ISPA response to Telkom stance on SATRA ruling

rpm

rpm

Admin
Staff member
Joined
Jul 22, 2003
Messages
66,806
Reaction score
5,057
Location
Johannesburg
[Johannesburg, 16 October 1997] - The Internet Service Providers Association (ISPA) has responded negatively to the fact that Telkom has questioned the South African Telecommunications Regulatory Authority ruling on Internet Protocol (IP). SATRA has ruled that IP should be supplied as a value added service rather than as part of Telkom`s PSTS license.

The advisory committee appointed by SATRA debated, at length, the issue of universal access (provision of Internet access to disadvantaged/rural areas), which has clearly been a central pillar of Telkom`s argument for an IP monopoly.

The members of the advisory committee came to the virtually unanimous conclusion that, if Telkom were to be given such a monopoly, it would be under no obligation to roll out universal Internet access to under-privileged areas, in terms of its PSTS license.

ISPA supports this view, and contends that a Telkom monopoly would hinder, rather than promote, universal access. It believes SMME`s are in a better position than Telkom to reach disadvantaged areas, both in terms of speed and efficacy. ISPA members are already working with the Universal Service Agency to drive the concept of Internet enabled telecentres in disadvantaged areas. It is also submitting an extensive social responsibility document to SATRA with suggestions for tangible contributions to the universal service initiative.

ISPA once again applauds SATRA`s ruling, which has clearly defined the difference between the supply of basic telecommunications infrastructure and the supply of Internet access services.

Telkom has consistently sought to characterise ISPA-aligned ISPs as purely self-serving commercial entities. Closer inspection of ISPA`s membership reveals a number of non-profit, non-governmental organisations like SANGONET, which has already made considerable strides in terms of social upliftment through Internet technology. Telkom has also conveniently ignored other ISPA member projects in disadvantaged areas.

Says ISPA co-chair, David Frankel: "The industry cannot stand by and watch the gap between information haves and have-nots increase. ISPA believes no organisation in South Africa can shrug off its social responsibility. The time for politicking has passed and all organisations in this sector need to understand their social responsibility."

[For reference purposes]
 
I am a bit confused.

Am I right in assuming that there is a development a foot to which this makes an interesting read?
 
Whooooooooooweee, I heard that brand new Pentium 2 sure is fast. I hope Duke Nukem Forever gets released soon so I can try it out. Some people are saying that in the future, we'll be able to watch movies on our cellphones. I mean I know that technology is progressing fast and all that but that just seems like science fiction.

I hope someone invents a forum called MyADSL in about 6 years so we can talk about it. Of course, they'd have to invent ADSL first, whatever that is.

Posted from my Nokia 5110. Coz it's 1997.
 
wow ISPA responded? Did money enable them to respond? They seem to respond only when its "lekker", but not when it matters

Paul Hjul said:
Okay so Monday is the 21st and 3 months since the matter was indicated as having been referred to an adjudicator

Unfortunately a few things have come up (including this damn heat wave) and I won't have the energy to push much for a few weeks. At this juncture the recourse seems to be to refer the complaint to ICASA after ISPA have either failed or refused to deal with MWEB - 3 months being more than a reasonable period of time to progress in an industry that is constantly changing. At this this juncture it appears the complaint will become moot before being addressed which is wholly unsatisfactory

I will therefore write to ISPA on Monday indicating that I wish for the complaint to be withdrawn if it is not proceeded upon by the 4th of February 2014 such that I may proceed to deal with ICASA. Unfortunately I cannot make promises as to how long getting affidavits and what not ready for ICASA will take me but I might be ready to lodge on the 5th February and from there who knows how long because well ICASA is not exactly known for efficiency.

Unfortunately ISPA's inaction has left a very bitter taste in my mouth with the result that I will not in future deal with the organization until their is a material change to suggest that they will actually have some resemblance to their own presented targeted turn around times.
Click to expand...
 
Additional info:

Introduction
This is the ninth report compiled by FXI’s researcher, Mr Ike Hloka.This report covers the period 06 to 18 October 1997. This report was compiled with the financial assistance from the European Union Foundation for Human Rights in South Africa(EUFHR). Views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the official position of the EUFHR in South Africa.

The report looks at the recent dispute between TELKOM and Internet service providers in South Africa. The dispute is centred around TELKOM’s demand to have monopoly control over the provision of Internet infrastructure. The South African Telecommunications Regulatory Authority(SATRA), the telecommunications regulatory body, ruled that TELKOM had no right to have monopoly control over the provision of Internet service infrastructure. TELKOM is currently contesting this decision in the high court.

Access to telecommunications

The bid by TELKOM, South Africa’s state owned telecommunications service provider, to get monopoly over the provision of Internet infrastructure was snubbed by the South African Telecommunications Regulatory Authority (SATRA), on October 14, 1997. SATRA, which was set up in terms of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, ruled that the provision of Internet service infrastructure should not reside exclusively with TELKOM.

SATRA’s chairperson, Nape Maepa, argued that the decision was made to uphold the public interest and the constitutional right of all South Africans to access to information. TELKOM argued that SATRA’s decision was based on the misunderstanding of TELOKM’s position on the issue. TELKOM’s head of regulatory affairs, Ms Pinkie Mogoli, argued that TELKOM never wanted to monopolize Internet service provision but rather wanted to provide of Internet infrastructure. TELKOM’s argument was also based on the premise that Internet service must be considered a universal service and therefore must be made available to every citizen. TELKOM argued that by providing the infrastructure they would be able to make Internet accessible to the majority of people in South Africa including the rural areas, which currently do not have much access to Internet services.

The possibility of TELKOM getting the exclusive right to provide Internet service infrastructure sent shockwaves through the commercial Internet service providers, who feared that this might push them out of business. During the period of the dispute South Africa had fallen behind in Internet development. Shortly before the dispute South Africa was ranked in the top 20 worldwide among countries with growing Internet industries. It was not clear whether this slow growth in the past months could be directly linked to the dispute. The fear created by the impression that TELKOM wanted the Internet industry nationalised under its monopoly had more likely impacted on the number of newcomers into the industry, but the extent of this is still to be fully understood.

At the centre of TELKOM’s case was the issue of access by telephone to Internet information.This meant that the cost of using the Internet would be the same as local telephone call charges. This would ensure that a substantial amount of people in South Africa would be able to access Internet service. TELKOM argued that the issue was not just about the parastatal being given exclusive status to provide service but that TELKOM had committed itself to spending billions of rands in the next five years to build state of the arts telephones for millions of South Africans, most of whom were underprivileged and disadvantaged. According to TELKOM the aim was to expand South Africa’s telecommunications system and "dramatically improve our service quality, to take an aggressive leadership role in affirmative action".
Now the big question is: does the decision handed down by SATRA serve the interest of the majority of South Africans or does it serve a specific section, namely: commercial Internet service providers grouped together under Internet Service Providers Association(ISPA) and their predominantly urban market. ISPA argued their case on the basis of fair business practice. They argued that TELKOM was already controlling telecommunication and therefore should not be allowed to have monopoly over the Internet service.

One of the implications of SATRA’s decision is that local points of presence (POP) will be establish to which all Internet service providers will be obliged to connect This is expected to speed up local Internet traffic. SATRA offered to facilitate the setting up of local peering points.

A further implication of SATRA’s decision is that Internet access will in the future be provided in terms of a value added network service rather than a public switched telephone service licence. Internet service provision will thus not be regarded as a universal service, and at the same time there are no mechanisms in place to ensure that Internet service providers contribute to universal service. TELKOM has demonstrated a willingness to provide telecommunications infrastructure to disadvantaged areas. TELKOM has committed itself to providing free access to Internet to 1000 schools through its project called "Internet to 1000 schools". So far only 30 thirty schools, ten in the Northern Province, ten in the Eastern Cape and another ten in Gauteng, have been provided with Internet service. The project has not been affected by this dispute according to sources at TELKOM.

By way of conclusion I want to argue that while there are other issues in this dispute such as fair business practice, the big issue which is still to be resolved is the one posed by TELKOM, namely, access to communication through the Internet. This becomes even more important if one considers the fact that currently there are no mechanisms in place to ensure that the Internet service is accessible to the majority of South Africans.
 
On Tuesday 14th October 1997, the South African Telecommunications Regulatory Authority (SATRA) is to decide on the burning question of whether the provision of Internet Access is to be classified as part of the Public Switch Telecommunications Service (PST) or part of a Value-Added Network Service (VAN).

Simplifying the jargon exposes the issue and the reasons why it has become a contested terrain:
the Telecommunications Act of 1996 grants Telkom a five year exclusivity period to be the sole provider of PST services. The VAN services are an express area of permitted competition in terms of the Act. If Internet access is deemed part of the PSTS this will have a number of implications for private Internet access providers and make Telkom the sole provider of such access.

The debate was sparked last year when the Internet Service Providers Association (ISPA) challenged Telkom’s role as an ISP before the Competition Board. ISPA questioned the extent to which Telkom should be allowed to be an Internet service provider, as well as the sole provider of PST services. The private ISP’s claim that Telkom is abusing its position as the sole provider of the telecommunications infrastructure, to undercut prices of private ISP’s who have to bear the expense of leasing Telkom’s lines for the clients, whereas Telkom does not have to carry that additional expense in offering ISP services. Telkom is claiming that it is reliant on the opportunity to cross-subsidise its services to effect the roll-out of basic telecommunications services to currently under serviced areas.

There is merit in both arguments: Telkom maintains that as the state telecommunications operator with a self-proclaimed obligation to provide Internet access to the "masses", it is in all probability the only service provider that may have the resources, capacity and instruction to roll-out sufficient infrastructure to provide on-line services in rural areas. The revenues generated in the monopoly over the provision of Internet access will facilitate this. The private ISP’s however, built the dynamic and constantly developing Internet industry in South Africa and have established excellent service and delivery. They maintain that the provision of Internet access cannot be separated from other services that by definition makes such access a VAN service and thus open to competition. The Act provides for the licencing of VAN service providers and the industry is asserting that licencing obligations similar to those granted for the cellular phone industry will do more to effect roll-out of universal Internet access. SATRA is saddled with having to make a final decision and its task is made increasingly difficult by the fact that technically it seems impossible to reach a conclusion over whether Internet access is a VAN or PST service.

Less formally, one needs to consider whether Telkom’s service provider, the South African Internet Exchange (SAIX), will be able to provide the excellent standard of service that has been built up by the private ISP’s. In addition, the instrumentality of these ISP’s in building a vast Internet industry in South Africa cannot be overlooked. It is not sufficient to merely enable connectivity. Without sufficient service, capacity and bandwidth, the possibilities for development, for promoting freedom of expression and access to information are rendered nugatory. Telkom maintains that the exclusivity period with the sole right to provide Internet access will allow them to build and develop the infrastructure to achieve the same result.
The industry is awaiting the decision on Tuesday 14th October but regardless of the outcome, one can be assured that it will not be the final word on the matter, given the commercial investment and the opportunity that this truly mass medium has for democratisation and education.
 
Going on 20 years and the only true internet developments have been in the wireless space, as a course of necessity more than anything else. Looking back; realising how long it's been; it's sad to see the current state of affairs. How different this South Africa might have been had decisions in the best interests of the country, rather than the best interests of private and government coffers, been taken...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X