Any one els been shut down by Telkom?

[SSK]

Hi guys,

I have been running a small wisp in a small town in the freestate for 4 months now and have just been shut down by Telkom. I have heard that Telkom are doing there rounds around the country now to sut down ilegal wisp's.

Has any one els been shut down?

Stanley.

Dunno why my quote was directed somewhere else, sorry for double post, first time in this forum.

Definitely Yes!

We also operate in the Free State, covering three towns. Two were cut from the ADSL feeds. We arranged a meeting with Telkom after begging them for it. That is though the fax they have sent us requests a meeting.

The way we see it, Telkom at this stage is getting ready for the SNO, why?

Well the same day they cut us off, they sent dozens of sales people to sell ADSL to our clients. We lost most of them in the one Town.

In case you were wondering, we only have an approval by email for the VANS. No idea why ICASA is so relaxed in taking their time to issue. So, we are at the mercy of Telkom at this stage, but their are a few matters we would like to state:

1. Telkom for the past 5 years has facilitated and encouraged our illegal existence by providing us with an outdoor extension system ie direct line clients.

2. Telkom is practicing an act of discrimination by cutting our feeds whereas our competitors are still running, and that definitely can be taken up in the equity court.

3. Telkom has given us the option to be exempted from their charges, ie court action, if we provide them with a full detailed list of all our clients and assist Telkom to sell their products to our clients. Else, they will sue us. Isn't this BLACKMAIL?

4. Telkom have clearly stated to us that they are taking action by themselves because ICASA is ineffective, and Telkom have their own regulatory department.

5. Telkom's argument regarding cutting our feed is that Telkom does not support illegal activities.

Our Opinion:

ICASA is neutral and only does its job. Telkom is tragetting us inorder to attain as much market share as possible in the Free State before the SNO is licensed. Telkom is trying to scare us with court action, thus we have to submit our clients on a silver platter. Also, we established contact with ICASA regarding this issue, and their answer has been, once we have the VANS, then ICASA can support us, so all you illegal ISPs out there, go ahead and apply for the VANS. Nevertheless, ICASA has warned us not to submit our client list because that would be against the conditions of the VANS application and license. So we are stuck here, but would really appreciate if anyone can analyze our situation and the counter claims we have against Telkom. Telkom's threatens to sue us regarding illegal competition, and damages to their revenues due to our illegal work, theough we have never taken any client of theirs. They also want to sue us for giving farmers hope for broadband connectivity, and thus ruined Telkom's image in case we are shut down. Final world, that is quite a pity, is Telkom's approach to townships and farms stating that if they cannot afford the service, they can't have it, though the pricing has to be based on return on investment relevant to the area being provided.


Unforatuantely, the only thing we can do at this stage is find an alternative feed. We have contacted Sentech for some Sat based VPN to Joburg, but they just take details and never call back. If that system is affordable, then we can get our internet supply through a VPN to a VANS holder
We believe that all ISPs should stand together and issue one big court case against Telkom for providing us with the feeds in the first place, mainly because we believe most of us were invited to attend the ADSL launch. Oh, and this goes to MYADSL, we asked the Telkom representatives during the ADSL launch conference in our Home Town twice if we may resell services on ADSL, and the answer twice was if we get the business package of the ADSL, then it is a definite YES!!!!!!! We take this up in the meeting with superiors of Telkom and their comment is that those representatives do not have qualifications to answer such questions. Well, we say, whose problem is that???? A representative of Telkom, is a representative of Telkom!! That's the bottom line, and this is an act of mis-representation. Now, who is gonna take who to court!

Remember, ICASA is neutral!

We would really appreciate any comments from a legal source as unfortunately our town attorneys have not had any experience in telecommunication cases.

Thanks All

 

[MaD]

Tell Telkom to **** off they have no right to self-regulate. Find alternative feed and bob's your uncle. Don't worry about the legal aspects, the Telecommunications Bill was written to protect Telkom and it will be falling away soon. They're grabbing at straws now cos they KNOW just about every one of their customers will change to the SNO once residential services are available.

Most likely they threatened the ex-customers with legal action unless they get ADSL.

 

[w1z4rd]

And Peopod your argument concerning Icasa has
been my point the whole time. Telkom can't confiscate anything, their
mongrol mut Icasa does this for them. This point is lost on www.antitrust.co.za

Unfortunely, antitrust.co.za did ask for all relevant information in regards to this so we could fight it. However, no one in the wifi community bothered to get back to us.

What Telkom is doing here is once again disgusting, but I suppose its what we have come to expect from them.

 

[BTTB]

Disgrace

I have just read this thread and I am flabbergasted.

I really had no idea that the Anti Competitive situation was this bad.
It viles me to think that in this day and age we still have bullying from the incumbent Monopoly.

Well the same day they cut us off, they sent dozens of sales people to sell ADSL to our clients. We lost most of them in the one Town.

This is nothing other than anti competitive behaviour. I cannot believe that this is supposed to be the year 2005 and yet we are still in the dark ages.

