LazyLion
King of de Jungle
Great! Thanks.
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: What is your non-negotiable item, device, or app for international travel?
Broadband Policy: DoC asks for your input
- Thread starter rpm
- Start date
Great! Thanks.
davemc
Executive Member
Though I applaud the D.O.C. in their efforts in trying to help, this policy is flawed and tries to implement policy that hinders and contradicts it's own aims.
The policy specifies that the goal is : 2.1.1 - formation of a "people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society, where everyone can create, access, utilise and share information and knowledge, enabling individuals, communities and people to achieve their full potential in promoting their sustainable development and improving their quality of life."
Then, the policy proceeds to create divides between "everyone", and suggests that the only way forward is for government to monopolise everything. The policy also strictly specifies that ONLY marginal areas will receive government aid, whereas, the entire country should benefit from any aid that is available, which is what EVERYONE means. It IS NOT NECCESARY to differentiate between who gets aid. Stop this senseless discrimination. The aim is to grow all the services available, not just certain select services.
More specific details:
In (2.3), the policy decides that the only way to ensure that government can provide better service to it's citizens is for government to develop it's own local content. This decision contradicts the previous aim to provide opportunities to everyone to provide content. A better approach would be for government to provide the facilities, training and access to information that potential content creators would require to do that task. The government must not compete with the people it serves.
In (3.1), the policy implies that municipalities must sell broadband. Once again, the government is stealing opportunity from the people they are pretending to help, and at the same time eliminating any potential for competition. The government must not provide broadband, but instead provide opportunity, training and financial aid to anybody who is willing to try to provide the services within the communities. The provision of this helping hand must be structured in a staged manner so that cash is not squandered on applicants that do not achieve. The aim is to generate skills and competition and therefore a better service to the entire populance.
The entire section: 4.1 - Access; is moot. The opening statement says that every citizen has a right to access to basic broadband. There is no need to add anything to this statement. Further creating division by listing: needy people, government institutions and mentioning limited radio spectrum simply dissolves the point made in 4.1., creating confusion and blurry lines. We need crisp and clear policy, not blurry lines.
In (4.2) - Affordability; The policy assumes that more is equal to cheaper on the infrastructure side. However, this is like saying that more roads creates cheaper roads. Infrastructure costs money to maintain and fund. The correct approach is to force shared utilisation of infrastructure, and once infrastructure is fully utilised, to force the upgrade of that infrastructure. In addition, under-utilised infrastructure must be highlighted so that opportunities to utilise these can be recognised and taken advantage of. The last point completely contradicts the first point. The wishy-washy instructions of this section is confusing. The policy clearly admits that "sharing infrastructure" can significantly reduce costs, but fails miserably in that is does not specifiy the infrastructure must be shared, thereby contradicting itself and not actually creating policy.
In (4.3) - Uptake and usage; Once again governemnt has decided to be the only provider in urban and rural areas, and to only perform these steps within urban and rural areas. Change 4.3.1 to: All government departments will utilise ICT. Government will also actively encourage the formation of community based ICT services and tools that provide the community with direct access to governemnt facilties and services. These facilities/services must be actively created and run by the communities themselves, and the government is to provide the enablers for this to happen, whilst simultaneously stimulating competition and opportunities to compete.
Security will take care of itself, there is absolutely no need for government to pretend to be a security IT specialist, competitors providing a more secure service will be more succesful than those that do not if the market so desires. Regarding awareness, the government must identify and market specific opportunities directly to the correct audience. No more blanket marketing of vague opportunities to the country, the policy must specify direct and specific marketing of specific opportunities to specific audiences, while ensuring that the companies that provide this "awareness creation service" are competing for the priveladge. The policy must once again steer away from saying that goverment will do it.
4.4, Roles - Government must NOT decide that it must provide it's own broadband infrastructure. Government must instead provide opportunities for infrastructure to be provided. And it must encourage competition. Point 4.4.1.1 simultaneously says that government must provide all infrastructure to government while specifying that the private sector must be stimulated to build their own infrastructure. Surely the private sector could provide the infrastructure for the government, that way an opportunity is created by government, instead of monopolised by government. Once again, government wants to create it's own local content instead of encouraging and enabling the creation of local content. This section also creates an allowance for local government to hire skills to build their own networks, stating that it should be financially sustainable. This is a ridiculous situation, where the municipality can simply raise the rates and taxes to cover the costs. This situation is not only undesirable, but also severly detracts from good service delivery principals. State owned enterprises do not encourage competition, and should not be included in a competition encouraging policy.
