Local Loop Unbundling: Please give your feedback

[madala]

I voted for all four, because each one has an area of applicability.
I suggest that the pots and high frequencies of the line be considered as separate. Full access license bundles the two, and for shared usage, Telkom does not simply retain land-line telephone services, but has to compete for access on an equal footing with other providers. A full access licensee should be able to sell pots access back to Telkom or any other provider.

Concerning maintenance, IMO the SP that takes your money must carry the can.
They will probably subcontract to Telkom and others, but an SP who controls all of the money from many subscribers should have a lot more clout with maintainers than present SPs and subscribers do with Telkom getting the rentals and effectively setting bulk rates. The SPs will face competition and lose subscribers if they cannot solve the maintenance problems.

 

[ebudae]

Why does Telkom not spin off the local loop into its own company that leases access to everyone? Otherwise they could partner with other SA providers and they could jointly manage the local loop as a new entity, each one either paying for access or paying a portion of the maintenance cost.

 

[Bern]

Full is the only way to go, the other options can be negotiated where needed, but as long as the legislation allows for full. This will ensure Telkom loses the monopoly as all the players can then lay fibre to the exchange and from the exchange or rent services from Telkom/whoever put fibre in to the exchange. Telkom can them compete to provide the "best" service to the exchange or from the exchange to the client making them a better company.

ISPs can the do a blended solution like have full in areas it makes sense down to a bitstream option for areas they can't feasible lay fibre to and support DSLAMs. Telkom makes money all the way, just not ridiculous amounts and the competition should see us get some really good products and service

Would be great to see Dark Fibre Africa, FibreCo etc looking to provide fibre to the exchange if this went through- that would be Awesome!!

 

[Cybrisbob]

All 4 options should be available, no reason not to list them all in the document.
Telkom need to come to the party here as there is no reason to have a phone line billable portion to have just ADSL access.

 

[strond]

Unbundling or wealth creation

Who owns the copper and the value of the copper aside, who is going to maintain it and at what price ?.
Looking at the Telkom model, the access is and was newer making any money. (The access is paid for (subsidised) by the core and business customers).
If you speak to Telkom’s opposition they are not interested in the access network. Yes they want connectivity to the house but they are not interested in maintaining the copper.
Look at the railway privatisation in the UK the only routes in operation are the ones which are profitable same with the postal service and what is BT doing today, taking back the access, why as it is not serviced and it reflect on their performance.
Is the copper to your house profitable? Exactly the same as with the aurora deal the money lies in the scrap metal.
Why not unbundle new services forcing the telecommunication companies to install fibre to the homes giving real bandwidth supplying this service as part or as part your municipality connectivity fees.
The copper might not be unbundled however the access to the DSLAM is open today and any company can connect to the back-end of it. Which of the operators have said they want to maintain the copper themselves? None, yes they want space in the Telkom exchanges to service the customers and to get the connectivity but not the pain.
I’m all for privatization and unbundling, there is however not a company around that can or want to give the same broad spectrum of services to customers, every one want to play in its own nice market. Unbundle the local loop but let’s not stop there lets unbundle the monopoly of ESKOM, Broadband Infraco, SenTech, SITA and Multichoise to name but a few.
Or is this discussion only about Telkom.
Why was Telkom paying the penalty for not rolling out new copper networks to the previously disadvantage areas maybe they know the cost and if Telkom with the backing of government is not willing to invest do you honestly think the masters from the UK or India is going to.
Come on ICASA if you have the strength to unbundle the local loop do the same with SenTech and Multichoise, force them to share as well or are we all happy paying the amounts we do for “entertainment” but not for ‘data”.

 

[_drew_]

Different options will benefit different sectors and locations depending on various factors. There needs to be an implementation of them all.

 

[Tomtomtom]

Naked ADSL is a far bigger priority to me. I'm concerned about regulation of the LL: who sets Telkom's access price, for example? Fixing prices never produces a good outcome.

 

[Bern]

I don't think you understand the LLU model, it does not require Telkom to give access to the copper network for free, rather it says there should be a set, standard price that is fair for Telkom to continue to maintain and improve the copper network.

You ramble on about rail networks in the UK, BT, th eUK Post Offce and so forth. The UK rail and postal service is epic, so their model obviously works. Our railways are in shambles as they are not run correctly, privatisation would be brilliant- think just of the CT-JB link vs road transport. Much more efficient if the transfer on each end was handled better.

Back to SA LLU, the great thing is Telkom still get paid for their copper network (btw there was an article that quoted Telkom on saying the R133 odd was sustainable for rural and urban, not going to find it for you now), but there is an incentive for other large players to start investing in newer technologies such as fibre to the exchange and to the home as feasable. By the same right Telkom would be able to buy access off their networks, so it is a two-way street. As I mentioned in the previous post- imagine Dark Fibre Africa or similar came to the party...

Who owns the copper and the value of the copper aside, who is going to maintain it and at what price ?.
Looking at the Telkom model, the access is and was newer making any money. (The access is paid for (subsidised) by the core and business customers).
If you speak to Telkom’s opposition they are not interested in the access network. Yes they want connectivity to the house but they are not interested in maintaining the copper.
Look at the railway privatisation in the UK the only routes in operation are the ones which are profitable same with the postal service and what is BT doing today, taking back the access, why as it is not serviced and it reflect on their performance.
Is the copper to your house profitable? Exactly the same as with the aurora deal the money lies in the scrap metal.
Why not unbundle new services forcing the telecommunication companies to install fibre to the homes giving real bandwidth supplying this service as part or as part your municipality connectivity fees.
The copper might not be unbundled however the access to the DSLAM is open today and any company can connect to the back-end of it. Which of the operators have said they want to maintain the copper themselves? None, yes they want space in the Telkom exchanges to service the customers and to get the connectivity but not the pain.
I’m all for privatization and unbundling, there is however not a company around that can or want to give the same broad spectrum of services to customers, every one want to play in its own nice market. Unbundle the local loop but let’s not stop there lets unbundle the monopoly of ESKOM, Broadband Infraco, SenTech, SITA and Multichoise to name but a few.
Or is this discussion only about Telkom.
Why was Telkom paying the penalty for not rolling out new copper networks to the previously disadvantage areas maybe they know the cost and if Telkom with the backing of government is not willing to invest do you honestly think the masters from the UK or India is going to.
Come on ICASA if you have the strength to unbundle the local loop do the same with SenTech and Multichoise, force them to share as well or are we all happy paying the amounts we do for “entertainment” but not for ‘data”.

 

[Logo]

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.

8ta is Telkom.

Inaccessible, unaffordable - who needs the local loop? I'm a wireless fan...

And where exactly does this wireless connect to ?? If the last mile is provided by wireless you are looking at technologies which are similar to 3G and with that the associated problems of coverage and other problems with reliability. Connections over copper and fibre will more than likely always be more reliable and will always provide lower latency than wireless technologies.

@Kruben: Comment like that about the ANC simply shows your own ignorance and we are not discussing politics here we are talking telephony and communication.

In short the problem with LLU is that it will not provide the quick fix and price drops that some consumers are expecting. This is a small step with not a lot a gain in terms of price or service to the consumer. For example ADSL line rental, don't for a minute think that that is going to fall away it is simply going to be paid to another company. At the beginning it also probably won't be any cheaper as it will be a major capital investment for some of these companies.

 

[Johand]

I would really vote for full LLU. But I would definite have the following issues discussed with it as well:

1) It must be written generic enough - Telkom must share their copper, but it should also provide a framework for sharing of other last-mile wired technologies from other providers in the future. With it there must be some incentive for companies to invest and share new infrastructure they build.
2) It must allow for the option for Telkom to split of their entire copper network into a separate company.
3) It must provide the option for companies to put their own copper in the ground, but use Telkom ducts and exchanges etc. in cases where Telkom does not provide a service anymore. (e.g. those routes which they stopped servicing due to stolen copper)
4) Cost must be benchmarked upon international LLU cost and not Telkom internal costs.
5) Copper Maintenance must be split of from other Telkom technical work and strict SLA's must be put in place e.g. the days where Telkom can't give you the exact date & time when the technician will be available to do installations/repair must end.

Further I totally vote against line sharing. It will not put us in a better position than we are now and for ISP's to compete realistically on price they need to give you a fully bundled service. It will also make support a nightmare and consumers will have trouble understanding it.

