Cell C blames Vodacom for network problems

[whatwhat]

I wish Vodacom would just do an article and prove that Cell C is just making up excuses.

June/July is traditionally increase month, and AKC probably needed the cash investment so he could go on a holiday and roam on networks that actually work.

 

[falcon786]

ok .... but dont say it is only Vodacom employees and peeps with a agenda that is complaining.

Ockie please have a look at my post again I said mostly not only,there will naturally be one or two genuine unhappy Cell C customers in here just as there would be if the thread was related to Vodacom and MTN there would naturally be some actual customers complaining since lets face it all networks have issues in certain areas.

I know of an unhappy cell c family member that lives 0.5 km away from me with virtually no reception even though my signal is good,when I was on MTN I had a similar situation with another family member also living 1 km away on the other side with no reception yet mine was full.

 

[GreGorGy]

Ockie please have a look at my post again I said mostly not only,there will naturally be one or two genuine unhappy Cell C customers in here just as there would be if the thread was related to Vodacom and MTN there would naturally be some actual customers complaining since lets face it all networks have issues in certain areas.

In fairness, mostly is still a wide generalisation. My experiences have been terrible and I am no shill for anyone, I tell you that much.

 

[jannievanzyl]

Jannie you are being a twat - I can watch my phone handover from the Cell C tower to the VC one and see the issues it is having. That doesn't happen from VC to VC or Cell C to Cell C. Now simple business tells me it is not exactly in Cell C's interest to let this not work properly, most users would just see it as Cell C is not working properly like they don't realise EDGE roaming is only being used on the VC network.

You really should stop making snotty remarks like "I don't remember seeing you there", you embarrass yourself being so petty.

The ones being petty (or twats) are those who 'assume' they know what was agreed upon and then make factual statements with NO base whatsoever. Yes, I'm looking at you.

You seem to 'know' automatic handover was part of the agreement. So clearly you were there. All I know is that it's not in the agreements I were involved in.

And what makes you think it's in the client network's interest to automatically switch over to the host network? Why pay another network to carry your traffic if you can carry it yourself (even if a lower quality)?

Think about it.

 

[falcon786]

Ockie please have a look at my post again I said mostly not only,there will naturally be one or two genuine unhappy Cell C customers in here just as there would be if the thread was related to Vodacom and MTN there would naturally be some actual customers complaining since lets face it all networks have issues in certain areas.

I know of an unhappy cell c family member that lives 0.5 km away from me with virtually no reception even though my signal is good,when I was on MTN I had a similar situation with another family member also living 1 km away on the other side with no reception yet mine was full.

In fairness, mostly is still a wide generalisation. My experiences have been terrible and I am no shill for anyone, I tell you that much.

You stance was already noted in my post above(see highlighted portion boet),I'm referring to certain others that tends to haunt Cell C threads even though they don't use the network.For what its worth you dont appear to be a shill but rather someone genuinely irritated.

Ockies situation can be easily replicated on MTN and even Vodacom,move house and suddenly you don't have signal.Thats the way all our networks are unfortunately.

 

[jannievanzyl]

Ockies situation can be easily replicated on MTN and even Vodacom,move house and suddenly you don't have signal.Thats the way all our networks are unfortunately.

Network Operators spend a fair amount of time trailing all the networks so the relative performance of the networks are well known.

 

[Ockie]

Ockies situation can be easily replicated on MTN and even Vodacom,move house and suddenly you don't have signal.Thats the way all our networks are unfortunately.

The problem that me and the others are talking about is not a signal issue. In most cases the people have full signal. This is a throughput issue ... not a signal or handover issue.

 

[falcon786]

Network Operators spend a fair amount of time trailing all the networks so the relative performance of the networks are well known.

You point is?I know you guys do trialing and rolling out a network in this country costs quite a bit of cash and time.

 

[falcon786]

The problem that me and the others are talking about is not a signal issue. In most cases the people have full signal. This is a throughput issue ... not a signal or handover issue.

Aah ok I had a similar problem on Cell C at the beginning of the year in my area which is semi rural and I was getting speeds at a lousy 0.2mbps however in my area that seems to be resolved somewhat and they have plans to upgrade to tower again next month so they are trying to alleviate the congestion,lately I get an average speed of 1,2mbps and at the prices I get it its pretty decent.

