-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: What is your ultimate pancake filling/topping?
ICASA ADSL Draft Regulations Feedback Form
- Thread starter rpm
- Start date
Carlhead
Expert Member
The draft is somewhat ambiguous in places; however I feel that it is definitely in the right spirit.
I read the document re: The enquiry into provision of ADSL service (No. 27844)
Icasa has done some decent market related research into both the technical aspects of providing broadband services and the service as it is provided internationally.
The findings and draft indicated that local bandwidth would not be capped. Further to this the 10GB cap placed on international bandwidth seems to be measured on international bandwidth only. Telkom did indicate that it had no way of measuring local vs. international, so we'll probably see a 10GB cap somewhat like the 3GB softcaps initially introduced.
I did comment on the minimum 10GB cap, as if Telkom continues to sell bandwidth it it's current rates, then it would be quite expesive. However it is important to note that ICASA wants Telkom to do away with monthly ADSL line rentals; thus an ADSL connection with 10GB of Bandwidth might be about R500 a month in total... not too bad. (192k currenly =R270 per month + R200 for the ISP account)
It looks like ICASA is trying to evolve Telkom ADSL & broadband offering in South Africa into internationally comparable offerings. Which bodes well for an interesting future here.
It will also allow for some inovative offerings on both the VOIP and local content provision fronts.
So all in all well done to ICASA!
I read the document re: The enquiry into provision of ADSL service (No. 27844)
Icasa has done some decent market related research into both the technical aspects of providing broadband services and the service as it is provided internationally.
The findings and draft indicated that local bandwidth would not be capped. Further to this the 10GB cap placed on international bandwidth seems to be measured on international bandwidth only. Telkom did indicate that it had no way of measuring local vs. international, so we'll probably see a 10GB cap somewhat like the 3GB softcaps initially introduced.
I did comment on the minimum 10GB cap, as if Telkom continues to sell bandwidth it it's current rates, then it would be quite expesive. However it is important to note that ICASA wants Telkom to do away with monthly ADSL line rentals; thus an ADSL connection with 10GB of Bandwidth might be about R500 a month in total... not too bad. (192k currenly =R270 per month + R200 for the ISP account)
It looks like ICASA is trying to evolve Telkom ADSL & broadband offering in South Africa into internationally comparable offerings. Which bodes well for an interesting future here.
It will also allow for some inovative offerings on both the VOIP and local content provision fronts.
So all in all well done to ICASA!
Carlhead
Expert Member
caroper said:
The only problem with this is that SAT3/SAFE are not the only routes out of SA, there is the old SAT2 line and Satalite routes as well.
Also this would require alot of co-operation from other users of the SAT3 line like UUNet, IS and MTN. Telkom would need to monitor whether the user browsed further than the local portion of these other ISP's networks. Also there are a number of satellite connections.
I'm not 100% clued up as to the technical aspects of it all, but I asume it could be measured using IP address ranges. Connections from international IP's simply count where as local IP's dont.
alacos
Legal Expert
You can say that again -- and I fear that some of the ambiguities could be exploited in such a manner as to negate much of what seems good about the draft. I very much hope that that's not deliberate.Carlhead said:
I notice that ISPA have criticised this draft quite heavily -- and have come in for a certain amount of flack from MyADSL members for having done so. Unfortunately, I think that some of their (ISPA's) criticisms are quite well-warranted.
I will write a full analysis during the coming weekend, and will post it in this thread when I've finished it.
It may well be, if one looks at the thing as a sort of generalized expression of intention (as to future ICASA policy). But, as they say, the devil's in the detail (or, in this case, in the lack of it).Carlhead said:
Michael Alachouzos
What do you guys (and gals) think about removing uploaded data from counting towards the cap? Even if you ignore the ACK data that gets uploaded to keep downloads flowing, I can't see uploads congesting the SAT3 cable since most users download way more than they upload.
I'm assuming that the SAT3 cable is full-duplex of course...
I'm assuming that the SAT3 cable is full-duplex of course...
