supersunbird
Honorary Master
So either the cellphone provider in question replaces the user hardware in some acceptable-to-the-user manner, switches off that service and loses those customers to the competitor or just otherwise deal with it.
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Have you ever ordered a product online and received a fake knock-off?
This is why SA networks need spectrum now
- Thread starter Jan
- Start date
So either the cellphone provider in question replaces the user hardware in some acceptable-to-the-user manner, switches off that service and loses those customers to the competitor or just otherwise deal with it.
Where did I say they are and that it isn't?
The current way of dealing with it is to just keep adding spectrum. That's not something that can go on indefinitely and at some point these older technologies need to be switched off. We are already dealing with 6 different technologies here and more if we count the sub-technologies.
There has been a number of solutions put forward like providing better pricing on the new technologies and user incentives to trade in hardware.
jansdejager
Expert Member
I think fibre with drastically change the terrain, especially with Telkom aiming to install free wifi everywhere. Open, proprietary, short-distance wireless will supplant the need for hard lines. We can be relieved that Telkom is still a partly para-statal institution, and have a mandate to fill in the public's service delivery component of telecoms. Even digital broadcasting has limits, but I do not think these may be refarmed for high-frequency allocation, or vice versa. Also before digital tv channels can be arranged, there has to be an increase in quality content that can disseminated. I don't see that happening on sub-terrestrial bouquets. We are at risk of being a laughing stock for broadcasting largely substandard fare.
Geoff.D
Honorary Master
There is no such thing as DVB-S2 spectrum ---- DVB-S2 is a technology used on satellite systems to improve spectrum utilisation over any satellite bandwidth from C-band to Ka-band --
Ironically, Satellite bandwidth is not "subsidised" -- it is all leased/purchased exactly under the same conditions by the SABC, MC and the other satellite broadcast operators.
There is no link to SA obligations to the SKA project at all. The SKA project originally required ALL transmissions from about 60MHz to just below Ku-band to be shut down in the AAA area. Then when the compromise between SA and Australia happened, the lower end moved up a bit and then with the latest changes to the scope of the SKA project the lower boundary has once again moved up a bit, changing things somewhat.
As satellite DTH in SA is largely in Ku-band ( some in C-band), there is no link at all to the SKA project obligations. In any case DTH is TVRO, involves no transmissions within the AAA areas.
Within the AAA, ALL terrestrial broadcasting has to be shut down and no DTT will be allowed except for well controlled areas around a few towns within the AAA.
Yes in the 90's Sentech tried to release an analogue DTH system against the advice of just about everyone I know. The outcome was inevitable.
Spectrum allocations are NOT within the "control" of anyone other than the ITU and the Administration of the country involved.
Spectrum Assignments within an allocation IS dictated by the relevant regulator, and "should" be related to market demand --- for "commercial services". But "public broadcasting" does not fit that model ---- where countries still hold on to the view that a "public broadcasting service" paid out of taxpayer money is a requirement and then your definition of subsidised spectrum may have some validity.
The whole debate about what to do with the "digital dividend" in SA has not even started ---- It is this aspect that is putting us very far behind now as the current view is the debate cannot start until the DTT migration has been completed. The same daft reasoning is holding up the migration to Digital Audio Broadcasting -- now generally known as "DRM", not to be confused with Digital Rights Management. The view is the country ( meaning DoC, DTPs and ICASA) do not have the capacity to deal with all of these things at the same time ---- ?? The effect is that broadcasters as represented by SADIBA, are being prevented from moving forward in this area also.
Well I have very strong views on content ---- I do not believe the entire World has enough quality content to fill up more than about 10 channels anyway. But in other countries such as Kenya, no one is concerned about the "quality" of the content at all, all they are doing is allowing the population of Kenya to produce and broadcast "local" material, which is creating economic activity. The "quality" of the material is not being debated as far as I know.
In SA we have these giants that want to cling to their slice of the pie and that is a completely different argument.
Last edited:
Geoff.D
Honorary Master
And here is where our regulator ICASA just does not seem to get it right. They should be "forcing" the issue by laying down time lines for migration to better technologies.
