dodgyknacker
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2005
- Messages
- 6
- Reaction score
- 0
Why are we no boycotting Telkom and encouraging ADSL users to switch to IBURST?
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: What's the most interesting small town you've visited in South Africa?
Consumer Boycott
- Thread starter dodgyknacker
- Start date
stoke
Honorary Master
The only catch is - us poor gamers won't be able to play.
Last edited:
guest2013-1
guest
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2003
- Messages
- 19,800
- Reaction score
- 13
How can I explain this.
iBurst uses UUNET as their backbone internet provider. UUNET buys the bandwidth from Telkom. So it doesn't matter if you buy your services from some dude off the back of his bakkie, chances are, he is reselling the bandwidth provided by the only carrier able to sell this bandwidth, from Telkom.
iBurst uses UUNET as their backbone internet provider. UUNET buys the bandwidth from Telkom. So it doesn't matter if you buy your services from some dude off the back of his bakkie, chances are, he is reselling the bandwidth provided by the only carrier able to sell this bandwidth, from Telkom.
TheRoDent
Cool Ideas Rep
I can explain it alternatively too.
ADSL is more reliable than iBurst.
ADSL is more reliable than iBurst.
TheRoDent said:
The sad truth...Darth Garth
Executive Member
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2004
- Messages
- 6,207
- Reaction score
- 268
dodgyknacker said:
You must be joking
.
Gatecrasher
Executive Member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2005
- Messages
- 6,727
- Reaction score
- 624
noone said:
Sadly true.
However I would love to see, for each of the broadband services, how many cents in the rand ends up at Telkom.
Regardless of the reliability issues, there has to be some satisfaction in minimizing that amount.
Some examples that we might study
I think eventual;ly we get all our international bandwidth through Telkom, that includes people like iBurts, UUNET etc. So it's not gonna work if we do it by any legal means.
But I started thinking about other ways that have been used in the past:
1) Taxis: In the bad old days, taxis operated by black persons were illegal. The only legal mass-transport systems were PUTCO and SA Railways, both government-operated and/or sponsored. The taxi-operators simply ignored this and paid fines when caught, but they still operated their taxis. They made the minibus taxi a fait accompli, something that could not be ignored: the government had to accede that there are minibus taxis, and legalise them. The bulk transport industry did essentially the same.
2) Tapping your own water/electricity from the grid is highly illegal. What did the townships do? They simply kept on doing it until the government acceded to their demands. And kept on not paying their bills. The upshot of it was that they eventually got a certain amount of free water and electricity.
How can we use these examples?
1) Establish our own infrastructure at street/block level. Wi-Fi? (I know this is not ideal for gamers due to latency problems, but hey, these are only idead at this stage) Laying our own fibre/copper?
2) Buy satellite bandwidth from overseas suppliers who do not mind sidestepping Telkom / ICASA / whatever.
I know this is highly illegal, and some people will be saying I am promoting anarchy and lawlessness, but if that is the only option we have, then so be it.
The point is of course that if we do this, it must be done at a scale and intensity that will present the government with no alternative than to deregulate the whole telecomms industry, thereby making what we do, legal.
But that is only step 1.
Going back to the taxi-industry. What are they doing now? They are asking the government to regulate their industry to a certain extent. Think taxi-wars. But they are asking for regulation to suit them, not the government bureaucracy. When did they do this? When the PUTCO / SAR monopoly were broken! Today PUTCO is shadow of its former self. SAR aka TransNet and the Metrorail Company are in serious ****.
Therefore step 2 will be to re-regulate the industry to benefit us - the users. After we bring Telkom to it's knees.
dodgyknacker said:
I think eventual;ly we get all our international bandwidth through Telkom, that includes people like iBurts, UUNET etc. So it's not gonna work if we do it by any legal means.
But I started thinking about other ways that have been used in the past:
1) Taxis: In the bad old days, taxis operated by black persons were illegal. The only legal mass-transport systems were PUTCO and SA Railways, both government-operated and/or sponsored. The taxi-operators simply ignored this and paid fines when caught, but they still operated their taxis. They made the minibus taxi a fait accompli, something that could not be ignored: the government had to accede that there are minibus taxis, and legalise them. The bulk transport industry did essentially the same.
2) Tapping your own water/electricity from the grid is highly illegal. What did the townships do? They simply kept on doing it until the government acceded to their demands. And kept on not paying their bills. The upshot of it was that they eventually got a certain amount of free water and electricity.
