biometrics
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2019
- Messages
- 20,368
MyBB, the Fox News of tech news.
ICASA handed a well deserved slap in court
- Thread starter Paul Hjul
- Start date
Okay so so far we've got - I'll update if there are developments:
- perhaps some "procedure" explanation will help.
Telkom have issued out what is termed a Notice of Motion (NoM) where they inform the parties who have a legal interest in the matter that they will ask the court in 5 days time unless opposition is delivered to grant Part A. If you give opposition you must deliver your "answering affidavit" within 5 days thereafter (its court days so a week) then they answer and ask for a set down from the Registrar of the court. this can be a long way off but might be expedited even with a busy roll. The procedure is handled in Rule 6 so there isn't a summons and this isn't an action, in particular Rule 6(12) is important which deals with urgency. A respondent is a party Telkom names in the case but its a bit of a misnomer to say they are suing those parties because they only seek costs if opposed from parties opposing. Part B of the NoM canvasses what is handled in Rule 53. A day later Telkom delivered an Amended Notice of Motion but I don't think anything turns on that.
The parties position (except for Telkom who have to set out everything in their Founding Affidavit) will need to be gleaned from their Answering Affidavit which we will only get next week at the end of the week. Telkom has then given itself 3 days to deliver their "Replying Affidavit".
TELKOM SA SOC LIMITED Applicant
Founding Papers with an amended notice of motion filed to caselines and served on parties. Able to exchange papers by email. Represented by Werksmans - an old and "big 5" firm
ICASA: First Respondent
&
CHAIRPERSON: ICASA Second Respondent
Notice of Opposition delivered to Telkom and filed with caselines (so I've got them) but not other parties. Able to exchange papers by email. Kunene Ramapala (Inc) - not familiar with the firm. Both the First & Second Respondent are acting as if one person. I am actually not sure this is entirely sensible.
In my view ICASA have made extraordinarily reckless and feckless public statements about this matter. Note for obvious reasons I am not saying parties in litigation must eschew public comment altogether but the totality of circumstances - the weakness of footing ICASA is on, the requirement that they be above reproach etc ... - makes it quite galling that they are effectively trying to win a publicity war as against legal processes. This gallingness comes from the damage such mentality can inflict on the Rule of Law and the Courts - the public not appraised of the actual issues may all to easily be conned into blaming the courts for a delay created by disregarding legality.
MINISTER OF COMMUNICATIONS AND DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES Third Respondent
Has publicly expressed disappointment with their being litigation - the right sentiment in my view - and wishes to mediate the issues out which I am in full support of
Has (a few minutes ago) delivered to Telkom and respondents a notice to oppose. I anticipate they will steer towards Rule 41A mediation although the notice does not include this.
Able to exchange papers electronically and represented by the State Attorney. The State Attorney is an oddball it can be incredibly capable when it wants to be but quite honestly is a firm representing to the worst clients.
Vodacom (Pty) LIMITED Fourth Respondent
I am expecting them to vigourously oppose the matter. Have delivered a notice to oppose (albeit a day late). Telkom may make hay of the fact but that would be silly as ultimately our jurisprudence would allow the giving of opposition later and seeking condonation and the time limits given for giving notice is pretty short - this is an urgent matter so Rule 6(12) allows for this.
Represented by Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr (an old a "big 5" firm) and exchange electronically has been consented to with a known address.
My hunch about an opposition process on Monday proved accurate.
Mobile Telephone Networks (Pty) LIMITED Fifth Respondent
Has publicly expressed their opposition to the application and have delivered to parties and filed on caselines a notice of opposition. A little curious as to MTNs position considering that they were opposed to the fatally flawed 2019 ITA and little has really improved. The maths as shifted - mostly due to time - in favour of MTN accepting any new spectrum even if it means taking garbage.
Represented by Webber Wentzel (an old and "big 5" firm). Exchange of documents electronically arranged.
