Residents in residential complexes or estates may be unable to choose their internet company. This is due to exclusive agreements body corporates have with service providers.
South Africa’s Competition Commission is urging residents unhappy with exclusive Internet service provider (ISP) arrangements at their complexes and estates to come forward as it calls for more competition in the space.
This comes after the Internet Service Providers’ Association (ISPA) raised concerns over anti-competitive behaviour when it comes to providing fibre connectivity to complex and estate residents.
Competition Commission spokesperson Siya Makunga told the Sunday Times that the commission has received many complaints from residents over exclusive ISP contracts in residential estates.
Makunga said the commission had conducted a public advocacy campaign focusing on pro-competitive regulation in estates and complexes.
He said the investigation found that some homeowners associations and body corporates in the country appoint a single service provider for things like fibre connectivity, limiting residents’ choice when shopping for a fibre deal.
He urged unhappy consumers to contact the commission.
Openserve chief regional officer Selby Khuzwayo told the Sunday Times that the fibre network operator is advocating for residential estates to move away from exclusive contracts with single ISPs.
He explained that while these deals may have provided some benefits in the early days, their contracts can be difficult to get out of, often locking customers in for five to 10 years.
ISPA recently told MyBroadband that estates and complexes should reject fibre installations that don’t allow for competition at an ISP level.
“ISPA’s view is that closed networks — or entering into an exclusive arrangement with one provider — are contrary to the ideal of a level internet services playing field that values innovation and competition,”
it said.
“South Africans must refuse second-best and continue to evangelise the principle of open access FTTH where they live.”
It said it is impossible to provide exact numbers of complexes and estates using closed networks in the country. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that there are many.
ISPA believes this is due to a lack of understanding of open access, combined with estates rushing to get fibre laid.
ISPA chair Sasha Booth-Beharilal recently warned that estates and complexes with exclusive fibre arrangements are doing their residents an injustice.
“More than one fibre provider is ideal. At the very least, homeowners’ associations, body corporates and property developers should reject any potential fibre installation that does not allow for multiple ISPs to compete at the customer-facing level,”
she said.
ISPA has called for open-access fibre installations several times in the past. According to Booth-Beharilal, homeowners associations and body corporates that commit to open-access providers must put such assurances in writing.
“Clauses to this effect must always be inserted in any written agreements with planned fibre providers,” she said. “Open access commitments must be kept on body corporate meeting agendas, and residents must scrutinise fibre rollout agreements within communities before trenching begins.”
BBM Attorneys director Marina Constas believes the country should mandate that residential estates allow residents a choice of ISP.
“Owners should be allowed to find themselves the best deal,” she said. “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 described the behaviour of not allowing residents a choice of ISP as anti-competitive.
Source: MybBoadband