National Broadband Network (NBN) for South Africa?

[dominic]

interesting stuff

I was actually thinking about starting a thread to ask whether this talk shop 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 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 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 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/showthre...65#post8325865

[skimread]

It is just worrying what I read here

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.