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:

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]

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....

[ellipsis]

In her Budget Speech to the National Assembly on 8 May 2012 , 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 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/broadb...band-plan.html

[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.

[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

[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