-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Which compact crossover would you choose?
DataPro lets remove them and their advertising.
- Thread starter ganymede1
- Start date
RoosTa
Expert Member
And that I do agree with. Thats why per gig billing can have a plus side, but ir leaves a burning question; Why not follow the international trend? Why can't Telkom just be "normal" and provide 10,20,30gig accounts at 192, 384 and 512 packages around R200-R400?
The only reason I can see behind this is to "hide" the real cost to the unwary and to make it worse, people are supporting this. R100 for 1 gig somehow sounds cheaper than R1600 for 30gig. Its a marketing ploy, the same way the car resellers do it. Give them less for more.
And to prove my point:
So for R30 less you lose uncapped local? And how is that an improvement? Before 30gig accounts came around, I used to have 2x3gig accounts. 1 I'd cap within a few hours and then use that for, browsing locally, downloading locally and playing games. The other I'd save for international access, browsing and downloading updates.mando said:
Now with this new system that will be impossible and it will now cost me more if I wanted to do exactly what I used to do since I'll have to keep on "topping up" at rediculous amounts of cash. Infact, it should be the other way around, Telkom should be dropping the 3gig account by R200 for loosing the local uncapped and we should be paying R30 for international access.
Last edited:
The per gig offering look exactly like the previous 3gig offering on the wholesale cost, only now its local capped. Dont you people understand this? I dont see any reduction buying wholesale 3x 1gig accounts compared to previously wholesale 3gig account.
NO, ZERO, BOGGERAL better pricing.
NO, ZERO, BOGGERAL better pricing.
DigitalSoldier
Honorary Master
wtf should u get adsl if u are not going to be a poweruser if u just want to check email and surf a few sites then 56k and isdn is still a great option
Roman4604 said:
You obviously have no knowledeg of the Submarine cables at all. The Sat 3 cable is reserved for adsl uncaped, diginet, isdn, and 56k only. All other traffic goes via the 2 cables to america or via the safe cable system, as this alows telkom to rape even higher profits.
Roman4604
Executive Member
Thats serious insider information ... you must be well connected. I didn't even know Telkom had an uncapped ADSL product ... could please use your connections to get me a price.sburrell said:
And while your at it, I would be really interested to find out the names of those 2 cables to America too.sburrell said:
Unbelievable, I'm going to have to complain to Telkom for routing my calls to granny in Portugal via India or Malaysia!sburrell said:
You got me there.sburrell said:
As a correction when i said uncapped i meant unshaped, i apolagize for that, too many beers. 
The other Cables would be the SAT 1 and SAT 2 which link to New York and I believe Florida. And again I apoligise not stating this, but Voice Services get priority over everything.
I suggest taking look at Saix.net and look at the infestructure map they have, ull need adobe reader.
The other Cables would be the SAT 1 and SAT 2 which link to New York and I believe Florida. And again I apoligise not stating this, but Voice Services get priority over everything.I suggest taking look at Saix.net and look at the infestructure map they have, ull need adobe reader.
doobiwan
Executive Member
We get onto SAFE how? Via wireless connection to Mauritius? Cable gets landed next year . . . That map of theirs is far from accurate, it just looks pretty.
We don't even have access to 120Gb on SAT3, Telkom only owns ~30% of it.
The latency overhead of satellite is in the order of 250-400ms, so no, it's not suitable, for many ADSL users - gamers.
At the end of the day we all want affordable broadband, and while speculating on details gets us pretty much no where, everybody has different needs and the packages should reflect that. We need to be realistic, and look at what the rest of the planet has done, and then decide where ZA wants to be? Back of the pack? We're doing that well at the moment . . . Average, or ahead of the broadband wave. Only the regulators / Government can make those decisions, so let's stop arguing about cr@p and do something about it.
RoosTa
Expert Member
doobiwan said:
SA is connected to the SAFE cable, proof? Well a while a go there was a earth quake that snapped the SAFE cable. This caused disruptions in South Africa. Even the Genesis report says the SAFE cable is operating at 40GB/s from South Africa even though its total capacity is 130GB/s. So I have no idea where you get your fresh carp from.
Oh and SAFE stands for: South African - Far East. http://mt.intnet.mu/downloads/about_us/learners/safe1.pdf
Last edited:
RoosTa
Expert Member
LaRoosTa said:
Yeah, the problem with the eassy and the west african submarine cable systems will be that south africa wont be connected to these, we would have to peer over ground links to use them.
RoosTa
Expert Member
EASSy will land in SA at Mtunzini, but western africa cable won't. http://eassy.org/basicRoute.htm
And erm sorry for the hijack, this thread is WAY off topic
And erm sorry for the hijack, this thread is WAY off topic
Last edited:
ganymede1 said:
No one can accuse me of being a Telkom supporter, a prick maybe, however I do agree with this business model in South Africa at this stage of the deregulation process.
Imagine if we had a flat fee for cellluar calls based on an average usage of 300 minutes per month and 5% of abusers utlilising up to 100 times more than the average effects the quality of everyones calls. I know people think it is their right and due to rip Telkom off via the various loopholes etc but it backfires a bit when it degrades the quality of the entire network.
bb_matt
Executive Member
ROFL at Douglasr :-
Glad to see your sense of humour is intact !
Personally, I think the person who wrote that comment is a ... nah, I won't go there, just in case they don't have a sense of humour !
Anyway, I would say this thread has proven that majority of people who can actually think, agree that per-gig usage is the way to go.
Cost, however, is key to this succeeding.
Besides, when it comes down to the nitty gritty with ADSL, it's the line rental that's the killer, not the ISP charges !
Glad to see your sense of humour is intact !
Personally, I think the person who wrote that comment is a ... nah, I won't go there, just in case they don't have a sense of humour !
Anyway, I would say this thread has proven that majority of people who can actually think, agree that per-gig usage is the way to go.
Cost, however, is key to this succeeding.
Besides, when it comes down to the nitty gritty with ADSL, it's the line rental that's the killer, not the ISP charges !
Apologies said more out spite at the time. I don’t agree with per usage billing. I don’t understand why leading economies like the UK, US or even China are happy not charging for usage, but in South Africa … we do.
The worst consequence of accepting the pay per usage scenario is getting off it. Paying per usage might benefit certain people on the network but in due time these networks should be able to handle everyone at maximum capacity, when that time comes give me one reason why they will switch to a non usage system - I wouldn’t.
Secondly but more importantly I think in South Africa we already have such great income inequalities and differences in standard of living this just introduces another barrier to those who are less fortunate. I am not going to revisit the entire 'poor school in township with 500 students using 512kbs constant paying XX per meg' or 'struggling company with innovative but bandwidth intensive idea' scenarios. It’s been said over and over and I feel like I am screaming it out and people are going “oh well that’s not me I don’t give a ****.”
So, yes for you greedy bastards who have plenty of money to spend on bandwidth.... terrific! Spend away but remember that there are plenty of less fortunate people out there and in South Africa less fortunate is 80% of the population - not all of them want to download movies, half of them don’t know what an mp3 is and 10% of them are fortunate to even play a video game never mind download one.
So once again it seems we are in a situation of those with money are in an improved situation to those who don’t.
The worst consequence of accepting the pay per usage scenario is getting off it. Paying per usage might benefit certain people on the network but in due time these networks should be able to handle everyone at maximum capacity, when that time comes give me one reason why they will switch to a non usage system - I wouldn’t.
Secondly but more importantly I think in South Africa we already have such great income inequalities and differences in standard of living this just introduces another barrier to those who are less fortunate. I am not going to revisit the entire 'poor school in township with 500 students using 512kbs constant paying XX per meg' or 'struggling company with innovative but bandwidth intensive idea' scenarios. It’s been said over and over and I feel like I am screaming it out and people are going “oh well that’s not me I don’t give a ****.”
So, yes for you greedy bastards who have plenty of money to spend on bandwidth.... terrific! Spend away but remember that there are plenty of less fortunate people out there and in South Africa less fortunate is 80% of the population - not all of them want to download movies, half of them don’t know what an mp3 is and 10% of them are fortunate to even play a video game never mind download one.
So once again it seems we are in a situation of those with money are in an improved situation to those who don’t.