Legal perspective

The ECA
Under the ECA the distinction between open streets and closed estates no longer exist. Icasa has complete control over every square centimeter of any network using any topology using any equipment. Both open streets and closed estates can run fiber as long as the network is not for profit if not in association with an ECNS, VANS or whatever license holder.

Under both the ECA and Alien invasive species act there are criminal penalties. But where the legal profession is deceiving the public is this is not what the law says. It is merely interpretations of the ECA by Icasa, environmentalists and lawyers because only the court can decide what the law says. We will only understand what the law says once the NPA prosecutes a farmer and a court rules on the matter. This of course isn't going to happen, like it isn't going to realize that the NPA will prosecute Vodacom for RICA Act violations. The ECA isn't the only piece of legislation with criminal penalties for non-compliance: RICA, PAIA, Alien invasive species Act etc. A few years ago there was a court ruling awarding damages to a prostitute for being arrested and incarcerated on solicitation. The court found that since the NPA wasn't prosecuting prostitution cases, the arresting of prostitutes amounted to SAPS harassment. This established a precedent that the SAPS can only arrest and detain a person if there is a reasonable expectation of prosecution by the NPA. The court granted Icasa a confiscation order in order to pursue criminal charges against WBS and the confiscated equipment would be used as evidence. But because South-Africa has the best constitution in the world Icasa cannot prosecute WBS like the FCC in the USA are able to do.

The SAPS will not arrest the person unless the NPA indicates they will prosecute. If this were not so then we would have politically motivated terrorizing of farming communities by having the SAPS lock-up all the farmers over the weekend after finding alien species on their farms.

In terms of section 20 of the National Prosecuting Authority Act, No 32 of 1998, the power to institute and conduct criminal proceedings on behalf of the State (and to discontinue criminal proceedings) vests in the national prosecuting authority.

And since the NPA will in eternity not get involved in who has what license to cut what road where and when, this entire debate is interesting academic exercise since Vodacom, Icasa or the SAPS telling people to relicense their firearms can't prosecute anybody.

In the civil case between Icasa and Altron that Altron won giving VANS license holders the right to cut roads, the court didn't say people without a VANS license isn't allowed to cut roads. No civil ruling was made on this issue, nor could there be because such an issue would be criminal and only the NPA could make a decision on whether to prosecute or not.

Naspers problem project http://www.smartvillage.co.za/index.php?option=com_sobi2&sobi2Task=sobi2Details&catid=0&sobi2Id=9&Itemid=183 wrote "...While inside gated estates developers and occupants have the freedom to do whatever they like, in traditional suburbs residents would need to find a company with the legal right to provide telecoms infrastructure to offer such services...."

This is factually wrong. Only the courts can decide whether it is legal or not for open streets to lay fiber. This is not for the SAPS, Naspers, Vodacom, NPA or ANC or the minister of communications to decide. All the NPA can do is prosecute a road cutter, something they wouldn't dream of doing and thus the legality or not from a criminal perspective will forever remain of academic interest.

Firearms Control Act

 * ''This article was written in 2007, the High court ruled in 2011 or 2010 that the FCA must go to the constitutional court for a ruling, vindicating the view of those who stood on their legal rights. The deceived people, though through cowardice, ignorance and lawyers who betrayed them, did relicense. Let us pray that the constitutional court realizes that throwing 1mil in jail(the half that did not relicense) would lead to chaos..

With the Firearms control act the view of the http://www.npa.gov.za is that an existing right given under the previous Firearms act that was replaced can't be arbitrarily revoked. Under the previous law a gun license was valid for life. Under existing law your house remains your property for life and after death you can decide who inherits it. Should there be a prosecution and conviction of a person who did not relicense it would establish a general precedent that the government can confiscate property without any form of compensation. Next one could be forced to 'relicense' his house or his wife. One remains married for life until either of the parties decided to file for divorce in terms of the Marriage Act. A conviction in terms of the FCA would mean that at any time any law's terms can be amended as the ANC deems fit and thus there would be no certainty that '... valid for life' means just that. No, it would mean valid for life or until the government decides that it is not valid for life anymore. The Constitution allows for the government to expropriate property with compensation. Taking a firearm for which the government gave a license under a law stating that this piece of property remains that of the owner for life, is thus a violation of the constitutional principle that compensation must be paid for property expropriated.

True this the ANC wanting to kill the farmers basically. Imagine if the ANC decides that to many white men are married to white females. Thus to force 66% to do divorce their wives they make a law that you must "re-license" her and if a ex MK policeman who speaks "very heppy berds" English certifies you as  a coo-coo-clock under "Describe the candidates mental condition" you are then forced to marry a black women.

Nowhere under the marriage act was this allowed, the ANC wants to confiscate property without compensation and revoke a permit which they gave under specific terms making the concept of contract law null and void.

The SA lawyer helping people "relicense" of course know this but they want to scam money out of you by being paid for "appeals" and other legal hurdles. It was reported in the Citizen 2005 that John Welch(deputy director NPA) views it as unconstitutional to force a person to relicense who had received a firearm license under the old law. It was reported in Beeld five days before the Dec.31 2005 deadline Minister Nqakula had a meeting with John Welch the deputy director of Prosecutions. John Welch himself has 12 guns and won't relicense his firearms, in other words the government expects Welch to prosecute himself. In the meeting Welch indicated that he won't prosecute anybody, including himself, who failed to relicense. The ANC again tried to intimidate people in signing away their rights with the 31 March 2006 deadline, but the NPA refused to prosecute themselves and thus the government postponed the whole thing till June 2009. In terms of the present gazette notice all firearms licensed under the old law remain valid until June 2009. Rumor has it that June 2009 the ANC will give a 3 month "amnesty" to all those who haven't relicensed which would make it the fourth extension of a cut off date in their frantic attempts to disarm the public. And so it will go on until the NPA decides to prosecute themselves.

The FCA is open ended. Meaning any terms and conditions can be arbitrarily amended. So for example if the act is amended after enough people has relicensed then it would be a simple matter to gazette that all guns that have been relicensed and licensed under the FCA must be immediately handed in at the nearest police station. And this would be valid because the fool that relicensed signed a form giving the government such a right.

In contrast the old Firearms law did not allow for such an open ended arbitrary amendments. And thus a test case or precedent where a single individual gets prosecuted for failing to relicense and convicted would be the only way to test the validity of the FCA in court. But only the http://www.npa.gov.za can decide to proceed with such a test case. Such a case would probably go all the way to the constitutional court. Only after they have ruled would a final decision be made and one should wait for such a ruling. The ANC is creating the illusion that they can throw all 2million licensed gun owners into a jail system that can only hold 200 000. People should relax, the worst that could is that a court decides we must relicense. But the court would then also give instruction that people must given a final deadline to relicense, but since the http://www.npa.gov.za would never prosecute themselves for failing to relicense their personal fire-arms obtained under the old Arms and Ammunition act we will never find out what the court would rule.

The http://www.npa.gov.za can neither be forced nor prevented from attempting taking a test case to court. In terms of our constitution a person is innocent until proven guilty. Some would argue that somebody not relicensing is guilty of an ofence. This is a factual and legal inaccuracy. Only the court can determine this in the first test case. But since there are no test cases and the http://www.npa.gov.za has indicated that they won't prosecute themselves or anybody else for failing to relicense, all such old license holders remain innocent until proven guilty. And the constitutional principle of innocent until proven guilty applies to all the other compliance laws. Lawyers that specifically deal with firearm relicensing also deal with cases where appeals are made in terms of the FCA. They must of course be paid for this. The gun shops know that a person who doesn't relicense will never be able to purchase another firearm from them. The training institutes makes their money from people getting a competency certificate in terms of the ECA. Under the old Gun law one did not need a competency certificate. And thus one should carefully evaluate what your are told by the various stake holders. What is the monetary gain to be extracted from a person relicensing and what implications are there for them from a financial perspective should such a person not relicense?

Billy Downer the deputy director of prosecutions prosecuted Jacob Zuma. Selebi the head of the SAPS is a staunch supporter of Zuma. What the SAPS is asking of Billy Downer is for him to sign the FCA form on p.6 but where on p.10 Selebi can recommend under the section: Describe the mental condition of the candidate .... - anything which Selebi wishes Billy Downer's mental condition to be. Based this mental condition the Central Firearms Registrar must decide wether to relicense Bill Downer's personal firearms or not. The constitution mandates procedural fairness. Who is best qualified to determine your mental condition a psyciatrist or policemen? What tests did the police perform to determine your "mental condition"? Who professionally evaluated such data? What was his qualifications. There is no love lost between the http://www.npa.gov.za and the SAPS. Would Vusi Pikoli sign a form giving the SAPS the right to confiscate his personal firearms that he obtained under the old gun law? What about the wifes, brother, sisters and friends of the http://www.npa.gov.za - could they attract the special attention of a relicensing official in the SAPS dealing with their application forms? What about the prosecutors in general? What would be the effect if the criminals knew that all the prosecutors have had their firearms confiscated but also that of their wifes who are now defenceless at an address organized crime can easily obtain ? The http:/www.mg.co.za reported that Willie Hofmeyer, Billy Downer, Pikoli and John Welch are investigating Selebi's links to the criminal underworld. The scorpions recently arrested Agliotti a friend of Selebi. The FCA is the SAPS ultimatum to the http://www.npa.gov.za that they in their personal capacity must either relicense or prosecute themselves. The FCA can be amended anyway the government wants to. For example they could amend it that if there is any negative report from anybody say your farmworker that you shot at him then the next day the police can take away your firearms - without a trial and court conviction.

