ICASA, DoC under fire

Ibiwisi

IBIWISI is applied in a blanket fashion to any 'it's going to change the face of communication in South Africa' from my side.

But don't let that stop us from trying. IMO when things are sorted we should try these buffoons in some sort of human rights tribunal. Telecoms affects every hospital and essential service in this country among other things. Telkom make the poor poorer and the suffering suffer more. It comes out in the price of food and clothing, healthcare, schooling, etc.etc.
 
The self provisioning of VANS is a long-standing, unresolved legal issue which has cast a shadow over the industry since the Minister of Communications laid out her policy directives in September 2004 stating that these license holders can self provide.
Click to expand...
FIRE HER. Pretty please. Pretty pretty pretty please.
ICASA has also been mum on the issue until recently, but on 17 March 2008 ICASA Councillor Marcia Socikwa said that ICASA’s position was that there were no infrastructure rights attached to VANS licences and that they were accordingly not entitled to self-provide.
Click to expand...
Well, that's the way the rest of the world understood it, but the Poisonous one allowed certain "friends" to do whatever they wished.
Cull notes that, despite Councillor Socikwa’s statement, there have been conflicting messages from within ICASA, with senior members of the Authority indicating that they believed her words had been “misinterpreted” or “misunderstood”.
Click to expand...
What? Misunderstood? Like "Local bandwitdh shal not count towards the cap"? Bwaaahahahahahahaha. Lame lame lame.

This iz going to be interesting to say the least.
I hope Altech Autopage Cellular is reimbursed some 5 million out of Ivy's personal pocket, and the VANS are allowed to self-provide.
OPEN IT UP!
 
Dominic, a specialist in VANS regulation, pointed out that there is no direct legal action against these VANS licensees but that they have been named as respondents because they have an interest in the matter.

“These VANS have been cited to avoid a situation where one or more of them may later decide to join in the application, possibly delaying the matter, which has been brought as a matter of urgency.”

He also pointed out that this is the second application to be launched against the Minister and ICASA in the last two weeks regarding the rights of VANS licensees.
Click to expand...

Go Dom, Go!!! :D:D:D:D

Dominic notes that, despite Councillor Socikwa’s statement, there have been conflicting messages from within ICASA, with senior members of the Authority indicating that they believed her words had been “misinterpreted” or “misunderstood”.
Click to expand...

Well, here's hoping this court case will clear everything out, and force problems and issues to be resolved.

Big kudos to Altech Autopage for taking this to court - for too long the status quo have been maintained, and it's high time for a forced change - whether Poison Ivy likes it or not - to be applied to the entire market.

I hope we'll be kept up to date regarding this interesting development.
 
Altech go you good thing! Sue the b@stards - hell if you open up a legal fees fund I will even contribute and probably so will half of MyAdsl.
 
sabagamma said:
Altech go you good thing! Sue the b@stards - hell if you open up a legal fees fund I will even contribute and probably so will half of MyAdsl.
Click to expand...

ibiwisi :p

Lots more moaners than doers here to be honest methinks...
 
Why are they only taking this to court now?

AFAICS, this matter hinges on whether the previous law (i.e. the 1996 act + the 2004 ministerial determinations) allowed VANS to self-provide. People like Dominic and many VANS believe that self-provision was allowed, while Telkom, iBurst, the minister, etc. believe otherwise. If self-provision was allowed in the previous law, "no less favourable terms" fairly obviously means they must be granted ECNS licenses. If self-provision wasn't allowed, then Altech & the other VANS have a very much weaker case for getting an ECNS.

So I'm wondering why no-one has asked the courts to clarify the ambiguity before now. Is it because the VANS built networks and were never challenged before now? Or are they only getting interested in building their own networks now? Or are my premises wrong?

Inquiring minds want to know....
 
@dominic, nice one, I assume you're intimately involved in this legal action representing AA[P]C, best of luck :).

BTW, apart from !CASA and the Dementia of Communistications, I take it that the incompetent narcoleptics Paris Mashile and Poison Ivy are both personally named in the legal documents...?
 
drs said:
AFAICS, this matter hinges on whether the previous law (i.e. the 1996 act + the 2004 ministerial determinations) allowed VANS to self-provide. People like Dominic and many VANS believe that self-provision was allowed, while Telkom, iBurst, the minister, etc. believe otherwise. If self-provision was allowed in the previous law, "no less favourable terms" fairly obviously means they must be granted ECNS licenses. If self-provision wasn't allowed, then Altech & the other VANS have a very much weaker case for getting an ECNS.