 

[jannievanzyl]

You point is?I know you guys do trialing and rolling out a network in this country costs quite a bit of cash and time.

The point is that it's actually well known how networks perform relative to each other. Problem is no-one publish the numbers.

But it's not difficult to figure out.

Network quality is a function of investment over subscriber numbers. As an example: R1M/1million subs = NQ factor of 1. (It's a simple model, but it works and you get the idea.)

Take a brand new network with very few users. Clearly you're going to get perfect quality and performance and you win the MyBroadband awards. So R1M/1000 users = NQ factor of 1000.

Now load that network without investing at the same rate and the ration drops very quickly and you end up with an inferior NQ and customers complain. The only way out of it is to increase your investment into the network.

A few years ago a local mobile network launched their 3G network. And it was whooosh for a while while the NQ factor was high. Then the customers came and the NQ factor fell.

Relativly recently another local network launched and they're currently on a high NQ factor. But will go through the same process if investment does not keep up with subscriber growth.

So, as a rule of thumb, look at what operators spend on their networks and you have a simple indicator of overall NQ.

BTW, the measured results match the above correlation quite nicely.

 

[GreGorGy]

So, as a rule of thumb, look at what operators spend on their networks and you have a simple indicator of overall NQ.

BTW, the measured results match the above correlation quite nicely.

Interest insight: based on this, moving to the newest makes sense (until their inevitable downfall). Later, I can always just move away. A very compelling argument for avoiding contract lock-ins like the plague.

 

[falcon786]

The point is that it's actually well known how networks perform relative to each other. Problem is no-one publish the numbers.

BTW, the measured results match the above correlation quite nicely.

Interesting,although I would be very interested on the actual numbers surely things like which bands you use,and actual customer penetration per area/tower etc affect these things when it comes to different networks.

In fact due to fiber cost I'll be tempted to also say this is very area dependent?

 

[GreGorGy]

Interesting,although I would be very interested on the actual numbers surely things like which bands you use,and actual customer penetration per area/tower etc affect these things when it comes to different networks.

Ditto that - could make for very interesting (and regular) number porting behaviour - chasing the rainbow.

 

[jannievanzyl]

Interest insight: based on this, moving to the newest makes sense (until their inevitable downfall). Later, I can always just move away.

Not an illogical deduction.

 

[marine1]

Once again we have accusations flying and these things will never be tested in a court of law.
We will never know the full truth.
Bottom line is someone seems to be lying.
It amazes me how if either party is so cock sure why not publish the agreement and put it in the public domain?

 

[Bern]

The ones being petty (or twats) are those who 'assume' they know what was agreed upon and then make factual statements with NO base whatsoever. Yes, I'm looking at you.

You seem to 'know' automatic handover was part of the agreement. So clearly you were there. All I know is that it's not in the agreements I were involved in.

And what makes you think it's in the client network's interest to automatically switch over to the host network? Why pay another network to carry your traffic if you can carry it yourself (even if a lower quality)?

Think about it.

Jannie, it is pretty easy to infer that seamless handover is expected, if it was purposely not part of the contract Cell C would have no grounds to approach ICASA with. I never at any point stated I was party to any meeting, but made a very small jump with a an assumption based on simple logic. You could have just come back and said the contract stated it specifically did not include seamless handover, but it seems that you can't do that.

I am working from a consumer reasonable assumption point, something you don't seem to understand. This is why I am no longer a customer of VC after being with them for over 12 years, I like straight answers and explanations.

The point on the handover is I see it on my own device, it drives me up the wall as it accounts for many missed calls. I don't think the Cell C network is great, but then I don't think it is any worse than VC - these both observations from personal experience using both networks on various devices (yes, each sim in all devices).

I see why VC do it, it comes down to cost, I would probably try to do the same to a client competing with me, but I am not VC, I want the best price for the best possible service - I don't care about VC or Cell C profit margins (besides that they don't go under).

 

[jannievanzyl]

Jannie, it is pretty easy to infer that seamless handover is expected, if it was purposely not part of the contract Cell C would have no grounds to approach ICASA with. I never at any point stated I was party to any meeting, but made a very small jump with a an assumption based on simple logic. You could have just come back and said the contract stated it specifically did not include seamless handover, but it seems that you can't do that.

