Broadband Infraco debate
What exactly will Broadband Infraco do and will it mean lower prices for consumers?
What exactly will Broadband Infraco do and will it mean lower prices for consumers?
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Have you ever been to an airshow?
Broadband Infraco debate
- Thread starter rpm
- Start date
davemc
Executive Member
As clear as mud.
Telkom2 will be able to possibly do as little or as much as Telkom1.
Telkom2 will be able to possibly do as little or as much as Telkom1.
Sting
Ghost in the Machine
Infraco's mandate should be:
1. Provide wholesale infrastructure in the long haul backbone market.
2. Stay out of the retail market.
3. Continue as per the ACT and provide access to USAL's in the underserviced areas by using taxpayers money to subsidize the financial loss to do so, as per current practice.
1. Provide wholesale infrastructure in the long haul backbone market.
2. Stay out of the retail market.
3. Continue as per the ACT and provide access to USAL's in the underserviced areas by using taxpayers money to subsidize the financial loss to do so, as per current practice.
I agree moggie. I don’t understand why they would need an I-ECS license, unless it has something to do with providing services in rural areas. But surely this will be the task of the Usals...or Sentech 
Infraco should focus on national and international bandwidth pricing and capacity - period. Set a base price through their legal mandate, and let the other companies compete under that threshold.
Infraco should focus on national and international bandwidth pricing and capacity - period. Set a base price through their legal mandate, and let the other companies compete under that threshold.
Juice
Expert Member
In other words, don't compete with us. I smell fear. Telkom themselves have for years reaped the benefit of their monopoly under the guise of their mandate to provide services to the underserviced rural areas while failing those underserviced areas dismally. And now they want to relegate and restrict InfraCo to the exact same target market that they failed in but used as a convenient excuse for their monopoly. Oh, the irony!
Juice
SoTrue
Expert Member
I agree moggie. I don’t understand why they would need an I-ECS license, unless it has something to do with providing services in rural areas. But surely this will be the task of the Usals...or Sentech
Infraco should focus on national and international bandwidth pricing and capacity - period. Set a base price through their legal mandate, and let the other companies compete under that threshold.
No-one answers the question: how will Broadband Infraco's involvement lead to lower broadband prices to the public? The way I see it, is that current or new industry players will buy their network needs cheaply from Broadband Infraco, but then charge the same (high) prices as we have now. Therefore, Broadband Infraco should be licenced to play everywhere, top to bottom.
dominic
Legal Expert: Telecoms
Hi RPMI agree moggie. I don’t understand why they would need an I-ECS license, unless it has something to do with providing services in rural areas. But surely this will be the task of the Usals...or Sentech
Infraco should focus on national and international bandwidth pricing and capacity - period. Set a base price through their legal mandate, and let the other companies compete under that threshold.
the fight regarding the IECS licence was lost two years ago when the Broadband Infraco Act was passed - imho there is little point in fighting at this stage
another problem here is that there is still no proper understanding of the exact distinction between an ECS and an ECNS licence and the rights & obligations which they contain - where exactly does the borderline exist? Is routing or switching an ECS or an ECNS?
lots of people have different views but ICASA does not seem to be amongst them ... in the absence of this clarity i would be reluctant to state with any certainty that they do not need an ECS to service their mandate (restrictively interpreted)
rather the issue is about how to restrict it to the purposes you have outlined above through imposing terms and conditions - this is something which Infraco did not believe should happen: surprisingly they choose to see themselves as no different from any other market entity and they fail to see why they should be treated differently. Go figure.