Under the old gun law this was not possible, there had to be a trial and criminal conviction. And then it was up to the court to decide wether you forfeit your firearm. Thus the government is asking people to sign away their existing rights under the old gun law. What the http://www.npa.gov.za is saying is that they won't prosecute anybody for refusing to sign. And if a person is not prosecuted he can't have his firearms confiscated which he received under the old gun law. For only a court can do this. But since a criminal charge laid by the police will never get past the http://www.npa.gov.za in the first place, such a  case will never go to court. The government keeps on extending the deadlines for criminal prosecution precisely because the http://www.npa.gov.za views the terms and conditions for which a gun license was issued under the old law as valid for life. Thus the government is busy with a cat and mouse game where they simply issue a threat in the papers warning everybody that they will be criminally charged. Which is the truth of course. They can criminally charge but they can't prosecute - only John Welch and Billy Downer can do this after they have either proved to us that they have relicensed their guns or after they have prosecuted themselves.

Under the FCA a policeman must enter your house to see where is your safe. The reason for this is that after enough fools have relicensed the ANC will amend the FCA confiscating all firearms and then know where to go and get the firearms. You are also giving the police the right to kick down your door and confiscate your guns under the FCA. Only the people who have a license under the old law will have their guns 10 years from now. Everybody else will be disarmed.

CAC don't understand the law
''Citizens Against Crime comment on the FCA: http://www.cac.co.za/modules.php?name=scamlate. Based on the wording of a recent SAPS Communication, we believe that either the wording is incorrect or there is something rather weird in the new Firearms Act, it allows totally untrained Security Officers to carry a weapon up to the year 2006 - as long as the weapon is licensed. Firearms do not kill people or require training – it is the person carrying it who does! All institutions that own firearms, including security service providers, will be called up to renew their firearm licenses from 1 July 2006 to 31 December 2006. It is important to take note that companies may continue to issue company firearms to employees who do not have a competency certificate under the following conditions; As long as the firearms are licensed in terms of the Arms and Ammunition Act When the company obtains a firearm license in terms of the Firearms Control Act, 2000 or when the current firearms are renewed in terms of the firearms Control Act, the firearm may only be issued to an employee who is in possession of a competency certificate. In terms of this legislation there is a serious contradiction – it should surely have added a proviso to the effect that "As long as the employee has met the relevant training criteria as laid down by PSIRA (Security Regulatory Authority) to be armed." We believe that when cognizance is taken of the fact that there are more Private Security Officers out there than Policemen we believe this is essential.''

This is why security guards without the new training can still use security company firearms licensed under the old gun law - these were the terms of the license. And thus the government extended the deadline dealing with this issue until Dec.2007. And they will have to keep on extending it as the http://www.npa.gov.za won't prosecute anybody who uses a firearm under the terms issued to it under the old gun law. ''What CAC don't understand is that it is irrelevant what they consider to be ,,essential.. - it only matters what the old gun law states under which terms these firearms were issued''. For example many people think it essential that people with more than two houses should give their extra house to somebody with a "housing need". But the terms under which you own these houses - the law which governs this - does not allow the government to force you to "relicense" your property. It has been argued by some that a person should only relicense once John Welch and Billy Downer have relicensed their guns. The question arises would the police not be able to obtain a court order to confiscate a firearm from a person who did not relicense? The answer would be no, because that would mean that Selebi is in essence asking the court for a warrant to do a raid on the directors of http://www.npa.gov.za. The public and the directors of the http://www.npa.gov.za are equal before the law. The directors of prosecution can themselves be prosecuted if they violate a law for which there is a precedent. Since there are no precedents and the prosecutors themselves are not relicensing their personal firearms the government is in essence asking the directors of the http://www.npa.gov.za to establish that precedent by prosecuting themselves.

Quote from http://www.npa.gov.za
''In terms of section 20 of the National Prosecuting Authority Act, No 32 of 1998, the power to institute and conduct criminal proceedings on behalf of the State (and to discontinue criminal proceedings) vests in the national prosecuting authority. In practice, decisions in most courts on a day-to-day basis are taken by prosecutors with delegated authority from the National Director. In more important or difficult matters, the decision is taken by the various provincial directors or the investigating directors in consultation with the relevant provincial director and subject to the control and directions of the National Director. In some cases, the National Director himself will be involved in the decision-making process and he may even make the decision himself.''

ITWEB ARTICLE on the ECA
http://www.itweb.co.za/sections/telecoms/2006/0612081030.asp?S=Legal%20View&A=LEG&O=FRGN "....According to the EC Act, individuals or companies that wish to own internal telecoms networks, such as those found in multi-dwelling residential properties, need PTN licenses to operate." Download the ECA from http://www.icasa.org.za

This article is factually wrong. From p.28 and p.110 of the ECA it is clear that Act.96 is still in full force: No data may cross boundaries. The ECA gives ICASA the right to make a ruling that will shutdown the internal networks of closed estates. But this will only happen once Icasa makes an official announcement which they have not done yet and probably won't have the time for at least a few more years. The ECA effectively gives Icasa the power to shutdown all communications other than through centralized channels like Telkom on every square centimeter inside South Africa either inside boundaries or crossing boundaries. Every person sending data across the street under Act.96 via Wi-Fi/fiber/copper was violating the Icasa/Telkom/NaspersProblem interpretation of it. And violating their interpretation of the ECA is a ***ly Christian righteous thing to do.

Minister Alec Erwin has now repeatedly said that South Africans must build their own fiber optic links. This of course does violate the ECA, but it is only the NaspersProblem that cares about the ECA. The Scorpions isn't going to investigate DirectBuriedDuct road cutters no matter how much the NaspersProblem would like them to.

The National Prosecuting Authority protects us against Icasa
Something seriously has gone wrong in South AFrica. There is a pervasive attitude of fearfulness and cowardice amongst South Africans. Instead of solving the Telkom and crime problem people are begging for permission to lay ducting in their own backyards. This document is an attempt at explaining how our Constitution and the National Prosecuting Authority protects us from state terror. Because forbidding people from communicating is a form of terror.

* http://www.npa.gov.za/ * http://www.npa.gov.za/NewsClips/How%20the%20Law%20Works%202.doc Download this document from the http://www.npa.gov.za.

Only John Welch, Billy Downer and Vusi Pikoli the NDPP can decide to turn the entire South-Africa into criminals for sending data across a street using either Wi-Fi MeshNetworking, or fiber optics across public roads. And this would include the directors of prosecution, friends and family since they are also sending data across the street. This document is an attempt to explain to you why they specifically will not do this. http://www.icasa.org.za and the SAPS and parliament can't prosecute anybody. The SAPS can only criminally charge a person, not force the NDPP to establish a precedent by prosecuting this person. There is not a single attempted prosecution in terms of Act.96 or the ECA in connection with sending data across the road using legal mediums such as Fiber, Coppper and Wi-Fi. Telkom's stooge Icasa did though press up to 100 criminal charges with the bemused SAPS. This confusion over the role of the http://www.npa.gov.za was so severe that even Icasa were clueless as they pressed charge after meaningless charge with the SAPS. Even if the SAPS had wanted to pursue David Jarvis from http://www.wapa.org.za for sending data across the road using license free mediums, they would still not be able to force the http://www.npa.gov.za to prosecute him. All Icasa succeeded in doing was showing just how useless and powerless they really are. They have since stopped pressing charges with the police concerning the use of license free media such as fiber,copper and Wi-Fi.

The Film and Publications amendment bill is a ruse the ANC wants to use to squash free speech. The http://www.npa.gov.za can't openly state that they won't prosecute the news media for defying the ANC and telling us and Vusi Pikoli about all the theft,bribes and corruption in the government. The Film-Publications act original purpose was just to prevent sexually inappropriate material from being forced unto the public, the aim is not to cut-off the line of communication between the public and Vusi Pikoli. In other words the NPA can't openly state that the ANC is wrong and that they won't enforce speech control laws like RICA, ECA, Act.96, PAIA etc. This document explains why http://www.ellipsis.co.za/, http://www.ispa.org.za,  http://www.naspers.co.za, http://www.naspers.co.za, http://www.neology.co.za,  http://www.itweb.co.za, the legal profession in general, SouthAfricanWirelessIndustry and World Wide Worx are in a conspiracy to prevent you from understanding this.

