LoneGunman
Expert Member
Just throwing out some idle thoughts that have occurred to me..
A while back I recall saying directly to iBursts management people 'whats the point of offering the same cap as Telkom's ADSL? Where's the advantage to the potential market? If Telkom are doing exactly what you intend to do, then why on earth should anyone choose YOU over the already well-established brand.. '
Because if you look at it from a business point of view, offering exactly the same product with no extra inducements, quantities or advantages than your competitor is already doing - you have to be insane.
Ok, the 'petrol' market for instance, does this already - the different 'brands' for basically exactly the same liquid, and the sheep go to the brand which they've been manipulated into believing demonstrates some peculiar 'advantage' in getting - thanks to the advertising.
But its the same basic liquid. Just sold under different supposed 'names' and related 'meanings' via the ad campaigns.
With the internet, however - theres a quantity potential which can be used as a selling point.
'A' offers fast internet + a 3 gig limit...
Now here comes 'B' - and they offer...?
'fast internet...and a 3 gig limit'.
So what? Why bother taking a chance on 'B' if 'A' is firmly established in the market, and trusted.
Unlike the sale of petrol or washing powder, the biggest selling point for any internet service, is the QUANTITY of possible download. Your competitor offers only 3 gigs - you should then offer 6 gigs. Simple. Now you're a 'better' service than your competitor, who has to either up their download limit, or look really stupid to the public.
An extra 3 gigs of download offered to each customer, isnt going to break any bank - and gives the customer the sense of 'getting more' than the other customers of the other service can get.
Instead, iBurst, at least at this point - doesnt seem to be playing with this quite logical and sane standard business model.
If they are thinking that, like 'Mobil' 'Caltex' 'Shell' and the various companies marketing the exact same liquid - that internet customers will behave the same way when facing ISP's offering exactly the same service - they're in for a shock.
All it takes then, to kill iBurst, is for Telkom to up THEIR gig allowance to 6gigs - and that's bye bye iBurst. Whoever makes the first move in this chess game of deliberately losing a few rands in profit, in order to have a better appeal to customers, is going to be the winner, in the long run.
Instead of taking this structural approach, we've already seen Sentech destroy its reputation by pretending to have 'no cap limit' - and throttling its speeds to make sure its profits arent dented. Sentech could have made fortunes and scooped up most of the potential market, by - from the outset - offering for instance high speeds and a 10 gig cap. Which in turn, would have started the tactical chess game between it and whoever else is offering Internet service, and forced the other services to equal or better the quantity on offer.
But this didn't happen. Strangely enough.
Instead, thus far, its deeply suspicious that none of the ISP's are operating using this basic capitalist business method, which is used by every business on earth - from peasants on the street selling fruit, through to the largest multinationals. All attempt to undercut their competitor in some way. All of them.
Except the Internet Service Providers in SA.
I don't know of ONE that is using the basic model of 'Hmm, if A is offering 3 gigs - then I'll offer 5gigs download, and thus undercut A'.
Why not? Does this not indicate that there is collusion of some kind, behind the scenes? In business this is considered racketeering. Are there any legal bodies one can ask to look into this strange anomaly which is ONLY occurring in the Internet Service Provider field? Every other business more or less tries to offer a better deal quantatively, to the market. Even grocery stores try to sell more products for less than their competitors - but the ISP's don't.
You can't use the excuse and smokescreen of talking about Telkom's monopoly and control of the pipe, to explain the clear signs of no actual competition between the ISP's.
So looping around and back. I got no real answer from iBurst to explain why they honestly think that offering the exact same service as Telkom, would make anyone choose them over Telkom.
Yes there's the appearence of a separate company. But..
To use an anology:
When two shops open up, offering the same fruit, for exactly the same price - and neither seems at all willing or interested, to offer even one more piece of fruit cheaper than its competitor - you have to ask yourself
a) why not?
b) are they in fact genuinely 'separate' businesses in the first place?
c) are they operating like normal independent competitive businesses generally operate?
Because the selling of exactly the same fruit at exactly the same price (in this case its the '3 gig cap' thats the fruit & price) - without any indication of trying to 'do better than its competitors' - suggests that it's not a real Business in any normal sense of the word - or if it is, its operating methods, have been drawn up by a retard, who does not want to offer any advantage to the customer, for choosing iBurst.
Why not?
Who opens up a burger shop alongside a MacDonald's, and chooses to use the same prices as them? You don't. (You fight for their customers by making your burger shop cheaper, or your burgers larger.)
But iBurst is about to do this. Just like Sentech did in its way. And all following the same model as Telkom has established - with no real visible signs of any genuine competition or ('separate competitive companies') at all.
What am I missing from this picture?
A while back I recall saying directly to iBursts management people 'whats the point of offering the same cap as Telkom's ADSL? Where's the advantage to the potential market? If Telkom are doing exactly what you intend to do, then why on earth should anyone choose YOU over the already well-established brand.. '
Because if you look at it from a business point of view, offering exactly the same product with no extra inducements, quantities or advantages than your competitor is already doing - you have to be insane.
Ok, the 'petrol' market for instance, does this already - the different 'brands' for basically exactly the same liquid, and the sheep go to the brand which they've been manipulated into believing demonstrates some peculiar 'advantage' in getting - thanks to the advertising.
But its the same basic liquid. Just sold under different supposed 'names' and related 'meanings' via the ad campaigns.
With the internet, however - theres a quantity potential which can be used as a selling point.
'A' offers fast internet + a 3 gig limit...
Now here comes 'B' - and they offer...?
'fast internet...and a 3 gig limit'.
So what? Why bother taking a chance on 'B' if 'A' is firmly established in the market, and trusted.
Unlike the sale of petrol or washing powder, the biggest selling point for any internet service, is the QUANTITY of possible download. Your competitor offers only 3 gigs - you should then offer 6 gigs. Simple. Now you're a 'better' service than your competitor, who has to either up their download limit, or look really stupid to the public.
An extra 3 gigs of download offered to each customer, isnt going to break any bank - and gives the customer the sense of 'getting more' than the other customers of the other service can get.
Instead, iBurst, at least at this point - doesnt seem to be playing with this quite logical and sane standard business model.
If they are thinking that, like 'Mobil' 'Caltex' 'Shell' and the various companies marketing the exact same liquid - that internet customers will behave the same way when facing ISP's offering exactly the same service - they're in for a shock.
All it takes then, to kill iBurst, is for Telkom to up THEIR gig allowance to 6gigs - and that's bye bye iBurst. Whoever makes the first move in this chess game of deliberately losing a few rands in profit, in order to have a better appeal to customers, is going to be the winner, in the long run.
Instead of taking this structural approach, we've already seen Sentech destroy its reputation by pretending to have 'no cap limit' - and throttling its speeds to make sure its profits arent dented. Sentech could have made fortunes and scooped up most of the potential market, by - from the outset - offering for instance high speeds and a 10 gig cap. Which in turn, would have started the tactical chess game between it and whoever else is offering Internet service, and forced the other services to equal or better the quantity on offer.
But this didn't happen. Strangely enough.
Instead, thus far, its deeply suspicious that none of the ISP's are operating using this basic capitalist business method, which is used by every business on earth - from peasants on the street selling fruit, through to the largest multinationals. All attempt to undercut their competitor in some way. All of them.
Except the Internet Service Providers in SA.
I don't know of ONE that is using the basic model of 'Hmm, if A is offering 3 gigs - then I'll offer 5gigs download, and thus undercut A'.
Why not? Does this not indicate that there is collusion of some kind, behind the scenes? In business this is considered racketeering. Are there any legal bodies one can ask to look into this strange anomaly which is ONLY occurring in the Internet Service Provider field? Every other business more or less tries to offer a better deal quantatively, to the market. Even grocery stores try to sell more products for less than their competitors - but the ISP's don't.
You can't use the excuse and smokescreen of talking about Telkom's monopoly and control of the pipe, to explain the clear signs of no actual competition between the ISP's.
So looping around and back. I got no real answer from iBurst to explain why they honestly think that offering the exact same service as Telkom, would make anyone choose them over Telkom.
Yes there's the appearence of a separate company. But..
To use an anology:
When two shops open up, offering the same fruit, for exactly the same price - and neither seems at all willing or interested, to offer even one more piece of fruit cheaper than its competitor - you have to ask yourself
a) why not?
b) are they in fact genuinely 'separate' businesses in the first place?
c) are they operating like normal independent competitive businesses generally operate?
Because the selling of exactly the same fruit at exactly the same price (in this case its the '3 gig cap' thats the fruit & price) - without any indication of trying to 'do better than its competitors' - suggests that it's not a real Business in any normal sense of the word - or if it is, its operating methods, have been drawn up by a retard, who does not want to offer any advantage to the customer, for choosing iBurst.
Why not?
Who opens up a burger shop alongside a MacDonald's, and chooses to use the same prices as them? You don't. (You fight for their customers by making your burger shop cheaper, or your burgers larger.)
But iBurst is about to do this. Just like Sentech did in its way. And all following the same model as Telkom has established - with no real visible signs of any genuine competition or ('separate competitive companies') at all.
What am I missing from this picture?
Last edited:
LG too long, but all valid points, another issue though is that SA consumers need to shed the wool that they have been growing for decades now. If the consumer walks like a sheep, bleets like a sheep & looks like a sheep then the consumer will get herded about by the dogs in the marketplace.
