Leaderboard

Great to see forum members discuss DCX10 here - we are honoured! Owning the market weighted index of the top 10 Crypto's is not the holy grail of Crypto investing, but historically it has outperformed Bitcoin by a margin of roughly 50%. Past performance is of course no guarantee of future returns, but we think the index will beat Bitcoin again. The timeframe is uncertain though. If you're comfortable with this position, 1% per annum fee for the convenience of managing the composition of the index, fades into insignificance compared to the outperformance. Happy to discuss more...

I'll bite, and answer the questions as my first post here. First and foremost, all information is available on the ebucks website, its not a secret, just take some reading time. https://www.ebucks.com/web/eBucks/earn/earn-from-the-bank-2019.jsp #1 Does the bank account type make a difference? It does.There are certain caps on the earning. Gold for example is capped on earning ebucks on a maximum spend of R7500 in-store and online. Earn rules @ https://www.ebucks.com/web/eBucks/earn/fnb-gold-2019.jsp Premier for example is capped on earning ebucks on a maximum spend of R10000 in-store and R2500 online. Earn rules @ https://www.ebucks.com/web/eBucks/earn/fnb-gold-2019.jsp For both, your checkers earn is capped at 20% of total monthly spend and R1750 for gold or R2000 for Checkers. To get to that 15% earn for checkers, you need to be on ebucks reward level 5. To understand this, you need to look at "Maximise your points to reward level 5" on https://www.ebucks.com/web/eBucks/earn/fnb-gold-2019.jsp or https://www.ebucks.com/web/eBucks/earn/fnb-premier-2019.jsp #2 FNB Fusion Gold VS FNB Fusion Premier – Which is best for ebucks? The level account you go for, depends on both how big your income is and more importantly, how much you spend each month. The spend caps for in-store spend is a good indicator. R10k a month or less spend, then go Gold. If your spend is closer to R15-20k a month then go Premier. If your spend is less than R5k a month skip fnb/ebucks altogether. #3 Does your ebucks cover your monthly bank account fee?For me, it far exceeds my monthly account fees! I am on Private Clients which costs R390 a month (with no additional fees). I earn R2000 worth of ebucks a month, and spend it only on 40% discounted items/vouchers which means that R2000 become an effective R3334. Then there are other benefits like free lounge visits at airports, avis free point-2-point, R100 Kauai voucher each month, FNB on the wimpy voucher, 500MB data free on the FNB sim ect. I use most of those benefits, its insane to turn it down...if you spend enough each month on your card. #4 Will ebucks benefit me? You will need to make changes to your payments to make ebucks benefit you. EFTs count for 0 ebucks. You need at least 3-4 debit orders on your account to help you gain reward levels, so I would keep those as is mostly. Municipal account, instead of EFT, I would pay into the account using credit card. Even if you pay part of it, and let the co-owner pay the other part whichever way he want, or EFT to you and let you pay with card. Fuel, keep as is on card. Paypal, keep as is, its online spend. Airtime, buy with card at a retailer or online. I do online. Electricity is easy to buy online, even possible on snapscan app now, which is what I use, its conveniant. That said, its difficult to say without actual values. Anyways, you need to do some homework to really know. I do this once a year, takes me 30 minutes then I am done for the year. Thats quicker than my e-filing takes. Read through the rules on: https://www.ebucks.com/web/eBucks/earn/fnb-gold-2019.jsp or https://www.ebucks.com/web/eBucks/earn/fnb-premier-2019.jsp Then use the calculator to work out what you can do to get to level 5 and then what you can earn with your expenses: https://www.ebucks.com/web/calculator/rewardsCalculatorAction.do At a minimum, play with the calculator. Hope that helps.

Salutations Thought I'd introduce myself before making any wall of text posts Some people on this forum may already know me or have come across some of my activities in other communities and groups. I post under my own name where-ever I post. To everybody else the standard disclaimer is that only half of the bad things you've heard about me are true. My educational background is in law, economics and philosophy. I don't hold a degree but am a published author of peer reviewed academic articles. I was responsible for the creation of Crystal Web was ousted in 2017 from involvement of the company until needing to perform a salvage operation in the Evonet disaster. While I have every hope to rebuild Crystal Web there are quite a few hurdles to get that horse back on track. At the moment my LinkedIn short description reads: Critic of 5G silliness Advocate for 5G ecosystems and yes 5G is something I talk about A LOT, somewhat sadly more often outside of South Africa

I have both although I may not have given Discovery a fair chance with regards to rewards so far. But that doesn't matter because their service just isn't even close to FNB. I'm sure they'll get there in time but so far Discovery Bank has been a massive waste of time for me. It's funny because people used to say eBucks is complicated - wait until you try Vitality Money. It's all relative to spend etc. but I'm on level 5 eBucks and get about R500 worth of it back every month without doing anything special. I can more than likely maximise it and get exponentially more every month but I don't go chasing rewards for the sake of good financial habits (overdrafts, revolving loans etc). Anyway, I can tell you this: If you don't fully commit to Discovery then don't bother. FNB's app and integrated services are light year's ahead. FNB's support is better I'm more than likely cancelling my Discovery card as soon as I can figure out how... So my vote is FNB + Tyme over any other banks in South Africa.