The NPA can provide Telkom permission to prosecute
The http://www.npa.gov.za can provide Telkom and Icasa with permission to prosecute people sending data across the road using license free mediums. They will never do this of course because it will mean that the NPA must prosecute themselves. In terms of our law a person or institution like the http://www.fsb.co.za, http://www.icasa.org.za and http://www.bac.co.za can launch a private prosecution They first need to get permission though from Vusi Pikoli and John Welch the directors of prosecution at http://www.npa.gov.za. http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=3698283 reports that the FSB and BAC have been given PERMISSION by the http://www.npa.gov.za to criminally prosecute Alexander Forbes and other individuals who asset stripped R900mil. A retired prosecutor is being paid by the FSB to ruthlessly gun for these people in a criminal court of law. Now why don't http://www.icasa.org.za and its master http://www.telkom.co.za settle this issue concerning fiber,copper,data and wi-fi crossing the road illegally as p.110 and p.28 of the ECA clearly states. The ECA clearly states on p.110 that Act.96 is still in full force, nothing has changed other than Icasa has now full powers over private estates as well. Why don't Icasa and Telkom launch a private prosecution?! Is the reason perhaps this has not happened http://www.buys.co.za and http://www.nicciferguson.co.za that the http://www.npa.gov.za have told Telkom and Icasa to get lost?

Wall of seperation between SAPS, http://www.npa.gov.za, Legislature and Judicial
Our constitution has separated these pillars of our criminal justice system so as to protect South-Africa against state terror. The South-African police force consists of 90% ANC government supporters. The SAPS is largely a political institution loyal to the government, which is why it is so important that they can't prosecute anybody. The news media has reported on the mafia links of the commissioner of the police Jacki Selebi for example. Now could you imagine what would happen if Jackie Selebi had the power to investigate and prosecute? Parliament can concoct any law it want's to. But that same bribed legislator can't now go and investigate and prosecute you for ignoring his self serving law. For example the RICA Act is just a ruse by the ANC to squash free speech, which is why there won't be any criminal prosecutions surrounding it.

The http://www.npa.gov.za prosecutes and investigates, but the SAPS can only investigate and then present the evidence to the http://www.npa.gov.za. The legal fraternity in general and the news media are involved in a vast conspiracy to prevent this very simple fact National Prosecuting Authority Act, No 32 of 1998 from being known by the public. We are constantly told for example about some hair brained compliance law such as PAIA, RICA, ECA, Telecoms act.96 Yet if you look closer you will note that not a single person has ever been prosecuted in terms of such a law. Why out of the millions of people would the http://www.npa.gov.za choose you to make an example off? Naspers is a Vans license holder via http://www.mweb.co.za, it has no choice but to comply with RICA and not because it is terrified of the http://www.npa.gov.za. Naspers would be crippled while the rest of South Africa just ignores RICA implementing Voip services via MeshNetworking and a TelephoneNetworkRollout.

Electronic communications Act is a speech control law
The ECA, Telecoms Act.96, RICA act, Icasa Amendmend act, Broadcasting act are in essence a ruse that the government uses to suppress free speech. If everybody can establish their own broadcasting stations via DecentralisedNetworks then fraud, corruption and criminal wrong doing will be exposed and it would be impossible to suppress the information. The http://www.npa.gov.za is far more interested in haveing an open line of communication to the public telling them about the criminals and scams than about protecting Smuts Ngoyama's cashflow from Telkom.

Aerosat ripped up a court order
http://www.aerosat.co.za took Icasa to the high court in 2004. Download the judgement from

* http://wwwserver.law.wits.ac.za/echc/judgment.php?case_id=13033 Aerosat vs. Icasa Icasa confiscated a PC and PCMCIA cards which was used to send data across the street. "...According to Smith the second respondent seized from the premises inter alia a personal computer tower and two PCMCIA cards." ''p.10 [31] The drawing depicts a computer tower fitted with two PCMCIA WLAN cards. It has a LAN cable connector which is used for connecting it to internet feed. The computer tower has two antennae attached to it. One is an omni directional antenna used to supply end-users around the main sites. The other one is a directional antenna used between main sites, across the roads and suburbs.''

[32] It is common cause that when all these components are connected together they constitute a radio apparatus which is capable of transmitting or receiving any signal by radio within the meaning of s 1 of the Act. The fearless Aerosat by incredable bravery defied two sections of Act.96 in 2004: In possesion on non-type approved radio equipment and they sent data across the road. If they had used Fiber or Copper they to send data across the road they would have been in violation of only the "data across the road" part.... section.32 of Act.96 p.14 [44] On the other hand, Ms Moroka SC, Counsel for the respondents  submitted that the applicant was in  possession of a radio apparatus in contravention of s 31 of the Act from which it provided a telecommunication  service in contravention of the provisions of s 32: without the radio apparatus  the applicant would not be able to provide a telecommunication service ... Section [44]  p.14 makes it clear that Aerosat violated TWO sections  section 31 and 32. Aerosat commited three offences:

* Sent data across the road. (could be any medium, fiber, copper or radio) * Used an illegal non-type approved radio apparatus (2.4ghz). * Violated a court order by removing the red seals and reinstalling their equipment. Aerosat was never charged by the police for these three offences. It just shows what a joke our legal system is! This bold act of defiance by Aerosat was the inspiration for everybody else to establish wireless towers. Icasa eventually gave up on confiscating Wi-Fi equipment because they were openly mocked by the public and held in contempt by bemused SAPS and http://www.npa.gov.za who couldn't understand what all the fuss was about. The civil case between Aerosat and Icasa was to an attempt by Aerosat to get their PC and Wi-Fi equipment back that Icasa confiscated. The exact same stuff you can buy at Incredable Connection. If you read the actual transcript of the court case you will note that the judge specifically said that Act.96 forbade data from crossing a road. The judge made a fuss about the data crossing the road part and using illegal equipment. At section Act.96 still in force with the ECA in this document I explain why Act.96 is still in force under the ECA, data may still not cross boundaries.

And thus wether you use a TelephoneNetworkRollout or MeshNetworking to send data across the road makes no difference - both Telephone poles and 2.4ghz are license free. So then why did the SAPS and http://www.npa.gov.za not rush to prosecute Aerosat? Because they specifically didn't want to establish a criminal test case in terms of Act.96. And the same goes for the ECA, Icasa Amendment Act, Broadcasting Act, RICA Act and PAIA Act. The SAPS and http://www.npa.gov.za unfortunatly can't shout it from the rooftops. It won't go down very well with the ANC that the only people who can enforce their rubbish thinks it is exactly that - rubbish. South Arica is one of the few countries in the world where you can openly mock and laugh at government gazette notices, because of the way the constitution was drafted. The ANC is not the highest law in the land. The ANC can't make a law, prosecute, convict and sentence you all at one go, these functions are carefully and painstakingly seperated in our constitution, to prevent South Africa from being the next North-Korea.

The mocking of Icasa by Uninet
,,Before being awarded a VANS license,,BR http://www.uninet.co.za defied Icasa time and time again. Icasa would dramatically seize their equipment only to have Uninet replace it the next day. David Jarvis told me that:"People are to afraid to question authority which is good for my business model" The real reason why he played the fool with Icasa was ofcourse not some sort of Cowboy bravado but the calm reasuring knowledge that the then NDPP Bulelani Ngucka would not become the stooge of Telkom nomatter what Telecoms Act.96 said. Five times the SAPS took a statement from Jarvis. Even if his lawyer http://www.ellipsis.co.za/ had written nonsense on the charge sheet, nothing would have happened since neither Icasa, SAPS or the government can compel the http://www.npa.gov.za to establish a precedent.

The SAPS had no choice but to take a statement. Some Icasa official would arrive at the station and drag some hapless policeman along to take a statement. So why did Icasa then eventually give Uninet a Vans license? Because Uninet will provide a service VAns or no VAns. Icasa was made to look like an idiot and thus to save face they had no choice but to give Uninet a VANS. At least now Icasa could claim they 'legitimized' Uninet. The reason Uninet don't use fixed wired links is because they would need your permission to plant a pole. In contrast Telkom doesn't need your permission. Data crossing boundaries is data crossing boundaries whether using 2.4ghz Wi-Fi or copper - there is no difference.

