Alarm bells over fibre monopolies at complexes and estates

The trend of complexes or estates limiting residents to a single Internet service provider (ISP) is anti-competitive, and property owners should be able to shop for the best deal available to them.

This is according to BBM Attorneys director Marina Constas, who said it is unfortunate that South Africa hasn’t made it mandatory for body corporates to allow residents a choice of ISP.

“Owners should be allowed to find themselves the best deal,” she told 702.

“Unfortunately in South Africa at the moment, it’s not under any act. There was just a white paper that recommended that any owner in a complex should be free and that multiple ISPs must be competing.”

She added that, in countries like Australia, this kind of policy is legislated in the Telecommunications Act.

“At the moment, there are sometimes complexes or trustees that might be getting a good deal or be promised certain things by fibre providers who are recommending that they only use one ISP,” said Constas.

“I think it’s anti-competitive, and I think this kind of conduct would fall foul of the competition board.”

She explained that she has dealt with several matters that have attempted to take the issue to the Community Schemes Ombud Service (CSOS).

“CSOS is not really the place. CSOS only has delegated authority to deal with certain remedies, and dealing with fibre and this kind of thing is not one of those,” said Constas.

This comes after the Internet Service Providers’ Association (ISPA) warned that residential estates and complexes that don’t allow multiple ISPs are doing their residents an injustice.

According to ISPA chair Sasha Booth-Beharilal, the first prize is for complexes and estates to offer competition at a fibre network operator level to allow for non-exclusive fibre connectivity.

“More than one fibre provider is ideal,” she said.

However, this isn’t always possible, and Booth-Beharilal said homeowners’ associations, body corporates, and property developers should, at the very least, reject any fibre installation that doesn’t allow competition at an ISP level.

Providing customers with a choice of ISP when they buy Internet access has been a key requirement since 2016, when it was highlighted as a critical requirement of the National Integrated ICT Policy White Paper.

“With open and shared networks as a feature of the new policy environment, competition will be focused at the service level — ISPs, mobile virtual network operators, and other service providers to provide high-quality and innovative products and services to South Africans — at affordable rates,” it reads.

“This will in turn facilitate universal service and access — and broadband access for all.”

However, as Constas mentioned, it has never been mandated under an act.

ISPA is pushing for open access fibre installations, and it has called for this several times in the past.

“When estate managers, body corporates and others make promises with regards to choosing open access providers, these assurances must be reduced to writing and clauses to this effect must always be inserted in any written agreements with planned fibre providers,” said Booth-Beharilal.

“Open access commitments must be kept on body corporate meeting agendas and residents must scrutinise fibre rollout agreements within communities before trenching begins.”

She added that ISPA believes closed networks, or exclusive arrangements with one fibre provider, go against the ideal of a level Internet services playing field that values innovation and competitiveness.

ISPA said high-speed fibre allows for remote working, home automation, and advanced security systems, and according to the Digital Council Africa, it can also increase property values.

It said open access remains one of its guiding principles as it allows for fair competition, which provides choice in quality, affordable communications for South African consumers.