National Broadband Network (NBN) for South Africa?

[ellipsis]

Short version [long version in next post]: There are strong indications that the Department of Communications is considering the creation of a National Broadband Network (NBN). Basically this would be a national FTTH network in urban areas with complimentary satellite and LTE networks for other areas operated on an open access basis, i.e. it would provide wholesale services to retailers.

The most recent example is being rolled out in Australia. From Wikipedia (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Broadband_Network):


The National Broadband Network (NBN) is a national wholesale-only, open-access data network under development in Australia. Up to one gigabit per second connections are sold to retail service providers (RSP), who then sell Internet access and other services to consumers. The NBN has been subject to political and industry debate for a number of years, before construction actually commenced.

The network is estimated to cost A$35.9 billion to construct over a 10-year period, including an Australian Government investment of A$27.5 billion. The build cost has been a key point of debate. NBN Co, a government-owned corporation, was established to design, build and operate the NBN, and construction began with a trial rollout in Tasmania in July 2010. The mainland rollout began with five first-release sites with the first services connected in April 2011.

The fibre to the premises (FTTP) rollout is planned to reach approximately 93 percent of the population by June 2021. Construction of the fixed wireless network is planned to begin in 2011, delivering its first services in 2012 and to be completed by 2015. Two satellites will be launched by 2015. The network will gradually replace the copper network, owned by Telstra and currently used for most telephony and data services. As part of an agreement with NBN Co, Telstra will move its customers to the NBN, and lease access to its exchange space and extensive network ducting to assist in the rollout.

Sound good?

MyBB is making submissions to the Department of Communications on its policies for the next 10-15 years, and this is one of the issues.

Is this a good thing? Any suggestions as to how this could be achieved? Post here and your words could be winging their way to the ears of the Minister...

Please only constructive posts on suggestions that can be made...

[HavocXphere]

Didn't we already have one of these national plan things already? I think we called it Telkom or something...

[ellipsis]

In her Budget Speech to the National Assembly on 8 May 2012 (http://http://www.info.gov.za/speech/DynamicAction?pageid=461&sid=27171&tid=66922) , the Minister of Communications identified the roll-out of a NBN as one of the three flagship programmes of the DoC:


In this financial year, and for the medium term, we have prioritised three flagship programmes which are at the core of building a digital information and knowledge society. These include the acceleration of building a modern digital infrastructure as well as the policy reforms which position the country for an advanced knowledge economy in 2030.

These programmes are:
• Developing a National Integrated ICT Policy.
• Rolling out a national broadband network.
• Implementing the digital broadcasting migration policy.

No further detail was provided in the Budget Speech but the thinking is fleshed out in the Discussion Document (http://http://www.ellipsis.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/ICT-Policy-Colloquium-Discussion-Document-20120413.pdf) published prior to the National ICT Policy Colloquium in April 2012:


5.4.10 Broadband is going to be the next major area of investment requiring public-private partnering, inter-governmental partnering and addressing consolidation of government mandate and assets. A National Broadband network which is built to transform the economy of South Africa brought about by socio-economic change is undoubtedly one of the largest telecommunications based projects to be undertaken in the country. An effectively built and operated national broadband network will serve as the central nervous system in the country connecting schools, hospitals and various economic corridors in the country. Such a network will in addition to other media communication systems provide a vital communication component between government and citizens.

In keeping therefore, policy makers should not just approach this area from a market structure model perspective but view its role more critically. A national broadband network is equivalent to a strategic national asset delivering medium to long term economic benefit whilst providing vital connectivity functionality and services in the country and should therefore be accorded priority focus in the development of policy.

Cost - "Between R60 to R89 billion would need to be invested to build a telecommunications broadband network throughout the country and to reduce connectivity costs, says Communications Minister Dina Pule."- http://mybroadband.co.za/news/broadband/49569-the-r89-billion-broadband-plan.html

[ellipsis]

Didn't we already have one of these national plan things already? I think we called it Telkom or something...

yip. turned out well :)

Telkom has by far the most significant fibre deployment and is busy with extensive fibre upgrades - would make sense to use this network as the basis....

[icyrus]

I can't possibly see how such a project would be undertaken by government contract and would actually meet deliverables. The large private companies have a hard enough time managing corruption and the resulting incompetence in their cross-country "joint ventures".

I would rather see the DoC make the funding available to private companies that agree to permanent open access and settlement-free peering. I think it would also make sense the limit these companies from entering into any services businesses and keep them focused on purely operating the network.

[ellipsis]

I can't possibly see how such a project would be undertaken by government contract and would actually meet deliverables. The large private companies have a hard enough time managing corruption and the resulting incompetence in their cross-country "joint ventures".

I would rather see the DoC make the funding available to private companies that agree to permanent open access and settlement-free peering. I think it would also make sense the limit these companies from entering into any services businesses and keep them focus on purely operating the network.

thank you, that does make sense. i think we can take it as read that the amount of money involved will create its own problems. one challenge here is to sort out the regulator so that it can actually enforce a wholesale access model

[Mr.CookieMonster]

It sounds like a really good idea, hope things do turn out that way.

[MickeyD]

If this does go ahead the first step would be to nationalise Telkom, then they are halfway there.

The next step would be to accelerate the MSAN rollout to get at least FTTC for the short term, while upping the tempo of the backhaul fibre upgrades and legacy equipment replacement.

More importantly they need to revise the Spectrum plan and allow LTE to be deployed immediately.

Once the first few MSANs are deployed they can turn to FTTH in a prioritised program; business parks, gated communities, high demand business/residential areas, etc.

