ADSL IPC price cut desperately needed: ISP execs

[Johand]

I am going to make a very unpopular statement - I don't think IPC prices should be cut. And before people hang me - it is not because I think it is unfair, it is because I don't think Telkom's network actually has capacity to handle an increase in the load. Just read all the threads about congested exchanges. It is not getting any better.

ADSL access needs to move from IPC to Bitstream right away. IPC is not an economic solution. It forces routing through a couple of key points. Telkom literally have trouble handling the traffic already. And decreasing IPC cost now is only going to force 2+ year contracts on ISPs meaning a change in the network will not be adopted right away. And they will have to invest in national transmission capacity which does not actually match the logical flow of data on the network.

Telkom needs offer Bitstream access fast.

 

[TimTDP]

I remember buying my first house in Plumstead, Cape Town in 1990. It was already a developed, highly populated area. If took me 2 years to get a telephone!
Telkom is always playing catch up. They are more interested in profits than delivery. I still cannot believe that they have so few ADSL subscribers.

 

[freematrix]

I remember buying my first house in Plumstead, Cape Town in 1990. It was already a developed, highly populated area. If took me 2 years to get a telephone!
Telkom is always playing catch up. They are more interested in profits than delivery. I still cannot believe that they have so few ADSL subscribers.

Well what I also don't believe is that Telkom want to launch is 24Mb ADSL..... this year.

 

[Shake&Bake]

I am going to make a very unpopular statement - I don't think IPC prices should be cut. And before people hang me - it is not because I think it is unfair, it is because I don't think Telkom's network actually has capacity to handle an increase the load. Just read all the threads about congested exchanges. It is not getting any better.

ADSL access needs to move from IPC to Bitstream right away. IPC is not an economic solution. It forces routing through a couple of key points. Telkom literally have trouble handling the traffic already. And decreasing IPC cost now is only going to force 2+ year contracts on ISPs meaning a change in the network will not be adopted right away. And they will have to invest in national transmission capacity which does not actually match the logical flow of data on the network.

Telkom needs offer Bitstream access fast.

I'd like to call out a forumite in the know to create a clone and answer that truthfully - or as far as he's or her knowledge goes wrt to that claim. You know who you are

Trouble handling it? They charge (exhorbitantly) to invest and keep SLA's on that network. And they've not made any attempt (AFAIK) to develop any other options. Why then, have they all but killed off Wimax?

 

[FNfal]

Hmmmm looks like the squeeze is on so much for uncapped now that higher speed lines are becoming a reality the providers are getting squeezed and now they are shaping properly .margins are to thin now so lets blame some one

 

[Johand]

Hmmmm looks like the squeeze is on so much for uncapped now that higher speed lines are becoming a reality the providers are getting squeezed and now they are shaping properly .margins are to thin now so lets blame some one

Telkom's IPC solution is way too expensive and makes out too big a portion of the providers cost. I understand why the providers have issues with IPC cost. It is a ridiculously expensive solution. It was ridiculous from the very beginning. Telkom needs to provide them with a cheaper and better (non-IPC) option.

 

[FNfal]

I am going to make a very unpopular statement - I don't think IPC prices should be cut. And before people hang me - it is not because I think it is unfair, it is because I don't think Telkom's network actually has capacity to handle an increase in the load. Just read all the threads about congested exchanges. It is not getting any better.

ADSL access needs to move from IPC to Bitstream right away. IPC is not an economic solution. It forces routing through a couple of key points. Telkom literally have trouble handling the traffic already. And decreasing IPC cost now is only going to force 2+ year contracts on ISPs meaning a change in the network will not be adopted right away. And they will have to invest in national transmission capacity which does not actually match the logical flow of data on the network.

Telkom needs offer Bitstream access fast.

So now bit streaming is going to help how .....it still has to get from the same DSLAM to the gateway on the same data tube. the only thing bit streaming will achieve is to make access more expensive to pay for the bitstreaming equipment

 

[FNfal]

Telkom's IPC solution is way too expensive and makes out too big a portion of the providers cost. I understand why the providers have issues with IPC cost. It is a ridiculously expensive solution. It was ridiculous from the very beginning. Telkom needs to provide them with a cheaper and better (non-IPC) option.

So i was just wondering how do the providers provide a telkom ADSL line cheaper than telkom ????

 

[Johand]

So now bit streaming is going to help how .....it still has to get from the same DSLAM to the gateway on the same data tube. the only thing bit streaming will achieve is to make access more expensive to pay for the bitstreaming equipment

Bitstream done properly allows provides to get into the data stream at larger exchanges (it is not the same as LLU because commercially the last-mile is still under Telkom's control). This allows them to to tap into the ADSL network in multiple places throughout the country rather than one or two places as with IPConnect. They can route more efficiently. They can peer more efficiently.

It will move the network design from a very weird hierarchy to a more mesh like architecture.

DSLAM's are at exchanges, but exchanges themselves are also hierarchical. Often congestion is not at the exchange with the DSLAM but further upstream.

So i was just wondering how do the providers provide a telkom ADSL line cheaper than telkom ????

Less management overhead? Less idiotic decisions? Less flawed investment and less legal cost? IPConnect is and was a flawed product from the very beginning. It it is custom solution Telkom dreamed up instead of just following international standards and trends. http://mybroadband.co.za/news/adsl/7988-time-for-adsl-bitstream-access.html. They probably charge a boatload for it, because it is costing them a boatload.

