Free web calls illegal - Telkom

FreeFan · Mar 29, 2004

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Bentley
 <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by reech
 Jerrek - Wouldn't you need a telephone for it to constitute telephony?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
The issue is whether the traffic represents voice: whether a telephone of sorts is used or whether the voice is transported over IP is not material. Transmission of voice is a regulated.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Bentley, I'm not sure you're right there. Can you cite the part of the Act that says that transmission of voice is regulated?

The only thing I can think you're basing this on is the prohibition on VANS providers carrying "voice." That seems to me to relate to pure voice rather than voice over IP. If the legislature had intended to ban ISP's from carrying voice over IP, they would have used the defined term "voice over IP" rather than the term "voice."

Bentley · Mar 30, 2004

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Bentley, I'm not sure you're right there. Can you cite the part of the Act that says that transmission of voice is regulated?

The only thing I can think you're basing this on is the prohibition on VANS providers carrying "voice." That seems to me to relate to pure voice rather than voice over IP. If the legislature had intended to ban ISP's from carrying voice over IP, they would have used the defined term "voice over IP" rather than the term "voice."
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Indeed - section 40 (3) you mention is the one. Without a VANS license you may not sell any network service, and even with a VANS license you are not allowed even to transit private voice traffic.

It does not say voice over IP but it also does not say switched voice either. Voice is voice and is verboten on non-private networks, except if you happen to have a PSTN license - and they are kind of hard to come by.

I am not aware of any telecommunication lawyer or telecoms liberalisation advocate that will advise anyone to carry or resell or terminate voice traffic of any kind on a non-private network.

reech · Mar 30, 2004

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by reech

... and even if it were telephony it could still be argued that it's carried over a private network - ie encrypted pipe between 2 parties
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By definition, if it is between two parties it is not a private network anymore.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
so, erm whats's the point of having the network then ? - (given that you can't communicate betwen 2 parties?)

FreeFan · Mar 30, 2004

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by BentleyVoice is voice and is verboten on non-private networks, except if you happen to have a PSTN license - and they are kind of hard to come by.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">I know that this is Telkom's interpretation of the Act, but I don't think it is the correct one. The Act does not say anywhere that only PSTS providers can carry voice; it says you need a licence to provide a "telecommunications service" and it then lists the licences you can get.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by BentleyI am not aware of any telecommunication lawyer or telecoms liberalisation advocate that will advise anyone to carry or resell or terminate voice traffic of any kind on a non-private network.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Terminating calls to the PSTN is different I think. As is selling such a service. I think lawyers in South Africa are a bit over-cautious and caught in the mould of Telkom being the regulator. On top of that, I think that most of the companies providing this kind of service don't have the wherewithal to take on Telkom in court. Why would a lawyer advise his client to spend legal fees fighting with Telkom just so the client can protect its right to give a service away for free?

Bentley · Mar 30, 2004

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by FreeFan
 <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by BentleyVoice is voice and is verboten on non-private networks, except if you happen to have a PSTN license - and they are kind of hard to come by.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">I know that this is Telkom's interpretation of the Act, but I don't think it is the correct one. The Act does not say anywhere that only PSTS providers can carry voice; it says you need a licence to provide a "telecommunications service" and it then lists the licences you can get.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You may not provide a telecommunication service unless you have license. [section 32 (1)] Regular people/companies can only get PTN (own use) or VANS (may not carry voice) licenses. How will you (legally) carry voice on a non-private network?

I'd be very happy to learn my interpretation is wrong...

Bentley · Mar 30, 2004

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">so, erm whats's the point of having the network then ? - (given that you can't communicate betwen 2 parties?)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

the "person" that owns the network my be a company or other legal entity, and its employees or members can communicate with each other using the network.

Tharaxis · Mar 30, 2004

What if I record a message, convert it to an MP3 and e-mail it to someone. Am I still not transmitting voice via my ISP? You mean to tell me that anything that contains "voice" (which could subsequently be extrapolated to entail anything that contains sound) is effectively illegal here in South Africa? Even Radio stations make use of "voice", they certainly don't use Telkom for the last mile.

Take an example, a radio station is in Johannesburg, and someone who wants to communicate a message to someone else is also in Johannesburg, but that someone they wish to communicate to is in Cape Town. This would normally be a national call charge, yet they could phone into the radio station (locally) and communicate their message to whomever they wanted, wherever they were (depending on whether they were listening of course).

