ISPA says HOAs and body corporates should allow fibre and ISP competition

Jan

Jan

Who's the Boss?
Staff member
Joined
May 24, 2010
Messages
13,438
Reaction score
11,003
Location
The Rabbit Hole
ISPA says HOAs and body corporates should allow fibre and ISP competition

South African residential estates with fibre installations that don't allow for multiple Internet service providers (ISPs) are doing their residents an injustice by limiting competition and their ability to find the best deal.

This is according to the Internet Service Providers' Association (ISPA) chair, Sasha Booth-Beharilal, who said the first prize is having competition at the fibre infrastrucuture level. This allows for non-exclusive fibre connectivity.
 
Tell us chair people of HOA's, how to get out of an already 7year "contract" the developer agreed too, @Jan?

There is but 1 court case, Telkom Vs. Vodacom, where the HOA was successful in ridding them of Telkom.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Jan
swakop_toe said:
Tell us chair people of HOA's, how to get out of an already 7year "contract" the developer agreed too, @Jan?

There is but 1 court case, Telkom Vs. Vodacom, where the HOA was successful in ridding them of Telkom.
Click to expand...
And court cases are expensive...

I'll ask around and find out if there's an actual viable alternative to this.
 
I was a trustee of a sectional title BC for years.

We TRIED to get a second provider, but no one was interested.

They knew 90% of units have already signed up with the first provider, so they will not waste money rolling out expensive infrastructure which will have very low or zero utilization. They rather go after places with no fibre.
 
In most cases, HOA, and Body Corporates, don't have a choice, there is one, single fiber provider, in the area, and as much as the Trustee's would like having a choice, it is not going to happen.

If all areas had two or more providers available, this issue might, just go away, on it's own.
 
bixt said:
I was a trustee of a sectional title BC for years.

We TRIED to get a second provider, but no one was interested.

They knew 90% of units have already signed up with the first provider, so they will not waste money rolling out expensive infrastructure which will have very low or zero utilization. They rather go after places with no fibre.
Click to expand...

The situation, or similar, for a great many Body Corporates.
 
elf_lord_ZC5 said:
In most cases, HOA, and Body Corporates, don't have a choice, there is one, single fiber provider, in the area, and as much as the Trustee's would like having a choice, it is not going to happen.

If all areas had two or more providers available, this issue might, just go away, on it's own.
Click to expand...
I was also spun this story, yet there is Octotel across the road.
And Vumatel a couple of blocks away.
I would like the option to choose which fiber provider I wish to sign my choice of ISP up with.
Our current fiber provider ranks at the bottom 10 in uptime and price, based on the last myBB rankings survey done.
Being handcuffed to a fiber provider and was not informed as such smacks of suspicious dealings.
 
Jan said:
And court cases are expensive...

I'll ask around and find out if there's an actual viable alternative to this.
Click to expand...
We have dealt with this in the past, it goes waaay deeper than everyone thinks.

I appreciate the insights shared by Sasha Booth-Beharilal at ISPA, but I believe the perspective on micro-operators like Pretoria WISP is not entirely fair. Micro-operators provide a unique and invaluable service that often requires exclusivity. Our offerings are not easily replicated, and we pride ourselves on delivering a reliable and honest service. The ISPs we partner with appreciate our work because it alleviates the burden of tech support, billing, and other operational challenges.

It's disappointing to see an association vent in such a manner. Instead, organizations like WAPA and ISPA should be encouraging HOAs to engage with vetted, licensed operators. This would ensure residents are protected from unscrupulous operators who lack the necessary licenses or permissions from ISPs/FNOs. Pretoria WISP has encountered numerous instances where HOAs do not properly vet operators, leading to backend deals or situations where a relative, who may also work as a plumber, is entrusted with building a network.

While having a large number of ISPs in the market can be healthy, it's crucial to acknowledge the significant costs associated with running a compliant and competitive service. ISPA fails to address the exorbitant fees charged by other operators within the marketplace that are supposed to be fair and supportive. Additionally, the reality of an "open access network" means operators often make only a minimal profit margin. This barely covers the costs of tech support, data centers, NAPA, and NAS numbers, association costs, VAT, ICASA etc. Unfortunately, we live in a society that is not perfect, and these challenges are part of the current landscape.

Therefore, the discussion should focus on creating a balanced marketplace where licensed operators can thrive while ensuring residents receive high-quality and reliable services.
 
swakop_toe said:
I was also spun this story, yet there is Octotel across the road.
And Vumatel a couple of blocks away.
I would like the option to choose which fiber provider I wish to sign my choice of ISP up with.
Our current fiber provider ranks at the bottom 10 in uptime and price, based on the last myBB rankings survey done.
Being handcuffed to a fiber provider and was not informed as such smacks of suspicious dealings.
Click to expand...

Easiest solution is to sell your complex or flat and buy a freestanding home. No more nosy neighbours and BC politics. You can choose from 3+ Providers most of the time. You can drill a borehole and ditch Municipality water.
 
bixt said:
I was a trustee of a sectional title BC for years.

We TRIED to get a second provider, but no one was interested.

They knew 90% of units have already signed up with the first provider, so they will not waste money rolling out expensive infrastructure which will have very low or zero utilization. They rather go after places with no fibre.
Click to expand...

swakop_toe said:
I was also spun this story, yet there is Octotel across the road.
And Vumatel a couple of blocks away.
I would like the option to choose which fiber provider I wish to sign my choice of ISP up with.
Our current fiber provider ranks at the bottom 10 in uptime and price, based on the last myBB rankings survey done.
Being handcuffed to a fiber provider and was not informed as such smacks of suspicious dealings.
Click to expand...

