Concern that bill may not allow providers to build networks

SNO licencing in April next year? That is after the end of this fiscal year. I guess I must stop holding my breath.
 
...speculation is that the VANS are not being permitted to build their own networks in order to protect the SNO.
Click to expand...

Could someone please tell me why the HELL the DoC feels it has the obligation to protect telecoms companies at the expense of consumers???!!! This is the mindset they had with Telkom, look where THAT has landed us. Even the DoC is now admitting that Telecoms costs in this country are excessive!!! So why the hell are they repeating the same mistake yet again by protecting the SNO??? Oh I forgot, the government has a big stake in BOTH companies.

However, there has been no drop in the price of national and local calls because Telkom refuses to allow the VANS to interconnect with it to provide VoIP services, even though their licence allows them to do this, and there is no alternative carrier, he says.
Click to expand...

Another example of a Toothless regulator. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it ICASA's job to ensure things like these can't be done by Telkom???
 
bleeeurgh - very much fact that VANS will be given service licences but not infrastructure licences...logic being that the SNO has been invited to apply for and awarded a licence on the basis of the existing landscape and that it would be *unfair* to now change the rules of the game before they also get a chance to exploit SA consumers

this is exactly what happened with the ministerial about turn on the september 2004 liberalisation announcement - she got pressured by the SNO / Sentech to reverse her determination that VANS could self-provide

the interesting bit here from a technical legal perspective is that at the moment VANS can self-provide (or at least so say I and some other legal types)...the question then becomes whether it is permissible for the government to take these rights away when the convergence bill kicks in...question of whether this is a fair administrative action

as regards voip and interconnections this is probably down to ICASA being so underfunded and under-resourced that it does not know whether it is coming or going - this is something they have to deal with and the mechanisms exist for them to deal with it. I have not heard of any VoiP provider taking telkom to ICASA on this matter - they would state thta they wish to interconnect but that telkom are unreasonably refusing to do so...ICASA would then have the pwoer to impose a reasonable interconnection agreement (but as always these things take too much time)
 
Concern that bill may not allow providers to build networks
Click to expand...

Wahaha, I can sense another 'I have been misunderstood' utterance from Ivy coming along again soon.
 
You know one would think they learnt from 'protecting' companies.. guess we're in for another 10yrs of expense well those who remain cause everyone knows that the way things going everyone is leaving SA. Next time they complain of skills leaving the country we should bring up the cost of telecoms heh.

The Voip thing is getting a bit annoying, it seems they are like sure you can have it just not on our network... wtf.
 
krycor said:
The Voip thing is getting a bit annoying, it seems they are like sure you can have it just not on our network... wtf.
Click to expand...

You can use VOIP, as long as it is Telkom's VOIP service. They don't like competition, because that means you actually have to put in a effort to try and keep your customers.
 
I'm starting to blame government more than telkom these days (and thats saying something!) they are either extremely short-sighted, or very greedy
 
dominic said:
bleeeurgh - very much fact that VANS will be given service licences but not infrastructure licences...logic being that the SNO has been invited to apply for and awarded a licence on the basis of the existing landscape and that it would be *unfair* to now change the rules of the game before they also get a chance to exploit SA consumers
Click to expand...

Could I refer you back to last week's Financial Mail in which we quoted Lyndall Shope-Mafole, the director-general in the department of communications:

FM: In January, the minister clarified an earlier policy determination and stated that Vans operators could not build their own networks by self-providing telecom facilities. Now that looks set to change.

Shope-Mafole: Self-provisioning by Vans is not necessary in light of the Convergence Bill [proposed new legislation designed to govern the sector]. If Vans want to apply for a licence to provide infrastructure, they can do so.

FM: But the minister will still have to issue an invitation to apply for an infrastructure licence.

Shope-Mafole: Yes, but it's not as tight as it was in the previous act. The minister gets involved to ensure that the economy is able to handle it, if I can put it that way. But as a Vans operator you will be able to apply for [an infrastructure] licence.

FM: But would it be issued?

Shope-Mafole: Why not? I have no doubt it would.

FM: So, once the Convergence Bill is enacted, anyone may apply for a licence to offer infrastructure services?

Shope-Mafole: Yes.

FM: And it's unlikely they would be turned down?

Shope-Mafole: It's unlikely, yes.
 
Shope-Mafole: Yes, but it's not as tight as it was in the previous act. The minister gets involved to ensure that the economy is able to handle it, if I can put it that way.
Click to expand...
Do we interpret 'economy' as Telkoms share price, if I can put it that way?
 
mcleodd said:
Could I refer you back to last week's Financial Mail in which we quoted Lyndall Shope-Mafole, the director-general in the department of communications:

FM: In January, the minister clarified an earlier policy determination and stated that Vans operators could not build their own networks by self-providing telecom facilities. Now that looks set to change.

Shope-Mafole: Self-provisioning by Vans is not necessary in light of the Convergence Bill [proposed new legislation designed to govern the sector]. If Vans want to apply for a licence to provide infrastructure, they can do so.

FM: But the minister will still have to issue an invitation to apply for an infrastructure licence.

Shope-Mafole: Yes, but it's not as tight as it was in the previous act. The minister gets involved to ensure that the economy is able to handle it, if I can put it that way. But as a Vans operator you will be able to apply for [an infrastructure] licence.

FM: But would it be issued?

Shope-Mafole: Why not? I have no doubt it would.

FM: So, once the Convergence Bill is enacted, anyone may apply for a licence to offer infrastructure services?

Shope-Mafole: Yes.

FM: And it's unlikely they would be turned down?

Shope-Mafole: It's unlikely, yes.
Click to expand...
missed that - very interesting thank you; it is a confusing issue precisely because the definition of VANS is going to fall away and they will have essentially the same service licence type as telkom and the mobiles

*the below if taken from the last version of the Bill release - September 2005 including portfolio committee amendments...it is very different beast to the bill released to the public in february especially with regard to licensing *

as i understand the bill, in order to build infrastructure / self-provide you will need a communications network service licence

now this licence can be either an individual or a class licence...the difference being that an individual licence is granted by the authority (ICASA) after "application and due consideration". For a class licence an entity just needs to register with ICASA

individual licences will typically be for communication networks of provincial or national scope; communication networks where the state holds more than 25% or where a network has significant economic or social impact

class licences will typically be for comms networks "of district municipality or local municipal scope operated for commercial purposes" & basically where the Authority finds there is not significant social or economic impact

so different kinds or levels of what we now characterise as VANS activities will either require an individual or a class licence

section 5(6) of the Bill contains the "managed liberalisation" clause - "In consideration of the implementation of the managed liberalisation policies, the Authority may only accept and consider applications for individual[/] communications networks services pursuant to a policy determination issued by the Minister..."

the word "individual" was inserted into this latest draft and is very significant in terms of self-provisioning because it implies that it is open for operators to register (not "apply" as stated by the D-G) for a class licence giving them licence to set up networks on a local or district level or where ICASA finds no significant social or economic impact

so yes - the ministerial control over infrastructure looks like it will be diluted at local provision level and yes "VANS" type operators will be able to apply for a communications network service class licence

at this stage i am unsure of whether this is an intended consequence or not

/apologies for not being clearer first time round
 
I don't think even the DoC knows whether VANS can really self provide or not!!! :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X