-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Which is the most hair-raising South African mountain pass you've driven?
risingtide
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2007
- Messages
- 693
- Reaction score
- 0
I don't understand this. Since we are now forced to use the ten digit dialling which includes what used to be the area code, why should any phone number be tied to a geographical area? It is just a number, why couldn't 011-1234567 be in Cape Town? Why is this 087 range necessary at all?
With your cell phone it doesn't matter where you are, why should it matter with a landline?
With your cell phone it doesn't matter where you are, why should it matter with a landline?
A good subject for a further article perhaps on VoIP and cheap overseas calling solutions for the consumer in ZA other than Skype et al. Something evaluating all the options out there, how they work and the costs involved. There seem to be so many call back options and pre-paid call cards it rather bewildering.
DapperDanMan
Honorary Master
I found the statements in this article a surprise because AFAIK ICASA has the last say in the matter. If paying Telkom for transit agreements is all it takes, then surely this would have happened a long time ago.
This morning I contacted Vox Telecom about the possibility of calling 087 numbers from outside of the country borders, and here's the response:
"Regarding your request below they are busy processing this and testing this for future use. But as from as now this is not applicable yet."
This morning I contacted Vox Telecom about the possibility of calling 087 numbers from outside of the country borders, and here's the response:
"Regarding your request below they are busy processing this and testing this for future use. But as from as now this is not applicable yet."
gmza
Well-Known Member
Hi "D"
Perhaps I can clarify, since it was I who was quoted in the original article.
ICASA regulate, however, as far as I know, they do not impose any obligation on Telkom to transit traffic nor do they prevent them from doing so. So this was at Telkom's discretion.
Telkom only introduced the transit amendment agreement last month. Following various providers signing the amendment agreement and lodging with ICASA, the Telkom department handling international interconnects announced new rates and prefixes to their interconnect partners that were going to come into effect from 1 October 2008. On said date, they then removed the block that was preventing these prefixes from being transited in the past.
So why did they only start offering transit recently when they hadn't in the past?
Telkom's response is that this is part of "phase 2" of the VANS interconnection and that it has been in planning for some time.
My belief - and I must warn that this is speculative - is that this was because an increasing number of VoIP providers were negotiating with international carriers to perform their international transit and, in order to make those agreements more commercially viable, were offering those international carriers transit to the entire of South Africa (including Telkom and the mobile networks). This would have created the potential to erode revenue Telkom earns from various foreign carriers.
Commercially, Telkom now stand to lose more from forcing VoIP providers to enter into such interconnect agreements with foreign carriers than they can gain by simply offering transit to the VoIP operators, causing the VoIP operators not to bother with interconnecting with those international carriers.
In short, I believe that it was a simply a case of Telkom responding to commercial pressure at the time that it made most sense, tactically, for them to do so.
Again, speculative... I may be wrong.
Perhaps I can clarify, since it was I who was quoted in the original article.
ICASA regulate, however, as far as I know, they do not impose any obligation on Telkom to transit traffic nor do they prevent them from doing so. So this was at Telkom's discretion.
Telkom only introduced the transit amendment agreement last month. Following various providers signing the amendment agreement and lodging with ICASA, the Telkom department handling international interconnects announced new rates and prefixes to their interconnect partners that were going to come into effect from 1 October 2008. On said date, they then removed the block that was preventing these prefixes from being transited in the past.
So why did they only start offering transit recently when they hadn't in the past?
Telkom's response is that this is part of "phase 2" of the VANS interconnection and that it has been in planning for some time.
My belief - and I must warn that this is speculative - is that this was because an increasing number of VoIP providers were negotiating with international carriers to perform their international transit and, in order to make those agreements more commercially viable, were offering those international carriers transit to the entire of South Africa (including Telkom and the mobile networks). This would have created the potential to erode revenue Telkom earns from various foreign carriers.
Commercially, Telkom now stand to lose more from forcing VoIP providers to enter into such interconnect agreements with foreign carriers than they can gain by simply offering transit to the VoIP operators, causing the VoIP operators not to bother with interconnecting with those international carriers.
In short, I believe that it was a simply a case of Telkom responding to commercial pressure at the time that it made most sense, tactically, for them to do so.
Again, speculative... I may be wrong.
DapperDanMan
Honorary Master
gmza, thanks for your insight into this matter.
By the way, it turns out that the Vox representative that I coresponded with was incorrectly informed, because a day afterwards I heard that not only will there be a price drop in Vox call rates soon (from 1 Nov) but it is apparently now possible to receive international calls on their 087-numbers.