How can we use these examples?
1) Establish our own infrastructure at street/block level. Wi-Fi? (I know this is not ideal for gamers due to latency problems, but hey, these are only idead at this stage) Laying our own fibre/copper?
2) Buy satellite bandwidth from overseas suppliers who do not mind sidestepping Telkom / ICASA / whatever.
I know this is highly illegal, and some people will be saying I am promoting anarchy and lawlessness, but if that is the only option we have, then so be it.
The point is of course that if we do this, it must be done at a scale and intensity that will present the government with no alternative than to deregulate the whole telecomms industry, thereby making what we do, legal.
But that is only step 1.
Going back to the taxi-industry. What are they doing now? They are asking the government to regulate their industry to a certain extent. Think taxi-wars. But they are asking for regulation to suit them, not the government bureaucracy. When did they do this? When the PUTCO / SAR monopoly were broken! Today PUTCO is shadow of its former self. SAR aka TransNet and the Metrorail Company are in serious ****.
Therefore step 2 will be to re-regulate the industry to benefit us - the users. After we bring Telkom to it's knees.
stoke
Honorary Master
venterap - me likes your thinking verrrrry much.
Governmint's lethargic and slow approach to solving situations is a waste of time.
We have to prove to governmint that there is no need to protect us, and they immediately set us free.
You can also use the VOIP example here to proove their ability to backtrack on their laws when forced to do so. Suddenly VIOP is legal. But, when it was illegal - did anybody actually get prosecuted for using it by governmint? Me seriously doubts that. Only when the protected (teklom) stood up and complained was any attention at all paid to the issue.
This is the true nature of democracy, and as long as we challenge governmint, and provide proof that we can and will change the way things work, governmint has to play with - they work for us.
Governmint's lethargic and slow approach to solving situations is a waste of time.
We have to prove to governmint that there is no need to protect us, and they immediately set us free.
You can also use the VOIP example here to proove their ability to backtrack on their laws when forced to do so. Suddenly VIOP is legal. But, when it was illegal - did anybody actually get prosecuted for using it by governmint? Me seriously doubts that. Only when the protected (teklom) stood up and complained was any attention at all paid to the issue.
This is the true nature of democracy, and as long as we challenge governmint, and provide proof that we can and will change the way things work, governmint has to play with - they work for us.
Luke7777
Executive Member
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2004
- Messages
- 9,711
- Reaction score
- 2,082
- Location
- Menlo Park, Pretoria.. AH/OS 500/250
venterap, nothing wrong with the idea. BUT....it will only succeed if initiated to benefit the masses, i.e. the townships. That's the only area where government succumb to public pressure. Your 2 examples are prove of that. Start your alternative comms in there and you're on your way
guest2013-1
guest
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2003
- Messages
- 19,800
- Reaction score
- 13
/me starts digging to lay his own fibre.... weetbix fibre...
Luke7777
Executive Member
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2004
- Messages
- 9,711
- Reaction score
- 2,082
- Location
- Menlo Park, Pretoria.. AH/OS 500/250
Apparently it does wonders for data downloads and bandwidth congestionsnoone said:/me starts digging to lay his own fibre.... weetbix fibre...
bb_matt
Executive Member
dodgyknacker said:
Just one example :-
3gig ADSL on month to month for 1 year
==============================
ADSL 384 = R800 pm max. (incl. telephone rental)
DSL router costs R400 (R33 over 12 months)
total cost R834 pm
currently reliability : very good
3gig iBurst on month to month for 1 year
===============================
3gig service UT-D = R699 pm all incl.
UT-D router costs R2800 (R233 over 12 months)
total cost R932 pm
currently reliability : depends who you talk to, average to poor
If iBurst was performing as advertised at a rate well above DSL 384, then it would be worth the extra R100 a month over 12 months.
If iBursts UT-D modem was better priced, it would also be worth it.
Using a single service for more than 12 months with our current volatile broadband offerings is probably not a good idea.
Last edited:
I am now fully boycotting Telkom, as some of you (MaD and Debbie Love) may know
As South Africans, we are used to rising up to meet challenges. Surely we can get bandwidth into SA via some means other than Telkom. What do you think?
As South Africans, we are used to rising up to meet challenges. Surely we can get bandwidth into SA via some means other than Telkom. What do you think?