Here's an extract:
"Anyone who is upset over iBurst’s calls for the public to be wary of doing business with unlicensed operators, need to answer a simple ‘yes’ or a ‘no’ to each of the following questions:
- Is it true that only certain operators such as iBurst are licensed to build their own public communications networks?
- Is it true that ICASA has warned illegal wireless ISPs that they are potentially committing criminal offences?
- Is it true that customers of illegal wireless ISPs face disconnection as ICASA cracks down on illegal operators?” iBurst said.
"iBurst now considers this matter closed," the company concluded.
Okay iBurst, I answered 'yes' to all of the above questions.
Now Alan Junior, if you could please answer the following simple question with 'yes' or 'no':
Are you smart enough to realise that as a result of your shortsighted and libelous smear campaign that I, nor anyone reading this blog, will likely ever use iBurst in the future?
I now consider this matter closed.
UPDATE: Since writing this post, I've been using (and recommending) iBurst more and more. First simply as an interim solution while waiting for a Telkom line, but then continuing to use it in areas where connectivity is robust. I think iBurst could make significant inroads providing last mile connectivity. Let's hope they focus on doing that and don't commit another blunder as in PE.
3 comments:
Henk, I get your frustration with this, but you even admit to answering 'yes' to iburst's questions. While I completely agree that the system is broken, surely that is no reason to break the law?
Good post! :-D
Jokes aside, bad, very-very BAD...
pete, there are two issues at stake here. The first is that iBurst claimed that another operator is unlicensed, when they weren't.
"A lawyer for one of the so-called ‘illegal’ wireless operators said that the broadband provider is licensed, and that a High Court interdict against iBurst was obtained to immediately stop the campaign against their client."
This is dishonest and amounts to libel, which IS breaking the law.
The 2nd issue is that a competitor should not play the role of a regulattor. I worked at Telstra in Australia, they're very much like Telkom in SA, but during training they mentioned some things competitors might be doing that are 'illegal'. We asked if we should report it to anyone if we suspect it, and the clear answer was "No, Telstra is NOT the regulator."
If we were more clear on this issue, we wouldn't have heavyweights such as Telkom (and now iBurst) stifling competition by threatening to take small players to court.
Post a Comment