Local Loop Unbundling: Please give your feedback

What form/s of Local Loop Unbundling do you realistically favour in SA?

  • Full local loop unbundling (full access)

    Votes: 570 90.5%

  • Sub-loop unbundling

    Votes: 247 39.2%

  • Line sharing (shared access to the local loop)

    Votes: 196 31.1%

  • Bitstream access (wholesale access)

    Votes: 216 34.3%
  • Total voters
    630
I voted for all 4, but I feel that Line sharing should be done first < unless I don't understand this correctly.

Perhaps someone should give detailed examples of all 4 options.

Having to pay for a voice line too, when you just want ADSL is absurd, and I would guess that it would be pretty easy/fast to enforce & implement it.
 
Last edited:
I do not think that full unbundling woud be advantageous. Isp's are simply Not geared to provide full maintenance. To be fair Telkom's network is more reliable than most.

As a case in point remember how we struggle with customer service at mobile operators not to mention dropped calls and undelivered SMS. If multiple service providers enter the maintenance game it will be cheap for sure. But the blame game isp's and Telkom have been playing can only get worse and isp's could end up blaming eachother - nightmare for the consumer!
 
Full please. I hate the fact that i have to get a telephone line to get ADSL. Its pathetic.
 
People need to start understanding that the ANC government does not want to masses to use the internet. This LLU will be a long delay tactic – / on again off again / new draft bill / debates / more debates / new draft bill again/ LLU discussion document again!

The ANC needs the masses to be daft and uninformed,

Lower internet cost mean more people will sign for internet services, the ANC will prevent this from happening.

Why you think Zuma put the *Vula Boys to run this department ?

* http://www.armsdeal-vpo.co.za/articles00/thabo_vs_vula.html

Suppressing information is the key to mentioning a one party state
 
I am all for option 2-4. For option 1 I see just too many problems in the short term to see it go through.

So I am willing to allow Telkom to keep its voice part on the copper, but unbundle the other frequencies. Neotel can then make use of IP phones for landlines and Telkom are forced to keep up maintenance.
 
Anything less than full access/unbundling will be a cowardly move. SA's already lagging behind a few African countries - never mind the rest of the world - when it comes to broadband access and cost. If they want to give one of the biggest boosts the local economy could ever receive, they need full unbundling.
 
I don't know what they mean in real terms. Cannot comment. It's time Telkom monopoly on line speeds was outsourced; they display unfair favouritism for those on higher speeds and totally forget the majority on 384kbps. Why can't they simply "bump up" everyone at 384kbps to 1Mbps at the same cost? The infrastructure is in, paid for, now they should pass on the benefits to everyone.
 
I'm putting my 2c in for Full LLU and Bitstream because both approaches make sense in different scenarios.

In my opinion, there are exchanges that will be worth having Full LLU available so that other operators can take over a client completely, whereas in others it won't make financial sense, and then you want to give both Telkom AND the competition the incentive to provide services.
 
Sodan said:
I don't understand the difference between local and sub loop unbundling. Sorry for being so dof. Can any explain this in a bit more detail?
Click to expand...
(As I understand)

Option 2: lets take you as a client want to use Neotel as a voice and data provider. Neotel will then have to lay fibres to your local Telkom box, say at the corner of the street where the Telkom lines join and go to the local exchange. Neotel will then "cut" the wire going to the exchange and link your copper wire to their equipment to provide you with access to their network. In this way they don't have to dig up, or put up more wires on the poles going to your house, or rewire your house but they still need to provide transmission to a location close to your home. With full unbundling the ISP's can get access to your specific copper wire at the exchange. The downside is that know your copper wire is one of thousands going to the specific houses and there will be battles about who has to pay and fix problems.

Option 3 means the copper wire will be split between Telkom and Neotel in the exchange, with Telkom getting those <5Khz frequencies carrying voice, and then Neotel can add a high frequency data carrier on the line to carry data (and possibly run IP telephones).
 
Haven't taken the time to understand the options. Based on what I saw circa 2000 when I lived in the UK what needs to happen is that ADSL needs to be fast, uncapped, reliable, accessible without any single player fixing fees or creating artificial barriers to access on terms other than their own.

8ta has created a bit of a problem for Telkom. With cable theft and low population densities once bandwidth costs 0.25c - 1c / meg ADSL becomes a fringe app with 3G doing the bulk of the lifting which is the reverse of what the situation should be.

The unfortunate thing about SA is that there are 2 classes of internet citizen. Users with access to ADSL can get close to all you can eat bandwidth very cheaply. The rest of us have to make do with overpriced 3G.

Come to think of it. If LLU works there could be a significant shift away from 3G leaving a glut in 3G capacity. Makes me wonder how long Vodacon will stick to their story that anything less than 15c-20c/meg is sub-economic?
 
Last edited:
I voted for all. If I had to make a limited choice, full and sub loop unbundling would be best. We need more competition! The only way to invigorate the adsl market is to allow other players in! In countries where the government does not control the broadband market, fibre, superspeed and cheap internet rule!

Please, PLEASE listen ICASA. As a small IT business owner that has recently relocated to south Africa, I find myself limited terribly by the ancient infrastructure here. I miss my old 25mb uncapped - let it happen here too. How can we expect a country to grow when getting a 384kb line is considered "fast"? It is the death knell for IT business!
 
I voted for all for options, at the end of the day it has to be most beneficial to the public as well keeping it fully operational!
 
Percentage results are way off. Needs to be fixed.

Currently they serve almost no point as they should be used for explicit comparison, not implicit.
 
Full unbundling is obviously ideal, but realistically I don't think many ISP's can afford (or even want to) to invest in the equipment they need to provide services. Sub loop unbundling seem like a more realistic approach.
BUT I think all options should be made available so ISP's can decide what they want to do.
 
Last edited:
do you have proof of this?

Kruben said:
People need to start understanding that the ANC government does not want to masses to use the internet. This LLU will be a long delay tactic – / on again off again / new draft bill / debates / more debates / new draft bill again/ LLU discussion document again!

The ANC needs the masses to be daft and uninformed,

Lower internet cost mean more people will sign for internet services, the ANC will prevent this from happening.

Why you think Zuma put the *Vula Boys to run this department ?

* http://www.armsdeal-vpo.co.za/articles00/thabo_vs_vula.html

Suppressing information is the key to mentioning a one party state
Click to expand...
 
Voted for all except line sharing.

Can you imagine the "blame games" the consumers will be subjected to between Telkom and whichever ISP if the line is faulty in a line sharing scenario?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X