 Industry
and pressure groups which recently took on Telkom's pricey
and limited ADSL service at an ICASA public hearing could
force reduced pricing and better service, but the real cause
of bandwidth woes remains in the form of the de facto
Telkom monopoly, according to the Communications Users Association
of South Africa's Ray Webber.
"We
hope this consumer and business action will result in better
online options for more South Africans," says Webber.
"That said, we remain convinced that most of the issues
raised by the hearing and other user woes would be solved
with the introduction of an open market environment,"
says Webber.
According
to reports, one of the more contentious issues surrounding
the hearings has been Telkom's now infamous 3GB "bandwidth
cap". With the standard Telkom service, an ADSL user
is only entitled to utilise 3GB of data per month. Those who
overshoot the bandwidth cap are relegated to a much slower
connection, which many say is nowhere near even dial-up connectivity
speeds.
In
response to questioning around the bandwidth cap, Telkom's
Raveshina Robert is reported to have felt concerned that the
company was "being singled out" as other broadband
operators such as Sentech and Vodacom had implemented similar
systems, yet not faced anywhere near the same level of complaint.
"This logic may suffice in an open market where broadband
providers have an option to choose which company ultimately
provides their connectivity," says CUASA Executive Committee
member, Marc Furman. "However, in South Africa, there
is no real option. Telkom holds a de facto monopoly
over the supply of Internet bandwidth and other providers
have no option but to cap bandwidth usage owing to the high
cost of South African bandwidth," Furman continues.
"Another
problem with Telkom's ADSL is that the incumbent charges way
too much for the access line component of the service,"
says Furman. It would appear that the ADSL offering is back
to front - with Telkom taking the lion's share of ADSL revenue
for simple connectivity to the relevant local exchange. ISPs
charge a separate, lower fee for ultimately more valuable
Internet connectivity. "Furthermore, the ISPs have been
given an option to provide ADSL services in such a way that
they essentially become resellers of Telkom’s ADSL user
accounts. This removes from the ISP any real control of the
service it offers," he says.
"To
the consumer, it may seem that ISPs and broadband providers
such as iBurst and Sentech provide their own connectivity.
In reality, their reach only goes so far. Ultimately it's
Telkom which controls South Africa's net traffic. No matter
how much broadband providers may want to supply their own
bandwidth at competitive pricing, South Africa's closed market
prevents this as an option," says Furman.
"South
African access to international bandwidth via the SAT 3 cable
is considerably more expensive than similar bandwidth costs
overseas," Furman continues. "Again, it's Telkom
which essentially controls access to SAT 3 - the real reason
why international bandwidth is so expensive in South Africa.
South Africans in general and ISPs in particular need competitive
alternatives to the high cost of international bandwidth.
As the very least, ICASA should investigate the possibility
of declaring SAT 3 an essential facility, thereby regulating
the cost of international bandwidth. ICASA currently regulates
certain of Telkom's tariffs because the incumbent is still
essentially a monopoly. They don't, however, regulate the
cost of international bandwidth over which Telkom also commands
a monopoly," he says.
"High
bandwidth costs and related connectivity problems do not occur
in countries which enjoy open markets and effective competition,"
says Webber. "Like telecommunications, competition in
the broadband arena is effectively limited by South Africa's
archaic and restrictive legislation and regulation which is
designed to protect Telkom. International experts and numerous
examples indicate that only effective competition ultimately
solves bandwidth woes," he concludes.
|
