-
Ask a question and get free supportUnlock new privileges and see hidden discussionsWin prizes and earn reputation
-
Question of the day ~ How often do you braai?
-
Afristay giveaway.Win a 2-night stay for two people at an establishment of your choice with R1,000 in spending money. Enter here.
Sign up with GoogleStorm brewing over Knysna WiFi
- Thread starter MaD
- Start date
I think legal challenges should be fairly black and white. I'm sure the other ISPs have taken serious legal counsel on the above matter. I wonder if UniNet only got the deal in the first place because they were prepared to use wireless.
Not really a question of guts - by that argument we should all start smoking marijuana if we believe it should be legal, or robbing stores if we believe in communism, etc. At the end of the day the law is the law.
Not really a question of guts - by that argument we should all start smoking marijuana if we believe it should be legal, or robbing stores if we believe in communism, etc. At the end of the day the law is the law.
Its a grey area and as far as most people are concerned, bar Telkom, Uninet are doing nothing wrong. Saying they should be shut down is a bit silly - why do companies who offer cheaper services (remember callback, lcr, etc.) than what Telkom do always come under fire?matt156 said:
Telkom doesn't have sole right to everyone's money and if they feel the pinch from smaller players like Uninet then they should simply react appropriately and lower their prices.
cybercloud
Active Member
- Joined
- May 18, 2005
- Messages
- 87
I have faith in ICASA, in her Ivyness...I do not
MaD, in a perfect world (or South Africa), I would agree with you. But unfortunately self-provisioning is illegal in South Africa, and wireless provisioning is definitely illegal. I completely disagree with our regulation, but it is there and written into law. And any company offering illegal services, whether it be wireless or drug traffiking, should be shutdown. We cannot promote a society that allows company's / persons to do whatever they want simply because they believe it is right.
UniNet are not offering any clever new technology that forces Telkom to lower their prices. They are simply giving the law and ICASA the finger, which other ISPs are not prepared to do.
UniNet are not offering any clever new technology that forces Telkom to lower their prices. They are simply giving the law and ICASA the finger, which other ISPs are not prepared to do.
dominic - again, journalists are arguing from the moral point of view, but not the legal one. Yes, Knysna will save R4 million in Telkom fees, but how much would the ENTIRE country save in Telkom fees if wireless provision were legal? And yes, it is Telkom protecting their bottom line (as is the entire regulatory situation in South Africa, and not just for wireless), but the law is the law, no matter how ridiculous.
As an ISP owner, I am frustrated that we cannot offer wireless services to our clients, saving THEM millions in Telkom fees. Why not? Because we stick to the law. In their defense (much as I HATE them) Telkom are simply calling on ICASA to uphold the law. Again, just because we see a law as ridiculous or promoting inneficiencies and taking money out of our own pockets, doesn't mean we can bend or break it.
As an ISP owner, I am frustrated that we cannot offer wireless services to our clients, saving THEM millions in Telkom fees. Why not? Because we stick to the law. In their defense (much as I HATE them) Telkom are simply calling on ICASA to uphold the law. Again, just because we see a law as ridiculous or promoting inneficiencies and taking money out of our own pockets, doesn't mean we can bend or break it.
LoneGunman
Expert Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2003
- Messages
- 4,552
matt156 has this rather weird slavish devotion to endlessly repeating that 'the law is the law' - as if this is the final arbiter of what is 'right'.
Sometimes the Law is WRONG, archaic, outdated, or simply unable to be correctly applied to the modern society in which its sitting, on the Statute books.
matt156 seems to have some idea that every 'law' is there because it's the correct thing for NOW. There are vast numbers of laws still to be repealed or amended which were drawn up during the neo-Nazi Apartheid Regime - they
were put into law to protect a variety of the Apartheid State's own selfish
interests.
So repeatedly talking about 'the Law' as if these laws were drawn up within
the last six months - as something to be adhered to, regardless of their
validity in this society - is to be completely misunderstanding the purpose of
having laws in the first place (to aid society function as a whole, not 'to
protect company profiteering due to antiquated laws set up during a 40 year
militaristic Regime')
By matt156's logic, because it was 'Law' that black and white people could be jailed for having sex - or because it was 'law' that black people weren't
allowed to be in 'white' area's after sunset - then just because 'its the Law' -
that's good enough for matt156.
No deeper analysis, no deeper thought. No understanding of the context of
WHY Telkom even has a so-called 'legal' right to be the only telecommunications company, and thus be using its priviliged position, and
very outdated and inapropriate laws, to act as nothing more than a fat bully
threatening anyone else who wants to share in the market.
matt156 seems to be an apologist for Telkom, using a bogus argument of
'have respect for Law' as a smokescreen and a tool to justify and somehow defend Telkom's unacceptable 'legal' thuggery.
Sometimes the Law is WRONG, archaic, outdated, or simply unable to be correctly applied to the modern society in which its sitting, on the Statute books.
matt156 seems to have some idea that every 'law' is there because it's the correct thing for NOW. There are vast numbers of laws still to be repealed or amended which were drawn up during the neo-Nazi Apartheid Regime - they
were put into law to protect a variety of the Apartheid State's own selfish
interests.
So repeatedly talking about 'the Law' as if these laws were drawn up within
the last six months - as something to be adhered to, regardless of their
validity in this society - is to be completely misunderstanding the purpose of
having laws in the first place (to aid society function as a whole, not 'to
protect company profiteering due to antiquated laws set up during a 40 year
militaristic Regime')
By matt156's logic, because it was 'Law' that black and white people could be jailed for having sex - or because it was 'law' that black people weren't
allowed to be in 'white' area's after sunset - then just because 'its the Law' -
that's good enough for matt156.
No deeper analysis, no deeper thought. No understanding of the context of
WHY Telkom even has a so-called 'legal' right to be the only telecommunications company, and thus be using its priviliged position, and
very outdated and inapropriate laws, to act as nothing more than a fat bully
threatening anyone else who wants to share in the market.
matt156 seems to be an apologist for Telkom, using a bogus argument of
'have respect for Law' as a smokescreen and a tool to justify and somehow defend Telkom's unacceptable 'legal' thuggery.
Last edited:
Yep the law isn't always what it shuold be.. that's why rapists and killers get off on R500 bail and WISP's who are busted with no VANS license are slapped with massive fines and have the pleasure of having their equipment confiscated.
Oh, Uninet has a VANS license by the way so what they are doing is not illegal. ICASA has said so.
Oh, Uninet has a VANS license by the way so what they are doing is not illegal. ICASA has said so.
I agree with matt156 too, what UniNet is doing is probably illegal and my guess is that ICASA will force them to abandon what they're proposing to do. However, I'm glad that UniNet did what they did, irrespective of whether they will be allowed to provide the service or not.
I'm sure the DoC and ICASA are aware of the telecoms costs that Knysna would have saved had Telkom not had the stupid Telecoms Act to back them up. This story has already circulated around a lot and several people (most in Knysna, of course) are outraged that they won't be able to make cheaper calls because of the telecoms regulation. For me this means that more and more people are starting to realise that the real problem is not Telkom. The real problem is the telecoms regulation in this country. Telkom is the beast it is today because of the way the telecoms regulation was set up to protect them.
I personally don't condone what UniNet is doing because it is probably illegal. However, I think that their act will at least bring more attention to the insane telecoms regulations that are currently being enforced by the DoC. Who knows, perhaps the people redrafting of the convergence bill will bear this "UniNet-Telkom" saga in mind when they improve the bill.
I'm sure the DoC and ICASA are aware of the telecoms costs that Knysna would have saved had Telkom not had the stupid Telecoms Act to back them up. This story has already circulated around a lot and several people (most in Knysna, of course) are outraged that they won't be able to make cheaper calls because of the telecoms regulation. For me this means that more and more people are starting to realise that the real problem is not Telkom. The real problem is the telecoms regulation in this country. Telkom is the beast it is today because of the way the telecoms regulation was set up to protect them.
I personally don't condone what UniNet is doing because it is probably illegal. However, I think that their act will at least bring more attention to the insane telecoms regulations that are currently being enforced by the DoC. Who knows, perhaps the people redrafting of the convergence bill will bear this "UniNet-Telkom" saga in mind when they improve the bill.
LoneGunman - you are completely misinterpreting what I am saying. I do not believe that the self-provisioning law is 'right' or 'correct'. Nor am I apologising for Telkom. Personally I believe the our monopoly laws are completely archaic, unfair and extremely detrimental for South Africa. I hate Telkom and their monopoly with a passion.
What I AM saying is that, although the laws may be unjust from my point of view (and most people in SA I would say) this does NOT give anyone the right to disregard them. No matter what our personal views are. What if I believed that murder was justified because I didn't agree with someone's point of view? Murder is against the law, but does this give me justification to go out and commit murder because I don't believe in that particular law? Or what if I believed in communism? Does this give me the right to steal from people I believe shouldn't have money?
These laws must be challenged through proper channels. But for UniNet to simply give them the finger is an invitation to anarchy. I'm sure there are millions of different personal opinions about millions of different laws, but if people simply acted as they saw fit, what kind of society would we be living in?
The law is NOT the final arbiter of what is 'right' but it also cannot be simply ignored because we believe otherwise.
What I AM saying is that, although the laws may be unjust from my point of view (and most people in SA I would say) this does NOT give anyone the right to disregard them. No matter what our personal views are. What if I believed that murder was justified because I didn't agree with someone's point of view? Murder is against the law, but does this give me justification to go out and commit murder because I don't believe in that particular law? Or what if I believed in communism? Does this give me the right to steal from people I believe shouldn't have money?
These laws must be challenged through proper channels. But for UniNet to simply give them the finger is an invitation to anarchy. I'm sure there are millions of different personal opinions about millions of different laws, but if people simply acted as they saw fit, what kind of society would we be living in?
The law is NOT the final arbiter of what is 'right' but it also cannot be simply ignored because we believe otherwise.
MaD said:
I disagree. A VANS license does not allow self-provisioning. Ivy even clarified that one. And ICASA have stated that wireless provision is illegal. Again, I am all for it being legal, but unfortunately it is not. As an ISP owner, this is incredibly frustrating, but those are the facts. Believe me, if there was even an inclination that wireless was legal, all the ISPs would put up their own infrastructures, ourselves included.