Your obligation to the government according to the http://www.npa.gov.za
There is only one thing you must do and one activity you must not engage in according to the National Prosecuting Authority:. 1. Do not undermine the social fabric and economy of South Africa via violance, theft and fraud. The government ofcourse want's to go further than this and would love to draft a law forcing all non-disadvantaged to sing freedom songs for example. It is your Christian *** given duty to ignore the ECA, Icasa Amendmend Act, RICA and all the other rubbish the ANC has drafted. And it is the unspoken mission of the http://www.npa.gov.za to only enforce those laws which have a direct bearing on 1. If you obey 1 then you are the friend of the http://www.npa.gov.za and they will do everything in their power to prevent the Legislative from turning their friends into criminals. They do this by refusing to establish that very first test case or precedent. Once there is this test case then the http://www.npa.gov.za would have no choice but to prosecute all other cases in terms of this test case. Your duty is to protect your wife and kids and this *** given duty transends the Electronic Communications Act. And in this duty you have the 100% backing of the National Prosecuting Authority, the branch that is above the Legislative where all the bribes are paid so that a few empowered ANC stooges like Smuts Ngoyama who want's to become "rich" can skim the top of Telkom by keeping South-Africa in bandwidth enslavement. They have drafted the ECA so as to protect their cashcow Telkom. Icasa's sole purpose in life is protect Telkom, but Icasa and the SAPS can't prosecute anybody - they can't establish that first test case which would allow Icasa to terrorise ordinary hapless South Africans. South Africa's constitution protects us against state terror.

What is the ultimate goal of communications?
The ultimate goal is to engage in Voice,Video and Data communication anywhere and at anytime for free. It is that ,,for free,, part which scares Telkom. Telkom specifically don't want it for free. And what they did together with the Smuts Ngoyama faction was write a plethora of laws trying to intimidate the public from forming a cooperative commons to enable unlimited for free communications. Which is why we have the Broadcasting Act,PAIA, ECA, RICA, ICASA Amendmend Act etc. These are all laws trying so scare us. I am going to explain to you why you can openly mock these laws and why Billy Downer, John Welch and Vusi Pikoli from the National Prosecuting Authority(http://www.npa.gov.za) the pillar of our justice system won't enforce these few ANC stooges getting money from Telkom, mind and speech control laws.

DSLAMs will impact Naspers DSTV venture
In rural areas copyright laws are treated with a form of mild contempt. If these areas plant their own telephone poles and install DsLam for everybody and just one person rebroadcasts over their own telephone network a soccer match from a DSTV decoder box to everybody else, it will impact negativly on Naspers. Thus http://www.naspers.co.za will loose control of their content, which is why I say http://www.naspers.co.za and http://www.itweb.co.za are in an conspiracy to prevent anybody from creating bandwidth outside of centralized channels. And it is not just underdeveloped rural areas but urban areas that a community telephone network will make it impossible for copyright laws to be enforced. Naspers is far more concerned about preventing DataConvergence via DecentralisedNetworks than solving the crime problem Beeld are masters in faking some sort of concern about the victims of crime, they should rather explain why Vusi Pikoli the director of prosecutions won't prosecute you for enabling a TelephoneNetworkRollout outside of any legislation using legal equipment and hz.

Icasa legal department




LEGISLATIVE seperated from the http://ww.npa.gov.zaBRANCH seperated from the Judicial
There are three legal branches. The legislative, http://www.npa.gov.za and judicial. The legislative branch of government gazettes the laws. The http://www.npa.gov.za branch(http://www.npa.gov.za) uses these laws to hunt down criminals and protect the social fabric. The prosecutors presents a case to the Judicial who must evaluate the evidence as laid out by the National Prosecuting Authority(http://www.npa.gov.za). The legislative can neither force nor prevent the http://www.npa.gov.za from prosecuting in terms of a law enacted by the Legislative. Our constitution has seperated these three pillars of our justice system so as to prevent '''Legislative, http://www.npa.gov.za or Judicial TERROR. ''' The agenda of Vusi Pikoli the NDPP and his eight deputy directors Billy Downer, John Welch etc. is not to turn the public into to criminals as some sections within the Legislative desire but to hunt down real criminals, much to the disapointment of VANS license holders, Telecoms firms, Telecoms lawyers and the legal fraternity in general. Something only becomes established as law once the Judicial rules on it. The three seperate pillars of our justice system are seperate so as to prevent Essop Pahad from making a law forcing all Umhlungus to sing freedom songs, prosecuting them if they don't and convicting them. Lets presume that Essop Pahad part of the Legislative drafts a law forcing whites to attend heritage day celebrations. Now do you really think the http://www.npa.gov.za Billy Downer is going to force his friends and family to attend. If he won't do it inspite of what the law says then how could he possibly prosecute you for not singing freedom songs?

Some would say that such a law must be ignored because it would be ridiculous. Ridiculous according to whom? According to the public maybe, but what do we do if the http://www.npa.gov.za doesn't think it is ridiculous? And this is crux of the matter when it comes to the compliance laws like the Icasa Amendmend Act and Electronic Communications bill - when you speak to a Telecoms lawyer, Icasa or [:NewsMedia:http://www.naspers.co.za] legal division it would be the same like asking Essop Pahad's view singing freedom songs: You are speaking to the wrong people. Only Billy Downer, John Welch and Vusi Pikoli has the power to establish a precedent - the first test case. If they are of the view that their friends and family should all pay 10% of their lifetime earnings to Telkom so that BEE Smuts Ngoyama can rake in R200 million then we have a problem on our hands. There is nothing the SAPS can do to a person who violates a compliance law if there is no test case. The SAPS view on the matter would be irrellevant - only the National Prosecuting Authority's view would be important because only Vusi Pikoli, John Welch and Billy Downer can  establish that first test case. It is this specific information the legal fraternity don't want you to know because they want you in a constant state of fear so as to scam money out of you as you comply with a compliance law.

Once a precedent is established the http://www.npa.gov.za will have to live with the consequences
Vusi Pikoli the National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) doesn't view stealing out of hunger a crime and is trying to find a way of stopping criminal prosecutions involving such cases. Since there are thousands of test cases establishing the legal principle that all theft no matter what the reason is a criminal offence, Pikoli has no choice but to prosecute if the evidence is good. This is in terms of our constitution. Our constitution gives the directors of the http://www.npa.gov.za sole discretion wether they will prosecute the first case in terms of a certain law so as to establish a precedent. As far as all the other compliance laws are concerned the question is:"Would Pikoli and his eight directors Welch, Downer etc. actually want to criminilize normal human behaviour such as communicating across boundaries?" The fact that Pikoli doesn't even want to prosecute stealing out of hunger provides stong evidence that he won't enforce laws we the public find morally reprehensable like the old Telecoms Act.96 and the new ECA(Electronic Communications Act).

Agenda of the Legal Profession
They would love to have every South African turned into a criminal by falling foul of some hairbrained compliance law. They will make millions like in America where Legislative Terror wrecks peoples lives. The only thing preventing this is the Seperation of the Legislative from the http://www.npa.gov.za headed by Vusi Pikoli. Vusi can't be bribed and won't allow himself to be used by the legal profession to turn ordinary citizens into criminals. The love of money is the root of all evil. The South African lawyers are flagrantly lying to con money out of fools who don't understand how the directors of prosecution operate and how our constitution protects us against legislators trying to defraud or enslave the public.

Is anybody at present violating the ECA?
Yes, anybody sending data across the street. Since they are providing a service without a license which is forbidden in the ECA. . So in other words if Icasa tells you that you can't lay a fiber from Welkom to Bloemfontein across all the farms then what Icasa and the Telecoms lawyers seemingly don't understand is what exactly do they want Billy Downer and John Welch to do about it? For Icasa and Telkom fiber over a long distance would be a major crises and they would plead that Welch prosecute and establish that first precedent. But for Welch the nightmare now only begins. For next are the Internet Cafe's and every other entity providing a service either inside or crossing a boundary with a data service - since a precedent has been established. Such a fiber case can't be seen in isolation but in the light of the ramifications it will hold for the http://www.npa.gov.za, the whole future of data communications and our economy. Some people think that if they secretly sneek cable under the road using the 007 license that they are safe. Not really, Telkom, Icasa are'nt stupid they know full well about these cases. Infact if you go to HorizontalDirectionaldrilling and look for the cell number of Andrei he will even tell you where he has tunneled under the road.. So wether you use the 007 or DapperMuisLicenseby taking out full page advertisements in the Sunday Times "Mocking Icasa - openly planting telephone poles" will make no difference - Welch, Downer and Pikoli simply won't establish that precedent no matter what you do or say. If it were this simple to get the NDPP to prosecute then certain Telecom firms in South-Africa would pay a Big5 gang member R100 000 to delibratly plant telephone poles - just to establish a precedent. This is how the US legal system is abused such as with the Scopes monkey trial 1925.

BL Construction DitchWitch agents
BL construction (See HorizontalDirectionaldrilling) latest project was to link a whole street of houses via the pavement in Stellenbosch using Trenching and HDD. He said that the Stellenbosh residents who refused to have their pavements lifted for underground cabling had absolutely no problem with the HDD and TrenchingEquipment - It found immediate and widespread social acceptance.

