headers
Rob Lith | 1 Feb 2005 01:41

RE: Bad news, folks...

In the mentioned policy announcement below under "CHOICE IN THE PROVISION OF
VALUE ADDED NETWORK SERVICES" this is the only section that _discusses_ what
VANS can provision and look very carefully at what a facilities supplier is
- "telecommunication facility supplier" - this is legislated and as far I as
know you'll find facilities provision inextricably linked to Telkom and the
SNO.. - read more into "Several regulations/amendments required, with the
exception of the interconnection and facilities leasing
guidelines/regulations, will be gazetted for public comment by 29 November
2004"

How much can I put on this being key to what can be self provisioned!?

Rob 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ioz@... 
> [mailto:owner-ioz@...] On Behalf Of Gregory Massel
> Sent: 01 February 2005 01:23
> To: smitty@...; Graham Leggett
> Cc: mcleodd@...; ioz@...
> Subject: Re: [IOZ] Bad news, folks...
> 
> > How ICASA will interpret this policy announcement is another matter 
> > completely. Seeing as the Minister has announced to the 
> world what she
> 
> ICASA has already interpreted the policy announcement as of 
> 22 Nov 2004:
> http://www.internet.org.za/icasa-media-22112004.html
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Gregory Massel | 1 Feb 2005 12:55
Picon

Re: Bad news, folks...

> In the mentioned policy announcement below under "CHOICE IN THE PROVISION 
> OF
> VALUE ADDED NETWORK SERVICES" this is the only section that _discusses_ 
> what
> VANS can provision and look very carefully at what a facilities supplier 
> is
> - "telecommunication facility supplier" - this is legislated and as far I 
> as
> know you'll find facilities provision inextricably linked to Telkom and 
> the
> SNO.. - read more into "Several regulations/amendments required, with the
> exception of the interconnection and facilities leasing
> guidelines/regulations, will be gazetted for public comment by 29 November
> 2004"

This is described in section 56 of the Act and I see no inextricable linkto 
Telkom or the SNO in this section.

Registration of suppliers of telecommunication facilities and equipment

56. (1) No person shall supply telecommunication facilities or equipment 
unless, subject to subsection (2), he or she has been registered by the 
Authority.
(2) The Authority may prescribe types or categories of telecommunication 
facilities or equipment for the supply of which registration in terms of 
this section shall not be required.
(3) The procedure for obtaining registration in terms of this section shall 
be as prescribed.

At the ICASA media release they described an example of such a supplier as
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Rob Lith | 1 Feb 2005 13:18

RE: Bad news, folks...

Focus on "types or categories" of telecommunication facilities where
registration is required, not what's excluded because that is the boring
stuff - equipment is a different story, any vendor can pitch to provide
that. Look at what "facilities" are referred to that Telkom will claim
(rightfully or wrongfully) to be only their right to provide. 

The "facilities", for example, what a mobile provider uses to connect their
base stations is what is wanted for self provision and the minister is now
obviously kowtowing to pressures to not open that up beyond the fixed line
and mobile operators :S

Rob

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gregory Massel [mailto:greg@...] 
> Sent: 01 February 2005 13:55
> To: Rob Lith; ioz@...
> Subject: Re: [IOZ] Bad news, folks...
> 
> > In the mentioned policy announcement below under "CHOICE IN THE 
> > PROVISION OF VALUE ADDED NETWORK SERVICES" this is the only section 
> > that _discusses_ what VANS can provision and look very carefully at 
> > what a facilities supplier is
> > - "telecommunication facility supplier" - this is legislated and as 
> > far I as know you'll find facilities provision inextricably 
> linked to 
> > Telkom and the SNO.. - read more into "Several 
> regulations/amendments 
> > required, with the exception of the interconnection and facilities 
> > leasing guidelines/regulations, will be gazetted for public
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Gregory Massel | 1 Feb 2005 13:57
Picon

Re: Bad news, folks...

The "types or categories" of telecommunications facilities refers to 
exclusions where registration is not required. For all other types 
registration is required and procedure "prescribed" by ICASA. There are 
sections that deal with ICASA's prescribtion, however, one that I find most 
interesting is

Objects of Act
2. The primary object of this Act is to provide for the regulation and 
control of telecommunication matters in the public interest, and for that 
purpose to-
[snip]
(j) ensure fair competition within the telecommunications industry;

I'm trying my best to play devil's advocate to understand how Telkom may 
challenge this, but I really think that ICASA have made the correct decision 
in their finding that VANS can self-provision and that there is ample 
evidence in the Act to support their decision.

--Greg
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rob Lith" <rob@...>
To: "'Gregory Massel'" <greg@...>; <ioz@...>
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 2:18 PM
Subject: RE: [IOZ] Bad news, folks...

> Focus on "types or categories" of telecommunication facilities where
> registration is required, not what's excluded because that is the boring
> stuff - equipment is a different story, any vendor can pitch to provide
> that. Look at what "facilities" are referred to that Telkom will claim
> (rightfully or wrongfully) to be only their right to provide.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Ant Brooks | 1 Feb 2005 14:22
Picon

Thoughts on the Minister's recent statements

Hi all,

Some thoughts (entirely in my personal capacity) on the Minister's
recent statements:

// 1. The meaning of "self-provision" //

The term "self-provision" does not appear in the Telecommunications
Act. The only place I can find a definition for "self-provision" is
in the draft VANS regulations published by ICASA in December:

   "Self-provision" means the procurement of any telecommunications
   facilities by Licensee from any supplier of telecommunications
   facilities and to use them under and in accordance with this
   licence to provide the telecommunications service.

