Product Suggestions without the CAP

A

alchamy

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
1,637
Reaction score
3
Location
JHB/ZA
I have been thinking about ways to "side step" capping and this one I feel might be a good idea, I think we should post a few here for the guys at WBS to consider.

I think most of us are looking for permanent connections with reasonable latency and low contention. Speed is not always to primary concern (your not paying per minute). I would be more than happy with a 128K permanent connection. I would even be willing to pay R600-R700 for it, provided that it does not get capped or shaped.

From what I understand WBS plans to bring out the 128K connection with a 1GB cap.... perhaps I am an idiot but no matter which package your on you are ultimately paying for a permanent 64K connection with a few days on your so called package. Which means that most users should just get the 128K option which should be a lot cheaper the the 1MBit option.

Ofcourse this is taken on the idea that you will reach your cap sooner rather than later. Even if you just do regular browsing 3GB is very little. 100megs a day is not much surfing and definately not much traffic for VPN which means that even the lightest of surfers will get capped.

Obviously this does not apply to users that truely need high speed. And I hate the idea of trying to improve capped services, I don't think we should be subjected to them at all.
 
This has been suggested before (there was a long discussion a while ago) and while it would be nice unfortunately, like Telkom and Sentech, WBS management just don't give a rat's ass what customers want (this 3 gig cap nonsense should be evidence enough). The only thing that will force them to offer uncapped packages is competition.
 
Decotey said:
competition, whats that
Click to expand...
two (or more) sexy women that want you at the same time...?

Since currently available broadband packages are definitely not sexy, the only conclusion- there is no competition :D
 
bending over and taking...........

I don't understand why people visiting this forum are so keen to compromise with the suppliers. It may be that you have not experienced anything better. SA net users are being robbed 3 ways - very expensive broadband, capped at a ridiculous 3 gig, and very little choice.

I am trialing Iburst, and it seems to work pretty good in a mobile environment , when there is coverage. I think WBS might be onto something with this product if they drop the cap and increase the speed in the future. Our counterparts in S Korea have 20+ Mbps connections with no caps. The Japs have a 40 Mbps connection!!!

Come on people we need some more voices demanding better, faster , cheaper products - AND we need to get broadband to the masses - just imagine what these guys can do with knowledge they currently don't have access too!!!!!!! :eek:
 
We all share the same sentiment, BUT been there done that achieved nothing- yet...

morebroadband said:
...keen to compromise with the suppliers...Our counterparts in S Korea have 20+ Mbps connections with no caps. The Japs have a 40 Mbps connection!!!
Click to expand...
MBbd, I don't believe we are keen to compromise, broadband connectivity in a monopolistic environment is devoid of choice/variety/compromise, what can we do- live without broadband - no longer possible in my case.

On the speed thing, I was under the impression that the way iBurst technology is right now, it can reach a maximum of 1Mbps between user terminal & basestation.
 
Showoff!!!

Perdition said:
Not really competition... there's enough "bandwidth" to satisfy a high "contention ratio" :D
Click to expand...
Ok, SHOWOFF!!! :p

Who was mms-ing their "bandwidth" to BrownSugar @ 5fm today? :D
 
morebroadband said:
Come on people we need some more voices demanding better, faster , cheaper products - AND we need to get broadband to the masses - just imagine what these guys can do with knowledge they currently don't have access too!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

True enough. That said, there are some interesting statistics recently out in the USA at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/reports/anol/NationOnlineBroadband04.pdf. Although a far wealthier nation, prices of $30 - $50 per month for broadband are considered too expensive. Where does that leave us with a far lower per capita income?

---

Some quotes from the news service article that brought the report to my attention:

The number of Americans using fast Internet connections doubled from 2001 through late 2003, still below some expectations and especially low among minority groups and people in rural areas, according to a report by the Bush administration...

The Commerce Department report, prepared in September but undisclosed until after the election, said use of fast Internet connections grew dramatically through October 2003 to 20 percent of U.S. households. The report praised such services for fueling online banking, entertainment and commerce.

Some experts said growth was disappointing, far behind countries that include South Korea, Taiwan and Canada. The report also identified troubling figures for use or availability of high-speed Internet services among blacks, Hispanics and people in rural areas...

Significant numbers of rural Americans said they couldn't subscribe to high-speed services because none was available. Most Americans who did not use fast connections said service was either too expensive or they did not need it...

---

Then from another article:

Broadband costs between $30 and $50 per month, compared with as little as $9.95 per month for regular dial-up access.
 
why would you choose iburst over adsl? that should be their question! if there is a 3gig cap it turns away a crap load of customers who are wanting to ditch their adsl...
 
What I don't understand is this - when starting a new business service, a clever business man will do research to see what kind of service there is a demand for. They would find out exactly what people want and then provide that service. But in South Africa, the businesses bring out a product and shove it down our throats because they know we don't have a choice. This just doesn't make any sense to me. Imagine if they did offer what we wanted. They would have customers flocking to them. I would be the first to drop ADSL and get Iburst. But as things stand now, I won't touch them with a 10 foot pole.

iBurst are so close to stealing the Broadband show in SA, but they're throwing it all away with capping and shaping. Very sad indeed.
 
VQuest, I can only agree with you here, before I got iBurst I was on ISDN with InfinitCall, and I naively thought that 3Gigs would be ok on a broadband connection, but I've been monitoring usage with DUMeter, and it's obviously half of what I need over any 30 days.

I've been moaning, almost pleading (on this forum) for WBS to do their market research before April2005, get in touch with their target market (the people willing to pay R700 per month), but it seems W-BS-M truly do think of MyADSL members as a minority of descenting opinionated people who are best left ignored.

