LLU hearings: Questions from ICASA for mybb users

[ellipsis]

Questions from ICASA listed below. Please let us have your thoughts so we can prepare the response.
Deadline for responses: 12h00 on 24 October 2011.

Please note (use the number) the question to which you're responding in your response.



Noting that MyBroadband users support Naked DSL, what do they think of Telkom’s view that this is not technically feasible?


Do MyBroadband users view ICASA’s approach to LLU using Chapter 8 of the ECA and the Facilities Leasing Regulations as the right way to go about unbundling the loop?


Do you think LLU will help increase the broadband penetration in SA?


Are you aware that NDSL may cost more? It could be argued that if you wanted NDSL, take your voice price, plus your ADSL price, and there you go, that’s the price of Naked DSL. Have the MyBroadband users considered this? That NDSL might actually cost more.


MyBroadband end-users are very interested in Full LLU, but they’re consumers, not network builders. [ICASA] didn’t know that consumers cared about how they got their services, just that they cared about the quality of the service and that they enjoyed their service. So from an end-user’s perspective, is there a difference between bitstream and full loop unbundling? Because they’re different, from a network topology and access point of view, but not necessarily different from an end-user’s perspective if the end-user gets an SLA that they’re happy with. So how did your end-users justify bitstream to full loop unbundling?


Why would the end user worry about predatory pricing? It’s when the monopoly charges a price below cost. How does this negatively impact the end-user?


Did the forum members have any opinion regarding whether LLU should include the wireless local loop as well?


The open access approach in chapter 8 that [ICASA] is talking about may also include new investment fibre networks. What would the MyBroadband forum users’ views be on the open-access regime to new investment?


---
As requested, below is a short write-up on Chapter 8 and the Facilities Leasing Regulations.
Note that this is just a quick, layperson-friendly overview and does not set out all of the details relating to facilities leasing. This is just intended to educate you on the basics of what the relevant sections and regulations on facilities leasing cover in order to enable you to understand the questions posed by ICASA. The full Electronic Communications Act (ECA) and Facilities Leasing Regulations are available online or on request.

Chapter 8 of the ECA sets out that all ECNS (electronic communications network services) licensees are obliged to enter into a facilities leasing agreement with any other ECNS licensee (or licence-exempt entity) who requests them to do so, as long as that request is regarded as ‘reasonable’.

This chapter also requires (s43(8)) ICASA to prescribe a list of essential facilities
including but not limited to:
(a) electronic communications facilities, including without limitation local loops, sub-loops and associated electronic communications facilities for accessing subscribers and provisioning services;
(b) electronic communications facilities connected to international electronic communications facilities such as submarine cables and satellite earth stations; and
(c) any other such facilities,
required to be leased by an electronic communications network service licensee in terms of subsection (1) [ss1: obligation to lease facilities].

‘Electronic communications facility’ is defined in the ECA as including but not limited to any –

(a) wire;
(b) cable (including undersea and land-based fibre optic cables);
(c) antenna;
(d) mast;
(e) satellite transponder;
(f) circuit;
(g) cable landing station;
(h) international gateway;
(i) earth station; and
(j) radio apparatus or other thing,
which can be used for, or in connection with, electronic communications, including where applicable—
(i) collocation space;
(ii) monitoring equipment;
(iii) space on or within poles, ducts, cable trays, manholes, hand holds and conduits; and
(iv) associated support systems, sub-systems and services, ancillary to such electronic communications facilities or otherwise necessary for controlling connectivity of the various electronic communications facilities for proper functionality, control, integration and utilisation of such electronic communications facilities;

Chapter 8 also requires ICASA to prescribe regulations to facilitate the conclusion of facilities leasing agreements (s44(1)), which ICASA has done with the Facilities Leasing Regulations. These Regulations add some substance to the basic obligations in the ECA. It sets out when requests will be technically and financially feasible, and thus will be considered reasonable. It sets out timeframes, required information from facilities providers and facilities seekers, what must be included in a facilities leasing agreement, and the procedure when disputes arise. The Regulations require facilities leasing agreements to be filed with ICASA for review, to confirm that they comply with the ECA and the Facilities Leasing Regulations.

[Billy]

Question 4

What has been the overseas experience with this? Did it cost more or less?


As several of the questions could be yes/no perhaps a poll of those.

[ellipsis]

Would prefer to avoid a poll, as we want some reasons for the answer given rather than just yes/no answers.

[MickeyD]

Regarding the issue of the technical difficulty to de-link the directory number (DN) from the asset (as per Richard Majoor's reply) as a precursor to Naked ADSL:

How difficult would it be to link the asset to the physical street address?
How much will it cost to implement this change?
I would presume that Telkom would either recover this cost from the other licensees or from us consumers.

[Scooby_Doo]

Re: Question 5. By unbundling the local loop international experience says that we will get a far better value, service and investment than allowing Telkom to hold all the cards and we get some random sla. chances are that sla will never get any better than the original one.

Plus if government forces some min sla between Telkom and it's customers then who will enforce this? In my opinion this will force icasa to get involved and put extra pressure on them to resolve complaints which will frustrate users further.

Competition from the local loop unbundling will be far more effective than any sla could hope to be.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using MyBroadband Android App

[MickeyD]

Noting that MyBroadband users support Naked DSL, what do they think of Telkom’s view that this is not technically feasible?
It is technically feasible but at a cost. The issue is who will bear this cost, as it will be significant?


Do MyBroadband users view ICASA’s approach to LLU using Chapter 8 of the ECA and the Facilities Leasing Regulations as the right way to go about unbundling the loop?
No. LLU should be included in the ECA as a specific provision. This will eleiminate many fo the legal challenges about to hit ICASA.


Do you think LLU will help increase the broadband penetration in SA?
Yes. The number of data subscribers will increase while POTS subscribers will decrease. The net effect on copper network growth will be negligible if any at all.


Are you aware that NDSL may cost more? It could be argued that if you wanted NDSL, take your voice price, plus your ADSL price, and there you go, that’s the price of Naked DSL. Have the MyBroadband users considered this? That NDSL might actually cost more.
Yes, I do think it will cost more UNLESS it is accompanied by full LLU where competitive market forces will determine pricing.


MyBroadband end-users are very interested in Full LLU, but they’re consumers, not network builders. [ICASA] didn’t know that consumers cared about how they got their services, just that they cared about the quality of the service and that they enjoyed their service. So from an end-user’s perspective, is there a difference between bitstream and full loop unbundling? Because they’re different, from a network topology and access point of view, but not necessarily different from an end-user’s perspective if the end-user gets an SLA that they’re happy with. So how did your end-users justify bitstream to full loop unbundling?
The dream is that with full LLU there will be SLA's in place to ensure a better quality of service than what is currently the experience of many consumers. In terms of quality, ADSL remains the leader if properly implemented and maintained. Hence we do care how we receive our services.


Why would the end user worry about predatory pricing? It’s when the monopoly charges a price below cost. How does this negatively impact the end-user?
Bring it on! If I can get a premium product at a great price why should I complain?


Did the forum members have any opinion regarding whether LLU should include the wireless local loop as well?
Yes, it should. This is a means to extend the broadband footprint.


The open access approach in chapter 8 that [ICASA] is talking about may also include new investment fibre networks. What would the MyBroadband forum users’ views be on the open-access regime to new investment?
Obviously I would support LLU on any optic fibre network in the last mile; same principle as wireless local loop. If the local loop is to be unbundled, then all broadcast mediums in the last mile must be unbundled.

[fonoi]

1. I find it strange that a company claiming to be world class throughout the "2010 Soccer World Cup" will say this is technically infeasible. Many countries have successfully implemented this including the Philippines which Telkom should note is an advanced developing country much like South Africa.

3. If you look at the fixed broadband line number by country, most countries offering naked adsl enjoy higher broadband penetration rates then South Africa.

4. Naked adsl is almost always cheaper in countries which have implemented it the cost savings may not be huge but they are present.

5. Telkom seems to be of the view that customers do not know what they want and need as evidenced by the uncapped adsl stance they took, yet we know they have since changed their views on that..
Many of the users of Mybb are in the ICT field and understand the difference between bitstream access and full LLU. Full LLU will encourage companies who are prepared to commit resources to infrastructure to invest in new generation equipment and force Telkom to follow suit to stay competitive.

6. Predatory pricing has a negative impact on the consumer because the "benefits" are short term while the negative effects on competition and the economy in general are long term.

[VioAdmin]

This thread should be made front page news and stickied so that other people, especially those who are technical on MyBB can assist. We have a bunch of them but I fear 90% of them have no idea this thread even exists, yet.

[j4ck455]

1. I believe Telkom's view that Naked DSL is not technically feasible, to be a blatant lie for the following reason:


The same two copper wires are used to transmit analogue voice and ADSL, these signals are transmitted at different frequencies to prevent interference from either of the two types of signals, the ADSL signal is then split off into a DSLAM port card, and the analogue signal goes through a patch panel where the two copper wires join Telkom's analogue voice switching network.

In order for Telkom to provide an ADSL only (Naked DSL / NDSL) service, Telkom simply has to instruct a Telkom technician to pull the two copper wires out of the analogue patch panel and insulate the ends to prevent accidental shorting, the result will be that the customer no longer has an analogue dial tone and cannot make or receive analogue calls, but the customer will still have ADSL via the same two copper wires going into the DSLAM port card allocated to their ADSL subscription service.



3. I believe that Telkom's monopoly continues to allow Telkom the luxury of cherry-picking consumers from more affluent areas and gated villages, providing fixed line services that are of substandard quality of service and exorbitantly priced compared to what has been available for many years internationally, this monopoly has also severely disadvantaged the poor to whom Telkom refuses to provide services since the poor cannot afford to pay what Telkom demands. Introducing competition to break Telkom's fixed line monopoly at all levels (wholesale through to retail), will result in other service providers sharing the cost on an open access basis to roll out both fixed line and wireless services to places where Telkom currently still refuses to provide any services whatsoever, this will result in an increase in broadband penetration in SA (service providers just need ICASA's permission before drawing up business plans and embarking on feasibility studies).


4. It can equally be argued that Telkom's analogue voice network is outdated and a costly beast to run and does not have much scope as far as converged services are concerned. Migrating the analogue network to VoIP could in fact save Telkom a vast amount of money over many years, however Telkom with its fixed line monopoly, has no incentive to make more efficient use of enabling services like ADSL as a carrier for VoIP. NDSL will give Telkom the kick up the rear end that Telkom so desperately needs.

In essence, I do not agree that a logical argument can be made to assert that the cost of NDSL equates to the cost of analogue added to the cost of ADSL. If ICASA wants to balance that equation, ICASA will have to factor in the destructive and unseen singularity (Black Hole) that is Telkom and its inefficiencies/incompetence.


5. Consumers do care about the exorbitant pricing we have been charged by Telkom for years to feed its greedy shareholders, and the manner in which LLU is introduced has a direct bearing on the level and extent of competition that will be possible in the short and longer terms. If Full LLU is never introduced, the result will be that Telkom maintains its fixed line monopoly and consumers will continue to suffer from exorbitant pricing. Bitstream access should be introduced with immediate effect (no later than November 2011 as per the ISPA's recommendation), that will be a significant first step in the correct direction, but will by no means break Telkom's fixed line monopoly, it will however be a good start.


6. The definition of "predatory pricing" applied by the ICASA councillor that raised this question, is insufficient. It is a fact that Telkom still has a fixed line monopoly, and it follows that any fixed line competitors that Telkom has are superfluous having no real effect on Telkom's fixed line monopoly, Telkom as the predator is feeding off of the carcases of consumers and potential competitors by charging exorbitant prices for fixed line services (exorbitant pricing for ADSL to consumers and IPConnect to ISPs). Predatory pricing does matter when one is the victim of the predator.


7. Telkom got handed the copper network on a platter when it was listed as a private legal entity. Wireless broadband networks did not exist at that time, furthermore LLU is about breaking the monopoly that Telkom abuses on a daily basis, by introducing competition into the local loop, there is sufficient competition amongst wireless broadband network operators (albeit not so favourable wireless broadband pricing to consumers) that there is currently no pressing need to unbundle wireless broadband local loops, ICASA should focus on introducing competition into fixed local loops instead of becoming distracted with wireless broadband local loops. ICASA can however draw up recommendations for wireless broadband operators such that sharing of infrastructure (masts etc) becomes the norm instead of the exception as is currently the case.

