VAN's regulation

R

rogi

New Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
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
 
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
 
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
 
Nah, you should be alright I reckon - it's only if you want to provide/sell to the public at large.
 
rogi said:
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
Click to expand...
nope 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 said:
What about internet cafes?
Click to expand...
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
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
captainwifi said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
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:
 
lpvoid said:
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:
Click to expand...
welcome to myadsl lpvoid

a private telecommunications network (ptn) license would be needed in that situation
 
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
Hi Dominic,

from Telecommunications Act, 1996
"signal" includes signs, sounds, writing or information of any kind;
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X