I believe you are bunching services together that should be kept separate. I know the point you are trying to make is that all communication that is not via Telkom in closed developments is illegal, but this is not the case as CCTV networks were accepted and tolerated, long before internet data services were thrown into the mix and muddied the waters.
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: How do you normally pay for purchases in stores?
FTTH Legal??
- Thread starter Mich7777
- Start date
captainwifi
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2005
- Messages
- 834
- Reaction score
- 1
No, the ECA addresses CCTV indirectly. It doesn't reference it specifically but simply declares all services without a license illegal. And in this way the ECA makes it crystal clear that a CCTV service is illegal - no muddied waters. The whole point is, is that you can't keep services seperate - they converge.
And the ECA tries to prevent this convergence from happening in a decentralised, unlicensed manner. Thus Cue Incident streaming CCTV to anyplace is doing so in violation of the ECA. The only exception to this is, is if they do it under Councils PTN license. The moment you partner with
Council a whole different legal regime is in place. We need not concern ourselves with Council, we will never be allowed to partner with Council in anycase. It is precisely because CCTV can use the IP protocol and thus stream video and Internet data that the ECA doesn't address CCTV
directly. The ECA indirectly bans a CCTV service to anybody else - not the CCTV wires!
The logic of the ECA is that the wires can stay in the ducting but the service is not allowed. It is important that we clarify this. What the ECA, Icasa, ISPA and the Telecoms lawyers are basically saying is that if you try to
prevent your little pumpkin of 5years from being killed via CCTV running over a DSLAM network and telephone poles then they want the National Prosecuting Authority to prosecute you. Do you see how morally reprehensible these people are? They keep on telling us via http://www.itweb.co.za that CCTV in multi-tennant buildings are illegal in terms of the ECA but then why don't Itweb give equal space in the article to John Welch, Billy Downer and Vusi Pikoli the only people who has the power to enforce the ECA? Who keeps on saying the same thing over and over me or Itweb? Contrast Itweb with http://www.mg.co.za who has a storyabout the exploits of the NPA on a weekly basis.
I believe that Itweb,Telecom lawyers, ISPA has not said a single word about Sharon deBeer, Pikoli, Downer or Welch and the Scorpions. Isn't this fascinating? You have a duty to protect your family and this God given duty trancends the ECA. It all comes down to: Who do you fear the most God or Icasa?
captainwifi
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2005
- Messages
- 834
- Reaction score
- 1
Well surprise, surprise - the ECA covers everything! Nobody's
network escapes the ECA in any way whatsoever. It doesn't matter what it was
or what type of service it is illegal until baas Icasa makes it legal.
The fact that Icasa may declare certain services license exempt is just
that - they may. Lets presume that they declare CCTV license excempt with
certain conditions. If you would vioilate these conditions then you commit an
offence. But Icasa has'nt declared anything excempt and thus everything
is illegal. That is all data services to other people are illegal.
My understanding on the ECA is that it does three things:
1) It regulates or rather creates a framework in which to regulate all electronic communications and the networks that are built up using electronic communication equipment - your local home network is covered by the ECA even if you are excempt from needing licence.
2) It requires ICASA and the responsible minister (which ever ministerial portfolio is responsible for communications at this stage the Minister of Communications but portfolios may shift and so on) to make regulations.
3) It creates clear principles that must be adhered to when regulations are drawn up. This potentially ties things up in red tape but it also makes
In principle I like the ECA and I believe that if ICASA where to start drawing up regulations, or better yet outsourcing the drafting that it can really work. The real problem is that ICASA hasn't been brushing its teeth to get ready for some real chewing.
1) It regulates or rather creates a framework in which to regulate all electronic communications and the networks that are built up using electronic communication equipment - your local home network is covered by the ECA even if you are excempt from needing licence.
2) It requires ICASA and the responsible minister (which ever ministerial portfolio is responsible for communications at this stage the Minister of Communications but portfolios may shift and so on) to make regulations.
