Local Loop Unbundling: Please give your feedback

[rpm]

ICASA recently unveiled their Local Loop Unbundling (LLU) discussion document, and invited the public to participate and comment on the document.

As part of the document, ICASA outlined four potential Local Loop Unbundling options: full local loop unbundling (full access); line sharing (shared access to the local loop); sub-loop unbundling; and bitstream access (wholesale access).

ICASA asked the public and stakeholders: What form of Local Loop Unbundling do stakeholders realistically favour in the South African market?

MyBroadband partnered with Ellipsis Regulatory Solutions to make it easier for consumers to give their views and have their voice heard in the regulatory matter.

It should be noted that the various forms of LLU are not mutually exclusive, and full unbundling, sub-loop unbundling, line sharing and bitstream access can be concurrently implemented.

You can therefore select more than one form or LLU to be implemented, and even all four forms if you feel it is the best route to follow.

It is preferable that you tell us why you selected certain options, and also the reasons behind not selection certain options (if relevant).

Please give your views in this thread and vote in the poll above



LLU Options Explained

Full local loop unbundling (full access): operators will be given access to Telkom’s ‘raw copper’, and can therefore use their own technologies using the copper local loop.

Sub-loop unbundling: this allows operators to gain access to the copper at a primary connection point at street level.

Line sharing: Telkom will keep using the local loop to offer land-line telephone services, but unbundle the higher frequencies available on the copper cable for Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) services.

Bitstream access: this is essentially a wholesale data service. Four different Bitstream options were previously highlighted, including the resale of local traffic services, bitstream with collocation, bitstream without collocation and the resale of access services.

[rpm]

I would like to see All 4 options of LLU mentioned in the document to be implemented by ICASA.

Full LLU is needed to ensure that other operators have the option of investing in new technologies and offer new services (like 20Mbps ADSL2+).

Bitstream Access is needed to make it easier for smaller players to get access to more affordable wholesale ADSL products and develop their own ADSL products without large up-front investments.

ICASA can lay down time frames for the implementation of the different forms of LLU – hence immediate Bitsream access, working up to full LLU in future.

[shakes1]

I agree, why not make all 4 available?

[Icarium]

I voted for everything *but* line sharing. Implemented in conjunction with the other options it's viable, but on it's own it leaves the consumer with the unwelcome requirement of having to still pay Telkom for the copper line as a prerequisite for ADSL.

[Messugga]

Part of the conundrum is that Telkom would lose what little motivation they still have, to upgrade and maintain existing infrastructure. If left to SPs, that's fine for areas with higher client-density, but anyone living in a sparsely populated area is screwed, in effect, as nobody would worry about him. Some accompanying regulation with regards to acceptable service levels, would need to be discussed as well.

[The_Librarian]

I voted for everything.

1. Full loop unbundling in cases where it makes sense to hand the local loop over to somebody else.
2. Sub loop unbundling in cases where companies does not have enough money to buy the local loop outright from Telkom.
3. Line sharing - where it's not economically feasible to do sub of full.
4. Bitstream access - as said in the OP.

[qace]

I think line sharing would work better .

[Dan C]

Voted for all 4.

[HotRock]

I voted for Full Local Loop unbundling.
If Malema wants to Nationalise everything would this not be the logical option. :-)

[Jelo]

At the end of the day, it's not the real issue. The real issue is access to the International links. We can run 1Gbps all day between JHB and CTN, but if we are strangled on the undersea cables, what's the point?

[ben dover]

Will ISP's take on the task of fixing line breakages, and hardware faults on your DSLAM port, should it be necessary?
Or will this still fall on Telkom? Or will Telkom be outsourced to fix physical faults?

Either way, we're still stuck with Telkom, regardless of which option prevails...

[naids]

My only concern would be that who takes care of the maintenance and uptime of the lines if telkom decides to open up access? They would surely not be footing the maintenance bill themselves.
Even though the current situation with Telkom is not ideal, we at least have somebody to go to when the line goes down. Maybe I just dont understand the situation...

[naids]

LOL, my thoughts exactly!


Will ISP's take on the task of fixing line breakages, and hardware faults on your DSLAM port, should it be necessary?
Or will this still fall on Telkom? Or will Telkom be outsourced to fix physical faults?

Either way, we're still stuck with Telkom, regardless of which option prevails...

[Emperor]

The complete unbundling of the loop would be the best thing to happens to SA in a long time. The question that however arises is who is going to maintain these lines. What I would suggest is that your chosen service provider be contracted to do line maintenance whilst you employ their services. Once you move to another company, the upkeep of the line becomes hte responsibility of the new service provider. In this way, we can ensure that lines are kept in good condition regardless of which company provides the service. Another way this can be handled is to sub-contract Telkom for the upkeep of the lines. Therefor you ensure that one company does not compromise the quality of another company's lines. Hopefully now the ADSL + telephone line rental would be dropped and we'll see much more competition in the broadband arena.

[Rouxenator]

I'm going with Full Local Loop Unbundling because I see no reason for Telkom to hold onto any aspect of the line. I would ideally like to someday pay for naked ADSL from a provider of my choice.

[stevenv]

Voted for 4.

It's imminent!

[Louisvdw]

I voted for Full and Bitstream.
The real problem if deciding who will be responsible for what part/fault if things are shared, so Bitstream is better (Telkom's infrastructure support for most part is excellent)
On the other end most of the copper infrastructure in SA was payed for by the tax payers before Telkom was privatised, so it is only fare to give all ISPs access to it.

[Zyron]

I must say;

Do you expect Telkom to pleasantly surprise you? :)

[pope24]

I would vote for: "Whatever gets this done fastest." But it wasn't an option.

[Sodan]

I don't understand the difference between local and sub loop unbundling. Sorry for being so dof. Can any explain this in a bit more detail?

[Pada]

I voted for all 4, but I feel that Line sharing should be done first < unless I don't understand this correctly.

Perhaps someone should give detailed examples of all 4 options.

Having to pay for a voice line too, when you just want ADSL is absurd, and I would guess that it would be pretty easy/fast to enforce & implement it.

[Barcobus]

I do not think that full unbundling woud be advantageous. Isp's are simply Not geared to provide full maintenance. To be fair Telkom's network is more reliable than most.

As a case in point remember how we struggle with customer service at mobile operators not to mention dropped calls and undelivered SMS. If multiple service providers enter the maintenance game it will be cheap for sure. But the blame game isp's and Telkom have been playing can only get worse and isp's could end up blaming eachother - nightmare for the consumer!

[3p1c]

Not sure what i voted for? But i chose number 1 ;)

[samaras]

Full please. I hate the fact that i have to get a telephone line to get ADSL. Its pathetic.

[Kruben]

People need to start understanding that the ANC government does not want to masses to use the internet. This LLU will be a long delay tactic – / on again off again / new draft bill / debates / more debates / new draft bill again/ LLU discussion document again!

The ANC needs the masses to be daft and uninformed,

Lower internet cost mean more people will sign for internet services, the ANC will prevent this from happening.

Why you think Zuma put the *Vula Boys to run this department ?

* http://www.armsdeal-vpo.co.za/articles00/thabo_vs_vula.html

Suppressing information is the key to mentioning a one party state

[Barry Crous]

Full Local Loop Unbundling

[jmak]

I am all for option 2-4. For option 1 I see just too many problems in the short term to see it go through.

So I am willing to allow Telkom to keep its voice part on the copper, but unbundle the other frequencies. Neotel can then make use of IP phones for landlines and Telkom are forced to keep up maintenance.

[EnJay]

Anything less than full access/unbundling will be a cowardly move. SA's already lagging behind a few African countries - never mind the rest of the world - when it comes to broadband access and cost. If they want to give one of the biggest boosts the local economy could ever receive, they need full unbundling.

[g-d-zilla]

I don't know what they mean in real terms. Cannot comment. It's time Telkom monopoly on line speeds was outsourced; they display unfair favouritism for those on higher speeds and totally forget the majority on 384kbps. Why can't they simply "bump up" everyone at 384kbps to 1Mbps at the same cost? The infrastructure is in, paid for, now they should pass on the benefits to everyone.

[ToxicBunny]

I'm putting my 2c in for Full LLU and Bitstream because both approaches make sense in different scenarios.

In my opinion, there are exchanges that will be worth having Full LLU available so that other operators can take over a client completely, whereas in others it won't make financial sense, and then you want to give both Telkom AND the competition the incentive to provide services.

[jmak]

I don't understand the difference between local and sub loop unbundling. Sorry for being so dof. Can any explain this in a bit more detail?
(As I understand)

Option 2: lets take you as a client want to use Neotel as a voice and data provider. Neotel will then have to lay fibres to your local Telkom box, say at the corner of the street where the Telkom lines join and go to the local exchange. Neotel will then "cut" the wire going to the exchange and link your copper wire to their equipment to provide you with access to their network. In this way they don't have to dig up, or put up more wires on the poles going to your house, or rewire your house but they still need to provide transmission to a location close to your home. With full unbundling the ISP's can get access to your specific copper wire at the exchange. The downside is that know your copper wire is one of thousands going to the specific houses and there will be battles about who has to pay and fix problems.

Option 3 means the copper wire will be split between Telkom and Neotel in the exchange, with Telkom getting those <5Khz frequencies carrying voice, and then Neotel can add a high frequency data carrier on the line to carry data (and possibly run IP telephones).