Cell C (Pty) Ltd Sixth Respondent
I am not aware of a direct public statement and actually don't know how CellC is going to approach the matter. ITWeb reports a reservation of a right to oppose (which is a peculiar way of sabre rattling). CellC will have major difficulty affording to bid and Telkom have been less than charitable in their discourse around CellC - this circulates around the construction of "wholesale national operator" which is flawed and built into the "design" (calling it a design is a misnomer) of the ITA. Awaiting formal indication but it does appear that the are represented by ENSAfrica (so old, "big 5" firm)
Curiously ENS has previously been the attorney of record for Vodacom in matters. Same is now with CDH
It is worth pointing out though that large firms are perfectly capable of implementing Chinese walls. For the Neotel acquisition case Webber Wentzel represented MTN and Dimension Data with separate teams in two different buildings.
RAIN NETWORKS (PTY) LIMITED Seventh Respondent
Has delivered to respondents and filed on caselines their opposition. Have opposed in the past the operators position on the "temporary" and now "provisional" spectrum matter. Oddly I don't see how "provisional" is a better term to indicate temporariness that "temporary" as I've always viewed a "provisional government" or "provisional order" as one which stands until replaced by something which aligns with the reason for the provisional entity. Represented by Bowmans (an old and "big 5" firm - all 5 are now in)
- perhaps some "procedure" explanation will help.
Telkom have issued out what is termed a Notice of Motion (NoM) where they inform the parties who have a legal interest in the matter that they will ask the court in 5 days time unless opposition is delivered to grant Part A. If you give opposition you must deliver your "answering affidavit" within 5 days thereafter (its court days so a week) then they answer and ask for a set down from the Registrar of the court. this can be a long way off but might be expedited even with a busy roll. The procedure is handled in Rule 6 so there isn't a summons and this isn't an action, in particular Rule 6(12) is important which deals with urgency. A respondent is a party Telkom names in the case but its a bit of a misnomer to say they are suing those parties because they only seek costs if opposed from parties opposing. Part B of the NoM canvasses what is handled in Rule 53. A day later Telkom delivered an Amended Notice of Motion but I don't think anything turns on that.
The parties position (except for Telkom who have to set out everything in their Founding Affidavit) will need to be gleaned from their Answering Affidavit which we will only get next week at the end of the week. Telkom has then given itself 3 days to deliver their "Replying Affidavit".
TELKOM SA SOC LIMITED Applicant
Founding Papers with an amended notice of motion filed to caselines and served on parties. Able to exchange papers by email. Represented by Werksmans - an old and "big 5" firm
ICASA: First Respondent
&
CHAIRPERSON: ICASA Second Respondent
Notice of Opposition delivered to Telkom and filed with caselines (so I've got them) but not other parties. Able to exchange papers by email. Kunene Ramapala (Inc) - not familiar with the firm. Both the First & Second Respondent are acting as if one person. I am actually not sure this is entirely sensible.
In my view ICASA have made extraordinarily reckless and feckless public statements about this matter. Note for obvious reasons I am not saying parties in litigation must eschew public comment altogether but the totality of circumstances - the weakness of footing ICASA is on, the requirement that they be above reproach etc ... - makes it quite galling that they are effectively trying to win a publicity war as against legal processes. This gallingness comes from the damage such mentality can inflict on the Rule of Law and the Courts - the public not appraised of the actual issues may all to easily be conned into blaming the courts for a delay created by disregarding legality.
MINISTER OF COMMUNICATIONS AND DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES Third Respondent
Has publicly expressed disappointment with their being litigation - the right sentiment in my view - and wishes to mediate the issues out which I am in full support of
Has (a few minutes ago) delivered to Telkom and respondents a notice to oppose. I anticipate they will steer towards Rule 41A mediation although the notice does not include this.
Able to exchange papers electronically and represented by the State Attorney. The State Attorney is an oddball it can be incredibly capable when it wants to be but quite honestly is a firm representing to the worst clients.
