Big danger if Vodacom, MTN, and Telkom are not stopped

Petec

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2012
Messages
2,040
From monopolistic copper control, now to monopolistic fibre control...
 

Dlamaqhinga

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2011
Messages
1,147
Don't think we'll have monopoly in the fibre (FTTx) space, in 3 to 5 years there will be consolidation where big companies will buy the smaller ones but we'll still have Telkom, Voda/Neotel and MTN competing against each other as infrastructure providers.
 

whatwhat

Executive Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2009
Messages
5,925
lol, if you wait for ICASA to deliver you will wait forever.
 

koeksGHT

Dealer
Joined
Aug 5, 2011
Messages
11,801
Don't think we'll have monopoly in the fibre (FTTx) space, in 3 to 5 years there will be consolidation where big companies will buy the smaller ones but we'll still have Telkom, Voda/Neotel and MTN competing against each other as infrastructure providers.
There is no way many companies can compete with MTN and Vodacom who are just pushing expensive fibre out everywhere with their warchest.

For example Riverclub is being fibered by MTN and not many people are interested in the price/cap.. But now they own the area and other ISP's will go elsewhere leaving residents stuck with **** fibre.
 

The_MAC

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2012
Messages
5,135
I have to agree with the guy, in my area I have Telkom and Vodacom LTE, I have copper from Telkom and Fibre from Greencom/MetroFibre. And I know of areas where there are even 2 fibre providers (look at Parkhurst). Its definitely not efficient from a holistic capex perspective.

The only problem is that there are no proper regulations that govern price and quality of service, so the operators differentiate each other on quality or price, sometimes both, resulting in this "artificial" demand that is not driven by the primary objective, connectivity.
 

Emjay

Executive Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
7,928
I actually don't understand this article. There is a need for a product/service. Some service providers have the capital to develop the product - while others do not. Is this not how normal business works? Smaller operators want to profit off the backs of companies who put up all the upfront investment and took all the risk? I am all for the consumer, but for crying out loud, come up with a feasible alternative.

Our market is not big enough to sustain hundreds of small providers. South Africa's fibre market is very different to the European one. If there are wholesale rates in place, the consumer will not benefit much either. Competition (in the form of price variances) would be minimal imo. The biggest competitive area for us will be on the internet access portion. I do think we should have open fibre (i.e. ability to choose our own ISP).
 

Johand

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
1,372
No.

Regulation does not work as well as competition. We had for years had good competition in providing the data services over an existing physical network but we never had proper competition on the physical network side and that did not work. We have for the first time real competition on the physical network side and now people want to throw it away because some words changed (the difference between an "shared ownership open access network" and "a government owned monopoly" is not that large from a practical perspective).

Telkom is accelerating its FTTH deployments because of competition. If it wasn't for competition there would be close to zero fiber deployed today.

Altech's victory opened the door for multiple parties to create physical networks. Lets not throw that away.

And I know the theory around shared cost. Practice is different. Competition forces efficiency, speed and coming up with creative solutions. Regulation does none of that.
 
Top