[kidnotorious]

Haven't taken the time to understand the options. Based on what I saw circa 2000 when I lived in the UK what needs to happen is that ADSL needs to be fast, uncapped, reliable, accessible without any single player fixing fees or creating artificial barriers to access on terms other than their own.

8ta has created a bit of a problem for Telkom. With cable theft and low population densities once bandwidth costs 0.25c - 1c / meg ADSL becomes a fringe app with 3G doing the bulk of the lifting which is the reverse of what the situation should be.

The unfortunate thing about SA is that there are 2 classes of internet citizen. Users with access to ADSL can get close to all you can eat bandwidth very cheaply. The rest of us have to make do with overpriced 3G.

Come to think of it. If LLU works there could be a significant shift away from 3G leaving a glut in 3G capacity. Makes me wonder how long Vodacon will stick to their story that anything less than 15c-20c/meg is sub-economic?

[jackshiels]

I voted for all. If I had to make a limited choice, full and sub loop unbundling would be best. We need more competition! The only way to invigorate the adsl market is to allow other players in! In countries where the government does not control the broadband market, fibre, superspeed and cheap internet rule!

Please, PLEASE listen ICASA. As a small IT business owner that has recently relocated to south Africa, I find myself limited terribly by the ancient infrastructure here. I miss my old 25mb uncapped - let it happen here too. How can we expect a country to grow when getting a 384kb line is considered "fast"? It is the death knell for IT business!

[waz7710]

I voted for all for options, at the end of the day it has to be most beneficial to the public as well keeping it fully operational!

[TigerTael]

Percentage results are way off. Needs to be fixed.

Currently they serve almost no point as they should be used for explicit comparison, not implicit.

[suPerb0b]

Full unbundling is obviously ideal, but realistically I don't think many ISP's can afford (or even want to) to invest in the equipment they need to provide services. Sub loop unbundling seem like a more realistic approach.
BUT I think all options should be made available so ISP's can decide what they want to do.

[crackersa]

do you have proof of this?


People need to start understanding that the ANC government does not want to masses to use the internet. This LLU will be a long delay tactic – / on again off again / new draft bill / debates / more debates / new draft bill again/ LLU discussion document again!

The ANC needs the masses to be daft and uninformed,

Lower internet cost mean more people will sign for internet services, the ANC will prevent this from happening.

Why you think Zuma put the *Vula Boys to run this department ?

* http://www.armsdeal-vpo.co.za/articles00/thabo_vs_vula.html

Suppressing information is the key to mentioning a one party state

[AdrianS]

Inaccessible, unaffordable - who needs the local loop? I'm a wireless fan...

[Sodan]

Voted for all except line sharing.

Can you imagine the "blame games" the consumers will be subjected to between Telkom and whichever ISP if the line is faulty in a line sharing scenario?

[ingeon]

Full and sub loop ;)
Come on ICASA, implement it already :twisted:

[madala]

I voted for all four, because each one has an area of applicability.
I suggest that the pots and high frequencies of the line be considered as separate. Full access license bundles the two, and for shared usage, Telkom does not simply retain land-line telephone services, but has to compete for access on an equal footing with other providers. A full access licensee should be able to sell pots access back to Telkom or any other provider.

Concerning maintenance, IMO the SP that takes your money must carry the can.
They will probably subcontract to Telkom and others, but an SP who controls all of the money from many subscribers should have a lot more clout with maintainers than present SPs and subscribers do with Telkom getting the rentals and effectively setting bulk rates. The SPs will face competition and lose subscribers if they cannot solve the maintenance problems.

[ebudae]

Why does Telkom not spin off the local loop into its own company that leases access to everyone? Otherwise they could partner with other SA providers and they could jointly manage the local loop as a new entity, each one either paying for access or paying a portion of the maintenance cost.

[Bern]

Full is the only way to go, the other options can be negotiated where needed, but as long as the legislation allows for full. This will ensure Telkom loses the monopoly as all the players can then lay fibre to the exchange and from the exchange or rent services from Telkom/whoever put fibre in to the exchange. Telkom can them compete to provide the "best" service to the exchange or from the exchange to the client making them a better company.

ISPs can the do a blended solution like have full in areas it makes sense down to a bitstream option for areas they can't feasible lay fibre to and support DSLAMs. Telkom makes money all the way, just not ridiculous amounts and the competition should see us get some really good products and service:)

Would be great to see Dark Fibre Africa, FibreCo etc looking to provide fibre to the exchange if this went through- that would be Awesome!!

[Cybrisbob]

All 4 options should be available, no reason not to list them all in the document.
Telkom need to come to the party here as there is no reason to have a phone line billable portion to have just ADSL access.

[strond]

Who owns the copper and the value of the copper aside, who is going to maintain it and at what price ?.
Looking at the Telkom model, the access is and was newer making any money. (The access is paid for (subsidised) by the core and business customers).
If you speak to Telkom’s opposition they are not interested in the access network. Yes they want connectivity to the house but they are not interested in maintaining the copper.
Look at the railway privatisation in the UK the only routes in operation are the ones which are profitable same with the postal service and what is BT doing today, taking back the access, why as it is not serviced and it reflect on their performance.
Is the copper to your house profitable? Exactly the same as with the aurora deal the money lies in the scrap metal.
Why not unbundle new services forcing the telecommunication companies to install fibre to the homes giving real bandwidth supplying this service as part or as part your municipality connectivity fees.
The copper might not be unbundled however the access to the DSLAM is open today and any company can connect to the back-end of it. Which of the operators have said they want to maintain the copper themselves? None, yes they want space in the Telkom exchanges to service the customers and to get the connectivity but not the pain.
I’m all for privatization and unbundling, there is however not a company around that can or want to give the same broad spectrum of services to customers, every one want to play in its own nice market. Unbundle the local loop but let’s not stop there lets unbundle the monopoly of ESKOM, Broadband Infraco, SenTech, SITA and Multichoise to name but a few.
Or is this discussion only about Telkom.
Why was Telkom paying the penalty for not rolling out new copper networks to the previously disadvantage areas maybe they know the cost and if Telkom with the backing of government is not willing to invest do you honestly think the masters from the UK or India is going to.
Come on ICASA if you have the strength to unbundle the local loop do the same with SenTech and Multichoise, force them to share as well or are we all happy paying the amounts we do for “entertainment” but not for ‘data”.

[_drew_]

Different options will benefit different sectors and locations depending on various factors. There needs to be an implementation of them all.

[Tomtomtom]

Naked ADSL is a far bigger priority to me. I'm concerned about regulation of the LL: who sets Telkom's access price, for example? Fixing prices never produces a good outcome.

[Bern]

I don't think you understand the LLU model, it does not require Telkom to give access to the copper network for free, rather it says there should be a set, standard price that is fair for Telkom to continue to maintain and improve the copper network.

You ramble on about rail networks in the UK, BT, th eUK Post Offce and so forth. The UK rail and postal service is epic, so their model obviously works. Our railways are in shambles as they are not run correctly, privatisation would be brilliant- think just of the CT-JB link vs road transport. Much more efficient if the transfer on each end was handled better.

Back to SA LLU, the great thing is Telkom still get paid for their copper network (btw there was an article that quoted Telkom on saying the R133 odd was sustainable for rural and urban, not going to find it for you now), but there is an incentive for other large players to start investing in newer technologies such as fibre to the exchange and to the home as feasable. By the same right Telkom would be able to buy access off their networks, so it is a two-way street. As I mentioned in the previous post- imagine Dark Fibre Africa or similar came to the party...



Who owns the copper and the value of the copper aside, who is going to maintain it and at what price ?.
Looking at the Telkom model, the access is and was newer making any money. (The access is paid for (subsidised) by the core and business customers).
If you speak to Telkom’s opposition they are not interested in the access network. Yes they want connectivity to the house but they are not interested in maintaining the copper.
Look at the railway privatisation in the UK the only routes in operation are the ones which are profitable same with the postal service and what is BT doing today, taking back the access, why as it is not serviced and it reflect on their performance.
Is the copper to your house profitable? Exactly the same as with the aurora deal the money lies in the scrap metal.
Why not unbundle new services forcing the telecommunication companies to install fibre to the homes giving real bandwidth supplying this service as part or as part your municipality connectivity fees.
The copper might not be unbundled however the access to the DSLAM is open today and any company can connect to the back-end of it. Which of the operators have said they want to maintain the copper themselves? None, yes they want space in the Telkom exchanges to service the customers and to get the connectivity but not the pain.
I’m all for privatization and unbundling, there is however not a company around that can or want to give the same broad spectrum of services to customers, every one want to play in its own nice market. Unbundle the local loop but let’s not stop there lets unbundle the monopoly of ESKOM, Broadband Infraco, SenTech, SITA and Multichoise to name but a few.
Or is this discussion only about Telkom.
Why was Telkom paying the penalty for not rolling out new copper networks to the previously disadvantage areas maybe they know the cost and if Telkom with the backing of government is not willing to invest do you honestly think the masters from the UK or India is going to.
Come on ICASA if you have the strength to unbundle the local loop do the same with SenTech and Multichoise, force them to share as well or are we all happy paying the amounts we do for “entertainment” but not for ‘data”.

[Logo]

8ta has created a bit of a problem for Telkom. With cable theft and low population densities once bandwidth costs 0.25c - 1c / meg ADSL becomes a fringe app with 3G doing the bulk of the lifting which is the reverse of what the situation should be.


8ta is Telkom.



Inaccessible, unaffordable - who needs the local loop? I'm a wireless fan...


And where exactly does this wireless connect to ?? If the last mile is provided by wireless you are looking at technologies which are similar to 3G and with that the associated problems of coverage and other problems with reliability. Connections over copper and fibre will more than likely always be more reliable and will always provide lower latency than wireless technologies.

@Kruben: Comment like that about the ANC simply shows your own ignorance and we are not discussing politics here we are talking telephony and communication.

In short the problem with LLU is that it will not provide the quick fix and price drops that some consumers are expecting. This is a small step with not a lot a gain in terms of price or service to the consumer. For example ADSL line rental, don't for a minute think that that is going to fall away it is simply going to be paid to another company. At the beginning it also probably won't be any cheaper as it will be a major capital investment for some of these companies.

[Johand]

I would really vote for full LLU. But I would definite have the following issues discussed with it as well:

1) It must be written generic enough - Telkom must share their copper, but it should also provide a framework for sharing of other last-mile wired technologies from other providers in the future. With it there must be some incentive for companies to invest and share new infrastructure they build.
2) It must allow for the option for Telkom to split of their entire copper network into a separate company.
3) It must provide the option for companies to put their own copper in the ground, but use Telkom ducts and exchanges etc. in cases where Telkom does not provide a service anymore. (e.g. those routes which they stopped servicing due to stolen copper)
4) Cost must be benchmarked upon international LLU cost and not Telkom internal costs.
5) Copper Maintenance must be split of from other Telkom technical work and strict SLA's must be put in place e.g. the days where Telkom can't give you the exact date & time when the technician will be available to do installations/repair must end.

Further I totally vote against line sharing. It will not put us in a better position than we are now and for ISP's to compete realistically on price they need to give you a fully bundled service. It will also make support a nightmare and consumers will have trouble understanding it.

[Death13]

Everything must be unbundled. At least we wont be forced to have landline with the ADSL.

[Logo]

Everything must be unbundled. At least we wont be forced to have landline with the ADSL.

And what else ?

You will still have to pay for your ADSL line no matter who you get it from, and because that company will have to pay Telkom to get access to the line, you will probably pay more.

[Tomtomtom]

But if a fair price is set for the local loop which Telkom receives, why would Telkom not just go ahead and do this now, voluntarily? Why does it need to be legislated? Unless something is in fact being stolen from Telkom's shareholders in the proposed process.

[Chevron]

I voted for bitstream. While it would be wonderful for full unbundling to happen, no one will take advantage it and I believe low density areas will get shafted.

[Bern]

But if a fair price is set for the local loop which Telkom receives, why would Telkom not just go ahead and do this now, voluntarily? We does it need to be legislated? Unless something is in fact being stolen from Telkom's shareholders in this process.

Because fair price is not what Telkom are charging, they have a monopoly and would like to keep it that way- business 101. Who wouldn't? But, since they are a parastatal you would think they would have some loftier goals around the benefit of the citizen, but sadly no.

Telkom said somewhere the R133 odd pays for the network, but why would they give up the call etc. revenue? Charging additional fees for ADSL, calls etc makes them a lot of money- don't kid yourselves, Telkom makes many people a LOT of money.

[JMMurray]

I've voted for all four options, seeing that they all have a place, depending on area or the SP that wants to enter the market.

My main vote is however for Full LLU. My reasoning is that it will create a whole new area of business. Maintenance of the network might be sub-contracted to Telkom, however, how long before a few qualified people split of and start their own enterprises to provide said maintenance? Competition is the market will increase and competition is very good for the economy and the consumer.

As stated, prices are not going to drop overnight. SPs will have to invest capital in order to provide new services and infrastructure. Foreign investment might assist in this regard? What I do see happening, is that if I for one, no longer have to pay for a landline, I effectively can get a second DSL line with the potential saving on two landline rentals.

[Tomtomtom]

Telkom said somewhere the R133 odd pays for the network, but why would they give up the call etc. revenue? Charging additional fees for ADSL, calls etc makes them a lot of money- don't kid yourselves, Telkom makes many people a LOT of money.

I thought they said R133 does not pay for the local loop? I agree monopoly power is the problem. I don't think someone else legislating a "fair price" is the solution. It just cannot be done well. Perhaps a better solution would be to split the company up so that the local loop is not owned by the same company the owns the upstream infrastructure. Upstream companies can then compete to offer the local-loop provider the best rates, and other providers can develop their own last-mile infrastructure if they see a benefit in doing so.

[AcidRaZor]

Technically the law already states that Telkom has to give access to the local-loop to any license holder that requests it unless there are valid reasons for not doing so.

So far Telkom has denied Neotel (the much hailed/praised 2nd national operator) that right without citing what their reasons are and ICASA doing nothing about it (they're the regulator.... you know... you REGULATE things like this)

Anything OTHER than FULL ACCESS will be a slap in the South African public's face AND the President of South Africa and will impact our economy (and job creation) negatively because of it.

We are being held back by Telkom and could do so much better as a country on a global scale if their death-grip on the consumers would just give and the FORMER-parastatal would just accept the fact they're not a monopoly anymore

[AcidRaZor]

I thought they said R133 does not pay for the local loop? I agree monopoly power is the problem. I don't think someone else legislating a "fair price" is the solution. It just cannot be done well. Perhaps a better solution would be to split the company up so that the local loop is not owned by the same company the owns the upstream infrastructure. Upstream companies can then compete to offer the local-loop provider the best rates, and other providers can develop their own last-mile infrastructure if they see a benefit in doing so.

The line rental you pay, according to multiple Telkom press releases, pays for the maintenance of the copper line you're using. This was a point brought up when they discussed the reason why you have to pay for ADSL line rental on top of that if the maintenance was already covered by the former. Suffice to say nothing came of it and the point was talked down into oblivion.

[yeti]

The most important part of our approach to LLU is ACTION. We need ACTION NOW!

[gadnex]

I am tending towards Full local loop unbundling, but as many members on the forum have mentioned, this will lead to problems with resolving cable breaks. For example, if I have naked ADSL and no Telkom voice service, then why would Telkom bother to fix my line. Thus the problem I see with Full local loop unbundling is the reference that is made to Telkom's 'raw copper'. In my opinion the copper should no belong to Telkom, but rather another organisation which is managed by a board with members from Telkom and the ISPs. For support issues the customer can contact his/her ADSL ISP or Telkom (maybe even Neotel) for voice and they would log the call with the organisation looking after the copper.

Currently Telkom owns the copper and provides services via the copper. This puts them in an unhealthy position where they can use their ownership of the copper to gain an unfair advantage over other service providers that need to use the copper.

Alternatively, if Telkom is going to be the organisation in charge of the copper, perhaps they shouldn't be providing voice and data services. Why not pass these business activities off to 8ta or create one or two new service providers for these activities.

Perhaps I am very naive with my suggestions, but I do think that for years Telkom has had too much power and I am not sure if they are really acting in the best interests of the public.

[FireStorm101]

I voted for all four. It's necessary to elimiante the Telkom monopoly.

[death192]

I voted for all except Line Share. As stated in so many other posts here , this will allow new copper /fiber from these previously inaccessible locations to Spawn :D
{only speculation} but it could happen

[wyatt96484]

The first option that one needs to consider before any one decides to go with LLU or SLU..... is...:
What is the quality of the copper. If you have poor quality copper, will any one want broadband with a poor connection.
In SA, you work hard for your money. The last thing you want is to pay a service Provider for a service they cant provide because the copper lines are of a sub standard quality.
Now if the lines are of a quality that one can work with, then this all can take place.
My Father used to work for Telkom and he used to bring colour coated copper wires for us to mess with. If the quality is as good as it was then, then this will not be an issue.

What you need to ponder is the following:
By unbundling the line, in any way, is this really going to open the floodgates for cheaper faster broadband. Whether you live in the city or the sticks, the technology is there to supply an internet link (radio transmitters). If you use LLU or SLU, than any one can become a SP. what will be the test is how good the SP will be.
if there is a fault in the line, it will be beneficial for the SP to get this resolved if they wish to remain in business. Whilst your LL is serviced by Telkom or any 3rd party contractor, this isn’t a real issue for they will do the job because they will charge the SP for servicing or repairing their part of the line. Obviously Telkom must hold primary obligation to keep the lines in a satisfactory condition or there is no real purpose to this discussion.

Once the LL has been opened, there will then be scope to sell discounted lines so that SLU can take place. All options will benefit SA as you will be able to proudly announce to the world that your broadband is now as good as theirs ( except japan and usa).
I know how expensive internet is in SA. I live in the UK and thanks to SLU, you can get up to 8mbps broadband for less than R80 (uncapped)
I would personally vote for SLU. this will leave Telcom in charge of maintaining the lines. If a SP makes a mess, Telcom can charge to fix the line. If TelKom dont maintain the lines then this may lead to them bieng sued for loss of BB or even loss of earnings, so it would be in their interest to keep the lines well maintained.
Obviously they will sell the lines to SP for a wholesale price but as they are in a sense still providing a service, it will be their responsibility to keep the copper in good nic. If however, Telkom sell the lines at stupidly high prices, then there is no point to SLU as it will still be slow and expensive. In this case LLU would be the preferred option.
I am currently project managing a new broadband installation in a local community.
We will be using SLU but our main lines to all residents will be Fibre as ADSL, ADSL 2, ADSL 2 + and even VDSL is if not already, becoming redundant technology. We will be supplying 10mbps with no contention for the first 35 residents, then 18mbps with no contention and so forth.

