Any one els been shut down by Telkom?

[captainwifi]

And talking about criminal charges. dominic claims that Aerosat's director are being investigated. I doubt if this is so. Proof would be nice. Be that as it may. The previous subscribers to Aerosat are in no danger. Kebble was sued by the government to pump mines , not the shareholders. So you could setup a company, get somebody just out of jail who doesn't mind going back and make him the director with you as the majority shareholder. Our legal system has the most wonderful loopholes to exploit. No matter what Icasa does to the Wisp's , the subscribers won't be touched, which is why the mesh/Dslam momentum won't be stopped.

Uninetwork who took over Aerosat LOST the High Court case. mr.Mfunda
said that he is criminally prosecuting the Aerosat director. I don't
believe him. I want proof. I am relentlessly pursuing this issue and will soon have the entire ruling to study. I want everything and will obtain every single court ruling involving Icasa. This information must be placed in the public domain. All I asked was for Uninet to give us the ruling, they refused. I won't back down.

 

[dominic]

And talking about criminal charges. dominic claims that Aerosat's director are being
investigated. I doubt if this is so. Proof would be nice. Be that as it may. The
previous subscribers to Aerosat are no danger. Kebble was sued by the government
to pump mines , not the shareholders. So you could setup a company, get somebody
just out of jail who doesn't mind going back and make him the director with you as
the majority shareholder. Our legal system has the most wonderful loopholes to exploit.

sorry to derail the thread here stan

if only life were so simple....as i recall you claimed aerosat's directors were being investigated, not I...the fact that you would doubt your own words makes a grim kind of sense

you do not know me yet this is at least the third time that you have implied that i am not being truthful...please stop / haal uit en wys

 

[Stan The Man]

interesting - my info was that they had started issuing them again after the new terms and conditions were released...can you share more about where you got that

until the new operator comes into play - "a while" is probably a gross understatement

i will see if i can find out the current status from icasa

Thats very strange dominic, when we contacted icasa a few days ago thay said that all apps. were put on hold. They had over a hundred apps waiting to be seen to. And they would not be seen to until the second operator was up and running and the legislation would be looked at again?

As i said before you don't know who to trust any more......

Stan.

 

[Stan The Man]

i will see if i can find out the current status from icasa

Please let me know what you find with icasa concerning this?

Thanks Dominic.

Stan.

 

[hermanx]

Stan

The best short term solution would be to partner with a VAN's lisence holder. I think I can help. Mail your details.

Regards
Herman

 

[th0rn]

yeah yeah always good for a dig and a chuckle....stan first thing to do if you want to have a business is to download the VANS licence application from the icasa site and submit it...cost of approx R5 636..this is not a guarantee and it is debatable whether it allows you to provide wireless internet access on the ISM bands but it does seem to offer some level of protection against interference; best prize would then be to get a frequency licence outside the ISM bands as well but these are damn expensive and hard to come by

then look at your options for sourcing bandwidth from someone other than teklom - i know it all goes back to them eventually but if you are not directly connected to adsl then it is far more difficult for them to switch you off

but try and get the VANS licence first - without this you are very vulnerable to confiscations and even criminal charges

Is this cost Yearly, monthly or once off?

 

[Web Intact]

Thats very strange dominic, when we contacted icasa a few days ago thay said that all apps. were put on hold. They had over a hundred apps waiting to be seen to. And they would not be seen to until the second operator was up and running and the legislation would be looked at again?

As i said before you don't know who to trust any more......

Stan.

Hi Guys - it's been a while... glad to see you're all still here and bashing away at our 'opressors'.

A bit of news that is relevent to the VANS/ICASA/Telkom chats:

Last week ICASA was trawling hi sites in Vereeniging, and mistakenly cut our equipment connections and sealed the units in a plastic bag... we had been called earlier to produce our VANS licence and TA certificate, which are all in order. A subcontractor went to do the dirty work, and cut everyone's stuff indiscriminitely. ICASA have apologised, and we're back on air.

