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

[LCBXX]

Last thing, old complex or new? Also is there separate data lines or do I have to run a cable along side openserve in the **** pipe cause let me tell you when that pipe blocks and they try to pressure wash the pipe out no one gonna have net. If the trunk work has sufficient space then sure I'd roll out a network and if I can pipe a DFA line there sure, probably be cheaper or I can throwup a mini tower at the guard station of the complex and installer loco's around the complex for even further saving. Also who owns the data infrastructure of the complex did Openserve deploy it or was the complex involved with it, cause Openserve doesn't share (very very good point)

30-odd years.
Openserve offered to install their infrastructure underground, using existing underground infrastructure accessible via manholes, as well as installing the customer/home connectivity using existing conduit/etc. This approach eliminated any impact on the external aesthetic of the homes.

We agreed that the option of 2 or more fibre providers in the complex is to the benefit of all homeowners but Vumatel wanted to do it their way only. They did say that they could deploy underground as well but that cost was prohibitive.

Sure, the Openserve rollout did take longer than usual as Openserve had to do work to repair/clear certain underground areas. I would say it was worth the trouble as 80% of the homes subscribed to 100Mb+ internet services.

 

[PretoriaWISP]

30-odd years.
Openserve offered to install their infrastructure underground, using existing underground infrastructure accessible via manholes, as well as installing the customer/home connectivity using existing conduit/etc. This approach eliminated any impact on the external aesthetic of the homes.

We agreed that the option of 2 or more fibre providers in the complex is to the benefit of all homeowners but Vumatel wanted to do it their way only. They did say that they could deploy underground as well but that cost was prohibitive.

Sure, the Openserve rollout did take longer than usual as Openserve had to do work to repair/clear certain underground areas. I would say it was worth the trouble as 80% of the homes subscribed to 100Mb+ internet services.

What you need is not another ISP but a backup solution for the complex, if you suffer from heavy outages then I'd get a vetted licensed company like us or whoever to quote the HOA on a backup system that only is there to keep the network going. LTE is a no for this one cause if it is an area fault on Oepnserve or whatever then the FNO is down and everyone makes the shift over lte for the time being. Quote on a complex network for failover purposes if the HOA pays for the infrastructure to deploy then I am sure one could workout a good deal for the backhaul.

 

[Swa]

.

I can agree on choosing a reputable operator but this should not include exclusivity for that operator and any other that can or wants to provide service should be allowed to. Sure you might get one without any serious issues but it's about much more than just network quality. Having an open market results in better and more competitively priced services for all as providers continually have to up their game, and no, I don't subscribe to the economic fallacy of cost based pricing. Far from not providing incentives for smaller operators competition in the market usually results in services that can't be beaten both on quality and price.

When we talk about open access we have to define what we mean. Most people see choosing their ISP as open access but that is not actually what the term really means and when it comes down to it this in reality creates more problems where what is really needed is a number (3+) operators in an area. This is why I'm a proponent of estates installing the infrastructure themselves in the development or being the ones that fund it so any operator can just come and lay their cabling without much hassle.

Sorry had to cut your post as the new forum update didn't want me to post it.

 

[PretoriaWISP]

I can agree on choosing a reputable operator but this should not include exclusivity for that operator and any other that can or wants to provide service should be allowed to. Sure you might get one without any serious issues but it's about much more than just network quality. Having an open market results in better and more competitively priced services for all as providers continually have to up their game, and no, I don't subscribe to the economic fallacy of cost based pricing. Far from not providing incentives for smaller operators competition in the market usually results in services that can't be beaten both on quality and price.

When we talk about open access we have to define what we mean. Most people see choosing their ISP as open access but that is not actually what the term really means and when it comes down to it this in reality creates more problems where what is really needed is a number (3+) operators in an area. This is why I'm a proponent of estates installing the infrastructure themselves in the development or being the ones that fund it so any operator can just come and lay their cabling without much hassle.

