from the same orifice as the rest of your posts.

You my sir are the one spamming this thread with a lot of crap you have dreamed up while probably hallucinating on a few drops of acid past its 'use by' date. Your threads and posts, for lack of a better description, border on the ludicrous, and having asked you who you are a few posts back (and not having been furnished with a reply) makes you a plain old lurker and ****stirrer.

The only reason i read your posts, although partially, is for a laugh. People like you come and go - they come to forums, post crap, have a bit of fun getting a reaction, and then they disappear off the face of the net, never to be seen again.

What i'm trying to say is that you're talking crap - if what you say holds any water - CALL DOMINIC instead of looking stupid and bitchslapping and throwing URL's all over the place.

[Karnaugh]

Uninetwork took over Icasa

They took over ICASA? Quite a feat if you ask me!

[MaD]

lol missed that too.. the nail in the coffin! :eek:

[Gig]

Mad and Gig would you please stop inserting
one liners, either contribute some factual meaningfull data or stop spamming
the thread. Dominic lied to me no appeal has been lodged , the matter is
settled. Icasa has won the case against Aerosat, owned by Uninet

Captain Wifi, really, who are you? Have you actually done anything to do with wifi yet? Is there a site or a product that you use (other than basic networking) that you have put together using Wifi? I may not make many comments as I want to get to see what people are talking about first, but I have spent my time building a succesful wifi network. So, be patient enough with people that comment. Give them time to get to know people.

Have a really super wifi day, and if you can ride that horse out of town. Someone is going to shoot it soon.

[captainwifi]

Spoke to Mr. Mfunda at Icasa. He insists that a criminal investigation is
being handled against the ex-Aerosat director and that the case will go to trial. I asked him if Maria Ramos will also be arrested. Then he became angry
and extremely defensive! I told him we are going to build our own phone
exchanges with DSLAM servers and ADSL2+ copper wire and Mesh hiding behind fronting companies and that the police will simply ignore Icasa in this case of Aerosat.
After the High Court victory and no appeal from Uninet places Icasa in the
best ever position to press for criminal charges. I told Mr. Mfuna at 011 321 8377 or 011 321 8425 011 that this case is make or break for the opensource commons and Icasa. It will set the tone for the criminal prosecutions if any under the Convergence bill There are many desperate people who would gladly be the director of a fronting company. Lee Ann Casey head of enforcement at 011 321 8425 was not in. I wanted to know from her when exactly did she ask Webintact to “change channels”
And notice that the subscribers to Aerosat will not be investigated, which is like saying the 'dagga' seller is nailed but not the dagga buyer, which is why the Wisp business will never be stopped and makes Icasa assertion that it is illegal for data to cross boundaries ridiculous.

Mr. Mfunda was extremely unhappy with what I told him and I said he must
inform us as quickly as possible when this case goes to trial, which it never will. Dominic and David Jarvis from www.uninetwork.co.za will be able to provide more info.

[Karnaugh]

We appear to have another loopy (http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/loopy.htm)

Little part of that post was tangible to my logic. Infact you jump around with random bits of information (most unrelated) and come to some very strange conclusions with it.


I told him we are going to build our own phone
exchanges with DSLAM servers and ADSL2+ copper wire and Mesh hiding behind fronting companies and that the police will simply ignore Icasa in this case of Aerosat.
I'm surprised he didnt slap you over the phone. Where did you suck that nonsense from? What does Mesh have to do with ADSL? DSLAM's are *not* servers.


Icasa assertion that it is illegal for data to cross boundaries ridiculous.

Please have a read about interferance and electromagnetic radio waves.


that this case is make or break for the opensource commons and Icasa.
Where the hell does opensource come into this?

[MaD]

We appear to have another loopy (http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/loopy.htm)
lol @ loopy! :) i couldnt agree more..

[daffy]

captainwifi.. please.. stop it now
Stop harassing ICASA, they're going to start thinking we're all buzzword spewing nutters.

[captainwifi]

The UUNET thread at http://www.mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?p=225328#post225328
shows that the notion of uncapped is nonsense. The post 3gig part was a satellite link
up. Which satellite? Like Uninetwork they wont tell us, this is top secret
information you see. I am not the one concocting conspiracy theories here, why don't you phone http://www.allyoucaneat.co.za/ and ask them which satellite they use? They simply wont tell you. And as we all know by now Telkom will take
retribution against an ISP who dares to defy them.

A DSLAM server is that thing Telkom installs at it's exchange. To this connects
the ADSL client devices. Telkom does not have some sort of exclusive import
permit for www.paradyne.com DSLAM devices. With DSLAM you can
lay copper wire at a 5km distance and send 24meg data. Locustworld mesh
and DSLAM should be used in combination to deliver bandwidth, with a
www.bentleywalker.net satellite link.
(Digital Subscriber Line Access Multiplexer, DSLAM)
So instead of subscribing to whatever scam our ISP's concoct lets build our
own phone exchanges by laying our own copper wire across property boundaries
and creating hundreds of mini-ISP's and forget about the Uninet's and
Uunet's They are irrelevant and will be crushed by the Telkom juggernaut,
disrupting our services and leaving us stranded.