1. "Broadband ... has the ability of a minimum download speed of 256 Kbps ..." -- does this mean Telkom will have to stop offering HomeDSL 192?
2. If the minimum cap is increased to 10GB, will the ISP cost increase as well? What if a user only wishes to use 5GB (for example)?
3. Section 5 is a little hard to understand -- will port prioritisation be removed?
4. Why is there a 384kbps up-stream limit?
2. If the minimum cap is increased to 10GB, will the ISP cost increase as well? What if a user only wishes to use 5GB (for example)?
3. Section 5 is a little hard to understand -- will port prioritisation be removed?
4. Why is there a 384kbps up-stream limit?
Done!
I am concerned about the number of back doors open in this document.
Whilst it is a great step in the right direction, I feel it imperative to shut all doors with a resounding clang to avoid the kind of exploitation Telkom has shown it will use.
Telkom have been frugal with the truth from the beginning, and, like a naughty child, the rules should be explained clearly and concisely without room for manouvre. If we collectively condone this document as it is.... Telkom will have no compunction to laugh a resounding laugh when we fall into this obvious trap.
I am concerned about the number of back doors open in this document.
Whilst it is a great step in the right direction, I feel it imperative to shut all doors with a resounding clang to avoid the kind of exploitation Telkom has shown it will use.
Telkom have been frugal with the truth from the beginning, and, like a naughty child, the rules should be explained clearly and concisely without room for manouvre. If we collectively condone this document as it is.... Telkom will have no compunction to laugh a resounding laugh when we fall into this obvious trap.
kaspaas
Expert Member
A new cat amongst the pigeons:
I would like to suggest that broadband wholesalers be forced to supply a local download mirror for the most important OpenSource repositories.
I can think of
www.sf.net
www.freshmeat.net
The Linux Kernel
The Linux Documentation project
Others - such as an equivalent of the FreedomToaster project.
Downloads from such a server shall in no instance be accounted for in measured traffic.
The Computer society or similar could be made custodian of the minimum list.
Actually, a single central mirror managed by Telkom, Sentech, iBurst etc might not be a bad idea...
I would like to suggest that broadband wholesalers be forced to supply a local download mirror for the most important OpenSource repositories.
I can think of
www.sf.net
www.freshmeat.net
The Linux Kernel
The Linux Documentation project
Others - such as an equivalent of the FreedomToaster project.
Downloads from such a server shall in no instance be accounted for in measured traffic.
The Computer society or similar could be made custodian of the minimum list.
Actually, a single central mirror managed by Telkom, Sentech, iBurst etc might not be a bad idea...
Last edited:
Ha Ha Ha (ROTFL).
The only place "The" Network Operator negotiates with anyone is in court!
Subscribers will get a share of the benefits ? Ya Right.
The service providers won't have a say in the matter - Telkom sets the price and if you don't agree with it - tough - it's not like you can go anywhere else (right now).
It is clear from the current situation Telkom is not capable of agreeing to reasonable wholesale rates. Prices should be set by a 3rd party IMHO.
Or even better, Let ISP's access the SAT3/SAFE cables directly. It should not be considered Government or Telkom property. It is our cable and belongs to every citizen in this country - it should not have to be rented back to us at rediculas prices where only the super rich can enjoy it's benefits to the full!
Lord Anubis
Expert Member
Done.
10GB is hopelessly inadequate. The future is VOIP, streaming video and high speed transfer of bulk multimedia content. I propose UNSHAPED unlimited local and UNSHAPED intl at a minimum of 80gb before intl cap (cap meaning that additional bandwidth may be purchased at a reasonable price e.g. R20-00 per GB)
10GB is hopelessly inadequate. The future is VOIP, streaming video and high speed transfer of bulk multimedia content. I propose UNSHAPED unlimited local and UNSHAPED intl at a minimum of 80gb before intl cap (cap meaning that additional bandwidth may be purchased at a reasonable price e.g. R20-00 per GB)
Hello ... seems my first attempt didn't make it 
Thank you for including me on this mailing list. Unfortunately I'm not very PC jargon orientated, so am not really able to make any worthwhile comments. However, rest assured that I have every faith in you guys to look after our interests and you have my full support and then some.
Whether this is of any use of not, I feel that accountability needs to be urgently addressed. Past experience has proven that Telkom/Saix passes the buck onto the ISP's and as such 'issues' are never satisfactorily resolved nor answered. No-one is ever responsible for the 'nasty' issues.
We pay far too much for an inferior service, particularly when compared to overseas packages. It doesn't help that Telkom's attitude to this standpoint is "You must remember that we are a 3rd world country". It's this type of attitude that ensures we remain a 3rd world country. Of course none of us will like the idea of capped lines - it's human nature to be greedy. However, even my limited understanding comprehends that the capping they envisage is ridiculous ... particularly in light of the costs involved.
I was literally coerced into obtaining ADSL, as Telkom was unable to resolve line dropping problems and assured me that ADSL was the way to go. Oddly enough I STILL have connection problems and they are STILL confused as to why this happens. Maybe they need to take a look at their general services and conditions of existing supply before trying to implement expensive new products that offer little improvement on the older ones?
Totally irrelevant issue here ... but ... the dude that 'invented' the internet never received a cent for his 'invention'. Maybe it's a pity, coz now it seems everyone is cashing in and making rules and regulations to suit themselves!
The bottom line remains that, in a country needy of job opportunities and trade, we won't easily move forward on the internet stakes, as what is fast becoming (or has become) a basic service won't be available to most.
Keep up the good work.
Thank you for including me on this mailing list. Unfortunately I'm not very PC jargon orientated, so am not really able to make any worthwhile comments. However, rest assured that I have every faith in you guys to look after our interests and you have my full support and then some. Whether this is of any use of not, I feel that accountability needs to be urgently addressed. Past experience has proven that Telkom/Saix passes the buck onto the ISP's and as such 'issues' are never satisfactorily resolved nor answered. No-one is ever responsible for the 'nasty' issues.
We pay far too much for an inferior service, particularly when compared to overseas packages. It doesn't help that Telkom's attitude to this standpoint is "You must remember that we are a 3rd world country". It's this type of attitude that ensures we remain a 3rd world country. Of course none of us will like the idea of capped lines - it's human nature to be greedy. However, even my limited understanding comprehends that the capping they envisage is ridiculous ... particularly in light of the costs involved.
I was literally coerced into obtaining ADSL, as Telkom was unable to resolve line dropping problems and assured me that ADSL was the way to go. Oddly enough I STILL have connection problems and they are STILL confused as to why this happens. Maybe they need to take a look at their general services and conditions of existing supply before trying to implement expensive new products that offer little improvement on the older ones?
Totally irrelevant issue here ... but ... the dude that 'invented' the internet never received a cent for his 'invention'. Maybe it's a pity, coz now it seems everyone is cashing in and making rules and regulations to suit themselves!
The bottom line remains that, in a country needy of job opportunities and trade, we won't easily move forward on the internet stakes, as what is fast becoming (or has become) a basic service won't be available to most.
Keep up the good work.
I think demanding "local" traffic be distinguished from all other traffic just complicates things. And when things are complicated, nobody at Telkom or ICASA understands what they're doing, and everything takes longer, gets misinterpreted, etc. The principle that WORKS is to keep regulations as SIMPLE as possible.
If the cap is reasonable it doesn't matter anyway!
If the cap is reasonable it doesn't matter anyway!
Last edited:
Grummy im sure uve tried this but just in case.... go look at Debbie2 advice on disconnects and lines dropped... we finally tried setting the mail to check every two minutes and (touch wood) havent had a disconnect during callmore time for over a week! Halleluja and thnx Debbie
WretchedToad
WretchedToad
Why do different speeds have different prices??
