A Cape-based wireless ISP (WISP), Uninet, which has a criminal case against it after having its equipment confiscated, has lobbied support for SA deregulation at a United Nations conference in New York. The Independent Communications Authority of SA (ICASA) confiscated Uninet`s equipment late last month.
The company has lobbied widely for support, and presented its case to a UN wireless conference, where it was invited to present a case study on wireless in southern Africa last week.
Uninet project manager David Jarvis broke news of the confiscation on the IOZ.wifi discussion group recently. Jarvis lobbied the list`s support for return of the equipment and deregulation, and said he intended to do the same in New York. However, his pleas for support received mixed reaction from his compatriots.
ITWeb followed the rapid-fire discussion for several days. During this time it became clear that ISPs more or less agreed that Uninet`s actions, as Jarvis tells it, were "not legal" within the scope of the Telecoms Act. Despite this majority opinion, and many members feeling aggrieved that Uninet was "cashing in on a terrain other ISPs wanted to serve, but could not", many came out in sympathy for the company`s impending court battle. The outcome could assist them in the long run.
ICASA spokesman Jubi Matlou confirms that the equipment was confiscated, saying it had been "disowned" by people present on the premises, and then removed by the authority.
UN-wired
Reuters reported that the UN conference was convened to come up with ways to bring wireless-fidelity (WiFi) applications to the developing world, so as to make use of unlicensed radio spectrum to deliver cheap and fast Internet access.
UN secretary-general Kofi Annan added fuel to the wireless debate in SA by saying wireless Internet technology "could help poor nations leapfrog into the future if they could get assistance to harness the new technology".
Mohsen Khalil, World Bank director of information and communications technology, agreed it would take work to get WiFi off the ground in poor areas. "Regulators might yet be tempted to impose charges or other restrictions on the technology, and the equipment costs are not insignificant," he said.
Jarvis said before leaving for the US: "We will use the conference to lobby support for the deregulation process in SA, to enable VANs [value-added networks] licence-holders the right to provide Internet access using ISM bands. We would like to see a more progressive local lobby against the restrictive attitudes of the local regulator."
Up against it
It is this regulatory environment that Jarvis and commentators like Savant and D-Link South Africa fear will stifle growth of the technology.
Jarvis says Uninet has a VANs licence, and denies it bypassed Telkom`s backbone with its equipment. "We merely added value to Telkom by offering this service." This interpretation is questioned by Ant Brooks of the ISP Association, who, without commenting on the case, says even VANs licence-holders must use Telkom`s network.
Private corporate use, within property boundaries, is legal, and the ability of wireless hotspots to function without a telecoms licence is currently mooted by the public.
Expensive lesson
If the case against Jarvis and the company succeeds, it could prove an expensive lesson in law-abiding service provision. Any person found guilty can be fined R500 000 or be jailed for two years, or both, says Jarvis. In an earlier case involving a WISP called Megawan, ICASA recommended that its directors be prosecuted personally.
Jarvis says ICASA confiscated an access concentrator, an SMS gateway, a 24dbi grid antenna and four type-approved 802.11b radios and various appliances, all worth R24 000. Customers have been moved to new repeaters after suffering three weeks of downtime.
There are currently about 10 WISPs in SA, with Wi-Tel, Gateway Internet and WISP.co.za the bigger players. These companies are beginning to attract the attention of ICASA, which seems willing to create a new category of Internet service provision for public hotspots using wireless within their premises, but remains firm on the issue of wireless Internet provision crossing property boundaries between WISP and customer.
Jarvis says Uninet told clients "that there was a legal grey area, but that we were as licensed as you could get".
Share