You guys have my sympathy if that is worth anything.
Very sad situation indeed.

 

[SSK]

Solution To Wireless LEgality

I have just read this thread and I am flabbergasted.

I really had no idea that the Anti Competitive situation was this bad.
It viles me to think that in this day and age we still have bullying from the incumbent Monopoly.


This is nothing other than anti competitive behaviour. I cannot believe that this is supposed to be the year 2005 and yet we are still in the dark ages.

You guys have my sympathy if that is worth anything.
Very sad situation indeed.

Thanks a lot for the support.

Also, we are composed of two sister companies. Only one has remained in operation till next week. The one with the cut feed is a social development and BEE oriented, where the profit is to be directed to providing township schools with free internet services. As far as we know, we made efforts for the minister of telecommunications to receive a letter from us stating our company plan. Our only income would be nationally approved salaries according to our qualifications. Yet, they still want to shut us down, coz Telkom believes if anyone does not have money to pay for the internet services, then he/she should not have it. As they see it, return on investment applies to areas and not the whole country. I am a business graduate, and from a business point of view, somtetimes businesses have to sacrifice the profit from a big customer, to help the smaller customers and so maintain a pleasant social image ie public support and market share. We have not heard from the minister yet. Our goal is simple, provide the under-serviced farmers, make them happy, and use the profit to provide the poor schools and the needy.

All events mentioned are within the past two weeks. We are ready to disclose names of the Telkom personnel we had the contacts and meetings with. We were three in the meeting, thus can testify for every word that was mentioned. You guys have been arround longer on this forum. Do you advise a new thread for the purpose of establishing a WISP association? There is a key to legal wireless networks if anyone is interested, but it needs the support of a group, and not inidividual companies. It needs PRESSURE! Don't want to make this a newspaper. Anyway, you may all know that if we can prove that Telkom's will to support underserviced areas but at higher rates than the rest of the country, is an act of discrimination, it consequently means that Telkom is UNWILLING to provide at normal conditions, then we can win ICASA's permissions to establish wireless or any other types of network. But this we can't achieve alone. ICASA has mentioned to us that we either need a letter from Telkom stating the unwillingness, or we MUST PROVE THE UNWILLINGNESS. We prove it, the permissions are ours. Voila la solution!

United We Stand

Best of Luck

 

[Plaasjapie]

WISP Association

I fully support the idea of a wisp association. Get it going and I/we shall support it. Only in numbers will we be able to stand up to Telkom and state our case to ICASA and government. Hell, wifi across roads is not illegal in other countries in the world, why should it be here!

The other advantages of such an organisation is that we can pool together, to buy a 2M or higher line feed and do VPN between members.

Lets make this happen!

 

[Ghatto]

WISP Association

I agree and support the idea of a WISP Association. Lets start making some some plans on how to make this happen.

 

[TheRoDent]

You will have the support of Jawug members in this endeavour too. It is in this country's interest to open up the wireless networking possibilities, not stifle it.

I do think though, that a VANS license should be the minimum requirement for someone intending to charge for their service. Without that, unlicensed fly-by-night's would start ripping off the consumer, and the consumer would have no protection.

Something like the WISPA.org.za would be a good start. I see someone alread owns that domain.

Another thing that does need adressing is that WISPS should be held accountable for their mis/use of the spectrum. There has to be set in place, a dispute resolution mechanism regards spectrum pollution, and necessary measure to be taken should someone keep transgressing.

If we're all going to be sharing the same spectrum, we'd better do it responsibly.

 

[SSK]

100% agree

I will start a new thread regarding the association.

Will also chechout WISPA.org.za

Hope we get enough support to get things rollin

Cheers

 

[dominic]

Yes, I didn't mention all the possible providers from the Act, but the fact is that VANS cannot self-provide infrastructure, as per the terms and conditions of the VAN's license. This makes it clear to me that even VANs getting facilities from other VANs isn't allowed, because whichever VAN self-provided isn't allowed to do that. Sure, you can cooperate with other VANs to make use of their infrastructure, as long as that infrastructure was provided by the providers allowed to do so according to the Act. VAN's aren't included in the act, as far as the provisioning of facilities is concerned. Well, that's my understanding, at least.

Whilst there is confusion, Ivy made it clear that VANs are NOT allowed to self-provide. And there is nothing that states that VANs are allowed to self-provide. In fact, it's made very clear that they can only use telecommunications facilities provided by entities defined in the Act.