Vodacom (Pty) LIMITED Fourth Respondent
I am expecting them to vigourously oppose the matter. Have delivered a notice to oppose (albeit a day late). Telkom may make hay of the fact but that would be silly as ultimately our jurisprudence would allow the giving of opposition later and seeking condonation and the time limits given for giving notice is pretty short - this is an urgent matter so Rule 6(12) allows for this.
Represented by Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr (an old a "big 5" firm) and exchange electronically has been consented to with a known address.
My hunch about an opposition process on Monday proved accurate.
Mobile Telephone Networks (Pty) LIMITED Fifth Respondent
Has publicly expressed their opposition to the application and have delivered to parties and filed on caselines a notice of opposition. A little curious as to MTNs position considering that they were opposed to the fatally flawed 2019 ITA and little has really improved. The maths as shifted - mostly due to time - in favour of MTN accepting any new spectrum even if it means taking garbage.
Represented by Webber Wentzel (an old and "big 5" firm). Exchange of documents electronically arranged.
Cell C (Pty) Ltd Sixth Respondent
I am not aware of a direct public statement and actually don't know how CellC is going to approach the matter. ITWeb reports a reservation of a right to oppose (which is a peculiar way of sabre rattling). CellC will have major difficulty affording to bid and Telkom have been less than charitable in their discourse around CellC - this circulates around the construction of "wholesale national operator" which is flawed and built into the "design" (calling it a design is a misnomer) of the ITA. Awaiting formal indication but it does appear that the are represented by ENSAfrica (so old, "big 5" firm)
Curiously ENS has previously been the attorney of record for Vodacom in matters. Same is now with CDH
It is worth pointing out though that large firms are perfectly capable of implementing Chinese walls. For the Neotel acquisition case Webber Wentzel represented MTN and Dimension Data with separate teams in two different buildings.
RAIN NETWORKS (PTY) LIMITED Seventh Respondent
Has delivered to respondents and filed on caselines their opposition. Have opposed in the past the operators position on the "temporary" and now "provisional" spectrum matter. Oddly I don't see how "provisional" is a better term to indicate temporariness that "temporary" as I've always viewed a "provisional government" or "provisional order" as one which stands until replaced by something which aligns with the reason for the provisional entity. Represented by Bowmans (an old and "big 5" firm - all 5 are now in)
Last edited:
LIQUID TELECOMUNNICATIONS SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LIMITED Eighth Respondent
No indication. Dominic Cull has made public statements critical of Telkom (but not the merits) and I suspect and anticipate that Liquid wants the ITA wrapped up. There is some interesting dynamics around ICASA's approach to spectrum caps which doesn't help Liquid but I think Telkom's contentions around Liquid and MTNs arrangements would if accepted (and this is an area where I am of the view both ICASA and Telkom are wrong)
Represented by Makda Cull Kotze - while a relatively new and small firm this is a firm with considerably strong credentials in the field.
COMPETITION COMMISSION OF SOUTH AFRICA Ninth Respondent
No indication. I am hopeful that same will give an explanatory or courtesy affidavit for the court but they may well simply sit out.
SOUTH AFRICAN COMMUNICATIONS FORUM Tenth Respondent
No indication. I have a lot of reservations about the SACF which has historically acted as a mouth piece to say what some operators want to have said but can't say.
SOUTH AFRICAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION LIMITED Eleventh Respondent
No indication. Not sure when or if the SABC will come into this party. Their news division is certainly aware of it.
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS Twelve Respondent
No indication. Ultimately however the NAB wants DTT sorted out. If the turn over forces that they might actually be happy.
COMMUNITY INVESTMENT VENTURES HOLDINGS (PTY) LIMITED Thirteenth Respondent
No indication. I anticipate that CIVH will fit in largely with Vodacom. Curiously if CIVH were to be medium term aligned with its own infrastructure capability it would seriously consider a different track.
e.tv (PTY) LIMITED Fourteenth Respondent
No formal response to the NoM from Telkom. e.tv however continues to be engaged in litigation as to the earlier ITA - which will be heard in March - which has direct bearing and could effectively scupper this fatally flawed process. The are represented by Norton Rose (an old and previously "big 5" firm). I suspect e.tv is focused on their ongoing case.
SOUTH AFRICAN RADIO ASTRONOMY OBSERVATORY Fifteenth Respondent
No indication yet. While the new ITA has taken cognizance of the concerns of the radio astronomy community I don't believe that the ITA as pushed out is really capable of aligning with the protected areas.
PAUL HJUL Sixteenth Respondent
While Hjul finds Telkom's continuous boneheadedness a cause of frustration he is more concerned with ICASA being boneheaded, insufferably arrogant and grossly incompetent such that the inescapable conclusion of regulatory capture must be made.
Has delivered to all parties exchangeable a Notice to Abide - which includes an indication of a courtesy affidavit following - which is still to be uploaded to caselines. "Represented" by Paul Hjul a cantankerous nuisance.
ASSOCIATION FOR PROGRESSIVE COMMUNICATIONS Seventeenth Respondent
No indication. Also no idea actually who they are.
ICT SMME CHAMBER Eighteenth Respondent
Papers received on 14th January (so past the deadline by which to oppose, which they aren't). Delivered (presuming it will be filed on caselines today) a "Notice to Abide" and have put forth an "affidavit in support of the application". I think this is very significant because it means at least 3 parties with very different vantage points and which cover different grounds are arguing ICASA bungled the 2021 ITA. The ICT SMME Chamber is focused on ICASA discontinuing the WOAN exercise despite the policy directive tying the two together.
Represented by TG Khosa Attorneys a new firm (incorporated in 2020)
Curiously if ICASA were to actually have taken on board my proposition in 2018 the ICT SMME Chamber's mission and members would be very able to benefit right now.
SONKE TELECOMMUNICATIONS (PTY) LIMITED Nineteenth Respondent
No indication.
INSTITUE FOR TECHNOLOGY AND NETWORK ECONOMICS Twentieth Respondent
In telephonic communications it is clear that they intend to abide, it isn't necessary for them to file an abide notice. They really don't have a dog in the fight and are experts who ICASA should have been consulting.
B-BBEE ICT SECTOR COUNCIL Twenty-First Respondent
No indication. To be honest I don't imagine anything helpful surfacing here even though several of the flaws in ICASAs reasoning touch on BEE related issues.
Of course if this matter unfolds in the High Court a major factor is counsel and at this stage I don't know who will be who but I expect at least six silks to line up briefs into this matter. All and all I imagine we will be looking at in excess of 20 advocates, many of the respondents spending an inordinate amount on legal fees and us sitting back at square 1 on the ITA process.
No indication. Dominic Cull has made public statements critical of Telkom (but not the merits) and I suspect and anticipate that Liquid wants the ITA wrapped up. There is some interesting dynamics around ICASA's approach to spectrum caps which doesn't help Liquid but I think Telkom's contentions around Liquid and MTNs arrangements would if accepted (and this is an area where I am of the view both ICASA and Telkom are wrong)
Represented by Makda Cull Kotze - while a relatively new and small firm this is a firm with considerably strong credentials in the field.
COMPETITION COMMISSION OF SOUTH AFRICA Ninth Respondent
No indication. I am hopeful that same will give an explanatory or courtesy affidavit for the court but they may well simply sit out.
SOUTH AFRICAN COMMUNICATIONS FORUM Tenth Respondent
No indication. I have a lot of reservations about the SACF which has historically acted as a mouth piece to say what some operators want to have said but can't say.
SOUTH AFRICAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION LIMITED Eleventh Respondent
No indication. Not sure when or if the SABC will come into this party. Their news division is certainly aware of it.
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS Twelve Respondent
No indication. Ultimately however the NAB wants DTT sorted out. If the turn over forces that they might actually be happy.
COMMUNITY INVESTMENT VENTURES HOLDINGS (PTY) LIMITED Thirteenth Respondent
No indication. I anticipate that CIVH will fit in largely with Vodacom. Curiously if CIVH were to be medium term aligned with its own infrastructure capability it would seriously consider a different track.
e.tv (PTY) LIMITED Fourteenth Respondent
No formal response to the NoM from Telkom. e.tv however continues to be engaged in litigation as to the earlier ITA - which will be heard in March - which has direct bearing and could effectively scupper this fatally flawed process. The are represented by Norton Rose (an old and previously "big 5" firm). I suspect e.tv is focused on their ongoing case.
SOUTH AFRICAN RADIO ASTRONOMY OBSERVATORY Fifteenth Respondent
No indication yet. While the new ITA has taken cognizance of the concerns of the radio astronomy community I don't believe that the ITA as pushed out is really capable of aligning with the protected areas.
PAUL HJUL Sixteenth Respondent
While Hjul finds Telkom's continuous boneheadedness a cause of frustration he is more concerned with ICASA being boneheaded, insufferably arrogant and grossly incompetent such that the inescapable conclusion of regulatory capture must be made.
Has delivered to all parties exchangeable a Notice to Abide - which includes an indication of a courtesy affidavit following - which is still to be uploaded to caselines. "Represented" by Paul Hjul a cantankerous nuisance.
ASSOCIATION FOR PROGRESSIVE COMMUNICATIONS Seventeenth Respondent
No indication. Also no idea actually who they are.
ICT SMME CHAMBER Eighteenth Respondent
Papers received on 14th January (so past the deadline by which to oppose, which they aren't). Delivered (presuming it will be filed on caselines today) a "Notice to Abide" and have put forth an "affidavit in support of the application". I think this is very significant because it means at least 3 parties with very different vantage points and which cover different grounds are arguing ICASA bungled the 2021 ITA. The ICT SMME Chamber is focused on ICASA discontinuing the WOAN exercise despite the policy directive tying the two together.
Represented by TG Khosa Attorneys a new firm (incorporated in 2020)
Curiously if ICASA were to actually have taken on board my proposition in 2018 the ICT SMME Chamber's mission and members would be very able to benefit right now.
SONKE TELECOMMUNICATIONS (PTY) LIMITED Nineteenth Respondent
No indication.
INSTITUE FOR TECHNOLOGY AND NETWORK ECONOMICS Twentieth Respondent
In telephonic communications it is clear that they intend to abide, it isn't necessary for them to file an abide notice. They really don't have a dog in the fight and are experts who ICASA should have been consulting.
B-BBEE ICT SECTOR COUNCIL Twenty-First Respondent
No indication. To be honest I don't imagine anything helpful surfacing here even though several of the flaws in ICASAs reasoning touch on BEE related issues.
Of course if this matter unfolds in the High Court a major factor is counsel and at this stage I don't know who will be who but I expect at least six silks to line up briefs into this matter. All and all I imagine we will be looking at in excess of 20 advocates, many of the respondents spending an inordinate amount on legal fees and us sitting back at square 1 on the ITA process.
Last edited:
Johnatan56
Well-Known Member
Jan is spinning hard it seems, now attacking me that I am not discussing in good faith, lol.
Actually the crux of the issue - and frankly something I see as a journalism quality issue - is to properly assess sources. Failing to quote the earlier judgment is pivotal here. A superior court is the best possible source. Jan should certainly not repeat whatever I say but in this matter - and certainly not all matters - I am a far more credible and balanced source, but notwithstanding that I furnish him with stuff and am undeniably a credible personality in the industry (for one thing I will be moderating for ZADNAs event at the end of the month) but there is no way in hell MyBB will quote anything here.
Okay all of the expected opposing papers are in. I'll update the table above at some point.
My summary view - which I am happy to state in court and be held to - is that ICASA have screwed the pooch and are suffering from power hungry orc syndrome (amusingly ICASA can't be a power hungry orc if for no other reason than Microsoft are the ultimate power hungry orc after buying Blizzard [and Warcraft]). The committee handling the matter split up considerations of the submissions received, there is a continuous consideration of irrelevant factors and ICASA wholly ignored the strictures of the policy document requiring that the WOAN and HDS licencing be undertaken concurrently.