Act.96 still in force with the ECA
Download the ECA http://www.icasa.org.za/Documents.aspx?Page=134 .From reading p.28 and p.110 of the ECA it is clear that Act.96 is still in force. Download it from http:/www.icasa.org.za. Data is still not allowed to cross boundaries using either legal or illegal equipment. Yet everybody is sending data across the road using Wireless. And if you phone Andrei(  082 569 9154   ), Corrie (083 413 1027) or Neil(082 807 5800) under the section HorizontalDirectionaldrilling they will tell you where they are laying cables under the road using a HDD. The medium wether 2.4ghz, copper or fiber is not the issue it was and remains wether data is crossing the road. Aerosat and Icasa should never have brought this case to court. All they wound up doing was showing just what a joke Icasa really is. For the agenda of http:/www.wapa.org.za is to create some sort of illusion that if you subscribe to a WISP as a member of the public that it is somehow "legal" for you to send data across the road back to  this Wisp and that only a WAPA member can get prosecuted. Nowhere under Act.96 or ECA does it say that somehow a subscriber to a Wisp is not guilty - only the service provider. No, both parties are using legal 2.4ghz equipment( Icasa eventually legalised 2.4ghz equipment) to send data across the road or to provide a telecoms service was in violation of Act.96 and is in violation of the ECA. People just don't realise how ridiculous the ECA is. Should the http://www.npa.gov.za criminally charge a WISP or http://www.wapa.org.za member and obtain a conviction, they will then have to hunt down every single subscriber to this WISP. I am at a complete loss for words as to why the South African public just don't get it: Both Wi-Fi and Fiber crossing the road are illegal. And if Icasa is openly mocked and laughed at concerning their hollow threats of 2.4ghz crossing the road then why don't the public also openly mock Icasa by uploading to http://www.youtube.com videos of them laying fiber and copper under the road? Can South-Africans really be this stupid?

ECA Act Chapter 3 Section 7.1 "...Except for services exempted in terms of section 6, no person may provide any service without a license..." Section 6 p.28 says for example that Icasa may exempt a small LAN from being operated. What the section don't clarify is wether an existing small LAN inside a boundary is exempt. This is the confusion in the light of Act.96. Now via deliberate attempt at deception Icasa tucked Section 92.(5) at page 110 hoping that the public won't actually read the ECA.

ECA Act p.110 Chapter 15 "...92.(5) Any person, who immediately before the commencement of this Act, lawfully provided any service or used the radio frequency spectrum in terms of the Telecommunications Act, Broadcasting Act or IBA Act without a license is considered to have permission to continue to provide such a service on the same conditions and terms,or use the frequency spectrum on the same conditions and terms without a license until such time as the Authority has granted or refused a license application....."

The only legal terms and conditions under which you could operate in the 2.4ghz band and operate a fiber or copper network was if the signals stayed within the boundaries of your premise under Act.96. What p.28 basically says is that Icasa now has the power to extend their regulation over such internal networks inside boundaries as well. Under Act.96 Icasa had no control over internal networks. Under the ECA Icasa has control over every electron in South-Africa wether inside or outside a boundary. But before the status quo is changed and Icasa now actually bans http://www.blairatholl.co.za network they must have a public meeting or publish their intended rulings. Until such a time the provision of Act.96 concerning data crossing boundaries remains in force: No data may cross a boundary. Icasa though can give individual license exemptions to people who wishes to operate either a public or private network that crosses a boundary. Under Act.96 this wasn't possible, all you had was a blanket ban on data crossing boundaries. p.28 goes to great lengths to explain for specific purposes such a license could be given at Icasa's discretion: Non-profit, small LAN, commercial etc.

I am pointing out that all this is of academic importance since National Prosecuting Authority Act, no 32 of 1998 takes precedence over the ECA ''...The National Prosecuting Authority Act, No 32 of 1998, the power to institute and conduct criminal proceedings on behalf of the State (and to discontinue criminal proceedings) vests in the national prosecuting authority. In practice, decisions in most courts on a day-to-day basis are taken by prosecutors with delegated authority from the National Director. In more important or difficult matters, the decision is taken by the various provincial directors or the investigating directors in consultation with the relevant provincial director and subject to the control and directions of the National Director. In some cases, the National Director himself will be involved in the decision-making process and he may even make the decision himself..''

And thus the vast conspiracy by the http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/NaspersProblem ,Vansies, MTN, Vodacom etc. to corner a R100billion market all for themselves can be openly mocked as we engage in our own http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TelephoneNetworkRollout. We are protected by the http://www.npa.gov.za from all these people who are on the same level as a hijacker jamming a http://www.netstar.co.za radio signal.

If the http://www.npa.gov.za establishes a precedent on Fiber, Wi-Fi users will also be prosecuted
There is a vast conspiracy by http://www.naspers.co.za, http://www.itweb.co.za,  http://www.wapa.org.za, http://www.buys.co.za and http://www.nicciferguson.co.za, http://www.ispa.org.za to confuse the issues concerning data crossing the road and providing a commercial service. Lets presume John Welch the director or prosecutions actually hauls Corrie Scheepers (See HorizontalDirectionaldrilling) before court and gets him convicted laying fiber under public roads: Establishes a precedent that sending data across the road is illegal. But now every single Wi-Fi user is inadvertantly sending data across the road because it is impossible to limit the signal inside a boundary. And thus every single Wi-Fi user will have to be prosecuted if such a precedent is established. Naspers is not making this clear in it's publications because it is a VANS license holder via M-web and is also trying to protect its Multichoice satellite venture from decentralised DataConvergence. Yet Naspers has the gall to fake some sort of concern over the crime problem. If Naspers were really concerned, they would explain to their readers that DataConvergence via a TelephoneNetworkRollout is the only solution to our Telkom and crime problem.

Logical contradiction in Act.96 and ECA
There is an internal logical contradiction in the ECA p.110 and p.28. As stated the ECA is just a continuation of Act.96 with just vastly more powers to Icasa then under Act.96. Wi-Fi devices were legalised in 2004. Since they can't do anything else but send data across a road how on earth could the ECA then ban data from crossing a road using a device that the ECA considers legal? These are the sort of issues that http://www.itweb.co.za refuses to discuss.

Thousands have died because of no bandwidth
Thousands of people have died as a direct result of there being no bandwidth. Without bandwidth CctvCameras are useless. And without CCTV watching the streets people are dying. I hold the the compliance lawyers and Vans license holders directly responsable for this. They never told the nation that the National Prosecuting Authority will never enforce the ECA, just like Act.96 ( using legal mediums) was never enforced. Next time http://www.naspers.co.za gets all worked up over the crime problem and starts attacking the ANC ask them about the plant and construction people HorizontalDirectionaldrilling laying fiber under the road and why Naspers never makes mention of this.

If something is illegal then the law must change
Everybody openly mocked the government gazette notices banning 2.4ghz gear. So instead of looking like an idiot Icasa had no choice but to ask the government to legalise 2.4ghz equipment since the http://www.npa.gov.za refused to prosecute people violating the government gazette.

Wireless data and copper data crossing boundaries
What is the difference between wireless data and copper data crossing boundaries? There are none. So why then do the public and IT industry suffer from some sort of mental block when it comes to running fiber and copper across the road? By its very nature it is impossible to prevent Wi-fi data from crossing the road. Wi-fi is an entrenched industry. On what basis would Icasa be able to ban DsLam and fiber data from crossing the road?

Licensed and unlicensed communications media
900mhz is a licensed spectrum. Fiber, 2.4ghz and copper are unlicensed communications media and spectrums. The http://www.npa.gov.za would never allow Telkom to instruct the Scorpions to engage in covert operations to uncover hidden copper wire crossing roads or being used to sell commercial Internet data. Act.96 specifically forbade all data from crossing boundaries. There was not a single criminal prosecution in terms of Telecoms Act.96 Icasa pressed charges with the police though, but the SAPS can't prosecute anybody, they can only submit it to the Director of Prosecutions who did not, will in eternity not prosecute anybody for building a private Telephone exchange using license free mediums.

Are there any precedents?
If there has not yet been a test case - that very first case that goes to court then the http://www.npa.gov.za has complete leverage. For our constitution dictates that only the http://www.npa.gov.za can decide wether to procede or not with the first case. Out of all the millions of people the NDPP could possibly pick to establish a precedent for failing to comply with a compliance law why would it be you? And once a precedent has been established the http://www.npa.gov.za now has no choice but to prosecute all such cases brought to it by Telkom's stooge Icasa. In other words the Director or Public Prosecutions will now have to take direct instructions from the ANC empowered bigwigs scamming millions out of the public. Vusi Pikoli is of the view that stealing out of hunger should not be prosecuted. But there are thousands of criminal convictions establishing that stealing for whatever reason is a criminal offence. Because of these established cases the http://www.npa.gov.za has no choice but to prosecute common theft cases - much to the consternation of Vusi Pikoli the NDPP. It is utterly irrelevant what Icasa, Telkom and Telecoms lawyers tell you. What you do might be a violation of the ECA and would in all probability lead to a conviction in court. But if John Welch refuses to establish the first test case then all that is of academic importance. What Telkom is asking of Vusi Pikoli is to establish a precedent in terms of the ECA. Should Pikoli actually establish a precedent the http://www.npa.gov.za will become a flow-of-copper enforcement agency. This will happen the day hell freezes over. Since there are no precedents Vusi Pikoli can at his sole discretion decide not to become the DsLam enforcement stooge of Telkom - not to enforce the ECA. And this will be entirely constitutional as the constitution dictates that only the http://www.npa.gov.za can prosecute people: Not the SAPS, ANC, Telkom, M-web or any other vested interests can either force or prevent the http://www.npa.gov.za from establishing a precedent. This protects the public from Legislative Terror. In Russia for example Putin sends falsified tax returns to his political opponents. Putin himself can have anybody prosecuted. Our constitution has seperated the Legislative from the http://www.npa.gov.za from the Judicial  to prevent such Russian stile state intimidation.

PAIA Public Access to Information Act
With literally one hour left before Leon Wessels was ready to start ordering the SAPS(and how the SAPS resented this) to arrest people who failed to comply with the PAIA Act - Vusi Pikoli the protector of public agains LEGISLATIVE TERROR stepped in and had the PAIA ammended. The PAIA was an attempt by government agents to sink their claws ever deeper into business like with BEE. All the ANC succeeded in doing was to sjambok the creators of wealth by striking fear into their hearts. The National Prosecuting Authority came to the rescue and stopped the farce. The legal fraternity ofcourse feasted on the public as they scammed millions out of naive people who did not understand the seperation of powers between the LEGISLATIVE and http://www.npa.gov.za. Thousands of naive people made coo-coo clocks out of themselves by paying between R1850 - R50000. When you see that laywer again - he is laughing at you. He views you as a fool and a coward. The legal fraternity have been DECEIVING the public. They have deceived people by saying:".... it is illegal to send data across the street". By this they implied that:"The http://www.npa.gov.za just can't wait to prosecute you for laying a wire across the road" - which is not the truth - and they knew this. When these lawyers gave dire warnings of the terrible dangers in laying copper across the street they weren't doing it out of a genuine concern for your personal wellbeing, no they were scheming to prevent the public from finding out that none of these compliance laws will be enforced by the http://www.npa.gov.za. And thus we don't have to bother paying the lawyers to comply with it. Go ahead and phone http://www.buys.co.za and http://www.nicciferguson.co.za and ask them of just one single pending case before the courts concerning the ECA. There was not a single attempted prosecution in terms of Act. 96 concerning legal equipment sending data across boundaries, why would the http://www.npa.gov.za now suddenly make a fuss over copper and fiber? The banks and other large corporations though, are complying with PAIA not because they are terrified of Pikoli but because of their public image etc. Large corporations are in the business of making money not explaining to the public that half the members of the Legislative are confused about our constitution.

The Broadcasting Act
The Broadcasting Act really is an attempt to stifle free speech. Under the previous Broadcasting Act a satellite content provider streamed video from Europe to South Africa. The content provider made a civil case before the High Court opposing the Broadcasting Act. They were opposed by Icasa. They lost the case in the High Court and suspended the video stream because it wasn't financially viable anymore. Nobody was ever prosecuted under the Broadcasting Act even after loosing a civil court case. Vusi Pikoli simply refused to take orders from Telkom's stooge Icasa. Icasa did press charges with the police against the company who violated the Broadcasting Act - much to the amusement of the SAPS. All the Act really achieved was to sink any commercial venture in broadcasting content to the public. The Act had criminal penalties but this was never the reason why entrepeneurs didn't violate the Act it was purely out of monetary considerations. The shyster lawyers though would roll their eyes and clutch their breast and gasp for air in a dramatic attempt at dissuading a community based broadcasting effort simply because this would undermine the commercial position of their clients. Vusi in contrast couldn't care less what you broadcast as long as you don't used licensed spectrum. The danger that a criminal conviction holds for CCTV broadcasting is severe. If that first test case or precedent is ever established by the http://www.npa.gov.za on Icasa's instructions then what would be the status of CCTV? By any number of creative means one would be able to argue that a private company like Cue Incident is 'broadcasting'. Why would the http://www.npa.gov.za establish a test case that could potentially be used by Icasa to ban CCTV? The difficulty with CCTV is that if it uses the IP protocol then the same wires streaming security footage can also feed a Telkom Internet link to everybody. It would be impossible to seperate the two. Icasa and Telkom have for example not said a single word about this - mindful about the impact it will have on their image. Many people build a network to stream Internet data but claim it is for CCTV, the CCTV is only used a ruse. Trying to regulate the usage of protocols by Icasa will bog the http://www.npa.gov.za down into a swamp of litigation. Which is why it is so important that you understand the Broadcasting Act is to be openly ignored until the http://www.npa.gov.za says something about it.

Icasa tried to bypass the SAPS in drafts of the ECA
Icasa had inserted into drafts of the ECA that they could bypass the SAPS and go directly to the National Prosecuting Authority. Vusi Pikoli got wind of this and made certain that this clause was removed in the final act. Icasa like the rest of South-Africa can't just go directly to the Scorpions they must go to the SAPS who treats Icasa with contempt. The police has no interest in becoming a copperwire investigative agency and neither do the Scorpions.

Of all the compliance laws why the focus on the ECA?
Money: Big money is involved. Telecoms turnover in SA is around R100 billion. Telkom and the ISPs simply had the ECA drafted so that their commercial interests are protected. They are just hoping that nobody informs the public that the NDPP don't take instructions from Telkom. And since there are no precedent criminal convictions in terms of the ECA the http://www.npa.gov.za can't be forced to prosecute like with common theft cases for which there are thousands of precedents. Dene Smuts from the DA who was activly involved in drafting the ECA reacted with dismay to the Alec Erwin's West-Coast fiber optic link. The DOC (Department of Communications) even piped up with:"... Erwin will need a license". This is an attempt to prevent significant international bandwidth from being sold in South-Africa because of the small user base. If you have to much bandwidth it will become essentially worthless to Telkom and the ISPs and dent their revenues. The ISPs don't want you to plant telephone poles because they need to everybody on a Telkom centralised network.

Will the SAPS not throw me in jail if I violate an Icasa directive?
If there are no precedents then no they won't. Lets take for example the a differenet compliance law that states you may not have alien species on your farm. Not a single farmer has yet been charged over this. Yes, the SAPS can take a statement though. But if they throw the farmer in jail and the http://www.npa.gov.za refuses to prosecute then the SAPS can be sued for damages. Because you will have a situation where the police would lock-up all the farmers every weekend after finding an alien species on their farm. In other words we would have police terror. Our constitution has been finely crafted to eliminate abuse of power.

Telecoms Act.96 was violated by everybody
Any enforcement of Act.96 by the http://www.npa.gov.za wouuld have resulted in the vitual shutdown of communications in South Africa. If the http://www.npa.gov.za didn't criminally prosecute a single person under Telecoms Act.96 then why would do so on under the Electronic Communications Act on Telkom's instructions?

The status of Telephone poles and 2.4ghz Wireless devices are the same:

 * Both facilitate the transmission of data either inside or over a boundary and both objects are license free * Telephone poles allow for unlimited bandwidth and can scale to any size. * Wi-Fi needs Fresnel zone clearance and are prone to RF interference. * Wireless is limited in bandwidth and can't scale beyond a certain size and is not a serious threat to http://www.naspers.co.za, Telkom and Icasa. * By its very nature it is impossible to prevent a Wi-Fi signal from crossing a boundary. *Should there be a precedent conviction over laying fiber across a road then every Wi-Fi user will also have to be hunted d down. Icasa was forced to eventually accept Wi-Fi. But the same concept applies to fixed wired. Why does the IT publication industry and the public have no qualms about setting up a network using Wi-Fi but not telephone poles?

Factually and legally correct statements vs. hotair
Icasa and their lackeys the Telecoms lawyers are making factually and legally incorrect statements. They dramatically declare that:".... planting telephone poles is illegal in terms of the law". The truth is that this can only be established by a judge ruling in Icasa's favour in a criminal trial. Since there are no precedents neither under the old Telecoms Act.96 nor ECA and Icasa Amendment Act we only have various interpretations of what the law says. The Telecoms lawyers and Icasa have their self serving biased view in the hope of protecting their influence and customers from the might of a public shareing the cost of telephone poles and Dslam. Since the http://www.npa.gov.za can't be forced to test which interpretation is correct in a criminal trial, all parties should refrain from making grandious declerations of what is legal and not.

Laws the SAPS wants enforced but the http://www.npa.gov.za don't want to
The relicensing of guns under the Firearms Control Act(FCA) is something that the SAPS as an extension of the government want's to enforce. The http://www.npa.gov.za on the other hand considers relicensing unconstitutional. The ECA, PAIA, RICA and Broadcasting Act is an example of laws that both the SAPS and http://www.npa.gov.za don't want to enforce. The Scorpions is the police force of the http://www.npa.gov.za. So in essence we have two police forces one with the right to prosecute and investigate while the other can only investigte and present the evidence to the http://www.npa.gov.za. Needless to say this has lead to a lot of friction between the two. One can view Icasa as empowered Smuts Ngoyama's Telecoms police force with its particular agenda.