[jackshiels]

I would argue against nationalising Telkom and would instead suggest that the government buys the fibre backbone itself. This way Telkom can be downgraded to the role of ISP and the government can supply the network on a rental basis to third parties (i.e. Telkom would become equivalent to MWEB).

Telephone comms could remain in Telkom's hands but the last mile could become a public asset, allowing the required upgrades to be made. I agree that fibre is needed but perhaps the government could contract Telkom to do the construction in tandem with their MSAN plan rather than doubling up on different upgrade schemes.

[MickeyD]

I would argue against nationalising Telkom and would instead suggest that the government buys the fibre backbone itself. This way Telkom can be downgraded to the role of ISP and the government can supply the network on a rental basis to third parties (i.e. Telkom would become equivalent to MWEB). Telephone comms could remain in Telkom's hands but the last mile could become a public asset, allowing the required upgrades to be made.

Telkom is massive and not only about ADSL.

[jackshiels]

Telkom is massive and not only about ADSL.

Regardless the concept of purchasing the backbone still stands.

[MickeyD]

Regardless the concept of purchasing the backbone still stands.
Which layer?

Remember the Oz model works on a collaboration - ownership did not revert to the State.

[jackshiels]

Which layer?

Remember the Oz model works on a collaboration - ownership did not revert to the State.

There was talk of nationalising in previous posts. I was referring to an alternative which involves the transferal of the fibre network backbone. As we have seen in the case of DFA building a new network would be very cost and time intensive and the nationalisation of Telkom seems too left an action for my taste.

That is why I suggested that the backbone be bought for a fair price and the expansion of it be contracted to Telkom. Call it a "sweetener" if you will.

[MickeyD]

There was talk of nationalising in previous posts. I was referring to an alternative which involves the transferal of the fibre network backbone. As we have seen in the case of DFA building a new network would be very cost and time intensive and the nationalisation of Telkom seems too left an action for my taste.

That is why I suggested that the backbone be bought for a fair price and the expansion of it be contracted to Telkom. Call it a "sweetener" if you will.
I understand. I also thought of it but it will be very messy and will get tied up in the Courts for a long time with even the Unions going mad (again). Hence the "all or nothing" approach. Alternatively (very debatable) Government provides the funds to build the network and force Telkom to provide services at VERY low prices to us consumers.

[WireFree]

I would argue against nationalising Telkom and would instead suggest that the government buys the fibre backbone itself. This way Telkom can be downgraded to the role of ISP and the government can supply the network on a rental basis to third parties (i.e. Telkom would become equivalent to MWEB).

Telephone comms could remain in Telkom's hands but the last mile could become a public asset, allowing the required upgrades to be made. I agree that fibre is needed but perhaps the government could contract Telkom to do the construction in tandem with their MSAN plan rather than doubling up on different upgrade schemes.

There are a number of cheaper and faster options to achieving the DoCs goal.
1. Government buys out all the other Telkom shareholders and delists the company, aka nationalise Telkom. This is still far cheaper than rolling out new infrastructure.
2. At last year's ICASA LLU hearing Telkom complained about the deficit on the copper infrastructure. In this case it may be better for government to buy all Telkom's infrastructure. The last file would be a separate company. The national backbone could be combined with the Broadbad Infraco infrastructure. The international connectivity could be combined with Sentech's international gateways. Telkom Mobile's infrastructure can become the basis for a wholesale wireless access network for service providers who do not have spectrum.
As jackshiels suggested, Telkom would now be a service provider. It may also interest Telkom as they would not have to complain our copper theft. Government may also be better positioned to deliver on the Broadband for all targets.
3. There is a mandate that Telkom is split into multiple entities, where one owns the last file, one owns the national backbone, one owns the wireless network and one that owns the international gateways. The entities that own the infrastructure will be mandated to sell services to all licensed operators.

Options 2 and 3 will certainly help to ensure more parties have access to the infrastructure already in place and more parties pay for use of this infrastructure more efficiently.

WireFree

[Celine]

i don't see how any of this long and drawn out process of getting people to attempt to contribute to something like this will even fall on anyone's ears. when there is government involved and dictatorship such as telkom, it becomes tiresome just trying to be heard. anyone can put forward some document laying out what they foresee in the future but it will be completely and utterly ignored because the government is still so full of red tape it's not funny.

i worked in a government department that wanted to "hear" the employees. within a year the project was abandoned because the government will always be dictatorial.

sorry that's my 2 cents worth.

[ellipsis]

i don't see how any of this long and drawn out process of getting people to attempt to contribute to something like this will even fall on anyone's ears. when there is government involved and dictatorship such as telkom, it becomes tiresome just trying to be heard. anyone can put forward some document laying out what they foresee in the future but it will be completely and utterly ignored because the government is still so full of red tape it's not funny.

i worked in a government department that wanted to "hear" the employees. within a year the project was abandoned because the government will always be dictatorial.

sorry that's my 2 cents worth.

hi Celine
please don't apologise, sure we all feel that way (know I do) - we believe, however, that you still have to try even though you may feel cynical about whether your document will even be read. We will do everything we can to make sure it is and we believe that it is absolutely critical that a consumer voice starts to emerge - if we just leave the conversation to take place between Government and large industry there is no chance of anything changing as it needs to.
dominic

[Garyvdh]

The government cannot be trusted to build anything without massive graft, cost overruns, shoddy workmanship, tender fraud, and general incompetence.

Rather appoint private companies in an open and transparent process to build and maintain the networks and require them to openly contract with any applicant to get access to such network.

We should also be canvassing internationally for reputable companies to come in and build networks that will be overseen by the regulator and the DoC so as to ensure fair pricing and open access.