Tel: +44 (0) 23 9246 3943 is the phone number of Bentleywalker. Go ahead
and phone them, at least from where they operate in England there are laws
against lying to your customers. For R8000/month a continues 512k and
2meg burst bandwidth is purchased. Nobody in South-Africa can provide
you with such service. Telkom wants R8000/month for a continues 48k line !

[Decotey]

While we are at it lets build a spaceship and fly to Mars
Seriously I dont think its that easy. If it is why dont you start the project. Im sure Telkom wont have any objections :p

[MFour]

...and for a accurate time check you can phone 1026 from your local Telkom phone line. I called the number and, after trying my level best to verbally assault the speaker on the other side, they simply beepd out all my faul language and then politely gave me the time anyway. Unfortunately they do not have a website I can refer you to, but I'm sure if I keep on hurling abuse at them, they will give in and tell me who's got the money.

However after repeated attempts to get absolute bull out of them I contacted the SA Weather Service on 082 162. I can also refer you to their website for an in depth report on what to expect in the coming days, http://www.weathersa.co.za/ . I'm sure that they would be able to tell us if Wakko Jacko will go to jail or not, and how their decisions influence Uninet. It might just be possible that these guys are involved involved in a conspiracy to manipulate the wheather patern to influence the judges decision.

Give it a rest already. Anybody can spew a lot of nonsense and create links to websites. Eish man, who are you working for, and more importantly, how come they let you work for them?

[TheRoDent]

The UUNET thread at http://www.mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?p=225328#post225328
shows that the notion of uncapped is nonsense. The post 3gig part was a satellite link

Utter nonsense, and again, ridiculous guesswork here by Mistar Wifi. You don't deserve the title "captain" anymore.



Which satellite? Like Uninetwork they wont tell us, this is top secret
information you see. I am not the one concocting conspiracy theories here, why don't you phone http://www.allyoucaneat.co.za/ and ask them which satellite they use? They simply wont tell you.


You are a fruit. Because someone won't tell you what they're using, it MUST mean that they're using a Sattelite? Where's your logic? Oh wait...



Locustworld mesh
and DSLAM should be used in combination to deliver bandwidth

I don't know if you're aware of this, but in IT, adding a whole bunch of things into a pot, and stirring them, doth not always make a workable solution. Have you even thought of how this would work, for more than one second? Networks aren't just made up out of things you just grab off the rack and put together.



Tel: +44 (0) 23 9246 3943 is the phone number of Bentleywalker. Go ahead
and phone them, at least from where they operate in England there are laws
against lying to your customers. For R8000/month a continues 512k and
2meg burst bandwidth is purchased. Nobody in South-Africa can provide
you with such service. Telkom wants R8000/month for a continues 48k line !

Is there a law against lying to people on this forum? I wish there were. BentleyWalker's 2mb services are limited to a total transfer of a few megabytes per day. It's a useless service.

I think it's time for your daily Electro Shock Therapy session, MisterWifi. Please don't miss your next appointment.

[Bobb]

Spoke to Mr. Mfunda at Icasa. He insists that a criminal investigation is
being handled against the ex-Aerosat director and that the case will go to trial. I asked him if Maria Ramos will also be arrested. Then he became angry
and extremely defensive! I told him we are going to build our own phone
exchanges with DSLAM servers and ADSL2+ copper wire and Mesh hiding behind fronting companies and that the police will simply ignore Icasa in this case of Aerosat.

Mr. Mfunda was extremely unhappy with what I told him and I said he must
inform us as quickly as possible when this case goes to trial, which it never will. Dominic and David Jarvis from www.uninetwork.co.za will be able to provide more info.

I hope that you are using the Royal "we" and "us" because one thing is for sure, you ain't speaking for Myadsl and if indeed you harrassed Icasa in such an abrasive manner whilst mentioning our fine forum, you are doing more damage than good.

[malec]

Oh my greatness mrwifi, I found a great site that imports cheap DSLAM servers to SA:
DSLAM SERVERS (http://www.politicsforum.org/images/humour/stfu.jpg)

[Karnaugh]

The post 3gig part was a satellite link up. Which satellite?

Err, UUnet does *not* use satellite! When the packets do actualy come through, they are sub 500ms - so that excludes sattelite compleatly.


DSLAM server

Its not a "server" its a DSLAM.

Please go on and keep believing that the internet is made up of AMD x86 PC's and linksys switches...


why don't you phone http://www.allyoucaneat.co.za/ and ask them which satellite they use?

AYCE do *not* route their own customers, they are a SAIX VISP.

[bruce]

Hey captainwifi,

At least Uninet and Aerosat are fighting the system. Why don't you stop knocking them and support them instead.



Go, Aerosat, Go !!!!

[Chaz]

LOL - funny stuff.