Faster broadband is bad!

B

BobJones

Expert Member
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
1,508
Reaction score
0
I've been surprized to see a lot of posts recently saying that DSL192 users don't really want to be upgraded to DSL384. The reasoning seems to be along the lines that they will burn thru their bandwidth cap faster.:eek:

To me this sounds totally counter-intiative. I thought the whole point of broadband was to get the fastest connection available (within your budget).

I used to have a 14400 dialup, then 56k, then 64k ISDN, now 384DSL, probably 512DSL after Aug, maybe 1024. Each time I've moved up the speed food chain I've found it extremely frustrating to use a slower connection. When I travel I've sometimes got to use really slow 9600k dialup, and it damn near kills me.

Do the majority of 192DSL users really think they are better off at 192 instead of 384?:confused:
 
yea its never nice to use a slower connection - but sometimes just one of those things. Being forced to take a faster connection is also just one of those things, and if people can't manage their cap allowance (which is stupid i know!) they shouldnt be using broadband, and rather stick with dialup!.

What i do - have 2 DSL accounts with Telkom. Nail the one account till it dies after a few days into the month. switch to the next. play nicely with it till a few days before the end of the month and drill that one to death too. if you plan it just right you don't get capped at all. works for me.
 
Yeh, i wish my 384 was upgraded 2 512 :( Although it kinda will b when prices drop, but i don't wanna call Telkom.. that's just a mission
 
Speed isn't an issue if you're patient. :)
I'm still on 64K ISDN and I'm happy with it even after having seen how fast ADSL is.

On a busy month I move about 8GB of GIS data (satellite imagery and DEMs) through my 64K dialup connection during callmore time on the R9 capped call option. It would cost me MUCH more to buy 3*3GB accounts than to just be patient.
The whole ADSL capping issue is what has been keeping me on dialup for so long.

Paul
 
Paul_S said:
Speed isn't an issue if you're patient. :)
I'm still on 64K ISDN and I'm happy with it even after having seen how fast ADSL is.

On a busy month I move about 8GB of GIS data (satellite imagery and DEMs) through my 64K dialup connection during callmore time on the R9 capped call option. It would cost me MUCH more to buy 3*3GB accounts than to just be patient.
The whole ADSL capping issue is what has been keeping me on dialup for so long.

Paul
Click to expand...
well - since you're content with speeds. and you're used to getting around 8gigs per month. then a 2*3gig accounts a month with a 384k line will get you about 20gigs of data as they always allow you to go over your 3gig limit. seing that you're not fussy about speed, and happy with that 8 gig,then you should have no problems managing your usage allowance.
 
BobJones, you missed the point!

It is not that nobody wants faster connection, problem is that it doesn't help having faster connection if you can't use it due to ridiculous cap. Believe it or not, over a 192 kbps line, you can load the most demanding page in a matter of seconds, while the page is still few hundred KB, if you have faster line those pages will load even faster, probably leading to you browsing more pages (like I browse a lot sitest like pbase), which mean your 3GB will finish sooner, which mean you have to fork more cash to keep your connectivity up until the end of the month.

the bottom line is that they are pretending to be decreasing the prices, but they decrease the price of the things that least benefit us, and make almost no difference to our overal experience. It will make much more difference for me having a cap 10GB/month (30GB much better though!), than having 2 mbit line which I can't use due to cap restriction.
 
I have to agree with the premise that faster leads to a better browsing experience. My mother has a 8mb connection with a 6gb cap. There's no way she's ever going to use that much but the speed suits her needs more than anything.

I can see how heavy downloaders might suffer but in my case my regular content is fairly well established these days so essentially I'd be getting the same stuff only quicker.
 
Last edited:
I don't thinnk speed is the issue, sure its nice. But the reason people went for 192k is mostly due to fact it is the cheapest. Telkom removing it, basically means they not allowing the adsl connection cost to get reduced by much.