So, anyone who (a) procures telecommunications facilities and
(b) uses those facilities in accordance with a VANS licence is,
in terms of this definition, undertaking "self-provision".

It follows that ISPs that are *currently* obtaining facilities
(from Telkom, or anyone else) and using them in accordance with
their licences are undertaking self-provision. Clearly then, it
cannot possibly be illegal for VANS to "self-provide" using this
definition.

Of course, the Minister may be using some other definition of
"self-provision" that I'm not familiar with. I'd be very
interested to hear that definition.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
smitty | 1 Feb 2005 20:36
Picon

Re: Bad news, folks...


Email typed this morning only sent now, sorry if I'm messing up anyones
thread.<g>

On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 01:23:14 +0200
"Gregory Massel" <greg@...> wrote:

> > How ICASA will interpret this policy announcement is another matter
> > completely. Seeing as the Minister has announced to the world what
> > she
> 
> ICASA has already interpreted the policy announcement as of 22 Nov
> 2004: http://www.internet.org.za/icasa-media-22112004.html
> 
> So it is not a case of 'will' but 'has'. And their interpretation was
> that VANS can self provision.

Well that simplifies matters then

Although after reading:

-=-=-=-

4. CHOICE IN THE PROVISION OF VALUE ADDED NETWORK SERVICES

1. VANS may self-provide facilities from 1 February 2005. Self-provision
contemplates the procurement of telecommunication facilities by a VANS
licensee from any telecommunication facility supplier and to use them
under and in accordance with its licence to provide telecommunication
services.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Graham Leggett | 2 Feb 2005 09:46

Re: Bad news, folks...

smitty@... said:

> 4. CHOICE IN THE PROVISION OF VALUE ADDED NETWORK SERVICES
>
> 1. VANS may self-provide facilities from 1 February 2005. Self-provision
> contemplates the procurement of telecommunication facilities by a VANS
> licensee from any telecommunication facility supplier and to use them
> under and in accordance with its licence to provide telecommunication
> services.
> 2. The Determinations do not in any way affect the current restrictions
> in relation to the ISM band.
> 3. The Authority will review licence terms and conditions for VANS.
>
> -=-=-=-
>
> The first sentence is pretty clear but the second sentence appears to
> qualify the first.

The second sentence refers to the ISM band, which I understand to be the
frequency range in which WiFi (etc) operate in (unless I am mixing up my
TLAs). What the second sentence says is "the lifting of restrictions on
self provision does not lift restrictions on WiFi (etc)".

Regards,
Graham
--

=====================< IOZ >======================
 To unsubscribe, mail <majordomo@...>
with "unsubscribe ioz" in the body of your message
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
smitty | 2 Feb 2005 19:24
Picon

Re: Bad news, folks...


> > 4. CHOICE IN THE PROVISION OF VALUE ADDED NETWORK SERVICES
> >
> > 1. VANS may self-provide facilities from 1 February 2005.
> > Self-provision contemplates the procurement of telecommunication
> > facilities by a VANS licensee from any telecommunication facility
> > supplier and to use them under and in accordance with its licence to
> > provide telecommunication services.
> > 2. The Determinations do not in any way affect the current
> > restrictions in relation to the ISM band.
> > 3. The Authority will review licence terms and conditions for VANS.
> >
> > -=-=-=-
> >
> > The first sentence is pretty clear but the second sentence appears
> > to qualify the first.
> 
> The second sentence refers to the ISM band, which I understand to be
> the frequency range in which WiFi (etc) operate in (unless I am mixing
> up my TLAs). What the second sentence says is "the lifting of
> restrictions on self provision does not lift restrictions on WiFi
> (etc)".

I was referring to the second sentence, not the second numbered point
which is the third sentence by my count. <g>

Liam

=====================< IOZ >======================
 To unsubscribe, mail <majordomo@...>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Graham Leggett | 2 Feb 2005 19:25

Re: Bad news, folks...

smitty@... wrote:

> I was referring to the second sentence, not the second numbered point
> which is the third sentence by my count. <g>

Oops, blush :)

Regards,
Graham
--
Attachment (smime.p7s): application/x-pkcs7-signature, 3220 bytes
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Duncan Forrest | 4 Feb 2005 08:57

za & co.za listed in whois.rfc-ignorant.org

I noticed the other day after doing a fresh installation of 
spamassassin that otherwise clean email from za sources was being 
tagged with higher spam scores than expected.  The test that triggers 
consistently is DNS_FROM_RFC_WHOIS, which means that the sender's 
domain is listed in whois.rfc-ignorant.org.  Checking an example 
domain...

http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/tools/lookup.php?domain=example.co.za

... reveals that it's not individual co.za domains, but the whole of 
co.za and, worse still, the whole of za that's listed.  The current 
listing of za stems from the unresponsiveness of whois.frd.ac.za at 
the time of their test, but I notice that the current whois info for 
za as listed by whois.iana.org doesn't even specify a whois server 
for za at all.

Is our ZA DNA really as RFC-ignorant as the whole country's listing 
implies, or is there a good reason that there's no whois server for 
za?

Admins in ZA using spamassassin may choose to reduce the weight 
(default: 0.5) that DNS_FROM_RFC_WHOIS contributes to a message's 
spam score, but obviously the absence of whois servers for za and 
co.za will continue to make the majority of mail originating in South 
Africa look spammier than necessary to spam-conscious admins in the 
rest of the world.

Regards
Duncan Forrest
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 16 comments |

Gmane