It's not as easy and simple as that
And by all means, I'm not saying it's "correct" either. There are many grey areas in the act. From a BC and Municipalities side, the last thing they want is to have the same road reserves being dug up over and over by various infrastructure providers (and the infrastructure providers hopefully also don't want to duplicate infrastructure). There is also only so much road reserve, and only so many utilities can go into the ground.
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.
Current fiber deployments IMHO, does not play fairly in terms of the requirements of the act, and neither are any of them open access in the true sense of the word. The SERVICE may be open access yes - other providers can provide service on the infrastructure by utilizing the other operator's PON architecture (and thus is limited to only provide services which is feasible on PON infrastructure), but the actual INFRASTRUCTURE is not open access. There's a fundamental difference between the two as well...
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.
Until such time that actual DARK FIBER is available, and either the physical fiber and/or Microducts can be leased out (at acceptable rates), no infrastructure currently deployed in terms of FTTH is open access. The SERVICE yes, possible. The INFRASTRUCTURE no, definitely NOT open access.
I am actually in the process of designing a FTTH deployment (small pilot area in the WC), where each house will have a dedicated duct, and dedicated fiber. Open access on 1) the Service, 2) the dark fiber, and 3) the actual duct should the service provider want access to the duct. I can tell you right now, there is an
ENORMOUS amount of effort going into this.
Whilst it's easy to plan the service and architecture (long done and dusted and completed), the civil planing in terms of way leaves, drawings, "rights of way", etc... It's absolute HELL. The municipalities and other operators makes it as hard as possible for new entrants to stay out of the deployment of FTTH. I, as a Infrastructure provider, literally have to go to the likes of Neotel, Telkom, VC, MTN, DFA, etc, hand my plans drawn out completely to them on a silver platter, and then obtain a "letter of approval" from them where they approve my deployment, before CoCT will even LOOK at me for a way leave. Naturally, the moment I hand over my plans, the like of Telkom, DFA, MTN, Vodacom, etc just take their billions of rands, and jump the gun to get into the area before I can...
The whole principal on how these networks are installed, and the process of how these networks are "authorized" is completely backwards. The way it currently works benefits and enriches the few, whilst the majority is left out in the dark.
The best advice I can give an estate, make sure you OWN the ducts. Immediately, right from day one... Don't be short sighted, and be sure to UNDERSTAND what it is you are signing in terms of a MOU or similar agreements. If they don't want to install and sign over the ducts to you immediately on completion, get someone else to deploy... Ducts and Fiber is cheap, so is the trenching(1).
(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...
So yes - what is happening in reality currently, stinks as far as I am concerned and based on information and documentation that I have (in my possession) from CoCT. Other municipalities are a bit more "advanced" in terms of CoCT, but they work in a very similar fashion.
Sign up with Google