E.G. Its like getting a headline 'Rental price now reduced' fine print: free voicemail + callme + etc upgrade service on your phone line just so that the rental remains the same if you didn't have it and then they claim its overall cost has dropped since those service cost money. So if you had those services it would be a saving, but for people who didn't have it, they just get shafted. Sure that is true that cost is reduced, and those are nice to have BUT it means the lowest cost for the basic service remains high/the same which is where i have a probelm with it
 
swordfish1 said:
It is not that nobody wants faster connection, problem is that it doesn't help having faster connection if you can't use it due to ridiculous cap. Believe it or not, over a 192 kbps line, you can load the most demanding page in a matter of seconds, while the page is still few hundred KB, if you have faster line those pages will load even faster, probably leading to you browsing more pages (like I browse a lot sitest like pbase), which mean your 3GB will finish sooner, which mean you have to fork more cash to keep your connectivity up until the end of the month.
Click to expand...

One persons demanding page is another person's fluff!;)
This site is an example, being effectively text based because of the bandwidth costs. If we were all magically transported to a cheaper more competitive telecoms environment, this site would be filled with audio streams of ICASA hearings, video and flash presentations in the news section, and podcast directories.

swordfish1 said:
the bottom line is that they are pretending to be decreasing the prices, but they decrease the price of the things that least benefit us, and make almost no difference to our overal experience. It will make much more difference for me having a cap 10GB/month (30GB much better though!), than having 2 mbit line which I can't use due to cap restriction.
Click to expand...

I don't agree, people have a short attention span. They will abort a download that takes too long 9 times out of 10. The end result is that your message doesn't get heard or your product doesn't get seen, either way a loss of business.
 
krycor said:
I don't thinnk speed is the issue, sure its nice. But the reason people went for 192k is mostly due to fact it is the cheapest. Telkom removing it, basically means they not allowing the adsl connection cost to get reduced by much.
Click to expand...

Maybe swordfish is right and I don't get it, but consider the following:
Right now a 384 connection + line + 2 gig ISP costs R651.
On 1 Aug 384 conection + line + 2 gig ISP will cost R544.

Are you saying that you would be happier that on 1 Aug Telkom kept you on 192 for R544 instead?

People keep comparing the "old" 192 cost of R562 to the "new" cost of R544, when in actual fact they should be comparing a R651 drop to R544!

Don't tell me that I want 192 for <R500 either! Thats like saying you want to keep on using an XT instead of a pentium. After a (very short) while there isn't a heck of a lot you can do on the XT that isn't quicker and cheaper on the pentium.

BTW please don't flame me with the fact that its going to cost Telkom virtually nothing to to the 192->384 upgrade! I'm painfully aware of this.
 
Last edited:
.geek said:
haha, thought that seemed a little odd: 8 meg line, 6 meg cap :D
Click to expand...
lol - I know - BLINK - cap's gone. :D
 
Well if they kept 192k it would have to be cheaper than 384k ie entry lvl dsl would be cheaper. ie R444 compared to R544 cost based on your cost calc assuiming you using only telkom products. bottom line is minimum price you have to pay. Can't make it any clearer.
 
Sure you have a point there, but you need to consider that there are other products in the market and Telkom is not gonna kill other revenue streams. Having a R450/m slow dsl product would kill isdn dailup overnight!:eek:
The implications are staggering. This just shows up the real costs of the technology. If we had real competition instead of the lame duck the SNOT looks like its gonna be (ala Cell-C), chances are we would already have 512 for about R400/m.:mad:
 
BobJones said:
People keep comparing the "old" 192 cost of R562 to the "new" cost of R544, when in actual fact they should be comparing a R651 drop to R544!
Click to expand...
No, I am happy with a 192. It serves my needs. Why must I be forced to upgrade. It's like saying that interest rates are dropping but you have to buy a more expensive car so in effect you are getting a faster car even if you don't need it. Of course I would love to have a 1024 line and I could even manage my cap but what is the point. I don't need it. What I need is a cheaper entry level always on internet option.

EDIT: I should probably have said "No, I am content with a 192" as I am not happy about it :)
 
Last edited:
This looks a fair debate... Thought i'd stick my oar in...

Assuming all 192k customers do get this free upgrade to 384k., what kind of speeds can we expect? I was getting +30k on my 192k line(like most other people) before telkom 'corrected' the errors. And now we get boosted up again. I am just wondering by how much. ATM i get 20k if i am lucky. Will my speed actually double to 40k in that case??
 
@hj2k_x - they only assure you of a minimum speed - 192k
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X