VANS regulations will kill the SMME sector

Licensing should only be required where we are talking about finite resources (no. assignment, domain names etc), to ensure effective practical utilisation that is in the public interest. To license VANS is tantamount to controlling the right to innovate. This serves only to hinder progress and to my mind is unconstitutional.
 
ha ha ha ha ha

the law makers in this country are as pathetic as our president and dare I say racist to a degree. Sad to see a great man like Nelson Madela stepping down to a horde of dogs with greed and power as their defining leadership qualities.

And this is what the struggle was all about aye? make the poor poorer and victimise the whites. All I can do these days is extend my hand to the goverment with a big fat up yours!
 
There is another way to stop all this cr@p, besides written submission to ICASA. Representations to specific powers-that-be about this, highlighting the negative impact on service delivery across the board, will apply pressure for this to be stopped forthwith, and cause ICASA to give pause to their idiocy. I'm talking here about any Government department or state agency that uses the Internet for its business, be it pension payouts, portals for the citizenry, track-and-trace, ID enquiries, on-line tax remittances, and so on - the draft regulations imply that all these entities will have to apply for a VANS license. So... if you know somebody in Government or a state agency, pick up the phone and let them know that there's trouble ahead, and that they must take immediate steps to make their displeasure known, both by way of a formal communication to ICASA and to their superiors. I certainly will be following this route...

VOWTHORN - stay on track and address the issue, don't let your colour-conscious petticoat show...
 
Last edited:
This huge increase is not justifiable on the basis of VOIP - why make the whole sector pay for VOIP?? If they really wanted to 'tax' VOIP providers they could simply charge the 'cost' of VOIP number provisioning - leaving everyone else alone. I think that this has more to do with the fact that ICASA now has to fund itself through license fees - I see another beaurocratic behemoth on the horizon - and one with an interest in more regulation - not less.
 
Hi ic - have a look here for nfo wrt ICASA funding:
'The intentions were good and far-reaching. Firstly, the regulator in the form of the Independent Communications Authority of SA would be given more muscle and become self-funding, then licences would be issued based on services rather than the technology used, and finally, the sector would be freed up to allow for increased competition in areas that were traditionally reserved.'

http://www.itweb.co.za/sections/columnists/sidebar/vecchiatto040206.asp?S=Convergence&A=CNV&O=FRGN
 
Who watches ICASA?

I have just had a look at the ICASA Act. ICASA is an independent body over which only the President has some say. I think our answer may lie in challenging the process. We have had no access to submissions made to date, no access to findings made to date, other than what a VPN is and ICASA has failed to identify and include all the role players. I think that ICASA do not realise how all encompassing the definition of VANS is and lacks the technical expertise to address the issues raised by ISPA and the likes. After speaking to ICASA and ISPA it has become apparent to me that there is no meaningful communication between them.

An ICASA employee for instance told me earlier this month that he has a document somewhere on his hard drive that he still wanted to send to ISPA to clarify what a VISP was. ISPA however made a submission in May 2004 to ICASA which already answered the question. There's a huge failure if ICASA after 7 years do not have a VISP defined yet.

Maybe we should petition the Presidents office to intervene?
 
Last edited:
We must still submit comments

ic said:
but we must still submit comments to both ICASA & Dr Ivy before 7th January 2005, so that we can show that we followed the process required by ICASA.
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree that we must submit comments but I also think that we need to ensure that our comments are heard.

I have also been looking at the new Convergence Bill. This is just as bad if not worse than the VANS issue.

See:
http://www.internet.org.za/convergence.html
http://www.mg.co.za/Content/l3.asp?cg=Insight-Converse&ao=29956
http://www.themedia.co.za/article.aspx?articleid=44839&area=/media_columnistsnet_savvy/
 
Please use the AWARE submission if you do not have one.

Please use the submission at www.aware.co.za if you do not have one of your own. The final one was posted on the site http://www.aware.co.za/Vans-Awareness-Submission-final.pdf a few minutes ago.

We have also sent a paper copy to Andries and Dr Ivy and will be making oral submissions if we are given the chance.

Some addresses:

Mr. Andries Matthysen
Senior Manager: Licensing Enforcement & Numbering & Administration
ICASA Private Bag X10002, Sandton, 2146,
Block C,
ICASA
Pin Mill Farm,
164 Katherine Street, Sandton;
Telephone (011) 321 8377 or 83 326 3543;
Facsimile (011) 321 8583,
E-mail: [email protected]

-----------------------------------------------------------

Dr Ivy Matsepe-Casaburri
Mail: Private Bag X860, PRETORIA, 0001
Street: Iparioli Office Park, 399 Duncan Street, Hatfield, PRETORIA
Tel: (012) 427 8000
Fax: (012) 427 8016

------------------------------------------------

The Secretary to the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Communications
P.O. Box 15
Cape Town
8000

------------------------------------------------

Ms Lyndall Shope-Mafole
Director-General
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS

Mail: Private Bag X860, PRETORIA, 0001
Street: Iparioli Office Park, 399 Duncan Street, Hatfield, PRETORIA
Tel: (012) 427 8000
Fax: (012) 427 8016
E-mail: [email protected]

------------------------------------------------

Mr Jerry Majatladi
General Manager: Media and Communication
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS
Mail: Private Bag X860, PRETORIA, 0001

