Excellent interview with Ant Brooks from ISPA

Status
Not open for further replies.
Very good! ... but the meshes are getting more and more common.. is it too late for the government to react ? The impression I got is that public Wifi mesh type systems are bad and associated with a law-less-mess.. If at all possible, can this be elaborated on.
 
Last edited:
Richard, I am sure Ant will have an opinion on this when he pops in again. :)

TheRodent is also big on wireless and is also a good person for an opinion. Either of these legends are more than welcome to come and give their opinions as always.
 
antowan said:
Richard, I am sure Ant will have an opinion on this when he pops in again. :)

TheRodent is also big on wireless and is also a good person for an opinion. Either of these legends are more than welcome to come and give their opinions as always.
Click to expand...

I am interested in the ISPA viewpoint and the reasoning. There are many arguments FOR and AGAINST the mesh system and in essence its self provisioning of infrastructure. The question to be asked is
Is the ISPA against or FOR mesh networks?
Keeping in mind that there are a few Wifi based internet providers who are killing the spirit of the mesh...
The aim of the mesh network is NOT to provide internet access to the masses for free, but more for freedom of information exchange. Maybe this is a misconception that needs to be cleared up.

Richard

ISPA Views? anyone?
 
RichardP said:
The question to be asked is
Is the ISPA against or FOR mesh networks?
Click to expand...

Yay! An easy question :D. ISPA doesn't have any sort of formal position on mesh networks at all. I fact, I can't even recall mesh networks being discussed in any serious detail at any ISPA meeting that I've attended.

Other than making the point that the legal framework really should support community networks (which is something ISPA has done in various submissions), I'm not sure what position ISPA *could* have on what are, essentially, end-user networks. That's a bit like asking if ISPA has a position on, say, corporate LANs. (Possible answer to that one: "There should be lots of them, and they should all have really, really high speed connections to the Internet". ;))

Giving the matter some more thought, I can perhaps see some service providers being concerned about frequency spectrum pollution resulting from large scale roll-out of wireless mesh network. But I think those concerns would be best addressed by the licensing of non-ISM band frequencies to more service providers, so that they can operate in their own bands without worrying about the public using supposedly unlicenced spectrum. But that's just my opinion, and not something that comes from ISPA's membership.

Richard, it certainly wasn't my intention to give you the impression that I thought wireless mesh networks were a bad thing. On the contrary, in some parts of the world the development of user-driven wireless networks (mesh or otherwise) has forced governments to change legislation in ways that have enabled commercial service providers to grow. Frankly, it is hard to view *anything* that encourages policy makers to move South Africa's communications legislative framework into the twenty-first century as a bad thing.
 
ok here is a question for Ispa.
Under what legal framework did Cue Incident(no Vans) string fibre cable
all over Jhb/Pta?
 
captainwifi said:
ok here is a question for Ispa. Under what legal framework did Cue Incident(no Vans) string fibre cable all over Jhb/Pta?
Click to expand...

Hi captainwifi,

I must confess that prior to reading your post, I wasn't particularly familiar with Cue Incident. Having just spent a couple of minutes googling them, my guess would be that they have some sort of arrangement with the local municipalities to install infrastructure on roads owned by the Cities of Johannesburg and Tswane.

Both under the existing telecommunications legislation and under the pending communications act, cities get treated a little differently to anyone else. They do, after all, own most (but oddly enough, not all) of the roads. If you own the roads, then you can string up cables without crossing any property boundaries even if you don't have a licence (more-or-less). Presumably the cities have some sort of contract with Cue Incident to install/provide/manage their cabling.

But I'm guessing here, I don't know the facts.
 
This 'roads belongs to council' is an old argument and an interesting one. But Que Incident can't simply fork out R50mil and then have Telkom's little knerts Icasa obtain a court order to confiscate all their stuff.
Jhb has a PTN license and so does Telkom. Que Incident had LEGALLY been stringing fiber all over the place via Jhb's PTN license. Let me try and explain as follows. A member of the public can legally make a telephone call over Telkom's network from Pretoria to Cape Town.Telkom's PTN license makes it legal. In exactly the same manner Que Incident and the residents of 'Katsonderdraai' can LEGALLY string fiber all over Pretoria and Jhb.
All I am asking is for the Vans license holder's to comment on this. :D

Rodent: Can they legally operate a telecommunications service on that infrastructure given the current
legal, and regulatory environment?The answer is: Probably no. It all depends on how Ivy and the DoC and ICASA feels tomorrow.
Click to expand...

This is not true, they can for non-profit purposes. See p.13,15 of the Electronic communications bill (ECB)
 
Last edited:
CaptainWifi you are not making any sense:

1. Obviously Cue Incidince/t has an arrangement with the Council's within which they operate.
2. Yes, Cue can string fibre as much as they want, as they are the contractor to the council
for services the council requires.
3. Yes, residents can string fibre anywhere they want. As long as the logistical arrangements
are made.

Can they legally operate a telecommunications service on that infrastructure given the current
legal, and regulatory environment?

The answer is: Probably no. It all depends on how Ivy and the DoC and ICASA feels tomorrow.

As I've indicated before, I can barely get the residents in my street to agree about security
measures in our street, let alone community telecommunications infrastructure.

Community Networking, however is a defacto "happening" these days. I'm doing it, Jawug, PWP,
and CTWUG are all doing it. The people that are involved though, are geeks, technophiles, and
engineers. It can be equated to the Fido and Echo-net's of the early 1980's

We're doing it for fun. Not profit. Or quality of service. I simply don't see any kind of commercial
service being able to operate in that kind of environment.

Are we legal? Who knows. Do we care? Not really.

The difference between lobbying for something, and DOING it something is just that.
Lobbying is whining. Inefectual in the short term. Paradigms get shifted by action, not waffling.

Starting a non-profit community network is something you can do right now, and something that
can benefit communications in this country right now.

Now let's see you lay some fibre across those roads you have permission to do so.
But for heaven's sake. Stop preaching to the converted.

I think the entire MyADSL community will welcome networking initiatives that benefit the people
instead of the corporates. But it's up to you to make it happen. Whining doth not build a network.
 
Last edited:
captainwifi said:
All I am asking is for the Vans license holder's to comment on this. :D
Click to expand...

I'm afraid I agree with TheRoDent -- I don't really understand what you are looking for comment on here, captainwifi, sorry.

Are you perhaps wondering if VANS licence holders see PTN-driven networks as being a bad thing? If so, then some of them might, but I think most service providers would simply be happy to be able to compete in a free market, using whatever technology works best for them, to provide reasonably priced services to their customers. I don't think most of them really care who else gets to provide services, or which licence(s) they use to do so, as long as there is a reasonably fair playing field for everyone.

My experience with South African ISPs is that they are not the least bit scared of fair competition. They have, after all, been competing against each other since 1993. I think they would welcome alternative licensing models if that opened up the telecommunications market for more competition.
 
TheRoDent said:
CaptainWifi you are not making any sense:
Click to expand...

as usual

TheRoDent said:
Community Networking, however is a defacto "happening" these days. I'm doing it, Jawug, PWP,
and CTWUG are all doing it. The people that are involved though, are geeks, technophiles, and
engineers. It can be equated to the Fido and Echo-net's of the early 1980's
Click to expand...

DWC feels all left out :(

TheRoDent said:
Whining doth not build a network.
Click to expand...

I love that phase. are you going to copyright it?

TheRodent - Brilliant post sums up my feelings exactly. People in this country love to whin but do nothing about it.

Everyone should get off their butts and put up an AP and get connected.
 
captinwifi please make you point as it is lost in all the drivel you have given us
 
I trust my post has clarified the three different licenses under which networks are built and thus I reformulate my question to www.ispa.org.za.
Under which license did Cue Incident build their telephone exchange:
1) The 'DapperMuis' license. (This is the license Jawug is using until the ECB becomes ECA)
2) The 'Vans' license? (Used by Uninet and other ISPs)
3) The 'PTN' license? (Jhb, Pta council, SNO and Telkom)
:D
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X