ISP targeting WISPs

W

wisp

Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
I got hold of information that a certain ISP (from unda da sea) is asking it's local franchise holders to report Wireless Internet Service providers.

They were asked to get full details of wisps, printed promotional material, quotations for installations, application forms and even photos of antennas used.

They will then officially lay a complaint before Icasa against the Wisp and also send a copy of it to Telkom.

Their reasons for doing this is:
1. Losing business
2. Their own franchisees are starting wisps because they can’t compete locally.
3. It causes confusion in the market.

This is a symptom of monopolies run on greed and which is not market driven. They don't care what the customer's needs are. As long as they can pocket and keep competition out they will continue like this.

I am so frustrated because we can deliver but are not legally allowed and there is now way to become legal under the current legislation!!!
 
Position of the ISPs

Registered ISPs buy bandwidth from telkom and they resell it. That is the nature of there business.

Now if you look at the Electronic communations and transactions act, you would notice that service providers have certain limitation of liability and other advantages because they are registered in other words the law protects the interests of the registered service providers. The nature of this protection is based on the fact that the service is provided to the end user and not another reseller.

So you'd notice that in most ISP service contracts the resale of bandwidth is not allowed. So if you are buyer your bandwidth from SAIX, UUnet or whoever the purpose of the service is for household or business use and not for resale. That is the ISPs job.

You have to admit that there must be some form of control. Because rights to take part in the economy aside, allot of these WISPs even legal ones really suck. So I think that it is in the interest of the consumers that there is regulation and that no every tool can go and buy high site equipment and charge high installation fees and rip off joe public.

The answer in law lies somewhere in the middle. People that can prove themselves competent should be granted licenses and they have to have a certain quality of service to retain such license, because should the customer no longer want the service he looses his installation fee or is bound by contractual obligations. Now that is criminal.
 
wisp - who is this ISP, why hide its identity? Let it be known and let the potential wisps know who to look out for.
 
Well, I am assuming from the post above that they have local franchise holders. The only ISP I know that operates like this are @lantic ? this is just a guess nothing more . . .

Fuerthermore, this is not the first time I have heard of this. There are other ISP's doing the exact same thing.
 
daysleeper said:
Registered ISPs buy bandwidth from telkom and they resell it. That is the nature of there business.

Now if you look at the Electronic communations and transactions act, you would notice that service providers have certain limitation of liability and other advantages because they are registered in other words the law protects the interests of the registered service providers. The nature of this protection is based on the fact that the service is provided to the end user and not another reseller.

So you'd notice that in most ISP service contracts the resale of bandwidth is not allowed. So if you are buyer your bandwidth from SAIX, UUnet or whoever the purpose of the service is for household or business use and not for resale. That is the ISPs job.

You have to admit that there must be some form of control. Because rights to take part in the economy aside, allot of these WISPs even legal ones really suck. So I think that it is in the interest of the consumers that there is regulation and that no every tool can go and buy high site equipment and charge high installation fees and rip off joe public.

The answer in law lies somewhere in the middle. People that can prove themselves competent should be granted licenses and they have to have a certain quality of service to retain such license, because should the customer no longer want the service he looses his installation fee or is bound by contractual obligations. Now that is criminal.
Click to expand...


I agree with you here, we need better services and not a mass market entry of rejects. But saying this, Telkom should also be monitored in same regard. If I had ****ty experience with ADSL and cancel, I lose my installation fee and use of router aswell.
 
there has been at least one criminal prosecution based on a complaint by a small isp against a wisp which had taken market-share
 
dominic said:
there has been at least one criminal prosecution based on a complaint by a small isp against a wisp which had taken market-share
Click to expand...

Bruce from Aerosat broke court ordered seals, why was he not nailed for
violating a court order?
 
captainwifi said:
Bruce from Aerosat broke court ordered seals, why was he not nailed for
violating a court order?
Click to expand...
o/t: no seals were broken
 
dominic said:
o/t: no seals were broken
Click to expand...

I refer you to paragraph 37 on page 12 of 29 of the Pdf document of the
ruling by Judge Sandi

[37] The second respondent avers therefore that after the sealing of the
apparatus on the occasions referred to above the first respondent’s inspectors monitored the sites in question and discovered that the applicant was again providing wireless internet services to third parties: seals previously used had been broken and/or new equipment was being used.

And section 35:
“The investigations revealed that all the sites that were previously
sealed are now up and operational. This implies that the seals of the
previous apparatus and the antennas have been broken. This
constitutes a transgression of section 31 of the Act as you are now in
possession of apparatus without the necessary permit or licence.”
 
On principle I would not support any ISP that promotes targeting WISP operators. Any attempts to justify their behavior by saying its law simply tells me that they not only are willing to accept unjust laws but are eager to enforce them.

I say name and shame them.
 
pookfuzz said:
On principle I would not support any ISP that promotes targeting WISP operators. Any attempts to justify their behavior by saying its law simply tells me that they not only are willing to accept unjust laws but are eager to enforce them.

I say name and shame them.
Click to expand...

I agree!

CaptainWIFI, I got the ruling, thanks
 
captainwifi said:
I refer you to paragraph 37 on page 12 of 29 of the Pdf document of the
ruling by Judge Sandi

[37] The second respondent avers therefore that after the sealing of the
apparatus on the occasions referred to above the first respondent’s inspectors monitored the sites in question and discovered that the applicant was again providing wireless internet services to third parties: seals previously used had been broken and/or new equipment was being used.

And section 35:
“The investigations revealed that all the sites that were previously
sealed are now up and operational. This implies that the seals of the
previous apparatus and the antennas have been broken. This
constitutes a transgression of section 31 of the Act as you are now in
possession of apparatus without the necessary permit or licence.”
Click to expand...
show me the bit that proves seals were broken, i.e. that is not an averral, and and/or

captain u r welcome to pm about this (stating full name and proper e-mail address) but no further comment here
 
Could we have any interesting cases names/numbers posted here then, please? Instead of hiding behind stuff like "there has been at least one criminal prosecution based on a complaint by a small isp against a wisp which had taken market-share" please?

It is supposedly public knowledge after all, and will help us in discussing this topic to death. :)
 
TheRoDent said:
Could we have any interesting cases names/numbers posted here then, please? Instead of hiding behind stuff like "there has been at least one criminal prosecution based on a complaint by a small isp against a wisp which had taken market-share" please?

It is supposedly public knowledge after all, and will help us in discussing this topic to death. :)
Click to expand...
apologies for bring cryptic (bad habit) - aerosat in port elizabeth were prosecuted on the basis of a complaint from an ISP...the charges have been dropped

it is difficult to be specific because of professional involvement

it is painful to be specific because all too often names and individuals are then splattered with URLs all over this forum in a manner which imho is harmful to the industry

captain / wisp - perhaps post a link to the icasa/aerosat judgement for general information and debate. Bear in mind this is a civil (as opposed to criminal) matter in which the court was essentially considering whether hard drives connected to wifi equipment should be regarded as radio equipment for the purposes of the telecomms act and therefore properly subject to confiscation...the P E High Court found initially that it should not be so regarded but on more consideration changed its mind. With the greatest respect I am not sure that this is the correct outcome in this regard

added: just found the wonderfully insane judgement post with link
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X