If you chose to live in suburbia, then you chose to get these services after everyone elseSo basically nothing to report here then.
Who gives a crap about gated communities, what really matters is when are companies going to put their heads on the block and provide FTTH to proper suburban houses?
Well, that's not true. For fibre you want high income and high density. And that describes the City (and related suburbs like Green Point, Sea Point, Clifton, etc). Or a gated community. If you want to live in the burbs, then there are down sides...Suburbia is where the vast majority of people who can afford to pay for FTTH live, so without providing for the suburbs FTTH is never going to get off the ground.
In summary: We have no news, but don't forget about us.The group noted, however, that the residential fibre trials were “very promising and Neotel is investigating to bring a product to the market in the residential wholesale space in future”.
“This will, however, require a collaborative approach in the ecosystem that consists of community developers, service providers and end users,” it said.
quoted for truth or quite ****ing trueQuantum Field Theory?
Very interesting. Will be even more interesting to see which model will work best. I suspect the MTN model (Similar to Verizon, Comcast and AT&T in the USA)quoted for truth or quite ****ing true
The noise coming from MTN (and VC appears to be declining to indicate that it is on a different path) is to construct a network that is MTN controlled for MTN subscribers - so no ecosystem for other providers. Neotel and Telkom have both been working on building ecosystems for FTTH.
Isn't AT&T U-Verse the same cable model as Verizon and Comcast?The "cable model" is not good ...*
AT&T doesn't use the cable model - so they should only be on the periphery of your similar list - because the bulk of their assets are telecommunications rather than broadcast network assets
because of the structure and nature of the ECA I don't believe that it will be viable for an ECN to be developed on the cable model and ICASA - unlike the FCC - have the power through market reviews to impose forms of net neutrality.
* except when it is
Tell that to the big boys in their ivory towers - they'll ignore you, and insists on locking their network down so only their customers will use what they prescribe (or think the customer must use)...The U-Verse and FiOS (Verizon) product offering is very much what I think MTN is wanting to do - I actually see now I misread your post and inferred that you'd taken it as a "cable model" but actually the term only appears in my post - which is quite different - Comcast is cable. More importantly AT&T fiber installations are available on a facilities leased basis to other ISPs and the local loop is fully unbundled, in contrast to Cable provided internet - which is why AT&T want to kill net neutrality in its entirety.
But no even without the regulatory considerations the U-Verse model will not work out the best in the medium term. It has major advantages for short run and to acquire critical mass etc ... but the economics of it all is clear trying to build infrastructure to run a monopoly of service does not work -- if it did we would have more railway lines than tarred roads and telecos would rule the Internet.