LLU Right of Reply - your input needed please

[ellipsis]

Mybroadband has a Right of Reply session allocated to it tomorrow at 11h00.
If you have any comments that we can raise in that session, please post them here. I will look at the comments tonight and put it together to present tomorrow.
If we receive no comments or nothing substantive, we will notify the Panel that we will not be using the Right of Reply session.

Ball's in your court, guys :)

[Mike Hoxbig]

Hi Sumaiyah,

What sort of comments will be presented? Are these the responses to the questions that they asked, or general comments on the hearing so far?

[ellipsis]

Hi Sumaiyah,

What sort of comments will be presented? Are these the responses to the questions that they asked, or general comments on the hearing so far?

Not the responses to the questions. We have 14 days to submit that, and I will put that up shortly so you can give full answers.

This just relates to thoughts on other presentations, the process, etc. So if you heard something in Cell C's presentation this morning that you want to comment on, for example, we can do so then.

[VioAdmin]

Ask ICASA or Telkom this: "The argument that needs to be put forward is Telkom's interests more important that the consumer and the rest of the ICT industry?"

It seems like everything is being done not to 'harm' Telkom. Because Telkom brought up the whole "We will lose jobs" which has been proved completely false by Mweb and NeoTel's presentations.

[Mike Hoxbig]

Ask ICASA or Telkom this: "The argument that needs to be put forward is Telkom's interests more important that the consumer and the rest of the ICT industry?"

It seems like everything is being done not to 'harm' Telkom. Because Telkom brought up the whole "We will lose jobs" which has been proved completely false by Mweb and NeoTel's presentations.
Agreed. Any potential job losses at Telkom should be offset by significant job growth due to competition. It will also result in improved service levels by Telkom, as they are forced to compete.

[caroper]

The Councilors asked NeoTel if they would consider purchasing exchanges outright.
I was not aware that this was one of the processes being considered, but if it is I think the point should be made that the consumers interest is not served by creating local monopolies. It will be served by fair and open access to all who wish to provide voice and/or data services on the consumers existing copper line, regardless of location.

[caroper]

A second point I would like to make, though I am not sure of its relevance in terms of the "Right of Reply session".
In 2009 ICASA introduced "fixed line number portability". We already had the ability to transfer the number between telkom lines and Telkom is the only company with access to the local loop, therefore, As a consumer one would consider that to mean that they can freely choose which service provider they want to provide the voice and data services over the copper line that bares that number.

[j4ck455]

IMHO we need to comment on the trojan horse fear-mongering used by Telkom to infect the unions and make the unions argue against LLU.

Questions that I feel should be put to both the CWU and Solidarity:

Are the unions aware that the number of operational copper lines rolled out to consumers in South Africa, has been decreasing every year for several years due to cancellations by consumers who consider (amongst other possible reasons) Telkom's services to be prohibitively expensive with unacceptably long time to address faults and rectify billing problems?
Are the unions aware that this annual decrease in operational copper lines directly translates into a decrease in revenue for Telkom from copper fixed lines?
Are the unions aware that Telkom has for some time refused to replace stolen copper cables and instead convinces its customers to use wireless (RF/cellular) services from Telkom (Wimax/HSPA)?
Are the unions aware that even if LLU never happens in any shape or form, Telkom will have to start retrenching its bloated workforce to offset the continued loss of revenue from copper lines that are no longer being used due to year-on-year service cancellations?
Are the unions aware that wireless services such as HSPA, CDMA2000, Wimax and iBurst, use RF spectrum that is shared by users connected to the same tower, and that there is no sharing of a copper ADSL line by multiple Telkom customers, which means that ADSL has the potential to offer a much higher quality of service if the copper is maintained properly? This is one of many technical reasons why wireless services are characterised by bursts of high speed interspersed with low to zero speed; instead of a steady constant high speed that is possible on the most expensive of Telkom's ADSL service options. ADSL is preferable for applications that are latency sensitive, like VoIP and other interactive online applications (not just online role playing games).
Are the unions aware that Telkom employees are highly subsidised by Telkom for Telkom services such as ADSL, and pay far less than consumers are forced to?
Are the unions aware that their LLU submissions to ICASA are only representative of the interests of their members that are Telkom employees, and that the unions most likely do not have a mandate to speak on behalf of their members that are not Telkom employees where LLU is concerned?

[Roman4604]

Personally, I think the local proccess has gone off on so many tangents and been so corrupted, that its lost focus of the original intent of LLU.

The basic (moral) premise for LLU is that the copper network in any country was grown organically over decades (actually from the time of Alexander Graham Bell) to a scale and reach that is practically & economically unfeasible to replicate (with any technology). Thus no private or even public organisation has the resources/motive to build another wired network which can come close to matching it, making it unique and irreplacable for the forseeable future.

For me the question before ther regulator is, would it be in the best interests of the the citizens and economy of the country to leave this unique national asset in the hands of a single organisation fortunate enough to inherit it during the privatisation process? Would it be beneficial for this single organisation to continue dictating the terms & pricing in an unfetered manner for the sole purpose of enriching their shareholders?

So I'd say lets get back to basics, stop being distracted by fibre, wireless and other facilities/technologies that are not irreplacable. LLU is about opening up the country's vast, unique copper network in a fair, equitable manner for the benefit of all.

[caroper]

Well put Roman

[VioAdmin]

Personally, I think the local proccess has gone off on so many tangents and been so corrupted, that its lost focus of the original intent of LLU.

The basic (moral) premise for LLU is that the copper network in any country was grown organically over decades (actually from the time of Alexander Graham Bell) to a scale and reach that is practically & economically unfeasible to replicate (with any technology). Thus no private or even public organisation has the resources/motive to build another wired network which can come close to matching it, making it unique and irreplacable for the forseeable future.

For me the question before ther regulator is, would it be in the best interests of the the citizens and economy of the country to leave this unique national asset in the hands of a single organisation fortunate enough to inherit it during the privatisation process? Would it be beneficial for this single organisation to continue dictating the terms & pricing in an unfetered manner for the sole purpose of enriching their shareholders?

So I'd say lets get back to basics, stop being distracted by fibre, wireless and other facilities/technologies that are not irreplacable. LLU is about opening up the country's vast, unique copper network in a fair, equitable manner for the benefit of all.

Excellent...