 

[saffakanera]

Met jou.

Yes, they (ISP's) may as well just get to selling 50GB or 100GB unshaped accounts at decent prices.
I can't see anyone (anyone sane) doing more than 100GB per month. There's only so much movies, series, books and porn (well maybe not porn ) one can download in a month and actually watch.

*going off topic a bit, so I'm leaving it there

Maak bietjie plan met daai signatures van jou.

 

[Shake&Bake]

Maak bietjie plan met daai signatures van jou.

Wat se plan?

 

[MKsporo]

whether we like it or not Telkom is controlling internet data

 

[system32]

Quote from [-]MTN[/-] MWEB submission to ICASA on LLU:

Currently the cost of national IPC bandwidth is six times more expensive than connecting to Europe with a redundant solution on two undersea cable systems. It should further be noted that in addition to the high IPC cost that the ISP pays to Telkom, the end user (consumer) also has to pay Telkom a line rental fee for the same connection in order for the end user to reach the ISP. There istherefore effectively a double charge for the same infrastructure

Telkom is 6x more expensive than dual links to EU and double charge ISP and end user!

Plus Telkom force you to have a pay for POTS rental.

 

[MickeyD]

You can't be serious ? For real ?

It is inevitable that the savings will be passed on to the customer. It has been proven time and again that the ISP market is highly competitive, because competition can't be stopped like in Telkom's case.

You do kind of almost come across as some closet telkom fanboy.

I'm one of the most vocal folks here when it comes to demanding lower broadband pricing, so keep your snotty remarks to yourself. If you actually read my post properly you'll see that I queried as to how much of any savings will be passed on to us.

If it was so lucrative why have neotel, IS and MWeb not built their own networks yet and weaned themselves off Telkom's network?

 

[FNfal]

Bitstream done properly allows provides to get into the data stream at larger exchanges (it is not the same as LLU because commercially the last-mile is still under Telkom's control). This allows them to to tap into the ADSL network in multiple places throughout the country rather than one or two places as with IPConnect. They can route more efficiently. They can peer more efficiently.

It will move the network design from a very weird hierarchy to a more mesh like architecture.

DSLAM's are at exchanges, but exchanges themselves are also hierarchical. Often congestion is not at the exchange with the DSLAM but further upstream.



Less management overhead? Less idiotic decisions? Less flawed investment and less legal cost? IPConnect is and was a flawed product from the very beginning. It it is custom solution Telkom dreamed up instead of just following international standards and trends. http://mybroadband.co.za/news/adsl/7988-time-for-adsl-bitstream-access.html. They probably charge a boatload for it, because it is costing them a boatload.

Just answer the questions i know exactly what a DSLAM is
if you want to reply give facts not a vague answer

 

[Bern]

Quote from [-]MTN[/-] MWEB submission to ICASA on LLU:

Telkom is 6x more expensive than dual links to EU and double charge ISP and end user!

Plus Telkom force you to have a pay for POTS rental.

It is straight ridiculous!! I really don't understand why you have to pay such a huge "ADSL Line rental" if the ISPs have to pay for the IPC - especially since you are already paying for the line rental for the telephone which should cover the copper line cost and basic equipment.

Telkom should actually just explain the whole system properly and why exactly it has to work in the current fashion at the current price. Makes no sense.

 

[Roman4604]

IPConnect is and was a flawed product from the very beginning. It it is custom solution Telkom dreamed up instead of just following international standards and trends.

Well the architecture of IPConnect was actually created by BT (together with Cisco), and copied later by Telkom. I wouldn't call it flawed, maybe inflexible, but its actually the simplest, most light-weight form of (IP layer) pseudo bitstream/wholesale ADSL access around. The problem with it currently is Telkom's pricing.

Real bitstream in its traditional form, as in frame/cell interconnection/integration, is not going to miraculously make it cheaper. It will be quite a bit more technically complex and expensive especially taking into account that Telkom runs a hybrid access network comprising of newer MetroE and legacy ATM. Also there is nothing technically stopping Telkom from allowing a finer granularity of insertion into their network with IPConnect. Theoretically this could done at each major exchange hosting their ESR routers.

The actual technical issue with IPConnect is a lack of control at the session level for ISPs. Probably the most viable/practical compromise somewhere in-between traditional bitstream and IPConnect would be IPStream (another creation of BT). Here the original PPPoE frames (including all session control) are carried between the customer and its ISP over IP, providing whats missing in IPConnect without overcomplicating the technical side.

But even IPStream has a cost factor to it for both Telkom & the ISPs, as the relaying of PPPoE frames over L2TP tunnels required additional routing horsepower for both (e.g. current ESR class routers will most likely need to be replaced with newer ASRs).

 

[MickeyD]

<great reply>

Thanks!!

 

[kilos]

Interesting article where Mweb explained the high costing of IPC

 

[h0ll0w]

I'm one of the most vocal folks here when it comes to demanding lower broadband pricing, so keep your snotty remarks to yourself. If you actually read my post properly you'll see that I queried as to how much of any savings will be passed on to us.

Ok lol, at least you weren't jumping to assumptions about ISP's not passing on savings before anything has happened yet.

If it was so lucrative why have neotel, IS and MWeb not built their own networks yet and weaned themselves off Telkom's network?

Oh yes, because building a nationwide fibre network is such a trivial exercise.