Ouch, that's 2 against 1

Any person of 16 years and over is free to make a will in order to determine how his/her estate should devolve upon his/her death. If you die without a will, your estate will devolve in terms of the rules of intestate succession (your assets will, contrary to general belief, not go to the state). What is said hereunder is not meant to replace the provisions of the Intestate Succession Act, no. 81 of 1987. The information is merely to inform the user of this site about some of the basic questions asked about intestate succession. Deceased is survived by a spouse or spouses, but not by a descendant/s. The spouse or spouses will inherit the intestate estate. In the case where the deceased was a husband in a polygamous marriage the surviving spouses will inherit in equal shares. Deceased is survived by a descendant/s, but not by a spouse. The descendant or descendants will inherit the intestate estate. Deceased is survived by a spouse or spouses, as well as a descendant/s. Each spouse will inherit R250 000 or a child's share, whichever is the greater and the children the balance of the estate. A child share is determined by dividing the intestate estate through the number of surviving children of the deceased and deceased children who have left issue, plus the number of spouses who have survived such deceased. NOTE: In case of a marriage in community of property, one half of the estate belongs to the surviving spouse or spouses and , although it forms part of the joint estate, will not devolve according to the rules of intestate succession. For more information on the Intestate Succession Act, no. 81 of 1987 please consult the act or your legal representative. The following two examples will illustrate what is said above about the child's share: Example 1: Value of intestate estate is R550 000. The deceased is survived by a spouse and 3 children. A child's share amounts to R137 500 (R500 000 divided by 4 (3 children plus spouse)). The child's share is less than R250 000. Therefore the spouse will inherit R250 000 and each child will inherit R100 000,00. (R500 000 less R250 000 to spouse, divided by 3). Example 2: Value of intestate estate is R1 250 000. The deceased is survived by a spouse and 3 children. A child's share amounts to R312 500 (R1 250 000 divided by 4 (3 children plus spouse)). The child's share is greater than R250 000. Therefore the spouse will inherit R312 500 and each child will also inherit R312 500 (R1 250 000 less R312 500 to spouse, divided by 3). Deceased leaves no spouse or descendants, but both parents who are alive. His/her parents will inherit the intestate estate in equal shares. Deceased leaves no spouse and no descendants but leaves one parent, while the deceased parent left descendants (brothers/sisters of the deceased). The surviving parent will inherit one half of the intestate estate and the descendants of the deceased parent the other half. Deceased leaves no spouse or descendants but leaves one surviving parent, while the deceased parent did not leave any other descendants. The surviving parent will inherit the whole estate. Deceased does not leave a spouse or descendants or parents, but both his parents left descendants. The intestate estate will be split into equal parts. One half of the estate is then divided among the descendants related to the deceased through the predeceased mother and the other half among the descendants related to the deceased through the predeceased father. Deceased does not leave a spouse, descendant or parents, but only one of the predeceased parents left descendants The descendants of the predeceased parent who left descendants, will inherit the entire intestate estate. The deceased does not leave a spouse or descendants or parents or descendants of his parents. The nearest blood relation inherits the entire intestate estate. The deceased is not survived by any relative. Only in this instance will the proceeds of the estate devolve on the state. What is the position with regard to an illegitimate child of the deceased. An illegitimate child can inherit from both blood relations, the same as a legitimate child. What is the position with regard to an adopted child of the deceased. An adopted child will be deemed to: * be a descendant of his adoptive parent or parents. * not to be a descendant of his natural parent or parents, except in the case of a natural parent who is also the adoptive parent of that child or was, at the time of the adoption, married to the adoptive parent of the child. Source: http://www.justice.gov.za/master/m_deseased/deceased_intestate.html

Coincidentally, this week is National Wills Week (or "Free will" week) at many participating attorneys in South Africa. A list of participating attorneys who will do your will for free can be found on the website of the "Law Society of South Africa" https://www.lssa.org.za/our-initiatives/advocacy/national-wills-week But many other attorneys who didn't send their names through will still do it for you.