Sorry had to cut your post as the new forum update didn't want me to post it.

No stress at all, Swa. I agree with the idea of choosing a reputable operator without enforcing exclusivity. I genuinely mean well, and I acknowledge that there are bad actors in the market with questionable ethics. If an ISP wants access to my network, they are more than welcome. However, articles like this make it harder for us to sell a unique product and service that actually benefits an open marketplace. Nowadays, fiber is getting more expensive, and the options are limited, leading customers to leave the FNO and move to alternatives like LTE or, worse, pirate the connection.

The buildings we operate in have speeds ranging from 15Mbps to gigabit speeds and use a meshed failover system, ensuring continuous connectivity and peace of mind for our customers. We strive to keep our margins R100-R200 than what is in the area, cheaper because we understand the financial pressures, like bonds, that people face. Our goal is to provide a service where customers are treated with respect and courtesy, not just as another number.

If you want a service provider who values you as a customer, give us a shout. If I can't help, I will forward you to Level 7, Web Squad, Mind the Speed, TS-S or even Afrihost to name a few. There's enough market share to go around without jeopardizing customer service, and maintaining high support levels is crucial. AI is great but I know you know that talking to someone about having no internet helps manage the stress levels.

 

[zerocool2009]

I fully agree! Its a monoploy

 

[Smithr]

The FNO's do not like to share their network hence the overbuild on areas , when developers, HOA and body corporates are approached they can insist on an open access network to be build.

 

[Prof.Merlin]

Buh-rein estate in kraaifontein signed a 20 year+ agreement with the devil being Amobia. They were the only installer allowed in the estate. They charge a monthly levy fee and stupid monthly subscription packages.

After lots of Issues, complaints and nothing being done, we asked Octotel to help. They did a full site survey and started planning. They had wayleaves approved and started running fibre into each complex. Once they connected the first complex, Amobia took Octotel to court, and lost badly. They ended up reducing their subscriptions a lot to compete but still kept the levy.

 

[swakop_toe]

Buh-rein estate in kraaifontein signed a 20 year+ agreement with the devil being Amobia. They were the only installer allowed in the estate. They charge a monthly levy fee and stupid monthly subscription packages.

After lots of Issues, complaints and nothing being done, we asked Octotel to help. They did a full site survey and started planning. They had wayleaves approved and started running fibre into each complex. Once they connected the first complex, Amobia took Octotel to court, and lost badly. They ended up reducing their subscriptions a lot to compete but still kept the levy.

Very interesting!!
Burgundy Estate/Rabie seems to have the same m.o. going with FrogFoot.

 

[neoprema]

I remember before Fibre, a friend of ours who had a unit in a bryanston complex could never have internet. The Body Corporate "banned" Telkom from entering the premises because they were all anti-BBEE-Telkom and so he just could never get ADSL. The trustees were a bunch of old karen's who thought 3GB's of 3G data was enough for all humans so they just never let anyone get Telkom in lol. They sent a letter to all the residents that if anyone was found allowing Telkom to install infrastructure the body corporate would fine them up to R50 000.00

its why I have always thought access to internet infrastructure should be a basic human right if such is available in an area without prejudice or controls over which provider one can choose.

 

[neoprema]

Buh-rein estate in kraaifontein signed a 20 year+ agreement with the devil being Amobia. They were the only installer allowed in the estate. They charge a monthly levy fee and stupid monthly subscription packages.

After lots of Issues, complaints and nothing being done, we asked Octotel to help. They did a full site survey and started planning. They had wayleaves approved and started running fibre into each complex. Once they connected the first complex, Amobia took Octotel to court, and lost badly. They ended up reducing their subscriptions a lot to compete but still kept the levy.

it think there's prob a lot of collusion going on too... sip a few R's to trustees/body corporate and they make these "we only allow this installer in" rules.

 

[stefan9]

@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

The arguments every monopoly always makes. Exclusivity only harms the consumer...