[caroper]

Noting that MyBroadband users support Naked DSL, what do they think of Telkom’s view that this is not technically feasible?

It is not even a technical question, it is pure economics. The same piece of copper is used for both voice and data. Telkom has two charges, one for voice, one for data, ADSL subscribers pay for voice and ADSL as separately billed items on the same line. Naked ADSL says we will pay for the ADSL charge but not the voice charge as we do not require that service.


Do MyBroadband users view ICASA’s approach to LLU using Chapter 8 of the ECA and the Facilities Leasing Regulations as the right way to go about unbundling the loop?

pass


Do you think LLU will help increase the broadband penetration in SA?

Most definitely. the largest hindrance to Broadband uptake in south Africa is Telkom. Open up the infrastructure to others and innovative products and services will accelerate the uptake.


Are you aware that NDSL may cost more? It could be argued that if you wanted NDSL, take your voice price, plus your ADSL price, and there you go, that’s the price of Naked DSL. Have the MyBroadband users considered this? That NDSL might actually cost more.

It would only cost more if ICASA allowed it to cost more. There is no technical reason why providing 2 services on one line, and charging line rental twice for the same line, should be cheaper than providing only one service on the same line. Perhaps ICASA should audit the figures next time Telkom apply for an increase in rates.


MyBroadband end-users are very interested in Full LLU, but they’re consumers, not network builders. [ICASA] didn’t know that consumers cared about how they got their services, just that they cared about the quality of the service and that they enjoyed their service. So from an end-user’s perspective, is there a difference between bitstream and full loop unbundling? Because they’re different, from a network topology and access point of view, but not necessarily different from an end-user’s perspective if the end-user gets an SLA that they’re happy with. So how did your end-users justify bitstream to full loop unbundling?

The majority of the internet concept, and the communication protocols used in the internet, were created by the end users, not by the incumbent telco's of the world. In the South African context ADSL is an expensive commodity, so much so that early uptake was largely by technically inclined users. They probably still are in the majority, especially on the most expensive product packages. Those users understand the technology and what they require from it. They are not content to have telkom, or any other party dictate how or what they should use the services for. They purchase the service and wish to innovate and help drive technology and the internet forward. bitstream is an acceptable first step, but is not a viable alternative to full LLU as it still gives telkom the power to shape as well as dictate the use of the service and hence potentially hinder innovation.



Why would the end user worry about predatory pricing? It’s when the monopoly charges a price below cost. How does this negatively impact the end-user?

Creative accounting comes to mind but I will pass on this one :)


Did the forum members have any opinion regarding whether LLU should include the wireless local loop as well?

It would be nice to be able to purchase bandwidth from only one ISP (of the consumers choice) and have the ability to use that bandwidth over any available access method, however, priority should be given to the copper network as that is the best candidate currently for high speed low latency internet access and is an irreplaceable asset.


The open access approach in chapter 8 that [ICASA] is talking about may also include new investment fibre networks. What would the MyBroadband forum users’ views be on the open-access regime to new investment?

as above.

[telgom]

1. It is ridiculous. Telkom is a regulated monopoly and the main issue will be how to regulate the price of the naked line and the insane “access” prices still payable to Telkom. This will be easier to do than regulating full unbundling.

2. I don't think that LLU will be that useful at this stage. It would have been ten years ago but this is no longer the right time. It might seem like a good way to get rid of the incredibly high prices for the ADSL lines but the correct way is for the price of the latter to be regulated and not to inhibited investment in new and separate networks.

3. No it won't. It will create competition and better prices for existing customers in the short term but in the long run it will inhibit investment in new networks (like fibre and cable). Switzerland has only limited LLU and Hong Kong has already stopped it. For LLU to work properly, you need a strong and decisive regulator anyway. Even India has developed a relatively competitive market without LLU.

4. Yes.

5. myBB users are interested in a competitive telecoms market only.

6. Predatory pricing is not really detrimental to the consumer in the short term. Even in the long run, it will encourage investment in non-Telkom networks, which is exactly what we want.

7. The wireless environment is substantially competitive and no intervention is necessary.

8. It is not necessary to regulate for it.

[ToxicBunny]

I will put my answers to the questions as best I can below each one.... ( I apologise up front for the long answers :p)


[1]Noting that MyBroadband users support Naked DSL, what do they think of Telkom’s view that this is not technically feasible?

It may be technically infeasible from Telkom's accounting point of view as it will deprecate an income stream that they have become accustomed to receiving ever since they implemented ADSL in this country. From a purely technological feasibility point of view, Telkom are peddling lies, almost every other Fixed Line provider in the world is able to offer Naked ADSL, and I very much doubt that Telkom is running any actual equipment that is very different from their international counterparts, so if they can do it then Telkom can do it as well.


[2]Do MyBroadband users view ICASA’s approach to LLU using Chapter 8 of the ECA and the Facilities Leasing Regulations as the right way to go about unbundling the loop?

From a purely personal point of view, I am unphased as to how ICASA achieve LLU just as long as they achieve it. From a time based point of view, I am of the opinion that using the Facilities Leasing Regulations are very possibly the right way to go as it is an established piece of legislation that Telkom will HAVE to follow should the LLU be classifed as an essential facility.


[3]Do you think LLU will help increase the broadband penetration in SA?

In the short term, a very honest answer is no it won't, but in the medium to long term yes it will as it will provide new options to customers who are currently unable to afford the basic cost that Telkom charges for a decent fixed-line connection. It will help drive innovation in the broadband space which is an absolute necessity in this country.



[4]Are you aware that NDSL may cost more? It could be argued that if you wanted NDSL, take your voice price, plus your ADSL price, and there you go, that’s the price of Naked DSL. Have the MyBroadband users considered this? That NDSL might actually cost more.

We have considered this, and it was included in the original presentation to ICASA in relation to the Access Line Deficit and how we as consumers must not be punished for Telkoms own inefficiencies. We are aware that is very probably the route that Telkom will take should they be forced to provide Naked ADSL. Should the do so, it will of course make the option unattactive to us as end-consumers.



[5]MyBroadband end-users are very interested in Full LLU, but they’re consumers, not network builders. [ICASA] didn’t know that consumers cared about how they got their services, just that they cared about the quality of the service and that they enjoyed their service. So from an end-user’s perspective, is there a difference between bitstream and full loop unbundling? Because they’re different, from a network topology and access point of view, but not necessarily different from an end-user’s perspective if the end-user gets an SLA that they’re happy with. So how did your end-users justify bitstream to full loop unbundling?

For ICASA's own reference, since they are not a part of this online community, a large number of us are very heavily involved in IT as well as Telecommunications so this process gives us a way to change things from the outside whilst still attempting to change things from the inside as well. A large number of us are very knowledgable in the area of network buildouts and the challenges. The reason we as consumers are very interested in Full LLU is that it gives us as consumers (and very technical ones at that) the possibility of being offered different technologies to use for our connections by different companies, depending on the technical requirements that we have for the connection. It also provides network operators (other than Telkom) to possibly provide things like FTTH should the area they are operating in prove to be profitable enough to warrant such a network buildout. Bitstream is a good first step, given how expensive and ultimately backwards the current IPC model that Telkom employs is, but its just that, a first step. This country desperately needs to open up the opportunity for other companies to compete head on with Telkom without having to spend billions of Rands to build a second network when the network (albeit aging) is already in place. Full LLU will initially not change the status quo very much in terms of which consumers deal with which providers for their Network Access, but in the medium term when more innovative offerings come about from it, one might see certain operators getting a larger share from specific exchanges and then being able to justify regenerating the network and offering services such as FTTH and VOD.


[6]Why would the end user worry about predatory pricing? It’s when the monopoly charges a price below cost. How does this negatively impact the end-user?
I would like to correct the ICASA councillor, predatory pricing is not when a monopoly charges a price below cost, that is actually classified as loss leader pricing.
BUT in terms of what ICASA are referencing, pricing a product below cost is a very negative thing for the consumer as it will ultimately lead to the smaller and more innovative providers going out of business as they don't have multiple revenue streams that can be used to subsidise the lossleader product that is priced below cost. This will in term limit the options a consumer has at the end of the day. There is also the very real possibility that once the product that is priced below cost has driven all the other competitors out of the market the price of the product will be raised to supra-competitive pricing which will in turn negatively impac the consumer, which will then turn have a negative impact on the economy in general.



[7]Did the forum members have any opinion regarding whether LLU should include the wireless local loop as well?

From a complete fairness point of view, yes LLU must include all last-mile technologies. From a personal opinion, including the wireless local loop has the possibility of having multiple cellphone towers in an area which are an eye-sore alot of the time. It could possibly also reduce the network cost for the Cellphone operators (I am making an assumption on this and do stand to be corrected). From a consumers point of view, unbundling the wireless local loop does give network operators some very interesting possibilities for VERY innovative products that could be quite well received by consumers.



[8]The open access approach in chapter 8 that [ICASA] is talking about may also include new investment fibre networks. What would the MyBroadband forum users’ views be on the open-access regime to new investment?

If a company (or consortium, or para-statal) is building out a new fibre network, then it makes sense to do the ROI etc on the open access framework in my opinion. We are already seeing multiple companies joining up to do infrastructure spend on things like fibre networks as well as companies like DFA being formed that do purely infrastructure build out, and the actual operation of the network itself is up to the people using the links in the way that they need from my understanding. In an open access regime there will be fewer massive networks being built out, which while it may sound like a negative thing, is in actuality a positive, as it reduces companies requires to embark on large infrastructure spends to service all areas, rather they can use infrastructure that is already existing in an area and add innovative products to their lineups.

[jackshiels]

Questions from ICASA listed below. Please let us have your thoughts so we can prepare the response.
Deadline for responses: 12h00 on 24 October 2011.

Please note (use the number) the question to which you're responding in your response.

1. I think it is a way of milking the consumer dry under the guise of financial necessity. We need naked ADSL as it is against our rights to force us to pay such enormous amounts of money for an internet connection. Telkom is responsible for holding this country back.

2. I don't understand what this is.

3. Yes. Provided Telkom does not drag its feet the end result could be great. It needs to be handled well, however otherwise infrastructure could go unmaintained and start to fail.

4. Telkom can expect a lot of people to leave them if they do this. Their time is up - the huge prices need to stop!

5. It will allow other companies to install faster and more efficient methods of ADSL and VDSL in the exchanges, giving us much needed speed upgrades and lower prices. As well as this Telkom's poor technical support could be handled by more caring companies - ones that actually fix problems and provide jobs.

6. I don't fully understand the question.

7. Undecided.
mpetitivity is paramount in the internet industry.

[ellipsis]

On request, we will put together something to explain Chapter 8 and the Facilities Leasing Regulations to enable you to answer the questions with a bit more insight.

[j4ck455]

On request, we will put together something to explain Chapter 8 and the Facilities Leasing Regulations to enable you to answer the questions with a bit more insight.I did not feel comfortable answering questions 2 and 8 without having proper insight into ECA chapter 8 and the FLRs, so even a brief summary of both would be great, thanks :).

[ghoti]

Questions from ICASA listed below. Please let us have your thoughts so we can prepare the response.
Deadline for responses: 12h00 on 24 October 2011.

Please note (use the number) the question to which you're responding in your response.



Noting that MyBroadband users support Naked DSL, what do they think of Telkom’s view that this is not technically feasible?

A lie to try protect profits



Do MyBroadband users view ICASA’s approach to LLU using Chapter 8 of the ECA and the Facilities Leasing Regulations as the right way to go about unbundling the loop?
I have no faith in ICASA getting this right under any act. They are not on the side of the people, they protect the telecommunications industry and its cartel players.



Do you think LLU will help increase the broadband penetration in SA?
Without a doubt.



Are you aware that NDSL may cost more? It could be argued that if you wanted NDSL, take your voice price, plus your ADSL price, and there you go, that’s the price of Naked DSL. Have the MyBroadband users considered this? That NDSL might actually cost more.
If it does cost more its just Telkom abusing the system to try retain some of its profits. There is absolutely no reason for it to increase in price.