No - basically the executor will consolidate your estate (ie. he/she will get an attorney to search for all your accounts and policies using your ID number) and will combine these into a trust account. Then your will will say how to divide the total. No need to specify details. You can usually just say "30% to X and 70% to Y" unless, of course, you have personal items that you want to go to someone in particular, then you can specify those. Many attorneys (conveyancers in particular) will actually do a will for free without expecting anything in return. They may just suggest that " One day if you sell your house you can nominate me as the transferring attorney" or something along those lines. Most people will feel loyalty towards that particular attorney because they do/regularly update your will for free. In essence, you can actually do your will yourself, but it will only be valid at the Masters office (when it is executed) if it complies to all the procedural rules. These include stuff like that the witnesses must be identified in the will and be traceable and other technicalities like this, since there is a lot of scope for fraud with wills (because there are usually many versions of a will and only the most recent one applies, so the Master has to verify that you actually did the will.) If anybody contests the will, the witnesses must be traceable and swear that they signed the will etc. This is to protect the rights of the deceased. Thus it is in your best interest to contact an attorney.Tell them you want to appoint family members as executors. It should usually cost you anything between free (minimum) and R1000 maximum.

Dont know where Sygnia are on the the BC/ Crypto thing, they seem to have gone quiet. Agree kudos to ZAR X. Blockchain was made for Unit Trusts, its a match made in heaven I think This press release is light on detail about who is going to be disrupted, there are almost always winners and losers

JSE: LAB https://www.google.com/search?q=jse:+lab&tbm=fin Got some for 58c. Will probably go up in smoke but might reach a very nice high.

I came here in full might, hammer in the air, desperate and hungry to smite the spam out of someone - just to realize this is in fact a legit thread. As you were.

Anybody else noticed a drop in eBucks earnings the last two or so months?

First and foremost, never EFT from your CC if it is in the negative, because then you miss out on the 55 days interest free period, as it will instantly start to accumulate interest when doing EFT from CC or drawing money from the CC. So what I meant was, that you need to change away from EFT and change to card payments. Either online or swiping the card. When it comes to the municipality, you have options. The easiest is to use online payments. I prefer using https://www.walletdoc.com/ which automates the payments if you receive your bill via e-mail. Alternatively, most municipality bills support payments at Checkers/Woolworths/PnP ect, where you can then swipe the credit card. So the idea is, to move the payments away from EFT to card swipe or card online payments. You will see, FNB uses eBucks to drive banking behavioral change. So they don't want people to draw money at ATMs, but instead use tills within shops like Checkers/PnP ect. Use card payments instead of EFT (The bank makes nice amount of money on credit card swipes from the shops).

Use your credit card when shopping and paying for stuff and settle it at the end of the month. If you are buying something online, for example, you often have the option of paying via EFT. If you do you'll get no eBucks for it. Use your credit card for everything. You can maximise earnings even more by getting revolving loans and overdrafts. Don't fall for it - no debt trap is worth more eBucks.

Welcome

This is cool. Although I doubt it'll work for us - it looks bigger than the Chihuahua

I'll settle for a better interest rate on my car or home loan...

