VANS regulations will kill the SMME sector

V

vansaware

Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2004
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
Are you aware of VALUE ADDED NETWORK SERVICES, the proposed regulations and the impact thereof on small, medium and micro enterprises?

ICASA has given notice of its intention to make regulations with regards to the terms and conditions for issuing VANS licenses. Everyone providing a service, even if you get your Internet connection from a licensed ISP, will require a license. We believe that no company will be able to provide an effective online presence without requiring a VANS license.

The issues are:

- An annual license fee based on your income.

- The definition of VANS is so broad that every company with a meaningful online presence is included.

- The application fee is R30 000.

- 30% of your company must be owned by historically disadvantaged individuals even if you are a one person company and its practically or financially impossible to do so.


This website, www.aware.co.za has been provided to help individuals and SMMEs understand the issues at hand and do something about them. Our intention is to urgently draw widespread public attention to the proposed regulations and the impact that these regulations will have on the SMME.


ICASA has given until 7 January 2005 to comment on the intended regulations. This will probably be the last time anyone can comment because the Minister of Communications has instructed ICASA to fast track the process and make it law by February 2005.

Ron Holloway
www.aware.co.za
tel. 028 313 2596
fax. 028 313 0495
cel. 082 564 5163
 
Once again the government does its level best to curtail unhindered competition.

- An annual license fee based on your income.
This is reasonable imho if it makes bigger players pay more but does not burden small players will unrealistic fees.

- The application fee is R30 000.
This should be on a sliding scale. The bigger your projected turnover/investment/some other effective measure ... the more you should pay. R30k for one man bands is obscene.

- 30% of your company must be owned by historically disadvantaged individuals even if you are a one person company and its practically or financially impossible to do so.
More racist legislation. Shouldn't apply to companies with a turnover of less than R500k per year.
 
Last edited:
Lets put 2 arguments forward

The Internet industry is mostly built after 1994 ,so how does "historically disadvantaged " apply in this case? Everyone is democratically equal after 1994 ! (unless one is implying that our 10 years democarcy is a failure).

Vans should be viewed as a golden opportunity to create jobs(this is the top priority in SA),R30,000 application fee is a hurdel simply too high for SMME start-ups .it will prevent job creation in this industry.This will be a big mistake if it is enforced.
 
IC,

Can you please mail me your contact details. I have a spreadsheet of VANS licensees and I would like to discuss strategies with you. We have sent info to SACOB, ISPA, ISOC and some newspapers.

I also will be contacting Mark Shuttleworth as this affects his plans to get the SMME market involved in open source systems.

My details are:

Ron Holloway
email: [email protected]
cel: 082 564 5163
fax: 028 313 0495
 
It's also a well established fact that SMME's create far more employment oppertunities per R invested that large corps. Given our high unemployment rate this sort of anti-SMME legislation again illustrates how inept the gov really are.
 
Hi

After having read the proposed legislation, it seems like the 30% affirmative action requirement is not applicable to the natural person but the R30 000 application fee is still bothering me...

Cheers
Ant
 
Last edited:
A new submission angle

We have been throwing some ideas around. One of the big issues is how broad the definition of VANS is and how many people are unknowingly affected. The Minster of Communication announced on 2 September that VOIP will be legal from 1 February 2005. If a VANS licensee wants to do VOIP they will need to be allocated numbers by ICASA. I believe the whole issue of VANS can be resolved by saying that you only need a VANS if you want to go the VOIP route. i.e No VANS no numbers. This affectively means that only the big players who want to go VOIP will need a VANS. VOIP clearly defines boundaries. This would be as liberating as the September 2 policy
announcements and would show that the regulator is moving with technology not against it.

This is one of the angles (I think the main one) that we will be pushing for in our submission. The other angles have been mentioned on the aware website.


Ron
 
The 30% issue is not the end of the world. See a consultant he will explain to you how you issue N-shares or Non voting shares. You then have a seperate contract that Icasa does not know about with your BEE partner. The scrapyard in Nelspruit is being threatened by the mines that use it that the
owner must 'empower' a BEE partner. As far as I know single owners don't
have to 'empower' anybody? www.wavestream.co.za is an example
of a company to whom somehow the present VANS regulations simply
don't apply. So if push comes to shove will Icasa have the powers
to cut the lines of Hazynet internet cafe or will they simply order Telkom
to suspend their service? Will they instigate
civil suites? What teeth does Icasa have ? The Airosat issue is before
the High Court. They are taking a very long time to make a ruling. The
eventual ruling by the court will have a direct bearing on this latest VANS
issue.
 