 

[Death13]

Everything must be unbundled. At least we wont be forced to have landline with the ADSL.

 

[Logo]

Everything must be unbundled. At least we wont be forced to have landline with the ADSL.

And what else ?

You will still have to pay for your ADSL line no matter who you get it from, and because that company will have to pay Telkom to get access to the line, you will probably pay more.

 

[Tomtomtom]

But if a fair price is set for the local loop which Telkom receives, why would Telkom not just go ahead and do this now, voluntarily? Why does it need to be legislated? Unless something is in fact being stolen from Telkom's shareholders in the proposed process.

 

[Chevron]

I voted for bitstream. While it would be wonderful for full unbundling to happen, no one will take advantage it and I believe low density areas will get shafted.

 

[Bern]

But if a fair price is set for the local loop which Telkom receives, why would Telkom not just go ahead and do this now, voluntarily? We does it need to be legislated? Unless something is in fact being stolen from Telkom's shareholders in this process.

Because fair price is not what Telkom are charging, they have a monopoly and would like to keep it that way- business 101. Who wouldn't? But, since they are a parastatal you would think they would have some loftier goals around the benefit of the citizen, but sadly no.

Telkom said somewhere the R133 odd pays for the network, but why would they give up the call etc. revenue? Charging additional fees for ADSL, calls etc makes them a lot of money- don't kid yourselves, Telkom makes many people a LOT of money.

 

[JMMurray]

I've voted for all four options, seeing that they all have a place, depending on area or the SP that wants to enter the market.

My main vote is however for Full LLU. My reasoning is that it will create a whole new area of business. Maintenance of the network might be sub-contracted to Telkom, however, how long before a few qualified people split of and start their own enterprises to provide said maintenance? Competition is the market will increase and competition is very good for the economy and the consumer.

As stated, prices are not going to drop overnight. SPs will have to invest capital in order to provide new services and infrastructure. Foreign investment might assist in this regard? What I do see happening, is that if I for one, no longer have to pay for a landline, I effectively can get a second DSL line with the potential saving on two landline rentals.

 

[Tomtomtom]

Telkom said somewhere the R133 odd pays for the network, but why would they give up the call etc. revenue? Charging additional fees for ADSL, calls etc makes them a lot of money- don't kid yourselves, Telkom makes many people a LOT of money.

I thought they said R133 does not pay for the local loop? I agree monopoly power is the problem. I don't think someone else legislating a "fair price" is the solution. It just cannot be done well. Perhaps a better solution would be to split the company up so that the local loop is not owned by the same company the owns the upstream infrastructure. Upstream companies can then compete to offer the local-loop provider the best rates, and other providers can develop their own last-mile infrastructure if they see a benefit in doing so.

 

[guest2013-1]

Technically the law already states that Telkom has to give access to the local-loop to any license holder that requests it unless there are valid reasons for not doing so.

So far Telkom has denied Neotel (the much hailed/praised 2nd national operator) that right without citing what their reasons are and ICASA doing nothing about it (they're the regulator.... you know... you REGULATE things like this)

Anything OTHER than FULL ACCESS will be a slap in the South African public's face AND the President of South Africa and will impact our economy (and job creation) negatively because of it.

We are being held back by Telkom and could do so much better as a country on a global scale if their death-grip on the consumers would just give and the FORMER-parastatal would just accept the fact they're not a monopoly anymore

 

[guest2013-1]

I thought they said R133 does not pay for the local loop? I agree monopoly power is the problem. I don't think someone else legislating a "fair price" is the solution. It just cannot be done well. Perhaps a better solution would be to split the company up so that the local loop is not owned by the same company the owns the upstream infrastructure. Upstream companies can then compete to offer the local-loop provider the best rates, and other providers can develop their own last-mile infrastructure if they see a benefit in doing so.

The line rental you pay, according to multiple Telkom press releases, pays for the maintenance of the copper line you're using. This was a point brought up when they discussed the reason why you have to pay for ADSL line rental on top of that if the maintenance was already covered by the former. Suffice to say nothing came of it and the point was talked down into oblivion.

 

[yeti]

The most important part of our approach to LLU is ACTION. We need ACTION NOW!