Time for ADSL Bitstream access?

It will only be that if Telkom is more innovative which, as we can all see, is not the case.

But as to whether or not telkom is out to get us..... gr8 question with a very simple answer, hell yea.

Telkom is evil and has always been evil, for them to actually allow bitstream access will mean they will just add more red tape onto it some other place, there really isn't anything stopping them from selling bandwidth to isp's at super ridiculously expensive prices, just to give an example. or to charge a premium for the bitstream access model.

Either way, we're screwed.
 
so they do not have the issue of hair pinning traffic like the rest of the ISP’s who make use of IPC links.”
Click to expand...
As usual there are two sides to every argument. IPC is charged by the capacity of the interconnect link, thus should the incumbent ADSL provider allow peer to peer communication, they would be providing it at no charge (since the traffic does not pass through the interconnect link). I would say the unfairness is rather at a commercial level (pricing per Mbps) rather than a technical one.

“Telkom Internet users can communicate with one another at DSLAM level without having to run through a single choke point,” IS said.
Click to expand...
Incorrect, DSLAMs (in telco scale deployments) are not IP layer devices, traffic between adjacent DSLAM ports will still hairpin through the upstream ESR (BRAS).

Telkom was asked why it developed IP Connect in preference of Bitstream Access
Click to expand...
Moot point. Bitstream (end-to-end PPPoE between customer & ISP) would still be subject to the same haipinning. The level of inefficiency is at the ISPs discretion, as they could deploy multiple IPC/bitstream interconnect links (in each of the major geographical areas) to avoid long distance harpinning. This would however mean they would incur the added cost of national IP transit between the regions, so back to my point that this is a pricing rather than technical issue.
 
Last edited:
Forgive my ignorance, but why isn't Neotel competing this space? And if they are, why hasn't it had any noticeable effect?
 
Roman4604 said:
... so back to my point that this is a pricing rather than technical issue.
Click to expand...

agreed. until such time as ICASA force them to and, most importantly, provide a basis for wholesale price regulation, we are going nowhere on this one.

rpm - you may want to ask Telkom where they are in the development of their IP Stream product (not true bitstream access but better for the ISP than IPConnect)

the article does not mention Telkom's capacity issues on IPC - a number of the larger ISPs are being shafted by Telkom's refusal / tardiness in providing IPC over metro ethernet
 
telkom will not let go of the gravy train, well the gov controls them after all....
 
excuse my ignorance, but based on this article, it seems like telkom has access to unlimited bandwidth.
Does that mean that Telkom Internet would be the faster than any other ISP?? Also, if their DSLAMs communicate directly with each other, doesn't that mean lower pings?
And even more interestingly, is all IS fibre bandwidth just bought through Telkom?
 
We all know that Telkom will stall and delay as long as possible, ICASA and the government will assist and aid in that delay. It's simple economics. Don't kill your cash cow, rather milk her until she is dry (and add as many other milk cows as you can).

We are all optimistic about competition in this arena, but in the back of our minds we all know what the progress has been like the last ten years, how come we think it will be any different in the next ten?

Business as usual. Seacom can only make a limited difference as long as Telkom controls the wire. Our only prayer is that wireless internet offerings will force Telkom to change its stance.
 
@ alkit.

Telkom doesnt have unlimited bandwidth, but they are pretty much the only people who have direct international access that isnt satellite. They are not faster than anyone else as all adsl lines run at the same speeds (384k 512k or 4096k).

The problem comes in that because Telkom internet is owned by Telkom, they (Telkom) can give Telkom internet massive price reductions that they dont give to other isp's. They can also provision new interconnect lines a lot faster for Telkom internet than they would for any other isp.

I do stand to be corrected on the above points, but that is my understanding of the situation
 
Quote"
The irony, he pointed out, is that some ISPs have found innovative ways to overcome the potential limitations of IP Connect, which means that the complicated and expensive IP Connect service has no real advantage for Telkom."

Is this referring to line bonder ? or are there other examples
 
The fact that Telkom Internet may have an unfair advantage over other ISPs is nothing new. In December 2005 the Internet Service Providers' Association (ISPA) lodged a broad-ranging complaint with the Competition Commission targeting Telkom's anti-competitive activities.
Click to expand...

What they fail to mention in the article is what actually happened with this complaint. As far as I know nothing really happened with the complaint, or it's still ongoing. So four years later, and the biggest organisation that has an interest in getting this unfair competition situation sorted out and still nothing has happened. Hey I'm sure the ISPA tried / or is trying very hard, but the bottom line is nothing has happened and Telkom can still exert the monopolistic power on their ownership of the copper in SA. How terrible.
 
Roman4604 said:
Moot point. Bitstream (end-to-end PPPoE between customer & ISP) would still be subject to the same haipinning.
Click to expand...

Methinks that you know waaay to little about IPConnect to be making these statements. Yes, even with Bistream/VPDN you'd have hairpinning. Except it won't take a complete VRF deployment to get it done.

The point is that without L2TP terminated sessions, the ISP is at a disadvantage, compared to Telkom Internet.

1. You have to deploy netblocks into a pool at each ESR, regardless of whether you have customers there or not. Everytime you want something changed, you deal with (guess who... Telkom Engineering). That takes weeks.
2. Consider the wasted IP space due to point 1.
3. You cannot do any PPP negotation as one would normally do over VPDN/L2TP. Thus, no multilinked connections, no static IPs, no bridge control protocol, no real QoS, no IPV6 until Telkom decides that it is "so".
4. You still entirely depend on Telkom's radius proxies - a complete waste, as they can only supply 60 minute interim updates. You are still not entirely in control of your own authentication. With VPDN, a single realm and tunnel endpoint can be configured, heck I can even specify the endpoints for my users.

Roman4604 said:
The level of inefficiency is at the ISPs discretion, as they could deploy multiple IPC/bitstream interconnect links (in each of the major geographical areas) to avoid long distance harpinning.
Click to expand...

Again, you are wrong. The level of inefficiency is at Telkom's discretion. Try and configure a VRF to consistently route traffic through two of your exit points - one in Cape Town, and one in JHB. That would be ok, except TELKOM has to do EVERYTHING in the VRF to make ANYTHING happen. I dare YOU to have fun with talking to them about policy routing within your dumbass VRF.

This would be completely MOOT with VPDN/L2TP. It's all nigh impossible with the current VRF cockup.

Roman4604 said:
...so back to my point that this is a pricing rather than technical issue.
Click to expand...

The pricing would be at least somewhat acceptable if it didn't come with all the technical cockups.

It is ALL about the technical issues. With bitstream/vpdn/l2tp access ISP's could start offering the creative kind of services that Telkom has not yet brought to market, yet are still hamstringing.
 
dominic said:
agreed. until such time as ICASA force them to and, most importantly, provide a basis for wholesale price regulation, we are going nowhere on this one.
Click to expand...

Disagreed. The product and connectivity as it stands is defacto regulated - indirectly by ISPA, and ICASA, and prolly the Comp Co. too. And it's actually been bad for Telkom and ISP's due to this. There's simply been no movement on the product because if Telkom does move or change it in any way, everyone will jump on their arses. So they will simply bide their time until forced to do something else.


dominic said:
rpm - you may want to ask Telkom where they are in the development of their IP Stream product (not true bitstream access but better for the ISP than IPConnect)
Click to expand...

IPStream = VPDN/L2TP -- That is considered bitstream anywhere else in the world. From an ISP's perspective you see every PPP frame of the customer.

That's LLU step no. 1 in Australia, UK, and pretty much everywhere else in the world. In fact, if you go and read up on Australia's Telstra vs ISP's saga, you'll see that either Telkom learnt a lot from them, or they learnt a lot from Telkom. Telstra however does offer Bitstream/VPDN, on pretty much the same model as Telkom's IPConnect. It just doesn't suck.

LLU Step no. 2 is how the Americans did it via CLEC's/ILEC's (and lately the Brits). This is NOT bitstream. This is loop sharing/leasing. This is were the actual loop is connected to your own DSLAM, and backhauled or terminated via your own PPPoE concentrator at every exchange. The ISP simply pays the Telco for the maintenance of the copper.

There is a 1.5 step in between where an ISP deploys his own PPPoE concentrator at each exchange, but practically it's much simpler then at that point to also deploy a DSLAM and take over the loop. This is definately NOT bitstream.

So I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say "not exactly bitstream" because from my perspective, and those of many already Unbundled markets VPDN/L2TP = Bitstream access.

