DStv channel unbundling compliance notice dismissed

The Tribunal found that the Commission did not properly consult with ICASA before it issued the compliance notice and therefore ruled the compliance notices invalid.
Click to expand...

Since when is that a requirement in terms of the CPA? :mad:
 
marine1 said:
Predictable and Jaap Scholten is not an idiot.
Click to expand...
Correct.

The Tribunal is correct. If they went ahead then it would have landed up in court and taken even longer. All they are saying is that the proper process must be followed, i.e. consult ICASA and then take the next step.
 
MickeyD said:
Correct.

The Tribunal is correct. If they went ahead then it would have landed up in court and taken even longer. All they are saying is that the proper process must be followed, i.e. consult ICASA and then take the next step.
Click to expand...

Where is this a requirement in terms of the CPA?
 
DJ... said:
Where is this a requirement in terms of the CPA?
Click to expand...

"ISPA said that section 100(2) of the Act states that the Commission must consult with ICASA before serving a compliance notice on an entity regulated by ICASA."
 
This delay is disappointing to say the least. You would think that the relevant parties would know what processes to follow or at least do their homework before taking a tilt at windmills!
 
While I understand the ruling, it seems mr Scholten does not. This:
The Tribunal found that the Commission did not properly consult with ICASA before it issued the compliance notice and therefore ruled the compliance notices invalid.
Click to expand...

does not mean:
“The ruling by the National Consumer Tribunal demonstrates that proper compliance with the Act is being enforced,” said Jaap Scholten ISPA Co-Chairperson. “ISPA commends the Tribunal for its rulings, and urges the Internet service provider industry to take note.”
Click to expand...
 
Well I had absolutely no idea that CPA legislation and rulings were dependent on ICASA approval...
 
MickeyD said:
Correct.

The Tribunal is correct. If they went ahead then it would have landed up in court and taken even longer. All they are saying is that the proper process must be followed, i.e. consult ICASA and then take the next step.
Click to expand...

The Tribunal found that the Commission did not properly consult with ICASA before it issued the compliance notice and therefore ruled the compliance notices invalid.
Click to expand...

It is clear from the last quote that the commission did consult ICASA. The only question is how can you measure that consultation was done properly?
 
vzta22 said:
It is clear from the last quote that the commission did consult ICASA. The only question is how can you measure that consultation was done properly?
Click to expand...

That's easy. Did the process take in excess of 6 months? If no, then ICASA was not consulted.
 
@Stochos what did the mods on the dstv forum do to upset you?

</ot>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter