ICASA must explain itself

jes

jes

MyBroadband Alumnus
Joined
Nov 11, 2009
Messages
11,992
Reaction score
123
ICASA must explain itself

ICASA is willing to shut down a whole network and leave people and businesses without Internet access, but it cannot even say whether companies should adhere to its regulations
 
jes said:
ICASA must explain itself

ICASA is willing to shut down a whole network and leave people and businesses without Internet access, but it cannot even say whether companies should adhere to its regulations
Click to expand...

We need less regulation, not more. The government needs to leave the communications industry alone and stop meddling in things they don't understand. ICASA is run by a bunch of morons who wouldn't know a router from their elbow.
 
deweyzeph said:
We need less regulation, not more. The government needs to leave the communications industry alone and stop meddling in things they don't understand. ICASA is run by a bunch of morons who wouldn't know a router from their elbow.
Click to expand...

+1000. Couldn't agree more.
 
Bringing up the ADSL regulations is really reaching.

iBurst hasn't paid certain license fees. This is totally unrelated to ADSL regulations, and even bringing this up is quite childish.

What's interesting in this article is that iBurst claims they were never invoiced for the outstanding fees. We'll have to wait and see how true this is. One cannot pay without an invoice.
 
Come now, let's be serious. ICASA couldn't even explain their way out of a loaded diaper.
 
Smoke and mirrors. This is about the only real action I've ever seen from them so their only purpose seems to be to be to make sure people pay licenses.

So they do not function as a regulator, but more like a division of SARS. More money for the government's cash furnace... The bottom line.

It does not even seem to compute for these morons that if they actually did something to stimulate the economy then the gov would get more money to burn.

Saaigh ek se...
 
ICASA don't need to explain themselves to anyone. Wouldn't want a trend of accountability starting now would we :erm:
 
Sodan said:
Bringing up the ADSL regulations is really reaching. iBurst hasn't paid certain license fees. This is totally unrelated to ADSL regulations, and even bringing this up is quite childish.
Click to expand...
Hi Sodan

The argument is a little more complex: Which regulations should be followed, and which ones not? Is there a list somewhere? If not, how must organisations know?

Also: ICASA would not answer questions regarding the iBurst case. Why not? Other reports suggest that the organisation is divided on the iBurst case?

Should this organisation really have the powers to shut down entire networks?
 
rpm said:
Should this organisation really have the powers to shut down entire networks?
Click to expand...

I can only comment on this:

While I cannot comment on the reach of the subpoena they had from the court, the jurisdiction that the Electronic Communications Act, 2005 gives them, is for the confiscation or "killing" of radio apparatus that is being used illegally:

Control of possession of radio apparatus
32. (1) No person may possess any radio apparatus unless he or she is—
(a) in possession of a radio frequency spectrum licence granted in terms of this
Chapter; or
(b) exempted as prescribed in terms of section 31(6).
(2) The Authority may, subject to this Act, the related legislation and other applicable
law, enter onto property for purposes of inspecting radio apparatus in accordance with
subsection (3).
(3) Where a person is found in possession of any radio apparatus in contravention of
the provisions of this section, the Authority may—
(a) seal or alter such apparatus or any part thereof in order to—
(i) prevent the use of that radio apparatus for the purpose of transmission or
reception; and
(ii) grant to such person a permit for a limited or indefinite period authorising
the possession of that apparatus on condition that it is not, during such
period, used for such purpose; or
(b) seize such apparatus, whether or not it is sealed as contemplated in paragraph
(a), for disposal in terms of subsection (4).
(4) Radio apparatus seized under subsection (3)(b) must be held by the Authority at
the cost of the person from whom it was seized until—
(a) its possession is authorised in terms of section 31; or
(b) the matter is dealt with by a court of law.
Click to expand...

This is what the law says ICASA may do. Arguably then ICASA would have been allowed to confiscate the radio-equipment, and not the routers/switches at the Data-center.
 
deweyzeph said:
We need less regulation, not more. The government needs to leave the communications industry alone and stop meddling in things they don't understand. ICASA is run by a bunch of morons who wouldn't know a router from their elbow.
Click to expand...

I dont agree with this, do you think vodacom and MTN would have or will lower interconnect with it being forced via regulations?
The quality of ICASA's regulation may be poor but regulations are most certainly needed when dealing with the likes of Vodacom, MTN and Telkom.
 
More regulation counts for nothing if there is no competition in the first place :/
 
rpm said:
Hi Sodan

The argument is a little more complex: Which regulations should be followed, and which ones not? Is there a list somewhere? If not, how must organisations know?
Click to expand...

I think we can assume that when one needs to pay a small fortune in outstanding license fees, then this is not "regulations" that can be safely ignored. The fees will have to be paid, and if not paid, there will be consequences.

Also: ICASA would not answer questions regarding the iBurst case. Why not?
Click to expand...

It might be because there is an ongoing legal case.

Other reports suggest that the organisation is divided on the iBurst case?
Click to expand...


I cannot comment on this. However, note that it still doesn't change the fact that there are outstanding fees that WBS has not paid.

On a side-note, if they (WBS) have never been invoiced for the outstanding amount as they claim, then I believe ICASA has not followed due procedure.

Should this organisation really have the powers to shut down entire networks?
Click to expand...

Should they have the power to confiscate illegally operating equipment? That is the integral question. The fact that "entire networks" can be shut down is merely incidental.
 
Sodan,

As I see it, the problem lies in the amount owed.

If the vendor cannot tell you how much you owe, I suggest you are within your rights to withhold payment until they do.

My understanding is that negotiations were ongoing when the regulator unexpectedly took action which will very likely put the company out of business. And of course, if that happens, then they can kiss the 60 million goodbye. As it is, I would say that iBurst has a very good case in a civil suit against them which will probably make the 60 million pale into insignificance.

Which, of course, the taxpayer will ultimately fund.

All this trouble might have been avoided with a brown envelope to Minister Pule's boyfriend.

@Author:
Even Telkom, who was one of the only companies to try to implement this poorly worded regulations, has now stopped adhering to the ADSL regulations.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X