Not only VC but ALL the cellular operators are guilty of very poor spectrum utilisation.
Not only VC but ALL the cellular operators are guilty of very poor spectrum utilisation.
Geoff.D
Honorary Master
Yup, the easy way out, just add more spectrum to the mess, causing spectrum to be assigned around a specific technology, breaking the general rule of ensuring spectrum is technology neutral. ICASA is the body that needs to draw the line, as unpopular as that may be with the operators and the users out there.
Geoff.D
Honorary Master
Now you are talking my language! I have always believed that this whole business of IMT is just an interim step between ubiquitous optic fibre deployment to many "access" nodes and the only real use for wireless is to address that "last inch" between the nearest fibre node and the user device.
The argument of what needs to be there first, the content or the infrastructure has been going on for 40 years that I have been in the telecoms business. In my view the two feed on each other, but infrastructure deployment must always lead. And at the moment quality content has nothing to do with it. Does anyone truly believe "social media services" such as this forum, facebook, twitter, the Internet is Quality content??
just to follow up on two things
when I speak of DVB-S2 spectrum I am simply referring to a useful allocation* of spectrum that can be utilized exclusively for the purposes of broadcasting of for the intention of use by channels providing content to South Africa. Currently Satellite services do not enjoy the same cost comparative advantage as spectrum allocated for assignment for terrestrial broadcasting - subsequently signal carriers competing with Sentech are at a disadvantage. There is very much a culture of subsidizing broadcast use of spectrum and an assignment to a signal carrier is always at a lower price than what other users are prepared to pay. The argument about "public broadcasting" simply represents an excuse not to implement proper accounting.
as for the SKA my point simply is that satellite broadcasting can be done with fiddling with any specifications in areas where a problem emerges and any argument about what the lower frequency limit should be evaporates
It works out quite nicely as the areas where you don't want to transmit on lower frequency loose out on the quantity at which data can be served and they are also less densely populated and the people needing data connectivity have fibre ...
Hell if some high frequency terrestrial transmission can happen use it for what its most demanded for - data and voice
* the allocation and assignment nomenclature issue readily becomes contrived but it partly ties to what I am arguing, contemporary legislative and policy documents work on the presumption of their being a broad allocation following the ITU and ATU (which met last week in Durban for what its worth ...) with assignment being in the domain of ICASA. The problem is that this division acts against the technology neutral position.
Subsequently my use of the term allocation of DVB-S2 spectrum refers to the hard allocation of spectrum to the purpose of broadcasting as opposed to the assignment going to the highest bidder. It represents a single break of absolute technology neutrality but ultimately as more spectrum is assigned to serve LTE and with the relevant Ku Band being allocated by the ITU and the satellites in orbit broadcasting to a wide field ...
when I speak of DVB-S2 spectrum I am simply referring to a useful allocation* of spectrum that can be utilized exclusively for the purposes of broadcasting of for the intention of use by channels providing content to South Africa. Currently Satellite services do not enjoy the same cost comparative advantage as spectrum allocated for assignment for terrestrial broadcasting - subsequently signal carriers competing with Sentech are at a disadvantage. There is very much a culture of subsidizing broadcast use of spectrum and an assignment to a signal carrier is always at a lower price than what other users are prepared to pay. The argument about "public broadcasting" simply represents an excuse not to implement proper accounting.
as for the SKA my point simply is that satellite broadcasting can be done with fiddling with any specifications in areas where a problem emerges and any argument about what the lower frequency limit should be evaporates
It works out quite nicely as the areas where you don't want to transmit on lower frequency loose out on the quantity at which data can be served and they are also less densely populated and the people needing data connectivity have fibre ...
Hell if some high frequency terrestrial transmission can happen use it for what its most demanded for - data and voice
* the allocation and assignment nomenclature issue readily becomes contrived but it partly ties to what I am arguing, contemporary legislative and policy documents work on the presumption of their being a broad allocation following the ITU and ATU (which met last week in Durban for what its worth ...) with assignment being in the domain of ICASA. The problem is that this division acts against the technology neutral position.
Subsequently my use of the term allocation of DVB-S2 spectrum refers to the hard allocation of spectrum to the purpose of broadcasting as opposed to the assignment going to the highest bidder. It represents a single break of absolute technology neutrality but ultimately as more spectrum is assigned to serve LTE and with the relevant Ku Band being allocated by the ITU and the satellites in orbit broadcasting to a wide field ...
jansdejager
Expert Member
Everybody's gotta start somewhere. Yet with ubiquitous worldwide distribution, new talent is few and far apart. The only catalyst for new providers seem to be sports broadcasting rights. If these were to be more heavily regulated, smaller players could find their way on to viable revenue streams. Hopefully the byproducts of continuity presenters and morning shows would stimulate and expand the talent pool. Irrespective of medium or configuration of spectrum. Assuming there is no loadshedding to give preference to mobile device avenues.
Geoff.D
Honorary Master
Allocation, Allotment and Assignment have very precise definitions in the ITU Radio Regulations. The ITU Radio Regulations and the TOFA is specifically designed around technology neutrality as a principal, but just about every single country in the world has fallen into the trap of ending up with assignments that become linked to a specific technology. The situation only becomes "contrived" in the hands of the local Administrator and Regulator in each country.
We now sit with a very interesting issue in SA. ICASA, a so called Independent Regulator defined in the PFMA as such in schedule 1 "A Constitutional Institution", finds itself now having to "report to" DoC for broadcasting matters, and to DTPS for telecommunication matters ----
Like just about all other Constitutional Institutions in SA, ICASAs "independence" is always under threat because our current government seems to ignore their independence willy nilly when they feel like it.
Sentech is the only legal signal carrier in SA. Its domain is terrestrial broadcasting infrastructure. The DTT platform it has put in place provides for 7 multiplexes, presumably determined by an assessment of what the market expects to need and is available to all licensed broadcasters in SA. Now we can have a separate argument about who those licensed operators should be and why there are so few, yes but you cannot argue that anyone else would have been able to build the infrastructure better without mass duplication as we have in the cellular industry in SA!
Sentech competes equally with anyone else for the use of satellite capacity, and the whole country is constrained only by the number of satellites and the capacity provided by those satellite operators available over SA. Long gone are the days when Telkom used to have the final say in who could access satellite capacity.
The cost difference between satellite based infrastructure and terrestrial infrastructure is structural and is NOT influenced by any particular player anymore. I have personally been involved in analysing comparisons of this sort many times and the only imbalance ever detected were one party or the other failed to take into account some or other element in the cost comparison leading to an impression that the one was disadvantaged over the other. I was involved in virtually every single attempt to justify a domestic satellite for SA and still have copies of the studies done from the one that was undertaken before MNET saw the light of day, to the last which led to a rather dubious project which led to the launch of New Dawn.
No one dictates to any player that wants to get into the satellite broadcasting business what technology he chooses to use. It simply a matter of making the selection that suits the particular player's business plan. Not even the satellite operator cares, as the satellites are all 'bent pipe' satellites. So long as the overall technical parameters are met , a players can use whatever modulation scheme he chooses, (Analogue or Digital), coding structure etc. And contrary to popular belief, the DVB standard started out as a standard for broadcasting but very quickly was adopted for just about anything involving digital transmissions.
The issue you attribute to our involvement with the SKA is actually the debate about why SA did not simply "leap frog" the DTT step and go into a system based totally on DTT via satellite. This all took place long before the SKA argument started. But anyone who dared mention it at the time was looked on as a heretic and a lunatic and accused of blasphemy. Even now, as recently as last month, myself and a colleague from those days had this exact discussion during tea time at the local NPWG (SA's DTPS led working group on WRC 2015) meeting at DTPS in hoarse whispers!
Last edited:
agreed but the point in present circumstances the distinctions that have standardized technical meaning does not have standardized implemented regulatory meaning and consequently readily become an excuse for all manner of stupidity ..
I ALWAYS advocate skipping of DTT - DTT is wholly redundant and an exercise in affording certain players an opportunity to milk the public. Sentech is a particularly tricky little entity.
The major benefit of satellite communications is that it escapes localized nonsense and genuinely opens thing up to a multiplayer free market. The impression - from limited engagement with functionaries of the DTPS is that over the last 5 years it has become unorthodox rather than heretical to propose that DTT be stopped and we skip straight over
Part of the reason why I quite firmly make an exception to the technological neutrality principle and specifically advance DVB-S2 utilization on signal neutral satellite relays is because as a particular stack of technologies for which low cost STBs can be manufactured you accomplish the generally specified broadcaster check list including implementation of content controls (whether content is broadcastable in a particular jurisdiction is a litigated subject - with interdicts against Sentech arising from Botswana ...) DVB-S2 fits a big universal access objective. There is no harm induced to other operators either.
the entire MPEG suit (lets go with that as a loose term for the patent pool etc ...) were built by broadcasters but largely has been the victim of consistent strangling by large corporate stupidity.
https://www.icasa.org.za/Portals/0/...Broadcasting Transmission Services 34371.pdf paints a rather bleak picture ...
Geoff.D
Honorary Master
Sometimes I think us technocrats are to blame for allowing the politicians and others to get away with using the terms incorrectly.
Sentech is only carrying out its mandate as interpreted by a politician and an inept government department. ....
Yes correct, there are some that are starting to acknowledge that those of us that asked the question why bother with DTT given the nature of our country and available infrastructure, but what do they do? When has a politician ever truly admitted that he is wrong? The only one with the guts to do so in DoC hardly had a chance to get his chair warm before he was summarily booted out.
Ja well no fine, the strengths of satellite based systems are sometimes also their biggest weakness. Satellite systems do not respect national boundaries, and in this game where broadcasting is involved, it is particularly sensitive as it is a direct attack on a country's "National Sovereignty". (perceived or real)
In the past when SA was ostracised, we did not care what we did, and no other country could challenge us either as the platform to do so being the ITU was denied to them to attack us and to us to even bother to worry about their gripes.
The DTT situation is even more ridiculous when one finds out that the DTT signals have to get to all the terrestrial transmitters via satellite feeder links anyway!
Yes agree about the attitudes of the large corporate involved in this business!
the only thing worse than technocrats are bureaucrats and the legal department 
As for Swa's nonsense: there is no such thing as "mobile spectrum" there is spectrum which can be used by network operators for deployment of technologies to provide data services using technology developed by in the mobile phone industry (fixed point LTE-A isn't really mobile) and if DTT is skipped over there are more opportunities to release that spectrum
As for Swa's nonsense: there is no such thing as "mobile spectrum" there is spectrum which can be used by network operators for deployment of technologies to provide data services using technology developed by in the mobile phone industry (fixed point LTE-A isn't really mobile
) and if DTT is skipped over there are more opportunities to release that spectrumas for the sovereignty conundrum - especially in the field of content control (ICASA released some documents on Thursday on this front) smartcard's are your friend
and if it is accepted that the broadcast regulator has responsibility over content matters within the parameters of broadcast video content that is accessible without specific demand (switching on the TV) regardless of carriage things move forward a little.
and if it is accepted that the broadcast regulator has responsibility over content matters within the parameters of broadcast video content that is accessible without specific demand (switching on the TV) regardless of carriage things move forward a little.
MickeyD
RIP
As for Swa's nonsense: there is no such thing as "mobile spectrum" there is spectrum which can be used by network operators for deployment of technologies to provide data services using technology developed by in the mobile phone industry (fixed point LTE-A isn't really mobile
Wrong
Long haul microwave links are/were used for redundancy on national cable routes for many a year. Also required spectrum...
Wrong
Long haul microwave links are/were used for redundancy on national cable routes for many a year. Also required spectrum...
yes but terrestrial microwave is the old aunt to Wimax rather than the GSM developed LTE specs