Telkom says it is interconnecting with itself: ISPA

It will be interesting to see what details of how Telkom's divisions operate come out of this.
 
not entirely sure why ISPA is getting involved

this is a telecommunications interconnect issue rather than an internet services issue and it concerns one large operator fighting with another large operator. I can't see a precedent to the value of all VoIP providers being sought or accomplished. I think Telkom is being asswipes on this issue but for petes sake there is a technical service involved even if it is grossly overcharged
 
if you look at ISPA's history you will see that it has consistently been involved in telecommunications issues over the past decade. this issue was originally raised within ISPA as set out in the release & there is an obvious precedent that (a) telkom should stop charging an additional charge which ISPA members do not see it being lawfully entitled to do & (b) ensuring that other operators do not adopt the same approach

so what if there is a technical service? interconnect is regulated
 
The issue at this stage is very much framed as an MWEB v Telkom issue.

ISPA pushing against a principle of internal interconnect charges of any sort is certainly a good idea. I doubt that this sort of precedent though can be set.
 
Paul Hjul said:
The issue at this stage is very much framed as an MWEB v Telkom issue.

ISPA pushing against a principle of internal interconnect charges of any sort is certainly a good idea. I doubt that this sort of precedent though can be set.
Click to expand...

well those are the two parties in court but the issue has its genesis in correspondence sent by ISPA to ICASA in July 2012 and it affects many more ISPA members than just MWEB.

why not a precedent? MWEB is asking for the application of the Interconnection Regulations+ Call Termination Regulations 2010 in the absence of ICASA coming up with any definite statements and if a court agrees then that will clearly be the correct application which will apply across interconnection arrangements
 
I can't imagine Telkom depending on the OLO argument in court and I hope not successfully. I imagine they will fall back to the connection seeker being obliged to meet the technical standards of the interconnect provider and seeing that MWEB are not seeking to interconnect on the mobile network portions technical standards move to a claim that MWEB wants a free ride. They can fall back on the overall framework and matrix of the ECA to advance the proposition that access to the mobile telecommunications subsystem reasonably has different technical requirements and that the effect of regs 5 and 6 of GG 33101 is that two different interconnects are required and when the provisions of reg 11 are included it would be deleterious for the interconnect arrangements to subsidize what are different technical specifications.
Of course if the interconnect agreement between MWEB and Telkom is for all voice then the situation is different - but if the agreement between Telkom and MWEB is by virtue of scope an all voice situation then no precedent is acquired. But assuming that this agreement precedes the TM launch I very much doubt that the scope and technical feasibility was done in a manner to advance the argument.
Because operators can have multiple interconnect agreements I can't see why an interconnect request for TM network interconnect can't be made to Telkom and to on meeting the technical feasibility and what not push an interconnect at the 44c

This is why I've said I am really not sure why ISPA has taken the position it has. The idea of supporting the pursuit of a declaratory order on certain things would be beneficial but honestly the fact that Telkom is spouting legal hokum on one issue doesn't require that a court point out as much - the English courts have held that to interdict already illegal conduct where no gain on enforcement or sanction is accomplished could "make an ass of the law", and declaratory relief - whether interlocutory or in the main - is discretionary. I'd put it down to the fact that the courts do not unnecessarily make an ass of the lawyers. Telkom's lawyers don't exactly have a track record of using sound legal devices but they do have a history of conflating issues, muddying the waters and crying blue murder on technical issues.

I'd be far more interested in pushing for Telkom to demonstrate non-discrimination
 
Last edited:
Paul you, imo, have some things right and some things not so right but on a balance TSA should consider hiring you

i will provide a more detailed response but for now let us just say that english law principles like the one you have espoused would struggle to find application in the quagmire of uncertainty that is telecoms law and regulation in SA where things are routinely ignored and then delayed...
 
they have my email address but I am quite sure that with staff reductions on the agenda and AA with EE will make it impossible for them to even consider offering me any sort of job. More importantly I don't think they'd agree with applying the logic I am advocating because of its application to LLU.

I certainly would favour a court adopting an approach that the matter is not academic but it is a fear I would have in approaching the court for discretionary relief unless clearly set out that the quagmire is well a quagmire. My concern with this whole affair is not who is right but rather that Telkom has a prima facie "defence".

If MWEB were being refused an interconnection at 44c to TSA's mobile operations the situation would change. Of course something I have been ignoring is the fact that if this is commercially important to MWEB it is a fight that is going to be fought on their and Telkom's dime; unlike a fight between ISPA and ICASA - which could end up in a stall match.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X