Last edited:
Vansaware - you said that we have till 7 Jan 2005 but in the Gazette it is 14 days from publication which was 2 December 2004. Making the cut off date 16 December

where does the 7th come from?
 
7 January deadline

The ICASA website is/was outdated. A week after notice 27057 was published it was withdrawn and replaced by notice 27072 giving us a new deadline of 7 January 2005.

We contacted ICASA and the Minister on 21 Dec requesting an extention because most of the small role players who are un-aware of the legislation are closed for xmas. ICASA said it was impossible because the regulations must be made law by 1 Feb 2005. There was a slight possibility of public hearings after 7 Jan.

Please see the following URL Notice 27072

We also may have two new angles that we can persue. See Press release for one angle. The second would be to try and attack the process. I think we have enough evidence to show that the process has been wrong. The role players were not properly identified and we have not been given proper access to the submissions made in the last 7 years nor have we been given access to the findings.

Ron
 
Can they close your business?


So if push comes to shove will Icasa have the powers to cut the lines of Hazynet internet cafe or will they simply order Telkom to suspend their service?
​

We have a diginet connection to SAIX. In 1999 we got a phone call from Telkom to say we needed to get licensed if we wanted to continue with the service. Its that easy to enforce. See 2.3 (f) of notice 27072. I know of software developers who have the exact same service as us who have not been contacted with regards to licensing, probably because they are not visible enough or because the regulations are so broad that Telkom has not yet clicked that they too need a VANS license. If you're serious about your business and care about your clients you will need a license.

These regulations will be difficult to change once its been made law. ICASA do not want to go back to the drawing board after 7 years. This is why it is so important to get involved now. You have everything to loose and everything to gain. Scrap the "everything to gain part" if you do not make a submission.

I will be away until Tuesday. Happy christmas everyone.

Ron
 
Goog day

This response comes after reading ADLO's response to this topic. I actually wrote the below a day or so ago, but did not want to place it because I felt it said too much about politics and too little about the topic. The more I read though, the more it is obvious to me that this legislation and most of the legislation after '94 has a very serious political slant and I personally feel that some exclusions are needed in some of those laws. Why do I feel this way? I feel this way because some of the laws discriminate all over again and is going against the grain of what I believe the freedom movement in South Africa was about. This is what I wrote a couple of days ago, and did not post. Note that this is not necessarily the official opinion of MyADSL's admin or its mods. This is my own opinion.

- - - -

If this legislation is too restrictive, the economy will show it as thus. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to see that South Africa has an over legislated and under enforced judicial system. Thus the laws are too many and those enforcing the laws are too few. One has to assume that those creating the law have the best interests of the citizens of this country at heart, but most bad ideas are born from good intentions. We are in the unfortunate position of coming from a history where some are viewed as privileged and others as disadvantaged. Knowing what we know today about those making millions from the new dispensation, it is clear that some people believe they are just more equal than others if you can excuse the Orwellian pun.

We live in a system with unnatural segmentation and restrictive laws in the free market. People are told who they should and should not do business with. Perhaps not in a direct manner, but the effect is the same when the laws of the land are adhered to. I call it a piggy back system where some people are forced to take on “previously disadvantaged” people. This is a loaded term in my opinion and one which is dangerous for a country like ours because it doesn’t have a contectual time stamp in its meaning. When did the disadvantaged become disadvantaged and when will they not be disdavantaged anymore? Who are the previously disadvantaged and how old is the youngest of the previously disadvantaged? Are their children after 1994 also disadvantaged? What about the “previously advantaged” people’s children that were born after 1994? Are they also advantaged? Can they be concidered advantaged purely by the luck of birth? Should the children of different races born after 1994 not share the advantage of being born equals? Equals with equal opportunities?

Who decides what the extent of the injustices of the past were and what the reperations and redistribution of wealth should be? If we compare the quality of life of non-white people in South Africa to that of their neighbours in Africa (where there wasn’t Apartheid) they are already better off. They have more houses, more schools, higher income and better opportunities. It was like that before Apartheid ended.

If Apartheid is not the only sin, then what is? Colonialism? If colonialism is the big sin, why are whites in South Africa expected to be the only paying customer? Why are Europe exempt? Whites in South Africa at least made the commitment to live in Africa and not take its wealth elsewhere. Thus there is some discrepency in the allocation of guilt and required repentence.

Note that I am fully aware that Apartheid had a negative impact on the natural development of South Africa. I do however believe that cultural differences from group to group in any country lead to different developmental outcomes. This is a fact and can be researched by anybody in good books at your local library and even on the Internet. What this means, is that even if we did not have Apartheid in South Africa, an unequal developmental outcome would still have occurred, be it perhaps not as severe. Certain groups of people would have become more well off and developed and others not so well off. That is why I say that the allocation of guilt and the required repentance is a very subjective thing and something that no government or person on earth can justly determine nor execute. It is my opinion that in cases like this there should at the very least be a sunset clause in the legislation aiming to correct the perceived imbalances of the past. Keep in mind that I admit that there are imbalances! I however firmly believe that the children of the New South Africa should be regarded as peers and equals. Equal in the sense that they have equal opportunity to try to reach the highest goals that they can achieve through their own abilities! Young people who did not have the vote before 1994 and those born after 1994 should be exempt from affirmative action practices and any related discriminatory laws. Anything less amounts to discrimination against the innocent!

Regards
Ant
 
Last edited:
I believe I may have previously commented on the role of the established players and their efforts to influence the law making process.

<my_opinion>
It is not only the government, previous government institutions etc that have an interest in seeing this type of legislation come into force. Those established private players (the mtn's, vodacoms, cellc's etc) who are operating in this arena have a massive interest in seeing this type of legislation in place. These players already have all the necessary affirmative action requirements in place and further restrictive legislation that raises barriers to entry only furthers their aim of eliminating as much of the competition as possible.
I am completely convinced that many of the incumbents had a hand in the drafting of this legislation. They have the resources to employ the necessary legal resources to keep tabs on future changes and provide submissions to the process. They also employ
huge resources in lobbying the law makers throughout the process. Note I am not suggesting that anything illegal was done in the process although others may consider this highly debatable.
I just feel that through their access to such massive resources the established players have an unfair advantage in influencing the law making process thereby further entrenching their position going forward.
What we need is a means of leveling the playing fields that are so tilted in the favour of large players to the detriment of the public on the whole. If the government would just come to it's senses and realise that this type of legislation only helps to perpetuate the past we may begin to see a more level playing field.
I view the efforts of rpm and others of this group as a sound effort in influencing the process to the benefit of a larger audience. However these efforts are in the end dwarfed by the massive resources available to the incumbents. This does not mean that I am for a moment suggesting that we are wasting our time. I would just like to find a way that in the absence of the necessary resources (lawyers, capital, time etc) that we could have an equal input into the process.
</my_opinionn>

Keep up the great work - rpm and others
 
Good day friends.

Thanks IC for the supporting comments and to KB, I would like to say that I agree with your views. I think you need to understand that MyADSL is part of a massive movement in this country moving towards a better future. We, together with other organizations are striving for better service, more competition and healthier access for the poor to said services. Those of us here on this forum are the lucky few who can afford the unnecessarily high prices of communication tech in South Africa. We are privileged enough to know the truth that the old excuse of "we are a 3rd world country" does not count anymore! We know we are being ripped off and we are doing something about that. I whish you could see the reaction of Telkom every time RPM sends out a press release! It is fantastic to see a big company like that whimper like a baby! :)

We are having an effect here my friend! We are having a huge effect on the industry and we could not do it without each and every member of MyADSL. We are a band of brothers and sisters without compare! Thank you to all of you! I hope you have a Merry Xmas and a wonderful New Year!

Thank you!
Ant
 
Last edited:
I've just scanned through this lot for the first time, and, ignoring all the emotive postings about empowerment and the like, I remain extremely perturbed about the potential implications of the intended regulations. In a nutshell, they are not designed to do anything else except reinforce/retain the preferential position of the existing telecomms players in the ZA space, whilst at the same time justifying Andries Matthysen's job. What a load of shyzen! (I wouldn't be one bit surprised if he was responsible for drafting the regulations in the first place!)

The other extremely worrying thing is that the regulations are so broad that every commercial entity involved in the provision of services to its customers over the Internet, is now effectively a VANS provider, and will have to have a license. Ridiculous! This means that the banks, insurance companies, retailers, wholesalers, distribution agents, airlines, etc. - in fact, any kind of organisation you can possibly think of - must, for example, now have a VANS license if they publish a web page that provides interactive enquiry! What moron was responsible for these draft regulations?! If they are indeed endorsed and published by Dr Ivy/DoC, I'd be very surprised, quite frankly. The supposed intent of the regulations are to regulate the telecomms scenario come Feb next year, but the evidence belies the fact - they are clearly anti-liberalisation, due to the punitive licensing and onerous protocol requirement, and destined to cause an outcry the likes of which we've not ever seen before...
 
IC, RPM, Ron or one of you informed guys, why not send out a petition. Get everyone in MyADSL to sign it. For one, I would think most people on this forum, are too lazy, or uninformed to make a decision about all that we read in the VANS License Document. I would love to support the cause but I think if I had to write a letter to ICASA they would throw it away as a joke. Why not draft a repeal and have 1000-2000 Myadsl Users sign it? I am sure that will have a lot more weight than having 10 good letters and 200 n00b letters which will not hold much weight at all?

This is just my Thought, use it or not.
But I would like to help in getting this country sorted with regard to Telecommunications. Things can't go on the way they are. Sick and tired of being Shafted by the Corporates because of lack of Choice.
Antowan, Beautifully said about social situation we find ourselves in now.

Regards
 
Ok , so www.gin.co.za and www.uninetwork.co.za are now not the only people stretching the regulatory envelope. Welcome to the club all software developers ! As Ic told me over the phone developers should fund a legal trust fund to take Icasa on in court and not allow Icasa to have a divide and conquer strategy like they are doing with the WISP's.
 
Last edited:
Staying focused

ic said:
Please help to refine ICASA's VANS definition
Click to expand...
It does not matter how you define VANS, just having the definition is the problem. Everything is going IP and that implies that everything is VANS.

The license requirements need to be dropped completely or...

...make licensing a requirement for VOIP only. Think about it:

  • ICASA needs to allocated numbers for VOIP. No VANS license no numbers.
  • Nobody gets hurt because nobody is doing VOIP yet.
  • The services and boundaries are well defined as required by the telecommunications white paper.
  • It's the only VANS license that will be enforceable.
  • It's the only solution that is in line with the Sept 2 provisions.

Priority number one is to make a written submission. This is the only form of communication ICASA will accept. Our written submissions must have the same message/theme to be effective. We cannot have a hundred submissions saying a hundred different things. We need to get these submissions in from as many different ICT sectors as possible. You do not need to be a VANS to make a submission. If you think these regulations may affect your business or may apply to you in the future you must make a submission.

These are points that I feel we should be consistent about:
  • Acknowledge positive announcements made on 2 September 2004.
  • VANS definition too broad
  • License fee to high for SMME sector
  • Empowerment inconsistent with BEE charter
  • Contribute by making constructive suggestions like VANS license for VOIP only

I think the above points are a must for every submission or we will fail. There are many other valid points and we should add these to the list above. I also think that we should litigate if sensible progressive changes are not made to the current regulations. If 1000 ICT sector businesses give R500 we will have R500 000 for litigation. You save R29 500.

Ron
 
Last edited:
Reason for R30 000 fee

I saw the ITWeb story too. Andries Matthysen told me that the increase to R30 000 was because VANS could now do VOIP. In reality only a few VANS providers are going to go the VOIP route. The numbering, interconnection and billing systems are too expensive and complex for the SMME. So the R30 000 argument does not apply to most VANS.

Who knows what they are thinking on empowerment when the long awaited BEE charter addresses the complex issues and should be adopted. We need consistency so that we can get on with our business. I would much rather be sitting here programming than trying to figure out what these people are thinking.

As for consumer protection, I agree with you. Look at what Telkom gets away with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X