Local Loop Unbundling: Please give your feedback

[FlatspinZA]

Part of the conundrum is that Telkom would lose what little motivation they still have, to upgrade and maintain existing infrastructure. If left to SPs, that's fine for areas with higher client-density, but anyone living in a sparsely populated area is screwed, in effect, as nobody would worry about him. Some accompanying regulation with regards to acceptable service levels, would need to be discussed as well.

Wouldn't Telkom score in the lower density areas, anyway?

At the end of the day, it's not the real issue. The real issue is access to the International links. We can run 1Gbps all day between JHB and CTN, but if we are strangled on the undersea cables, what's the point?

I don't think our problem has anything to do with International connectivity. There is another mega link going live next year (if I recall correctly). Our main problem is Telkom. The levels of service when it comes to voice & data service overseas are much higher than here, because service providers know they can lose a client and have that same client connected to another service provider within a day.

I like to also see all 4 made available to us

Concurrent seems like the best option because it gives all players the opportunity to access whichever service is most suitable to them. You don't want to specify full local loop unbundling and put 100's, if not 1000's, of people out of work - that's the last thing we need right now.

 

[midnightcaller]

My preference is for BITSTREAM access so that we can get multiple providers in the market.
The technology should be kept simple and simple.
The differentiator will be service level and pricing.
Both of these will favour the consumer.

 

[X-Gamer]

I voted for FLLU, Sub Loop, and Bitstream.

This is going to be a gradual process, and can begin by implementing Bitstream access right now. This allows the market and Service Providers time to prepare for the more aggressive forms of unbundling down the line, while being an immediate benefit to consumers right now.

I ignored shared access, because you shouldn't have to be a Telkom Voice subscriber to use ADSL. Unless if there are ways of implementing shared access which negates this.

 

[dadiggle]

how will it effect cell networks?

aah I see now

Electric power line local loop: PLT or PLC
Optical local loop: Fiber Optics services such as FiOS
Satellite local loop: communications satellite and cosmos Internet connections of satellite television (DVB-S)
Cable local loop: Cablemodem
Wireless local loop (WLL): LMDS, WiMAX, GPRS, HSDPA, DECT
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Local_loop

 

[MickeyD]

how will it effect cell networks?

That, my friend, is the billion dollar question!!!

 

[dadiggle]

we need about 23 to 30 other networks. that will fix everything

 

[Kuga]

Full Access.

Without Telkom's monopoly, we would actually see price drops and naked ADSL.

 

[skimread]

Can they just implement anything before our infrastructure turns into 3 world.

 

[noxibox]

Can they just implement anything before our infrastructure turns into 3 world.

Telecommunications in South Africa is certainly not going downhill.

 

[FlatspinZA]

Telecommunications in South Africa is certainly not going downhill.

I would agree with that. If you think of the relatively small percentage of private users who actually have high bandwidth requirements, it's amazing that we even have uncapped options in this country. Business is definitely driving the investment in telecommunications and we should consider ourselves fortunate that the ISP's even attempt to provide us with the options they do.

 

[skimread]

Telecommunications in South Africa is certainly not going downhill.

Was referring to the topic (Consumer fixed line broadband i.e. ADSL) not telecoms in general.
Wireless is great but fixed line has major latency advantages for home users.

 

[Roman4604]

YES
IP based Bitstream with granularity of interconnection ranging from national to regional
Shared/Full Unbundling which are identical from investment/infrastruture prespective

NO
Layer 2 based Bitstream too technically complex/interdependent, too expensive for legacy ATM
Sub-loop Unbundling a pipe dream in SA with our market size & physical distances

 

[dominic]

YES
IP based Bitstream with granularity of interconnection ranging from national to regional
Shared/Full Unbundling which are identical from investment/infrastruture prespective

NO
Layer 2 based Bitstream too technically complex/interdependent, too expensive for legacy ATM
Sub-loop Unbundling a pipe dream in SA with our market size & physical distances

while you are around...

do you see bitstream as LLU, i.e. should it even be on this list? IP Stream is apparently ready and who knows why it has not been released + it is really just the unbastardised version of IPC...i see telkom wanting a phased approach with bitstream first (which is a very real revenue opportunity for them) so including it in this debate may be counterproductive

 

[dominic]

I would agree with that. If you think of the relatively small percentage of private users who actually have high bandwidth requirements, it's amazing that we even have uncapped options in this country. Business is definitely driving the investment in telecommunications and we should consider ourselves fortunate that the ISP's even attempt to provide us with the options they do.

o.0

*checks URL*

 

[The_Unbeliever]

o.0

*checks URL*

maybe he puffed too much?

 

[Roman4604]

do you see bitstream as LLU, i.e. should it even be on this list?

Strictly speaking no, but I forsee (IP) bitstream will remain the predominant form of fixed line broadband locally, for many years to come. When shared/full loop unbundling becomes avaliable, it will probably be on a relatively small geographic scale, initially limited to the major metros, then spreading out over time as new income streams become available to be re-capitalised.

Being of such potential significance to the majority, I would think it important to bring bitstream under the auspices of some kind of regulatory framework (in a descriptive manner). Hopefully this regulation can be formulated in such a manner as to ensure fairer cost-based pricing with alignment to the scope of infrastructure being leased.

IP Stream is apparently ready and who knows why it has not been released + it is really just the unbastardised version of IPC

True, but there is enough technical differentiation from IPC to make it appealing, allowing for some levels of service differentiation e.g. ADSL layer fixed IPs, line bonding, IP layer QoS and native IPv6 support etc. Also if a flexible/granular interconnection/co-location regime can be formulated for IPStream, it will allow larger ISPs to start moving much of the national & regional DSL transport paths onto their own IP networks, improving efficiency and reducing cost.

...i see telkom wanting a phased approach with bitstream first (which is a very real revenue opportunity for them) so including it in this debate may be counterproductive

Maybe, but I dont see the two options I've prescribed as mutually exclusive. Personally I would push for both formalised (IP) bitstream and exchange level shared/full loop leasing from the begining. They serve different purposes and target different ends of the fixed line broadband market.

 

[Matchless]

Ten to 15 years ago I would have voted for full local loop unbundling, but at this moment in time South Africa is not ready for it and will not be for a long time. The declining service level and the non interest of the authorities in just about any service providers quality of service we are experiencing now, is going to break something that is still working fairly well.

I can just imagine the various service providers using the same copper cable and then the chaos when the poor client has to phone the hated call centers to be told its in another providers domain etc...

At least the present system is working fairly well. Will the other service providers meet the same standard or will we only find out the hard way?

Unfortunately your poll does not provide for a no change???

 

[Tns]

Unfortunately your poll does not provide for a no change???

yup no change at all

 

[Tomtomtom]

In the case of the railway the private companies cut safety corners. Those problems are sorted out now, but left to themselves they would have no reason not to compromise safety as long as they know their customers have little choice. Privatisation requires close scrutiny and regulation. There's a perfect example we all see everyday in South Africa.

Your idea is dangerous, not private railway. No reason not to compromise safety? This is what the courts are for. Their customers have little choice? This is largely because of government franchise (i.e. operating licenses, etc.) making competition difficult in the first place. That's justification for eliminating those barriers, not creating more in order to address the symptoms.

Setting prices through regulation can be done well. Perfectly, no, but then the market can't do it perfectly either.

You have it backwards. The market doesn't set prices perfectly, but government regulation can't hope to get anywhere close. You underestimate the market price system because it works so well you don't notice it until it's distorted by regulation or inflation (at which point you blame the market!)

I'm still wondering how LLU prices are proposed to be set -- anyone know?

 

[devilfp]

FULL!