So I'm wondering why no-one has asked the courts to clarify the ambiguity before now. Is it because the VANS built networks and were never challenged before now? Or are they only getting interested in building their own networks now? Or are my premises wrong?

Inquiring minds want to know....
Click to expand...

do they now. let me welcome the enquiring small cap mind bearing auspicious initials to myadsl

it is a valid question with no single answer.

firstly the majority of VANS licences granted (say 350 of the 520 or so) should never have been granted. they exist not because of regulatory requirements but because Telkom insisted that the ISP etc have a VANS licence before it could become a wholesale reseller, i.e. they exist for commercial reasons not regulatory ones because resellers were licence exempt under the Telecoms Act. [imho Telkom's reasons for doing this were largely valid at the time]. AFAIK you can currently resell IS without a VANS but need one to resell SAIX.

these guys have never been interested in networks or infrastructure but have been content to use efficiency gains and service differentiation to exploit the highly pressurised margin between telkom's wholesale and retail rates and in future there is no reason why this should suddenly change other than that their choice of provider will broaden significantly

there were some, however, particularly in the WISP industry, who took legal advice (or not) and rolled out networks - this history is behind the first application brought by the Wireless Access Providers Assocation (WAPA)

secondly ICASA have never really expressed a view on this or prosecuted anyone for self-provision - rather they are even prepared to consider WISPs like global web intact for individual ECNS licences (go figure.:rolleyes:) until 17 March 2008 when Cllr Socikwa stood up at a set of VANS hearings and made an unequivocal statement to the effect that VANS had no infrastructure rights and would only receive an ECS licence upon conversion

the problem with this is not so much the lack of infrastructure rights but the statement that VANS would only get ECS - this is at odds with what ICASA had set out in all of the licence mapping documents to date which had indicated that ICASA would grant at least a class ECNS licence (they can do this by granting additional rights and not necessarily by acknowledging that VANS can self-provide)

so, while someone should have moved earlier remember that litigation costs + ICASA had indicated VANS would get some infrastructure rights through licence conversion + pissing off the regulator stands a good chance of biting you on the ass down the line

make sense?

ic said:
@dominic, nice one, I assume you're intimately involved in this legal action representing AA[P]C, best of luck :).
Click to expand...

not involved other than knowing about it and having 600 bound pages of high court process create a degree of consternation with some of my clients :)

Altech have the heavy hand of Edward Nathan Sonnenberg serving their interests...

i may have something to do with the first application tho ;)

BTW, apart from !CASA and the Dementia of Communistications, I take it that the incompetent narcoleptics Paris Mashile and Poison Ivy are both personally named in the legal documents...?
Click to expand...

personal is rarely sound strategy as much as the thought may appeal....but for your, ic's, personal gratification i will confirm that the Minister is unavoidably and squarely in the headlights here and a resolution behind closed doors to save face is definitely a possibility

the way to reach this resolution lies within my reply to drs
 
dominic said:
not involved other than knowing about it and having 600 bound pages of high court process create a degree of consternation with some of my clients :)

Altech have the heavy hand of Edward Nathan Sonnenberg serving their interests...

i may have something to do with the first application tho ;)



personal is rarely sound strategy as much as the thought may appeal....but for your, ic's, personal gratification i will confirm that the Minister is unavoidably and squarely in the headlights here and a resolution behind closed doors to save face is definitely a possibility

the way to reach this resolution lies within my reply to drs
Click to expand...
Oh deer old Poison Ivy - let's hope she is dazzled by the legal headlights and doesn't have time to get away from this one :).
 
*update*

several of the VANS licensees who were cited as respondents to the Sltech application have now indicated that they intend opposing it - includes IS, Vox and a few others i suspect

what is Altech asking for? there are two parts to this - firstly the want the court to rule on self-provision & secondly they want to halt part of the licence conversion process while the court decides this.

In more detail:
1. that the process being undertaken by ICASA to select certain VANS licensees for conversion to individual electronic communications network service (ECNS) licensees (i.e. the big prize which gives you the right to own a national network / i.e. basically the same rights as Telkom, Neotel and the mobile companies will have) must be stopped until the court decides on 2, 3

2. whether the Minister exceed her powers in creating this process for the conversion of certain VANS to individual ECNS
3. that ALtech is entitled as a matter of law to an individual ECNS

The opposition is coming because Altech (unlike the earlier WAPA application) are attacking the process which many VANS see as being the quickest way to getting an individual ECNS and becoming a fully-licensed telco

it is really a lot more complicated than ^^ - if anyone wants a copy of the founding papers and affidavit send me a pm
 
they must sue IV as well - too many ministers think they can hide behind government and make something out of it with no fear
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X