We have been approached by a couple of WiSP's who are in the schtuck for operating without VANS licence, and we are looking in to bringing them in to Global Web Intact. Apparently it is true that VANS applications have been put on hold, as these guys have applied some time back and are not having any luck actually getting licenced.

I think some of the misunderstanding about WiSPs operating under a VANS being legal/illegal, is that there are different types of VANS - eg, you still need a VANS licence to operate a dial-up ISP, but may not use that same licence for WiSP...

@ Stan - if you are interested in a business partnership of some sort with us, please pm me or mail our support desk at [email protected] for att Chris...

 

[dominic]

Hi Guys - it's been a while... glad to see you're all still here and bashing away at our 'opressors'.

A bit of news that is relevent to the VANS/ICASA/Telkom chats:

Last week ICASA was trawling hi sites in Vereeniging, and mistakenly cut our equipment connections and sealed the units in a plastic bag... we had been called earlier to produce our VANS licence and TA certificate, which are all in order. A subcontractor went to do the dirty work, and cut everyone's stuff indiscriminitely. ICASA have apologised, and we're back on air.

We have been approached by a couple of WiSP's who are in the schtuck for operating without VANS licence, and we are looking in to bringing them in to Global Web Intact. Apparently it is true that VANS applications have been put on hold, as these guys have applied some time back and are not having any luck actually getting licenced.

I think some of the misunderstanding about WiSPs operating under a VANS being legal/illegal, is that there are different types of VANS - eg, you still need a VANS licence to operate a dial-up ISP, but may not use that same licence for WiSP...

@ Stan - if you are interested in a business partnership of some sort with us, please pm me or mail our support desk at [email protected] for att Chris...

interesting thank you

can you expand on the bold bit - confuses me completely

stan - u are correct - apparently they are now saying we are waiting for the convergence bill to be passed so that they can issue the correct licence under that legislation and not have to convert VANS licences they have just issued

th0rn - once-off application fee; thereafter there is an anuual fee based on a percentage of turnover

 

[Web Intact]

I haven't confirmed this myself, but apparently a VANS licence is issued with a specific transport mechanism specified. Therefore, a dial-up ISP (like HotOrange, Polka etc) needs to apply for a VANS licence specifying the type of VA service intended.

So, a dial-up VANS will have a dial-up VANS licence, and a WiSP will have a WiSP VANS lcence, and they are not interchangeable.

--

 

[Stan The Man]

I haven't confirmed this myself, but apparently a VANS licence is issued with a specific transport mechanism specified. Therefore, a dial-up ISP (like HotOrange, Polka etc) needs to apply for a VANS licence specifying the type of VA service intended.

So, a dial-up VANS will have a dial-up VANS licence, and a WiSP will have a WiSP VANS lcence, and they are not interchangeable.

--

Hi again guys!

I believe that in order to "fall" under an existing vans licence, it must NOT be area specific, but national. For example a company that has a vans to cover the eastern freestate, could cover more that one town in the eastern freestate with that licence. And not just a vans for only ONE town!

Stan

 

[TheRoDent]

Perhaps my understanding of it is flawed, but there is essentially just ONE VAN's license at the moment. This is a license which allows you to offer value-added services on top of current infrastructure.

Part of the VANS license Terms and Conditions (http://www.icasa.org.za/manager/clientfiles/Articles/Vans_Terms_and_Conditions_12_07_05_final.pdf) are:
1.1 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.


The "act" being mentioned here, being the "Telecommunications Act 103 of 1996 (“the
Act”)". To my knowledge, there is no such thing as a "strain" of VANS license at this point. A VANS license entitles you to offer value added services over the current operator networks: Those being Telkom, and Sentech, possibly the cell providers.

I fail to see how there can be a "dialup" vans license and a "wisp" vans license. The VANS license allows you to offer value added services on a current communications network. It does not entitle you to build your own communications network, and neither does an equipment Type Approval certificate allow you to build and "self provision" your own communications network.

This is what needs to change. Drastically. Lobbying the minister to have this changed is the only option we have.

 

[dominic]

Perhaps my understanding of it is flawed, but there is essentially just ONE VAN's license at the moment. This is a license which allows you to offer value-added services on top of current infrastructure.