4.5, Implementation - The steering comittee must make itself available to the communities they serve. Step number one should be the formation of this steering comittee's transparency using ICT. This comittee must lead by example, and be open to criticisim. Remember that the aim of this policy is to provide broadband to EVERYBODY, which means that everybody should have a say in what is happening as much as possible.
Using broadband penetration as a measurement of success is rediculous. 100% broadband penetration with monopolised services and infrastructure heavily funded by tax money is not success, it's complete and total failure. A better measure of success is to count the number of companies created that are part of the competitive environment, and to count the jobs created withing those self-sustaining companies, then to measure the comunities served and the types of services they get.
General:
The policy spends too much time mumbling about percieved benefits without bothering to consider practical implementation and the cost of such implementation. Once again, the policy completely forgets about creating a competitive environment and decides that government must provide a single solution, without competition, funded by taxpayers. The reality is that the beauty of ICT is the myriad of components that make up the whole can change and shift at any time, forming the perfect environment for a competition driven society, and policy MUST take advantage of that.
--------------------------------
I shall be mailing this off tomorrow once I have given my brain some time to think.
The policy specifies that the goal is : 2.1.1 - formation of a "people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society, where everyone can create, access, utilise and share information and knowledge, enabling individuals, communities and people to achieve their full potential in promoting their sustainable development and improving their quality of life."
Then, the policy proceeds to create divides between "everyone", and suggests that the only way forward is for government to monopolise everything. The policy also strictly specifies that ONLY marginal areas will receive government aid, whereas, the entire country should benefit from any aid that is available, which is what EVERYONE means. It IS NOT NECCESARY to differentiate between who gets aid. Stop this senseless discrimination. The aim is to grow all the services available, not just certain select services.
More specific details:
In (2.3), the policy decides that the only way to ensure that government can provide better service to it's citizens is for government to develop it's own local content. This decision contradicts the previous aim to provide opportunities to everyone to provide content. A better approach would be for government to provide the facilities, training and access to information that potential content creators would require to do that task. The government must not compete with the people it serves.
In (3.1), the policy implies that municipalities must sell broadband. Once again, the government is stealing opportunity from the people they are pretending to help, and at the same time eliminating any potential for competition. The government must not provide broadband, but instead provide opportunity, training and financial aid to anybody who is willing to try to provide the services within the communities. The provision of this helping hand must be structured in a staged manner so that cash is not squandered on applicants that do not achieve. The aim is to generate skills and competition and therefore a better service to the entire populance.
The entire section: 4.1 - Access; is moot. The opening statement says that every citizen has a right to access to basic broadband. There is no need to add anything to this statement. Further creating division by listing: needy people, government institutions and mentioning limited radio spectrum simply dissolves the point made in 4.1., creating confusion and blurry lines. We need crisp and clear policy, not blurry lines.
In (4.2) - Affordability; The policy assumes that more is equal to cheaper on the infrastructure side. However, this is like saying that more roads creates cheaper roads. Infrastructure costs money to maintain and fund. The correct approach is to force shared utilisation of infrastructure, and once infrastructure is fully utilised, to force the upgrade of that infrastructure. In addition, under-utilised infrastructure must be highlighted so that opportunities to utilise these can be recognised and taken advantage of. The last point completely contradicts the first point. The wishy-washy instructions of this section is confusing. The policy clearly admits that "sharing infrastructure" can significantly reduce costs, but fails miserably in that is does not specifiy the infrastructure must be shared, thereby contradicting itself and not actually creating policy.
In (4.3) - Uptake and usage; Once again governemnt has decided to be the only provider in urban and rural areas, and to only perform these steps within urban and rural areas. Change 4.3.1 to: All government departments will utilise ICT. Government will also actively encourage the formation of community based ICT services and tools that provide the community with direct access to governemnt facilties and services. These facilities/services must be actively created and run by the communities themselves, and the government is to provide the enablers for this to happen, whilst simultaneously stimulating competition and opportunities to compete.