From 2 different directions, we have Openserve Fiber - to the left 280 meteres, from the road below us, 310 meters, it has been like that more than 15 years, and till this day, it remains like that. They are not interested.

You convince Vumatel, to bring their Fiber to your side of the street, and it will happen.

We where unable to get Openserve to budge. Beginning of this year, Frogfoot did the whole area and are the only FNO.
 
Aghori said:
Easiest solution is to sell your complex or flat and buy a freestanding home. No more nosy neighbours and BC politics. You can choose from 3+ Providers most of the time. You can drill a borehole and ditch Municipality water.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what I did with my current place. Before we signed, we made damn sure there was an open access FNO in the area and a backup if the FNO would be problematic.
 
Multiple fibre providers FNOs is an issue - but per the article, there shouldn't be any issue to allow multiple ISPs? The complex shouldn't even get involved unless we're talking about the fibre provider and ISP being the same provider, which should be avoided...
 
The issue we have at our complex (Openserve provisioned) is that Vumatel refuses to deploy their fibre infrastructure underground, like Openserve did.

They want to run cables from poles and on top of the perimeter wall and the HOA refused.

Until they comply with the HOA ask, they can go fsck themselves.
 
PretoriaWISP said:
We have dealt with this in the past, it goes waaay deeper than everyone thinks.

I appreciate the insights shared by Sasha Booth-Beharilal at ISPA, but I believe the perspective on micro-operators like Pretoria WISP is not entirely fair. Micro-operators provide a unique and invaluable service that often requires exclusivity. Our offerings are not easily replicated, and we pride ourselves on delivering a reliable and honest service. The ISPs we partner with appreciate our work because it alleviates the burden of tech support, billing, and other operational challenges.

It's disappointing to see an association vent in such a manner. Instead, organizations like WAPA and ISPA should be encouraging HOAs to engage with vetted, licensed operators. This would ensure residents are protected from unscrupulous operators who lack the necessary licenses or permissions from ISPs/FNOs. Pretoria WISP has encountered numerous instances where HOAs do not properly vet operators, leading to backend deals or situations where a relative, who may also work as a plumber, is entrusted with building a network.

While having a large number of ISPs in the market can be healthy, it's crucial to acknowledge the significant costs associated with running a compliant and competitive service. ISPA fails to address the exorbitant fees charged by other operators within the marketplace that are supposed to be fair and supportive. Additionally, the reality of an "open access network" means operators often make only a minimal profit margin. This barely covers the costs of tech support, data centers, NAPA, and NAS numbers, association costs, VAT, ICASA etc. Unfortunately, we live in a society that is not perfect, and these challenges are part of the current landscape.

Therefore, the discussion should focus on creating a balanced marketplace where licensed operators can thrive while ensuring residents receive high-quality and reliable services.
Click to expand...
BS, there shouldn't be exclusivity with anything. If you can't stand the heat then get out of the kitchen. If the service is as good and competitively priced people will choose that. More often than not exclusivity only harms consumers.
 
Aghori said:
Easiest solution is to sell your complex or flat and buy a freestanding home. No more nosy neighbours and BC politics. You can choose from 3+ Providers most of the time. You can drill a borehole and ditch Municipality water.
Click to expand...
We still only have Vumacrap after 7 years and nobody has even been interested in our area.
 
LCBXX said:
The issue we have at our complex (Openserve provisioned) is that Vumatel refuses to deploy their fibre infrastructure underground, like Openserve did.

They want to run cables from poles and on top of the perimeter wall and the HOA refused.

Until they comply with the HOA ask, they can go fsck themselves.
Click to expand...
Swa said:
BS, there shouldn't be exclusivity with anything. If you can't stand the heat then get out of the kitchen. If the service is as good and competitively priced people will choose that. More often than not exclusivity only harms consumers.
Click to expand...

@Swa, if I were licensed for JHB, I'd gladly help you. The same goes for @LCBXX—I also agree with the logic of hiding the cables away and spending a little extra. However, that's not always feasible depending on the case.

Exclusivity isn't about limiting consumer choice—it's about ensuring that the significant investment and ongoing operational costs are viable. Without some form of exclusivity, small operators can't sustain the high-quality service and support that consumers expect.

The only reason bigger ISPs/FNOs cover certain areas is based on various factors, such as average area spend statistics, historical data, and more. It could also be that your area is considered lower income, and they've weighed the options accordingly. Pricing ranges from anywhere between 500k to millions. Plainly put, it's a numbers game and always has been.

My argument is that when the big players deploy, smaller areas not included in bigger FNO or ISP plans are left out from the expense of fiber optics deployment. I sympathize with the desire to assist your area, even at a considerable cost to my business, and I do go the extra mile. Your argument is that the network I deployed when no one else would still needs to be open access? That seems unreasonable given the circumstances and the substantial investment involved.

In a perfect world, every network could be open access without these financial and logistical hurdles, but that's not the reality we live in.

PS all our Exclusivity contracts have a 30 day clause - none performance and we leave with the infrstructure intact for another operator to take over. Easy, as I mentioned we are a micro pop so as soon as we hit 200 customers that is it, people can join the waiting list. Gone are the days you need to phone a crappy call center or talk to a useless AI bot, we talk to the NOC guys on the top much like Afrihost does with it's Engineers. easy effienct oh and we have backup lines so if either Liquid or DFA are down we just hope over to the next, ensuring our end customer is always connected. I'd love to see an ISP offer the same agreement, funny thing is you will not. Anyways Good luck with it, always happy to help, why not build a tower there and start a WISP for the area? come on it's easy and you get to deal with alot of IT experts ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter