Icasa won case against Aerosat

C

captainwifi

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2005
Messages
834
Reaction score
1
Mr Mfundo at 011 321 8377 informs me that the High Court
has awarded Icasa the case against Aerosat. www.uninetwork.co.za
must now fork over R700 000 to cover legal costs.

In addition a criminal prosecution has been launched against the directors
of Aerosat NOT THE SUBSCRIBERS. Remember what http://icasa.blogspot.com
says about fronting companies.

So if you are a subscriber to Uninetwork I would ask DAvid Jarvis
and his lawyer Dominic to play open cards with us.
Ms Cindi at 011 321 8377 has the database of all VANS license holders.
Ms Cindi will tell me on monday if www.webintact.co.za has a VANS license.
Mr Mfundo told me that it is Icasa's view that it is illegal for VANS holders
to self-provide.

Is Icasa bluffing? What are the true facts? Dominic how about telling us mmmh?
Phone: 0861 UNINET (0861 864638)
VOIP : 196.28.89.226(H.323)
 
captainwifi said:
Mr Mfundo at 011 321 8377 informs me that the High Court
has awarded Icasa the case against Aerosat. www.uninetwork.co.za
must now fork over R700 000 to cover legal costs.

In addition a criminal prosecution has been launched against the directors
of Aerosat NOT THE SUBSCRIBERS. Remember what http://icasa.blogspot.com
says about fronting companies.

So if you are a subscriber to Uninetwork I would ask DAvid Jarvis
and his lawyer Dominic to play open cards with us.
Ms Cindi at 011 321 8377 has the database of all VANS license holders.
Ms Cindi will tell me on monday if www.webintact.co.za has a VANS license.
Mr Mfundo told me that it is Icasa's view that it is illegal for VANS holders
to self-provide.

Is Icasa bluffing? What are the true facts? Dominic how about telling us mmmh?
Phone: 0861 UNINET (0861 864638)
VOIP : 196.28.89.226(H.323)
Click to expand...

you are probably missing your true calling as an investigative reporter for the National Enquirer or die son...

1. yes the eastern cape division of the high court has ruled in favour of icasa on the matter of whether, in short, hard drives and certain other equioment can be construed as radio equipment for the purposes of the telecomms act
2. the matter was decided against aerosat - uninet had no material involvement with aerosat at the time the matter arose
3. the figure of r700 000 is a thumbsuck - no costs have been specified yet afaik
4. the matter is being appealed - imho there are good grounds for the appeal
5. its dominic with a small d
6. the vans licencee database is and has for some time been available on the icasa web site
7. ICASA is welcome to their view that VANS self-provision is illegal - i know from personal conversations with councillors that it is a view not shared by all of them, including the outgoing chairman. IMHO the opposite is true.

pls bear in mind that i try to "play open cards" but there are some minor inconveniences such as legal privelege which mean that i cannot show you anyone else's cards

and if you are looking for the truth - find it where you find everything else - google
 
DFantom said:
Guess this blows all the WISP's away that said it was a grey area?
Click to expand...
it is of absolutely no significance to the legal standing of wisps - zip, nada, zero....a confiscation was contested in part because it was contended that some of the equipment confiscated was not radio equipment

the court ruled for aerosat on an urgent basis then for icasa at the return date - as stated the matter has been appealed
 
Last edited:
Shame another good one bite the dust I trully see her as my insparation and rollmodel,but guess what boys and girls she is going bigger!!!
 
Manie said:
Shame another good one bite the dust I trully see her as my insparation and rollmodel,but guess what boys and girls she is going bigger!!!
Click to expand...
nobody's biting the dust

as for the rest do tell us more
 
Can ICASA not leave the WISP's the hell alone? One would think they would focus on doing work, instead of depriving consumers of cheaper options.
 
Well the ones previously biting the dust was guys with Wi-Fi illegal phones and no bussinesses and names mentioned but they got hard from it that is what i've heard for thus far...They are more focussed on that and not on the wireless that much as silks!
 
LordVega® said:
Well the ones previously biting the dust was guys with Wi-Fi illegal phones and no bussinesses and names mentioned but they got hard from it that is what i've heard for thus far...They are more focussed on that and not on the wireless that much as silks!
Click to expand...
I meant this one :confused:
 
An appeal could take months. In the meantime the Convergence bill will
become law. I presume that the Appeals court will hear the case in terms
of Act 96. This means that Uninet is so deep in trouble that only their noses
are sticking out of the horse manure. If they lose the Appeals case they could
go to the Constitutional court. Fact is that hundreds of thousands of rands
are at stake. If Icasa loses the appeal it would set a precedent and finally
we would have some sort of clarity. But by then the Convergence would have
replaced Act 96. David was confident that he would win the Aerosat case. Perhaps Icasa swallowed their pride and got a lawyer who did not graduated with one
thigh parallel to the ground to handle the High court case ...... Icasa had been losing case after case why did they suddenly decide to appeal this one to the High Court ?

The Economist had an article about the shenanigans going on in our courts.
The Economist states that some judges are held in such contempt that the moment
the litigants find out who the judge is they go for arbitration. Who were the judges in the two cases? Where can I get a transcript and how much will it cost, this would provide all the relevant facts. This is public knowledge and I am sure you could upload it to a web page so that needless speculation can stop. (This would be for Rodents sake :))

The Eastern Cape is a fascinating place to get tangled up in the legal
system. There was a case where the prosecutor 'had a dream' that the armed robber
was guilty. The judge said that since he 'cant read dreams he will convict the
defendant'... (or something to that effect) Needless to say the Appeals court overturned such nonsense.

There is a major stumbling block to the adoption of mesh. Www.locustworld.com
is the benchmark , but even though it is opensource the information on setting up
your own boxes are very difficult to obtain, but it can be obtained. No matter
how good your Linux you won't be able to get up to speed without the
proper documentation.

And LordVega would you please stop writing rubbish on this forum.
Goodness admin this guy is obviously trying to spam this thread.
 
dominic said:
it is of absolutely no significance to the legal standing of wisps - zip, nada, zero....a confiscation was contested in part because it was contended that some of the equipment confiscated was not radio equipment

the court ruled for aerosat on an urgent basis then for icasa at the return date - as stated the matter has been appealed
Click to expand...
sorry i'm not sure i understand the case right then, is the case about the confiscation or the running of the wisps? I was assuming it was the running of the wisp...
 
captainwifi said:
An appeal could take months. In the meantime the Convergence bill will
become law. I presume that the Appeals court will hear the case in terms
of Act 96. This means that Uninet is so deep in trouble that only their noses
are sticking out of the horse manure. If they lose the Appeals case they could
go to the Constitutional court. Fact is that hundreds of thousands of rands
are at stake. If Icasa loses the appeal it would set a precedent and finally
we would have some sort of clarity. But by then the Convergence would have
replaced Act 96. David was confident that he would win the Aerosat case. Perhaps Icasa swallowed their pride and got a lawyer who did not graduated with one
thigh parallel to the ground to handle the High court case ...... Icasa had been losing case after case why did they suddenly decide to appeal this one to the High Court ?

The Economist had an article about the shenanigans going on in our courts.
The Economist states that some judges are held in such contempt that the moment
the litigants find out who the judge is they go for arbitration. Who were the judges in the two cases? Where can I get a transcript and how much will it cost, this would provide all the relevant facts. This is public knowledge and I am sure you could upload it to a web page so that needless speculation can stop. (This would be for Rodents sake :))
Click to expand...
apologies if this is blunt. it is obvious from this part of your post that you have not bothered to actually read what i have written & i belive that would be immediately apparent to anyone reading the thread. you would appear to have a pathological desire to sensationalise the irrelevant and to throw names, urls and implications together into a flimsy fabric of scatological innuendo. the facts are as posted above.
 