Typographical, spelling and grammatical mistakes are an inevitable part of life. Some writers commit considerably more silly errors than others; and of course some individuals take great joy in pointing out errors of a minor nature. For this practice said people are given the overly kind description of grammar Nazis or pedants. As a serial abuser of the English language (and also as a person who struggles the urge to alternate between (i) making spelling and grammatical errors with (ii) the injecting of profanities, vulgarities and risqué innuendo into my work), I am usually the last person to point out an error in the work of others— especially if the error is one that arose from late night carelessness or is tantamount to a brain fart. Today is an exception, we need to start by laughing and then move into ridiculing the clowns. I spent part of yesterday reading over the regulations and amendments to the regulations to properly establish the conditions which would disqualify a company from bidding (apply in the language of the regulations) for the high demand spectrum which Vodacom and MTN propaganda claim explains South Africa’s increasingly untenable data prices lead to a discovery that (as presently written): (3) An applicant shall be disqualified from the application process where such applicant: (d) has a minimum 30% (thirty percent) equity ownership held by persons from Historically Disadvantaged Groups; alternatively, in instances where an Applicant does not have such 30% equity ownership, must be a level 4 and above contributor (BBBEE status) in terms of the Codes of Good Practice published in terms of section 9(1) of the BBBEE Act. You read that correctly – under the regulations as amended – being an empowered company is a mandatory basis for disqualification from securing spectrum. If ICASA had a track record of competence one might believe conspiratorially that this was a ploy by white monopoly capital (whatever that may mean) to apply apartheid principles to spectrum. Unfortunately (at least for racist white supremacists who would love nothing more than to control the airwaves) ICASA’s track record is such that such an intention to protect white monopoly capital or re-introduce apartheid through some grand scheme cannot even be considered a remotely possible explanation. However the standard application of Hanlon’s razor cannot ever be applied to ICASA either: ordinarily we should avoid attributing to malice those things which stupidity adequately explains – otherwise we give governments and large companies far to much credit of agency and intention. But what of the incompetently malicious? In present times it seems that applying Hanlon’s razor and discarding monumental failures of governance on explanations of stupidity is to give far too much cover under which an insurgency of evil takes place – it may be enough for evil to thrive if the populace fails to act because it fails to recognize the malice in its midst thinking that the malevolent is no more than a buffoon. Of course it is possible to have a situation in which that which is evil, is both evil and incompetent and if we fail to understand that many of the most malicious schemes the devil may conjure are unsuccessful because the malicious are usually a lot stupider than they would like to believe: stupid criminals are caught quickly; cocky criminals get stupid and then caught – not universally but more often than the malcontent assume when they begin on their merry path of malevolence. For various reasons – made clear in the history of the matter – ICASA’s prohibition (found in the regulation as amended but not practised – at least not yet) on black owned businesses acquiring high demand spectrum is an instance where the error can be explained with reference to stupidity (not reading the regulation that was being amended) but an explanation of stupidity only presents half of the story. And the other half of the story is actually more important – at least to anybody who is concerned about state and regulatory capture. We are dealing the situation in which ICASA and the dominant incumbents (or at least one of them) were trying to do something mischievous and did it badly. To better understand the error, the first place to begin is the Electronic Communications Act of 2005 (the ECA). This statute sets out to regulate the entire field of “electronic communications” rather than having different laws for landline telephone services (a field in which Telkom enjoyed a legally protected monopoly and now suffers a de facto monopoly), mobile phone services (where Vodacom and MTN have embraced monopolistic practices and business strategy), Internet, broadcasting (where the SABC has embraced a strategy of undermining the public trust and pillaging the public purse and Naspers historically adopted monopolistic strategies with their Multichoice business but has evidently seen the light) and so on. This approach forms part of a legal framework that is predicated on the idea of convergence, of an industry in which there is competition at different layers and where interconnections between licensees forges a robust and dynamic multi-stakeholder sector. Many of the principles found in the legislative spell of a decade after the new Constitution were ahead of their time and have been found wanting to be embraced by politicians notwithstanding being codified into law. The ECA requires and calls upon regulations to be prepared and publicly commented on before ultimately being adopted. ICASA spent a considerable amount of time not bringing appropriate regulations into effect and the requisite regulations concerning spectrum were only passed in 2011. In March 2015 ICASA replaced the 2011 regulations with The Radio Spectrum Regulations 2015 (the Radio Regulations). In terms of this regulatory framework in order for ICASA to hand out rights to use high demand spectrum (which of course is the spectrum which an operator needs to offer an LTE service) an “extended application procedure” is required and within this procedure there are both qualifying criteria and disqualifying conditions for everybody seeking to obtain the spectrum. ICASA need to invite prospective parties to apply for the spectrum in demand and hold an auction or similar rational manner to perform the handing out of a “lot” of spectrum to the successful applicant. In 2015 ICASA put out an information memorandum in preparation to hold an auction. For various reasons, undoubtedly one of which was that it had been pointed out to ICASA that none of the then entrenched market participants who were ready to part with a sizeable amount of money were eligible to participate in the spectrum auction. The reason was that the Radio Regulations included the following clause disqualifying potential bidders for high demand spectrum: Reg 6.(3) An applicant shall be disqualified from the application process where such applicant: (a) has submitted an application and is an affiliate of another applicant, or has an ownership of financial interest in another applicant within the same application process; (b) has been granted a radio spectrum licence by the Authority within the designated range unless the licensee has less than the maximum bandwidth made available in line with these regulations in which case they will only be allowed to apply for additional spectrum which results in the total assignment not exceeding the maximum bandwidth made available; (c) has submitted more than 1 (one) application to the Authority for the grant of a radio spectrum licence within the designated range; (d) has less than 30% (thirty percent) equity ownership by Historically Disadvanted Persons (HDP) or is below a level 4 contributor (BBBEE status) in terms of the Codes of Good Practice published in terms of section 9(1) of the BBBEE Act; (e) has submitted an application which contains false or misleading information; (f) is colluding or has attempted to collude with another applicant with the intention to distort or manipulate information; (g) has obtained or acquired confidential information relating to another applicant; (h) has failed to notify the authority of the changes referred to in the application forms; (i) has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the application set out in the ITA; or (j) has failed to comply with a request in terms of these regulations. It is of course regulation 6(3)(d) which creates a massive headache for Vodacom, MTN, Telkom and CellC. At this exact point in time I am uncertain as to what the exact percentage of each players “historically disadvantaged persons” is but considering that a year ago Vodacom announced plans to increase their black shareholder tally to 20% and Telkom has considerable government and PIC shareholding (neither of which help in satisfying this particular condition). It is understandable that the mobile network operators (MNO) , especially Vodacom and MTN, would do whatever they legally and ethically could to protect their shareholders interests in light of this provision. Unfortunately rather than revisiting their business plans to adjust to the landscape all evidence points to the MNO’s having adopted a kragdadigheid strategy and mentality and at least one MNO hired a smooth operator (as in a person of limited substance, some charm and a capacity to get the desired outcome regardless of the long term consequences). In mid to late 2016 ICASA pushed forward again with a plan to embark on a spectrum auction and all indications were that pesky things like regulations and an agreed upon legislated for transformation path would simply be ignored. Unfortunately for ICASA and the MNOs the then minister responsible for the sector decided to secure an interdict and a skirmish between the DTPS and ICASA waged for a while. Of course throughout 2015 and 2016 the MNOs were both waging a lobbying and a propaganda war (which they continue to wage) in which they seek to instil in the public conscience the idea that dominant MNOs should be given a free ride with respect to spectrum and that this will result in lower data prices for consumers. The truth is of course a lot more nuanced and the reality is that properly effected a strategy of introducing new market participants who hold spectrum licence assets and contract with incumbent operators to “farm” those rights has a significantly greater chance of maximizing long term consumer benefits as a consequence of competition. On the lobbying front a particular smooth operator boasted during a 2017 workshop on proposed amendments to the ECA that his team had managed to get ICASA to solve the problem posed by regulation 7(3)(d). It is worth pointing out that this requirement that high demand spectrum find its way to the control of firms which are significantly more transformed was present in the 2011 regulations already. Moreover the question of whether spectrum could be leased by a holder had been dealt with and it is trite that a spectrum holder can lease equipment from another firm and may outsource engineering and related functions but a firm with equipment cannot lease spectrum from the holder. It is helpful to think of network infrastructure as tractors and irrigation machines (and engineers as farm workers) and spectrum as land. Under the regulatory framework it is intended that the land will be used to enhance the empowerment of historically disadvantaged individuals. The landholders may therefore lease equipment and hire farm workers from the incumbents but the incumbents cannot acquire more land. The problem of course is that the incumbents don’t want to change their business, they want to own the land and claim that food shortages are because they aren’t being given the land – a claim which distorts the fact that a simple known adjustment to their business makes them no worse off and able to prosper. Quite simply the MNOs wanted to change the rules in order to serve their egos and to make the business plans they understood the law of the land. They found an opportunity in the process of promulgating amendments to accommodate the V and E bands of spectrum – which are not high demand spectrum. What had been done was that in an exercise of amending the Radio Spectrum Regulations 2015 in order to accommodate the developments taking place in the V and E band promulgated a document titled Amendment of the Radio Frequency Spectrum Regulations, 2015. The work on the V and E Bands is laudable, but as often happens something stupid was stuck into an amending instrument that was unrelated to its actual purpose. In this case clause 3. Clause 3 reads: Amendment of regulation 7 of the Regulations Regulation 7, sub-regulation (3) of the Regulations is hereby amended by the substitution for paragraph (d) of the following paragraph: “(d) has a minimum of 30% (thirty percent) equity ownership held by persons from Historically Disadvantaged Groups; alternatively, in instances where an Appicant does not have such 30% equity ownership, must be a level 4 and above contributor (BBBEE status) in terms of the Codes of Good Practice published in terms of section 9(1) of the BBBEE Act. Should we be laughing though, or does laughing make tardy work accepted and ultimately lower standards? My approach is that it is as important to laugh at the folly of others, as to laugh at oneself and that while standards may be important, to err is human. Moreover it is better for journalism if a publication has an editor with integrity than a sub-editor who discovers every grammatical error. It amounts in my mind to a situation in which we laugh at failures of form and care about substance. I laugh at my own mistakes when discovered and so clerical errors of all shapes and forms make me giggle, they do not instil a sense of righteous indignation when made innocently or through folly. When errors are in religious or legal works they are a little more amusing. I disagree vehemently with the pedant who believes that identifying mistakes is an exercise of achieving superiority, or who is more concerned with form that they loose all sight of substance, or worse rhetoric and aesthetic: incorrect writing or speaking with idiosyncrasies add colour to the world. Reading case law is made significantly less tedious by a quest to find the occasional witticism from the bench or scriveners error which will be attributed to a functionary but one imagines may have also come from the bench. Contracts can be meticulously drafted and contain a spelling mistake that is repeated throughout the document because the author simply did not know that there was supposed to be a “k” and a “z” in the name of the newest hipster establishment and the fact that one of my sisters is referred to as a “gril” in my parents divorce settlement is a cause of a chuckle. We really should only care a great deal about an error if it is material or leads to ambiguity or uncertainty. Perhaps the finest example of a scriveners error is to be found in the aptly nicknamed Wicked Bible wherein the “not” is erroneously (at least it is presumed erroneously) omitted from the commandment. ICASA in 2016 made itself guilty of setting up a regulation that amounts to a “thou shalt commit adultery”. Part of the reason I need to justify laughing rather than rebuking clerical errors is because in 2015 in my submissions (on behalf of Crystal Web) contained a consistent error of referring to regulation 6(3)(d) when 7(3)(d) was meant. In the context – and the fact that regulation 6(3)(d) does not exist – it was clear what was meant. But by all means giggle at the mistake. My dislike of pedantry of a nasty kind (especially from a pedant who is actually wrong – if you are going to correct somebody make sure you are actually correct) tends to evaporate however when the reason for the mistake is not some form of carelessness or an overworked person failing at self-editing (when re-reading the same document a third time a person can genuinely think that what is written is what they intended and not what was erroneously written), but rather arises because the person is trying to do something unethical or outright mischievous. We should be amused by innocent errors but ruthlessly ridicule errors induced by a combination of stupidity with malice. This error demonstrably arose not because of a typing error but because of a lack of any diligence, the regulator kowtowed to the demands of the large players whose propaganda has been a continuous ring of “we alone can deliver mobile data and so we must be given whatever we demand”. This error is of the same nature thus as the error of the magistrates in Minister of Police v Vowana and Another [2019] ZAECMHC 5 where a magistrate abrogated judicial power to one of the parties (and the appellate court’s remarks are suitably scathing, although I fear the superior courts under-estimate how rife the practice of abrogating judicial power to attorneys is in our magistrate’s offices). It has a similar ring to the accusation of plagiarism against former NDPP Mpshe in his reasons for withdrawing charges against Jacob Zuma. This is the error that is committed when a public functionary abrogates its responsibilities and allows an inept third party to simply give it something to place its imprimatur on. This is not the error of the scrivener but rather the error that a malevolent vizier introduces. Quite simply one or more of the MNOs wanted the regulation to be changed such as to render a BBBEE level 4 qualification adequate and so they had somebody draft language of that they wished the criteria to bid to be. This language was then slipped into the amendment that was going to be made and because the amendments meaty sections addressing the V and E band are good for competition and progress little scrutiny of the caper would attract – it appearing a technical correction. The error is a simple logical error – writing a new paragraph that would fit in prescriptive conditions, and sliding it in to a section that sets out disqualifying conditions – but it betrays the deeper problem. At the time the amendment was passed a Ms Batyi was in the invidious position to sign what was sent to the government gazette as ICASA had been sitting without a chairperson for some time despite Ms Batyi meeting all of the criteria for such appointment simply because she had the integrity to reject corrupt pressure from the minister of communications Faith Muthambi. ICASA has a prolonged period under which an acting chairperson who Zuma later appointed in Rubben Mohlaloga whose fingerprints are on everything except the pen signing the signature line. It is therefore a solemn duty to make fun of the parties involved in this SNAFU (including Mr Mohlaloga who has been removed from ICASA following a fraud conviction)– it would be nice if the MNO’s (particularly Vodacom and MTN) shareholders took them to task, but that is asking for a little too much. Instead what is likely to occur is that this little error will result in a delay or rushed amendment to repair and smooth operators who thrive in conditions of effecting state or regulatory capture will continue be evil and stupid. After all the country is presently dealing with certain elements of state capture at the Zondo commission and we are daily reading of the calamity from EOH. Quite simply there is so much pent up demand for high demand spectrum to be put to use that most South Africans have little concern about an outcome that sees an auction deliver the MNOs control of additional spectrum and no incentive for competition across verticles. Most South Africans are quite happy to not imagine the innovation which actually following the law and regulations as they stood prior to a nonsensical amendment would produce. But it is this lack of innovation and this preparedness to accept kragdadigheid that is the greatest threat to our nations future. The MNOs need to accept that disaggregation of network infrastructure and spectrum is happening and that the opportunity to see transformation of commercial rights in spectrum is here, but the problem of resistance to change in established players is an age old problem. A quote (translated) from Machiavelli appearing on a slide for an innovations seminar explains the challenge well: “There is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, or more dangerous to manage than the creation of a new system. For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old system and merely the lukewarm defenders in those wou would gain by the new one”. What I am suggesting is embracing a new system, but I am not the initiator here. The legislation itself is the initiator, it is simply inconvenient for many who are entrenched to embrace it. However the pesky regulation 7(3)(d) is not the only reason why a proper reading of the regulations makes the case for new spectrum holding entities. Regulation 7(3)(b) requires interpretation as to what the “designated range” is and what the “ maximum bandwidth made available” is but any pro-competition reading requires the question to be asked whether MNOs should be given additional spectrum rights for LTE utilization (regardless of which 3GPP release) when they already have spectrum in that range. I would categorically argue that the MNOs are all dangerously close to committing the offence in paragraph (f) in distorting information as the clause doesn’t indicate a manipulation in the application itself. It is my argument therefore that unless amended the regulations as they stand are in the open territory for an interested party to approach a court and that if a court were disinclined to hold that the regulator acted irrationally in passing the amendment and that the regulation before amendment stands ICASA created a horrendous mess for itself and was aided by at least one MNO in doing so. Although this is a glimmer of hope that the current minister, Ms Stella Ndabeni-Abrahams, will have the fortitude to follow up on her directives concerning a WOAN with a clear message that the criteria for acquiring additional spectrum rights will not be amended to serve narrow interests and that if there are no licence holders able to bid for high demand spectrum in an auction that ICASA needs to lay the foundation for new spectrum holding entrants. Doing this will mean that only will there be a WOAN but there will also be an era of competition between MNOs as to serving the spectrum holding entities and we will see wholesale electronic communication services being taken up by the more than 400 licence holders. What is more is that South Africa will finally be implementing the spirit of the ECA and we will be among the first markets to really be embracing the ecosystem approach wherein a cornucopia of “cloud native” networks built by interdependent firms which 5G demands. It would be a good step in showing that South Africa is serious about a “fourth industrial revolution” as more than simply fanfare and spending state resources on appearing to be busy. Unfortunately I am not holding my breath, largely because the MNOs have had several years to adopt strategies in line with the changing landscape and have instead embraced the same sort of monopolistic mentality that one finds within Eskom and used to find in Telkom. If you are going to be evil, don't be stupid at the same time.pdf