I really wish I could put some surveys out for iBurst MyADSL'rs to take part in- I've got a bunch of ideas that would benefit us as well as W-BS-M.
 
WBS SHOULD NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES lump local and international into the same cap. That is a load of BS. They are basically worse than Telkom if they do. WORSE than telkom, ouch.
 
ic said:
VQuest,
I've been moaning, almost pleading (on this forum) for WBS to do their market research before April2005, get in touch with their target market (the people willing to pay R700 per month), but it seems W-BS-M truly do think of MyADSL members as a minority of descenting opinionated people who are best left ignored.
.
Click to expand...

Gimme coverage and something close to 128k reliably and burst up to 1Mb and I'll pay twice that if they take the cap away of double it even. I'm paying that much for my Sucktech 512K package. WBS need to learn as much as possible from the Sentech early-adopters or they are going to go the same way. There is such a window of opportunity to build off Sentech's apparent failure by not making the same mistakes, WBS would be fools not to capitalise on it.
 
I gave it some more thought, I think the problem lies only with Telkom. Their overpriced services drive this overpriced market. EG, if local calls were free as they are in most places these days. Any user could have a permanent 56/64/128k connection using dialup for next to nothing. Even in South Africa it would cost you R250 a month to have a permanent 128K connection using ISDN.

WBS offers a competitive solution, compare it directly to ADSL, its twice as fast and you get better international speeds once capped at half the price. So from a marketing point of view they are offering the perfect product (atleast thats what they think)

WBS offers a much cheaper solution than staying connected with ISDN or Dialup on a permanent basis, once again making them "competitive", and the service is mobile.

Ofcourse I don't support the idea and pricing, however from their perspective we are the unreasonable ones. Which is sad but true.

Our problem will not be solved by whining to small time ISPs like Sentech & Iburst. Also VOIP is not the solution to our data problems either. We need to drive for the SNO and hope they don't turn out to be Cell C, who is also competitive by beating Vodacom & MTN prices by 1 or 2 cents.
 
Last edited:
<waffle>
On reflection, it is also a shame that there just isn't the sheer weight of users in this country to warrant tailored packages.

I want good, high speed, low-ish latency local connectivity so I can VPN to the office and run VoIP. I do some P2P which I don't mind being shaped as long as the rest of my traffic isn't and I'd be happy to pay extra for a higher international cap/limit. - I'm making the assumption here that one of the reasons for the cap is that int. bandwidth is the expensive part, the was ADSL works.

Of course, this profile doesn't match other users, like international gamers, who don't need massive b/w but do demand low latency, or mobile workers who demand broad coverage, or home offices who demand 100% reliability, etc.

In most of the western world, there is a wide menu of services to choose from to suit your needs (a friend just put in a 10Mbs link to his house to stop his kids whining about gaming latency, spoilt brats)

What seems most important right now, is for challengers (to Telkom/ADSL) need to offer reliability and predictability. I want to know there are no hidden gotchas like there are with Sentech, I want to know iBurst isn't going to grind to a stand-still in April, or go tits up in a year because they got their model wrong.

</waffle>

On the whole, the more alternatives there are, good or bad, capped or lagged, it's a good thing for the SA market. It shows innovation in technology and business models and proves that we're still a nation not prepared to lie down and take it from a monoploy.
 
beerygaz said:
On reflection, it is also a shame that there just isn't the sheer weight of users in this country to warrant tailored packages.
Click to expand...
<my_opinion>
I disagree (that was expected I'm sure), tailored packages are surely a reflection of a Service Provider's customer-centric ethos.

There is a correlation between the number of customers an SP has, and failing to implement a decent billing system that gives the SP freedom to innovate, and better service their customers. The correlation is: the SP will not have broad appeal, and will target a very vertical market.

If you start out with only 1 customer, that customer will either: say nothing if the service is mediocre/adequate; tell everyone how exceptionally bad it is; or tell everyone how excellent it is. That is the force that is with the consumer (albeit a case of the SA consumer abandoning said force).

Another thing, if a service provider implements tailored packages, from the billing system upwards, and the SP has not done (or has been unable to properly do) its market research, it has a much higher chance of succeeding in uncharted waters, as well as appealing to and satisfying more than just one vertical market.​
</my_opinion>
 
alchamy said:
...the problem lies only with Telkom...overpriced services drive this overpriced market...WBS offers a competitive solution, compare it directly to ADSL, its twice as fast and you get better international speeds once capped at half the price. So from a marketing point of view they are offering the perfect product (atleast thats what they think)
Click to expand...
<my_opinion>
I agree that Telkom's monopolistic overpricing is the primary cause of all our woes. We have already debated (in other threads) about why that is, and why nothing is being done by the Powers that Be (or rather the Powers that Profit), and we could speculate that a SNO will leave us better off and break the deadlock we find ourselves in (IMO, even if we got an SNO today, prices would probably stay more or less the same for the next 2..3+ years, i.e. the Big CellC SIN-drome).

BUT none of that adequately explains why WBS want to apply a cap to local traffic when it is supposed to be International Bandwidth that is stealth taxed the most.

Is it as simple as: WBS do not have a system in place to use BGP to distinguish between local and international, and route throttled&contended international traffic via separate internal 64K subnets?​
</my_opinion>
 
Agreed, local capping is not acceptable, From what I understand WBS is unable to distinguish between local & international traffic. Not sure if this is an Iburst limitation or merely the systems put in place by WBS. Either way they don't seem keen to change this. Furthermore you have to remember that the base stations have a maximum capacity of 24Mbits. Which once again makes it difficult for WBS to change that policy without adding more towers. Perhaps they could provide 256/512 local. This would be sufficient for VPN etc, without killing too much bandwidth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X