3) It creates clear principles that must be adhered to when regulations are drawn up. This potentially ties things up in red tape but it also makes
In principle I like the ECA and I believe that if ICASA where to start drawing up regulations, or better yet outsourcing the drafting that it can really work. The real problem is that ICASA hasn't been brushing its teeth to get ready for some real chewing.
captainwifi
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2005
- Messages
- 834
- Reaction score
- 1
South-AFrica is divided up into two camps. Those with a license(any license VANS, PTN, PSTN) and those without a license. The ECA tries to regulate both these groups. The license holders drafted the ECA in such a way that non-license holders will in eternity not be able to achieve convergence without somebody with a "license" controling the bandwidth to that person.
The ECA tries to control the source and usage of bandwidth and to prevent the non-license holders from becoming content providers.
For the unlicensed the ECA is an attempt at enslaving them and stalling Convergence. In dictatorships like Belarusia forcing everybody to use a centralised communications hub is one of the easiest ways of generating cash. But it comes at the expense of crippling the economy.
So if one speaks of Icasa making regulations that will benefit us then I agree if you are refering to license holders. For example number-portability. Only the license holders need concern themselves with Icasa since they signed a piece of paper giving Icasa the right impose conditions on them. And only the license holders should be impacted on any regulations that
Icasa drafts. They have a license and must comply with the terms of the license. This is where the confusion comes in. For non-license holders Icasa is utterly irrelevant except where it comes to the usage of the 2.4ghz spectrum. All other regulations trying to prevent what type of LAN or dataservice using unlicensed mediums are to be ignored.
So I agree with the thrust of your post by only if we make it clear that the only jurisdiction Icasa has in practise is over licensed holders. The license holders now scare and intimidate the public by telling them what they can do with fiber and copper or not because they have a "license". These license holders controls the news media and therefore has an enourmous platform to engage in propaganda, lies and deceit.
They for example keep on telling us that it will be a disaster for the ANC to appoint Icasa councillors. But factions within the ANC like Trevor Manual and Alec Erwin only want to do this because they want to break Telkom's stranglehold over Icasa. The VANS license holders ofcourse know that Manual and Erwin want's to flood SA with so much bandwidth that it will become essentially worthless. Presently we have to little
bandwidth. For a Vansie the only thing worse than to little is to much. There are ANC factions that derive a direct financial benefit from Telkom and they are preventing anything from happening. Telkom is not the problem, these ANC ministers enriching themselves via Telkom is the problem. Telkom is not some sort of mini-government, they simply do what they are told to do by these beneficiaries.
There is no such thing as "independance". The appointment of Icasa councillors is a carefully worked out scam, crafted in such a way that Icasa is just kept parallised and nothing gets done.
The Vansies ofcourse knows that eventually something has to give. The meshnetworking and DSLAM technology has now reached the stage that we can have the entire Pretoria covered with 3000 house-top towers within three months and solve the spectrum pollution problem in the process.
*. And apparently there is some sort of addition/amendment due to the act whereby Municipalities can self-provision. May have already been passed, I'm not sure though.*
I would say thats a given by now
toady.
I would say thats a given by now
toady.
Ant_Brooks
Well-Known Member
I've only just spotted this thread now, so you'll have to excuse the late response. That's not my, or ISPA's interpretation at all. If you read the ITweb article carefully, you'll see that the paragraph being referred to:
Is not an ISPA quote at all, but was (presumably) added to the article by someone at ITWeb. The only reference to PTNs in ISPA's original statement was "ISPA has noted the same difficulties with regard to applications for Private Telecommunication Network (PTN) licences".
I agree fully that the ECA does not mention PTNs, and I also agree that it is incorrect to state that PTN licences are needed for "multi-dwelling residential properties". I have no idea why ITWeb thinks that is the case.
Captainwifi and ads, please feel free to be upset by this incorrect interpretation, but please don't blame ISPA (or me) for something written by ITWeb
.Ant_Brooks
Well-Known Member
Also, just for the record, I don't play golf. Never have
.captainwifi
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2005
- Messages
- 834
- Reaction score
- 1
This issue was finally resolved with moderator Bwana posting
p.110
(2) Any person who, immediately before the commencement of this Act, lawfull
provided any service or used the radio frequency spectrum in terms of th
Telecommunications Act, the Broadcasting Act or the IBA Act without a licence, is considered to have a licence exemption interms of section6 to continue to provide such service or use the radio frequency spectrum, unless notified in writing by the Authority that such service or the use of the radio frequency spectrum requires a licence in terms of this Act.
on this thread http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?t=64124&page=2
Well finally we are getting somewhere. This is the first time I ha
ve read this. Now how does this resolve the boundary issue? So finally we know that your local LAN inside your boundary is legal. But what about crossing the boundary? And this would also indicate that closed villages internal datanetworks remain legal until Icasa decides otherwise.
