Cheaper bandwidth: One big step needed from big telecoms players

Talk talk talk...When will the actions start to come...
 
Actually all this talk makes me realise that by the time my STUPID VODACOM data contract ends in Jan then more will have changed by then (or is that just wishful thinking?)
 
I currently pay around $1400 per month for 5 dedicated servers hosted in the US with unlimited bandwidth. With the amount of traffic these servers receive it would easily cost me 3 or 4 times more to host it in South Africa. I do attract and need global traffic though, but I can fully understand the need for hosting aimed at a South African market to be hosted locally and at affordable prices
 
One obvious problem with overseas hosting was brought to reality when some of my clients could not access their websites after the Seacom fail a few weeks back, more over there clients who are mostly in Sa could not.
Nightmare - but guess what - they STILL can afford local hosting.
So I am actually still moving more clients overseas than I am starting new ones local.
 
This would be a dream come true for me. I have a number of local clients, who I push to international hosting due to costs of hosting locally. And yes, local would be a lot better, as all my clients are South African and make use of the South African market for their products and services.

The only guys I saw with decent local prices for hosting are Cybersmart... But they do look a little dodgy. Not sure if I should use them until I get some feedback from others. Their idea of using their upload bandwidth from ADSL for hosting was quite unique though.

Kudos to MWEB though for initiating the movement. Jansen is my hero!:love:
 
By not adopting open peering the 3 "tier 1" ISPs are not only making money from selling smaller ISPs their peering bandwidth but also... Get this... Making money selling the international bandwidth for carrying the overseas sites "back" to SA everytime somebody puts the URLs into their browser. They would be stupid to give up this process where they effectively charge twice for the same data throughput.
 
Okay, there are arguments on both sides here. Greater, cheaper bandwidth and improved broadband speeds. I'm going for speed. As I posted in another discussion, I started off using a 64kbps line back in the early 90s that was eventually upgraded to a 128kbps line and that was "fast". I have no experience of anything faster than 384kbps but with all the latest developments and rhetoric about 7.97Mbps that could be arriving "soon", makes me want to hold out just to see what the "big boys" do with their little toys. One thing is for certain, though, corporate greed and profiteering on the backs of subscribers must come to an end.
 
Heh, interesting they only name the big 3, but did you guys know that Neotel also only peer when they make a lot out of the company/isp/network that wants to peer with them?
 
Funny how these major telco players can make ANOTHER problem materialize to explain why the current state of affairs persists even tho the last problem was fixed beyond any reasonable doubt...

I'm looking forward to:
2013 - Scarcity of skilled labour is an impenetrable resistance to the deployment of fast, uncapped internet for all.
2023 - The infrastructure needed for fast, uncapped internet for all cannot be sustained by the average South African's low income.
2053 - The Steve Jobs cyborg deems that South Africans will be an unnecessary burden on the internet. As such, for now we cannot join the Solar neural village

...always ending off with "At least we're trying. In the meantime please make sure to send us all your money so's our mountain of cash grows to block out the eyesore that is Mount Everest. We are working on a solution for you guys after all."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X