Cape broadband project stumbles

Telkom's objections to the tender centre on two issues: The first is that, while the Electronic Communications Act has replaced the Telecommunications Act, the original regulations are still in force, meaning the municipality has to connect through a licensed public telephone service network.
Click to expand...

Can any legal guys explain how this is possible? Didn't the ECT act replace the old act, negating its laws? Don't the municipalities have licenses that allow them to provide public telephone services?
 
Once the city provides WiMax, it will no longer have to depend on Telkom, says MTN Network Services CEO Mike Brierley.
Click to expand...

"no longer have to depend on Telkom" - Huh? Are they hooked up to Neotel? :)
 
xcleric42 said:
Can any legal guys explain how this is possible? Didn't the ECT act replace the old act, negating its laws? Don't the municipalities have licenses that allow them to provide public telephone services?
Click to expand...

I'd like to know this too. Kind of sounds like it will expire when Telkom says it's expired. :p

Edit:

From the ECA:

Existing regulations
95. (1) Within twenty-four months of the coming into force of this Act, the Authority
may, if the Authority considers it necessary, repeal or amend the regulations made
under —
(a) section 119A of the Post Office Act, 1958 (Act No. 44 of 1958);
(b) the Telecommunications Act;
(c) the Broadcasting Act;
(d) the IBA Act;
(e) the Radio Act, 1952 (Act No. 3 of 1952); and
(f) the Sentech Act,
which were in force immediately prior to the commencement of this Act.
(2)The regulations referred to in subsection(1) remain in force until they are
amended or repealed in terms of this Act.

However:

93. (8) Any monopoly or exclusive rights existing by virtue of the related legislation, the
IBA Act, the Sentech Act or the Telecommunications Act is null and void

IANAL

Another edit:

I should have scrolled down a few more pages. On page 116 of the ECA it states that the whole of the telecoms act of 1996 is repealed. What the hell, Telkom? Are they going to try and make us believe that the ECA isn't in force yet? I suppose the government gazette is a cheap tabloid and we shouldn't believe everything we read in the "paper". Seriously, I want to know how this case can last any more than 5 minutes in court if that's their argument.
 
Last edited:
If Telkom was someone I could punch in the face.. They're hurting our country for goodness sake.
 
Should Telkom not win, then I think the municipality should charge them for loss of income.

If Telkom does win, I think the municipality should charge them a a special rate for the Melkbos SAT3 landing station, along the same lines as it charges Koeberg which is based on it being a unique site. R100,000,000 per annum would appear to be fair.
 
At present this is simply a tender awarding dispute. These appear regularly in large tenders. Will Telkom go to court? Probably, if CoCT turns down the appeal. But I guess it will not be a case of law, but simply delaying tactics, as Telkom will lose more than R40m per year in CoCT internal charges alone. Cumulative effect could be between R100m and R200m if you count in households in in CoCT and business signing up for the service.
 
xcleric42 said:
Can any legal guys explain how this is possible? Didn't the ECT act replace the old act, negating its laws? Don't the municipalities have licenses that allow them to provide public telephone services?
Click to expand...
it is a nonsense statement - i was in parliament in August last year when they trotted that out and were told emphatically that this argument does not hold

we are in a regulatory gap between the Telecomms Act & the ECA...the TA has been repealed but its regulations remain in force until specifically replaced/repealed but only to the extent that they are consistent with the ECA. The ECA at this stage is just a framework - there is a long road ahead to finalise the regulations which flesh it out.

Basically there is mass confusion in industry with little or no guidance or enforcement from ICASA. But ICASA has clearly accepted the municipal PTN model which goes,very simply put, like this:

- the Muni holds a private telecommunications network (PTN) licence which allows it to connect up municipal offices and facilities.
- the PTN licence says that unless all the offices and facilities are situated on a single contiguous premises then the licence-holder must use telkom/sno facilities
- the Muni is part of government - a road is not a public boundary from its perspective
- therefore the entire municipal area is a single contiguous premises
- which allows the Muni to take advantage of the exception in the TA that allows PTNS on single contiguous premises to self-provide

Cape Town - like many other muni's - holds a PTN. They have basically the same model going as in Knysna - they partner with a VANS operator (MTNNS) who leases facilities and operates the network

so, yeah, Oupoot has it right - a simple economic analysis tells you that you are going to spend a hell of a lot on lawyers because spending a few million to save a R40 million plus revenue stream is simply "shareholder maximising" busines
 
Dominic, would it not be nice if there is a possibility of getting Telkom b4 the Competition Tribunal for abusing their monopoly position in SA - similar to the verdict today against Mittal SA? I mean, just imagine Telkom having to fork over 10% of their revenue as their guilty fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X