ICASA's iBurst network raid: costs and damage

Don't see any damage whatsoever. The only damage I see that debit orders probably didn't go through that means that iBURST/WBS won't get paid from their clients, employees salaries were probably not paid, paying supplies etc.

Why are MTN removing some links from iBurst/WBS probably due to non-payment.


I wanna see the before pics. Highly doubt that equipment they had in place is worth R50 million, probably R10 million. They trying everything in the book to have a lower fee.
 
RichardG said:
Why are MTN removing some links from iBurst/WBS probably due to non-payment.
Click to expand...

I think you have that the wrong way around.

iBurst supplies the link to MTN, who has now allegedly indicated their intention to cancel.
iBurst probably trying to show that the ICASA action has led to reputational/business loss.
 
Nessie said:
ICASA had a court order.
Click to expand...

According to the Electronic Communications Act of 2005, when equipment is used in unlicensed form, and I quote from the act, Section 32 Subsection 3
(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...

Now the problem herewith is that the switches and routers would probably not fall under said equipment as it's not radio apparatus.
 
sin_x said:
I think you have that the wrong way around.

iBurst supplies the link to MTN, who has now allegedly indicated their intention to cancel.
iBurst probably trying to show that the ICASA action has led to reputational/business loss.
Click to expand...

Why would MTN, who run one of the biggest tier 1 networks in South Africa, rely on iBurst, a tiny little company by comparison, for anything network related?
 
deweyzeph said:
Why would MTN, who run one of the biggest tier 1 networks in South Africa, rely on iBurst, a tiny little company by comparison, for anything network related?
Click to expand...

The iBurst CEO highlighted that MTN, one of their largest clients, has already indicated that they will move some of their links away from them.
Click to expand...

Why not? You are possibly thinking of iburst wireless - a consumer product - and not the rest of the fairly large network that they have.
 
deweyzeph said:
Why would MTN, who run one of the biggest tier 1 networks in South Africa, rely on iBurst, a tiny little company by comparison, for anything network related?
Click to expand...

Because WBS never paid the spectrum fees for the microwave links which MTN bought from Broadlink, Broadlink could sell them to MTN at a better price than MTN could provide it themselves.
 
Everything else aside, had iBurst paid what they owed their equipment would not have been touched.

What made iBurst think they could get their services free of charge ?!
 
Ok, there I thought I was going bonkers as I could not see any damage either. What's point of the photographs, come one take decent pictures that is not blurry and describe what is happening in the picture. Just some advice, please do not try and use those pictures in court, it is useless and iBurst will just make a fool of themselves.
 
If Wireless Business Solution/iBurst settled their outstanding license fee or made a payment arrangement with ICASA none of this would have happen but if arrangements were made maybe there deadline was begin of March.

MTN being 1 of their largest clients could mean they used their frequency/spectrum to offer services or something.

What are "links" is that referred to peering or something else.
 
"The estimated damage, said Mtshali, does not take reputation damage and subsequent loss of business into account."

What reputation? They have been a joke since the day they got started. There really isn't much reputation to save.
 
RichardG said:
If Wireless Business Solution/iBurst settled their outstanding license fee or made a payment arrangement with ICASA none of this would have happen but if arrangements were made maybe there deadline was begin of March.
Click to expand...

None of this would have happened if ICASA actually confiscated the equipment it was legally allowed to...

What next, they going bash in and take my car because I imported a router from US without their sticker on it?
 
daffy said:
I'd hardly classify messy cabling as "damage" though.
Click to expand...

+1 I did not see traces/evidence of the alleged physical "damage" in the photos that were included with the article, I expected to see bent and broken racks with shattered PCBs all over the place.
 
Latest article on techcentral suggests that both sandf and vodacom owe the regulator more than wbs does in licensing fees.
Would love to see icasa raid the defence force :)
 
Last edited:
Nessie said:
Because WBS never paid the spectrum fees for the microwave links which MTN bought from Broadlink, Broadlink could sell them to MTN at a better price than MTN could provide it themselves.
Click to expand...
A lot of speculation for a new member.

I think dominic summed it up nicely:
dominic said:
Telkom's fees under the new spectrum licence fee regulations went up by about R900m. They immediately sat down with ICASA and worked out a way to deal with it and have acted in accordance with that negotiation. No need to go and confiscate their kit...
Click to expand...
 
theres a mikrotik RB 1100 in the picture :whistle:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X