Local council PTN license and private persons streaming CCTV
Council and a private company Cue Incident are streaming CCTV data across boundaries. Council uses their PTN license. But at which point is Cue Incident or other companies streaming data not in cooperation with council?

Naspers don't want you to plant telephone poles
Naspers shapes public opinion and are protecting their own interests. The established newspapers don't want yet another entrant into the printmedia to compete with them on the stand at CNA. The mass media keep on telling us about the crime problem and how the government must solve the problem. Why don't they tell people to plant telephone poles and stop the crime via CCTV in addition to lambasting the government? Because such a CCTV network won't just remain limited to CCTV, it will enable everybody to essentially become their own publication and broadcasting enterprise. At present there are huge barriers to for example stream television stations from Europe. It simply cost to much money for any individual to attempt. But if South-Africans plants telephone poles and everybody collectivly shares the cost of the infrastructure  and links upto to SateLlite then the barriers to entry becomes virtually zero. And this is why the Naspers South Africa aren't really interested in solving the crime problem: They will be eliminated with the crime problem. For the crime problem will be solved indirectly via the IP protocol streaming CctvCameras footage in addition to Internet data via a DsLam. Internet data over DsLam will subsidise the rollout of CctvCameras and a fiber IP network enabling the convergence of voice, video and data. What the http://www.naspers.co.za don't want is for this convergence to happen via DecentralisedNetworks because they will be excluded. The problem is solved be explaining to the nation that planting telephone poles will enable the public to leverage the considerable security apparatus of the state.

We are told that everybody should plant at least one tree a year. This is commendable because it uplifts our community and sense of accomplishment by doing something constructive. In the same way planting of telephone poles to extend our lines of communication will focus South-Africa's present negative energies into doing something constructive for this nation and it's people. What is standing in the way of this happening is a entangled web of lawyers, Icasa, Naspers, BEE empowerment recipients all scheming to prevent the public from forging DecentralisedNetworks. And since there are no networks the public can't assist the government in the fight against crime. The legal fraternity in particular don't want the public to understand that only the http://www.npa.gov.za can establish that first test case in court - not the SAPS, ANC, Naspers, Icasa, Telkom or any other person trying to protect their vested interests. At present you phone somebody at 10111 who is on lunchbreak to get police responce. But with http://www.eblockwatch.co.za you phone Andrei Snyman who will escelate the call to the correct person using the 900mhz medium. With telephone poles the same network of cooperation can be achieved using the medium of copper, fiber,BroadbandOverPowerlines and MeshNetworking. The convergence of voice,video and data via a DsLam, DecentralisedNetwork is what http://www.naspers.co.za fears the most. Crime isn't really Koos Bekker the CEO of Naspers problem - he has enough bodyguards to protect him. His problem is preventing thousands of little Nasperses from arising out of the paradigm shift that will happen once the public engages in a TelephoneNetworkRollout. The ECA is the ruse they want to use to prevent you from becoming the next Naspers, too bad the http://www.npa.gov.za don't take instructions from Koos Bekker.

Telephone Poles will make Icasa irrellevant
Icasa generates income by awarding licenses and needs to prevent telephone poles from threatening those license holders income stream like for example VANS license holders. M-Web has a VANS license and is owned by Naspers. Cooperating DecentralisedNetworks will result in Icasa becoming irrellevant.

Media publications referencing the ECA
http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/eng/sector/telecoms/?show=97854

RICA and Film and Publication Amendment Bill
http://www.itweb.co.za/sections/telecoms/2006/0611241037.asp?A=2010&S=2010&T=Section&O=ST "...The Rica legislation is of greater concern, Silber noted. As it stands at the moment, everyone using a fixed-line or Internet service in this country – regardless if it is Internet service to a home, or from a hotspot or wireless – should be registered as a customer by the relevant Internet service provider, he explained. This includes providing a photocopy of an ID certified by a Commissioner of Oaths, plus proof of address before that service is switched on. ItwebRicasilberArticle] ''... The Rica legislation is of greater concern, Silber noted. As it stands at the moment, everyone using a fixed-line or Internet service in this country – regardless if it is Internet service to a home, or from a hotspot or wireless – should be registered as a customer by the relevant Internet service provider, he explained. This includes providing a photocopy of an ID certified by a Commissioner of Oaths, plus proof of address before that service is switched on.''

http://www.iweek.co.za/ViewStory.asp?StoryID=169489 ''...Another fly in the ointment is Icasa's new licensing regime, which may come into effect as late as 19 January 2009. Silber observes that under the old licensing framework, all activities related to the provision of a particular service are vertically integrated. Under the convergence model, vertical separation is sought between infrastructure, network, applications and content''. And we can ignore this lunacy from Icasa since we are protected by John Welch, Billy Downer and Vusi Pikoli.

Cost of satellite equipment represents a barrier to entry into http://www.naspers.co.za domein
The NaspersProblemowns Multichoice. The satellite provider who challenged the Broadcasting Act in 2006 hacked the Multichoice box to stream their data, thus forcing Naspers to subsidise their data content. This provider did not have the capital expenditure costs Naspers had to go through. In the same way using building our own TelephoneNetworkRollout for a R900/home will leverage the existing communications media you have: PC, ADSL modem and a network switch. Only the cost of a TwistedPair really will be the major expense for open streets to become the next http://www.naspers.co.za. What these articles about http:/www.itweb.co.za really come down is imagine Airbus keeps on telling stranded passangers about the wiring problem of Airbus. So what? Who cares? If Airbus can't get us airborne then Boeing will do the job. What is going on now in South-Africa is that we are at the stage where we keep on being told what is the problem and why we just can't get airborne: ECA, RICA.

And since the NaspersProblem controls virtually all the media outlets they can keep on playing the public for the fool. For us the cost of local Telkom bandwidth to stream multi-media via http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/9280 Icecast server content represents an insurmountable obstacle. What Naspers don't want is for this obsticle to be removed for the public via their TelephoneNetworkRollout and WiMax combination but not for Naspers who as a commercial entity must have some sort of gatekeeper of information either Telkom or Icasa. In the present restricted environment the NaspersProblem is making it's money, that is as long as it remains restricted for everybody - which is why a TelephoneNetworkRollout is such a threat.

Will Mark Shuttleworth be prosecuted by the http://www.npa.gov.za?
Joe Soap thinks that just because he is not a well known person like Mark Shuttleworth that it makes it more likely for Vusi Pikoli to prosecute him. No matter who you are everybody is equal before the law. If the http://www.npa.gov.za would'nt dream of making a fool out of itself and South-Africa by arresting Mark Shuttleworth for planting a telephone pole then on what basis would they arrest you? Manto with her miracle lemon juice in Canada was enough of an embarrasment.

FCC and Icasa's powers to fine
The Federal communications commission in America has the power to fine people. Our constitution in South Africa forbids sprinkaan beamptes from fining people because we will have US style chaos with hundreds of federal commissions able to fine people. The US justice system is one big mess. One should be carefull not watch to many US law and order programs. Sprinkaan beamptes in South Africa first have to get their case past the http://www.npa.gov.za for that first precedent before anybody gets fined or jailed. In South AFrica only the Judicial dish out fines if the http://www.npa.gov.za decides to prosecute. We don't have on of the best constitutions, we have the best constitution in the world. Some people think it to be our disadvantage that you have to criminally convicted before you can be fined. Absolutely not because Icasas narrow agendas that amounts to terrorizing society won't ever get past Vusi Pikoli, John Welch and Bill Downer. Which is why Icasa is to be openly mocked! Icasa is a huge albatros around the neck of society. Their sole purpose is to protect the cashflow of Telkom. Icasa is mandated by the constitution and there is not much we can do about it. Please don't allow them to scare and intimidate you.

The John Welch and Billy Downer reasonable man test
Just ask yourself wether they as reasonable people will shackle the lifes of their friends and family so that a few people can make billions? Have they in their personal capacity signed any forms mandated by a compliance law? Don't allow yourself to be intimidated by Icasa sprinkaan beamptes - they can't prosecute you. Icasa and Telecoms lawyers don't decide what the law says - a judge decides. But since the first case will never get past Pikoli, Downer and Welch we won't ever find out what the law really says about the ECA, Icasa Amendment Act and Broadcasting Act.