Security will take care of itself, there is absolutely no need for government to pretend to be a security IT specialist, competitors providing a more secure service will be more succesful than those that do not if the market so desires. Regarding awareness, the government must identify and market specific opportunities directly to the correct audience. No more blanket marketing of vague opportunities to the country, the policy must specify direct and specific marketing of specific opportunities to specific audiences, while ensuring that the companies that provide this "awareness creation service" are competing for the priveladge. The policy must once again steer away from saying that goverment will do it.
4.4, Roles - Government must NOT decide that it must provide it's own broadband infrastructure. Government must instead provide opportunities for infrastructure to be provided. And it must encourage competition. Point 4.4.1.1 simultaneously says that government must provide all infrastructure to government while specifying that the private sector must be stimulated to build their own infrastructure. Surely the private sector could provide the infrastructure for the government, that way an opportunity is created by government, instead of monopolised by government. Once again, government wants to create it's own local content instead of encouraging and enabling the creation of local content. This section also creates an allowance for local government to hire skills to build their own networks, stating that it should be financially sustainable. This is a ridiculous situation, where the municipality can simply raise the rates and taxes to cover the costs. This situation is not only undesirable, but also severly detracts from good service delivery principals. State owned enterprises do not encourage competition, and should not be included in a competition encouraging policy.
4.5, Implementation - The steering comittee must make itself available to the communities they serve. Step number one should be the formation of this steering comittee's transparency using ICT. This comittee must lead by example, and be open to criticisim. Remember that the aim of this policy is to provide broadband to EVERYBODY, which means that everybody should have a say in what is happening as much as possible.
Using broadband penetration as a measurement of success is rediculous. 100% broadband penetration with monopolised services and infrastructure heavily funded by tax money is not success, it's complete and total failure. A better measure of success is to count the number of companies created that are part of the competitive environment, and to count the jobs created withing those self-sustaining companies, then to measure the comunities served and the types of services they get.
General:
The policy spends too much time mumbling about percieved benefits without bothering to consider practical implementation and the cost of such implementation. Once again, the policy completely forgets about creating a competitive environment and decides that government must provide a single solution, without competition, funded by taxpayers. The reality is that the beauty of ICT is the myriad of components that make up the whole can change and shift at any time, forming the perfect environment for a competition driven society, and policy MUST take advantage of that.
--------------------------------
I shall be mailing this off tomorrow once I have given my brain some time to think.
Last edited:
Smooth Criminal
Expert Member
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2008
- Messages
- 3,895
- Reaction score
- 0
Radium that's a great response, however I'm slightly hesitant in defining a minimum speed. It means that in 10 years time we'd have to go through this process again because we wouldn't have moved on from 512 Kbps.
Hi Radium
Great post. In the policy they distinguish between basic broadband and commercial broadband. As i understand it the target market for basic broadband would be mainly rural users and people currently excluded from accessing any broadband service due to costs. I would agree with your features other than unshaped and 30GB which i think fall more within commercial broadband.
Bear in mind that if they impose caps on rural users, they will need to make sure that the telcos can't charge for exceeding the cap.
If they allow that to slip through, we'll have repeat of the 90's where rural users got phone lines and then stopped using them when the massive bills arrived.
bekdik
Honorary Master
And SAIX
bekdik
Honorary Master
add in a clause that the basic offering be reviewed annually at the time of license renewal.
kilps
Expert Member
On a quick glance over the document, it seems that they haven't dealt with the new industry creation potential broadband provides - http://www.siliconcape.com/ style - when broadband is available to people from a young age they are more likely to think in an entrepreneurial manner with respect to web based startups...
It looks like the section on sharing infrastructure is hinting at LLU - which I like, but maybe it should be more specific...
The broadband steering committee sounds great - but it would be even better if it was specific that the members be drawn from a wide pool of interested players: telecoms companies, consumers (on this forum...), DoC etc.
What I found lacking was a failure to mention mobile broadband, which realistically is how the majority of South Africans are getting online - it should be policy to cater for mobile devices. Also the policy doesn't mention how else the poor are meant to get online - broadband at libraries etc. should be policy.
It looks like the section on sharing infrastructure is hinting at LLU - which I like, but maybe it should be more specific...
The broadband steering committee sounds great - but it would be even better if it was specific that the members be drawn from a wide pool of interested players: telecoms companies, consumers (on this forum...), DoC etc.
What I found lacking was a failure to mention mobile broadband, which realistically is how the majority of South Africans are getting online - it should be policy to cater for mobile devices. Also the policy doesn't mention how else the poor are meant to get online - broadband at libraries etc. should be policy.
yavahn
Well-Known Member
Well its about time that Gen. Nyanda makes a stand for the lil guy.