from the public hearings last Monday it was evident that ICASA will impose specific terms and conditions and will try to ensure that Infraco sticks to its mandate, but this will not be easy
as for the USALs - there are perhaps 2/3 that remain in business as resellers and without any realistic hope of rolling out an access network. The new Minister has stated in parliament that the USAL policy will not be pursued so this is not what Infraco should be focusing on
rather let them establish PoPs in those areas to enable other service providers to come in (either because there is a business case or with subsidies from the Under-serviced Area Fund) + force them to establish nodes at all regeneration / amplification points where these may be required
dominic
Legal Expert: Telecoms
That is the crucial question - what does it mean to expand the affordability of communications? According to Infraco they have made a confidential submission to ICASA in this regard .?. but under the Act their pricing must be linked to current industry prices and international benchmarks
the argument that they should have a licence in order to keep other service providers honest is one i do not like (and when it was raised by their senior counsel at the hearings the ICASA panel almost laughed) - who are they to decide this? can we really say that this SoE will now be the judge and enforcer of pricing?
tjunyat
Senior Member
Infraco should build infrastructure only.
It's what the original plan for them was. They should resell infrastructure to existing/future providers as Telkom and Neotel are not rolling out to the consumer and they are the ones suffering, both in rural and industrial areas.
It's what the original plan for them was. They should resell infrastructure to existing/future providers as Telkom and Neotel are not rolling out to the consumer and they are the ones suffering, both in rural and industrial areas.
RoganDawes
Expert Member
In my opinion, Infraco should be selling access at or near cost (since it has been paid for by taxpayer's money), but PUBLISHING what those costs are, so that the ISP's using them cannot claim that local bandwidth is now the reason they can't drop their prices.
LazyLion
King of de Jungle
Actually, I am reversing my position here and now agreeing with you guys that they should only be providing wholesale services.
But to be fair, then Telkom should also be prevented from operating as an ISP. (and what is the likelihood of THAT happening?)
But to be fair, then Telkom should also be prevented from operating as an ISP. (and what is the likelihood of THAT happening?)
I thought Infraco was to supply a national network to put pressure on wired (telkom) and wireless connectivity suppliers to lower prices.
With all the cables landing shortly there's more than enough international bandwith suppliers.
With all the cables landing shortly there's more than enough international bandwith suppliers.
If Telkom questions someone's motives, it must be bad. Telkom's own motives are not that saintly. Anyway, Infraco should stay very, very far away from the retail market. There is a big possibility that we might witness the birth of Telkom 2.0. It is sad how we always seem to get bad or worrying news right after we get good news in telecoms.
@ dominic: As a legal expert you should know that anything is subject to exceptions and change. There is always a point in fighting. Everyone thinks their conduct is permitted by law and then get slammed by exceptions or change, and vice versa.
Have a nice day!
@ dominic: As a legal expert you should know that anything is subject to exceptions and change. There is always a point in fighting. Everyone thinks their conduct is permitted by law and then get slammed by exceptions or change, and vice versa.
Have a nice day!
How about Telkom hand over the Local Loop to Infraco and they in turn can give other operators access.
+1
Sting
Ghost in the Machine
Cannot happen. Telkom is a listed company.
Read up about LLU, especially the way it has been implemented in Europe.
Then you will see prices drop as competition bites!
But it would be nice! LLU is a long way away in SA.
dominic
Legal Expert: Telecoms
sure - see under self-provision ...
there may always be a point to be made in fighting (or not) but in telecoms one needs to pick the fights very carefully - when there is an act of parliament which specifically states they are mandated to provide ECNS and ECS and this is explicit government policy do you really think ICASA is going to exercise its discretion so as not to award them with the licences required to do this?
wonderful weekend to you
Roman4604
Executive Member
True, but there will be lack-of-scale barriers for a market as small as SA. To take advantage of full LLU (line sharing/rental) requires a significant investment in infrastructure; including , lots of expensive kit, regional backhaul (e.g. DFA fibres) & national transit (e.g. Infraco/Telkom etc. national capacity). One will need a decent amount of customers per exchange to make the ROI viable.
This will probably mean true alternate DSL offerings (e.g. ADSL2+ based) will only be avaliable in the really high density areas/suburbs for quite a while after LLU regulation has come into effect.
That said, true LLU will be preceded by bitstream type offerings, however unless ICASA manages to regulate pricing on some form of cost plus basis, they will merely be a technical upgrade from whats avaliable now (IPConnect), with little change in pricing structure or flexibility.