Isn't this circumvention of the national call structure (paying local for national communications).

I know it's a REAL stretch the examples above, but they remain examples of "voice" transferred without Telkom, and just like what is happening, the legislation can be interpreted many ways.

FreeFan · Mar 31, 2004

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Bentley
You may not provide a telecommunication service unless you have license. [section 32 (1)] Regular people/companies can only get PTN (own use) or VANS (may not carry voice) licenses. How will you (legally) carry voice on a non-private network?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">You can't carry pure voice on a non-public network legally, I agree. But that doesn't seem to be the issue here.

The issue here is whether software that allows you to make a free voice over IP call from one computer to another is a "telecommunications service," and if it is, whether anyone is providing that service without a licence. If the answer to both those questions is yes, then why doesn't Microsoft hold a licence for providing MSN or Outlook?

Myrrdin · Mar 31, 2004

http://www.itweb.co.za/sections/telecoms/2004/0403291157.asp?A=AFN&S=All%20Africa%20News&O=E&CiRestriction=

Algeria moves ahead of SA in VOIP stakes 

BY RODNEY WEIDEMANN, ITWEB TELECOMS EDITOR

[Johannesburg, 29 March 2004] - Algeria appears to be on the brink of legalising voice over IP (VOIP), according to a report on pan-African Web site, Afrik.com.

This follows an experiment begun in January 2003, in which the Algerian regulator authorised VOIP use by Internet service providers (ISPs) on an experimental basis, although it was only a limited licence and did not pose a threat to fixed-line incumbent, Algérie Telecom, and the country's GSM operators.

However, last week the Algerian government drew up a decree stipulating that only a simple authorisation would suffice to give the dozen or so experimental ISP VOIP operators the go-ahead on a fully-authorised basis.

Should the Algerian government go through with this, it would effectively put an end to the monopoly of Algérie Telecom and the GSM operators, as they would face legal competition on international charges that are currently six times higher than those offered using VOIP.

It will also place Algeria alongside Mauritius, which has given the green light to three VOIP services, and Mali, whose incumbent operator has signed agreements with four companies to offer such services.

Kenya Telkom has also been trying to find a way of setting up VOIP services with both cyber-cafes and ISPs.

Locally, all that is required for value-added network service (VANS) providers to be allowed to carry voice traffic is for minister Ivy Matsepe-Casaburri to fix a date from which it will be considered legal by way of notice in the Government Gazette.

“Should the minister actually set a date for this, it would be a huge shake-up for local communications – it would turn the industry on its head and certainly result in lower tariffs,” says Ray Webber, spokesman for the Communications Users Association of SA (CUASA).

“Hopefully the minister will look at this soon, as it is a concern for us when countries that are perhaps regarded as less technologically developed than us are actually starting to move ahead of SA in terms of progressive legislation.”

He says that while VOIP is generally an inferior quality service to that provided by a PSTN network, CUASA has always believed that people should have the choice of whether or not to use it.

“It would only become an issue if there was obvious overcharging from the PSTN operator. If there was a huge disparity in the tariff structure, people would be more liable to choose a lower quality service in order to save money,” says Webber.

“Of course, making it legal would also result in consumers getting their fingers burnt by unscrupulous operators, so it must be handled carefully.

“The telecoms industry in SA has hardly evolved since the Telecoms Act was promulgated and it is obviously in dire need of an overhaul, although we remain hopeful that the Convergence Bill will do just that,” he says.

Last year, the Internet Service Providers Association (ISPA) called on the minister to set the date for the legalisation of VOIP – among other issues – as a means of resolving the crisis surrounding the still-to-be-licensed second national operator.

“The options are all hardwired into the Telecommunications Act, all that is required is for the minister to okay them and set a date,” said ISPA's Ant Brooks.

“Such a move would immediately increase competition for Telkom, as it would allow VANS operators to set up their own infrastructure, rather than relying on Telkom, and it would give them more flexibility in terms of bundling of services.”

Here is the test to find whether your mission on Earth is finished: if you're alive, it isn't.

FreeFan · Mar 31, 2004

So, when are Telkom going to sue Apple?

http://www.apple.com/za/ichat/

Bentley · Mar 31, 2004

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Tharaxis
 Even Radio stations make use of "voice", they certainly don't use Telkom for the last mile.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
(Most) Radio stations have broadcast licenses stipulating what they can and cannot broadcast. Nothing in there stops them from broadcasting phone calls live: either from news reporters or from the public.