[lucifir]

There are a number of cheaper and faster options to achieving the DoCs goal.
1. Government buys out all the other Telkom shareholders and delists the company, aka nationalise Telkom. This is still far cheaper than rolling out new infrastructure.


at the current market price, this would be the best(cheapest,easiest,quickest) solution to get the fibre backbone

[cerebus]

My first indication is that while this project has obvious merits, I do not know that the competence exists either in Telkom or the DoC to implement it timeously and within the budget constraints. I would suggest that they contract third parties from within and without South Africa to bid fairly for the contract.

I would question whether this project is intended to be a net revenue provider or a government service. If the former, how do they intend to monetize it? If the latter, how will they fund it over the long term? Once the infrastructure is rolled out, it will still require a great deal of maintenance. The use of the word 'complimentary' suggests that they have some idea of providing free wireless internet to rural areas. Is this realistic or even necessary, when those areas still don't have decent basic amenities, and education facilities are in total shambles? If 'reducing connectivity costs' is the end-goal, there are already a number of steps they could take in that direction, but are not apparently willing to do.

[Celine]

My first indication is that while this project has obvious merits, I do not know that the competence exists either in Telkom or the DoC to implement it timeously and within the budget constraints. I would suggest that they contract third parties from within and without South Africa to bid fairly for the contract.

I would question whether this project is intended to be a net revenue provider or a government service. If the former, how do they intend to monetize it? If the latter, how will they fund it over the long term? Once the infrastructure is rolled out, it will still require a great deal of maintenance. The use of the word 'complimentary' suggests that they have some idea of providing free wireless internet to rural areas. Is this realistic or even necessary, when those areas still don't have decent basic amenities, and education facilities are in total shambles? If 'reducing connectivity costs' is the end-goal, there are already a number of steps they could take in that direction, but are not apparently willing to do.


funded by the tax paying citizens of this country cerebus. you hit the nail on the head. all this project is is to provide free internet usage to the rural areas as you have so stated.

i have no intention whatsoever to provide or share my input to a bunch of fat lazy a$$ed people who won't be interested in what i, or other people have to say anyway.

[sajunky]

The only things NBN can achieve is a total government control over business, private communication and personal development of individuals. It is instrumental project for future content control deployment (as it is in China). Leave broadband to the business, it is the most efficient way to develop infrastructure.

[ichigo]

As long as Telkom is a monopoly company and nothing else changes I dont see this plan going into effect

[skimread]

What ever happened to the Joburg Broadband network or rather the money that was allocated to it.

[WireFree]

The only things NBN can achieve is a total government control over business, private communication and personal development of individuals. It is instrumental project for future content control deployment (as it is in China). Leave broadband to the business, it is the most efficient way to develop infrastructure.

The NBN does not prohibit competition. Most networks that are rolling out their own fibre concentrate on the large CBDs and if you are lucky larger towns. If you live if a town with less than 10,000 people, fibre from a private company is probably a pipe dream. These are areas where the government's NBN will fill in the gaps for businesses and individuals. It also comes down to what level of control government wants. In one respect government could just own the infrastructure, and you would still need an ISP for Internet access.

A number of countries have started similar projects, e.g. Australia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Broadband_Network

The eThekwini Metroconnect is an example of a municipal level fibre network - that seems to be cheaper than fibre from the usual private companies. I would expect the NBN to be the national equivalent of the eThekwini Metroconnect.

WireFree

[WireFree]

What ever happened to the Joburg Broadband network or rather the money that was allocated to it.

I think you can find info at www.bwired.co.za

[skimread]

I think you can find info at www.bwired.co.zaThanks


BWIRED soft launch a success


Ericsson and BWired were asked by the City of Johannesburg to update them on the progress of the Johannesburg Broadband Network Project. Westbury Seconday School in Martindale, Jabulani Civic in Soweto, and St. Stithians College in Sandton were chosen do demonstrate from, with Westbury Secondary School being the main demo site. These sites were chosen as they were connected by the JBN fibre and were fitting for the kind of demonstration Ericsson and BWired wished to present.

The demonstrations consisted of e-Health, e-Learning, distance learning, SWOT (Social Web of Things), Immersive Visual Applications, Mobile Survey Tool, PC as a Service (housed in London), and Community Power. The e-Learning and Distance Learning were of particular interest as all guests witnessed an actual maths lesson being broadcast from St. Stithians College using video, voice and data flawlessly. The 2 classrooms could see each other and communicate clearly, interact with each other via a Smartboard and do their exercises via a MobiPad wireless device.

The day was attended by Counsellor Amos Masondo, various Ministers and City of Johannesburg Delegates, Media, Ericsson and Bwired Delegates and guests. On the whole, the day was a great success and everybody was thoroughly impressed with the project to date, and its vision for the future of the City of Johannesburg.I wish gov saw broadband networks as being about scale not some feel good school classroom project.

[undercoverMunky]

A couple random points...

Whatever happened to WiMAX??
If you want to reach all areas in South Africa you'll have to Wireless at some point and WiMAX is a really good option, it provides the speeds required and decent coverage.

In areas we Fibre can be rolled out that would be ideal, I think a target should be set for the speeds though. Nothing less than 10 Mbs should count as Broadband.

Government needs to just go ahead and start rolling out the Cabling, don't wait for the Telecoms companies to get on-board, if you lay the cable you're opening the door for healthy competition. Most start-ups in South Africa can't afford that initial cost of laying cable - but if it's there to use I'm sure they'll make good use of it!

[Scooby_Doo]

IMO I would rather not have the Government hold all the cards in this imaginary network. Everything that they hold seems to fall to pieces or at lease is not run as it should. If you think trying to get Telkom to come out and fix your ADSL is bad, imagine trying a government call centre...

