Icasa releases interconnection regulations

Where can one get a copy of said regulations for perusal?

And (how) will these regulations be enforced?

edit : thanks dom!

limp-wristed, eh? :( then there's not much hope either.

somebody's in the pay of pompeii :(

more edit : linky is very slow :(

bleugh
 
Last edited:
ICASA once more demonstrates its uncanny knack for skirting the big issue, price.

These regulations are all about protecting companies. It comes up with a big zero on the protection of consumers.

If I'm reading it correctly, the only stipulation is that a company cannot charge an interconnect rate that is higher than it's retail price. Of course, that doesn't mean that interconnect rates will come down, only that certain on-net prices may have to go up.
 
Last edited:
If it doesn't mean a material drop in call costs, then why did they bother? :(
 
These "regulations" are so full of legal holes its frightening...

Dom, do you see the same pisspoor legal wording that I do in those draft regs?

And yeah, the don't seem to even BEGIN to address the cost of interconnect rates, which I thought they were supposed t.o
 
Phew.

There seems to be lack of clarity in these interconnection regulations regarding what exactly an interconnection is.

The clause :
(2) The minimum requirements for technical feasibility are that:
(b) offering connection to the interconnection seeker will not have negative effect on the interconnection providers physical network, network elements, capacity or integrity.

Now, that little clause basically says that the request to interconnect can be rejected if there is ever going to be ANY negative impact on the network being connected to.

It is absolutely impossible to not eventually have a negative impact on the network being connected to. IMPOSSIBLE.

This means that all and sundry can still say no to an interconnect request right off the bat.

The definition for "allowed interconnection" must be changed to allow for full utilisation of the available resources on both sides.

i.e. Both sides of the interconnection agreement must actually be forced to make available to the other, their unused capacity.

Now, the obvious knee jerk reaction here is that there will not be capacity available as and when required, because it is being used by the other.

But, if ICASA prescribed the method / technology that must be used to ensure that the network owner could immediately gain access to 100% / 90% / 75% (whatever the agreement) of their network capacity immediately as and when required, and release it again as the demand drops, then there would be little argument from either party.

i.e. I want ICASA to expand the scope of these regulations to force a use it or let somebody else use it policy.
 
ICASA have sidestepped regulating "how to calculate fair cost" by leaving the final decision to ICASA.

Now, I may be a little off my rocker ... but ... if they STILL do not know how to formulate the retail costs of running a network, there is no way in heck that they are going to be able to do it at a later date when an interconnection request is being rejected because of "cost implications" and is going to court.

ICASA must formulate the exact policy to be used when determining the retail cost of the network. This whole exercise is useless without that, and may as well not even have been penned.
 
Gatecrasher said:
ICASA once more demonstrates its uncanny knack for skirting the big issue, price.

These regulations are all about protecting companies. It comes up with a big zero on the protection of consumers.

If I'm reading it correctly, the only stipulation is that a company cannot charge an interconnect rate that is higher than it's retail price. Of course, that doesn't mean that interconnect rates will come down, only that certain on-net prices may have to go up.
Click to expand...
there is a long story as to why cost is not dealt with at all in this draft - basically because ICASA still has to do a whole heap of work under Chapter 10 which deals with competition matters (will provide more detail if anyone is interested)

so, yes, these basically try to deal with the functional aspects ("try" being the important word) without touching on the real problem
 
dominic said:
there is a long story as to why cost is not dealt with at all in this draft - basically because ICASA still has to do a whole heap of work under Chapter 10 which deals with competition matters (will provide more detail if anyone is interested)
Click to expand...

Not sure if others are interested, but I am. Perhaps send it to me privately, or if others respond, create a forum around it?

Thanks Dom!
 
dominic said:
there is a long story as to why cost is not dealt with at all in this draft - basically because ICASA still has to do a whole heap of work under Chapter 10 which deals with competition matters (will provide more detail if anyone is interested)
Click to expand...

More detail would be great.
 
What if we set up a wiki and drafted a regulatory doc we felt was more representative with all the formulations, guidelines & regulations included.

And then:

Firstly - Submit it to ICASA as a guideline on how to draft interconnection regulations.
Secondly - Investigate the possibility of getting our version drafted in as law, considering our public service regulator seems to be failing chronically.

Thoughts...would this be a valuable exercise or even be possible?
 
dominic said:
there is a long story as to why cost is not dealt with at all in this draft - basically because ICASA still has to do a whole heap of work under Chapter 10 which deals with competition matters (will provide more detail if anyone is interested)
Click to expand...
That would be nice, thank you.
 
i guess this means absolutely nothing to the general public.
 
an attempt to explain in accessible fashion why there is no cost regulation in the new draft of the interconnect regulations:

This issue came up between the first and second drafts of these regulations. In the first draft ICASA did attempt to include pricing principles but the incumbents made it explicitly clear that they would oppose this. The basis for their argument was section 41 of the ECA:

Interconnection pricing principles
41. The Authority may prescribe regulations establishing a framework of wholesale interconnection rates to be charged for interconnection services or for specified types of interconnection and associated interconnection services taking into account the provisions of Chapter 10.
Click to expand...

The problem is the reference to Chapter 10 which is the Chapter dealing with competition matters and how ICASA goes about dealing with anti-competitive conduct. So the incumbents argued that until such time as the necessary processes under Chapter 10 were completed ICASA could not establish these "Interconnection pricing principles".

My notes from the workshop on 23 April 2008 at which all of this was discussed

1. De-coupling of Chapter 10 competition processes

In a significant departure from the last draft ICASA indicated that they regard it as prudent to focus in this set of regulations on actual access rather than trying to deal with both access and access pricing. This implies that all aspects of the regulations dealing with pricing are to be removed and ICASA will focus all its attention on developing a robust regulatory framework for enabling the conclusion of access agreements.

This was generally welcomed and expected. It was clear that any attempt to deal with pricing would be potentially problematic and likely to be strongly opposed by major operators and as a result there was a possibility that the general right to access would not be implemented (as it is dependent on their being a set of regulations governing how this right is to be observed and balanced against the rights of access providers).

The ICASA team working on this have indicated that the Chapter 10 processes are proceeding well
Click to expand...
... .

Personally i quite happily supported this on the basis that one set of regs dealing with the right to interconnect would be finalised reasonably quickly while the section 41 regulations dealing with pricing would be finalised later. It was easy to anticipate - as has proved to be all too true - that ICASA would have huge difficulties in dealing with section 67 (we are no further now than we were then) and my view was not to delay the balance while this was being sorted

Of course ICASA then took another 18 months to bring out a third draft which is not very different from the second but which now seeks to exempt incumbents from complying with some important obligations (see regulation 14) until such time as the processes under Chapter 10 has been finalised

now, reality check: where do we really stand on call termination?

on the regulatory side ICASA has completed an Inquiry into call termination but still does not have framework in place for section 67(4) which it must make public before any progress can be made. Even when this is done the inquiry will have to be redone as it is now out of date (not that the conclusions will change)

approx 24-30 months would be my guess for that

A further 6-12 months for drafting the regulations and the public participation process

@ which stage the mobile networks will be looking very very closely at ICASA's process and further opportunities for delay

To an extent this is all farcical and the direct result of a lack of political will. MTN for example has adopted cost-based interconnect in other countries that it operates in. Our best hope for any change in the short-term is that the new Minister decides it is time to pull rank and that this issue gets properly dragged into the mainstream media.
 
Last edited:
dominic said:
approx 24-30 months would be my guess for that

A further 6-12 months for drafting the regulations and the public participation process
Click to expand...
So in summary one could say 125c/77c for at least another 3 years?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X