Street: Iparioli Office Park, 399 Duncan Street, Hatfield, PRETORIA

Tel: (012) 427 8017
Fax: (012) 427 8291
Cell: 082 889 3381

E-mail: [email protected]





----------------------------------------------
DA - Communications Portfolio
Mrs. Dene Smuts
The DA Parliamentary Offices

Postal Address: The Democratic Alliance
P.O. Box 15
Cape Town
8000
Physical Address: Marks Building (2nd and 3rd Floor)
Parliament
Plein Street
Cape Town

Cell: 083 293 1209
[email protected]

The DA Parliamentary Offices:
Tel: +27 (0) 21 403 2910
Fax: +27 (0) 21 461 0092

Ms Dene Smuts
DA - Communications Portfolio
The DA Parliamentary Offices
Marks Building (2nd and 3rd Floor)
Parliament
Plein Street
Cape Town

-----------------------------------------

Regards,

Ron Holloway
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the address list of those incompetent idiots. I think everyone needs to make a contribution.
 
Dear Sir / Madam,

I have been heavily involved in a new development (Residential and Commercial, single structure complex) by wiring each unit with network points and seating up a server, with the intention of supplying an Internet service to each unit, with the hub of the network being an Internet Café on the same premises.

In terms of the Telecommunications Act, I was under the impression that as long as Telkom provided the Land Lines, and my cables did not cross any boundaries, this was legal.

If the new definitions are accepted, does that mean that I will have to pay a R30,000.00 Application fee, and find a BEE partner, before I can connect the first user?

If so I am in a "No Win" situation, having sunk my capital into infrastructure, I can't afford to apply for and comply with the new VANS licensing requirements, as the balance of the available capital was earmarked for setting up the Café portion of the business.

I don't want to brake the law, but I also don't want to go bankrupt before I even get the project off the ground. Not to mention the previously disadvantage staff, who will not be getting the jobs, or in-house training, that I had intended for them.

I was under the impression that the role of ICASA was to protect the consumer and not, as it appears in this case, to destroy a sound business plan with only a two week warning over Christmas.

If this goes through, then I will need to revaluate my situation in South Africa, but at this stage, my only choice is to sell off my remaining assets and emigrate whilst I can.

Regards,
Chris Roper
C.A.Roper and Associates
Computer and Networking Consultants
 
Last edited:
caroper said:
In terms of the Telecommunications Act, I was under the impression that as long as Telkom provided the Land Lines, and my cables did not cross any boundaries, this was legal.
Click to expand...
As long as the whole property was under one owner and it does not cross any public area's it is ok.
i.e. in a townhouse complex, where each townhouse is individually owned you would not be able to do it (vans licence or not).
Another example: in an office building that everyone rents from the same single owner, then you could do this legally.

caroper said:
If the new definitions are accepted, does that mean that I will have to pay a R30,000.00 Application fee, and find a BEE partner, before I can connect the first user?
Click to expand...
in a word, yes.

caroper said:
If this goes through, then I will need to reevaluate my situation in South Africa, but at this stage, my only choice is to sell of my remaining assets and emigrate whilst I can.
Click to expand...
There is other choices available. Sell the assets and start something else. Sell 30% of your company to a BEE company for x millions and use that to get your VANS licence.
 
DFantom said:
i.e. in a townhouse complex, where each townhouse is individually owned you would not be able to do it (vans licence or not).
Click to expand...

Interesting observation, I was planning on charging for the service as part of the levies, in terms of the Body Corporate rules, with the cables being part of the Common Property of the complex. I guess that when it comes to Telecoms in this country you are stuck between a Rock and a Hard Place.
Perhaps my idea is illegal anyway, time to shoot the lawyer again. :o

DFantom said:
Sell 30% of your company to a BEE company for x millions and use that to get your VANS licence.
Click to expand...

If I could do that I would retire, forget the VANS license. :)
 
Thanks for a well written document Aware Guys!

I don't agree with everything, but where I differ it won't make a difference to ICASA.

If the proposed regulations go through, I'm out of business.

My niche: A total IT support service to SMME's in the office parks around me. This includes the normal "My PC won't boot" service, keeping stock of printer cartridges, virus control and website hosting and e-mail facilities. All at a retainer + fee structure.

How I'm going to separate VANS income from the non-VANS income, I don't know.

Why are people using me for their website hosting and e-mails? Simply because I deliver a better service than what they used to have. WOM is wonderfull marketing free of charge.

Now I see that ICASA wants to regulate me so they can protect my clients agains me not delivering the service they are entitled to. Reality: I'm so small that if I don't deliver, I'm out of business!

I noticed there is quite a bit of new offices in Gabarone. I'll make some enquiries about the regulatory environment there.
 
kaspaas said:
My niche: A total IT support service to SMME's in the office parks around me. This includes the normal "My PC won't boot" service, keeping stock of printer cartridges, virus control and website hosting and e-mail facilities. All at a retainer + fee structure.
Click to expand...

Keep out of the Southern Suburbs of Cape Town, thats my Turf :D

Seriously though, send your post as a letter to ICASA, as I did, they need to know the impact at a grassroots level, not just the big picture.

Cheers
Chris
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X