Good to see a government official, at least showing interest
Good to see a government official, at least showing interest
LazyLion
King of de Jungle
You mean other than allowing his department to blow R2.7 million on four luxury vehicles for the minister and his deputy?
1. Withdraw direct government involvement in telecoms. Government should only appoint ICASA members.
2. Let ICASA manage resources (spectrum, etc).
3. ICASA should specify who may use what (like spectrum), and under what conditions it will be lost.
4. Give rebates to build infrastructure (build it, and they will come).
5. Enable people to connect cheaply.
6. Local loop should belong to everyone (ICASA, ISPA even), thus no line rental.
7. Deregulate telecoms as much as possible, let the market dictate who will survive.
2. Let ICASA manage resources (spectrum, etc).
3. ICASA should specify who may use what (like spectrum), and under what conditions it will be lost.
4. Give rebates to build infrastructure (build it, and they will come).
5. Enable people to connect cheaply.
6. Local loop should belong to everyone (ICASA, ISPA even), thus no line rental.
7. Deregulate telecoms as much as possible, let the market dictate who will survive.
Gatecrasher
Executive Member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2005
- Messages
- 6,728
- Reaction score
- 624
Make that R4m.
Thanks for the positive comments.
(1.3.2) "...but for South Africa broadband will be interpreted as an always available, multimedia capable connection."
By the stictest sense of that definition we should have uncapped data. The 30GB was a comprise figure.
Telkoms definition is that of unlimited paid incrementals. This is in conflict with the policy's stance on affordability and thus it may not always be available.
Agreed, although I wouldn't say it completely forgets about creating a competitive environment, it is really vague. If anything practical is to be expected, the policy must be precise.
Can the resident ICT professinals elaborate on LLU and how it could best be implemented in SA. I expect that those participating in planning the National Broadband Strategy include not only Telkom but also potential rivals among the client ISPs?
Hi Radium
Great post
(1.3.2) "...but for South Africa broadband will be interpreted as an always available, multimedia capable connection."
By the stictest sense of that definition we should have uncapped data. The 30GB was a comprise figure.
Telkoms definition is that of unlimited paid incrementals. This is in conflict with the policy's stance on affordability and thus it may not always be available.
Agreed, although I wouldn't say it completely forgets about creating a competitive environment, it is really vague. If anything practical is to be expected, the policy must be precise.
Can the resident ICT professinals elaborate on LLU and how it could best be implemented in SA. I expect that those participating in planning the National Broadband Strategy include not only Telkom but also potential rivals among the client ISPs?
cyberbob1979
Expert Member
Maybe there should be a clause in there that disbands the current IK@K@ and puts a real body in there that is NOT sitting in the pocket of Cellphone Companies and isnt a Pug to Telkom...
Reelix
Senior Member
"The DoC defines broadband as an ‘always available, multimedia capable connection’."
Ok, let me compare this to cellphone GPRS (+- 8kb/s download speed)
Always available? Sure - Connect phone to PC via Bluetooth, and it's available - It's not denied to me (Airtime granted of course - But this is similar to Cap)
Multimedia Capable? I can watch YouTube videos (Granted, I have to let them buffer for 30 minutes first)
So, by that definition, Cellphone GPRS is Broadband!
Good to know
How about redefining the definition as:
"Uncapped internet that can stream High Quality YouTube Videos without buffering"
-_-
--- Edit ----
Meanwhile, in other parts of the world:
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/10/14/2229231/-1Mb-Broadband-Access-Becomes-Legal-Right-In-Finland
Ok, let me compare this to cellphone GPRS (+- 8kb/s download speed)
Always available? Sure - Connect phone to PC via Bluetooth, and it's available - It's not denied to me (Airtime granted of course - But this is similar to Cap)
Multimedia Capable? I can watch YouTube videos (Granted, I have to let them buffer for 30 minutes first)
So, by that definition, Cellphone GPRS is Broadband!
Good to know
How about redefining the definition as:
"Uncapped internet that can stream High Quality YouTube Videos without buffering"
-_-
--- Edit ----
Meanwhile, in other parts of the world:
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/10/14/2229231/-1Mb-Broadband-Access-Becomes-Legal-Right-In-Finland
Last edited: