Have your say, vote for Data Bundle Rollover

[Prometheus]

Please provide proof for your statement that it's more expensive to deliver over GPRS than UMTS.

http://66.102.9.104/custom?q=cache:...l=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=pub-5585751763775054
Also this post where I am not the only one thinking that this is of benefit for providing cheaper data.

What are Vodacom's access speeds anyway? Certainly NOT what it advertised. MTN trumps them on the GPRS front any time/any day.
Just bring them up to the correct speeds according to what GPRS is supposed to be and then we can talk.

I rarely get over 60kB/s lately. During the peak times it's usually 10-20kB/s.

 

[ic]

500 votes, finally .

Now onwards towards 1 trillion votes...

 

[feo]

500 votes, finally .

Now onwards towards 1 trillion votes...

Only 495 in favour though.

 

[Boodles]

Whats the point of the poll? Just curious.

 

[feo]

Whats the point of the poll? Just curious.

To see if people actually want rollover of data to be implemented.

 

[Boodles]

OK, then what is done with the results?

 

[ic]

Only 495 in favour though.

Which translates into a 99% vote in favour of data bundle rollover...

OK, then what is done with the results?

The poll and its results are transmitted over the internet to anyone that requests them from their browser...

I don't expect Vodacom or MTN to implement DBR anytime soon, but I believe it could happen when one of the two network operators reaches a critical point where it owns the majority of the fibre optic backhaul links it uses - instead of renting from Telkodemonopolies [exorbitant monopoly money rates apply], so it could happen in the future - perhaps even the near future if MTN buys all the backhaul links it currently rents from Telkodemonopolies, and maybe a slice of SAT-3|SAFE as well.

500 votes is simply a milestone, and not a reason to halt the voting, so if you're reading this and you have not yet voted, then don't be apathetic - add your vote to everyone else's votes.

 

[AirWolf]

Yeah, keep those votes coming in. We have a two thirds majority in favour of rollover at no extra cost.

 

[Boodles]

Was just curious about the whole thing since the poll was ongoing. Ok, thanks.

 

[Csnoopy]

Whats the point of the poll? Just curious.

Lol, to see who debate's the subject the best. Nothing more nothing less. I have my doubt's if it will ever happen. Now that is being realistic.

 

[AirWolf]

Sure it will happen, but hopefully in our lifetime.

 

[AirWolf]

There are many possibilities (such as your ideas), the catch is to find the sweet spot that will work for most people.

As I said above the complexity comes in when you buy something in one unit and then sells it in another, non-compatible one.

Driving down transmission costs will help a lot, but I suspect it will be used to lower the overall cost of data bundles as more users will benefit (and prefer).

If we can suddenly drop data prices by say 50%, what would you choose? All bundles drop by 50% or we keep the price the same but introduce roll-over for an additional 30 day?

I've got an idea.

How about introducing rollover at the current pricing but give a refund of a certain percentage to those people that use up their bundle in 30 days or less?

 

[Skeptik]

It doesn't matter how many votes you make. The networks will make a decision on two things: revenue and competition. If MTN does it, then Vodacom will follow.

 

[AirWolf]

Yoohoo Mr V3g, any comments on my idea?

 

[Csnoopy]

Yoohoo Mr V3g, any comments on my idea?

He has given up on idle talk. If he pull's this one off, I will give him a Coke & Half loaf for free.

 

[vodacom3g]

http://66.102.9.104/custom?q=cache:...l=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=pub-5585751763775054
Also this post where I am not the only one thinking that this is of benefit for providing cheaper data.

Let me understand your reasoning;

Because UMTS provides better encoding and can deliver more bits / cycle, ON THE RADIO LINK, you deduce that the TOTAL cost to deliver an IP service must come down? Even if you agree that to carry the required increased bit-rate on the back-haul will be substantially more expensive?

So, we need to:

1) Build a new 3G network with no common equipment with the 2G network.
2) Upgrade the new network to HSDPA within 18 months of initial roll-out.
3) Increase back-haul capacity by a huge factor (~20+). Forcing transmission costs to go up by the same factor.
4) Increase international connectivity by a huge factor (~20+). Again, costs go up by the same factor.
5) Increase all in-line and real-time systems to handle the increase in capacity. Again a corresponding increase in cost.

And you actually believe it's now less expensive to deliver a bit over HSDPA compared to GPRS....

So again, please prove how UMTS is driving the total cost down to deliver a bit to you. Please explain how UMTS makes is less expensive to deliver a 1800Kb/s service vs. a 80Kb/s service.

Please give us comparative costing to deliver a GPRS service vs. a UMTS service. You can use an assumed user base of 300K, spread across the major centers.

By the way, nowhere in the links you posted can I find any information on the total cost to deliver a service. Have you actually read the links you posted?

Awaiting your financial models with anticipation.

 

[Syndyre]

Let me understand your reasoning;

Because UMTS provides better encoding and can deliver more bits / cycle, ON THE RADIO LINK, you deduce that the TOTAL cost to deliver an IP service must come down? Even if you agree that to carry the required increased bit-rate on the back-haul will be substantially more expensive?

So, we need to:

1) Build a new 3G network with no common equipment with the 2G network.
2) Upgrade the new network to HSDPA within 18 months of initial roll-out.
3) Increase back-haul capacity by a huge factor (~20+). Forcing transmission costs to go up by the same factor.
4) Increase international connectivity by a huge factor (~20+). Again, costs go up by the same factor.
5) Increase all in-line and real-time systems to handle the increase in capacity. Again a corresponding increase in cost.

And you actually believe it's now less expensive to deliver a bit over HSDPA compared to GPRS....

So again, please prove how UMTS is driving the total cost down to deliver a bit to you. Please explain how UMTS makes is less expensive to deliver a 1800Kb/s service vs. a 80Kb/s service.

Please give us comparative costing to deliver a GPRS service vs. a UMTS service. You can use an assumed user base of 300K, spread across the major centers.

By the way, nowhere in the links you posted can I find any information on the total cost to deliver a service. Have you actually read the links you posted?

Awaiting your financial models with anticipation.

And now we wait for the reply.

 

[ic]

@v3g, I think you need to add a #6 to your list:

3.xG networks using higher Hz radio frequencies cover smaller cell footprints with less penetration and more interference, therefore 3.xG networks generally require a lot more base-stations to cover an area, whereas 2.yG use lower Hz radio frequencies and provide larger cell footprints, this means that new base-station sites need to be rolled out to sufficiently cover the same area covered by a 2.yG cluster of base-stations. These base-station sites are not cheap, consequently they add to the overall cost of delivering a 3.xG service.

 

[vodacom3g]

@v3g, I think you need to add a #6 to your list:

3.xG networks using higher Hz radio frequencies cover smaller cell footprints with less penetration and more interference, therefore 3.xG networks generally require a lot more base-stations to cover an area, whereas 2.yG use lower Hz radio frequencies and provide larger cell footprints, this means that new base-station sites need to be rolled out to sufficiently cover the same area covered by a 2.yG cluster of base-stations. These base-station sites are not cheap, consequently they add to the overall cost of delivering a 3.xG service.

Quite right.

You'll remember the talk I gave at the myADSL Broadband conference 2 years ago, I put a slide up to show how many more 3G towers you need to cover the same area.

Have a look at the relevant slide (hopefully attached to this post)

Top left shows the effect of moving indoors on the number of sites needed. - (Also shows why it makes sense to use an outdoor antenna.)

Bottom left shows the effect of throughput on number of required sites.

Bottom right shows effect of frequency on coverage.

So with HSDPA we have a combination of these, effectively multiplying the number of site required, not only do we push up the number of bits/second, but we also increase the frequency.

So we need to build between 10 to 20 times more sites.

This obviously drives cost down.....

 

[Csnoopy]

Quite right.

You'll remember the talk I gave at the myADSL Broadband conference 2 years ago, I put a slide up to show how many more 3G towers you need to cover the same area.

Have a look at the relevant slide (hopefully attached to this post)

Top left shows the effect of moving indoors on the number of sites needed. - (Also shows why it makes sense to use an outdoor antenna.)

Bottom left shows the effect of throughput on number of required sites.

Bottom right shows effect of frequency on coverage.

So with HSDPA we have a combination of these, effectively multiplying the number of site required, not only do we push up the number of bits/second, but we also increase the frequency.

So we need to build between 10 to 20 times more sites.

This obviously drives cost down.....

Dit is nou vir jou 'n bek vol.

But VC has the funds to do it.

What was the original discussion of this thread ?