Bandwidth hogs - are they real?

[sin_x]

If you "small" ISP's would just simply form a "union" or "organisation," call it what you like, you could simple come together, flip Telkom, Seacom, IS and whoever else the middle finger and say "We are not paying for data anymore." Then they couldn't.

I do not work for an ISP.

 

[sin_x]

Besides, this problem isn't one that has sprung up recently, it has occurred as the result of more than a decade of negligence. South African's have been complaining for ages and have been demanding upgrades for just as long, hardly what I would call "immediate".

Sure, and that is why there have been so many developments this year. Telkom is losing it's stranglehold, and things are (slowly) getting better.

 

[jucedupp]

Nope

And perhaps more relevant, Namibia has a population of 2,1 million people. Surely you have to agree that it is easier to provide for such a small number?

According to what every other ISP guy here says, that is not correct. The cost of putting in the BIG cable is still the same. Also the price of setting up of the backbone is the same, whther you do it for 2 million or 20 million. Now they have less people to pay for it.

That is proof that, since we are paying more, with more people paying for it, we are being ripped off.

They are getting better quality at a cheaper price.

 

[jucedupp]

I do not work for an ISP.

Then why are you so defensive of the way they do things? They are not "the little guy." They are the guys perpetuating the state of the internet in this country by:

1) Accepting it,
2) Paying huge prices for it
3) Passing that on to us

And wearing capes playing superhero when they bring us a "special."

 

[Quest10n]

LOL Exactly, average person uses 500mb because that average person limits him/her self into thinking what he/she can achieve. But tell the average person that you can now watch you-tube HD, what is the average user then? Suddenly the so called average user will then appear as a bandwidth hog(s).

I have a feeling that guys complaining about bandwidth hogs are guys working for ISPs and ran out of solutions, besides telling the truth that your over selling your network to the end-users. If you were upfront from the start and laid down some guarantees and controlled burst speeds etc. Then your end-users would have known what to expect. So it is your own damn fault.

+1

 

[sin_x]

According to what every other ISP guy here says, that is not correct. The cost of putting in the BIG cable is still the same. Also the price of setting up of the backbone is the same, whther you do it for 2 million or 20 million. Now they have less people to pay for it.

That is proof that, since we are paying more, with more people paying for it, we are being ripped off.

They are getting better quality at a cheaper price.

Well, for 2 million people the so-called "BIG cable" doesn't need to be as big as it does for 20 million people.
Also, the majority of Namibia's population is mostly centralised, meaning less infrastructure requirement. Unless you want broadband penetration in the desert?

 

[jucedupp]

Duh

+1

Well, for 2 million people the so-called "BIG cable" doesn't need to be as big as it does for 20 million people.
Also, the majority of Namibia's population is mostly centralised, meaning less infrastructure requirement. Unless you want broadband penetration in the desert?

OK. If Namibia gets an undersea cable, (EXAMPLE) do you think the guys lying the cable from the boat are going to charge them less because the cable carries less data? Same goes for any infrastructure, whether it is overland, undersea or sat.

The cost of a fibre line is not so significantly impacted by it's bandwidth capacity. The length is the same. It just contains a (few ) more strands. But that is just an example. I do not think the cost of setting up their backbone is significantly less.

 

[sin_x]

Then why are you so defensive of the way they do things? They are not "the little guy."

Well, to clarify, I no longer work in the ISP industry, but I did.

I am not trying to defend anything. What i say on a public forum does not constitute absolute fact. I am giving an opinion.

That said, are you absolutely 100% sure that I am wrong?
Do you have that much proof of the inner workings of the "sisps". Are you involved in their board meetings, technical workshops, strategy sessions, anything?

There are many things wrong with the current situation, I don't think anybody can deny that. What I am trying to convey is that things are chaning for the better. It is happening, even if you cannot see the immediate impact. There are just so many variables...

 

[sin_x]

OK. If Namibia gets an undersea cable, (EXAMPLE) do you think the guys lying the cable from the boat are going to charge them less because the cable carries less data? Same goes for any infrastructure, whether it is overland, undersea or sat.

The cost of a fibre line is not so significantly impacted by it's bandwidth capacity. The length is the same. It just contains a (few ) more strands. But that is just an example. I do not think the cost of setting up their backbone is significantly less.

Heres something interesting:
"Although Telecom Namibia holds ownership in SAT-3/WASC, Namibia has no landing point. Namibian internet users currently have no access to SAT-3/WASC, because Telecom Namibia would have to purchase capacity from Telkom SA, and due to Telkom SA's high prices has so far refused to do so."

 

[jucedupp]

That said, are you absolutely 100% sure that I am wrong?
Do you have that much proof of the inner workings of the "sisps". Are you involved in their board meetings, technical workshops, strategy sessions, anything?

No, I used to own one many years ago. But here is my point. Good economics and business always makes sense. And because good economics makes sense, bull**** economics stands out like a sore thumb. I do not need to be in any of the above to look around me, and see tha bull, and say, this is bull. A child can do that.

There are many things wrong with the current situation, I don't think anybody can deny that. What I am trying to convey is that things are chaning for the better. It is happening, even if you cannot see the immediate impact. There are just so many variables...

An immediate impact would be felt, very immediately, when all the the small ISP's simply together refuse to pay for data. Overnight, literally, you will see a lot of data provisioners very quickly change their tune. Why? Because they do not NEED to charge for data. They charge for data because they get away with it. Seacom, IS and Telkom will grow just as rich without Data sales.

Instant, quicker-than-nesquik change.

 

[Quest10n]

I don't think it is relevant because the current adsl network was never intended to do continuous live streaming. The point I was trying to make is that if you did 800G per month on the current network, then yes, you would be considered a hog. If you did 800G per month on a "built-for-IPTV" network, using a "geared for IPTV" account, then you would not be considered a bandwidth hog.

Consider this example:
IF you go to wimpy, and purchase a R9.95 bottomless coke, is it really feasible for you to drink all of the coke that the wimpy has in stock, simply because you paid for a bottomless coke? What about the other customers that want coke as well? Sure, it might technically be within your rights to do so, but are you now expecting that every wimpy in the country keeps millions of kilolitres of coke in stock, just in case?

To everyone else, networks are oversold for a reason. If you wanted 1:1 contention at current prices, you would probably only get it at 64kbps. That is the unfortunate truth. The ISPs are not out to screw everyone, they are just trying to run a business.

It is not as simple as some on this forum have made it out to be...

From what world are you from, they are out to screw the consumer , we still have capped accounts except for two i know of that offers uncap

 

[sin_x]

From what world are you from, they are out to screw the consumer , we still have capped accounts except for two i know of that offers uncap

Yes, and I have given my opinion as to why that model still exists.
Please note: opinion

 

[Tpex]

I shocked at how some people defend this corrupt internet system we have, This problem has come from 3 things:
1) The consortium of companys that own SAT3 rips us off, why, because they had no competition
2) On top of that telkom decided, "Hey we got no competition, lets rip everybody off some more" why? that is number 3, they rip us off on prices and infrastructure (why should they upgrade? to compete with who?)
3) Telkom being owned by the government had a monopoly

Its not the small ISPs fault, they have to deal with the prices they get, that is where the only competition is

 

[Raedwulf]

Felten seems to have it right.

Its ludicrous for an ISP to complain that some users are abusing their offerings. EVERY user should be able to run at maximum line speed (balanced with the speed of the package subscribed to), at ALL times, without the ISP being affected adversely. They advertise a product, and expecting that subscribers not to make full use of that product is absurd.

If they can't handle the load they should never have sold the product to so many people. If I am on a uncapped package I expect to be able to download the amount that I could get if my line (once again modified by the speed of the package purchased) were running at maximum capacity 24/7. If I were not able to do so, then their package amounts to false advertising.

Telkom harping on about how their tiny caps keep the internet fast for everyone is hilarious. What use is fast internet if you are not able to use it for anything? The true purpose of the tiny caps are twofold. Firstly to mask just how ineffective the networks is. If cost were ignored for just one month and all users were left to use the internet to the point that they actually wanted to, I am quite sure the whole thing would crash. Secondly offering small increases on a periodic basis enables them to get the maximum revenue from the consumer. If you are on a 3 gig cap, and after a year it is suddenly increased to a 6 gig cap with no price increase, you are overjoyed. Forgetting that 6 gigs is still an absolute pittance. Or if you are on a 512 kbs package, and are offered a 1 meg package for just a 20% increase in price, great deal! The fact remains however that if you tell people in other countries about that, they will laugh at you. But by increasing the value of available offerings only in tiny increments they keep you spending, and they save themselves the cost of actually installing a real telecoms network in this country, instead just upgrading it by tiny amounts each time.

