Local content the way forward

[LifelongGamer]

Unless there are clear financial incentives for content providers and ISPs to host services locally and for large international content players to move their servers to South Africa the situation is unlikely to change in the near future.

The problem isn't that content providers and ISPs don't see the financial benefits in hosting services locally - the problem is that Doc / iCASA / Telkom don't see the financial benefit in allowing such to happen. An open market with effective competition from wholesale provision of bandwidth to various access methods ranging from fixed to fixed-wireless to pure mobile wireless with competing cost vs performance will spread the captive revenue streams among various operators instead of keeping it funnelled into state-owned shares.

We already know that 'trials' for locally hosted services are being conducted (e.g. Telkom and Microsoft looking into XBox video streaming as is being done around the globe). We also know that Neotel is planning to 'bring the Internet' to South Africans by means of their Tier-1 partnership and infrastructure (Neotel to ‘Bring the Internet to South Africa’) which can be summarised as follows:

“Neotel will leverage the strengths of VSNL-International for IP transit and peering to provide faster access to international content, regardless of the location of such content,” Telkom’s new competitor said.

In simpler terms, a large amount of Internet content will now sit directly on the Neotel-VSNL network, effectively bringing the Internet cloud to South Africa and eliminating the need for a two tier process for ISPs to reach ‘the Internet’.

Neotel’s CEO, Ajay Pandey, is confident that this change will make a big difference to the local Internet environment. In a recent radio interview Pandey said that South Africa can now expect global Internet players like Google and Yahoo to position their content platforms locally.

So the question remains: WHEN?

 

[Jonny Two Shoes]

OK well when the hell is somebody going to drag this Idiot Steven Hayward away from his desk and stuff him up good and proper for the bullsh!t he keeps talking. Jeez enough is enough dammit! Somebody fire that guy!!!!!

Anyways just a dumb question here, but if local internet is supposed to be free again according to the regulations --- > whats stopping me from getting DSL installed and everything, and then demand Telkom ISP to give me an account with free local only access??

That way I buy the international bandwidth when I want otherwise I just stick to free local until I save for another int.1gig? See what Im saying?? Whats the take on this? Can they say no if I slap them in the face with the local regulation everyone is talking about?

 

[bwana]

Anyways just a dumb question here, but if local internet is supposed to be free again according to the regulations --- > whats stopping me from getting DSL installed and everything, and then demand Telkom ISP to give me an account with free local only access??

It's not supposed to be free

3.4 – Local bandwidth usage shall not be subject to the cap

 

[Tns]

once again (and still) telkom (the gov) is to blame,not that they care cause they make money (for who and what is a secret) and the hell with anyone

 

[Jonny Two Shoes]

3.4 – Local bandwidth usage shall not be subject to the cap

This statement tells me I don't need to buy a cap if I want local only doesn't it ??!! Because the local bandwidth should not be monitored.

How else am I supposed to be understanding this??

 

[henno]

Understand that this is Africa. As with many things you need not follow rules and law. How many times have you been pulled over for speeding, only to tell a funny joke, and get warned not to do so again.

Same goes for Telkom. They need not follow all the rules, only the ones they wish to.

3.4 – Local bandwidth usage shall not be subject to the cap

This statement tells me I don't need to buy a cap if I want local only doesn't it ??!! Because the local bandwidth should not be monitored.

How else am I supposed to be understanding this??

 

[bwana]

3.4 – Local bandwidth usage shall not be subject to the cap

This statement tells me I don't need to buy a cap if I want local only doesn't it ??!! Because the local bandwidth should not be monitored.

How else am I supposed to be understanding this??

You can also look at it like this - they can offer you uncapped local but at a ridiculously high price and still be complying with some of the most poorly written, vaguest of vague regs I've seen.

Telkom is a telco - give them regs like this and they're going to exploit every single loophole they can for as long as they can.

 

[LifelongGamer]

3.4 – Local bandwidth usage shall not be subject to the cap

This statement tells me I don't need to buy a cap if I want local only doesn't it ??!! Because the local bandwidth should not be monitored.

How else am I supposed to be understanding this??

The ADSL Regulations were written so poorly, it is understandable that many interpretations can result from the same statement. Unfortunately for consumers, any company driven by profit will only ever read this particular regulation as follows (and this is also how Telkom would want you to understand it, in answer to your question):

Local bandwidth should be provided on the same basis as any utility (water / electricity) and will not be restricted or limited in any way or form except for non-payment of service as determined by legislation in this country. You can use / have as much local bandwidth as you choose but there is nothing in the regulations that prohibits any company from charging you for the bandwidth and that requires usage monitoring albeit not usage limitation.

The problem is that Telkom only sees 'utility' as in 'supply as much local bandwidth as is required by the user provided fees are charged and paid for' and not 'utility' as in low-cost and affordable for everyone.

The interpretation you're thinking of would be a 'local bandwidth subsidy' where the telecommunications provider would have to pay for your local bandwidth to be free. The closest we could ever get would be to have the cost of local bandwidth reduced substantially to the point when providers supply an inclusive bundle based upon average usage as part of their subscription service (aka 'free airtime' on a cellular contract) which they can absorb because they'll make additional revenue through value-added services such as IPTV or VOIP services. Once you reach your bundle-threshold, you pay for any additional local bandwidth you use outside of your 'free bundle'. This would still mean that your local bandwidth is NOT capped as the service is not restricted or limited as with international bandwidth where you get soft/hard capped and need to purchase new accounts or top-up in order to resume your service.

 

[ldmelsa]

they can offer you uncapped local but at a ridiculously high price and still be complying with some of the most poorly written, vaguest of vague regs I've seen.

@ bwana, I don't think so Tell me if this makes sense:

“Local Bandwidth usage” means the data that can be transferred from South African based Internet protocol addresses.

Local bandwidth usage shall not be subject to the cap.

"Shall not be subject to the cap" means that once you are capped you will still be able to transfer data from South African based Internet protocol addresses. It does not mean that local does not count toward the "international data" cap.

What do you guys think? Am I understanding this correctly?

IT'S

"Local bandwidth usage shall not be subject to the cap."

NOT

"Local bandwidth usage shall not count toward the cap."

 

[Tns]

i would love local uncapped unshaped for free! but it ain't free now is it...

 

[bwana]

@ bwana, I don't think so Tell me if this makes sense:





"Shall not be subject to the cap" means that once you are capped you will still be able to transfer data from South African based Internet protocol addresses. It does not mean that local does not count toward the "international data" cap.

What do you guys think? Am I understanding this correctly?

IT'S

"Local bandwidth usage shall not be subject to the cap."

NOT

"Local bandwidth usage shall not count toward the cap."

You can interpret it that way if you like but it doesnt mean free local as Jonny Two Shoes suggested. It also doesnt prevent telkom from charging what they like for local.

Or telkom could argue that as long as you can buy more it technically isnt capped.

Problem is ICASA hasnt clarified anything . . at all . . .ever.

 

[LifelongGamer]

i would love local uncapped unshaped for free! but it ain't free now is it...

Bottomline, there should not be SHAPING at all. Bandwidth should simply remain UNSHAPED regardless of whether it's local or international. The controlling factor should be how much bandwidth you want to use (and pay for) not what you can use the bandwidth for. Digital apartheid should be abolished!