Showdown

[rpm]

Showdown

IN LESS THAN A MONTH, the Transvaal High Court will hear three days of argument in the matter between Autopage Cellular, a subsidiary of Craig Venter's Altech Group, and the sector's telecoms regulator in Autopage's endeavour to demand the right to build its own network - and the same for other value added network services (Vans) licensees that want to do so. The pivotal hearings are set down for 29 to 31 July.

 

[ads]

Finally, we have a sensible article that identifies exactly where the problem lies - the Minister. What is surprising is that it's taken so long for everyone to realise what most lawyers have known for a long time - that the Minister cannot just make up the rules as she goes along, and that laws are passed after debate by multiple parties in parliament. The industry has needed this court case for a long time, and at last it's happening.

 

[ic]

The situation that Autopage seeks, Icasa said, would "yield an absurd result. For instance, SA would have more than 600 network licences if all the holders of Vans licences were automatically entitled to ECNSs. Nowhere in the world is there a country, particularly of the size of the Republic, with the limited frequency resources it has, that would have this volume of network licences".

It goes on to say: "The spectrum is a finite natural resource" and in the absence of a spectrum licence, there's "no value" in an applicant even possessing an ECNS licence.

There's no disputing that.

Actually I do dispute what !CASA is insinuating there - it is true of wireless spectrum, but it is totally irrelevant when applied to wired or fixed line spectrum, for example Fibre Optic.

VANS should have the right to provision their own fibre optic links, or to work through a company like [searchforum]"Dark Fibre Africa"[/searchforum], however if VANS cannot self-provision their own network infrastructure, then they will be forced for all eternity to rent such links from Telkodemonopolies and Neotel.

 

[stoke]

The situation that Autopage seeks, Icasa said, would "yield an absurd result. For instance, SA would have more than 600 network licences if all the holders of Vans licences were automatically entitled to ECNSs. Nowhere in the world is there a country, particularly of the size of the Republic, with the limited frequency resources it has, that would have this volume of network licences".

Who said anything about Frequency resources? There is more than one way that 600 service providers can provide a service. DAMMIT!

/me SLAPS ICASA HARD!

edit : oh .. hello IC ...

 

[stoke]

The Minister says some operators are providing their own facilities illegally. And that's probably why nobody disputed her determinations until now. It was convenient for some to be operating under a disputed, yet untested, framework. Whatever the outcome of the July hearings, at least the industry will have greater certainty of its rights in the future.

You are supposed to apologize for botching this up in the first place dammit!
Not defer your botch-up and try to place the blame elsewhere.
And .. if they're criminals like you just said, then why are then not being prosecuted? Noooo .. the reality is that YOU IVY were stalling .. waiting to see what the country would do with your open invitation. You policy is actually : Do whatever you want, and then I'll approve it if I like it.
Case in point : KNYSNA.

/me despairs at this Minister of Communications.

 

[ic]

Who said anything about Frequency resources? There is more than one way that 600 service providers can provide a service. DAMMIT!

/me SLAPS ICASA HARD!

edit : oh .. hello IC ...

Hello stoke .

Have you read the following bit & been able to make sense of what the story is there:

IS argues Autopage hasn't made a case as to why it might not receive an I-ECNS licence pursuant to Icasa's process or why it would suffer "irreparable prejudice". In fact, it accuses Autopage of having ulterior motives. It claims there was a telephone conversation between IS CEO Angus MacRobert and Altech chief technical officer Steven Sidley, during which Sidley said it would withdraw its application if IS let it participate in its own I-ECNS application.

"The only inference that may be drawn from this is that the applicant views its right and title to convert its Vans to an I-ECNS as defective and is using this application as a vehicle to frustrate the entire process unless the 19th respondent acquiesces to the applicant's demands."

Just doesn't make sense to me, what possible reason could Altech/Autopage have for thinking it can be part of IS' own ECNS licence application

Also, who is the 19th respondent? - the text seems to suggest that the 19th respondent must be IS, and that Altech/Autopage is trying to blackmail IS into sharing its non-existent ECNS licence with Altech/Autopage, which apart from the alleged blackmailing would be illegal unless IS and Altech/Autopage were to merge into one company...

Bizarre IMO.

 

[stoke]

I'd bet that Angus(IS) called Steven(Altech) in an effort to get things moving again. And Steven(Altech) was like: Sure we'll withdraw if you let us use your license, and we'll participate in the application process (Which is like saying we'll come to a share costs agreement). But that just made Angus(IS) angry cos Angus(IS) thinks that Steven(Altech) is saying .. Na na na na naaa .. you have to keep on paying Teklom for your inter-connections for even longer now.

P.S. I have never liked what IS has done for this country, and I hate their non-participation in these issues, and I am quite surprised that Angus(IS) even had something to say, though I suppose that venting at the competition is something that even I could not resist.

 

[ic]

After giving this some thought, I think there is a plausible explanation for what "Altech chief technical officer Steven Sidley" is alleged to have said to "IS CEO Angus MacRobert", which would be something along the lines of IS probably complaining that Altech's court case against !CASA would delay the issuing of ECNS licences, and the probably jovial response from Altech probably being that it needs access to an ECNS licence and that Altech would be willing to drop its case against !CASA if IS [or anyone else] due to receive an ECNS licence, would share theirs with Altech, otherwise Altech would have to proceed with its case against !CASA to obtain its own ECNS licence...

Still bizarre though even if that were the context and what transpired telephonically between IS and Altech...

I'd bet that Angus(IS) called Steven(Altech) in an effort to get things moving again. And Steven(Altech) was like: Sure we'll withdraw if you let us use your license, and we'll participate in the application process (Which is like saying we'll come to a share costs agreement). But that just made Angus(IS) angry cos Angus(IS) thinks that Steven(Altech) is saying .. Na na na na naaa .. you have to keep on paying Teklom for your inter-connections for even longer now.

P.S. I have never liked what IS has done for this country, and I hate their non-participation in these issues, and I am quite surprised that Angus(IS) even had something to say, though I suppose that venting at the competition is something that even I could not resist.

Makes sense that that is probably what actually happened .

 

[stoke]

Lulz, but we'll probably never know.

Well, the way things are going, you could probably make a really decent profit letting others make use of your license privileges, while you sit back and do nothing.

Nice way to promote competition hey. NAWT.

 

[monstaza]

Its all really simple.

Just doesn't make sense to me, what possible reason could Altech/Autopage have for thinking it can be part of IS' own ECNS licence application

Its actually far simpler than you think... Autopage probably doesn't actually want to run its own network. Yes, I know that sounds in contradiction to their court filings.

Their concern (and this will shock you all) is about money. They don't want to be in a situation where the guy who runs the network can sell bandwith to end users at far less a cost to him. Think of Telkom and the ADSL service providers.

At the same time, running the network isn't where the real money is going to be going forward. Once there are a few players competing, the money is not in supplying the fibre links. The money comes in convincing consumers that your Cellular or Internet access service is the best and they should pay a premium for it.

Telkom understood it. Someone who understands it has been talking to IVY. A VAN is far more likely to invest hevily in fibre so he can offer a "premium" service to customers and rake in the inflated prices.

Autopage just want to ensure they get good, cheap bandwith going forward. Whoever supplies that doesn't really matter. If it comes to the worst case scenario where they have to self provide, then so be it.

 

[ic]

Lulz, but we'll probably never know.

Well, the way things are going, you could probably make a really decent profit letting others make use of your license privileges, while you sit back and do nothing.

Nice way to promote competition hey. NAWT.

AFAIK it would be illegal to sublet out one's ECNS licence to all & sundry, but it would be fun to hear what BS stories old Poison Ivy invents on that subject...

I wonder if there will be a clarification backlash from Altech about the alleged telephone conversation, or if Altech will say the whole !CASA thing and anything related to it is still sub judice.

 

[risingtide]

I thought that the ECA act is based on the principle of ICASA makes the rules, and if unhappy, dispute them in court later, but while the court is busy with the case, the rules made are valid.
If this procedure is followed, how can a court case delay things?