Storm brewing over Knysna WiFi

[matt156]

This whole Knysna story just shows how ridiculous our regulations are. Even the GOVERNMENT wants to save money by bypassing their own pathetic monopoly. It's actually a joke.

But if they can, and UniNet is allowed to do it, why can't the rest of us? Our clients would LOVE to drop their lines and utilise wireless with zero Telkom fees. And we would love to provide our own broadband, and not just resell the ridiculous offerings currently provided by Telkom, Sentech, iBurst.

 

[MaD]

Uninet have been running in CT for years now.. I myself am a user and no one has come knocking on my door asking for my wireless modem. Good for them.

It's a pretty grey area which the legal people have endless debates about.. it depends on which side of the fence one is (i.e. Telkom or someone who actually is supportive of wireless) as to what the result will be.

Hopefully the convergence bill will sort all this out.. many lawyers may lose out on a lot of money tho

 

[G2V]

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.

Cannot agree with you on this one matt156.

I am sure that others in the industry have taken legal council, including the big players, but were too afraid to take on Telkom and their legal force. Change does not happen by sticking to the perceived rules and especially here in South Africa the perceived rules are heavily advertised by Telkom.

Living in Germany in the early 1990's I saw what happened when the small callback operators took on the mighty and all dominant Deutsche Telekom. Deutsche Telekom took them to court and lost and now Germany and a few years later the UK have some of the most deregulated and competive telecom markets in the world.

By the way. In the mid 1990's we had a huge outcry from Telkom against the callback operators in this country and most people, even today, think this is illegal. Fact is that no callback operator was ever taken to court and some of the companies from 1996 are still in operation today.

I do not stop wondering what would the South African telecommunications industry look like today if that court battle had gone ahead in parallel with the court cases in Europe.

Instead Telkom was given protection by our government and have enjoyed their monopoly ever since.

The legal situation here in South Africa is fairly black and white. It is Telkom's opinion against the rest of South Africa.

 

[antowan]

merged threads...

 

[matt156]

Living in Germany in the early 1990's I saw what happened when the small callback operators took on the mighty and all dominant Deutsche Telekom. Deutsche Telekom took them to court and lost and now Germany and a few years later the UK have some of the most deregulated and competive telecom markets in the world.

Instead Telkom was given protection by our government and have enjoyed their monopoly ever since.

The legal situation here in South Africa is fairly black and white. It is Telkom's opinion against the rest of South Africa.

Yes, but I'm sure the callback operators in Germany took Deutsche Telekom to court to change or clarify the law, they didn't just start providing services illegally. And the large players here would do that too if they thought there was a chance they would win - the massive revenue to be gained from providing their own wireless would surely be an incentive. I'm sure IS, Mweb, etc, have a huge combined legal team. In fact, IS have taken Telkom on many times (most noticeably to provide their own ADSL service, which they won). I just think that they have examined and interpreted the law to mean that wireless provision is illegal. And I'm sure they have more legal resources than UniNet.

But if they thought they could provide wireless, they would. It's a no-brainer. In fact, DataPro already built a large wireless infrastructure following Ivy's announcement in October, but then shut it down following her "clarification" in February about self-provisioning.

Also be aware that there the argument as to what the law states, and the argument as to what the law SHOULD be, are two separate issues.

 

[pookfuzz]

While Uninet may be breaking the law as it currently stands, we really need to decide for ourselves if that law is just and should be followed. If we allow unjust laws to rule us we are not law abiding citizens, we are slaves to it.

I find it absurd that people here would criticized Uninet for breaking this law when the law is tyrannical, unjust and promotes unfair enrichment. If we honor such laws are we not accomplices in the injustice?

Uninet have chosen a route which is a sort of civil disobedience, at great risk to themselves, and while they may be profit motivated the end result is that it draws attention to the law and how ridiculous these laws really are. To suggest they should be shut down for this only gives power to the people who create and enforce these laws.

 

[MaD]

They're not breaking any laws.

 

[matt156]

While Uninet may be breaking the law as it currently stands, we really need to decide for ourselves if that law is just and should be followed. If we allow unjust laws to rule us we are not law abiding citizens, we are slaves to it.

I find it absurd that people here would criticized Uninet for breaking this law when the law is tyrannical, unjust and promotes unfair enrichment. If we honor such laws are we not accomplices in the injustice?

Uninet have chosen a route which is a sort of civil disobedience, at great risk to themselves, and while they may be profit motivated the end result is that it draws attention to the law and how ridiculous these laws really are. To suggest they should be shut down for this only gives power to the people who create and enforce these laws.

Again, we cannot "decide for ourselves if that law is just and should be followed." That is ridiculous, and invites all sorts of criminal justifications on other laws. We have to fight it in the courts, etc.

 

[matt156]

They're not breaking any laws.