Lawful under Telecoms Act.96 was everything inside a boundary, thus everything crossing a boundary is illegal and thus everything under the ECA
crossing a boundary is also illegal - Wi-fi, Telephone poles, underground
ducting. For all intents and purposes Act.96 remains in force for
non-license holders.
And thus the ITweb article was all wrong - amazing isn't it? It seems that Naspers can't even pay a few bucks to a Telecoms lawyer so that they at least can have the facts internally. This is pathetic for an IT publication.
BUt Icasa may now declare http://www.blairatholl.co.za data network
illegal if they so desiire. And they probably will.
p.110
(2) Any person who, immediately before the commencement of this Act, lawfull
provided any service or used the radio frequency spectrum in terms of th
Telecommunications Act, the Broadcasting Act or the IBA Act without a licence, is considered to have a licence exemption interms of section6 to continue to provide such service or use the radio frequency spectrum, unless notified in writing by the Authority that such service or the use of the radio frequency spectrum requires a licence in terms of this Act.
on this thread http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?t=64124&page=2
Well finally we are getting somewhere. This is the first time I ha
ve read this. Now how does this resolve the boundary issue? So finally we know that your local LAN inside your boundary is legal. But what about crossing the boundary? And this would also indicate that closed villages internal datanetworks remain legal until Icasa decides otherwise.
Lawful under Telecoms Act.96 was everything inside a boundary, thus everything crossing a boundary is illegal and thus everything under the ECA
crossing a boundary is also illegal - Wi-fi, Telephone poles, underground
ducting. For all intents and purposes Act.96 remains in force for
non-license holders.
And thus the ITweb article was all wrong - amazing isn't it? It seems that Naspers can't even pay a few bucks to a Telecoms lawyer so that they at least can have the facts internally. This is pathetic for an IT publication.
BUt Icasa may now declare http://www.blairatholl.co.za data network
illegal if they so desiire. And they probably will.
Last edited:
Ant_Brooks
Well-Known Member
Um, captainwifi, it isn't fair to drop a key word from my quote and then tell me I'm incorrect.
I said: "I also agree that it is incorrect to state that PTN licences are needed for "multi-dwelling residential properties"." This is true. As you yourself pointed out earlier in the thread, the ECA doesn't have PTN licences.
You just rewrote this as: "I also agree that it is incorrect to state that licences are needed for "multi-dwelling residential properties" and then said I was wrong for saying that! Isn't that a bit like arguing with yourself
I wish I knew. Over the last few months, ISPA has sent a whole stack of letters to ICASA asking for clarity on various aspects of the ECA, the licensing process and outstanding VANS issues. We haven't had one substantial response from the Regulator to any of these letters. We're as much in the dark as you are
.PS: My surname doesn't have an 'e' in it
.captainwifi
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2005
- Messages
- 834
- Reaction score
- 1
My revised conspiracy theory
my revised conspiracy theory
Now that we have finally established via. p.110 and p.28 of the ECA that Act.96 is still in force with the
addition that Icasa can at it's discretion ban networks inside http://www.blairatholl.co.za. I now present
my revised consipiracy theory. Itweb and ISPA said that "it recently emereged that multi-tennant networks is
illegal". Which is wrong. They are not illegal yet, but probably soon will be. So what really happened is that
Icasa has told Telkom and ISPA that they will soon ban http://www.blairatholl.co.za network. Only then would
Telkom be in violation of it's license if it continued to provide Blairatholl with a service. So
http://www.ispa.org.za and http://www.itweb.co.za have jumped-the-gun and ISPA is trying to distance itself
from the article. Itweb has neither retracted or amended the article. Just stone dead silence from them.
http://www.nicciferguson.co.za, http://www.buys.co.za , http://wapa.org.za , Icasa, ISPA and Itweb ofcourse find themselves in the impossible position of not even attempting to explain why Wi-Fi inadvertantly crossing boundaries is legal but not fiber - this is the core issue. 2.4ghz is legal ofcourse and it can do nothing else but cross a boundary.