Didn't think about that... ok fine, you'll do

Competition time! https://bidorbuy.co.za/birthday

DCX10, Magda.... all we need now is for Magnus to join Welcome

Service/Product Description: Freepaid’s API provides seamless, real time access to a wide range of pinned and pinless prepaid products at our transparent, competitive prices. This state-of-the-art programming interface does all the heavy lifting for you. It puts the programming power into your hands, freeing you to put your energy into your own development. You can order PINLESS airtime (direct recharge) or data through this API or you can order a PINNED airtime voucher which is sent to you in the form of a PIN number. Location: 301 Building Three, Tygervalley Chambers, Willie Van Schoor Drive, Bellville, Western Cape About us: Freepaid has been providing state-of-the-art Airtime solutions to innovative South African businesses, large and small, since 2007. Links (optional): Our API https://freepaid.co.za/airtime-api.php

Please post any questions here about the facts of the estate. Process: Part 1: Gather information - This post. Please post any facts of Joe here that you want to be added. Part 2: Facts of estate - All facts will be added here. Part 3: Gather questions - Any questions about the facts can be posted here. - WE ARE HERE NOW! Part 4: Prepare will - Published will can be seen here. Part 5: Questions on will - Any questions about the will can be posted here. Part 6: Prepare estate planning - Published estate planning can be seen here. Part 7: Questions on estate planning -Any questions about the estate planning can be posted here.

Welcome to Wills and Testaments 101 Why is a will important? A will instruct how you estate must be dealt with as per you last wishes. Clear instructions will make it easy for your relatives and you will avoid unnessary family disputes. What will happen if I do not have a will? Will all my assets go to the government? No, there are certain rules that must be followed for a intestate succession. You can read more about it here. Most South Africans do not have a will.... We want to create an interactive series showing members what the process is of drawing up a will and testament, consider the following scenario below which will act as the basis of this series. Joe wants to draw up a will for himself but are not sure where to start and how the process will work. We want to gather information about Joe from the forum. So it will be random information that will make up his estate. We will then work through the process on the forum with lots of time for questions and suggestions. The result will be a final will, but we will even go further and do an estate planning also. With the estate planning we will be able to see how the estate play out in rand value, what costs there will be, who will inherit what, etc. The process will be as follow: Part 1: Gather information - This post. Please post any facts of Joe here that you want to be added. Part 2: Facts of estate - All facts will be added here. Part 3: Gather questions - Any questions about the facts can be posted here. - WE ARE HERE NOW! Part 4: Prepare will - Published will can be seen here. Part 5: Questions on will - Any questions about the will can be posted here. Part 6: Prepare estate planning - Published estate planning can be seen here. Part 7: Wills and Testaments 101 - Questions on the estate planning Any questions/information can also be emailed to [email protected] or posted in this thread.

Any questions about the estate planning can be posted here when we get to that part in the series. Process: Part 1: Gather information - This post. Please post any facts of Joe here that you want to be added. Part 2: Facts of estate - All facts will be added here. Part 3: Gather questions - Any questions about the facts can be posted here. - WE ARE HERE NOW! Part 4: Prepare will - Published will can be seen here. Part 5: Questions on will - Any questions about the will can be posted here. Part 6: Prepare estate planning - Published estate planning can be seen here. Part 7: Questions on estate planning -Any questions about the estate planning can be posted here.

The full estate planning will be added here when we get to that part in the series. Process: Part 1: Gather information - This post. Please post any facts of Joe here that you want to be added. Part 2: Facts of estate - All facts will be added here. Part 3: Gather questions - Any questions about the facts can be posted here. - WE ARE HERE NOW! Part 4: Prepare will - Published will can be seen here. Part 5: Questions on will - Any questions about the will can be posted here. Part 6: Prepare estate planning - Published estate planning can be seen here. Part 7: Questions on estate planning -Any questions about the estate planning can be posted here.

Any questions on the will can be posted here when we get to that part in the series. Process: Part 1: Gather information - This post. Please post any facts of Joe here that you want to be added. Part 2: Facts of estate - All facts will be added here. Part 3: Gather questions - Any questions about the facts can be posted here. - WE ARE HERE NOW! Part 4: Prepare will - Published will can be seen here. Part 5: Questions on will - Any questions about the will can be posted here. Part 6: Prepare estate planning - Published estate planning can be seen here. Part 7: Questions on estate planning -Any questions about the estate planning can be posted here.

The final will and testament will be added here when we get to that part in the series. Process: Part 1: Gather information - This post. Please post any facts of Joe here that you want to be added. Part 2: Facts of estate - All facts will be added here. Part 3: Gather questions - Any questions about the facts can be posted here. - WE ARE HERE NOW! Part 4: Prepare will - Published will can be seen here. Part 5: Questions on will - Any questions about the will can be posted here. Part 6: Prepare estate planning - Published estate planning can be seen here. Part 7: Questions on estate planning -Any questions about the estate planning can be posted here.

PART 2 - Facts of estate Only @padjakkels can post here. Facts will be added here about the estate. Name: Joe Somebody Age: 40 Address: 3 Church Street, Stellenbosch. Married to: Sandy Somebody Kids: Mary (from 1st marraige), Mark and Scott Work: Bakkery - own business Who will inherit: ? ASSETS House : Market Value - R1,700,000 Cost? 2nd House : Market Value R1,500,000, Cost R500,000 EasyEquities account: R230,000 (invested R100,000) EasyEquities TFSA: R780,000 (invested R450,000) 2011 GTI : ? Bakkery - 95% BitX account - 3 bitcoins worth R12,000 each LIABILITIES House Bond - R1,200,000 Process: Part 1: Gather information - This post. Please post any facts of Joe here that you want to be added. Part 2: Facts of estate - All facts will be added here. Part 3: Gather questions - Any questions about the facts can be posted here. - WE ARE HERE NOW! Part 4: Prepare will - Published will can be seen here. Part 5: Questions on will - Any questions about the will can be posted here. Part 6: Prepare estate planning - Published estate planning can be seen here. Part 7: Questions on estate planning -Any questions about the estate planning can be posted here.

Interesting read. Any idea on the easiest and least costly avenue to get a will drawn up? Well, from an accountants view, I would suggest go to your accountant or attorney for help. But the average Joe do not have one of these. Another option is to go to your bank, but to them you are only a number and you can not negotiate the executors fee to a lower percentage. And their customer services are NOT great, I speak from experience. Another option is to get templates from internet, copy and paste them into one document, but you will never be certain if you left anything out or that something will be confusing/not clear in your will. Best will be the to approach someone professional.