Just a thought: since there is no difference in costs to Telkodemonopoly whether they install a 192Kbps line or 1Mbps line, why are we being charged R270pm for the one and R680pm for the other?
Also, in the draft regulations:
<QOUTE>
Port Prioritisation
5. Network operators shall charge subscribers only according to the throughput speed provided to the subscribers.
</QUOTE>
Why should they be allowed to rip us off *even more* with a 1Mbps line as with a 192Kbps line, when it doesn't even cost them a cent more? (since the speed limitation is done via software)
It's like going to the cinema and they put some kind of translucent glass in front of the projector, and turn down the volume, such that you can barely hear or see anything. voila, 192Kbps ADSL (Anul-disfunctional sh1tty line)connectivity. oh, and the bottom half of the picture is blacked out. so we have 192Kbps SHAPED ADSL.
Now they turn up the volume by 5% or so, and use a slightly clearer glass, and we have 384Kbps shaped ADSL, and so on, until you can more-or-less hear and see what's going on (but the half the picture is still blacked out), and we have the flagship 1Mbps shaped ADSL.
Note that it doesn't cost the cinema any more or less, regardless of which translucent glass they use, or how loud or soft the volume is (or whether they allow you to see the full picture or just the top half).
So WTF is up with charging different prices for different speeds??
//Edited for spelling mistakes
Just a thought: since there is no difference in costs to Telkodemonopoly whether they install a 192Kbps line or 1Mbps line, why are we being charged R270pm for the one and R680pm for the other?
Also, in the draft regulations:
<QOUTE>
Port Prioritisation
5. Network operators shall charge subscribers only according to the throughput speed provided to the subscribers.
</QUOTE>
Why should they be allowed to rip us off *even more* with a 1Mbps line as with a 192Kbps line, when it doesn't even cost them a cent more? (since the speed limitation is done via software)
It's like going to the cinema and they put some kind of translucent glass in front of the projector, and turn down the volume, such that you can barely hear or see anything. voila, 192Kbps ADSL (Anul-disfunctional sh1tty line)connectivity. oh, and the bottom half of the picture is blacked out. so we have 192Kbps SHAPED ADSL.
Now they turn up the volume by 5% or so, and use a slightly clearer glass, and we have 384Kbps shaped ADSL, and so on, until you can more-or-less hear and see what's going on (but the half the picture is still blacked out), and we have the flagship 1Mbps shaped ADSL.
Note that it doesn't cost the cinema any more or less, regardless of which translucent glass they use, or how loud or soft the volume is (or whether they allow you to see the full picture or just the top half).
So WTF is up with charging different prices for different speeds??
//Edited for spelling mistakes
Last edited:
Daaru
Well-Known Member
To milk the public for as much money as they can.
If you can afford to pay for 1Mb, you will. People that can only afford to pay for 192kb will pay for that.
If you went to the cinema that you discribed, you pay for the best possible view that you could afford. Same thing.
If you can afford to pay for 1Mb, you will. People that can only afford to pay for 192kb will pay for that.
If you went to the cinema that you discribed, you pay for the best possible view that you could afford. Same thing.
bluefox8080
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2005
- Messages
- 33
- Reaction score
- 0
There must be a difference in pricing between 192k and 1Mb because it does cost more to provide capacity on the local loop and beyond.
Take this as an example 120000 (subscribers) x 1024 = 117Gbps vs. 120000 x 192 = 21Gbps. Someone needs to pay for that. But, the price difference should come from the ISP and not Telkom, since Telkom already gets paid by the ISP and by the end user. In any other 1st world countries there is a price difference between access speeds. Agreed it is nowhere as much as here, but a difference nonetheless
Take this as an example 120000 (subscribers) x 1024 = 117Gbps vs. 120000 x 192 = 21Gbps. Someone needs to pay for that. But, the price difference should come from the ISP and not Telkom, since Telkom already gets paid by the ISP and by the end user. In any other 1st world countries there is a price difference between access speeds. Agreed it is nowhere as much as here, but a difference nonetheless