What ever solution SA chooses to adopt, this is the first step to opening great opportunities to all as one will be able to use the internet to promote their business, thus having more capitol to invest into their businesses.

[MightyMuffinMan]

IMO It must be remember ed that Telkom in a way is at a disadvantage. Problems accuring due to unbundling:
Telkom loses more business (because of competition) and revenue and has to lay off people. If this is stopped by government than likly Telkom will declare bankrupcy leaving the country without a landline operator.

I fellt hat both Telkom and Neotel should be forced to unbundle thier networks regardless of route as they BOTH have licenses as land line operators.

It can be argued that Telkom is a monopoly but that 's really not true as we have a 2nd operator for years. Its merely the fact that the 2nd operator has chosen to ignore the terms of its licensing and not provide cost effective (re competitive) consumer products.

So I fell that it should be unbundled at a wholesale level after all the biggest critisism of Telkom is that they bundle thier rental with the ADSL line. If other companies feel this is the case than they should PAY telkom the installation cost of the line and than they should choose how they wish to use the line.

RE: Neotel as the second imcumbent has no right to the copper line as they have a license to build thier own infrastructure.

[ISP cash cow]

Im my book complete unbundling should occur. Everybody is going on about the upkeep and maintainance of the copper at the moment but in truth our backbone is antiquated and out of dated and new cables or even fibre optic cables (we can only pray and hope) need to be laid. It is not to say too blow Telkom out of the water but if there is opportunity for other companies to see value in the industry and take complete sales (and not just "rent"from) Telkom, it will force Telkom to up their game to the consumer. I am sure that 8-ta will be more customer service aware than Telkom is currently even though they are actually the same company. difference? competition in the mobile sector while currently no competition for fixed line.

[wyatt96484]

Telkom loses more business (because of competition) and revenue and has to lay off people. If this is stopped by government than likly Telkom will declare bankrupcy leaving the country without a landline operator.

this may actually be a good thing for Telkom as they will have to restructure their pricing to compete with everyone else. they may not loose out here but gain... ( looking at this in a more positive form :) )

[AstroTurf]

all4

[firewall]

I think the only option is Full Unbundling. This is probably the only way the local loop will ever be shortened as well. I paid R133 today to Telkom for telephone line rental, into which only my router is plugged. A total waste, but I have no choice. Full Unbundling will allow that choice. After months of fighting with Telkom to get my line terminated at a closer DSLAM, the new DSLAM does not support 10mbps, and they "have no plans to upgrade the specific DSLAM with Metro Ethernet for the forseeable future"

[snail112]

The sooner the 39% state-owned part is privatise, the sooner all the problems will stop

[dominic]

hell's teeth
input overload

[Chevron]

So many people are complaining about that R133, but how do they expect Telkom to maintain the copper to their house if Telkom don't charge for it? Would you rather Telkom charge you R600 for a callout regardless if your issue is with the copper or not?

[firewall]

I complain about the R133 which Telkom uses towards maintaining voice equipment. Equipment which I don't need but have no choice but to pay for.

[Hiraishin]

Full LLU

Enough said.

We've waited faaaaarrrrr tooooo loooonngggg.....

Let the revolution begin.... And thank you :twisted:

[richeriley]

All 4 should be implemented. At the rate that copper cable is being ripped out and stolen there may not be enough copper to lay new cables. Telkom should look at a fibre infrastructure which would be a long term solution rather than providing an income for the scrap yards.

[mrturbs]

So many people are complaining about that R133, but how do they expect Telkom to maintain the copper to their house if Telkom don't charge for it? Would you rather Telkom charge you R600 for a callout regardless if your issue is with the copper or not?

Ok, so then they should just charge you more for a data line (but less than having both), but forcing us to pay monthly for voice and data when you only need data is just wrong.

[Juice]

I haven't voted for any specific option. I believe there's a 5th option worth considering, related to full LLU. Instead of taking the local loop away from Telkom, rather split out Telkom's capacity to maintain the local loop into a separate company. This company would then manage the local loop and lease it to everyone who wants to use it in an equal and equitable way, including Telkom itself. Leaving any part of the Local Loop in Telkom's hands would encourage cross-subsidisation into Telkom and access to the loop would remain unbalanced and would unfairly advantage Telkom at the expense of other operators.

In summary: Don't let Telkom manage the local loop as Telkom and then force them to give full access to other operators. Take the local loop away from Telkom and give it to an new independent, separate commercial entity that can then manage, maintain and lease the local loop to any and every operator equally.

Juice

[MickeyD]

I haven't voted for any specific option. I believe there's a 5th option worth considering, related to full LLU. Instead of taking the local loop away from Telkom, rather split out Telkom's capacity to maintain the local loop into a separate company. This company would then manage the local loop and lease it to everyone who wants to use it in an equal and equitable way, including Telkom itself. Leaving any part of the Local Loop in Telkom's hands would encourage cross-subsidisation into Telkom and access to the loop would remain unbalanced and would unfairly advantage Telkom at the expense of other operators.

In summary: Don't let Telkom manage the local loop as Telkom and then force them to give full access to other operators. Take the local loop away from Telkom and give it to an new independent, separate commercial entity that can then manage, maintain and lease the local loop to any and every operator equally.

Juice
As per BT OpenReach?
Agreed.

[Juice]

hell's teeth
input overload

heh - you did ask. People around here have been waiting a looooooong time for this opportunity :)

Juice

[Juice]

As per BT OpenReach?
Agreed.

Except I wouldn't call it Telkom OpenReach. It should be FULLY independent. Think Baby Bells: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Bell_Operating_Company

Juice

[MickeyD]

Except I wouldn't call it Telkom OpenReach. It should be FULLY independent. Think Baby Bells: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Bell_Operating_Company
Juice
That's a different concept, though.

[Maciej]

Telkom's monopoly of telecommunications has done great harm to economic growth and education in South Africa. It is time that the monopoly is completely and finally ended. Let competition prevail in a win-win situation for suppliers and consumers alike.

[saliehendricks]

I voted for all 4.

We need bit stream access so that we the consumer can see immediate movement on this task. We have been waiting far too long.

Full local loop unbundling must be the end goal. We need to ensure that if big players out there want to invest in new tech (FTTH) then they can do so without Telkom sinfluence.

The other 2 i voted for because they seem like practical small improvements that can be made at a shorter time period. We want to see consistent improvement. Not embarking on full un-bundling which results in 4 years of more faffing about and then 2 weeks of excuses in the form of documents (that Telkom could bother to ****ing read nevermind comment)

[ebudae]

I feel that full unbundling or sub-loop unbundling would be the only two preferable options. Other options leave Telkom in too much control and won't have much effect on lowering the barrier to entry for lower income consumers who can't afford Telkom's cheapest offerings at present. Telkom does not have a very good history of demonstrating an interest in supplying consumers with value for money, and has shown monopolistic tendencies time and time again.

If any competitor is to spring up in the ADSL space they need as much room to maneuver, in terms of cost, as possible. Therefore the best bet is either full unbundling or sub-loop unbundling.

[Cadavre777]

Voted for "Full Local Loop Unbundeling" as its required for Service Providers to do the following:

- provide full technical support (on-site and off-site)
- provide services not seen before in South Africa
- provision for and tender to gated communities and complexes and possibly entire suburbs'
- offer more cost effective custom solutions to clients
- rapidly build their networks without the time consuming local loop roll-out
- still enable smaller service providers to share access should they not wish or be within their means to build networks of their own
- enable better competition between service providers

[inferno]

Everything paid for by tax payers in the past before telkom went private should be unbundled. The copper that Telkom laid after going private should remain Telkoms. That, to me, seems fair.

[Zanadu]

Must be Full Local Loop Unbundling - possibly other options could be implemented first.

[afrodeity]

This is completely ridiculous. What we need are operators with the right to provide FIBRE TO THE DOOR. Unbundling the COPPER Local Loop is like announcing that Steam Powered Vehicles will no longer need a pedestrian to walk in front of the vehicle with a warning sign. Come on guys, we have had internal combustion engine for years and even this motor is now redundant. We living in the 21st Century not the 19th Century as TELKOM would like us to believe, SO NOT THANK YOU.

ZA-FREE

[foxyfox]

Part of the conundrum is that Telkom would lose what little motivation they still have, to upgrade and maintain existing infrastructure. If left to SPs, that's fine for areas with higher client-density, but anyone living in a sparsely populated area is screwed, in effect, as nobody would worry about him. Some accompanying regulation with regards to acceptable service levels, would need to be discussed as well.


Yip, Live in rural area and we struggle for months without lines due to copper theft (Just as one section is fixed, another is stolen). Trees and weather also affect lines - what company in it's right mind will want to take that on? I've had to set up my own wireless network just to get access to ADSL 30km away.

[TelkomUseless]

Full Unbundling. We can get rid of telephone line cost too. Just a waste of money.

[sunsoffun]

Full unbundling. No more Telkom monopoly.

[Keithk]

We need FULL unbundeling and nothing less.
Darn this Telkom monopoly

[v3gout]

I vote for any and all four options, if they will make it possible to get a naked ADSL service. But - with the understanding that Telkom still *owns* the local loop, maintains it, and charges for access to it. Telkom should be bound by SLAs to whoever hires access to the local loop. Remeber - the local loop is not public property - Telkom shareholders bought it from the government; and cannot simply be forced to open it to all and sundry without compensation.

[Juice]

I vote for any and all four options, if they will make it possible to get a naked ADSL service. But - with the understanding that Telkom still *owns* the local loop, maintains it, and charges for access to it. Telkom should be bound by SLAs to whoever hires access to the local loop. Remeber - the local loop is not public property - Telkom shareholders bought it from the government; and cannot simply be forced to open it to all and sundry without compensation.

Just don't expect full disclosure on operating costs and margins from Telkom when it comes to offering services to its competitors... We've seen Telkom cross-subsidise before to freeze out competition and they are not to be trusted. No, they must sell off the local loop division and it must be run as a separate independent company.

EDIT: Actually, having thought about it some more, selling off the division is not the only requirement. The goal here has to be competition and not just turning the provider of local loop services into just another, albeit smaller, monopoly. You would also have to allow anyone who wants to and can afford to the opportunity to set up their own company to provide local loop services, whether it is on a suburb, city, provincial or national scale.

Juice

[Browser]

Full local loop unbundling

Who knows one day we may even have companies competing to provide last mile access / infrastructure.

[The Trutherizer]

I would be fine with Telkom owning and maintaining the copper network and reselling access to it if:
- Other companies are allowed to put down their own lines of any type be it copper, fibre, whatever.
- Internet is separated from telephony completely.
- They don't charge ridiculous prices
- Performance is not impacted


In my mind Telkom should be split in two: Telephony and Network provision (Telkom and Netcom maybe)
The Telephony business can do 8ta and fixed line telephony services
The Networks business can provide networks for 8ta and fixed line telephony. Also resell fixed line as well as cellular network access to other companies at a fair price. Also expand into a continent spanning network provision company and possibly create an environment in Africa where telecoms entrepeneurs can flourish.

In my mind this would nicely partition everything. Everything in it's niche.

There you go.. SA telecoms fixed! tyvm

[SanitySA]

All four options. This will allow for greater variety of choice, better services, more competition & competitive pricing. This should most likely also push the need to regularly introduce newer tech & upgrades. A prime example of this is the cell phone providers. Look at how they are constantly introducing new tech to their networks, plus some of the very competitive packages that have recently become available.

Regarding some folks' concerns with maintenance & future upgrades, ICASA will simply have to do it's job & ensure Telkom follows through on such matters. Otherwise the local loop needs to be placed in the care of a "third" party who's soul responsibility is to maintain & upgrade.

[VioAdmin]

Full unbundling. No more Telkom monopoly.

+1.

Telkom needs to be destroyed at all costs. This company has literally destroyed our economy. Can imagine, just IMAGINE, if Internet was priced correctly?

Do you know how many kids would self-educate themselves? Learn to make web sites, make some income, educate themselves on great world leaders like Thomas Sankara...Communicate with the outside world.

And of course the entertainment value of it all, they will be able to download their porn(instead of going to the bar getting drunk and picking up aids from the local whore). Play games, watch their shows...

I mean really, if Telkom was put in it's place, the benefits of Full unbundling would be the best thing to happen to this continent in decades.

[The Mechanic]

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. The bottom line is that the local loop that everyone is fighting so hard to get control of still needs to be maintained. This is currently being done by Telkom. When the local loop is unbundled, who, pray tell, will be responsible for the maintenance ? Also, working at Telkom and dealing with the Network issues first hand, I can report that Telkom currently experiences about 700 incidents of cable theft, tampering, vandalism, etc PER DAY and budgets 3 BILLION rand a year replacing stolen and vandalised cable. Who will be paying for this after local loop unbundling. The ISP's ? Neotel ? Mweb ? I don't think they will be willing to fork out so much money ? Get real guys! This is South Africa. The people don't allow the network to stay in the ground for too long before stealing it!!!

[MickeyD]

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. The bottom line is that the local loop that everyone is fighting so hard to get control of still needs to be maintained. This is currently being done by Telkom. When the local loop is unbundled, who, pray tell, will be responsible for the maintenance ? Also, working at Telkom and dealing with the Network issues first hand, I can report that Telkom currently experiences about 700 incidents of cable theft, tampering, vandalism, etc PER DAY and budgets 3 BILLION rand a year replacing stolen and vandalised cable. Who will be paying for this after local loop unbundling. The ISP's ? Neotel ? Mweb ? I don't think they will be willing to fork out so much money ? Get real guys! This is South Africa. The people don't allow the network to stay in the ground for too long before stealing it!!!
R3bn !!!

You sure?

[The Mechanic]

Definitely 3 billion! I've worked in networks for 20 years - the rampant cable theft is something that other countries don't have to deal with and which everyone seems to forget when trying to work out why Telkom charges so much.

[MegasXLR]

Definitely 3 billion! I've worked in networks for 20 years - the rampant cable theft is something that other countries don't have to deal with and which everyone seems to forget when trying to work out why Telkom charges so much.Why do we have to pay for the crime others commit? That is ridiculous to say the least.

[lordrage]

Full please, dont see why I must pay line rental and access rental.

[dominic]

This is completely ridiculous. What we need are operators with the right to provide FIBRE TO THE DOOR. Unbundling the COPPER Local Loop is like announcing that Steam Powered Vehicles will no longer need a pedestrian to walk in front of the vehicle with a warning sign. Come on guys, we have had internal combustion engine for years and even this motor is now redundant. We living in the 21st Century not the 19th Century as TELKOM would like us to believe, SO NOT THANK YOU.

ZA-FREE

its not about copper...its about the local loop - whether it may be copper, fibre, laser-optic or, dare i say it, frequency - and about setting out a scheme for how it is being shared. its pretty clear that copper is legacy and the focus very much has to be on ensuring that future fibre loops are open access from the beginning

[martin]

Full unbundling. No more Telkom monopoly.

This. Enough said.

[OverKill69]

Full bundling...

If a ISP or any other VoIP, Data or Voice operator has access to build their own network on top of the existing infrastructure if it suits them.
The most important factor is the customer and the quality of service.

Ultimately to have DSLAMs on every block so our last mile is LESS THAN A MILE... ADSL2+
ISPs and other operators could maintain lines and BE RESPONSIBLE for the entire process. INCLUDING DITCHING THE DATA CARRYING COSTS TO PLUG INTO TELKOM'S NETWORK.

Competition will keep prices down

or am I dreaming????

[Ispy]

Who pays for maintenance? Telkom should charge " time and material" basis like plumbers do, if contracted to maintain. Neotel guys Telkom must be told to be 10percent efficient in one year ! = plain language= fire 20% of workers

[Asterix_T]

I voted for Bitstream access (wholesale access). All the others will require substantial capital out lay by the other companies wanting access. Who will pay to recover this capital outlay, the consumer. So where is the saving to the customer.

[Tns]

will there actually come something of this?

[Knersus]

At the end of the day, it's not the real issue. The real issue is access to the International links. We can run 1Gbps all day between JHB and CTN, but if we are strangled on the undersea cables, what's the point?
HU?! Are you serious now? The undersea cables are sorted it's local access thats the problem.

[325i]

Full local loop unbundling (full access), this will bring down the prices of adsl in S.A....which is a very good positive :D

[dadiggle]

Option 5
Throw the door open. Give a License to any company who wants to put up shop here. Hardlines cell whatever. ^That's just another rip off going to happen

[YingYang]

I'm hoping for Full local loop unbundling (full access)

[Juice]

Definitely 3 billion! I've worked in networks for 20 years - the rampant cable theft is something that other countries don't have to deal with and which everyone seems to forget when trying to work out why Telkom charges so much.

If it's cost them that much to maintain the copper, why haven't they converted it to fiber yet? Oh wait, they have. Fibre and microwave. I don't think copper theft has as much to do with the 'last mile' as with the more volumous backhaul. And I partly blame government. They could have regulated the copper scrap metal trade years ago to curb the theft, but they haven't.

Juice

[Juice]

or am I dreaming????

Perhaps a little... :)

A mini DSLAM costs about a million, I've been told by Telkom when I asked why they don't have one in my area. You'll need quite a high population density to make that work, I'm afraid, and most of our leafy suburbs probably don't have enough subscribers per block.

I'd guess the answer lies with fibre.

Juice

[gorgamin]

I vote full unbundling,

The undersea links are already there... the only thing stopping us from cheaper ADSL and better speeds is the LLU thats taking so long, the rest will follow and become viable.
If the government truly wants us to develop as a country and as a future knowledge based society, they should make internet speed paramount among their agenda's.
We have to be at the top of the pack, as in 100mbit connections as a normality in every home. Only then will it make South Africa's scientific ecosystem viable for research and development.
Do they truly expect the SKA square kilometer array telescope in the karoo to operate on our ridiculous internet links? how interfering would this be to collaborating research teams?
High internet speed is linked directly to your technological prowess, $20 US for 50mbit connections in Japan is the norm in most city homes, same with south korea.
Spend our entire budget on this if you have to... I promise the rest will follow afterwards.

[dadiggle]

no 1 is called unbundled access btw
That's to increase competition. Look at the prices I don't see anything but 1 to help out this shyt hole of a tele industry of us

[Key]

In many cases, Vodacom has already positioned themselves right next to the Telkom Dslam and is waiting for the LLU to unbundle. If every one did this, it will give any provider the control over the network and ensure that we as consumers have only one point of contact when something fails in stead of having to rely on 3rd party services.... There is a huge capital involved, which the networks already have with the trillions they made in huge profits from us poor consumers. I am hoping for the full LLU option.

[quikdine]

do not forgaot Vodascum was one Telkom Owned.

