Two WiFi-related incidents in the past two weeks are expected to finally address two of the most frustrating restrictions hampering widespread deployment and use of this promising technology. But while vendors and users will be mildly relieved, the position of Internet service providers (ISPs) is the same.
My respect for ISPs deepened somewhat on listening to them talk the whole thing out among themselves this week.
Carel Alberts, technology editor, ITWeb
The first big development in the past few days was the release of ICASA`s discussion document on wireless Internet provision via hotspots. Hotspots are locations such as restaurants and airports that serve a high concentration of people with wireless Internet access - within the confines of the premises. Promisingly, ICASA appears eager to consider ways to declare hotspots a new, legal category of Internet service provision, without disrupting existing telecoms legislation.
The reasoning is that hotspots are no different from wired Internet caf'es. These do not need licences, so they feel hotspots should not have to be licensed either.
The second event is the confiscation of a Cape-based wireless ISP`s (WISP) equipment by ICASA.
ICASA has instituted a criminal case against the WISP, alleging it contravened the Telecoms Act, although this point is disputed. The WISP then lobbied the support of its peers on a popular mailing list, vowing to ask the High Court for an urgent interdict to have the gear returned.
At the time of writing, the WISP has buzzed off to New York, to address the United Nations on the state of wireless Internet provision in SA, which hampered final corroboration.
Possible outcome
The outcome of these two events is likely to be the following: wireless hotspots are likely to be exonerated, so long as they don`t cross any property boundaries, and wireless Internet provision in which wireless crosses the property boundaries between ISP and customer is likely to remain illegal.
Add to that the undisputed fact that wireless is allowed in the private corporate sphere, and it`s clear nothing much has changed for ISPs, which have long fought the good fight in opposing the restrictive telecoms scene in SA, with limited and hard-won successes.
Vendors have been champing at the bit to sell gear and users have lived uncertainly at the mercy of a so-called "grey" area in telecoms, so both will welcome the signs that hotspots may be approved. However, ISPs gain almost nothing from this. Unless they set up wireless hotspots and resell wireless equipment - not much of a service as far as they are concerned - they will not benefit from either a positive outcome of the discussion paper, or this particular WISP going to court.
Still, one cannot blame them for hoping, and some appear to think there is still some loophole with regard to connecting ISP and user premises wirelessly. Others think not, and I agree with that interpretation.
Empathy for the underdog
The fact remains that this WISP has staked its business`s survival and the uninterrupted connectivity of its customers on what it deems a grey area, which may seem futile, if brave.
One cannot help but feel empathy for the underdog. Its peers appear sympathetic, however mixed their feelings are. The comments of Ant Brooks, chairman of the regulatory committee of the ISP Association, can be paraphrased in this way: "WiFi is great technology with a lot of potential, profit-wise and otherwise. Yet, it is illegal to offer it to customers other than in the exceptions, and so ISPs stay away from it. WISPs that have taken it upon themselves to dispute ICASA`s interpretation of the law are taking legitimate ISPs` business away from them, and must expect resistance from other ISPs and ICASA. However, this incident challenges the status quo, which might be good for ISPs."
It`s a pity the chance of that seems so slim and far off in the future.
My respect for ISPs deepened somewhat on listening to them talk the whole thing out among themselves this week. They realise the value of balance in all things. Naming the example of New Zealand, which was opened up "extremely suddenly, with very mixed results", they say staged deregulation seems to be a safer approach. Still, the time for making money out of wireless is running out.
Share
