Giff us the uncapped.

[RVQ]

Well, ADSL players don't have pay to support copper. It's all on Telkom's shoulders.

iBurst (not Telkom) have to take care of all towers/base stations.

Towers/base stations very limited in volume (was reading a small pdf file from kyocera website), it said 24Mbits per base station/tower.

That's my thoughts. There is an essay by JvZ in that sub-forum, why ADSL economy differs from wireless...

Theres an article somewhere that states that 90% of ISP's costs go to Telkom for the infrastructure... Telkom would leave behind its mother and wife to save its own arse, no way they'll burden the costs of copper. You, me, ISPs, everyone but Telkom pays for it.

I also seen somewhere that the base stations are limited to I think 32Mb/s. I feel sorry for iBurst unless they find a way around this limitation or start concentrating their business in areas without ADSL infrastructure they going to lose this war. And on top of that iBurst is looking into 2Mb/s modems, why? if the stations are so limited why not find a solution? It seems people want more data and not really worried about speed or mobility. These days just patching the OS/games, AV and other updates alone could kill your cap and its getting worse, international developers dont care about bandwidth limitations purely because it isn't a problem outside of 3rd world.

Free The Internet iBurst!!!

 

[r00igev@@r]

Theres an article somewhere that states that 90% of ISP's costs go to Telkom for the infrastructure... Telkom would leave behind its mother and wife to save its own arse, no way they'll burden the costs of copper. You, me, ISPs, everyone but Telkom pays for it.

I also seen somewhere that the base stations are limited to I think 32Mb/s. I feel sorry for iBurst unless they find a way around this limitation or start concentrating their business in areas without ADSL infrastructure they going to lose this war. And on top of that iBurst is looking into 2Mb/s modems, why? if the stations are so limited why not find a solution? It seems people want more data and not really worried about speed or mobility. These days just patching the OS/games, AV and other updates alone could kill your cap and its getting worse, international developers dont care about bandwidth limitations purely because it isn't a problem outside of 3rd world.

Free The Internet iBurst!!!

Yes, but the average ADSL DSLAM has less than this (usually only multiples of E1s (2 Mb/s) The difference between the two technologies is in the air interface. The minimum latency on the air interface is about 50ms, while on ADSL it is 5ms. This means that ADSL has a better multiplexing rate at lower capacities. Comparatively at the same bandwidth, wireless uses the shared resources for an extra 45ms. This is one of the reasons that P2P is actively controlled on wireless to improve overall service quality to the base.
The metric that is often overlooked is that the wireless uplink is on par with ADSL.
Finally as to your point on an international comparison. Most international providers are reversing their uncapped/unrestricted policies. The benchmark is at about 250GB per month which is large. Fundamentally, a limit is required as it is not sustainable for the many to subsidize the few. The difference is that there it is 250GB, here it would be 25/50/120 GB dependent on speed provisioned.

 

[Zodiak]

So Ronald you basically just admitted that ADSL is better than Wireless because of better latency but Wireless still costs more. Therefore, we pay more for a sh*ttier product.... Which we already knew. Yes, ISPs overseas are slapping on the limits now because their internet is so fast that users could download the whole internet in 1 month. So 250 GB limit is reasonable.... 5 GB on the other hand, not so reasonable.

Mweb know that based on their speeds users can only download so much in 1 month and therefore it is sustainable, now where is Sh*t-Burst's answer to all these packages?!

 

[RVQ]

Yes, but the average ADSL DSLAM has less than this (usually only multiples of E1s (2 Mb/s) The difference between the two technologies is in the air interface. The minimum latency on the air interface is about 50ms, while on ADSL it is 5ms. This means that ADSL has a better multiplexing rate at lower capacities. Comparatively at the same bandwidth, wireless uses the shared resources for an extra 45ms. This is one of the reasons that P2P is actively controlled on wireless to improve overall service quality to the base.
The metric that is often overlooked is that the wireless uplink is on par with ADSL.

I understand that there are limitations in the technology that iBurst is using but those limitations is going to kill the company. iBurst needs to look at least at offering excellent service around the products and not charging insane rates for things they can control like changing packages...
Lets see what happens in the iDSL space, maybe iBurst will just end up being another fixed line ISP.

Finally as to your point on an international comparison. Most international providers are reversing their uncapped/unrestricted policies. The benchmark is at about 250GB per month which is large. Fundamentally, a limit is required as it is not sustainable for the many to subsidize the few. The difference is that there it is 250GB, here it would be 25/50/120 GB dependent on speed provisioned.

Have to agree with Zodiak on this one. People dont care overseas, their speeds are so fast that they use the internet for storage, so people just keep downloading and re-downloading. A household/SMB with multiple PC's/Laptops, gaming consoles, cellphones, fridges... all trying to "talk to the internet" needs more than 5GB a month. It's really sad when I have disable automatic updates on my pc's, think twice about upgrading my cellphone firmware at home or have to download the PS3 firmware at work

 

[The_Unbeliever]

As per the posts above, I think a 10Gb cap should be the absolute minimum.