South Africa signed an international treaty making 2.4ghz license free and thus the ECA or ICASA can't ban it's use
even if it had wanted to. It would be fascinating for somebody to actually take the ECA to the High Court or
Constitutional court over this. We all know that judges being human beings have already made up their minds
on this issue. Lets presume that the judges are actually sympathetic to my plight to solve the crime and Telkom problem. Alas I don't have R1million ...
Remember the Laugh-it-off campaign. SAB took them to the Appeals court and won the case! But the Constitutional court who seems to have a very strong bias towards freedom of speech overturned the Appeals court. The opposite happened with the medicines fiasco. So obviously the arguments themselves really matter very little or nothing at all. That Constitutional court judges have already decided what they will do with this atrocity - forbidding data from crossing boundaries.
So it really comes down to a roll of the dice. If one could perhaps get the Constitutional court judges to make off the cuff remarks about the ECA around
a braai with a few beers in between then one would know how such a case would go. Perhaps if we simply ask them it would also help.
So my question to the lawyers is what would be the costs involved and how would one go about challenging the ECA - boundaries issue in court? Recently a company challenged the Broadcasting Act. They lost the case in the High Court and did not see it as financially viable to pursue it all the way to the Constitutional court.
The fascinating thing ofcourse is, is that Naspers is in a conspiracy with Telkom to prevent the public from building their own exchanges. So this option of
of us the public going to the Constitutional court to settle the boundary issue once and for all won't every be discussed by ITWEB. Recently NASPERS even
forced poor Vic de Klerk to write complete rubbish about how NASPERS partner in the Multichoice venture - Telkom - isn't really so bad, its just us the public
that are to stupid to understand what is going on in life.
my revised conspiracy theory
Now that we have finally established via. p.110 and p.28 of the ECA that Act.96 is still in force with the
addition that Icasa can at it's discretion ban networks inside http://www.blairatholl.co.za. I now present
my revised consipiracy theory. Itweb and ISPA said that "it recently emereged that multi-tennant networks is
illegal". Which is wrong. They are not illegal yet, but probably soon will be. So what really happened is that
Icasa has told Telkom and ISPA that they will soon ban http://www.blairatholl.co.za network. Only then would
Telkom be in violation of it's license if it continued to provide Blairatholl with a service. So
http://www.ispa.org.za and http://www.itweb.co.za have jumped-the-gun and ISPA is trying to distance itself
from the article. Itweb has neither retracted or amended the article. Just stone dead silence from them.
http://www.nicciferguson.co.za, http://www.buys.co.za , http://wapa.org.za , Icasa, ISPA and Itweb ofcourse find themselves in the impossible position of not even attempting to explain why Wi-Fi inadvertantly crossing boundaries is legal but not fiber - this is the core issue. 2.4ghz is legal ofcourse and it can do nothing else but cross a boundary.
South Africa signed an international treaty making 2.4ghz license free and thus the ECA or ICASA can't ban it's use
even if it had wanted to. It would be fascinating for somebody to actually take the ECA to the High Court or
Constitutional court over this. We all know that judges being human beings have already made up their minds
on this issue. Lets presume that the judges are actually sympathetic to my plight to solve the crime and Telkom problem. Alas I don't have R1million ...
Remember the Laugh-it-off campaign. SAB took them to the Appeals court and won the case! But the Constitutional court who seems to have a very strong bias towards freedom of speech overturned the Appeals court. The opposite happened with the medicines fiasco. So obviously the arguments themselves really matter very little or nothing at all. That Constitutional court judges have already decided what they will do with this atrocity - forbidding data from crossing boundaries.
So it really comes down to a roll of the dice. If one could perhaps get the Constitutional court judges to make off the cuff remarks about the ECA around
a braai with a few beers in between then one would know how such a case would go. Perhaps if we simply ask them it would also help.
