Greencom Secunda Fibre Project

Alex$The$Alien said:
The need is there. And I will not apologise. There are no pills for stupidity. I was stating fact. He was argueing semantics. That called for direct expression of thought.
Click to expand...

No. No matter how stupid somebody's opinion, it never calls for direct expression of thought.

im-watching-you-meme.gif
 
feo said:
Well, it's not nobody, it's 123Net.

If you have 30% or more of the residents that are willing to sign up, then Greencom can sort you out (according to what was told to me).

123Net seems like they keep raising the bar of requirements before they do anything, looks like a case of wanting maximum return in as little time as possible instead of building credibility and securing customers that way.
Click to expand...
LOL at 30%. 123Net's bar is still WAY below that.

DERoestorf said:
Technically, this is a FUP, as they do in there make provision for managing traffic. The big thing here is, they do not detail it, and hide it under different gazes. And with the speed at which 123Net changes their policies and procedures, I would not could on them changing that as well. Already provision made for it
Click to expand...
Technically it's not.

DERoestorf said:
For a long time, Mweb also didn't call their FUP that. It was the same as 123Net. Look where we are now.

oh, and you can use a toenail clipper as a fingernail clipper. Just as this policy of theirs can be used as a FUP. Just because the name does not say it, does not mean it can't be used as such.
Click to expand...
Mweb does way more and makes provision for way more than just network manage so your comparison here is just nonsensical.

BradleyKZN said:
I have seen this "managing network" at another ISP. It resulted in peoples connections dropping to 5kbps regardless of time of day. This lasted over a week, so be wary.
Click to expand...
Read their policy. It makes provision for network management during times of congestion. If the congestion is 200% of the available capacity for instance everyone will get 50% of their line speed regardless of what they subscribe to. Every ISP makes provision for this. It would be hard to argue 5 kbps is still network management during congestion at 12AM.
 
Swa said:
LOL at 30%. 123Net's bar is still WAY below that.


Technically it's not.


Mweb does way more and makes provision for way more than just network manage so your comparison here is just nonsensical.


Read their policy. It makes provision for network management during times of congestion. If the congestion is 200% of the available capacity for instance everyone will get 50% of their line speed regardless of what they subscribe to. Every ISP makes provision for this. It would be hard to argue 5 kbps is still network management during congestion at 12AM.
Click to expand...

The amount of peering that they have to do to just sustain more than a Tb/s in South Africa, would make any small company bankrupt within a month. You have a lot of confidence for your unsourced facts in your argument. And also a lot of confidence in a ghost company.
 
PostManPat said:
The amount of peering that they have to do to just sustain more than a Tb/s in South Africa, would make any small company bankrupt within a month. You have a lot of confidence for your unsourced facts in your argument. And also a lot of confidence in a ghost company.
Click to expand...
Check your own facts. Nobody is offering 1 Tb/s. You people should stop making ghost claims. ;)
 
PostManPat said:
What?? I didn't mention anything about 123net offering 1Tb/s to consumers.
Click to expand...
Right, you just plucked a figure of 1 Tb/s out of nowhere when there were no speaking of it. Your terms of ghost company and such is also grossly inaccurate.
 
Swa said:
Well sorry, but I thought that when I said it doesn't cost the same to trench through soil from house to house than to trench through road I was being clear.

Let me put it to you like this, if average cost is R500/m then the cheapest trenching which is through soil is far less. That still doesn't address though the fact that your trenching cost doesn't increase when you connect another house past a point you already have to trench.
Click to expand...


Actually the point of an average cost/m is that you can then use that times the amount of meters for the 'averaged' total cost. Yes, some portions will be less than R500/m, but some will then also be more(which is why the average works out to R500/m). You are making the mistake of using his average as a max?

Having said that, I've never had to trench suburbs, so cant comment on their figures, but I can imagine that trenching in the platteland should cost less than for example Randburg.
 
DJ... said:
I am intimately familiar with the input costs of operating a fibre network, I can assure you of that. I have also written a dozen financial models for FTTH projects, and have been involved in capital funding for most of my working life, and over the last 3 years specifically on FTTH and FTTB. I have also signed off on agreements with most infrastructure providers in South Africa and know their product offerings very well.

Let me illustrate this like I did in a previous thread with basic numbers in a perfect world. Assume the following:

100 free-standing houses and all sign contracts
All houses are next to each other (perfect world) and are on average 20m apart (excluding verge to modem connection)
Dedicated fibre into each house
Backhaul to DC of 120km (Secunda has no x-connect carrier grade DC so you have to backhaul that traffic into your closest network POP or directly into your DC - i.e. you buy carriage on a DFA link for that distance or find a suitable Telkom product for this national backhauling)

Trenching costs per house are R10k
Material and labour are R2,5k per house
CPE is R1k per house
Backhaul is R250k per month on that distance and R15k once-off (probably more on quote though)
Core network capex including config is R300k
DC costs are excluded here as well, assuming you have your own network operating already, which in the case of 123net, they don't.

Total capital expenditure per household is R16,650 excl which you'd have to prove to investors you can recover from profit over the duration of the contract. Immediately, any free model will be excluded as potential recovery, so don't even consider it. At R3,500 per install (the proposed model) you're left with a funding shortfall of R13,150 per household. This excludes internet bandwidth - we haven't yet included that cost. So if you amortise that over the duration of the contract you're left with a baseline cost of R550 per month per house to recover. You must consider the present discounted value of money when performing these calculations at the very least, meaning the recovery is closer to R700 excluding interest rate exposure risk and risk due to time in the market, as well as excluding any profit yet, and the opportunity cost loss of your proposed venture. You still haven't added internet bandwidth yet either.

Now you're left with a problem as a new network. You either need a massive x-connect and peering network, or you're going to have to purchase a lot of local bandwidth. Either way you have to buy a lot of international capacity now depending on the speed variation uptake, or you can simply sell capped (but that's not what has been proposed here). So you adopt more risk and go for uncapped no FUP no shaping 100Mbps. You're marketing what amounts to a dedicated service but you add some contention there. You now require 1Gbps international breakout and 1Gbps local traffic. You arrange a deal at R200/Mbps for this on a 1:1 blended deal. Nice.

Now you have R700 p/m to recover for your initial capital investment per house. You have R2000 p/m to recover on bandwidth breakout on 10:1 contention (with a peak capacity load problem because you only sold this to home users, so bandwidth is only used at certain times of day - this also creates a price/GB pricing problem and imbalance). Now you have to find a retail model where your ARPU equals minimum R2,700 per month, or you are trading insolvent. And that's a fairly perfect world scenario. And requires massive pockets at first as well.

There are ways to get those costs down, but those are the indicative costs a brand new network would be forced to recover using the bold statements 123net for example have made. It goes even further seeing as the claims are that they'd install it all themselves and hire the staff to do so. You could never operate with the economies of scale that the traditional fibre installation companies do. It's taken even further when you claim you're purchasing the machinery to do this yourself too. You now require the capital funding of an infrastructure installer, a tier 1 network operator, and a tier 2 network operator.

So the scepticism is not borne from anything other than actually knowing the costs involved based on the statements made. Nothing more...
Click to expand...

thx for the detailed reply
 
thatdamnJoe said:
Actually the point of an average cost/m is that you can then use that times the amount of meters for the 'averaged' total cost. Yes, some portions will be less than R500/m, but some will then also be more(which is why the average works out to R500/m). You are making the mistake of using his average as a max?

Having said that, I've never had to trench suburbs, so cant comment on their figures, but I can imagine that trenching in the platteland should cost less than for example Randburg.
Click to expand...
No I didn't use the R500/m as a max. He made the mistake of applying the average where the minimum applies. If the average is R500/m it doesn't cost R10k to trench 20m between two adjoining properties.
 
Swa said:
No I didn't use the R500/m as a max. He made the mistake of applying the average where the minimum applies. If the average is R500/m it doesn't cost R10k to trench 20m between two adjoining properties.
Click to expand...
If you want credit for the cheap portions of trenching, then also allow for the expensive portions. When you tally it all up, you should get back to the average cost.

Unless of course you want to make the argument that his average cost is wrong because a town in the platteland will have more of the low cost portions, resulting in a lower avg cost.

But this is all just spit balling really, if you have actual info, why don't you share it?
 
thatdamnJoe said:
If you want credit for the cheap portions of trenching, then also allow for the expensive portions. When you tally it all up, you should get back to the average cost.

Unless of course you want to make the argument that his average cost is wrong because a town in the platteland will have more of the low cost portions, resulting in a lower avg cost.

But this is all just spit balling really, if you have actual info, why don't you share it?
Click to expand...
Go a few pages back. I did share it and gave a detailed explanation.
 
This threas is going nowhere fast. And not even crystalweb are trying to bring fibre to Secunda.

Nope. Pass
 
Crystal Web certainly can offer fibre in Secunda and it exists on fibrenetwork.co.za in planning and interest adoption...
 
DJ... said:
Crystal Web certainly can offer fibre in Secunda and it exists on fibrenetwork.co.za in planning and interest adoption...
Click to expand...
As I keep asking others, requirements?
 
DJ... said:
That will be determined by the phases deployed based on sign up target densities, which is IMO the right way to do it...
Click to expand...
Right... so you don't know yet?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X