Also, many radio stations actually use Telkom for some of the miles, although not the last mile usually. For example, they transmit their signal from their studio to their RF transmitter - these are often not co-located.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Tharaxis
Take an example, a radio station is in Johannesburg, and someone who wants to communicate a message to someone else is also in Johannesburg, but that someone they wish to communicate to is in Cape Town. This would normally be a national call charge, yet they could phone into the radio station (locally) and communicate their message to whomever they wanted, wherever they were (depending on whether they were listening of course).
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Nothing illegal there, unless the phone call to the radio station is somehow illegal - breaking in and out of a PTN, or some other problem.

Of course, given the small number of radio stations, and the fact that it would not make commercial sense for radio stations to do this, this is unlikely to interest Telkom's legal department at all.

chuckl · Apr 7, 2004

An interesting point here is that the Sentech multimedia licence granted to them specifically includes audio

hq · Apr 8, 2004

[

]I agree that law is out dated and needs review[

]

Sk1pe is Software, Sk1pe is free so Sk1pe is not really a profiting service mealy a Technologies given to us to communicate to each other.
Using a P2P network witch is private because it's a connection between 2 pc's running on a network cable but lets say that sk1pe is illegal.[}

]
You would need to take into consideration that VoiP is not voice or even sound but data transfer by the one computer to the other witch is then translated by the computer back into audio so in fact VoiP
cannot exist in a Digital network because everything we send and receive via a computer is "1" and "0's" so how can that be classified as sound or even voice the hole law is flawed because there is no such thing as VoiP it was mearly a laymen's term to help those hard of understanding to understand what it does. Programs like sk1pe cannot be illegal in my understanding because of this very flaw.[

)]

if I am rong Telkom would have to ban every single data transver in an
atempt to stop VoiP and every single radio streem,movie streem even
downloading a mp3 demo would have to be illegal.
I think Telkom is MAD to think they can controll that and if not all that then nothing.
So telkom can screem and cry like a babby with a wet nappy but soon this law will be gone very soon.

HQ_+ The will to Persevere is often the difference between FAILURE and SUCCESS

mithrandi · Apr 30, 2004

At the end of the day, it's going to be effectively impossible for Telkom to detect voice traffic going across the network, anyway. Voice traffic is almost guaranteed to be encrypted (you don't want people listening in to your calls, do you?) and it's easy enough to make the rest of the protocol innocuous. The only way that Telkom can combat this is by going after companies trying to sell VoIP solutions, and even that is like trying to push the sand back up into the top half of the hourglass.

<hr noshade size="1">mithrandi, i Ainil en-Balandor, a faer Ambar

reech · May 17, 2004

You can do all of this for free with ICQ or SKYPE

Strobemeister · May 17, 2004

i wonder how they think they can regulate this? i have isdn and make at least one audio/video call through msn msger every day. does the audio go through a diff port? can they block it? i know bout the port shaping with adsl users, but what about isdn, maybe they think they're already making something as we still pay per minute.

Telkom - South Africa's Handbrake to progress.

Perdition · May 17, 2004

They can't regulate it, especially not Skype as it can work through port 80 (much to the chagrin of network administrators everywhere [

]). There is also no way to determine which packets are carrying voice data as to any network analyzer they appear as a normal data packets.

LethalChicken · Oct 4, 2004

Since skype encrypts the data and if they keep to port 80, I don't think there will ever be any way of monitoring that traffic

We are Telkom - Resistance is Futile - You will be Assimilated

MaD · Oct 4, 2004

I use Skype to chat over a wireless LAN stretching over the area I live in and also to other people in various locations on God's green earth.. and I don't use Telkom, them and Gov take enough from us, basteds.

Where others have progress, we have Telkom.
Hellkom website - www.hellkom.co.za

mithrandi · Oct 8, 2004

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Since skype encrypts the data and if they keep to port 80, I don't think there will ever be any way of monitoring that traffic
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
You're rather naive if you think the port number is the only identifying mark of a protocol.

<hr noshade size="1">mithrandi, i Ainil en-Balandor, a faer Ambar

Join the MyBroadband community

Get started

Free web calls illegal - Telkom

New Member

Member

Expert Member

New Member

Member

Member

Senior Member

New Member

Expert Member

New Member

Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Expert Member

Expert Member

Expert Member

Expert Member

Expert Member

Well-Known Member