As far as charges are concerned a NGO should be created to control the LLU and they charge the service provides axxess for maintance cost ect. the NGO board should be made up from the service providers each SP has one vote to put a board member in place and there needs to be 7 or 13 none paid board members to run the NGO for the LL. No big SP then can control the charges and put a smaller SP out of business and all the SPs pay the same for axxess per users no discounts for larger SP that makes the playing feild level.

[calwynb]

All four should be implemented so that all isps and telecoms that want to participate can decide at what level they can/want to access the local loop.

[wyatt96484]

This is completely ridiculous. What we need are operators with the right to provide FIBRE TO THE DOOR. Unbundling the COPPER Local Loop is like announcing that Steam Powered Vehicles will no longer need a pedestrian to walk in front of the vehicle with a warning sign. Come on guys, we have had internal combustion engine for years and even this motor is now redundant. We living in the 21st Century not the 19th Century as TELKOM would like us to believe, SO NOT THANK YOU.

ZA-FREE
although copper is old technology, one can still obtain speeds of up to 40mbps. Isnt this a start in the right direction for SA???
SA internet is crawling and this will allow it to walk. once this has been going for a bit , no doubt fibre will be around the corner.

[wyatt96484]

What should have been done before allowing anyone to vote, is to explain the Pro's and Con's of each solution.

[wyatt96484]

Perhaps a little... :)

A mini DSLAM costs about a million,
Juice

Really????:wtf:

[noxibox]

The UK rail and postal service is epic, so their model obviously works.
In the case of the railway the private companies cut safety corners. Those problems are sorted out now, but left to themselves they would have no reason not to compromise safety as long as they know their customers have little choice. Privatisation requires close scrutiny and regulation. There's a perfect example we all see everyday in South Africa.

The South African rail network has been mismanaged, but that has nothing to with government vs private ownership.

The UK uses multiple unbundling options. Quite often it is still necessary to have a BT phone line to get broadband.


I thought they said R133 does not pay for the local loop? I agree monopoly power is the problem. I don't think someone else legislating a "fair price" is the solution. It just cannot be done well. Perhaps a better solution would be to split the company up so that the local loop is not owned by the same company the owns the upstream infrastructure. Upstream companies can then compete to offer the local-loop provider the best rates, and other providers can develop their own last-mile infrastructure if they see a benefit in doing so.
It has to be regulated. One way or another you're likely to end up with a monopoly on the actual wire and whoever has that monopoly can set the price. This is why privatisation is not a simple matter of selling to private owners and suddenly you have competition. Setting prices through regulation can be done well. Perfectly, no, but then the market can't do it perfectly either.

[The_Assimilator]

Voted for all 4. The less control that Telkom has over the LLU, the better for us all.

[OverKill69]

Perhaps a little... :)

A mini DSLAM costs about a million, I've been told by Telkom when I asked why they don't have one in my area. You'll need quite a high population density to make that work, I'm afraid, and most of our leafy suburbs probably don't have enough subscribers per block.

I'd guess the answer lies with fibre.

Juice

That's kinda why I think Telkom needs to let other people get in on the action.

For example.

I live in an area where there are many businesses. in an 3 or 4 square kilometer zone there are probably 20 or so business properties with surely more than 50 employees in each.
As well as many businesses from home... like mine. 5 employees-ish.

Closest exchange is 2.5km away. max speed on my line is 6Mbps... and my attenuation is one of the better ones.

That's just one area where a mini DSLAM is more than viable. If Telkom doesn't get involved... surely another operator might want to?


Ditch Telkom's IP Connect madness? give ISP's free access to each other and the network? Generate more data traffic and cut their overheads?
It's getting to a point where international bandwidth is cheaper than LOCAL at the moment!!!!

Hosting locally is out of the question for a small business... that is embarrassing!

[LPCPT]

do not forgaot Vodascum was one Telkom Owned.

As far as charges are concerned a NGO should be created to control the LLU and they charge the service provides axxess for maintance cost ect. the NGO board should be made up from the service providers each SP has one vote to put a board member in place and there needs to be 7 or 13 none paid board members to run the NGO for the LL. No big SP then can control the charges and put a smaller SP out of business and all the SPs pay the same for axxess per users no discounts for larger SP that makes the playing feild level.

This makes more sense to me.
We do not need everybody to go and build a network when there is one out there. There should be a fixed and regulated cost per network user(consumer) that the network owner charges. The SP's will be collecting this fixed cost on behalf of the network owner and sell bandwith to the consumer. All connections should be at max speed available so as to simplify the matter.
The network owner will be tasked to supply connections to those who apply and will also charge a fixed and regulated cost for this.
That's why the network owner must not be a profit based organisation as it will not be encouraged to upgrade to new technology. It's like the road system (just do not manage it the same way)

[jackshiels]

To the folks saying mini dslams cost a million: http://dsl-warehouse.com/product_info.php?products_id=186&language=1

1100 dollars!

:mad: makes me angry that Telkom spew such cr*p!

[GerhardL]

LLU should be extended to not only include the installed copper but to grant access to the installed Telkom sleeves to other operators. Obviously some rental model per meter has to be built for this. But this should be allowed in order for operators to install other alternative technologies (fibre)

[reactor_sa]

It’s difficult to say which route would benefit the consumer AND Telkom AND ISP’s.
At the end of the day someone has to maintain the infrastructure, and someone has to foot the bill.

If an ISP were to be responsible for the maintenance of the last link from street level to your house (sub-loop unbundling), I bet they'd charge you a monthly fee, or a call-out fee if there was a problem. Then where is the saving? All you might get is better service for your money, but not likely at first as ISP's will have to invest in physical infrastructure and support.

If there was Line Sharing, we would still be paying Telkom for the maintenance of the copper infrastructure, but pay an ISP for ADSL access - how would this be much different from an ADSL complete package?
Telkom would still maintain the DSLAM’s too, so there would have to be a charge for that?

How would Bitstream benefit anyone? Many ISP’s have already joined MWeb and are using various INX peering points to bypass Telkom for national network coverage.

Maybe we need a consortium, of Telkom and ISP's, that will have to work together to maintain the infrastructure, share the costs and the responsibility so everyone wins. If people aren’t prepared to work together and all just do their own thing then it will just be a mess.

I think it would be great to leave things as they are, but assess the costs, and govern the costs; like how ICASA has governed the interconnect fees of the mobile operator. Companies have to make a profit, but consumers should get a fair deal, therefore profits should be governed. How much is Telkom really making from the R139 line rental and R413 4Mbps ADSL access per month??

At the end of the day the difference between what you want and what you get is all about what you are willing to pay!!
We need to find a balance where infrastructure is maintained, consumers get good service, and the price is fair. At the moment we have none of these things, and there are too many unanswered questions regarding LLU.

[Juice]

To the folks saying mini dslams cost a million: http://dsl-warehouse.com/product_info.php?products_id=186&language=1

1100 dollars!

:mad: makes me angry that Telkom spew such cr*p!

Who knows how they got to that amount, but I'm sure it's not just the cost of the ahrdware we're talking about. There's quite a bit of infrastructure required to support the DSLAM; however, it's probably not as high as a million. Still, no-one at Telkom thought it commercially viable to put a mini-DSLAM in my area just because my area is in a exchange 'dead-zone', 4km from every exchange in Randbubrg...

Juice

[jphegers]

Most people who uses Telkom lines and have had breakdowns cannot really blame the line itself for the problems.Do most problems not occur either at the exchanges or the boxes at the street corners and not the actual the copper in the ground?

[Juice]

Most people who uses Telkom lines and have had breakdowns cannot really blame the line itself for the problems.Do most problems not occur either at the exchanges or the boxes at the street corners and not the actual the copper in the ground?

My problem (only getting 2Mbps max) is directly related to the copper in the ground and the last mile. Or, as it is in my case, the last 3 miles.

Juice

[Qrox]

Full Local Loop Unbundling

[zamicro]

LLU should be extended to not only include the installed copper but to grant access to the installed Telkom sleeves to other operators. Obviously some rental model per meter has to be built for this. But this should be allowed in order for operators to install other alternative technologies (fibre)

Now you are talking! Rather than having access to a 20th century product, why not go the whole mile and make it cheap and viable to put in fibre?

[Olddude]

I believe that there are not enough options. The last mile is a business issue of determining the best business model to maintain the copper infrastructure without forcing excessive "cross subsidising" ie DSL by voice and vica versa. In areas where there is no DSL requirement, voice will have to carry the major cost of maintenance and growth in that area. In many areas where there is great cell coverage subscribers move to mobile and copper becomes redundant.
Needs more thought.

[Kawak]

Definitely Full local loop, telkom has been far too greedy with voice line rental and then ADSL line rental, can't see how that can ever be justified, and until the local loop is fully unbundled, they won't have to justify that to anyone.

[MickeyD]

/sees that many folks think that unbundling only refers to Telkom... see dominic's earlier post.

Local Loop refers to all access technologies deployed in the last mile (the final link to a customer) whether it be copper, optic fibre, wireless, etc. belonging to ALL network operators.

Hence LLU will impact not only Telkom but also Neotel, iBurst, Vodacom, MTN, Cell C, Sentech, Dark Fibre Africa, Altech, IS, Broadband Infraco, Metro's with their own networks, etc.

For example: Durban metro has a optic fibre network that is used to provide services to it's residents. Neotel (or any other operator) should be allowed to use that network as well.

Think bigger than Telkom's copper... let's exploit the existing optic fibre networks to get the service we really want: FTTH!!!

[ToxicBunny]

Damn straight....

ALL access networks should become open access.. and yes, I wants access to Durban fibre rings :D

[ichigo]

I like to also see all 4 made available to us

[FlatspinZA]

Part of the conundrum is that Telkom would lose what little motivation they still have, to upgrade and maintain existing infrastructure. If left to SPs, that's fine for areas with higher client-density, but anyone living in a sparsely populated area is screwed, in effect, as nobody would worry about him. Some accompanying regulation with regards to acceptable service levels, would need to be discussed as well.

Wouldn't Telkom score in the lower density areas, anyway?


At the end of the day, it's not the real issue. The real issue is access to the International links. We can run 1Gbps all day between JHB and CTN, but if we are strangled on the undersea cables, what's the point?

I don't think our problem has anything to do with International connectivity. There is another mega link going live next year (if I recall correctly). Our main problem is Telkom. The levels of service when it comes to voice & data service overseas are much higher than here, because service providers know they can lose a client and have that same client connected to another service provider within a day.


I like to also see all 4 made available to us

Concurrent seems like the best option because it gives all players the opportunity to access whichever service is most suitable to them. You don't want to specify full local loop unbundling and put 100's, if not 1000's, of people out of work - that's the last thing we need right now.

[maneshk]

My preference is for BITSTREAM access so that we can get multiple providers in the market.
The technology should be kept simple and simple.
The differentiator will be service level and pricing.
Both of these will favour the consumer.

[X-Gamer]

I voted for FLLU, Sub Loop, and Bitstream.

This is going to be a gradual process, and can begin by implementing Bitstream access right now. This allows the market and Service Providers time to prepare for the more aggressive forms of unbundling down the line, while being an immediate benefit to consumers right now.

I ignored shared access, because you shouldn't have to be a Telkom Voice subscriber to use ADSL. Unless if there are ways of implementing shared access which negates this.

[dadiggle]

how will it effect cell networks?

aah I see now

Electric power line local loop: PLT or PLC
Optical local loop: Fiber Optics services such as FiOS
Satellite local loop: communications satellite and cosmos Internet connections of satellite television (DVB-S)
Cable local loop: Cablemodem
Wireless local loop (WLL): LMDS, WiMAX, GPRS, HSDPA, DECT
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Local_loop

[MickeyD]

how will it effect cell networks?
That, my friend, is the billion dollar question!!!

[dadiggle]

we need about 23 to 30 other networks. that will fix everything

[Kuga]

Full Access.

Without Telkom's monopoly, we would actually see price drops and naked ADSL.

[skimread]

Can they just implement anything before our infrastructure turns into 3 world.

[noxibox]

Can they just implement anything before our infrastructure turns into 3 world.
Telecommunications in South Africa is certainly not going downhill.

[FlatspinZA]

Telecommunications in South Africa is certainly not going downhill.

I would agree with that. If you think of the relatively small percentage of private users who actually have high bandwidth requirements, it's amazing that we even have uncapped options in this country. Business is definitely driving the investment in telecommunications and we should consider ourselves fortunate that the ISP's even attempt to provide us with the options they do.

[skimread]

Telecommunications in South Africa is certainly not going downhill. Was referring to the topic (Consumer fixed line broadband i.e. ADSL) not telecoms in general.
Wireless is great but fixed line has major latency advantages for home users.

[Roman4604]

YES
IP based Bitstream with granularity of interconnection ranging from national to regional
Shared/Full Unbundling which are identical from investment/infrastruture prespective

NO
Layer 2 based Bitstream too technically complex/interdependent, too expensive for legacy ATM
Sub-loop Unbundling a pipe dream in SA with our market size & physical distances

[dominic]

YES
IP based Bitstream with granularity of interconnection ranging from national to regional
Shared/Full Unbundling which are identical from investment/infrastruture prespective

NO
Layer 2 based Bitstream too technically complex/interdependent, too expensive for legacy ATM
Sub-loop Unbundling a pipe dream in SA with our market size & physical distances

while you are around...

do you see bitstream as LLU, i.e. should it even be on this list? IP Stream is apparently ready and who knows why it has not been released + it is really just the unbastardised version of IPC...i see telkom wanting a phased approach with bitstream first (which is a very real revenue opportunity for them) so including it in this debate may be counterproductive

[dominic]

I would agree with that. If you think of the relatively small percentage of private users who actually have high bandwidth requirements, it's amazing that we even have uncapped options in this country. Business is definitely driving the investment in telecommunications and we should consider ourselves fortunate that the ISP's even attempt to provide us with the options they do.

o.0

*checks URL*

[The_Librarian]

o.0

*checks URL*

maybe he puffed too much?

[Roman4604]

do you see bitstream as LLU, i.e. should it even be on this list? Strictly speaking no, but I forsee (IP) bitstream will remain the predominant form of fixed line broadband locally, for many years to come. When shared/full loop unbundling becomes avaliable, it will probably be on a relatively small geographic scale, initially limited to the major metros, then spreading out over time as new income streams become available to be re-capitalised.

Being of such potential significance to the majority, I would think it important to bring bitstream under the auspices of some kind of regulatory framework (in a descriptive manner). Hopefully this regulation can be formulated in such a manner as to ensure fairer cost-based pricing with alignment to the scope of infrastructure being leased.


IP Stream is apparently ready and who knows why it has not been released + it is really just the unbastardised version of IPCTrue, but there is enough technical differentiation from IPC to make it appealing, allowing for some levels of service differentiation e.g. ADSL layer fixed IPs, line bonding, IP layer QoS and native IPv6 support etc. Also if a flexible/granular interconnection/co-location regime can be formulated for IPStream, it will allow larger ISPs to start moving much of the national & regional DSL transport paths onto their own IP networks, improving efficiency and reducing cost.


...i see telkom wanting a phased approach with bitstream first (which is a very real revenue opportunity for them) so including it in this debate may be counterproductiveMaybe, but I dont see the two options I've prescribed as mutually exclusive. Personally I would push for both formalised (IP) bitstream and exchange level shared/full loop leasing from the begining. They serve different purposes and target different ends of the fixed line broadband market.

[Matchless]

Ten to 15 years ago I would have voted for full local loop unbundling, but at this moment in time South Africa is not ready for it and will not be for a long time. The declining service level and the non interest of the authorities in just about any service providers quality of service we are experiencing now, is going to break something that is still working fairly well.

I can just imagine the various service providers using the same copper cable and then the chaos when the poor client has to phone the hated call centers to be told its in another providers domain etc...:sick:

At least the present system is working fairly well. Will the other service providers meet the same standard or will we only find out the hard way?

Unfortunately your poll does not provide for a no change???

[Tns]

Unfortunately your poll does not provide for a no change???

yup no change at all

[Tomtomtom]

In the case of the railway the private companies cut safety corners. Those problems are sorted out now, but left to themselves they would have no reason not to compromise safety as long as they know their customers have little choice. Privatisation requires close scrutiny and regulation. There's a perfect example we all see everyday in South Africa.


Your idea is dangerous, not private railway. No reason not to compromise safety? This is what the courts are for. Their customers have little choice? This is largely because of government franchise (i.e. operating licenses, etc.) making competition difficult in the first place. That's justification for eliminating those barriers, not creating more in order to address the symptoms.


Setting prices through regulation can be done well. Perfectly, no, but then the market can't do it perfectly either.

You have it backwards. The market doesn't set prices perfectly, but government regulation can't hope to get anywhere close. You underestimate the market price system because it works so well you don't notice it until it's distorted by regulation or inflation (at which point you blame the market!)

I'm still wondering how LLU prices are proposed to be set -- anyone know?

[devilfp]

FULL!

[ranger]

At the end of the day, it's not the real issue. The real issue is access to the International links. We can run 1Gbps all day between JHB and CTN, but if we are strangled on the undersea cables, what's the point?

Telkom does not have a stranglehold on undersea cables. A number of ISPs or other service providers have circuits on undersea cables.

The fact that Neotel/Seacom seems to not be as reliable as SAT-3 is not a regulatory or Telkom problem ...

[Skynews]

I agree, why not make all 4 available? But could we hurry and get this done this week?

I am so sick and tired of the useless crowd they call Telkom, I wish they would sink into the ground, and stay out of first world comms

[MickeyD]

I agree, why not make all 4 available? But could we hurry and get this done this week?

I am so sick and tired of the useless crowd they call Telkom, I wish they would sink into the ground, and stay out of first world comms
You do know that they will still use Telkom, do you?

[Skynews]

You do know that they will still use Telkom, do you?

Yes I guess, but the biggest problem with Telkom is that "last mile" but we need others who want to do it right and make sure they keep their customers ..Telkom knows right now we have no choice mmm now there is a new name for Telkom "NOCHOICE" I would rather have "YOURCHOICE" ;)

[zamicro]

Yes I guess, but the biggest problem with Telkom is that "last mile" but we need others who want to do it right and make sure they keep their customers ..Telkom knows right now we have no choice mmm now there is a new name for Telkom "NOCHOICE" I would rather have "YOURCHOICE" ;)

If you really wants nothing to do with Telkom, then you must rather vote for no unbundling. If no unbundling takes place, then other network providers will slowly start to build their own last mile. But as all of them are currently waiting for an easier (cheaper) entry to the last mile, they are waiting for unbundling to take place, so that they can use the existing Telkom infrastructure.

[Roman4604]

If you really wants nothing to do with Telkom, then you must rather vote for no unbundling. If no unbundling takes place, then other network providers will slowly start to build their own last mile.Unfortunately this is neither viable nor desirable for the majority of users.

The copper network in SA is many, many orders of magnitude larger & far wider reaching than all other types of fixed line infrastructure (e.g. fibre). It has taken many, many decades to grow to this size, with a large part of its foundation being funded by tax-payers in the P&T years. ~90% of the cost of laying fixed line infrastructure is related to trenching & other civil works, and the cost of replicating even a small portion of the scale would be uneconomically viable for other operators/providers (even if they all clubbed in together).

Our fixed line broadband market is just too small and there is not enough capital to fund this kind of venture (within an acceptable timeframe) without further state/tax payer subsidisation. Thus, as in other markets, the only practical option to simulate the fixed line broadband market (& reduce cost) is to share this un-replicatable national asset in a fair & sustainable manner. This is exactly what LLU regulation aims to achieve.

[msmoorad]

most of you guys here seem much more knowledgeable than me on this subject.

what id like to see is no ADSL line rental and much faster speeds with real uncapped internet.
but, we should not focus so much on the ADSL/internet part that we forget that we all should be able to have a decent landline/fixed line telephone service- there appears to be none better than Telkom at the moment(even with all their bull****).

i dont know if im correct but with full LLU there is a very good chance of lots of disruptions in service due to many telecoms companies having access to the copper lines.
if there is damage done to the line, we consumers have to wait for this telecomms co to sort it out etc..
im trying to be optimistic but what if things go from bad to worse?
i know we have a 100% cell phone penetration rate but i & many others still prefer to use the landline.

another issue:
Icasa, Dept of Telecomm, SABC, Deptof Education etc- should all get together and try to educate the blacks in rural areas about the advantages of the internet- together with removing the ADSL line rental- the cost factor is what is preventing most of the population(which happens to be black)from having an ADSL connection.
they may have cellphones & use that to surf the web but its not the same as the real thing.

they comprise the majority of the poulation and Telkom (& other ISP's) will not see the rural exchanges as an attractive target due to the very same reason: very few users/consumers.
they should launch an intensive campaign using simple language while reducing the cost of internet by removing ADSL line rental- then see how the number of subscribers increase. what i notice is that ad campaigns to educate people are mostly noticable in urban areas where the people already know about things- they need to focus on rural areas and not use complicated language- just a simple, straightforward ad campaign.

[Bern]

What seems to be happening is that the government is slowly just going to build various alternative networks to replace Telkom eventually, which is such a complete waste of infrastructure and resources. Here is another great looking initiative which is essentially only happening because Telkom have failed in their mandate to provide to these communities (at a reasonable price).

http://www.itweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=37038&catid=147

Then look at the DOC plan to spend R800Mill via Sentech to get Rural broadband amongst other projects. Vodacom/MTN/IS/Neotel?brodband Infraco/Fibreco etc are going to take the urban market from Telkom, now gov is taking the rural market (funny since it is still a parastatal). Piss Poor Planning from Telkom. LLU at least guatrantees you are in the market for more than the next 5 years.

[SCRAMJet]

Full LLU, telkom are just greedy

[SlasherZA]

Whilst I keep dreaming I have no hope of LLU being here in the next 5 to 10 years... Pity really :(

[fordguy]

I also vote for everything.

[tiandup]

Full Local Loop! Screw Telkom! They havn't contributed anything. Time for change :)

[georgegolding]

I'm going with Full Local Loop Unbundling because I see no reason for Telkom to hold onto any aspect of the line. I would ideally like to someday pay for naked ADSL from a provider of my choice.

The biggest problem Telkom has, it only attends to exchanges and problem areas where there is a ridiculously large demand, such as the Mother City. If you just outside the City using a Woodstock/Salt River exchange your stuck with a majorly overloaded 40 year old rusty exchange with bad jitter and speeds.

A private vendor would take care of this immediately. Telkom should look after the business to business relationships, act as a wholesaler and look after the core network. They can consolidate and allow private business to look after the end user. Here they can be brilliant, and the pressure from business will keep them on their toes. Its a much better dynamic for the public than the current structure.

Lastly the forcing of people to pay for an analogue line with an ADSL line is daylight robbery. The new CPA does not allow this, but how do the public go about demanding that Telkom enforcing this. It is against the lay, any lawyers out there?

[Tomtomtom]

The biggest problem Telkom has, it only attends to exchanges and problem areas where there is a ridiculously large demand, such as the Mother City. If you just outside the City using a Woodstock/Salt River exchange your stuck with a majorly overloaded 40 year old rusty exchange with bad jitter and speeds.

A private vendor would take care of this immediately.

I'm not so sure... yes, innovation would increase efficiency, but the less profitable exchanges will always be less profitable, the last to attract investment, and the slowest to improve. The solution for businesses in Woodstock is of course to move to the CBD... which is why that costs more in every respect, and only worsens the situation for those left in Woodstock. :)

I don't think opening the local loop would change this situation -- at best it might bring improvement across the board, but relatively speaking, people around less profitable exchanges will still be worse off than those in the CBD (if not even more worse off than they were before).



Telkom should look after the business to business relationships, act as a wholesaler and look after the core network. They can consolidate and allow private business to look after the end user. Here they can be brilliant, and the pressure from business will keep them on their toes. Its a much better dynamic for the public than the current structure.


Agree 100%



Lastly the forcing of people to pay for an analogue line with an ADSL line is daylight robbery. The new CPA does not allow this, but how do the public go about demanding that Telkom enforcing this. It is against the lay, any lawyers out there?

I'm not a lawyer, and don't really care if it's against the law -- I want to how it makes economic sense. Telkom is selling a service (analogue voice) that many of us don't use. Since we still need the copper line, I doubt the voice hookup component amounts to more than a few Rand, if not cents, on our monthly bills... but multiplied to the size of their ADSL userbase, cutting it out might be a substantial saving for Telkom, if not for us.

So that's the thing: I think we have this bundling outrage directed backwards. We will save just pennies individually by letting our phones go dead, but Telkom could save quite a lot. If we push naked ADSL as being in Telkom's own interest, maybe they will buy it sooner than if we wag the CPA at it :)

[Bern]

@ Tomtomtom

I think you missed the point there, if Telkom were to focus a business unit on the wholesate aspect and providing backhaul they could reduce their operating costs drastically. They could let the operators make sure the latest tech is in the Exchanges and dealing directly with customers. They could focus on making sure the actual cables and backhaul are working properly. Telkom would be PAID by the operators, so they would not lose money, they can just focus better.

There operator unit would then be forced to operate more efficiently in order to compete properly which would be great. No one is going to suddenly drop prices below a sustainable level for a sustained period of time. Having these operators would probably imbrove delivery in outlying areas as there will be multiple business models and ideas on how to offer services to these customers which Telkom has not yet even thought of.

Think if this as an example:
Town a has a number of people who would like ADSL, but there are no ports at the exchange available. A small local operator could bundle some services and place their own DSLAMs in at the various exchanges around said town and bulk purchase backhaul from Telkom or to the nearest POP of another ISP. They could offer a number of other complimentary services (I am thinking of the WISP and wireless network operators here) that would basically ensure Telkom sells more overall. Telkom could be very clever and offer SIP based voice services or something like that as a "small operator starter package" to get these small operators running. This enable much faster technology implementation by the local guys and reduce the overheads for Telkom as they deal with one customer (the small operator) in the town. SLAs would dictate how issues would be dealt with as well as resolution timeframes and disputes.

[Tomtomtom]

@Bern: I'm struggling to see what point I have missed. I made a general contention about relative service levels across different areas. I don't disagree that Telkom's focus should shift out of ADSL retail and that LLU will bring improvement generally in the long term, but I think it's a mistake to assume that after LLU, improvement will happen everywhere and to the same degree, or even in the same direction. Some exchanges are apparently run at a loss today, and we can expect that in the short term after LLU these might even go backwards, as Telkom faces competitive pressure to focus on the high-margin exchanges.

The cost-saving of naked ADSL was an unrelated point but a much more immediate one, I think.

[Bern]

@Bern: I'm struggling to see what point I have missed. I made a general contention about relative service levels across different areas. I don't disagree that Telkom's focus should shift out of ADSL retail and that LLU will bring improvement generally in the long term, but I think it's a mistake to assume that after LLU, improvement will happen everywhere and to the same degree, or even in the same direction. Some exchanges are apparently run at a loss today, and we can expect that in the short term after LLU these might even go backwards, as Telkom faces competitive pressure to focus on the high-margin exchanges.

The cost-saving of naked ADSL was an unrelated point but a much more immediate one, I think.

That is the whole thing, if they are selling wholesale they are still getting good money in, why would they stop? The high end they are already losing out to direct fibre and so forth (busy stealing their customers in CT like this), so their real growth market would be the "loss" exchanges. If they spent there money on backhaul to all the exchanges instead of trying to compete badly others could front capital to get good equipment in to the exchanges and additional hardware and services.

IOW LLU will help focus Telkom capital on the core and backhaul while attracting external capital to equip exchanges mainly, but also last mile and backhaul to a smaller extent. Imagine you could fibre up a neighbourhood to the local exchange and get reasonable backhaul from there!

[blurrr88]

Urm, why can't I vote??

[MickeyD]

Urm, why can't I vote??
'cos the feedback date has passed and the MyBB submission has already been prepared by Ellipses Regulatory Solutions.

It is available for your perusal here: http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php/366128-Consumers-voice-opinion-on-Local-Loop-Unbundling