[MobileOu]

Short version [long version in next post]: There are strong indications that the Department of Communications is considering the creation of a National Broadband Network (NBN). Basically this would be a national FTTH network in urban areas with complimentary satellite and LTE networks for other areas operated on an open access basis, i.e. it would provide wholesale services to retailers.

The most recent example is being rolled out in Australia. From Wikipedia (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Broadband_Network):



Sound good?

MyBB is making submissions to the Department of Communications on its policies for the next 10-15 years, and this is one of the issues.

Is this a good thing? Any suggestions as to how this could be achieved? Post here and your words could be winging their way to the ears of the Minister...

Please only constructive posts on suggestions that can be made...


Telkom has the biggest backhaul network. Government should acquire Telkom and unbundle it in Access, Long Distance BackHaul networks. Infraco and Sentech should be merged into the latter.

There should be emphasis on regional operators that operate where "Telkom finds it difficult" to operate and unwilling to do so. The local loop should be unbundled.

The Access network and Transmission should be opened to smaller operators as well at wholesale prices.

While we're at it, Vodacom came about because of Telkom who benefitted from the previous dispensation. Vodacom should also be approached to open it's network on a wholesale level.

[Scooby_Doo]

Would it not be better to provide tax breaks and subsidies to private operators who choose to roll out the network as long as the company agrees that the network covers x and is open to all at cost + y%.

Example:

For every meter of fibre a an operator puts down in a metro, government will pay for a further 2 meters. For every base station an operator puts down in a rural or under developed area, government will pay for a further 2 stations.

This way the private sector manages and maintains the network, which "should" be better.

[AvatarS]

i have no intention whatsoever to provide or share my input to a bunch of fat lazy a$$ed people who won't be interested in what i, or other people have to say anyway.

http://i.imgur.com/okbMd.gif

[wily me]

funded by the tax paying citizens of this country cerebus. you hit the nail on the head. all this project is is to provide free internet usage to the rural areas as you have so stated.

i have no intention whatsoever to provide or share my input to a bunch of fat lazy a$$ed people who won't be interested in what i, or other people have to say anyway.

Maybe they want to prevent a E-Toll saga where one of the complaints were there was no proper public participation?

[Celine]

Maybe they want to prevent a E-Toll saga where one of the complaints were there was no proper public participation?

wily - this broadband issue could not be anything close to the e-toll saga quite honestly. IMHO this is a case of free riding on the backs of people instead of tendering the job out to proper businesses. what this plan is is to save them money and give the members an i-pad for their efforts. how much input have you already seen here regarding this? lots.

[dominic]

[thread note: will take further posts to 23h59 on Sunday 27 May]

[HavocXphere]

[thread note: will take further posts to 23h59 on Sunday 25 May]
http://i.imgur.com/S0ZnM.png

25th May isn't a Sunday.

[Paul Hjul]

The current situation
Currently both Sentech and Broadband Infraco are performing operations which fall within the domain of a national broadband network. While it has been suggested that these two state entities be merged numerous reasons exist why such an exercise might ultimately be more of a poison than a cure. Sentech has commenced operations providing broadband connectivity to various institutions while Broadband Infraco operates an open access fibre backbone which is made available exclusively to other service providers on a wholesale basis. These two features represent major components of a national broadband network (an NBN) as conceptualized in many other countries and therefore any discussion about an NBN needs to consider where Sentech and Broadband Infraco features. Further Telkom is essentially in possession of an NBN as a result of the long term national monopoly held by Telkom and the lack of localized development which occurred in many other jurisdictions and Telkom is heavily investing in its national network.
There is also currently being put together a national research network (SANREN) linking academic (universities) and research institutions on a national basis. This network is essentially being assembled by a skeleton staff and makes use of infrastructure leased from operators – particularly Telkom. The major lesson from SANREN is that a high speed network can be secured without investing billions in building additional physical networks.
The mobile operators are also investing in their national networks and collaboration on backbone network infrastructure has emerged – particularly the Dark Fibre Alliance.
Ultimately it seems that if government plans to physically build an NBN it should simply throw more money to Broadband Infraco who are ultimately building such a network. If government however is wishing to see the emergence of a broadband product available to all (or close thereto) South African’s the focus needs to move away from the laying of building network infrastructure and should rather be placed on building networks using existing infrastructure and facilities.

Are the developments not merely re-enforcing the digital divide
The reality is that network operators are going to focus their investments where they can secure a return on the investment and make a profit. Government has attempted numerous strategies to influence the investment to favour rural network investment with the Underserviced Area Licence paradigm being a particular failure. The premise of underserviced areas is in my opinion the fatal flaw. As communication service providers build their services in a manner which enables them to secure a return on investment and the generation of a profit any special dispensation for existing operators or to introduce new enterprise operators is bound to confuse business logic with public finance – which is a hostile cocktail.
Instead of trying to determine what is an underserviced area and seeking to direct network operators to specifically cater for those areas the state should seek to ensure that access to a reasonable people supporting broadband product is made available throughout the country. Additionally the creation of economic activity generating nodes in economically depressed (but not necessarily rural) areas is fully in line with transforming South African society.
I therefore propose that a Dedicated National Broadband Network Operator SOE (the NBN Operator) be established on a shoe string budget as a strategic state owned enterprise which through the leasing and acquisition of facilities from players – and as a last recourse the construction of its own provisions – systematically assembles a broadband internet network designed to provide 1Mbs internet access to each household and resells data at a price of R50 per gigabyte – prepaid and with no expiration. (This essentially means that a consumer for R150 has access to 3GB data which is exceptionally well priced but the service becomes less favourable for usage in excess of 15GB where the costing is R750). In constructing the network the NBN Operator will establish network nodes throughout the country which interface between the backbone and the last mile of the NBN network. The capacity planned for each node is proposed to be directly tied to the number of households and it is proposed that 1Mbs of backbone capacity be allocated for each household (a contention ratio of 1/5). Therefore a village or town of 5000 households would be serviced by a 1Gbs network node. This produces a fairly large surplus of capacity at the node which becomes a location where ICT intensive firms could be formed. I propose that the surplus node capacity be resold to SMMEs collocating at the network node and making local employment undertakings. The NBN Operator in many towns can construct an office park for back end business ventures to start up, therefore generating rental income. The proposal for the shoestring budget is premised on the fact that facilities should be leased from other providers where possible and the NBN Operator has access to the proposed broadband financial service provider (which other operators have access to as well – conditional upon their co-operating with the NBN Operator).
Ultimately the network will operate alongside the communication service provider’s networks and provides affordable broadband services to end users in a household setting with surplus connectivity being used to foster a decentralized ICT sector and the concomitant job creation.
[With Grahamstown for example SANREN provides a 1Gb link for the academic institutions and the existent ADSL community is similarly well serviced and the network node should be established for Makana in iRhini, ultimately the business case for digital bridging is inevitable – it is possible in fact that the NBN Operator will construct a 10Gb link from Telkom’s termination point to the needed node in iRhini and that 1Gb will be leased from Telkom’s POP in Port Elizabeth]

