Last week?s Icasa hearings on the draft VAN services (VANS) regulations saw major concerns raised by most of the parties involved. These concerns related to, amongst others, a definition of what is meant by VAN services, and the proposed VANS licensing fees.

On everyone?s list was confusion over exactly what VANS are, and Ant Brooks, regulatory chairperson of the Internet Service Providers Association (Ispa), says that the organization sees this as a top concern. The fact that Icasa has not clearly defined the scope of VAN services is resulting in a headache for Ispa. It called on Icasa to ?provide urgent clarity? on what exactly is meant by the term ?VAN services?.

Says Brooks: ?Our members provide many different types of services. Some ISPs provide e-mail services, but not Internet access; others provide Internet access, but operate as a ?virtual ISP? meaning that they do not operate their own access network, but piggy-back on the networks of large ISPs. Some members only provide higher-level services, such as Web hosting. Icasa cannot tell us which of these services requires a VANS licence, and this is extremely frustrating.?

Ispa believes that Icasa needs to first clarify the scope of VAN services and then to request comment on new regulations.

On this note, T-Systems says that Icasa should be careful in setting definitions for VANS in order not to impose a limitation on the ?type and nature of services which VANS are authorized to provide both in terms of ministerial determinations and the Telecommunications Act?.

The VANS Awareness Campaign also has a strong view on this issue, and feels that the regulator needs to create a distinction between carriers and value-added services within the definition of VANS, saying that getting this right will also be crucial for the proposed Convergence Bill.

A massive increase in application licensing fees, from R5 000 to R30 000, proposed by Icasa also had parties fuming. This, and the issue of licensing fees income, will have a negative impact on the market.

Ispa, representing over 80 Internet service and access providers, of which most are SMMEs, as well as the VANS Awareness Campaign, amongst others, felt that an application fee of

R30,000 (US$5,034) is unreasonable.

Ispa wants to know how the fees can increase almost five-fold when Icasa says the proposed amount is based on the cost of supplying a licence, currently R5 000. It adds that without a proper definition of VAN services, companies cannot calculate licence fees, because they do not know what services apply.

T-Systems felt that it should not be necessary for existing licence holders to pay any additional licence application fee or to re-submit their applications. Internet Solutions (IS) concurs, and, in its written comment, proposed that only new applicants for VANS licences should be charged the R30,000 fee.

The Communications Users Association of South Africa (Cuasa) and the Southern African VANS Association (Sava) jointly say that the proposed increase to R30 000 for licence fees cannot be justified on any rational grounds, and suggest that it is reduced to the current R5,000 licence amount.

They also say that the definition of ?Licence Fee Income? to include ?any aspect of the value-added network services? is too broad and requires further clarity. Both suggest that services incidental to VANS provided by licensees should specifically be excluded from this definition.