Bandwidth hogs are to blame? Not likely. Telkom is still taking us for the ride of our lives.

 

[jucedupp]

Its not the small ISPs fault, they have to deal with the prices they get, that is where the only competition is

Tpex

This is exactly my point. They don't have to. They are the client. If they band together and say "Stop this crap, we are not buying at this price anymore", the prices MUST drop. But only if they do it together. Industry wide pressure.

But as it is, the end consumer is expected to apply pressure to the small ISP, who then should apply pressure upwards to their suppliers, as a group. Individually the big suppliers will laugh them off. But if all the ISP's come together, the big boys are in danger of adversely affecting their client base, aren't they?

But what is happening at the moment is that consumers apply pressure to small ISP's and the ISP's instead of applying upwards price pressure, simply absorb that consumer price pressure through unsustainable "specials" and "price wars". But fundamentally, nothing has changed. It's like starting a war to distract attention from the fact that the president is shagging his sister in law.

Here is how to solve the problem:
1) Band together.
2) Regulate YOURSELVES -
3) Do not let every idiot into the industry. Raise industry entry requirements. (So that when you resist, you are not easily replaced.)
4) Collectively tell the big boys to shove their ripoff pricing.
5) Voila.

 

[schurtek]

If you "small" ISP's would just simply form a "union" or "organisation," call it what you like, you could simple come together, flip Telkom, Seacom, IS and whoever else the middle finger and say "We are not paying for data anymore." Then they couldn't.

But here is the problem with that. SISP's would cease existing. Here are the whys.

1. SISP's sell data counting. That is their product. They do not sell actual connectivity, copper or anything of value. They sell something imaginary.

2. The thing that they should sell and make money out of, and which should be their reason for existing, which is service to the end user, they would not know anything about, even if it assaulted them indecently with a splintery broomstick.

3. So without "selling data" SISP's would just simply be extraneous to the whole internet game in SA.

That is why you, and a BUNCH of other guys who are connected to SISP's will fight tooth and nail, "not understand" or simply ignore any argument to the contrary. You will hammer the public, people with little technical knowledge (ie consumers), with technical jargon, "contetion ratios, backhauls" and various other blah blah blahs, simply to disguise the fact that the way the internet game in south africa is played, needs to stay the way it is, simply so that an artificial industry can keep existing. I would rather by k@k from Telkom, who have not once denied the fact that they are blatantly and unrepentantly ripping me off.

Some of us "SISP"s are banding together... if you are a Micro ISP, then please PM me.

 

[schurtek]

*double post*

my bad

 

[chubster]

Yes, and I have given my opinion as to why that model still exists.
Please note: opinion

It is people like you that defend Telkom and company that will always keep us backwards.

"Reasonable men adjust themselves to their environment. Unreasonablemen attempt to change their environment to suit themselves. Therefore all progress is the work of unreasonable men."

 

[msmoorad]

hogs?

from what i see, many of you are accepting the term "bandwidth hogs" because you are only looking at it in context of the pathetic situation regarding broadband in SA.
what we have in SA is NOT NORMAL!- look at the rest of the world (including quite a few african countries) and see what they are paying & what they receive in return.
now look at what we are paying and what we are getting in return -and on top of that we are expected to screw ourselves further by reducing the amount of data we download?
that said, i sort of agree with Gaz: i dont think its fair for people to download more than they're going to use.
then ISP's are very conveniently telling us their contention ratios are in line with what is the accepted norm worldwide- but seem to be blind to the fact that our speeds vs prices are DEFININITELY NOT IN LINE with worldwide norms.
and if we had to agree on capping- id say that 100GB per month should be acceptable- anything more on a regular basis, then that person should be prepared to pay a bit more than others.
now- 1,3,5 &10 GB"s cap per month is just not realistic.

 

[Zyzzyva]

Contention is good. If you don't allow people to make use of the spare capacity created by underuse, everyone ultimately gets less.

Everyone who is calling for 1 to 1 contention ratios are not thinking clearly.