Got through to blairatholl
Got through to Blairatholl concerning this digital village thing and figured
out why it is that Telkom won't implement another Digital Village.
The blairatholl project was done under Telecoms Act. 96 in which the concept
of a boundary was made clear. Under the ECA this 'boundary' distinction
falls away. Thus there is no difference wether Telkom has a Digital Village
with a closed village or with a block of residential houses setting up their
own telephone exchange. Telkom maximises it's revenue by sending each
house it's individual bill in a residential street. If Telkom were to now
uder the ECA engage a closed village under their terms then Telkom will
have to do the same with a block of residential houses under their
terms since the concept of a 'boundary' doesn't exist anymore until Icasa
has held hearings on it and issues a directive. That is until, nobody can
force Icasa to hold public hearings on 'data crossing a boundary'. With the
ECA literally everything is up for negotiation and debate. It is in
contrast to Act.96 which simply decreed that data is not allowed to cross
boundaries.
The ECA can be summarised as:
Every non-profit network configuration either fixed wired or wireless crossing or residing inside a boundary is legal until Icasa declares it illegal
Or simply:
Everything is legal until Icasa declares it illegal
What is the bottom line for
http://www.blairatholl.co.za and
open streets building their own telephone exchanges ?
All it really bogs down to is will a court allow Icasa to cut down
private telephone poles with a chainsaw or not? Must their be a criminal
trial first before they can cut down the poles? I don't know. The
www.buys.co.za and
www.nicciferguson.co.za telecoms lawyers obviously know but I doubt dominic will respond ... sigh ...
Equipment creating interference:
The ECA allows Icasa to get a court order to confiscate wireless equipment
creating interference for other users. But the principle really is that Icasa can confiscate anything that creates interference to other users.
Equipment not creating interference
a) Telephone exchange created in Blairatholl before ECA.
b) Telephone exchange created in FeatherBrook after ECA.
c) Exchange created by residential streets before the ECA.
(thus in violation of Act.96)
d) Exchanges created by residential streets after ECA.
Question:
What are the legal status of (a),(b),(c) and (d) in terms of the ECA
as of Nov 2006?
Answ:
They are exactly the same there is zero difference they are all subject
to only one rule: No services may be offered with a profit motive.
Lets say Icasa holds hearings 7years from now after finalising the VANS license conversions and other critical issues it
must deal with in
terms of the ECA. The ECA mandates that Icasa must do certain things
and may do others after holding public hearings.
So lets presume Icasa holds hearings on non-profit community telephone exchanges in 2014 and decrees that from now on no community Telephone poles and copper may cross a boundary.
Will they now like with their powers to confiscate any Wi-fi device be
able to get a court order and cut down with a chainsaw 1km of community Telephone poles? Does the ECA actually give a couple of 'sprinkaan-beamptes' the power to make laws giving them the right to destroy property - without you being found guilty in a criminal trial first - after getting a court order in terms of laws they concocted?
Lets presume the NPA actually criminally prosecutes houses for setting up
community telephone poles after 2014 establishing a precedent that from now on Vusi Pikoli will enforce the banning of any network topology as decreed by Icasa.
But Icasa can now hold thousands more hearings and since the NPA enforced their first directive they would have to enforce all subsequent rulings by Icasa
Lets presume for sake of argument that a year later after banning telephone
poles a different network topology gets banned by Icasa and this specific network topology is actually built into the walls and roads of Blairatholl.
Would Vusi Pikoli now criminally prosecute such a village? How could he
refuse if he enforced the previous Icasa ruling? If they are found guilty would Icasa now be able to get a bulldozer and destroy the perimeter, roads, golfcourse and houses?
If a closed village implementing a banned topology gets criminally convicted
then what? Would they still be allowed to carry on as usual? How many thousands of such cases would Icasa then be able to bring before the NPA and force themto hunt down networks since a precedent was established?
These are ofcourse hypothetical questions. But they are not ridiculous questions. It just shows how easy it was to write
COMPLETE RUBBISH on p.15 of the ECA and hope nobody actually asks some pointed questions.
So if Icasa must have you found guilty first in a criminal trial before cutting
down the poles then we would be the untouchables and be able to openly mock Icasa and Telkom. Because the NPA will only become the Telephone pole investigative agency the day hell freezes over.
WHAT IS THE BOTTOM LINE?
Bottom line is that if ICASA can get a court order to rip-out the copper wire from under your house then we are stuffed.
IF Icasa cuts down a 1000 poles and rips out the copper from the backbone - we would be able to escalate the whole issue all the way to the Constitutional Court. If Icasa were to loose such a case they would have to pay for the destruction of property. It really comes down to money. If we combine our efforts we can fight this beast Icasa in the courts. Just look how
http://www.nicciferguson.co.za managed to sabotage many Icasa's confiscation court orders.
For Icasa to ripout Fiber and copper from under roads and houses would lead to a massive showdown between us the public and Icasa. It would be a fight that I doubt Icasa would even be willing to engage in. And would the courts actually give Icasa a warrant to enter 500 adjacent premises and destroy property worth hundreds of thousands of rands?
I discussed this with a top Icasa official who informed me that Icasa has indeed destroyed Communication towers in addition to confiscating the gear. Is this the truth? He refered me to the Aerosat vs. Icasa case. But all I recall was that they sealed the towers. Icasa didn't actually have the power to destroy property.
QUESTION TO LAWYERS: Has Icasa been able to physically cut down a tower with a blowtorch after Icasa repeatedly confiscated their Wi-Fi gear? If indeed then we have a serious problem on our hands with the telephone poles.
Power over broadband and electriciy
Lets look at another option. I plant 100 poles and provide electricity to each house. But I also deliver Broadband over powerlines
http://www.goal.co.za. If Icasa cuts down the poles then what about power delivery to each house? This would violate their human
rights since other laws state that each person has a basic human right of access to power.
but I will not comment as to whether it is regulatory compliance or competition that is causing the refusal to supply the service being requested by the estates.