Part of the VANS license Terms and Conditions (http://www.icasa.org.za/manager/clientfiles/Articles/Vans_Terms_and_Conditions_12_07_05_final.pdf) are:
1.1 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.


The "act" being mentioned here, being the "Telecommunications Act 103 of 1996 (“the
Act”)". To my knowledge, there is no such thing as a "strain" of VANS license at this point. A VANS license entitles you to offer value added services over the current operator networks: Those being Telkom, and Sentech, possibly the cell providers.

I fail to see how there can be a "dialup" vans license and a "wisp" vans license. The VANS license allows you to offer value added services on a current communications network. It does not entitle you to build your own communications network, and neither does an equipment Type Approval certificate allow you to build and "self provision" your own communications network.

This is what needs to change. Drastically. Lobbying the minister to have this changed is the only option we have.

agreed as regards different types of VANS licences...when talking about wifi we are generally looking at ISM usage and the old problem of transmission across public boundaries...ICASA cannot give someone the right in a licence to do something which is contrary to existing regulation

but i disagree as regards self-provisioning - would argue that as per the quoted license term 1.1.b) a VANS can obtain facilities from any other licensed service provider. So, as the current telecomms act stands, a VANS can obtain facilities from PSTN (telkom and the SNO), Private Telecommunications Network licencees, carrier of carriers (sucktech) etc etc and including other VANS licencees

the term also mentions "any other person"...so no, i perhaps cannot self-provision but i can cooperate with another VANS provider to enter into a "facilities swop arrangement" whereby we use each others facilities to exclude the PSTN to the greatest possible degree

 

[TheRoDent]

agreed as regards different types of VANS licences...when talking about wifi we are generally looking at ISM usage and the old problem of transmission across public boundaries...ICASA cannot give someone the right in a licence to do something which is contrary to existing regulation

but i disagree as regards self-provisioning - would argue that as per the quoted license term 1.1.b) a VANS can obtain facilities from any other licensed service provider. So, as the current telecomms act stands, a VANS can obtain facilities from PSTN (telkom and the SNO), Private Telecommunications Network licencees, carrier of carriers (sucktech) etc etc and including other VANS licencees

the term also mentions "any other person"...so no, i perhaps cannot self-provision but i can cooperate with another VANS provider to enter into a "facilities swop arrangement" whereby we use each others facilities to exclude the PSTN to the greatest possible degree

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.

 

[captainwifi]

A bit of news that is relevent to the VANS/ICASA/Telkom chats:
Last week ICASA was trawling hi sites in Vereeniging, and mistakenly cut our equipment connections and sealed the units in a plastic bag... we had been called earlier to produce our VANS licence and TA certificate, which are all in order. A subcontractor went to do the dirty work, and cut everyone's stuff indiscriminitely. ICASA have apologised, and we're back on air.

Was this subcontractor accompanied by the police? Did he have a court
order for each site? Who exactly at Icasa apologised, what is his
telephone number? Are these Wisp's being criminally charged and if not
why not? Who were these Vereeniging Wisp's, what are their numbers.
Were these units in private residences or buildings? Does www.megaserve.co.za and www.wavestream.co.za have a Vans license or
have they partnered. The public would thus need to make certain that
a Wisp has a Vans before subscribing to such a Wisp. This would be
the inference from your post. Please clarify.

 

[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.

unimpeachable logic and i think i expressed myself clumsily...but i still believe that self-provision is allowed

bookmarked this and will lay it all out after dealing with some business on friday (sorry to be cryptic)

 

[Web Intact]

The public would thus need to make certain that
a Wisp has a Vans before subscribing to such a Wisp. This would be
the inference from your post. Please clarify.

You are quite right - I wouldn't sign up with anyone who can't prove they're legitimate...


B)

 

[TheRoDent]

Bruce, please go back to work at the aerosat helpdesk instead of spamming this forum.

 

[Web Intact]

Is that a crime to tell people about a good service.

No, but spamming boards is just plain bad manners...

B)

 

[WifiRules]

bruce,

I also dig Aerosat, but add a bit more content to the discussions

 

[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.

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