Icasa’s slow pace set to continue

Icasa’s slow pace set to continue

After years of delays, communications regulator Icasa finally launched its public hearings into the local loop unbundling, but the process is likely to be tied up in lengthy legal battles.

And this is why I said forget about the wireless LLU for now. It's just going to cause further delays in the wired LLU process.

Telkom will drag this out as long as possible because for every day that they drag it out they make more money. The profit upside is way better than the legal downside. Expect two to three years delay. Sorry Roy.

Ignore wireless and just get on with the copper!

eugenevdm said:

Telkom will drag this out as long as possible because for every day that they drag it out they make more money. The profit upside is way better than the legal downside. Expect two to three years delay. Sorry Roy.

Click to expand...

Damn I hope you are mistaken but history tells us you are probably telling the truth.

ICASA is powerless because the Government doesn't support the LLU. This is really it. No one has the balls to fight the corruption even in 2011.

I was hoping I could give my nephews and cousins internet by next year summer if they prices dropped. It looks like I'll just save up and help them go to school overseas, they need stable internet if they want to keep up with the world.

This is a huge blow, technology is the driving force of this world and instead of going forward we are going backwards.

Lets hope for a miracle.

The reality is that Telkom's hopes for a succesful legal challenge are non-existant unless the very rule of law erodes and the sole consequence of the litigation route will be money for lawyers and a stalling of the inevitable. Telkom's approach seems to be to use lawyers to scare off challenges rather than to uphold the law.

Ultimately Telkom on the record said that they do not directly challenge the Facilities Leasing Regulations and by the end of their "right of reply" seemed to have contradicted their earlier position instead premising their position on holding that the Facilities Leasing Regulations are not suitable to address a matter as "complex as Local Loop Unbundling" and premising their statement as an answer to ICASA's question. Assuming the validity of the hearings I can see no reason why Telkom should not be held to their statements even if they were in response to an impertinent gladfly. Also we must keep in mind that Telkom needs the Facilities Leasing Regulations in order to build parts of their network.

On the basis of primative facility (not network or service) leasing no reason exists for IS or MWeb to not dismantle Telkom's profits by seeking to gain a lease of the physical copper at the most lucrative exchanges and co-location at same in terms of the Facilities Leasing Regulations. Such a move would be the height of cherry picking but quite frankly Telkom is responsible. Failure to lease those facilities will cost Tekom a bucket in penalties.

Of course I am repeating my submission to the Authority which is that LLU regulations are premature as the market should have an opportunity to regulate itself in light of the open access, licencing approach and facilities leasing obligations and instead focus on enforcing the Facilities Leasing Regulations mercilessly. Sadly my initial fear that Telkom would use the opportunity for further discussion as an opportunity to bully and stall have proved true, the only reasonable response from the Authority is to ensure that Telkom is called to account for violating existing regulations and hope that the cumulative effect of various regulatory penalties Telkom will experience over the coming months will force its management and shareholders to come to the party.

Well If Telkom is adamant about there being a significant access line deficit then let them charge for it. But split off TelkomInternet to a separate company that gets the same rates and charges as their competitors. We'll see how long Telkom's argument holds water then.

May I ask if there is any specific reason why wireless has come into consideration for the LLU discussions at this point? I was not aware that the state, and therefore the taxpayer, was involved in the financing of the wireless LL. Nor have I seen any indication that any of the wireless service providers have a monopoly in their industry which is negatively impacting the citizens and the economy of our country. Or am I wrong? Why are they suddenly throwing the baby out with the bath water?

The Trutherizer said:

May I ask if there is any specific reason why wireless has come into consideration for the LLU discussions at this point?

Click to expand...

I stand to be corrected because I don’t know much about this. My understanding was for fibre to be laid in the high profit, high use urban areas and wireless to be used in the low profit, low use, rural areas so that they can get a hint of the 21st century. It seemed like a reasonable plan to me.