DFantom said:
sorry i'm not sure i understand the case right then, is the case about the confiscation or the running of the wisps? I was assuming it was the running of the wisp...
Click to expand...
its about a technical interpretation - it has nothing to do with the overall legalities of running a wisp with a VANS licence

in other words the judgement on an interdict regarding a technical interpretation in no way creates precedent on the licensing and regulatory aspects of running a wisp
 
Yes dominic is absolutely correct this is not a criminal issue.
I phoned Icasa to ask them about the Aerosat case. They only told me half of the story the appeals part they left out. The criminal prosecution was another Miro type Wimax fantasy. (Thanks dominic for clearing that up for me. This process is like extracting teeth.) Mr Mfundo simply told me a boldfaced blatant lie. Phone him tomorrow and ask him who is the investigating officer. There is none.

Uninet had no choice but to appeal. If Icasa can win just a single case in confiscating their equipment then they will shut down all the wisps. Remember Icasa had to return Uninets stuff that they took in 2003. Icasa lost that case.

Quote:”
its about a technical interpretation - it has nothing to do with the overall legalities of running a wisp with a VANS license. In other words the judgment on an interdict regarding a technical interpretation in no way creates precedent on the licensing and regulatory aspects of running a wisp”
Correct because only our SA police can criminally
charge a Wisp for operating without a VANS. This was a civil case not a
criminal case. Icasa obtained a court order to confiscate the equipment.
So if Uninetwork loses the case they will have to pay dominic's costs and
Icasa's costs. The stakes are very high, neither side can afford to lose.
Even if Icasa wins , the police won't get involved. You see the equipment itself
is legal but was used in an illegal way according to Icasa. Based on this
they got a court order. The police's view is that if the equipment is legal then there is no case, VANS or no VANS. Data crossing boundaries or roads
via legal frequencies and legal www.paradyne.com DSLAM servers without a license impacts on Icasa's revenue. What our dearest Police want's to know from Icasa is what exactly this has got to do with them.

The medicines R26 debacle shows that our lower courts must be girating a lot. I believe Uninetwork will win the Appeals case, those judges graduated with both feet on the ground just ask the pharmacists. This is good and bad. It will finally show for once and for all that Icasa has no teeth. The opensource commons is a much greater threat. A starnetwifi 12dbi AP/bridge/repeater CPE network costs R700. A couple of these connected to a locust mesh peered to a www.bentlywalker.net 2meg link are reducing the barriers to entry. This case has Zero impact on the wi-fi/Dslam commons.
It merely shows that the worst possible outcome is equipment confiscation.
But who would actually appeal the confiscation of a R2500 meshbox ? Icasa is not going to waste their time raiding the www.nodedb.com participants.
If only they were to comprehend this and list their emails so we can discuss
if we will use mesh or AP for a particular setup. :)
 
Last edited:
i must clarify

captainwifi said:
Uninet had no choice but to appeal. If Icasa can win just a single case in confiscating their equipment then they will shut down all the wisps. Remember Icasa had to return Uninets stuff that they took in 2003. Icasa lost that case.
Click to expand...
a flight of fantasy

captainwifi said:
Icasa obtained a court order to confiscate the equipment.
So if Uninetwork loses the case they will have to pay dominic's costs and
Icasa's costs.
Click to expand...
uninet are not involved in the matter. at all. neither am i.
captainwifi said:
The stakes are very high, neither side can afford to lose.
Even if Icasa wins , the police won't get involved. You see the equipment itself is legal but was used in an illegal way according to Icasa. Based on this
they got a court order. The police's view is that if the equipment is legal then there is no case, VANS or no VANS. Data crossing boundaries or roads
via legal frequencies and legal www.paradyne.com DSLAM servers without a license impacts on Icasa's revenue. What our dearest Police want's to know from Icasa is what exactly this has got to do with them.
Click to expand...
utterly lacking in factual content

very tabloid
 
Quote:" Flights of fantasy"
ok dominic whatever. When will the appeal be heard? Ultimately the judges will decide.
And if Icasa loses this one... I will phone Icasa to try and findout.
O boy but is difficult getting info out of Icasa and Uninet. I wonder why ? ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X