I DEMAND ADSL Rental ONLY!!!!

Everyone should be able to run their own fibre to the DSLAM.

Apply for a permit. Get instructions for the fibre technician to follow.

Pay once. No copper line monthly cost ever again.

I will look at the NPO ISP getting financing for people who wish to pay off the cable costs.

It will be low risk to the finance company, since the next person to move into the premises, would usually be willing to take over the financing, for the remainder of the term.

The client then merely pays for the usual R152 monthly ADSL service costs at the DSLAM.

What If You Owned Your Own Fiber Connection?
from the not-a-ridiculous-suggestion dept

Almost five years ago, we wrote about a project in Burlington, Vermont to bring fiber optics to residents there. The idea was that, rather than a traditional "municipally-owned" network, this would actually be owned by the residents themselves. The article focused on the work of economist Alan McAdams, who (it needs to be admitted) was the guy who not only sent me down the path of better understanding the economics of information over a dozen years ago, but also convinced me to start Techdirt in the first place.

McAdams has been pushing for the idea that if the end users actually owned the network itself, you would end up with much greater broadband, in part because you might still end up with a single fiber network, but there would be significant competition of service providers on that network.

And, indeed, it appears that's where the Burlington fiber project has gone. A more recent case study on the project suggests that, with a slow and deliberate pace, thousands of residents in Burlington now have access to the fiber network, and can choose their own ISP, if they want.

Tim Lee has now written about another example as well, where there's an effort underway in Ottawa (which is only about 170 miles from Burlington), to string up 400 homes with fiber, but where the individual home owners will pay for and own the "last mile" connection to their homes. This is definitely a test on a small scale, but it's a similar situation to what McAdams has been pushing for all along.

Let the customer own the connection itself, and then get to choose the service provider. In the Ottawa case, once again, service providers would no longer have to worry about wiring up your home (the most expensive part), but just need to offer service at various peering points, and each individual could choose who to get service from.

In this manner, you still get real competition, which is sorely lacking in the telco arena, and you get the benefits of higher speed networks. It's not as crazy as it might sound, either. As Lee points out, the telephone company used to own not just the wiring in your house, but the actual telephone as well. Over the years, that's been pushed back. Now you own your own phone -- and the wiring inside your house.

So is it so crazy to think that you should own the wires outside of your house out to the main network as well? There are still plenty of practical issues that need to be resolved -- and the initial economics may be a bit daunting for many (the idea of paying, say, $3,000, to own your own fiber drop may freak some people out).

But, it's experiments like these that are a real step in the right direction towards adding real competition, rather than the faux duopoly we all deal with today. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080731/0238291849.shtml
 
Great info from Moggie. :)

The closest that DFA will bring fibre to our houses is FTTC - fibre to the curb, e.g. to the boundary of gated complexes.

What has happened elsewhere, like The Netherlands, is that the encumbent (kpn) forms a joint venture with another company. kpn provide the fibre to an Optical Distribution Frame that is owned by the JV. Everything from the ODF to the customer is then supplied and owned by the JV.

This model is possible in selected areas in South Africa, as Telkom already has ODFs all over the place (UMCs, etc). Currently there is copper from the UMC to the customers.

By installing an ODF at the UMC, we can very quickly roll out FttC and FttH. Because of the shorter distances, the fibre can be carried on the existing overhead network (poles) and does not have to be buried in pipes/ducts.

The JV will then be responsible to maintain the network from the ODF to the customer, either by doing it themself or outsourcing it to a third party.

LOL!

DFA = Dark Fibre Africa
FttC = Fibre to the Curb
FttH = Fibre to the Home
kpn = The Netherland's "Telkom"
ODF = Optical Distribution Frame
JV = Joint Venture
UMC = digital loop carrier system
 
So, let me get this right, it's currently:
R131 per month for the copper line rental part.
R152 per month for the 384 DSLAM and the Fibre rental part.

So, you want Telkom to provide you with a service that costs R283 for a 384 line, with no telephone facilities?

No?

Well, that's what you're going to get if you actually manage to push this one through.
Much like the way "Local-Only bandwidth must be free" became "Local bandwidth may not be capped".

Telkom shouldn't be charging for rentals. If anything the ISPs should rent it from them. We should just be paying a monthly fee that includes everything to our ISPs.
 
SAOL offer packages really affordable with line rental inclusive.. not sure who else. but...the catch is you need to have a telkom line already @ R131 p/m! haha! sucks.
 
If we implement LLU, who will run the maintenance of the Local Loop?
Government?
The same people who maintain the municipalities, eskom, saa, military ...

Be careful what you wish for.
Its not like Telkom do any maintenance though, I've got a faulty line that I have been trying for 5 years to get fixed. Telkom's argument is the phone portion works (even if it is crackly) and refuse to replace the cable.
 
Last edited:
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X