Technologies proposed
For obvious reasons fibre would be the main technology leased (and where necessary constructed) for the backbone. WiMax seems particularly well suited as a standard last mile technology, unfortunately the SKA may result in WiMax not being permitted in parts of the Northern Cape. Additional technologies for the last mile should be fully explored.

This proposed service only caters to the poor
Firstly that isn’t a bad thing, secondly it simply isn’t true. If a network is constructed providing network connectivity at R50 per GB the mobile operators will be compelled to re-evaluate their pricing for fixed-wireless services and the pressure to improve more data intensive and costly products will be felt by all operators. Secondly the approach adopted is to use the NBN to provide end users with a cost effective broadband product by leveraging (and supporting) existing infrastructure. Ultimately the network effects of more users are felt by all users. While a certain degree of subsidization underlies the proposal (and government funding – albeit a hopefully shoestring budget) the basic premise of a user pay principle does underlie the proposal.

[Paul Hjul]

The proposed financial services provider
As said in this thread (http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php/432341-What-needs-to-be-done-to-sort-out-broadband-in-South-Africa?p=8302065&viewfull=1#post8302065), I am opposed to the government giving money to specific operators or projects to achieve specific tasks for numerous reasons and believe that a loan system is better.
Ultimately it is anticipated that Broadband Infraco will perform a great deal of the building of the physical network infrastructure and will be fairly dependant on loans from the industry development fund. However if Telkom plays ball (as it is with SANREN) it could emerge as a fairly significant provider of backhaul – and if hell freezes over and it actually joins the LLU revolution, Telkom could find a lot of unutilized copper lines being given usage through leasing the lines to the NBN Operator who in turn hook households on the prepaid tariff of R50 per GB for data.
Sentech could similarly emerge as a major provider of capacity in deploying WiMax installations at the nodes for last mile provisioning and cellular operators can if they wish actually play ball. What is ultimately envisaged though is that Class ECN licence holders will play a significant role in providing last mile access, and will use the industry fund.
However it is proposed that co-operation with the NBN Operator is a pre-condition to access to funding through the industry development fund.
Further strategic partnerships between the fund and retailers (with PEP being specifically considered) will be required to ensure that communities are able to acquire user equipment and purchase data bundles. A degree of device subsidization is proposed and what is essentially hoped for is a connection device (such as a dongle) retailing at less than R500 which includes 1Gb of data.

A final caveat
The proposal operates on the basis of connecting households at a fixed point on a technology selected by the NBN Operator to the household according to the local conditions – this could be WiMax, a wired service, 3G or coaxial cable. Mobility is specifically not considered and the network is intended as consumer grade for quality.
Whilst the proposal assumes that the ECA will be applied and enforced on market players the exact role of the NBN Operator has not been fully considered and a blanket exemption for the NBN Operator is probably the simplest approach – requiring a statutory amendment and inevitable constitutional challenge by one of the large operators.

Yes I really do want an iPad :D, or two because if my reading is correct there could be one for each of the threads ... An Ipad and a Samsung Galaxy 5" Tablet wouldn't be bad either. Its after 11pm humility has already gone to bed

[dominic]

your reading is erroneous :) but your spirit enthusiatic

[skimread]

Hi Paul.

Looking at seeing how thorough you were in your answers I am sure your text can be copied verbatim into a seperate submission document. Sentech must just be removed. They do own spectrum but that must be taken away as they can't manage a Mcdonalds wife network.

Things I really concerned about about the whole talk shop conference is that a mix of solutions will be thrown in for the NBN into a pot and stewed by ICASA to spit out a huge document. We saw how SA butchered COP17 with wanting to talk while the environment was the ultimate victim.

I believe this NBN announced plans is poltically motivated and as a direct result of the WC broadband plans. WC DA goc realizing how government is after having to take over ANC run municipalities have made achievable and step by step promises for high speed broadband. ANC knowing this wants to scupper these plans .

So my solution for NBN.

Split Telkom into wholesale and retail units. Allocate money to provinces and let them manage the rollout using Telkom infrastructure.

[Fudzy]

Hi Paul.

Looking at seeing how thorough you were in your answers I am sure your text can be copied verbatim into a seperate submission document. Sentech must just be removed. They do own spectrum but that must be taken away as they can't manage a Mcdonalds wife network.

