Couldn't agree with you more. I'd like to know what we can do as consumers on our end. This is probably the most asked question since ADSL came to South Africa, and people became aware of Telkom's rip-off pricing and service. Pricing being the main issue. I'd just wish that ICASA would keep the main issue the main issue (but I don't think it's price for them).
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: How do you normally pay for purchases in stores?
ISPs fume over ADSL rules
- Thread starter Skip
- Start date
Couldn't agree with you more. I'd like to know what we can do as consumers on our end. This is probably the most asked question since ADSL came to South Africa, and people became aware of Telkom's rip-off pricing and service. Pricing being the main issue. I'd just wish that ICASA would keep the main issue the main issue (but I don't think it's price for them).
LifelongGamer
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2005
- Messages
- 455
- Reaction score
- 0
Reading too much ..?
I hate to criticise those that are criticising the wrong in this industry, but I really wonder where they pulled this from:
I have re-read and then gone over the ICASA Regulations again and I simply do not see anywhere that it requires uncapped local to be free. Is there another version of Regs apart from the link provided by MyADSL?
It would be great if local was indeed free, but I'm thinking this is wishful thinking and pre-emptive of what the regs in it's current form dictate.
Telkom / SNO-T / ISPS are not prevented from charging for the local bandwidth so the above statement has no bearing in terms of the Regs. Unfortunately, the fact that Telkom acts as both wholesaler AND Retailer and may be able to offer cheaper (or even free) local is another issue entirely and should definitely be taken up with the Competition's Commission. Once again, we see that Telkom is siding with the lesser of two 'thorns in it's side'.
ICASA could've prevented this situation if they wanted to, but they're obviously short-staffed and obeying instructions from the DoC to protect government's shares in Telkom / SNO-T.
I hate to criticise those that are criticising the wrong in this industry, but I really wonder where they pulled this from:
I have re-read and then gone over the ICASA Regulations again and I simply do not see anywhere that it requires uncapped local to be free. Is there another version of Regs apart from the link provided by MyADSL?
It would be great if local was indeed free, but I'm thinking this is wishful thinking and pre-emptive of what the regs in it's current form dictate.
Telkom / SNO-T / ISPS are not prevented from charging for the local bandwidth so the above statement has no bearing in terms of the Regs. Unfortunately, the fact that Telkom acts as both wholesaler AND Retailer and may be able to offer cheaper (or even free) local is another issue entirely and should definitely be taken up with the Competition's Commission. Once again, we see that Telkom is siding with the lesser of two 'thorns in it's side'.
ICASA could've prevented this situation if they wanted to, but they're obviously short-staffed and obeying instructions from the DoC to protect government's shares in Telkom / SNO-T.
Gatecrasher
Executive Member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2005
- Messages
- 6,728
- Reaction score
- 624
Lifelonggamer raises good points. I think getting full clarification from ICASA on all of the new regulations is urgently needed.
supersunbird
Honorary Master
I shed no tear for those Telkom wannabe's called Datapro...
LifelongGamer
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2005
- Messages
- 455
- Reaction score
- 0
Let's see, possible reasons could be:
1) They're intentionally vague in order to guarantee delays and create obstacles.
2) They're written by individuals not adequately suited for the complexity of the task / lack the necessary skills, understanding and experience required to write proper regulations
3) They're censored / modified by the DoC before being released to ensure government's shares are protected.
Take your pick.
Carlhead
Expert Member
The reason independant ISP's are complaining about free local traffic is the following:
Independ ISP's such as IS and Verizon have to peer with SAIX to get access to SAIX's local network. They have to pay SAIX/Telkom phenomenal amounts of money per MBit of connectivity, the rate was poorly negotiated by ISPA and it's crazy. [And it's a monthly fee]
Free local access means that traffic over this peering link is going to greatly increase, forcing these ISP's to upgrade the links (we won't go into what a politcal problem this causes because Telkom usually refuses to pay for thier half of the link, leaving the independant the task of paying for the whole thing.)
These links only become profitable when going for a 155Mbit link, and then you have to have it at 80% (sellable capacity) before you see the retuns.
i.e. ICASA's regulations wholey screw independant ISP's, where as Telkom/SAIX is barely effected because they own all the infrastructure and don't have to pay for it on a monthly basis, other than maintenance.
Independ ISP's such as IS and Verizon have to peer with SAIX to get access to SAIX's local network. They have to pay SAIX/Telkom phenomenal amounts of money per MBit of connectivity, the rate was poorly negotiated by ISPA and it's crazy. [And it's a monthly fee]
Free local access means that traffic over this peering link is going to greatly increase, forcing these ISP's to upgrade the links (we won't go into what a politcal problem this causes because Telkom usually refuses to pay for thier half of the link, leaving the independant the task of paying for the whole thing.)
These links only become profitable when going for a 155Mbit link, and then you have to have it at 80% (sellable capacity) before you see the retuns.
i.e. ICASA's regulations wholey screw independant ISP's, where as Telkom/SAIX is barely effected because they own all the infrastructure and don't have to pay for it on a monthly basis, other than maintenance.
How does one strong-arm a monopoly that is above the law & does whatever it wants?