Can you prove that? Not being controversial, just practical. Would really like to be able to back that up and start providing wireless!

 

[MaD]

Can you prove that? Not being controversial, just practical. Would really like to be able to back that up and start providing wireless!

If it were illegal, Uninet wouldn't exist surely.

Many WISP's have been taken down but they didn't have a VANS license. Uni does.

 

[matt156]

Unfortunately I don't think that the UniNet situation proves anything except for the fact that ICASA are useless in enforcing any regulatory laws. We have a two year case against another illegal wireless ISP, with documentation from ICASA stating that wireless internet provision was illegal and that they were going to shut down said ISP. To this day, they are still operating.

The indication seems to be that you can get away with it, but it's still officially illegal. Of course, the major ISPs are not prepared to risk criminal prosecution. It's like our drunk driving laws - the deterrant is meant to be large enough to prevent law-breaking, not the enforcement.

Of course, the ISP we went after did not bump heads with Telkom, who do have the resources to force ICASA to enforce their laws. So UniNet may have crossed the line with this one.

 

[G2V]

Yes, but I'm sure the callback operators in Germany took Deutsche Telekom to court to change or clarify the law, they didn't just start providing services illegally. And the large players here would do that too if they thought there was a chance they would win - the massive revenue to be gained from providing their own wireless would surely be an incentive. I'm sure IS, Mweb, etc, have a huge combined legal team. In fact, IS have taken Telkom on many times (most noticeably to provide their own ADSL service, which they won). I just think that they have examined and interpreted the law to mean that wireless provision is illegal. And I'm sure they have more legal resources than UniNet.

But if they thought they could provide wireless, they would. It's a no-brainer. In fact, DataPro already built a large wireless infrastructure following Ivy's announcement in October, but then shut it down following her "clarification" in February about self-provisioning.

Also be aware that there the argument as to what the law states, and the argument as to what the law SHOULD be, are two separate issues.

Just to clarify:

The small callback operators were providing services in Germany for a few years as you would say "illegaly". At first these operators were not taken seriously by Deutsche Telekom - only when Deutsche Telkom's revenue stream on international calls started drying up - did they start the legal proceedings and lost. The procedure in all other European countries was very similar. It was the smaller companies operating in a perceived "grey" area challenging the authorities and the established monopolies that got Europe to where they are now. The larger international players (mainly US) sat on the fence and watched.

This was the start of the telecom deregulation process in Europe and surprisingly similar to what is happening 10 years too late in South Africa.

Regulations are always open for interpretation and technology advances take place. It is Telkoms opinion that what UniNet are providing is illegal and it is UniNet's right to challenge them.

There is no doubt in my mind that UniNet will win this case (if it ever goes to court). No judge in his right mind would allow Telkom to carry on against the trend of the rest of the world.

 

[MaD]

Unfortunately I don't think that the UniNet situation proves anything except for the fact that ICASA are useless in enforcing any regulatory laws. We have a two year case against another illegal wireless ISP, with documentation from ICASA stating that wireless internet provision was illegal and that they were going to shut down said ISP. To this day, they are still operating.

The indication seems to be that you can get away with it, but it's still officially illegal. Of course, the major ISPs are not prepared to risk criminal prosecution. It's like our drunk driving laws - the deterrant is meant to be large enough to prevent law-breaking, not the enforcement.

Of course, the ISP we went after did not bump heads with Telkom, who do have the resources to force ICASA to enforce their laws. So UniNet may have crossed the line with this one.

Well at the end of the day, illegal or not (I believe not), the law has to be tested. Telkom's monopoly is supposedly over so they are just acting like children trying to stick a spoke into Uninet's wheels. As said before, its a grey area - Uni has a VANS license and they have been operating for a long time. If it was as illegal as Telkom said it is then they would have dragged them to court a long time ago. Not that its their place to.

 

[matt156]

Well at the end of the day, illegal or not (I believe not), the law has to be tested. Telkom's monopoly is supposedly over so they are just acting like children trying to stick a spoke into Uninet's wheels. As said before, its a grey area - Uni has a VANS license and they have been operating for a long time. If it was as illegal as Telkom said it is then they would have dragged them to court a long time ago. Not that its their place to.

Is Telkom's monopoly over? I wouldn't say so

 

[MaD]

Well this debate can rage on forever. Going to play sum CS now and leave this thread alone rather.

 

[mbs]

This debate has become increasingly pointless, given the fact that there is a process underway and the merits/demerits will be decided by the Regulator and/or a court of law, as the case may be. My personal opinion is that developmental issues and service delivery must take precedence over anything else, and that any mechanisms designed to promote this over profit, must hold sway. The fact that it is a municipality merely trying to assure connectivity in its service area at the least possible cost, and not a commercial profit-making concern, should be the deciding factor...