Things I really concerned about about the whole talk shop conference is that a mix of solutions will be thrown in for the NBN into a pot and stewed by ICASA to spit out a huge document. We saw how SA butchered COP17 with wanting to talk while the environment was the ultimate victim.

I believe this NBN announced plans is poltically motivated and as a direct result of the WC broadband plans. WC DA goc realizing how government is after having to take over ANC run municipalities have made achievable and step by step promises for high speed broadband. ANC knowing this wants to scupper these plans .

So my solution for NBN.

Split Telkom into wholesale and retail units. Allocate money to provinces and let them manage the rollout using Telkom infrastructure.

Nice idea though I don't see Telkom releasing their assets without controlling it all from a ivory tower cum holding company.

[skimread]

After all theses years of failed this and failed that the elephant in the room is national government. Bringing national government created DoC and ICASA to a room to facilitate, make findings and plan a way forward is counter productive and can't be seen as impartial. Split Telkom, remove any stumbling blocks and let the governments who were elected by their local communities oversee the rollout.

[Paul Hjul]

My hope is to be able to use the posts as is with footnotes for referencing as submissions.

I was actually thinking about starting a thread to ask whether this talk shop (http://www.ictindaba.com/2012/) is going to have any role in the development of the DoC plans - looking at the costings and the sponsors the corporate screw over appears inevitable.

My view on Sentech is the same is a my view on many harbouring loafes, namely that it is an evil but we should avoid throwing the baby out with the bathtub. I definitely feel that tons of their spectrum should be taken away and I am hugely of the view that any form of DTT is daft because sat renders it redundant and free up all the spectrum (and as I understand it the SKA special areas will need to have no DTT in any event). I can't see Sentech and Broadband Infraco currently being merged but both being subsumed for purpose largely into a broadband providing mission- - I have a big fear that gov wants to give Sentech money to build a failed NBN, particularly if we look at the whole DTT saga.

I am pretty sure that the NBN talk is politically motivated, particularly because of the extent to which a lot of NBN issues are the rational for Broadband Infraco. Currently though getting capacity between major settlements by fibre isn't the problem.

I'd like to see Telkom split but strongly suspect that various secret contract clauses prevent that from being considered and if it is forced Telkom retail would continue to trudge and Telkom Wholesale would flaunt the Facilities Leasing Regulations. One option would actually be for Telkom to view the NBN approach I've set out as an operation for them, but I think hell would sooner freeze over. What I cannot see the logic in though is Telkom holding SAIX - regardless of the misnomer in SAIX.

Giving money to the provinces would be great if the provinces in turn funded rollout through class ECNs but to be quite honest it seems the idea of small network builders at a municipal level needs to take off first. At this stage it seems way to many people are content to misuse the ISM frequency band for commercial exploitation and until a few VANS which slipped in are struck from licences the actual intention of the ECA licencing framework is going to be on the backburner.

[koeksGHT]

I suppose the more networks, the better..

[skimread]

I am still seriously pissed at how SA (&#(*&# up COP17.
The academic approach is the wrong one. It has failed all these years in telecoms going back to the SATRA days.

I see I posed my previous NBN post (http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php/432341-What-needs-to-be-done-to-sort-out-broadband-in-South-Africa?p=8282751&viewfull=1#post8282751) in the improve broadband thread.

The NBN idea is not an new idea so doesn't need to be discussed from scratch. Other countries are implementing it already. All we do is remove the impediment of Telkom by splitting it up and using its infrastructure to copy the most successful roll outs e.g. Malaysia's High Speed Broadband.

[dominic]

interesting stuff :)



I was actually thinking about starting a thread to ask whether this talk shop (http://www.ictindaba.com/2012/) is going to have any role in the development of the DoC plans - looking at the costings and the sponsors the corporate screw over appears inevitable.

you are far from alone - the concept of this being a policy-making event is highly objectionable. having said that it at least seems to have resulted in a decent agenda, not to mention a working website


My view on Sentech is the same is a my view on many harbouring loafes, namely that it is an evil but we should avoid throwing the baby out with the bathtub. I definitely feel that tons of their spectrum should be taken away and I am hugely of the view that any form of DTT is daft because sat renders it redundant and free up all the spectrum (and as I understand it the SKA special areas will need to have no DTT in any event). I can't see Sentech and Broadband Infraco currently being merged but both being subsumed for purpose largely into a broadband providing mission- - I have a big fear that gov wants to give Sentech money to build a failed NBN, particularly if we look at the whole DTT saga.

agree on the DTT but i cannot see sense prevailing at this late stage

there is an ANC draft communications policy (http://www.ellipsis.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/ANC-Draft-Policy-DD-on-Communication-201203.pdf) which speaks to the merger of sentech and infraco (which makes some sense while at the same time probably constituting definitive proof of the law of negative synergies*.

* (-2) + (-2) = (-5)


I am pretty sure that the NBN talk is politically motivated, particularly because of the extent to which a lot of NBN issues are the rational for Broadband Infraco. Currently though getting capacity between major settlements by fibre isn't the problem.

i think it currently is but should no longer be from mid 2013ish

I read the NBN talk a little differently - note the Minister's reference somewhere to a quote prepared by a private operator..i.e. i think there are incumbent and future-incumbent fingerprints all over this


I'd like to see Telkom split but strongly suspect that various secret contract clauses prevent that from being considered and if it is forced Telkom retail would continue to trudge and Telkom Wholesale would flaunt the Facilities Leasing Regulations. One option would actually be for Telkom to view the NBN approach I've set out as an operation for them, but I think hell would sooner freeze over. What I cannot see the logic in though is Telkom holding SAIX - regardless of the misnomer in SAIX.

