Telkom judgement is groundbreaking – Vodacom

Bernie

Expert Member
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
1,966
#2
This just opens the door up for "ping pong" blame. When ADSL is not working, Telkom will say Vodacom damaged the cables speak to them etc. etc. In general, to be honest, I would not be too keen on having a competitor use infrastructure that I set up, but i guess it all depends on the merits of the case, of which I admit I don't quite know, so there may be very valid reason. Does vodacom need to pay Telkom for the use?
 

Johnatan56

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 23, 2013
Messages
23,902
#5
Does this mean that Vodacom's infrastructure is also fair game?
Think any ducting that in installed on estates that is paid for by the owner.

My frogfoot line uses the same ducting as OpenServe from the manhole outside to my router, probably before this it might have been "illegal".
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
19,216
#6
Does this mean that Vodacom's infrastructure is also fair game?
Only if the infrastructure is on private property and the owners of the private property want it.
After assessing the matter, the Supreme Court stated that Telkom “did not enjoy possession of the infrastructure or cables which formed part of Dennegeur and was owned, occupied, and controlled by the Home Owners Association”.
 

The_MAC

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2012
Messages
4,672
#7
Think any ducting that in installed on estates that is paid for by the owner.

My frogfoot line uses the same ducting as OpenServe from the manhole outside to my router, probably before this it might have been "illegal".
But in this case Telkom paid for it?
 

Thor

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 5, 2014
Messages
35,831
#8
Vodacom reportedly asked Telkom for permission to install fibre in its ducts in the estate, but Telkom said it was not obligated to share its infrastructure.

Despite this, Vodacom installed its fibre network using the ducts and sleeves Telkom had built in the estate – and which contained Telkom’s copper cables.

This led to a Western Cape High Court battle over the right to use the ducts and sleeves, which Telkom won.
 

skimread

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2010
Messages
8,167
#12
How can the judgement be groundbreaking? The judgement basically says fiber providers in private estates don't have to break ground, they can use existing Telkom conduit.
 

Daruk

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 18, 2008
Messages
36,463
#13
How can the judgement be groundbreaking? The judgement basically says fiber providers in private estates don't have to break ground, they can use existing Telkom conduit.
Why is it being labelled Telkom conduit when it was paid for by the private estate?
 

Fulcrum29

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
27,935
#15
How can the judgement be groundbreaking? The judgement basically says fiber providers in private estates don't have to break ground, they can use existing Telkom conduit.
No, as per the other thread,

The SCA upheld the appeal by Vodacom and the HOA. It found that although Telkom may have accessed the duct infrastructure and manholes for its own benefit, the indisputable facts established that the infrastructure formed an integral part of the immovable property which was owned, occupied and controlled by the HOA. Telkom was not in physical possession of the infrastructure of its cables.

...

The SCA concluded that Telkom did not possess the vacant space in the ducts and sleeves which was subsequently occupied by Vodacom and that Vodacom’s optic fibre network did not disturb Telkom’s use of the ducts and did not prevent Telkom’s operation of its network. Accordingly, Vodacom’s conduct was not an act of spoliation.
 

Fulcrum29

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
27,935
#16
This is important,

Telkom was not in physical possession of the infrastructure of its cables.
and as per the article,

“The SCA’s Dennegeur judgment is a groundbreaking and precedent-setting ruling,” Vodacom told MyBroadband.

“In future, no operator in South Africa will be restricted from deploying network equipment on infrastructure owned by a Home Owners’ Association, as was the case in Dennegeur.”
 

Daruk

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 18, 2008
Messages
36,463
#17
This is important,



and as per the article,
Yeah, the fact that Telkom claimed it as their own is laughable. They're quick to disown that piece of copper the minute it hits your premises in any private dwelling.
 

Napalm2880

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2007
Messages
1,786
#18
This just opens the door up for "ping pong" blame. When ADSL is not working, Telkom will say Vodacom damaged the cables speak to them etc. etc. In general, to be honest, I would not be too keen on having a competitor use infrastructure that I set up, but i guess it all depends on the merits of the case, of which I admit I don't quite know, so there may be very valid reason. Does vodacom need to pay Telkom for the use?
This is exactly what has happened in my HOA. MFN installed in Telkom ducting and the Telkom guys trashed the fibre while they 'fixed' someones landline. Thankfully this has only happened on one occasion. We now get security to take before and after pics whenever any party opens up the conduits.
 

SilverCode

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2004
Messages
470
#19
But in this case Telkom paid for it?
In this particular case, Telkom - the private company - *may* have paid for it. But in many other places where Telkom claims ownership of conduit in buildings built before 1997 (like mine), Telkom - the state owned company - paid for it with tax payers money. Telkom should have absolutely no exclusive use claim on any conduits installed before they privatized.

Heck, I think it is even unfair for Telkom to lay claim to conduits in private estates prior to 2010 (?), since up until then no one else was even allowed to operate a network and they were the only option when it came to installing a phone line.

I wonder this this ruling has anything to do with Frogfoot telling us today they are happy to do fibre installation for the whole complex free of charge if we all agree.
 

Johand

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
1,322
#20
But in many other places where Telkom claims ownership of conduit in buildings built before 1997 (like mine), Telkom - the state owned company - paid for it with tax payers money.
I am not a Telkom fan... But the argument that Telkom infrastructure was paid for using tax payer money does not hold water. Government sold Telkom during privatization for real money i.e. the tax players was compensated.

It is only relevant because if the government privatize some Eskom assets now then those assets are free and clear privately owned and can't be considered to be tax players assets anymore.

Telkom was privatized to pay back government debt and people tend to forget that...
 
Top