I am going to be establishing next week where we are standing in terms of the holding of Part A hearing on the 24th and whether it will be in open court or by virtual proceedings. If it is by virtual proceedings I will definitely be in attendance and will be moving the request that same be live streamed to Youtube. If set for in court then I will need to weigh up flying up (planning to fly up on the 30th to the 1st/2nd for ZADNA) but if I attend I'll be requesting leave to then live stream as is. If I am not going to be flying up I'll be asking around for somebody to live stream. Costs (which are borne personally) being the major issue here.
My summary view - which I am happy to state in court and be held to - is that ICASA have screwed the pooch and are suffering from power hungry orc syndrome (amusingly ICASA can't be a power hungry orc if for no other reason than Microsoft are the ultimate power hungry orc after buying Blizzard [and Warcraft]). The committee handling the matter split up considerations of the submissions received, there is a continuous consideration of irrelevant factors and ICASA wholly ignored the strictures of the policy document requiring that the WOAN and HDS licencing be undertaken concurrently.
I am going to be establishing next week where we are standing in terms of the holding of Part A hearing on the 24th and whether it will be in open court or by virtual proceedings. If it is by virtual proceedings I will definitely be in attendance and will be moving the request that same be live streamed to Youtube. If set for in court then I will need to weigh up flying up (planning to fly up on the 30th to the 1st/2nd for ZADNA) but if I attend I'll be requesting leave to then live stream as is. If I am not going to be flying up I'll be asking around for somebody to live stream. Costs (which are borne personally) being the major issue here.
Breakthrough in spectrum auction? Telkom set to withdraw interdict - TechCentral
In a dramatic turn of events, Telkom has proposed withdrawing an urgent application to interdict Icasa over the licensing of broadband spectrum.
techcentral.co.za
Not sure McLeod and I read the same letter. Telkom are offering that IF the final setting aside order can be heard at the beginning of March then Part A can be withdrawn. The effect is that the ITA will be set aside on around the 4th of March before the auction completes. This depends on everybody sticking with doing this expeditiously - it is a show of confidence which in my view is well placed.
Fairly significant update. Had a case flow management meeting today. Key points:
[1] The matter is set down for April. The auction is happening in March but licences etc ... aren't issued, the telcos understand (the judge actually checked this) the prejudice to themselves and are factoring it in.
[2] Vodacom and Rain want the 16th and 18th respondents to operate as "quasi-applicants" which inter-alia means:
- They will file papers on the timeline as the applicant does;
- They are entering heads of argument and will probably appear and argue
- While there was a brief discussion around costs no undertaking is made, in my view Rain would like to bully people and I will take up this argument to argue for Rain to be liable for costs on a punitive scale if they proceed.
There is general agreement between the parties on this. Exactly what is meant and so on is fuzzy and grey but the crux of the matter is that there are three parties who are invited to argue reasons why the auction process in the ITA is unlawful and they do so on different grounds.
[3] Finality as to remote conducting of matter not given but the gentleman from Jeffrey's Bay has asked for it. Similarly no directive around streaming or media broadcast has been sought but that can be addressed the day before the matter is heard.
[4] Telkom has not abandoned Part A, only removed from a particular roll it. With the dates being set and there being a case to make for estoppel of arguments around ripeness and mootness it shouldn't be necessary for Part A to be re-enrolled
BTW if you didn't pick up I am the 16th Respondent.
[1] The matter is set down for April. The auction is happening in March but licences etc ... aren't issued, the telcos understand (the judge actually checked this) the prejudice to themselves and are factoring it in.
[2] Vodacom and Rain want the 16th and 18th respondents to operate as "quasi-applicants" which inter-alia means:
- They will file papers on the timeline as the applicant does;
- They are entering heads of argument and will probably appear and argue
- While there was a brief discussion around costs no undertaking is made, in my view Rain would like to bully people and I will take up this argument to argue for Rain to be liable for costs on a punitive scale if they proceed.