So my question to the lawyers is what would be the costs involved and how would one go about challenging the ECA - boundaries issue in court? Recently a company challenged the Broadcasting Act. They lost the case in the High Court and did not see it as financially viable to pursue it all the way to the Constitutional court.
The fascinating thing ofcourse is, is that Naspers is in a conspiracy with Telkom to prevent the public from building their own exchanges. So this option of
of us the public going to the Constitutional court to settle the boundary issue once and for all won't every be discussed by ITWEB. Recently NASPERS even
forced poor Vic de Klerk to write complete rubbish about how NASPERS partner in the Multichoice venture - Telkom - isn't really so bad, its just us the public
that are to stupid to understand what is going on in life.
Last edited:
Ant_Brooks
Well-Known Member
Wow. Where do you get this stuff from, captainwifi? It's certainly... um, entertaining
.Slinky511nx7
Well-Known Member
Uggg, is this old thread still going??
captainwifi
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2005
- Messages
- 834
- Reaction score
- 1
http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?t=66308
POSTED BY TELKOMSUIG:
"..I'm seeing it more and mor ein JHB developments... I'm just wondering what Telkom's view on this is? roads within most developments are transferred to the local council after completion surely you can't cross public roads legally at the moment with fiber.."
"...All depends on the type of estate we are talking about... the bigger ones normally transfer the roads back to the council after development as it is quite expensive to maintain the roads... the smaller sectional title schemes don;t do it mainly because their internal roads are not up council standards..."
"...I know Zimbali wanted to install a internet backbone a few years ago but canned the idea when Telkom threatened to cut their telephone access."
-----------
Ok, now all the pieces of the puzzle are coming together. Now I understand why it ".... recently emerged that Multi-tenant complexes are illegal", according to the ITweb article. This critical piece of information provided by Telkomsuig I never knew. Thankyou Telkomsuig for this post.
So after the estate is built control of the roads goes back to council and everybody is 'lekke-lekke' sending data across the road via fiber. So now obviously, obviously I can now point to these estates and say : look,look they are sending data across public roads why isn't the rest of South-Africa doing it?!
And ITweb by the way if you won't mind we would still like to know why you published this who told you this etc. Please back-up your articles with relevant factual data. Ant Brookes and the rest of you Vanies, you are going to loose this fight. These estates and companies like http://www.atec.co.za are reading this forum and they are not going to roll over and pee all over themselves once Icasa eventually bans fiber inside estates.
Both ways Icasa you loose. If you ban fiber inside complex then everybody will just laugh at you. If you don't ban it then I will continue to point out that there infact are people sending data across public roads via fiber.
POSTED BY TELKOMSUIG:
"..I'm seeing it more and mor ein JHB developments... I'm just wondering what Telkom's view on this is? roads within most developments are transferred to the local council after completion surely you can't cross public roads legally at the moment with fiber.."
"...All depends on the type of estate we are talking about... the bigger ones normally transfer the roads back to the council after development as it is quite expensive to maintain the roads... the smaller sectional title schemes don;t do it mainly because their internal roads are not up council standards..."
"...I know Zimbali wanted to install a internet backbone a few years ago but canned the idea when Telkom threatened to cut their telephone access."
-----------
Ok, now all the pieces of the puzzle are coming together. Now I understand why it ".... recently emerged that Multi-tenant complexes are illegal", according to the ITweb article. This critical piece of information provided by Telkomsuig I never knew. Thankyou Telkomsuig for this post.
So after the estate is built control of the roads goes back to council and everybody is 'lekke-lekke' sending data across the road via fiber. So now obviously, obviously I can now point to these estates and say : look,look they are sending data across public roads why isn't the rest of South-Africa doing it?!
And ITweb by the way if you won't mind we would still like to know why you published this who told you this etc. Please back-up your articles with relevant factual data. Ant Brookes and the rest of you Vanies, you are going to loose this fight. These estates and companies like http://www.atec.co.za are reading this forum and they are not going to roll over and pee all over themselves once Icasa eventually bans fiber inside estates.
Both ways Icasa you loose. If you ban fiber inside complex then everybody will just laugh at you. If you don't ban it then I will continue to point out that there infact are people sending data across public roads via fiber.
.