don't think such clauses exist & most of Telkom wholesale would quite happily hive off from the mother ship and become a wholesale open access provider - from what I hear that could be achieved in 6-12 months


Giving money to the provinces would be great if the provinces in turn funded rollout through class ECNs but to be quite honest it seems the idea of small network builders at a municipal level needs to take off first. At this stage it seems way to many people are content to misuse the ISM frequency band for commercial exploitation and until a few VANS which slipped in are struck from licences the actual intention of the ECA licencing framework is going to be on the backburner.

personally would be reluctant to add another layer of government into the equation and the DoC would probably be wary of this too. i see a lot of small municipal networks springing up and becoming sought after by incumbents as potential access providers in rural areas.

the majority of these networks do use licence exempt frequency & there is definitely misuse but
- the majority of use is 5.8GHz which has high power output limitations
- the recent amendment to the way in which spectrum licence fees are calculated means that more of these providers are now able to obtain licensed frequency at a fraction of the previous cost (in particular use in areas outside Gauteng and the Cape Town and Durban metros)
- there is no restriction on commercial use of these bands...indeed in the absence of the regulator and the policy maker managing to make any new access spectrum available to new entrants other than Neotel and Cell C this has been the only available space to use

spot on re the licensing scenario - fact that very few people actually understand the complexities of the current licensing system (difference between ecs and resale being particularly tricky) is frustrating and it must either be reformed or slashed and burnt

[dominic]

@UnUnOctium

impressed ;) where would you fit Telkom's 134 000 or so km of fibre into that analysis?

also would you care to post a little about the role of greater spectral efficiency and new standards - what kind of services might be around in 2020 / 2030?

[WireFree]

Now, compared to South Africa:

* We have existing FTTP infrastructure in place by several companies.
* We have a monopoly who is reluctant to provide copper fixed-line access (this actually works in our favour in this interesting scenario)
* We have a slow, unresponsive regulator and department which has stalled LLU for ages now.

Very few of the companies rolling out fibre are interested in fibre to the home or small businesses. At present the main focus is large business and to a lesser extend medium sized businesses. The FTTP focus is also in major urban areas.



Personally, I believe it would be beneficial if a consortium was formed where the infrastructure of all the fibre rolled out by the major players is separated from the companies and merged to form an independent company with proportional shareholding by the players from which the infrastructure was split-off and some input/targets from government in terms of strategic plan. Of course, some initial compensation would be necessary or some percentage of profits from the NewCo could be given to the original players for a fixed duration of time to cover their capital investments but most importantly, the NewCo should be mandated to reinvest all of its profits back into expanding and upgrading the network.

There is of course no argument as to wireless last-mile access for rural areas, this could be easily handled by the NewCo though.

One company that controls all the fibre infrastructure is probably not good for competition - it will also probably also only serve the interests in consortium members (who are well known for their anti-competitive tendencies) at the detriment of smaller operators.

[UnUnOctium]

Very few of the companies rolling out fibre are interested in fibre to the home or small businesses. At present the main focus is large business and to a lesser extend medium sized businesses. The FTTP focus is also in major urban areas.


Hence the mandatory reinvestment of all profits and the government setting its strategy.



One company that controls all the fibre infrastructure is probably not good for competition - it will also probably also only serve the interests in consortium members (who are well known for their anti-competitive tendencies) at the detriment of smaller operators.

Same as above. In summary it would be very close to a state-owned enterprise but with the technical and management expertise from the private companies.

[Paul Hjul]

you are far from alone - the concept of this being a policy-making event is highly objectionable. having said that it at least seems to have resulted in a decent agenda, not to mention a working website

Hopefully there are some honest attendants, notwithstanding the price tag.



agree on the DTT but i cannot see sense prevailing at this late stage

there is an ANC draft communications policy (http://www.ellipsis.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/ANC-Draft-Policy-DD-on-Communication-201203.pdf) which speaks to the merger of sentech and infraco (which makes some sense while at the same time probably constituting definitive proof of the law of negative synergies*.

* (-2) + (-2) = (-5)


Ja DTT really seems to be a strange one and has "managed liberalization" written all over it.



i think it currently is but should no longer be from mid 2013ish

I read the NBN talk a little differently - note the Minister's reference somewhere to a quote prepared by a private operator..i.e. i think there are incumbent and future-incumbent fingerprints all over this


Which is one of the reasons I am particularly loathe to a tender to SOE routine adopted - basically pouring money into functionaries after they have mucked up - Sentech, Broadband Infraco, Telkom. I am not sure we would be talking about NBN without the WC move instead other more ANC-ish terminology of "rural connectivity" would apply. Regardless though political will is such a flimsy thing especially when given in grand gestures and without an actual realisable goal.



don't think such clauses exist & most of Telkom wholesale would quite happily hive off from the mother ship and become a wholesale open access provider - from what I hear that could be achieved in 6-12 months

My two reasons for suspecting that such a clause exists is the fact that wholesale haven't split themselves off already and until we have full sight of what the SBC "lawyers" drafted into the managed liberalization documents it wouldn't surprise me if Telkom isn't contractually bound to promote afropessimism. Its possible that the break away is happening more quietly in the background.



personally would be reluctant to add another layer of government into the equation and the DoC would probably be wary of this too. i see a lot of small municipal networks springing up and becoming sought after by incumbents as potential access providers in rural areas.

As I see it between national and really really local a regional subdivision of some form is inevitable and provinces which pass along are a useful existing structure. Alternatively (and perhaps more sensibly) district and metro municipalities could hold but dealing with 52 or so entities below the 1 is a bit much. Hence provinces a good idea if the provinces in turn funded rollout through class ECNs .
What is particularly frustrating to me is the lack of c-ECN entities which invest in constructing network infrastructure to be made available by way of leasing.