There is general agreement between the parties on this. Exactly what is meant and so on is fuzzy and grey but the crux of the matter is that there are three parties who are invited to argue reasons why the auction process in the ITA is unlawful and they do so on different grounds.
[3] Finality as to remote conducting of matter not given but the gentleman from Jeffrey's Bay has asked for it. Similarly no directive around streaming or media broadcast has been sought but that can be addressed the day before the matter is heard.
[4] Telkom has not abandoned Part A, only removed from a particular roll it. With the dates being set and there being a case to make for estoppel of arguments around ripeness and mootness it shouldn't be necessary for Part A to be re-enrolled
BTW if you didn't pick up I am the 16th Respondent.
Okay a couple of updates as affidavits are coming in. If I don't post here by Sunday evening feel free to prod me. The Minister hasn't delivered an affidavit leaving it to the DG who is quite simply being remarkably belligerent and obtuse. There is a confirmatory affidavit that is formulaic from the Minister from some weeks back but this was not deposed so it is pro non scripto until remedied. Rain is appearing to back off from trying to be a bully in the ring and MTN continues to litigate as a gentleman. Waiting to see how Vodacom go.
ICASA have asked for me time on tonight's deadline which Telkom refused. I anticipate they will go ahead and be late and ask the court for condonation.
ICASA have asked for me time on tonight's deadline which Telkom refused. I anticipate they will go ahead and be late and ask the court for condonation.
So ICASA resort to dirty tricks and frankly patent perjury. Their deponent (the chairperson) asserts under oath a denial that the record is incomplete, while delivering a supplementary record. To top it off they haven't delivered anything important which was identified as missing.
Johnatan56
Well-Known Member
This case is so sad with how much media spin its getting.
Absolutely, it is an indictment on the state of technology journalism in SA.
MTN and even Vodacom are being perfectly reasonable and are correctly taking issue with some of Telkoms angling. Rain appears to have come to the party but the ADG and ICASA are simply abusing public authority.
MTN and even Vodacom are being perfectly reasonable and are correctly taking issue with some of Telkoms angling. Rain appears to have come to the party but the ADG and ICASA are simply abusing public authority.
biometrics
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2019
- Messages
- 20,368
Seems accurate, no Rain 5G in Her*anus.
Johnatan56
Well-Known Member
For ICASA, they need a good bolt.
Looking for details but cabinet has approved amending the policy direction that would lead to setting up the WOAN to scrap the WOAN.
There seems to be an idea from some hole of stupidity that this can retrospectively fix the 2021 ITA.
The reality is that this proves one of the grounds of review.
There seems to be an idea from some hole of stupidity that this can retrospectively fix the 2021 ITA.
The reality is that this proves one of the grounds of review.
biometrics
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2019
- Messages
- 20,368
It's finally over: Telkom and Icasa reach settlement over spectrum | Business
Telkom and communications regulator Icasa have reached an out-of-court settlement, bringing to an end drawn-out legal wrangling over the licensing of high-demand spectrum.
www.news24.com
Yep read the press releases - nothing sent to the parties, I've suggested Jan seek comment from Vodacom and MTN.
Honestly I am not surprised at Telkom angling to get the 800Mhz (its what they are really after) and there has been lots of wrangling from the department. I have no idea what the judge will make up of the matter and keep in mind its "Telkom and another" - the other being the ICT SMME Chamber who are co-applicants.
Awaiting an email from one of Telkom's attorneys before I make any enquiries, but who knows at this stage I might end up arguing the matter if Telkom aren't going to use the time provisioned for them.
Honestly I am not surprised at Telkom angling to get the 800Mhz (its what they are really after) and there has been lots of wrangling from the department. I have no idea what the judge will make up of the matter and keep in mind its "Telkom and another" - the other being the ICT SMME Chamber who are co-applicants.
Awaiting an email from one of Telkom's attorneys before I make any enquiries, but who knows at this stage I might end up arguing the matter if Telkom aren't going to use the time provisioned for them.