Local Loop Unbundling draft regulations gazetted

Bugger, there goes a a good stretch of productive time which I am going to use to go through this document.
 
icasa omitted to publish one of the pages of definitions and therefore these draft regulations will be republished shortly (along with an explanatory memorandum)
 
Seems very broad with not much definition.
 
FNfal said:
Seems very broad with not much definition.
Click to expand...
That may be so, but the devil lies in the details. Reading through the draft (scanning...) it appears that ICASA are putting the onus on the facilities owner to write the relevant specifications for co-location, technical requirements, etc.

And it does not appear to make provision for any bargains!
 
MickeyD said:
That may be so, but the devil lies in the details. Reading through the draft (scanning...) it appears that ICASA are putting the onus on the facilities owner to write the relevant specifications for co-location, technical requirements, etc.

And it does not appear to make provision for any bargains!
Click to expand...
Looks like that to me to , now we will see whether naked DSL will be a realty or not.
This will take a while yet.
 
well the real problem I see it (again I have read rather than carefully examined - that is this weekend's mission at this stage) is that the regulations seek to add parameters onto the facilities leasing regulations without actually affecting the core meat of how LLU is mandated except that it requires that the facility owners of local loop facilities (so Telkom) have to provide a ton of specifications such as to inform the other ECNS and ECS licence holders how they use the local loop which would no doubt make it an easy option for the other players to secure an identical product. If Telkom are cooperative the regulations are meaningful but unnecessary and if Telkom is uncooperative they are dead in the water.

Of course there is a vested interest in stating that the regulations seem to add problems without accomplishing much, given that I argued that exact point in 2011.
 
and of course we await a draft ministerial policy direction on LLU which i would imagine will attempt to subvert the ICASA process given the public views the DoC has expressed on the harm which LLU would cause to Telkom


///really they should just relax and let it be a stuff-up all by itself.
 
and don't forget the Portfolio Committee on Communications who are embarking on their own Cost to Communicate program
and then there is the ICT Policy Review Panel
...
 
What is the benefit of LLU in a country with, maybe, 15% fixed line penetration and just one operator who has the core infrastructure (exchanges, DSLAMs etc) to support the utilization of the local loop for voice and broadband??? Surely Neotel/MTN / VC/ ECN etc. will not invest in exchange port infrastructure and DSLAMs...the cost thereof will be sky high (Capex and Opex wise, plus they will have to lease space in Telkom Exchanges to put the equipment down), and competing for....a dying market of fixed line services??? If they propose LLU on wireless, for that there is Local Roaming agreements (MVNO type agreeemnts like Cell-C has with Vodacom, Virgin - Red Bull- and Hello Mobile on Cell-C and 8ta has with MTN), so no restrictions there...pay the radio access usage rates of xc a minute or MB from the MNO, and bob's your uncle...up and running MVNO in a short space of time.

The benefit of LLU is about as diluted as Carrier Pre-Selection being launched after Number Portability (WTF???)....way way way backward thinking ICASA...but good luck non the less...
 
the benefits of LLU are the same benefit as an open infrastructure
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter