Cool Ideas Fibre ISP - Feedback

Status
Not open for further replies.
PBCool said:
I will get feedback for you, but with the 200Mbps being a new package I don't think it's price will reduce.
Click to expand...

Hence why I asked for the assistance. The current 200Mbps price is out of sync with the rest. I mean who would pay R900 more per month to bump their speed when they already have 100Mbps? I was just hoping CISP would prefer I pay R400-500 more per month for a speed bump that used to cost that much extra anyway. It's not like my household's usage will change, so it's money for jam.
 
Bryn said:
Hence why I asked for the assistance. The current 200Mbps price is out of sync with the rest. I mean who would pay R900 more per month to bump their speed when they already have 100Mbps? I was just hoping CISP would prefer I pay R400-500 more per month for a speed bump that used to cost that much extra anyway. It's not like my household's usage will change, so it's money for jam.
Click to expand...
It's not out of sync if you knew what IPC costs are, the costs scale dramatically.
 
Riaandb said:
Yes the Archer got gigabit ports. Its a brand new line that was activated yesterday :-)
Click to expand...

Tinuva said:
Does the WAN port on the Archer sync at 100 or 1000Mbit with the ONT?

If its a cat5 cable, its possible your router is syncing at 100Mbit, so your speedtests will be slightly below 100Mbit. The other one is, the link from the router to your PC must also sync at 1000Mbit.
Click to expand...

Oh yes "Tinuva" is 100% correct, I completely forgot about the Ethernet Cable. You need to get CAT6 or 6A.
 
PBCool said:
It's not out of sync if you knew what IPC costs are, the costs scale dramatically.
Click to expand...

How does that work? If my household uses roughly the same data but enjoys a faster speed (and even then, only for 2 or 3 devices), why does CISP take on additional costs beyond the R271 higher line rental levied by Openserve?

The costing seems to suggest that CISP aren't keen to have customers on the 200Mbps speed, so I'm genuinely curious. Or is it just a simple case of wanting to avoid data hogs being able to cause too much damage?

How much would CISP benefit from having a throttling policy that only affected severe data hogs? Is that much of an issue for you guys?
 
Can i upgrade my speed from 100/10 to 200/20 via the vumatel shop? I am afraid it will create two accounts? And they won't charge me double?
 
Last edited:
Riaandb said:
Can i upgrade my speed from 100/10 to 200/20 via the vumatel shop? I am afraid it will create two accounts? And they won't charge me double?
Click to expand...

Why would it create 2 accounts. You just login with your current vumatel shop account and then upgrade. If you’re on Vuma trenched then the upgrade is almost immediate.
 
Bryn said:
How does that work? If my household uses roughly the same data but enjoys a faster speed (and even then, only for 2 or 3 devices), why does CISP take on additional costs beyond the R271 higher line rental levied by Openserve?

The costing seems to suggest that CISP aren't keen to have customers on the 200Mbps speed, so I'm genuinely curious. Or is it just a simple case of wanting to avoid data hogs being able to cause too much damage?

How much would CISP benefit from having a throttling policy that only affected severe data hogs? Is that much of an issue for you guys?
Click to expand...
Our business policy has always been use as much as you like.
The Openserve network with IPC doesn't make this very feasible for us. We don't see IPC being around forever but for the meanwhile it's a major cost.
If we want to start implementing FUPs etc it goes against our whole idealistic approach of fibre to the home.
If we start making policies like FUPs this motivates OS to keep IPC around.
 
I agree with your business policy, @PBCool - but I also agree with @Bryn that at the level of 200Mbit the effective net increase in link utilisation on 95/5 needs to be taken into account to have the pricing better reflect the value of the account.

That said, I fully support your business model as I am loving my 200Mbit Vumatel service :D
 
PBCool said:
Our business policy has always been use as much as you like.
The Openserve network with IPC doesn't make this very feasible for us. We don't see IPC being around forever but for the meanwhile it's a major cost.
If we want to start implementing FUPs etc it goes against our whole idealistic approach of fibre to the home.
If we start making policies like FUPs this motivates OS to keep IPC around.
Click to expand...

But how could you ever truly adopt a 'use as much as you like' approach in practice? A 100Mbps line can do 12MB/s, or over 30TB a month at full utilisation. There is presumably a limit to what CISP would accept from a home customer before which they are contacted and told to adjust their behaviour or have the account terminated. So why not just make such limits public knowledge? It's not like customers are going to moan about throttling kicking in at a usage level they're highly unlikely to ever reach, like 2TB or something.

Anyway, that's just too bad. Guess I'll wait for the 200Mbps price difference to reach a point that makes sense to me.
 
Bryn said:
But how could you ever truly adopt a 'use as much as you like' approach in practice? A 100Mbps line can do 12MB/s, or over 30TB a month at full utilisation. There is presumably a limit to what CISP would accept from a home customer before which they are contacted and told to adjust their behaviour or have the account terminated. So why not just make such limits public knowledge? It's not like customers are going to moan about throttling kicking in at a usage level they're highly unlikely to ever reach, like 2TB or something.

Anyway, that's just too bad. Guess I'll wait for the 200Mbps price difference to reach a point that makes sense to me.
Click to expand...

The blame lies with telkom, the quality of their fibre is appalling on top of the insane costs.
 
@PBCool

Could CISP and RSAweb set up peering? Was trying to play a game on a CPT server from CPT Vumatal trenched, and latency was 40ms instead of sub 5ms.

Code: 
~ $ mtr cs.skynetsky.co.za --report-wide
Start: Sat Apr 28 19:16:57 2018
HOST: outlawstar                           Loss%   Snt   Last   Avg  Best  Wrst StDev
  1.|-- router.heaven.za.net                  0.0%    10    0.2   0.3   0.2   0.3   0.0
  2.|-- 155.93.246.1                          0.0%    10    1.0  14.0   1.0 130.4  40.9
  3.|-- 154.0.1.125                           0.0%    10    1.0   1.1   1.0   1.2   0.0
  4.|-- 154.0.1.13                            0.0%    10    1.2   1.4   1.2   1.9   0.0
  5.|-- 154.0.1.245                           0.0%    10   20.8  22.9  20.7  40.9   6.3
  6.|-- 154.0.4.53                            0.0%    10   21.5  21.6  21.5  21.8   0.0
  7.|-- 197.96.214.112                        0.0%    10   21.8  21.5  21.3  21.8   0.0
  8.|-- 168.209.1.165                         0.0%    10   21.2  21.1  20.9  21.4   0.0
  9.|-- 168.209.100.102                       0.0%    10   21.4  21.4  21.2  21.8   0.0
 10.|-- 168.209.2.132                        10.0%    10   26.6  39.5  21.3 168.5  48.4
 11.|-- t3.1-vl900-cr01.dc2.cpt.rsaweb.co.za  0.0%    10   38.3  38.4  38.1  39.2   0.0
 12.|-- eth5.ipc.dc2.cpt.rsaweb.co.za         0.0%    10   39.0  39.4  38.7  39.9   0.0
 13.|-- vumatel.cpt.rsaweb.co.za              0.0%    10   38.9  40.3  38.9  43.6   1.2
 14.|-- 41-71-84-144.ftth.rsaweb.co.za        0.0%    10   39.4  40.0  39.4  40.7   0.0

From that, it looks like it routes CPT -> JHB -> CPT and the same back.
 
Tinuva said:
@PBCool

Could CISP and RSAweb set up peering? Was trying to play a game on a CPT server from CPT Vumatal trenched, and latency was 40ms instead of sub 5ms.

Code: 
~ $ mtr cs.skynetsky.co.za --report-wide
Start: Sat Apr 28 19:16:57 2018
HOST: outlawstar                           Loss%   Snt   Last   Avg  Best  Wrst StDev
  1.|-- router.heaven.za.net                  0.0%    10    0.2   0.3   0.2   0.3   0.0
  2.|-- 155.93.246.1                          0.0%    10    1.0  14.0   1.0 130.4  40.9
  3.|-- 154.0.1.125                           0.0%    10    1.0   1.1   1.0   1.2   0.0
  4.|-- 154.0.1.13                            0.0%    10    1.2   1.4   1.2   1.9   0.0
  5.|-- 154.0.1.245                           0.0%    10   20.8  22.9  20.7  40.9   6.3
  6.|-- 154.0.4.53                            0.0%    10   21.5  21.6  21.5  21.8   0.0
  7.|-- 197.96.214.112                        0.0%    10   21.8  21.5  21.3  21.8   0.0
  8.|-- 168.209.1.165                         0.0%    10   21.2  21.1  20.9  21.4   0.0
  9.|-- 168.209.100.102                       0.0%    10   21.4  21.4  21.2  21.8   0.0
 10.|-- 168.209.2.132                        10.0%    10   26.6  39.5  21.3 168.5  48.4
 11.|-- t3.1-vl900-cr01.dc2.cpt.rsaweb.co.za  0.0%    10   38.3  38.4  38.1  39.2   0.0
 12.|-- eth5.ipc.dc2.cpt.rsaweb.co.za         0.0%    10   39.0  39.4  38.7  39.9   0.0
 13.|-- vumatel.cpt.rsaweb.co.za              0.0%    10   38.9  40.3  38.9  43.6   1.2
 14.|-- 41-71-84-144.ftth.rsaweb.co.za        0.0%    10   39.4  40.0  39.4  40.7   0.0

From that, it looks like it routes CPT -> JHB -> CPT and the same back.
Click to expand...
Sure will reach out to them, i assume it routes via JHB because of RSAWeb and IS being their transit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X