Sneeky said:
No surprises from Telkom, but does anyone from the ISPA perhaps want to attempt to explain the reasoning behind their viewpoint?
Hi Sneeky,
I can certainly try to explain ISPA's position in more detail (beyond the explanations I've already posted, that ic mentioned). But I would encourage anyone who hasn't already read the ISPA submission to ICASA (available
here) on the draft ADSL regulations to do so. Sneeky, is there something specific in that submission you'd like me to try to clarify?
MFour said:
Just look at ISPA's response to the ICASA proposed regulations. In that you can read between the lines that all they are trying to do is set-up the ADSL environment so that they also have the right to over charge the SA consumer. They certainly do not have the consumer in mind, they have profits in mind, and would just love to be allowed to apply Telkom's method of trade. Telkom is showing the Country how to make billions, and they want a piece of it, it's that simple. My guess would be that some of the major ISP's (already overcharging) are pushing for this behind the scene...
MFour, I'd love to know which lines that you were reading between to get that impression. (Really, I would, I'm quite concerned that you got that impression from the ISPA submission!
)
Let me (partly) agree with you though, that there are plenty of ISPs who would love to increase their profits. Heck, I suspect that
all ISPs (excluding the non-profit ones) want to increase their profits. They are, after all, businesses, and businesses do generally try to make money. Or at least the successful businesses do...
But there is a big difference between the ISP sector and Telkom. Namely: competition. It is quite possible that, given the opportunity, some ISPs will attempt to milk consumers for every penny they can. But there are dozens, if not hundred, of competing ISPs out there, and if one of them starts charging an outrageous amount, they will soon find themselves without any customers, because their customers will have all moved their business to competing service providers. Competition means that consumers are able to vote with their wallets, which is a very good thing!
My view is that ICASA's draft regulations represent an honest attempt to improve things for the benefit of consumers. I don't doubt that at all. The intention behind the price regulation, increased traffic caps, etc. are indeed noble. And those are all things that ICASA should be investigating aggressively.
But unfortunately, the draft regulations are flawed to the point that it seems unlikely that they would achieve these admirable goals. A quick scan of the MyADSL forums leads me to believe that many forumites agree that the regulations are broken, either because they don't go far enough, or because they don't really make sense.
Here are just a few reasons that I think they are broken:
1. They seek to prevent ISPs from doing any port prioritisation
This seems like a good idea, right? Finally, I will be able to connect to a MMORPG server in the US and not be driven crazy by the lag times.
But it isn't. Here's why: It would stop any ISP from ever providing a port-priotitised service that consumers might want. For instance, there may be an enterprising ISP that wants to target the (significant) on-line gaming community and provide an Internet access service that gives gaming applications the highest possible priority. That seems to me as if it would be a useful service to some people. (I'd be interested in this
.) But the draft regulations could actually
stop that from being possible. No ISP would be permitted to provide such a service, even if there was customer demand for it. ADSL regulations should give consumers
more options, not accidentally limit them!
ISPA's position is that no ISP should be permitted to do port prioritisation
without the permission of the customer. In other words, ISPs shouldn't be able to shape gaming traffic out of existence, unless they have made it clear up-front that they are providing a service tweaked for only web browsing and mail.
2. The regulations seem to entrench a market model whereby everyone resells SAIX accounts.
Obviously, this isn't a problem for ISPs that currently resell SAIX accounts, so you are unlikely to hear them complaining about this issue. But there are an increasing number of ISP who are not reselling SAIX accounts, but are reselling an ADSL service provided by Internet Solutions, MTN NS or Verizon Business (previously known as UUNET). And if there are other ISPs competing with SAIX in the provision of wholesale ADSL accounts to resellers, that means there is more competition, which is ultimately good for consumers. (Unless you'd prefer to keep giving Telkom as much business as possible...
).
It would be a very bad thing indeed if ICASA unintentionally forced all of the ISPs trying to compete with SAIX to shut down. There is a real danger that unless the ADSL regulations are amended to make it clear that there are alternatives to SAIX, these competitors might not be able to continue providing services. So I have to ask: Does anybody really want to see ADSL regulations that (accidentally) give Telkom
more rights, and their competitors
less?
I know I don't!
3. Guarantee minimum throughput speeds
Again, on the surface, this looks like a pretty good idea. But when you look at the detail in the draft regulations, ICASA has tried to do this in a way that just doesn't make any sense. Take a look at clause 8(vi): "shall determine [...] at the guaranteed maximum downstream data rate in what time shall the ADSL deliver a 3MB file".
What does that actually mean? A 3MB file downloaded from where? A software patch downloaded from an international site? A video file from a local pirate movie server (okay, a really small video file)? Research data from a hospital's medical database? Everyone here understands that files download at different speeds depending on where on the Internet you download them from. How did ICASA manage to miss that fact when drafting these regulations?
As it stands, this clause just doesn't mean what ICASA intended it to mean.
I could continue, but I'm sure most of you have already skipped down to the next post, so I'll wind up. To summarise: ISPA's position is that ICASA should definitely be trying to address the problems in the ADSL market. Clearly, ICASA has a critical role to play in ensuring that consumers get reasonably-priced ADSL services.
However, ISPA's position is also that the draft regulations won't achieve this goal at all. With all the best intentions in the world, the fact remains that the draft regulations are seriously broken. ICASA desparately needs to do some more work on them, and urgently. Solid, well-draft ADSL regulations will be good for ISPs and for consumers. Poorly drafted, flawed ADSL regulations won't be good for anyone, except possibly Telkom.