Refer: http://www.comcom.govt.nz//Industry...ntFiles/Documents/UBA Service Description.pdf and many others

Bitstream access = PPP over L2TP, or as it's known in Cisco Terms - VPDN (Virtual Private Dialup Networking)
 
Last edited:
TheRoDent said:
Disagreed. The product and connectivity as it stands is defacto regulated - indirectly by ISPA, and ICASA, and prolly the Comp Co. too. And it's actually been bad for Telkom and ISP's due to this. There's simply been no movement on the product because if Telkom does move or change it in any way, everyone will jump on their arses. So they will simply bide their time until forced to do something else.
Click to expand...

in the context of: the LLU is unbundled and you want to take up a loop on a bitstream / shared / full LLU basis - what price do you pay? CPS regs are finalised and you want to offer it so you go to Telkom as the upstream ECNS - what price do you pay? what price do you pay for wholesale interconnect?

IPC is in no way regulated by ISPA - it is a product which stems from a settlement after ISPA laid a complaint. The CC has no dealings with it and afaik neither does ICASA.

IPStream = VPDN/L2TP -- That is considered bitstream anywhere else in the world. From an ISP's perspective you see every PPP frame of the customer.

That's LLU step no. 1 in Australia, UK, and pretty much everywhere else in the world. In fact, if you go and read up on Australia's Telstra vs ISP's saga, you'll see that either Telkom learnt a lot from them, or they learnt a lot from Telkom. Telstra however does offer Bitstream/VPDN, on pretty much the same model as Telkom's IPConnect. It just doesn't suck.

LLU Step no. 2 is how the Americans did it via CLEC's/ILEC's (and lately the Brits). This is NOT bitstream. This is loop sharing/leasing. This is were the actual loop is connected to your own DSLAM, and backhauled or terminated via your own PPPoE concentrator at every exchange. The ISP simply pays the Telco for the maintenance of the copper.

There is a 1.5 step in between where an ISP deploys his own PPPoE concentrator at each exchange, but practically it's much simpler then at that point to also deploy a DSLAM and take over the loop. This is definately NOT bitstream.

So I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say "not exactly bitstream" because from my perspective, and those of many already Unbundled markets VPDN/L2TP = Bitstream access.

Refer: http://www.comcom.govt.nz//Industry...ntFiles/Documents/UBA Service Description.pdf and many others

Bitstream access = PPP over L2TP, or as it's known in Cisco Terms - VPDN - (Virtual Private Dialup Networking)
Click to expand...

not exactly bitstream in the sense that telkom explained it at LLU hearings and when they indicated that they would launch it in Sept 2009 - IPC with the PPPoE handover issues sorted out & still no regulation of pricing. international yardstick used was the EU Regulators position (will dig it up later). my clumsy wording...
 
TheRoDent said:
Methinks that you know waaay to little about IPConnect to be making these statements.
Click to expand...

And methinks you've completely missed the crux of my point. Nobody is disputing the service flexibility and technical elegance advantages of PPPoE/L2TP handover vs. half-duplex VRF routing.

But there is little difference between the two when it comes to the underlying cost drivers. Whether you use IPC or IPS your going to be faced with the same architectural decision; centralised or regional aggregation.

Where we disagree, is you believe this architectural descision is/will be driven by technical matters (IP allocation efficiency & routing complexity) while I'm saying its the economics that are the real determinant.

To put it in a more practical way; the reason why current IPC providers use long-distance hairpinning (centralised aggregation) is not because the technical hurdles are insurmountable, but rather because its financially unfeasible to pay the current IPC capacity charges and pay for your own national IP transit for access traffic between the regions (which will be required in a regional aggregation architecture).

So back to my (& Dominic's) point; it is all about the pricing (cost-based regulation thereof) rather than the (minor in the greater scheme of things) technical issues you've mentioned.

If IPS's costing remains no different to IPC, the economics will drive ISP to a centralised architecture making the technical differences between them (related to national routing efficiency) irrelevant anyway, while continuing to maintain Telkom's efficiency advantage.
 
Last edited:
What are the prices for IPC per month and the speed availability.
If and isp has ipc will this give them all local browsing as well.
What are the costs per gb if it is charged this way and is the local
Browsing speed limited to the speed of the ipc that the isp has taken from telkom

Please excuse my ignorance in this but I would like to know some costs.
Please advise
 
If you can get someone to post these prices on a public forum such as MyBroadband I would be very surprised. I would be very useful though, because sometimes obtaining these prices from Telkom is like squeezing water out of a stone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X