ADSL regulations ‘unenforceable'

[Debbie]

[ Johannesburg, 25 October 2007 ] - Failure by the Independent Communications Authority of SA (ICASA) to define what capping is, in terms of the ADSL regulations, makes the provision “ambiguous and unenforceable”, says Telkom.

However, the fixed-line operator did not want to challenge the regulations at this stage, Telkom legal representative advocate Nick Maritz told ICASA's complaints and compliance committee (CCC) yesterday.

Telkom was responding to a complaint brought by Thomas Cleghorne, a Telkom ADSL customer. Cleghorne alleged that Telkom was in breach of section 3.4 of the ADSL regulations, which stipulate “local bandwidth shall not be subject to a cap”.

Damaria Senne for ItWeb - http://www.itweb.co.za/sections/telecoms/2007/0710251048.asp?A=TEL&S=Telecoms&T=News&O=ST

Maritz pointed out that Telkom does not currently cut off ADSL users who exceed their monthly allocated bandwidth...

This forms part of the record, Tom was not allowed to introduce evidence to the contrary as he himself had never been capped, and the panel ruled that witnesses on this matter could not be called as it would unfairly prejudice Telkom because they would have to respond to 'new' evidence that did not form part of the original complaint.

 

[bekdik]

If there are no enforceable regulations then I would like Telkom to explain what their statement of compliance means. What is it with which they are complying?

[ Johannesburg, 20 November 2006 ] - Telkom expects to become fully compliant with the ADSL regulations, which went into effect in August, by March 2007.

Spokesman Lulu Letlape says the fixed-line operator has already complied with many of the provisions.

“We have also been engaged in dialogue with the Independent Communications Authority of SA (ICASA) to ensure full compliance,” she says.

 

[DragonLogos]

First off... there is no loophole

It is clear to most here that Telkom are not going to give it away, and so it is understandable that the cornerstone of their defence would be the goal that they wanted, and then try and work things around from there so that it fits

But is it fair? Is it legal? or is it just a clever bit of distraction from what is really a weak hand, made so because there is a basic legal tenant that is going to kick the chair from under them


There is far to much negativity, people are understandably cross, but you cannot fight effectively with such a cloud over everyone's heads. Their case is weak at best, we all know what is right, heck I bet even they do, so they come out BIG and hope everyone falls over, I have been in that fight before

Even the article is conciliatory " his Internet usage should be free "

No... it's not free, it has been paid for, it should be not subjected to a cap - as stated in the Government Gazette

The history of the ADSL regulations that ICASA came up with is well worth a read (sure someone could post a link to it) as I recall it took about two or three months of Fridays before we got something that most of us could knock out in a lazy afternoon - the problem is, Telkom are going to have to live with, Local should not be subject to a cap

Getting back to the article, our favourite company tells us the do not disconnect people (on ADSL) - well have I got news for them

I had to go on call today for a business that has Telkom ADSL - Their Server has been off-line since Monday. It took technical support one day to work out that it their ADSL had come to a halt, thanks to Telkom. They had to purchase more gigs, but could not get the server up and running again.

There were no emails or phone calls from Telkom, they just throw a spanner in the works

Four days and none of the shops can connect with the server, a real month end nightmare. The women at the head office are on their wits end, one lady even went home because she could not take it. The owner is hopping mad. And the funny thing is that all they need the system for is local use between the stores, the server and support

Now who can work out why Telkom cannot duck out of not giving un-limited local access - it is in the article, think lease agreement

 

[Freshy-ZN]

IIRC, the precise wording of the relevant regulations state " local bandwidth shal not be subject to A cap". Not the cap.

Now, being the amateur litigator that I am I would argue that this means that local bandwidth is to be UNMETERED if one has already paid for the ADSL line (rental) plus your package(1GB, 3GB or whatever). This is what I think ICASA meant and the only problem here is their total lack of those magnificent things called balls. If they had any, none of Telkoms tactics or armies of high powered legal eagles would mean a continental. They would then just force compliance and our friend Mr Cleghorm would not even have had to waste his time laying a complaint.

So I think the regs are very clear. It is just Telkom taking advantage of a weak ICASA. FFS, we should be sueing ICASA for non compliance of their mandate.

 

[ld13]

IIRC, the precise wording of the relevant regulations state " local bandwidth shal not be subject to A cap". Not the cap.

"Local bandwidth usage shall not be subject to the cap"

 

[Ekhaatvensters]

"Local bandwidth usage shall not be subject to the cap"

It's so obvious now, but we did see these regulations when they were drafted, too bad no one complained then.

 

[Cadavre777]

When I first read them, I thought Telkom would exploit all the little screw ups. And look where we are now. The section SHOULD have gone something along the lines of "local bandwidth and usage should not be metered or subject to limitations by the service provider".

 

[Syndyre]

That and "and should be included as part of every standard ADSL account package offered, the wholesale price of which will be determined by ICASA"

 

[stoke]

Maritz pointed out that Telkom does not currently cut off ADSL users who exceed their monthly allocated bandwidth...

Telkom Internet and other ISP's do this, not Teklom. Is this an attempt to dodge responsibility through departmental confusion? BS.

 

[The_Unbeliever]

Telkom Internet and other ISP's do this, not Teklom. Is this an attempt to dodge responsibility through departmental confusion? BS.

Maybe they're taking it in the context of the fixed-line which does not get terminated - meaning you can buy an prepaid voucher and still be able to surf?

But if he's speaking in the context of not being able to surf once all bandwidth is exhausted, then, yes, it is departmental confusion. Moo-poo definitely, IMHO.

 

[Sneeky]

Paris is a moegoe, he should be fired, he is responsible for this rubbish.

Fall on your sword Paris, you and ICASA are an embarrassment.