FTTH Paulshof

[Swa]

What the act also states, is that ducts should be shared. This is not happening - at all. Providers specifically employ PON architecture with splitters on the fiber, so that the actual dark fiber can not be leased out to other operators (i.e. a point to point fiber cannot be leased). The very few, who will lease out duct space (i.e. a single empty microduct) charges so much for the "lease" of this duct, that other operators basically can not make any money from it.

This provision was dependent on there being a framework for sharing infrastructure. Right from the get go it proved problematic when Neotel wanted to lease facilities from Telkom. You see the problem is that infrastructure providers currently only have to respond to requests. It isn't stated that they have to allow requests and under what circumstances they can say no and whenever a provider does allow access it charges outrageous fees. The case was put on hold for Icasa to issue a detailed framework to determine when a provider has to allow access and what fees it may charge. Imho the regulations had some amicable points but their implementation was a huge let down due to a useless and incompetent regulator.

Ito the leasing of fiber any fiber that's already lit can't be leased out as dark fiber as a provider can't have full use of that fiber as if it was their own. You can lease out services on those fibers however and it shouldn't matter much if they are active ethernet or PON.

(1) Municipalities charges a "deposit" to allow for digging in Road Reserves. CoCT for example, wants R950pm for Asphalt Road Crossings, going down to R65pm for Grass Verges. This deposit is paid up front (with other associated costs) when you apply for your way leave to trench. What is happening, is that Civil construction companies work these costs into their quote for trenching, and then come up with those magical numbers of trenching running R450 to R850 per meter (depending on the "conditions" that they trench in).

The fact is, that these fees are a DEPOSIT. The Municipality, refunds these moneys IF re-instatement has been done correctly. So, what happens to this money when the contractor gets his depost back from the municipality? It surely, is not refunded to the residents who's pavements got trenched? I have very good reason to believe that the industry itself (Infrastructure operators / civil companies) pockets this...

So yes, the TRUE cost of trenching, is not NEARLY as high as it is being made out to be... Yes, there are LARGE sums required for deposits and the costs of permits and what not, but the MAJORITY of these fees, are REFUNDABLE DEPOSITS which is returned once the project has been completed...

I brought up these points once. Not the deposits for wayleaves as I didn't know about those but the fact that the majority of trenching doesn't cost nearly as much as it's made out to be. I was shot down however as not knowing anything what I'm talking about.

 

[Kyoto]

It's not as easy and simple as that

For example:
Company A deploys GPON to Estate X (or Neighborhood X). It's a great success, and many customers and a few ISPs go back and forth in providing services to the community. User A inside the Estate (or Neighborhood) approaches ISP C to commission a 10G circuit - for whatever reason. ISP C respond with a deal and User A signs a contract for the 10G circuit to be provisioned...

ISP C now can't provide the service on Company's A GPON infrastructure as 10G is beyond the capabilities of GPON. Company A also can't give ISP C access to the dark fiber to User A, because the fiber runs through a multitude of splitters. Net result, ISP C can not provide service to User A.

The statement above is completely incorrect, as next generation pon or NGPON2 is now being deployed which allows 10G services on the same infrastructure as the GPON standard.


This technology allows GPON, NGPON2 XGSPON and Pt-Pt all using the same fibre at the same time.

 

[savage]

Sigh...

1) Still P2MP services (due to splitters and not having dedicated fiber between supplier and user),
2) Still Asynchronous (TDMA) instead of Synchronous (PON),
3) The 10G is still shared between a multitude of customers, not "guaranteed" for ISP C's customer,
4) Still not open access as far as INFRASTRUCTURE goes,

You are still holding everyone "hostage" by your propitiatory CPE (OTN), and you are still holding everyone "hostage" by not being able to open the infrastructure itself, to 3rd parties.

 

[Kyoto]

Double sigh,

Please read up on the technology in answer to your points

1) PT to PT services can be deployed using DWM wavelengths, so a PT to PT wavelength can be deployed for a specific customer
2) Agreed the XGSPON or NPON2 uses TDMA for the uplink, although on NGPON2 a single wavelength can be deployed to a specific customer, and indeed multiple wavelengths can be aggregated to offer services greater than 10G.
3) read answers to 1 and 2 you can deploy a PT to PT wavelength for a specific customer or dedicate a NGPON wavelength to a specific customer.
4) Agreed to a point as services on the PON infrastructure would be a leased L2 service, but people could deploy there own equipment for Pt to PT.

In regards to the proprietary ONT's they are only deployed on the PON technology and have built in filters that allow alien wavelengths on the same infrastructure.

 

[savage]

Double sigh, did you not read the PT to Pt services are supported they run over the same infrastructure as the PON and you can use any end point.

Layer 1 is still NOT point to Point

 

[Swa]

Open access the way I see it is having direct access to the specific infrastructure to deploy your own equipment and services over it. As such there is still no provider in the country that offers open access. I'm waiting for the day a FTTH provider steps up and provide this.

 

[savage]

Open access the way I see it is having direct access to the specific infrastructure to deploy your own equipment and services over it. As such there is still no provider in the country that offers open access. I'm waiting for the day a FTTH provider steps up and provide this.

+1 My thoughts exactly.

 

[Wyrd]

Vumatel has gone very quiet. Anybody got any idea whether there's still momentum? I'm in Phase 10, and they've seemingly stopped in Phase 9

 

[krycor]

Vumatel has gone very quiet. Anybody got any idea whether there's still momentum? I'm in Phase 10, and they've seemingly stopped in Phase 9

So where I am, Vumatel has completed the laying for curb fibre along with Greencom but.. Greencom has signed up a lot of estates body corporates such that vumatel is being told they cannot deploy. BC at my estate did not believe that they signed anything exclusive to Greencom so will be interesting to see whats going on as Greencom has now completed the end point installs.

Fun times ahead as I really think BCs signed on to things without knowing what they signed.

 

[krycor]

if i can use ADSL (capped) account on open serve/telkom i will go with them or vuma. Just waiting to see whats happening and i keep complaining to BC

 

[Drone 42]

My BC did the same. Signed with Greencom, and they are taking forever to install in the complex. Fibre has been outside in the road since July. Now I hear they will most likely only start in January and it will take a few weeks. So maybe Fibre by March I guess.

It is very frustrating.

I do not see why they need to decide on only one provider, why not let Vuma and MetroFibre install. Even though it is open access the line provider then has a monopoly, same as what we had with Telkom ADSL, can choose any ISP but with line provider you have no choice.

 

[krycor]

My BC did the same. Signed with Greencom, and they are taking forever to install in the complex. Fibre has been outside in the road since July. Now I hear they will most likely only start in January and it will take a few weeks. So maybe Fibre by March I guess.

It is very frustrating.

I do not see why they need to decide on only one provider, why not let Vuma and MetroFibre install. Even though it is open access the line provider then has a monopoly, same as what we had with Telkom ADSL, can choose any ISP but with line provider you have no choice.

well they claim open access but to date its Greencom or nothing. I'm thinking of moving next yr if it's not sorted..

 

[Wyrd]

My BC has now indicated that we've chosen Vumatel over Greencom.

I know we also signed a contract with Greencom, but I've seen the contract, and there's definitely no exclusivity clause in the one we signed. For a while I thought there was, based on communication from Greencom, but nope. Kudos where it's due, Greencom jumped in after the Fibre123 fiasco, so that's why they're able to capitalize on it now.

Looking at the Fibre layout maps, there's a specific part of Paulshof that definitely did not go with Vumatel. A little island on Estelle Rd. I really sympathise with those owners if it was a BC that was obstinate.

 

[opinionhated]

I was told by Telkom that fibre is coming to my area, which right now sounds better than greencom. However, as you guys have stated this cannot be correct since there is some exclusivity granted to Greencom. Is this correct?

I've seen Greencom outside, but I'm hesitant to spend R1700 for the installation given the feedback. The website doesn't inspire confidence either.

 

[krycor]

Looking at the Fibre layout maps, there's a specific part of Paulshof that definitely did not go with Vumatel. A little island on Estelle Rd. I really sympathise with those owners if it was a BC that was obstinate.

I'm in Lavender Lane and not too sure on what was decided by BC and Greencom claim exclusivity but BC told me they signed no such deal so no idea. I see Vumatel now accepts orders so yay.. i hope.

If my BC is Greencom only.. well just more reason to leave come june

 

[coop]

Vumatel went live in Paulshof on December 16th. My brother in law lives just off Stone Haven Road and is currently live with Vumatel and Afrihost (not sure why he chose Afrihost over the better alternatives like CISP).

 

[PBCool]

I'm in Lavender Lane and not too sure on what was decided by BC and Greencom claim exclusivity but BC told me they signed no such deal so no idea. I see Vumatel now accepts orders so yay.. i hope.

If my BC is Greencom only.. well just more reason to leave come june

MFN who own the network punt the ISP's that resell their products, IE Greencom.

 

[Swa]

I was told by Telkom that fibre is coming to my area, which right now sounds better than greencom. However, as you guys have stated this cannot be correct since there is some exclusivity granted to Greencom. Is this correct?

I've seen Greencom outside, but I'm hesitant to spend R1700 for the installation given the feedback. The website doesn't inspire confidence either.

There's exclusivity with Greencom as the only ISP initially. Telkom however uses their own fibre network so no exclusivity applying there.

 

[midnightcaller]

Hi

My order was placed with vumatel around 1st week in dec.
They contacted me and we arranged an install date of 13Jan17.

Now I have to decide on an ISP and plan the cutover from adsl to fiber.

Currently on 4mbs dsl with telkom with 200gb data from VOX.

Any suggestions and advice would be welcome.

 

[midnightcaller]

Fibre drop completed.

The technicians arrived promptly.
We agreed (telephonically) the most practical path for cable and position of the CPE.

When I saw the actual installation , it was fine. Only concern is that there are too many bends in the cable.

The install took between 3 to 4 hours.
After the install, I was informed that there was a problem with the distribution box on the street. This would be fixed in about 4 to 5 days.

I will wait till then to sign up with an ISP.