VAN's regulation

[rogi]

Hi there.

I'm a little confused by what a VANS actually is. If, for example, I want to provide wireless access to my leased line to my neigbours (and charge a fee), does that make me a VANS provider?

Cheers
rogi

[thisgeek]

Yep.
AFAIK, VANS = Value Added Network Service ? I stand under correction.

[rogi]

Yes that's right, Value Added Network Service. Is this the thing that Telkom were wanting the Knysna municipality to have when they put up their own wireless network? Is this what was called the "private network license" in the media?

Cheers
rogi

[thisgeek]

Hmm. Damn. I'm providing wireless access to my adsl for my laptop. Guess I need a VANS then. Mind you, I prolly need a VANS for my other 4 machines on my network at home. :p

[rogi]

Nah, you should be alright I reckon - it's only if you want to provide/sell to the public at large.

[thisgeek]

I was being facetious ;)

[rogi]

Doh! Forgive me, it's a monday ;-)

[dominic]

Hi there.

I'm a little confused by what a VANS actually is. If, for example, I want to provide wireless access to my leased line to my neigbours (and charge a fee), does that make me a VANS provider?

Cheers
roginope it makes you a criminal (according to telkom and most interpretations of the law as you are sending a signal across a public boundary)

VANS typically associated with ISPs - adding value to the telkom network

PTN = private telecommunications network - typically used by a business with branch offices to connect up those branches - must be integrally related to the business of the PTN licence holder

[reech]

What about internet cafes?

[dominic]

What about internet cafes?afaik regarded as hotspots and would be VANS...if u r interested there is a doc on the ICASA site with regard to findings and conclusions on wireless internet service provision

[reech]

Surely a requirement for an internet cafe to apply for a vans licence is a disincentive to providing internet access in za!?
what a load of ballz

[R4tt3xx]

I am running an Internet cafe at the moment and I have never in my life heard such RUBBISH. A Vans license is not needed as the networking is done on the same premise. I am even thinking of adding a hot-spot to the Cafe.

[captainwifi]

1) rogi you can send data anywhere you want using legal equipment and
transmission media, without a license. No need for a Vans, Pst or anything else, if you have no profit motive.
2) Don't resell Telkom data without a Vans, they could sue you for civil damages. But reselling satellite data as discussed on the Wisp thread is fine.
3) I would just add to dominic's post that judges decide who are criminals and who aren't. Since the police will do everything in their power not to enforce the Convergence/Act96 , the issue will remain academic.
4) Your only real danger is equipment confiscation, but as far as I know this was limited to expensive Wi-fi equipment before the government gazette made it license free.
5) Check out my profile for further details or http://icasa.blogspot.com
6) This is a grey legal area, with lots of vested interests, that would not want the general public to send data across the street via Dslam/Wi-fi/copper/fiber, bypassing our established data providers such as Telkom etc.
7) Carefully evaluate what you are being told.
8) I am encouraging you to to send data across the street via legal equipment dslam/wifi/fiber. Most councils
will even organize the traffic police for residents to cut through busy roads. For example Japie(engineering) from Hazyview
will help me personally to lay a fiber cable across the main road, which is very busy with traffic. And I can see no reason
why Pretoria council would not allow us to lay fiber across their roads.

[asmith]

ICASA made a specific notice using internet cafes as an example, and said that provided the wireless network is only accesable on their premiss then its legal and no license (other than type approval for the equipment which is the suppliers problem anyhow) is required.

[captainwifi]

And Mr.Mpilo at Icasa legal has made a specific notice that Vans/no-Vans you
are not allowed to send data across the street. And sending data across the
street is exactly what the Vans license holders are doing via Wifi/Dslam/fiber. A Vans is essential for the business model of a for-profit wisp. In the community model, we don't need a Vans since we have no profit motive. The criminal implications of sending data across the street via Dlsam/Wifi/fiber are exactly the same for Vans license holder and non-holder ie. the general public. All of this is matter of interpretation. We have mr.Mpilo's interpretation, our resident lawyer dominic, Telkom etc.
Views, views millions of views,threats, intimidations but the single most import ant view, that of our beloved SAPS, we have not. Specifically the JHB commercial crimes division has not said a single, utter word. Nothing, nada, zip. If only they would break their silence and just state if they agree/disagree with Mr.Mpilo's view. Their number is 011 870 5300.
The mistake many people make is to take the law at face value and not factor in the internal workings of our criminal justice system. If you have no profit motive in sending data across the street, or haven't invested significant capital, then Icasa's notices are utterly irrelevant.

dominic let me blunt about this. Your answer to rogi is a misrepresentation of the complexity and nuances of this
entire issue.

[dominic]

And Mr.Mpilo at Icasa legal has made a specific notice that Vans/no-Vans you
are not allowed to send data across the street. And sending data across the
street is exactly what the Vans license holders are doing via Wifi/Dslam/fiber. A Vans is essential for the business model of a for-profit wisp. In the community model, we don't need a Vans since we have no profit motive. The criminal implications of sending data across the street via Dlsam/Wifi/fiber are exactly the same for Vans license holder and non-holder ie. the general public. All of this is matter of interpretation. We have mr.Mpilo's interpretation, our resident lawyer dominic, Telkom etc.
Views, views millions of views,threats, intimidations but the single most import ant view, that of our beloved SAPS, we have not. Specifically the JHB commercial crimes division has not said a single, utter word. Nothing, nada, zip. If only they would break their silence and just state if they agree/disagree with Mr.Mpilo's view. Their number is 011 870 5300.
The mistake many people make is to take the law at face value and not factor in the internal workings of our criminal justice system. If you have no profit motive in sending data across the street, Icasa's notices are utterly irrelevant.

dominic let me blunt about this. Your answer to rogi is a misrepresentation of the complexity and nuances of this
entire issue.bluntness i like

you are probably right in that a two line post is not sufficient to give air to the complexities and nuances of the entire issue - i think this issue has been failry thoroughly and repetitively covered on this forum already

of course you are wrong in once again placing me within the web of your conspiracy theory involving the suppression of "the truth about data crossing the road" by commercial wisps and others; its your theory, it has some interesting aspects but, as someone fairly closely involved in it, it is not one i can see any factual basis for supporting

the SAPS are in no position to do anything about illegal wifi operators, neither are ICASA for that matter and i can certainly vouch for the fact that no magistrate's court wants to even begin to deal with the massive complexities of a telecomms prosecution...the prosecutors and magistrates are simply not equipped to deal with it

so there is an enforcement problem yes - this does not change the fact that as the law stands it is definitely illegal to send a signal across a boundary without any licence and the balance of opinion holds that it is probably illegal to do this even with a VANS licence...commercial wisps with VANS would seem to be operating within a grey area

[lpvoid]

Ummm. Okay. So if you're a big company with a few buildings - some across a street, then you need a VANS licence? WTF?! :confused:

[dominic]

Ummm. Okay. So if you're a big company with a few buildings - some across a street, then you need a VANS licence? WTF?! :confused:welcome to myadsl lpvoid

a private telecommunications network (ptn) license would be needed in that situation

[captainwifi]

The SAPS are in no position to do anything about illegal wifi operators, neither are ICASA for that matter and I can certainly vouch for the fact that no magistrate's court wants to even begin to deal with the massive complexities of a telecomms prosecution...the prosecutors and magistrates are simply not equipped to deal with it

And the same logic can be extended to the PAIA law. www.buys.co.za charged
people R1800 to comply with this absurdity. On the off-topic it was explained
why the PAIA will in eternity not be enforced. The same simpletons that paid buys R1800 are the ones to afraid to send data across the street.

[nOhIwAy]

Hi Dominic,

from Telecommunications Act, 1996

"signal" includes signs, sounds, writing or information of any kind;


It would then be correct that talking to your neighbour (across the defined boundary line) would require a license ?

No court will deny a person the right to transmit a "signal" (as defined) to his or her neighbour
and this could easily be extrapolated to include some other better means of transmitting a "signal"
to one's neighbour and then of course the whole Act just crumbles to pieces.

[DragonLogos]

Sort of cuts ones rights a bit short, Freedom of association and expression to name two - Looks like this one will end up in the Constitutional court as well

[morebroadband]

CaptainWifi,
I have had a look at your website and I commend you for taken a stand.

I do have a question regarding VOIP Asterix and Satelite internet. From my tests I have a problem with the latency. Have you actually tested VOIP over SAT, and if you have had success which SAT provider have you used.

Thanks.

[dominic]

Hi Dominic,

from Telecommunications Act, 1996


It would then be correct that talking to your neighbour (across the defined boundary line) would require a license ?

No court will deny a person the right to transmit a "signal" (as defined) to his or her neighbour
and this could easily be extrapolated to include some other better means of transmitting a "signal"
to one's neighbour and then of course the whole Act just crumbles to pieces.the old joke is that you would need a license to fart in morse code across a road

/captain - have you been self-deleting? why are there posts missing from this thread?

[captainwifi]

a private telecommunications network (ptn) license would be needed in that situation
As a business that can't afford to have Telkom simply cut your lines, I would not advise you to cut through roads and advertise it with a board besides the pavement that says:
"Openly defying Icasa's interpretation of Act.96/Convergence bill". My angle is the cooperative community model where everybody will share the virtually unlimited local loop bandwidth of a fiber connection. The media discussion concerning telecoms liberalization are from the angle of a commercial venture who must have a viable business model and thus needs legal clarity. So just one very good reason for needing a PTN would be to resell bandwidth to business in such a way that Telkom can't take retribution against them, not because the police will hunt down the person who laid the fiber across the road.

From a civil legal viewpoint, I don't forsee local councils providing anybody with written permission to cut through roads, since Telkom's legal department will contact them. But since it is their roads, if they don't activly forbid us then
we could do what we want.

Here is a practical way to get this going.
Look at the picture on my blog to follow the description below. Instead of cutting through the road span a single twisted pair copper wire across the road perpendicular to the road from rooftop to rooftop. A www.zyxel.com VDSL Dslam, provides 50meg downstream/30meg upsream at a distance of 1.5km. Eight VDSL modems connect's to a single port.
An 8-port Dlsam costs $1000. A VDSL modem is around $150. 30meg is enough for 20 M-peg4 streams. Gradually the suspended wire will be replaced piecewise with fiber/copper underground and under the tar road. Temporary Utp/fiber will be used etc. All along this backbone Wi-fi parabolics stream their data/video etc to it. This is
a hybrid solution, combining wi-fi and fixed wire copper/gigabyte/dslam/fiber.

The option of communities simply building their own telephone exchanges are not even considered in the media. Sure it is a grey legal area, but once these networks become entreched, how would one 'ban' them? We must usher in change,we must change the law. South-Africa is not Russia, there is a lot we can do to upset the applecart without getting zapped.

And dominic no I have not deleted anything, I edited my post but in such a way that your quote of me is accurate. I just numbered the stuff to make my points clearer.