Telkom plans to split its business functions

[Swa]

Okay... so the ISP/ONO will lease a POTS line from Telkom (last mile copper link to the subscriber). Let's say for R189/m.

Now the ISP/ONO builds its own DSLAMs, POP, and core network as they also don't want to use IPC.

How much will that cost and how will they recoup those costs?

PS. you have not added data costs yet...

Would be less than what we're currently charged. Biggest obstacle for most of us is the double line charge.

 

[Paul Hjul]

Would be less than what we're currently charged. Biggest obstacle for most of us is the double line charge.

what double line charge?

 

[Swa]

do you know what equipment is used for a POTS service?

Would depend on the route taken. Doubt anyone would build a traditional style network and it would most likely be fibre breakout at the box. So not really POTS which would only be offered by Telkom. ISPs would rather offer VoIP.

 

[Swa]

what double line charge?

POTS + DSL

 

[MickeyD]

Would be less than what we're currently charged. Biggest obstacle for most of us is the double line charge.

You may want to do your homework on that.

You are most welcome to ask any of the ISP CEO's or owners (Matthew Tagg, Derek Henshaw, Laurie Fialkov, etc) why they have not followed that path yet.

 

[Swa]

You may want to do your homework on that.

You are most welcome to ask any of the ISP CEO's or owners (Matthew Tagg, Derek Henshaw, Laurie Fialkov, etc) why they have not followed that path yet.

How could they? It doesn't exist.

 

[Paul Hjul]

POTS + DSL

Line Access (copper from home to "exchange") and DSL network infrastructure (historically the ATM network)

no double charge

if anybody wanted to build the second component they could have ventured and forced facilities leasing on the first

the only firm that has gone the facilities leasing route is Neotel

 

[MickeyD]

How could they? It doesn't exist.

Of course they can. The neotel Benmore/Rosebank case cleared that path.

 

[Swa]

Line Access (copper from home to "exchange") and DSL network infrastructure (historically the ATM network)

no double charge

Everyone else on this forum begs to differ with you.

if anybody wanted to build the second component they could have ventured and forced facilities leasing on the first

the only firm that has gone the facilities leasing route is Neotel

Chance of success?

 

[Swa]

Of course they can. The neotel Benmore/Rosebank case cleared that path.

Could you elaborate?

 

[Paul Hjul]

Everyone else on this forum begs to differ with you.


Chance of success?

Um no all of the engineers and accountants in the industry agree with me - as does the ICASA findings papers and so on. [Amusingly two people are pointing out that you are horribly wrong so the claim of "everyone else" is patently false]

Success accomplished - the problem is that certain entities in the ISP industry don't want facilities leasing to form the basis of the LLU discussion and so ICASA got ham-stringed up

 

[Paul Hjul]

Could you elaborate?

go do your ****ing homework before trying to argue
- otherwise you are arguing from a position of ignorance

 

[MickeyD]

Line Access (copper from home to "exchange") and DSL network infrastructure (historically the ATM network)

no double charge

if anybody wanted to build the second component they could have ventured and forced facilities leasing on the first

the only firm that has gone the facilities leasing route is Neotel

 

[Paul Hjul]

View attachment 223412

now arguing that IPC is mispriced ...

 

[MickeyD]

Now comes the bigger problem...



The top illustration is the old DSL network. Another ISP/ONO can establish a POP just beyond the splitter, which is normally houses in the exchange just beyond the main distribution frame.

The bottom one is with MSANs in the network, whether in the exchange or on the street corner. Where will the ISP/ONOs establish their POPs?

 

[Paul Hjul]

but if you establish the principle that the copper runs from node to premises and a node can be a DSLAM (or equivalent) or an MSAN (or equivalent) and you accept that if traffic is carried over a node it must be handed over at the most convenient IP exchange point (and the receiving network must pay transit) then your problems start to go away.

The incumbent (hate the term but it applies here) doesn't need to maintain an absolute national network as ONOs can install carriage equipment in a cabinet and the INO can acquire traffic at an exchange on the same terms ...

Of course this would see ONOs having to rent cabinet space at MSAN points ...

 

[MickeyD]

Of course this would see ONOs having to rent cabinet space at MSAN points ...

no space. will have to build one space.

 

[Swa]

Um no all of the engineers and accountants in the industry agree with me - as does the ICASA findings papers and so on. [Amusingly two people are pointing out that you are horribly wrong so the claim of "everyone else" is patently false]

Success accomplished - the problem is that certain entities in the ISP industry don't want facilities leasing to form the basis of the LLU discussion and so ICASA got ham-stringed up

It seems to me you just don't want to acknowledge reality. For the record I also highly doubt the industry agrees with you, unless it consists of only Telkom.

go do your ****ing homework before trying to argue
- otherwise you are arguing from a position of ignorance

That seems to be you.

 

[Paul Hjul]

no space. will have to build one space.

do you think Alphonzo would mind it terribly if somebody plonks an MSAN on top of one of his
maybe jippo some electricity SA style ...

[side note the use of first name is simply to give comic effect to the proposition]

 

[MickeyD]

It seems to me you just don't want to acknowledge reality. For the record I also highly doubt the industry agrees with you, unless it consists of only Telkom.

I think you should read up on the last bout of LLU hearings held by ICASA.

You will probably find plenty at www.ellipsis.co.za