If we consider high value properties, a fibre to curb/premises connection could easily result in your property being valued more highly than the cost of the installation of the fibre from the curb/premises to whichever point. Now if a collective ownership entity existed into which you could invest money which if properly managed would give returns as the collective ownership leases the fibre to operators (of course your return will likely be less than your monthly bill to the ISP of your choice for internet) you are seeing both an appreciation of an asset you own and an additional asset in terms of your shares in the collective ownership entity. Now if you are holding property as an investment such as student digs (so Grahamstown for example) the case becomes even more clear. Fibres 25 year odd lifespan makes it a good asset and yes your equipment ends throw a spanner in the works.



the majority of these networks do use licence exempt frequency & there is definitely misuse but
- the majority of use is 5.8GHz which has high power output limitations
- the recent amendment to the way in which spectrum licence fees are calculated means that more of these providers are now able to obtain licensed frequency at a fraction of the previous cost (in particular use in areas outside Gauteng and the Cape Town and Durban metros)
- there is no restriction on commercial use of these bands...indeed in the absence of the regulator and the policy maker managing to make any new access spectrum available to new entrants other than Neotel and Cell C this has been the only available space to use


Ag misuse isn't inherently illegal and quite honestly the utilizing of something for a purpose other than its intended one is the mistress to innovation. My bugbear is a notion of exploitation of the ISM band by commercial rackets adopting the line of having the costs of building the network actually covered by the setup charges imposed on their clients (essentially the client buys the infrastructure which belongs to the business). I am a major fan of WUGs and the non-profit usage of ISM bands or even usage which sees a return on actual investment is great but the reality is that the ECN licence (class or individual) introduces an obligation to actually build an electronic communications network - which of course includes facilities which of course you should (and under certain conditions must) make available on a wholesale basis to your competitors. Quite frankly several ADSL orientated ISPs are doing more for the development of networking in South Africa than i-ECN licence holders who are former VANS.



spot on re the licensing scenario - fact that very few people actually understand the complexities of the current licensing system (difference between ecs and resale being particularly tricky) is frustrating and it must either be reformed or slashed and burnt
While the current licensing system is somewhat intricate and lacking in key ingredients and IMHO is bound to land up with a monumental clash with the CPA I don't believe that the Act itself (or the regulations thereto) should bear the brunt of responsibility. The communications licensing framework is fundamentally a specialized branch of public administration and law but not one which is particularly esoteric - particularly when compared to conveyancing, town planning regulations, and of course patents. I honestly believe that as a country we have failed to foster the development of a pool of people who intelligently and critically work with the legislative framework. ICASA's legal department is at the centre of the problem, but if one evaluates the tactics of the large operators the problems becomes clear. I am only aware of one (consulting) firm in the industry that "provides specialist regulatory and compliance advice", it was absolutely foolhardy of the state to introduce a regulatory framework without seeing the emergence of a support industry. At this stage do we actually have enough eyes to reform the regulatory framework?

[skimread]

Nice posts UnUnOctium. Your points have merit.

The separate entity is a tricky issue. I might be biased as I want high speed network ASAP to my house and that means I support 100% the open last mile fixed broadband in the major cities meaning Telkom needs to be split meaning full LLU.
I can't see Telkom not agreeing to this in some form or the other if they don't NBN being created as a separate entity will in the long term be a threat as a competitor.

I don't know how much and where Infraco has infrastructure and if this will be sufficient to use as backbone. The cell operators are also building their own backbone so backbone doesn't seem to be the problem but rather connecting to the customers that is the main issue for me so I feel this forum needs to push the open last mile access as the #1 priority as ISPs, cellular operators, telcos, businesses will have their own lobbyists pushing their agendas wanting a piece of the pie.

I do like what the DA in the WA with Jo-Ann Johnston is doing. It is definitively worth a read (http://www.techcentral.co.za/inside-western-capes-big-broadband-push/32115/) and is refreshing for a government official to speak with knowledge and competence. Something we are not accustomed to.
Send that chick an iPad. She deserves it.

[ellipsis]

http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php/435929-ICT-Policy-Submission-to-ICASA-Draft-for-comments?p=8325865#post8325865

[skimread]

It is just worrying what I read here (http://www.techcentral.co.za/why-govt-pulled-plug-on-telkom-deal/32339/)


Now, in a statement issued by the department of communications, government explains that selling the stake — which would have diluted other shareholders’ equity in the company — would run counter to its plans to improve access to information and communications technology services.

“The government of SA has adopted a policy position to beef up its infrastructure for the next seven years, particularly in rural areas,” the statement reads. “In considering the proposed deal between Telkom and South Korea’s KT Corp, cabinet took into account the fact that the department of communications is driving the government policy of rolling out broadband, in partnership with the private sector, to all citizens by 2020.”

The statement continues: “Telkom is a key and strategic asset in the roll-out of this telecoms infrastructure and in the effort to improve the skills of our citizens. Government recognises the need for Telkom to implement an urgent turnaround strategy and, to get the company back on its critical centre of delivering ICT services to all South Africans, new options will be considered by both Telkom and government in this regard.”

Cabinet has asked communications minister Dina Pule to report back to it about all the options that are available for Telkom in three months’ time, the statement says.

Telkom has been negotiating the sale for the past nine months. It’s understood it had the support of former communications minister Roy Padayachie.
Sounds like the DoC has decided the NBN rollout details already and is not to be discussed and will be used to get the share price of Telkom up again with government money.

The NBN will be back to the future. Telkom mandated to roll out infrastructure to rural communities who don't make use of it and lines just get stolen or dug up even if it is fibre. These rollouts get used to justify high costs.