MyBroadband end-users are very interested in Full LLU, but they’re consumers, not network builders. [ICASA] didn’t know that consumers cared about how they got their services, just that they cared about the quality of the service and that they enjoyed their service. So from an end-user’s perspective, is there a difference between bitstream and full loop unbundling? Because they’re different, from a network topology and access point of view, but not necessarily different from an end-user’s perspective if the end-user gets an SLA that they’re happy with. So how did your end-users justify bitstream to full loop unbundling?

I dont understand the question.



Why would the end user worry about predatory pricing? It’s when the monopoly charges a price below cost. How does this negatively impact the end-user?
It doesnt, but it nails the competition.



Did the forum members have any opinion regarding whether LLU should include the wireless local loop as well?
None, do your job ICASA and get wired LLU done first. This is more important and should have being done over a decade ago.



The open access approach in chapter 8 that [ICASA] is talking about may also include new investment fibre networks. What would the MyBroadband forum users’ views be on the open-access regime to new investment?

I support LLU on any fixed line where its not an open market.

[J0n0]

Are you aware that NDSL may cost more? It could be argued that if you wanted NDSL, take your voice price, plus your ADSL price, and there you go, that’s the price of Naked DSL. Have the MyBroadband users considered this? That NDSL might actually cost more.

And what is the reason for that? Can Telkom not give a reason for that? Besides the excuse of using old tech in their world class internet service. Naked adsl as far as I can find about it, does not need specific hardware, but for normal dsl, you do, to split the voice and data. Naked dsl have been available since 2007 in many countries so are we running adsl on hardware much older than what was available in 2007? I do not find reasoning for having to make drastic changes that would make it so much more expensive.


In regular DSL, a cable runs from the telephone switch to a piece of equipment called a Plain Old Telephone Service (POTS) splitter. This splitter separates the DSL and voice bands. Thus the customer will have a dial tone, which allows them to use the telephone line as a regular land line while they are using it to access the Internet on their computer. A cable carrying both services runs from the splitter to the cable head, where it continues on to the customer on outside plant. (See DSLAM.)
In naked DSL, there is no cable from the telephone switch to the POTS splitter. Thus there is no dial tone on the line. However, the customer could still use the line for regular telephone service through Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) or a Competitive Local Exchange Carrier (CLEC) instead of the Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier (ILEC).
Naked ADSL2 and ADSL2+ provisioned with "all digital mode" Annex I or Annex J can achieve additional 256 kbit/s of upstream data rate.

The only costs that the normal user should expect are "installation" costs that would cover the labour needed to enable naked DSL. What would make the rental of an adsl line more expensive than a voice and adsl line combined?

I Think some experts in the industry (not ICASA chosen "officials"), should be allowed a full inspection of the Telkom infrastructure to a hardware level and evaluate if what Telkom is saying is in fact true.

[caroper]

The crucial part of the equation is contained within your second quote.

the customer could still use the line for regular telephone service through Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP)
Telkom is trying to protect its voice revenue. I can't legally prevent you from using VoIP but by forcing you to have a voice service they hope that you will use it rather than VoIP as you are already paying for it.
Telkom is also saying that the true cost of the line is subsidised by the call costs and that is why they want more, for the same line, if they will no longer get the voice call revenue.

[ellipsis]

First post has been updated with some detail on Chapter 8 and the Facilities Leasing Regulations.

[j4ck455]

First post has been updated with some detail on Chapter 8 and the Facilities Leasing Regulations.Thanks, much appreciated :). My answers to questions 2 and 8:


2. ECA chapter 8 provides ICASA with the legal foundation for implementing LLU in South Africa. All accusations by Telkom et al that there is no legal basis for implementing LLU in South Africa, are effectively contraventions of the ECA chapter 8.

ICASA should already be inviting Telkom's competitors to start drafting facilities leasing agreements for gaining access to the wired local loop, these agreements should then be submitted to a dedicated department within ICASA as well as Cc'd to Telkom, ICASA can then rule on whether a proposed facilities leasing agreement is reasonable and complies with the ECA and ICASA's FLRs. This would have the potential to speed up any implementation of LLU and would also have to include local loop maintenance costs that would be shared by all service providers using the same infrastructure - this would surely be of benefit to Telkom which continually complains about the cost of maintaining wired local loops.

The "reasonable" caveat/loophole will be used against ICASA as a delaying tactic, the regulator needs to be very careful with the definition of what is and what is not considered reasonable as there are many facets to this blanket term including timeframes for the implementation of any facilities leasing agreement.



8. Any reasonable request to share access to and the cost of rolling out new infrastructure such as fibre optic, is mandated by ECA chapter 8, as such ICASA has the legal right to require the implementation of open access to all communications infrastructure provided that such request is reasonable.

[ambo]

Q1:
The consumer does not believe that it will necessarily be technically or administratively trivial to provide naked ADSL. However, it provides the lowest entry point in the process and is expected to be the easiest to implement. The consumer feels that Telkom is stalling and making excuses about things that it is technically capable of achieving.

Q4:
Telkom makes the claim that the voice and ADSL services can not be separated, yet they provide a voice only service to many consumers. Their claim that their business model requires them to cross subsidise with voice revenues is also flawed since many consumers only use the ADSL service and do not have a handset connected to their line. The consumers who are most interested in naked ADSL are already not using (incurring costs or providing revenue) on Telkom's voice network. There is no justification that a naked ADSL service could cost more when compared with the current 'naked' use of the bundled service.

Q5:
Consumers do not have an extensive knowledge of the ADSL infrastructure. They do however understand the limitations imposed on them by Telkom's failure to implement better DSL technologies and improved backhaul networks. The consumer foresees higher speeds, lower congestion, broader choice and more innovation when multiple providers are competing for their business over a fully unbundled local loop.

Q6:
Consumers are concerned that Telkom is abusing their market position to entrench their monopoly and forcing competitors out of the market. The consumer feels that the if the monopoly was broken and efficient operators where given the opportunity to compete that the prices would be similar or lower.

Q7:
The wireless local loop remains the primary method that South African consumers use to obtain Internet access. While the wireless local loop could never hope to achieve the kind of performance that consumers would like to see from true broadband services, unbundling remains an important requirement for innovation and competition in the mobile and fixed wireless sectors.

Q8:
The consumer believes that the efficient sharing of all infrastructure can lead better services, coverage and pricing. The consumers sees no reason that fibre access networks should not also be open.

[georgegolding]

I agree with j4ck455 with his/her well articulated opinion on the matter

[SkyLukeWater]

3. Do you think LLU will help increase the broadband penetration in SA?

This is a complex issue but I believe it will. If managed correctly (by iCASA) it will lead to innovation in services and product offerings.
When the SAT3 cable had competition introduced (i.e. spending on infrastructure), we the consumers experienced a gradual improvement in prices, quality and access to service offerings. With the introduction of access to new infrastructure through LLU (with this infrastructure not only in the hands of 1 company, fighting to keep control of its share prices and place in the market) there is no doubt in my mind (as a master's student of information systems of UCT) that we (consumers) will experience a surge of new services. Consumers will have more options to exercise with their income. As long as innovation is sustained, broadband penetration will spread. In my opinion it may be helpful for iCASA to think about how they wish to realize their vision. They should/could work towards protecting the conditions required for innovation to occur in all digital forms by protecting the rights of those who cannot do it for themselves...

[richev]

1. This is utter rubbish! I worked for BT in the UK for 40 years in the develpment labs, and this was one of the fallacious reasons BT gave to the regulator. Fortunately the UK had a strong regulator and his views prevailed.

2. That is probably the best way in the current environment.

3. Most definitely! However there will need to be ongoing oversight by ICASA to prevent Telkom making this difficult for new operators.

4. There are alternatives to Telkom for Voice so not necessarily a true statement.

5. SLA's are notoriously difficult to police. Personally I would prefer full unbundling. SA needs more operators!

6. Predatory pricing does not negatively the end-user initially, but ICASA should ensure those taking advantage of offers are not tied into long term contracts.

7. In my opinion the wireless local loop does not need to be unbundled. As time goes on there will be more choice in this arena for consumers anyway.

8. New investment fibre networks must be included in LLU. However there could be an initial period (2/3 years)after implementation of such networks where LLU was not a requirement to allow operators to recoup some of their investment.
The really worrying thing is where "Chapter 8 of the ECA sets out that all ECNS (electronic communications network services) licensees are obliged to enter into a facilities leasing agreement with any other ECNS licensee (or licence-exempt entity) who requests them to do so, as long as that request is regarded as ‘reasonable’". Telkom in particular would have a very different view of what is "reasonable" than other providers, hence the potential for prevarication. ICASA needs to determine and define then term "reasonable" in this case.

[Stevie G]

Questions from ICASA listed below. Please let us have your thoughts so we can prepare the response.
Deadline for responses: 12h00 on 24 October 2011.

Please note (use the number) the question to which you're responding in your response.



Noting that MyBroadband users support Naked DSL, what do they think of Telkom’s view that this is not technically feasible?

How the hell can it not be feasible when Telkom themselves are making it feasible for them to split their voice and dsl services. Telkom is contradicting itself by saying that its not realistic when they have done it all these years. Telkom are the biggest hypocrites that i have came across

Do MyBroadband users view ICASA’s approach to LLU using Chapter 8 of the ECA and the Facilities Leasing Regulations as the right way to go about unbundling the loop?

No comment for now

Do you think LLU will help increase the broadband penetration in SA?

Duh!!! You don't need to be a brain surgeon to figure it out. Even a primary schoolkid will be able to give you the answer.
Competition always regulate prices which will make it affordable to the average Joe to have adsl in his/her home. Look at the wireless providers, i.e. Cell C, 8ta, Iburst, Vodacom, MTN that have driven down the prices dramatically due to competition. LLU will make it fair game and give all ISP's equal opportunity to provide a service to the masses.


Are you aware that NDSL may cost more? It could be argued that if you wanted NDSL, take your voice price, plus your ADSL price, and there you go, that’s the price of Naked DSL. Have the MyBroadband users considered this? That NDSL might actually cost more.

How can NDSL cost more if these are 2 different services which are charged for when internet users only want dsl to access the internet. Stupid question in the first place as the question is asked incorrectly. NDSL means that you can have more then 1 service running on 1 copper line.

MyBroadband end-users are very interested in Full LLU, but they’re consumers, not network builders. [ICASA] didn’t know that consumers cared about how they got their services, just that they cared about the quality of the service and that they enjoyed their service. So from an end-user’s perspective, is there a difference between bitstream and full loop unbundling? Because they’re different, from a network topology and access point of view, but not necessarily different from an end-user’s perspective if the end-user gets an SLA that they’re happy with. So how did your end-users justify bitstream to full loop unbundling?

Stupid question again. Let me ask you if you buy a car without knowing whats it capable of doing. would you just pay any price because it has 4 wheels. you look at all the specifications and see if its worth the money spending on a car and not wasting your money or being misleaded by the product. same story with bitstream and full loop unbundling, you buy a car with all the features included and not limited. Bitstream should be implemented immediately and give ISP's access to the copper with LLU to follow shortly and open the infrastructure for equal competition.

Why would the end user worry about predatory pricing? It’s when the monopoly charges a price below cost. How does this negatively impact the end-user?

In the first place we not paying below cost to answer your question. how do you justify and on what facts are we paying below cost. We charged double for a service that we don't use.


Did the forum members have any opinion regarding whether LLU should include the wireless local loop as well?

There is enough competition for now between the wireless providers. Wireless LLU must be taken up at a later stage when NDSL LLLU have been done.


The open access approach in chapter 8 that [ICASA] is talking about may also include new investment fibre networks. What would the MyBroadband forum users’ views be on the open-access regime to new investment?


The only answer i have on that is that it should be properly regulated by ICASA and managed appropriately.

---
As requested, below is a short write-up on Chapter 8 and the Facilities Leasing Regulations.
Note that this is just a quick, layperson-friendly overview and does not set out all of the details relating to facilities leasing. This is just intended to educate you on the basics of what the relevant sections and regulations on facilities leasing cover in order to enable you to understand the questions posed by ICASA. The full Electronic Communications Act (ECA) and Facilities Leasing Regulations are available online or on request.

Chapter 8 of the ECA sets out that all ECNS (electronic communications network services) licensees are obliged to enter into a facilities leasing agreement with any other ECNS licensee (or licence-exempt entity) who requests them to do so, as long as that request is regarded as ‘reasonable’.

This chapter also requires (s43(8)) ICASA to prescribe a list of essential facilities

‘Electronic communications facility’ is defined in the ECA as including but not limited to any –


Chapter 8 also requires ICASA to prescribe regulations to facilitate the conclusion of facilities leasing agreements (s44(1)), which ICASA has done with the Facilities Leasing Regulations. These Regulations add some substance to the basic obligations in the ECA. It sets out when requests will be technically and financially feasible, and thus will be considered reasonable. It sets out timeframes, required information from facilities providers and facilities seekers, what must be included in a facilities leasing agreement, and the procedure when disputes arise. The Regulations require facilities leasing agreements to be filed with ICASA for review, to confirm that they comply with the ECA and the Facilities Leasing Regulations.

just my 2c

[sscholle]

what is LLU?

[ellipsis]

what is LLU?
You may read the other threads in this section and educate yourself.
Or there's always information online - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local-loop_unbundling for example.

[j4ck455]

Deadline for responses: 12h00 on 24 October 2011.Less than 24 hours left for consumers to provide their responses to ICASA's LLU questions.

[Stevie G]

where are all the peeps who is complaining about LLU all the time. looks like they are all sitting on the fence and not making an effort

[ellipsis]

We've compiled the MyBB response. You're welcome to give us your comments on it. Will be submitted tomorrow.

12158

[j4ck455]

We've compiled the MyBB response. You're welcome to give us your comments on it. Will be submitted tomorrow.

12158Thanks Sam, I think you have done a very good job there of summarizing our opinions :).

Just a comment on the concerns of unions, Telkom has a nasty habit of playing dirty to entrench its monopoly status and LLU will certainly break Telkom's fixed line monopoly, however it would not be much of a surprise if Telkom imposed legally questionable restraint of trade clauses on any of its employees that "know too much" about Telkom's copper network, as a way of further entrenching the de facto monopoly that Telkom has.

I believe ICASA should put measures (e.g. regulations) in place to prevent Telkom from using such a tactic to undermine and sabotage potential fixed line competitors that Telkom will have in the event that LLU does materialize (new minister permitting).

[Sting]

Thanks Sam, I think you have done a very good job there of summarizing our opinions :).
/complements the compliment :P


Just a comment on the concerns of unions, Telkom has a nasty habit of playing dirty to entrench its monopoly status and LLU will certainly break Telkom's fixed line monopoly, however it would not be much of a surprise if Telkom imposed legally questionable restraint of trade clauses on any of its employees that "know too much" about Telkom's copper network, as a way of further entrenching the de facto monopoly that Telkom has.

I believe ICASA should put measures (e.g. regulations) in place to prevent Telkom from using such a tactic to undermine and sabotage potential fixed line competitors that Telkom will have in the event that LLU does materialize (new minister permitting).
No current Telkom employee may engage in any public discussion/debate/forum without prior approval from top management. Non-compliance would lead to dismissal.

[j4ck455]

No current Telkom employee may engage in any public discussion/debate/forum without prior approval from top management. Non-compliance would lead to dismissal.Where I was coming from, is a possible future where Telkom uses LLU as an excuse to retrench lots of its employees, Telkom has already scared the hell out of the unions with this "threat" and convinced the unions to vehemently oppose LLU without considering that there will be a significant number of jobs created by Telkom's future fixed line competitors.

If those future retrenched ex-employees have their hands bound by Telkom in restraint of trade clauses, it will mean that they are of very little use to Telkom's future competitors who would otherwise consider offering these people jobs.

ICASA needs to find a way of stopping Telkom from enforcing such restraint of trade clauses to further entrench its fixed line monopoly by limiting effective competition.

ICASA must put the needs of the country as a whole (all citizens) ahead of Telkom's gluttony and desire to maximize profits for its shareholders by maintaining its de facto monopoly and the status quo.

[MickeyD]

Where I was coming from, is a possible future where Telkom uses LLU as an excuse to retrench lots of its employees, Telkom has already scared the hell out of the unions with this "threat" and convinced the unions to vehemently oppose LLU without considering that there will be a significant number of jobs created by Telkom's future fixed line competitors.

If those future retrenched ex-employees have their hands bound by Telkom in restraint of trade clauses, it will mean that they are of very little use to Telkom's future competitors who would otherwise consider offering these people jobs.

ICASA needs to find a way of stopping Telkom from enforcing such restraint of trade clauses to further entrench its fixed line monopoly by limiting effective competition.

ICASA must put the needs of the country as a whole (all citizens) ahead of Telkom's gluttony and desire to maximize profits for its shareholders by maintaining its de facto monopoly and the status quo.
A Restraint of Trade agreement on termination of service is usually accompanied by a substantial payment to the ex-employee to cover his loss of potential future earnings. Telkom will only offer this to their very top management team and never to any "normal" employee.

In the cable environment this has already happened. A few years ago Telkom retrenched many of their cable teams. Most of these guys now either work for other telcos, metros, Eskom or for the cable contractors currently working for them.

[j4ck455]

A Restraint of Trade agreement on termination of service is usually accompanied by a substantial payment to the ex-employee to cover his loss of potential future earnings. Telkom will only offer this to their very top management team and never to any "normal" employee.

In the cable environment this has already happened. A few years ago Telkom retrenched many of their cable teams. Most of these guys now either work for other telcos, metros, Eskom or for the cable contractors currently working for them.I hear you, but if Telkom's top management were placed in a large room with a roll of copper wire and various pieces of network equipment, would they accomplish anything constructive and useful compared to a similar team of Telkom's technicians in a similar room with the same inventory?

I suspect the management team would likely find innovative ways to strangle each other with the copper wire, whilst the team of technicians might actually create a usable network (these are the people that are potentially useful to Telkom's future competitors).

[MickeyD]

I hear you, but if Telkom's top management were placed in a large room with a roll of copper wire and various pieces of network equipment, would they accomplish anything constructive and useful compared to a similar team of Telkom's technicians in a similar room with the same inventory?

I suspect the management team would likely find innovative ways to strangle each other with the copper wire, whilst the team of technicians might actually create a usable network (these are the people that are potentially useful to Telkom's future competitors).
You are spot on. Then again, Pinky would know! She might be a bit rusty, though...

[j4ck455]

We've compiled the MyBB response. You're welcome to give us your comments on it. Will be submitted tomorrow.

12158Just wondering if ICASA has acknowledged receipt thereof and how can the pressure be maintained to ensure that the new minister doesn't halt LLU to further protect government profiteering at the expense of the whole country?

[caroper]

looks good,

Thanks ellipsis.
You are doing us a great service, committing all this time and effort to ensure that the customer has a voice, it is appreciated.

Cheers
Chris

[ToxicBunny]

Looks very good :)

Also nice to see some of my long ramblings comments made it in :D

[ellipsis]

Just wondering if ICASA has acknowledged receipt thereof

They have acknowledged receipt.

[ToxicBunny]

Awesome...


Oh and on second reading, I apologise for all the atrocious spelling....

[GenocideGT]

I don't know if what I am posting has got any thing to do with LLU in specific but there would be no request or demand for LLU if Telkom had kept their house in order.Try playing COD MW2 with a 1400ms local Latency and not get angry.and all of this because people never kept their infrastructure up to the requirement of the packages they offered.Now you've got a town that's got a total allocation of 2Mb bandwidth and a lot of customers with 512Mb and 4Mb lines.and no service available!even if LLu happens who will buy up broken infrastructure,spend Hundreds of thousands of rands to upgrade and only receive 10 to 20 thousand rand a month on income for the whole upgrade.small company's wont survive the financial burden.Where Telkom had a long history and a good foothold to carry the expenses and to provide a stable and technologically advancing service.but due to management and the choices thereof this has not happened and everybody is suffering except the management that caused the problem in the first place.Telkom continues to try and expand in ever failing endeavors (8ta and telekoms in africa )and fails in keeping its backbone in working order.Telkom is voice calls and adsl.if that service fails telkom will fall.

I think LLU will benifit alot of people and will force prices to be more competitive.but everyone will not benefit,at least not with in a short time frame.I Know for sure that I will not have any semi useble adsl in the near future (+- 2 to 4 years).Ive waited,Complained,even mailed Mister Rj September with the problems in my area and nothing happened.Even got ICASA involved and stil no resolve of the nagging problem.its going on 2 years now and will do so even more in the future as even more clients get adsl and infrastructure laggs even further behind

If Telkom wanted to provide a service to its customers and the country it would stop all unnecessary spending.(bonuses,community projects,sports funding and all the other shining things that keeps it from offering the service that it was supposed to offer and what were are paying for in the end but not receiving,Until it could say that there was not a single dropped packet not a single spiking latency or a dropped line in the country(and not cook the figures like some technical manager in the cape try to force down on me and my friends)They could resume all lavish expenditures as much as they like as long as it did not affect their service and or pricing

If there was another service provider with even remotely the service of what I am getting now I would swap services because the other provider can only get better at this stage where Telkom is only deteriorating

Please start getting something done so we can start seeing change and feel what internet is all about because driving a hundred kilometers in traffic to a friends house to download a 20MB update is faster than current internet regardless if the line in question is a 4Mb one

[Ancalagon]

Wow these questions are biased against LLU. They really dont like it. Stuff you Telkom!

EDIT: Oh, am I too late? Sorry!



1. Noting that MyBroadband users support Naked DSL, what do they think of Telkom’s view that this is not technically feasible?


It has been done elsewhere in the world, most notably the UK, so it is definitely possible.


3. Do you think LLU will help increase the broadband penetration in SA?

Yes, by lowering costs and improving service levels.


4. Are you aware that NDSL may cost more? It could be argued that if you wanted NDSL, take your voice price, plus your ADSL price, and there you go, that’s the price of Naked DSL. Have the MyBroadband users considered this? That NDSL might actually cost more.

If so, it would be because of anti competitive behaviour on Telkom's part. There is no reason why it should.


5. MyBroadband end-users are very interested in Full LLU, but they’re consumers, not network builders. [ICASA] didn’t know that consumers cared about how they got their services, just that they cared about the quality of the service and that they enjoyed their service. So from an end-user’s perspective, is there a difference between bitstream and full loop unbundling? Because they’re different, from a network topology and access point of view, but not necessarily different from an end-user’s perspective if the end-user gets an SLA that they’re happy with. So how did your end-users justify bitstream to full loop unbundling?

Because increased competition in the market due to LLU would result in lower prices and better service levels, which benefits all consumers.


8. The open access approach in chapter 8 that [ICASA] is talking about may also include new investment fibre networks. What would the MyBroadband forum users’ views be on the open-access regime to new investment?


Since Telkom is still partly government owned, any new infrastructure that it invests in should be open access by default. All new infrastructure should have open access policies in place.

[dominic]

@ GenocideGT & Ancalagon
thanks for the comments - the current hubbub around LLU has died down. ICASA are having a go at doing a regulatory impaqct assessment and no doubt there is politicking behind the scenes. I am sure that there will be further opportunity for public comment & your posts will be taken into account then.

[graham.great]

http://www.webcam-steamate.com/cookies/35/b/happy.gif

Regarding the issue of the technical difficulty to de-link the directory number (DN) from the asset (as per Richard Majoor's reply) as a precursor to Naked ADSL: How difficult would it be to link the asset to the physical street address? How much will it cost to implement this change? I would presume that Telkom would either recover this cost from the other licensees or from us consumers.

[WireFree]

Regarding the issue of the technical difficulty to de-link the directory number (DN) from the asset (as per Richard Majoor's reply) as a precursor to Naked ADSL: How difficult would it be to link the asset to the physical street address? How much will it cost to implement this change? I would presume that Telkom would either recover this cost from the other licensees or from us consumers.

Good point!
How does Telkom identify the asset where no service is active? The asset could be linked to the street address or the GPS co-ordinates of termination point. From the billing perspective Naked ADSL does not need to be linked to a DN - it can be linked to an arbitrary number.