Criterias to be used in evaluating a compliance law

 * Are there any test cases?
 * What does the John Welch, Vusi Pikoli and Billy Downer reasonable man test say?
 * Why out of millions of people would Pikoli choose me to establish a precedent?
 * What would be the consquences for the http://www.npa.gov.za if a precedent is established in terms of the ECA? How many thousands for other cases would there be.
 * What would the effect be on our economy.
 * Is such a law not a ruse by the ANC to squash free speech?
 * What would the effect be on free speech? Free speech is vital for the media to expose wrong doing that the http://www.npa.gov.za prosecutes.
 * Do the public in general want the http://www.npa.gov.za to establish a test case in terms of the ECA or do they find such a law unreasonable?
 * Would the http://www.npa.gov.za want to allow Icasa to turn potentially thousands of tax paying law abiding citizens into freedom-of-speech criminals?
 * What would the effect be on CCTV rollout in streets? CCTV has been the single most successfull deterent to crime
 * Who would financially gain from turning telephone pole planters into criminals? (Tip - ISPs, Telecoms lawyers, Telcos)
 * Was anybody bribed to press a charge with the SAPS?
 * What is the agenda of the people who drafted the ECA(Electronic Communications Act) or any other compliance law?
 * Is a compliance law like the RICA Act not just some sort of ruse to squash free speech?
 * What would be the ultimate goal of a compliance law - what is the real purpose. Who's agenda does it advance, what does it protect?
 * Telecoms is a R100billion industry. Who is trying to protect their interests from competition? Who stands to benefit and to loose?
 * What would the psycological effect be on the public? Will it make them feel hopeless and despondant or glad that the right thing was done?
 * What will the effect be on the wife, kids, brothers and sisters of the prosecutors themselves?
 * As a reasonable man what would you view as in the best interest of South Africa?

The Legislative can legislate anything they want
The legislative can legislate anything they want in an attempt to scare the public. It is because the public don't understand that the http://www.npa.gov.za (http://www.npa.gov.za) is seperate from the Legislative, seperate from the Judicial that these nonsense compliance laws have been so successfull in terrorizing society - without a single person even being prosecuted. Why of all the millions of fools who complied with the PAIA would the http://www.npa.gov.za have chosen you to establish a test case? Infact one hour before Leon Wessels wanted to start barking orders to the police to arrest people the http://www.npa.gov.za intervened and had the whole rubbish law amended. Vusi Pikoli doesn't want to turn ordindary citizens in to criminals, in contrast nothing would give Leon Wessels greater joy then to terrorize the wealth creators. All the PAIA act is being used for at the moment is for going a fishing expedition against a company that a person want's to litigate against. The ANC agenda with the PAIA is to use it as a ruse to get information out of companies so they can legislate more BEE theft. Hundreds of companies dutyfully put up their "PAIA compliance" policy on their websites. Most do it not because they are terrified of Wessels but because of their corporate image. They can't say the stuff I am saying here, the public is hopelessly to stupid for that.

Once the http://www.npa.gov.za starts prosecuting how do they stop?
As with stealing out of hunger cases once the http://www.npa.gov.za starts prosecuting how do they stop? The powers given Icasa under the ECA is so wide that Icasa can actually ban a Star LAN topology built into the walls of a home, but allow a Ring topology. The geniuses who drafted the ECA ofcourse thought this to be wonderful now they can pay bribes to Icasa to have a network topology banned because nobody knows what  network topology that will allow high bandwidth. And this is what the http://www.npa.gov.za fears with the ECA. There is just no end to the thousands and thousands of cases Icasa could potentially force the http://www.npa.gov.za to prosecute once that single precedent is established. The ECA is also open-ended. It gives Icasa the powers to ban anything they want. If they have that first precedent conviction, they will immediatly write a plethora of laws making it for example illegal to send data inside your house from one room to another without their master Telkoms involvement. And since there is this precedent the http://www.npa.gov.za will have no choice but to prosecute whatever law Telkom decides on.

In conclusion
The http://www.npa.gov.za is in a difficult position in the sense that they can't exactly take out a full page advertisement in the Sunday Times explaining that half our laws are a load of unconstitutional Elephant Snot The vested interests(Media, Telcos, ISPs) are scheming so as to prevent the public to from threatening a R100billion industry with DsLam and copper networks crossing boundaries linked to  SateLlite connections. The Legislative branch(Parliament) legislates but the http://www.npa.gov.za decide wether to enforce or not. They have doubts, fears, hopes and dreams for South-AFrica their friends and family. And as biased human beings sitting around the campfire over the holiday season they confide in their friends and family what laws they will never enforce. They say things about these laws they wouldn't dream of saying in public. Billy Downer and John Welch all have Wi-Fi cards in their laptops. They have experienced for the themselves the freedom of being able to sit in a restaurant and receive data across the street. Why would they want to hinder such technology? So that Smuts Ngoyama can rake in a few million more? What about the friends and family of Billy Downer. Don't they complain about the high cost of Telkom? If the http://www.npa.gov.za establishes just one single precedent then they will be at the eternal beck and call of Icasa. The ECA gives Icasa  virtual fiat to concot thousands of regulations describing the very flow of electrons themselves if need be. If any precedent on say planting of telephone poles are established by the http://www.npa.gov.za in a criminal trial then the very next morning the http://www.npa.gov.za will have to start prosecuting the illegal SateLlite operators for example. And this would just be the start. THE http://www.npa.gov.za WILL NOT ALLOW THEMSELVES TO BE USED AS SOME SORT OF MONGRAL MUT BY Telkom via its stooge ICASA

There is nothing Telkom as a JSE listed company can do to you: Icasa is the regulator and only they can press charges with the SAPS. There is nothing the SAPS can do to you if there are no test cases. They can't throw you in jail, only take a meaningless statement. You can write any nonsense on that statement, you still won't be able to force the hand of the http://www.npa.gov.za to prosecute you. You as an individual planting Telephone poles is not the issue with the http://www.npa.gov.za. It would be the thousands of other cases they would now have to prosecute. And all it takes is just one single conviction in a court of law. Do you really think the prosecutors want to spend their weekends working overtime to prosecute thousands of people so that empowered Smuts Ngoyama, instead of skimming R100 million from Telmom gets R200 million? Should there be this single criminal conviction(and why out of millions of people would that be you? :) It would lead to a virtual shutdown of communications in South-Africa. The psycological effect will be devestating. 80% of the non-disadvantaged pay all income tax in this country. Such a conviction would strike fear and terror into the very base of South-AFrica's tax foundation: The people who pay Vusi Pikoli's salary and enable the BEE deals. For the entrepeneurs to be able to pay tax and create wealth that leads to employment they need to know that they are fearlessly being protected by the http://www.npa.gov.za from vindictive laws, the http://www.npa.gov.za for obvious reasons can't shout this from the rooftops. If Vusi Pikoli don't want to prosecute people who stole out of hunger then why would he terrorize this very fragile section of South-Africa society paying 80% of all income tax, creating virtually all the employement? He has no choice but to prosecute all theft cases since thousands of precedents have been established. It just demonstrates the danger for the http://www.npa.gov.za once a precedent gets established, they can't easily undo such a conviction. And a criminal conviction in terms of the ECA would set in motion a whole chain of events that could even have possesing direct burial Fiber optics become a criminal offence if Icasa so decides. The ECA even gives Icasa the right to ban a Harddrive above a certain size! It is precisely the fact that the vested interests tried to cover all bases in hte ECA leaving  no loopholes for anybody to provide a commercial service that Billy Downer  won't establish a precedent.

As you read http://www.itweb.co.za and all the media comments about the Icasa, Telkom and ECA you will now have the whole background to their articles and why I say they are all involved in a massive conspiracy, a huge smoke and mirrors excercise in preventing you from seing the whole picture and the solution to our problems: TelephoneNetworkRollout Instead of telling us about the solution http://www.itweb.co.za, http://www.news24.co.za keep on telling us about the problem. Telkom is a JSE and NYSE listed company. Nothing is going to change in South Africa and the share price of Telkom proves this.

Examples of FUD by Telecoms lawyers

 * "...If you going to connect over any reasonable distance you going to require an external antenna on your roof, there are reported cases of ICASA confiscating this equipment if no valid licence is present, so don't be fooled it does happen, they can fine you too...."

Factually and legally incorrect, only the courts can fine you in South-Africa after the NPA prosecutes you(which won't happen), unlike the US FCC.


 * "....If you going to connect over any reasonable distance you going to require an external antenna on your roof, there are reported cases of ICASA confiscating this equipment if no valid licence is present, so don't be fooled it does happen, they can fine you too...."


 * ".... he is paying his neighbour for the internet.How can they prosecute a paying member? How are they gonna enforce this lmao, ICASA what a joke...."

Because Icasa, ANC, SAPS etc. cannot prosecute anybody only the NPA can do this and they are not.


 * "....If he is paying his neighbour for internet then the neighbour requires both a ECNS/ECS license. If his neighbour is giving him free internet then the neighbour has to apply to ICASA for a license exemption....."

What criminal court ruling established case law that you need an ECNS for anything?! In fact you could setup a 1meg watt transmitter on 2.4ghz and 470mhz and wreck all communication on these spectrums and there is nothing the NPA will do about it because it is license free and precisely to prevent any precedent criminal cases from possibly being established. Even if Icasa confiscates the equipment with a court order, the NPA will not prosecute such cases.

Links
* NaspersProblem * DapperMuisLicense