The act lists, Telkom (PSTN), Vodacom (MOBILE), MTN (MOBILE), Transnet (PTN), Eskom (PTN). The "loophole" you insinuate: The fact that VAN's are also licensed entities according to the act, is a recursive one. I doubt it will stand up anywhere in court. The VAN's terms and conditions precludes any VAN from self-providing. Thus if one VAN went to another VAN, either one of the VANs would still be in breach of their VANs license Terms and Conditions.

revisiting this....apologies for the delay

my argument is a legalistic one and i do not think the minister's intention is of any relevance were a court is determining what the intention of the legislature is (i.e. parliament)...so she can make it as unclear as she likes (and she likes a lot).

in very brief

1. section 40(2) of the Act

(2) A licence to provide any value-added network services, including, but not limited to, electronic data interchange, electronic mail, protocol conversion, access to a database or a managed data network service, shall contain a condition that the service in question be provided by means of telecommunication facilities—

(a) until 7 May 2002 provided by Telkom or made available to Telkom as contemplated in section 44; and
(b) after 7 May 2002, provided by Telkom and the second national operator or any of them until a date to be fixed by the Minister by notice in the Gazette.
[Subsection (2) substituted by section 15(a) of Act 64 of 2001]

2. then the ministerial determination of 2 september 2004 published in the gov gazette (relevant part only)

I, Ivy Matsepe-Casaburri, hereby make the following determinations in terms of the Telecommunications Act, (Act No. 103 of 1996) (the Act):
4. (a) In terms of section 40(2) of the Act, 1 February 2005 shall be the date from when value added network services may also be provided by telecommunications facilities other than those provided by Telkom and the Second National Operator or any of them;
(b) In terms of section 40(4) of the Act, 1 February 2005 shall be the date from when a person who provides a value added network service shall be entitled to cede or assign the right to use, or to sublet or part with control or otherwise dispose of the telecommunications facilities used for the provision of the value added network service

3. the determination amends section 40(2) of the telecomms act - the very grey area is how it does so.. prior to the publication of the determination facilities had to be obtained from Telkom [and SNO] and this condition had to be written into VANS licences

after publication of the determination this condition falls away completely, i.e. there is no longer any restriction as regards the facilities by which the VANS is provided

4. ICASA's understanding of self-provision and the determination http://www.internet.org.za/icasa-media-22112004.html

4. CHOICE IN THE PROVISION OF VALUE ADDED NETWORK SERVICES

1. VANS may self-provide facilities from 1 February 2005. Self-provision contemplates the procurement of telecommunication facilities by a VANS licensee from any telecommunication facility supplier and to use them under and in accordance with its licence to provide telecommunication services.
2. The Determinations do not in any way affect the current restrictions in relation to the ISM band.
3. The Authority will review licence terms and conditions for VANS.

5. the new terms and conditions state

b) The Licensee may provide its service by means of telecommunication facilities obtained from any other person licensed to provide telecommunication services in terms of the Act.

5. now where did they get that from? i would argue that this restriction (i.e. to those licensed to provide a service as opposed to those licensed/registered to supply facilities) is not justified in terms of the Act which does not provide for any further restriction on where facilities can be obtained from...so i would argue that this condition is "ultra vires", i.e. it is beyond ICASA and the Minister's powers to introduce this restriction

6. who can provide facilities?

Registration of suppliers of telecommunication facilities and equipment
56. (1) No person shall supply telecommunication facilities or equipment unless, subject to subsection (2), he or she has been registered by the Authority.
(2) The Authority may prescribe types or categories of telecommunication facilities or equipment for the supply of which registration in terms of this section shall not be required.
(3) The procedure for obtaining registration in terms of this section shall be as prescribed.

i.e. not only telecommunications service licencees

..anyone thinking of basing a business decision on this - don't. not yet anyway. the majority view is that self-provision remains a no-no...i merely wish to highlight that it is not so straightforward as what the minister says and imo there is definitely a fairly robust argument the other way

 

[Web Intact]

.... but the fact is that VANS cannot self-provide infrastructure, as per the terms and conditions of the VAN's license. This makes it clear to me that even VANs getting facilities from other VANs isn't allowed, because whichever VAN self-provided isn't allowed to do that. .................Well, that's my understanding, at least.

Whilst there is confusion, Ivy made it clear that VANs are NOT allowed to self-provide. And there is nothing that states that VANs are allowed to self-provide. In fact, it's made very clear that they can only use telecommunications facilities provided by entities defined in the Act.

Hi Guys,

Shoowee - what a couple of weeks this' been in WiSP land. Telkom is out with their big scythe like the bloody death reaper and chopping people's legs off... hmpf...


RoDent - On to the quote - it seems to me that there is some confusion around here as to the term 'self-provide'. Even I'm getting confused...

"Self-Provision' - as I have understood from all I've read about it - is about bypassing the local PSTN networks and obtaining related services from the cheapest international supplier. Self-providing does not extend to infrastructure - it is the self-provision of the source of the service.

And so the term Value-Added Network Service extends from that - adding value to the existing PSTN/Telco infrastructure and sourcing your service from that network...

Not so?

So a WiSP re-selling ADSL with a VANS licence, as shaky as it may seem until the SNO issue is resolved, is not clearly defined at all as illegal.

In fact, I've seen a letter written to CNet in Warmbaths by Telkom last week - A 'Cease and Desist' type - and there was no demand for a list of customers there, just clear references to the act, and that re-selling their ADSL service without a VANS licence was currently illegal due to the unresolved Act...

There was, however, a hint that a case may be persued against them for loss of potential earnings from customers that could've been theirs...