I am working from a consumer reasonable assumption point, something you don't seem to understand. This is why I am no longer a customer of VC after being with them for over 12 years, I like straight answers and explanations.

The point on the handover is I see it on my own device, it drives me up the wall as it accounts for many missed calls. I don't think the Cell C network is great, but then I don't think it is any worse than VC - these both observations from personal experience using both networks on various devices (yes, each sim in all devices).

I see why VC do it, it comes down to cost, I would probably try to do the same to a client competing with me, but I am not VC, I want the best price for the best possible service - I don't care about VC or Cell C profit margins (besides that they don't go under).

You also could've made the assumption that if it was in the contract, Vodacom would do it.

But you immediately chose to assume Vodacom is in the wrong. Thus my question about your sources.

As you'll know from my posts, I get grumpy when people make assumptions (on ANY topic) and then make factual statements without substantiating them. There is a massive difference between making a seemingly factual statement and offering an opinion. Or just asking, which is always better if you do not actually know.

In any case, there are STRONG reasons why a roamer would NOT want automatic handover. Especially if your network is patchy and your customers spend more time on the (more expensive) roaming network than your own.

 

[reactor_sa]

Blame game.... Typical.

 

[Bern]

You also could've made the assumption that if it was in the contract, Vodacom would do it.

But you immediately chose to assume Vodacom is in the wrong. Thus my question about your sources.

As you'll know from my posts, I get grumpy when people make assumptions (on ANY topic) and then make factual statements without substantiating them. There is a massive difference between making a seemingly factual statement and offering an opinion. Or just asking, which is always better if you do not actually know.

In any case, there are STRONG reasons why a roamer would NOT want automatic handover. Especially if your network is patchy and your customers spend more time on the (more expensive) roaming network than your own.

Inflection is always tough on forums, perhaps I came across a bit rough.

My assumption is based on the very limited info available - I didn't know there would be any reason to not want seamless handover, I suppose money beats quality here, but it would be great if VC or Cell C could be a bit clearer on this. My assumption was that to go to ICASA you need some sort of legal standing to not get laughed out of the room, thus some sort of expectation from Cell C that VC would provide this.

Simple business logic makes it sensible for VC to be the bad guy here, maybe it is not the case, but it makes business sense. This is why ICASA is there, how effective they are is another issue.... Point is it is easy to see Cell C blowing hot air, it is another for them to take it to ICASA - to be fair I have not actually seen the document they have allegedly submitted.

 

[Paul Hjul]

The point is that it's actually well known how networks perform relative to each other. Problem is no-one publish the numbers.

But it's not difficult to figure out.

Network quality is a function of investment over subscriber numbers. As an example: R1M/1million subs = NQ factor of 1. (It's a simple model, but it works and you get the idea.)

Take a brand new network with very few users. Clearly you're going to get perfect quality and performance and you win the MyBroadband awards. So R1M/1000 users = NQ factor of 1000.

Now load that network without investing at the same rate and the ration drops very quickly and you end up with an inferior NQ and customers complain. The only way out of it is to increase your investment into the network.

A few years ago a local mobile network launched their 3G network. And it was whooosh for a while while the NQ factor was high. Then the customers came and the NQ factor fell.

Relativly recently another local network launched and they're currently on a high NQ factor. But will go through the same process if investment does not keep up with subscriber growth.

So, as a rule of thumb, look at what operators spend on their networks and you have a simple indicator of overall NQ.

BTW, the measured results match the above correlation quite nicely.

The problem I have with a raw application of an NQ model where "Network quality is a function of investment over subscriber numbers" because it ignores the value of the investment - in essence an operator could spend 10 billion rand on the wrong overpriced technology (EDVO?) - whilst another operator could take a gamble on a particular technology which industry pundits are not pushing at the time and essentially secure a bargain for their consumers.

Depreciation of telecommunications assets is probably a useful starting point but lets face it accountants don't fully incorporate the technological shift that can occur and assets will depreciate without proper reference to software changes and revisions and that sort of thing.

A ECN operator who is investing sensibly all the time will inevitably have the best network.
---
Didn't a particular fixed line network have a very high "investment to user" ratio with underwhelming network quality impair their assets (investment ratio) by 12 billion rand but I haven't seen an equivalent reduction in the quality of the network.