I know why local contributes to the cap...

Its good if the beer is free
Its bad when you try to take advantage of us in a boozed state
 
jmn said:
... and they have the lotto network to a large extend also on radio.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is also very true - I totally forgot about that :).
slimothy said:
yeah um if they cant sort out stuff liek the cap then I don't want them responsible for managing thier own bandwith infrustructure. I say leave it to the dudes at UUNET
Click to expand...
The problem with the cap is that WBS never tested it on us guinea pigs during pre-launch - we should have had access to all the web interface stuff long ago.

Anyone that has ever been involved with software development will know that there is no such thing as a bug-free system - there are always bugs - even in the simplest of systems people using the system will perceive questionable functionality to be a bug.

Back to bandwidth: if I were in charge of purchasing bandwidth for WBS, I would ensure that I could purchase bandwidth dynamically from multiple suppliers (not bound hand & foot to any of them) - that way you force the suppliers to compete with each other & get better prices & deals. But, I don't work for WBS, so it's like being in an interrogation room with WBS staring at me from the other side of the one-way glass.

Added: my opinion depends on whether I'm part of the "some" ;), it would actually be nice to have an iBurst forumites getogether of some sort - perhaps we could do something public to support/publicise MyADSL as well - I still think [post=162326]the VoIP Kwaga Crossing idea[/post] is viable...are Kwagas allowed to drink in public I wonder...;)
 
Last edited:
noone said:
Its good if the beer is free
Its bad when you try to take advantage of us in a boozed state
Click to expand...

LOL , for the few i want to meet , the beer ( Untill I am broke :p ) will be free .
As for "taken advantage" , you will be safe as long as u r male :D
 
ic said:
WBS never tested it on us guinea pigs during pre-launch - we should have had access to all the web interface stuff long ago.
Click to expand...
I dont think it was done long agao and I don't think the ideas behind the cap were done long ago either since new packages are a recent addition, actually I still don't think this stuff is completed, the web interface or the cap.
 
ic said:
Back to bandwidth: if I were in charge of purchasing bandwidth for WBS, I would ensure that I could purchase bandwidth dynamically from multiple suppliers (not bound hand & foot to any of them) - that way you force the suppliers to compete with each other & get better prices & deals. But, I don't work for WBS, so it's like being in an interrogation room with WBS staring at me from the other side of the one-way glass.
Click to expand...

The problem with UUNET is that I was also enquiring at one stage on their pricing for a project i am busy on. When I asked for a split in pricing between international and national , I was told there is a single price because their internal pricing structure caters for so much international and so much domestic consumption of teh total consumption of traffic.
Granted , my usage would be nowhere near WBS's consumption , so i did not have the clout to take that type of neotiation further.
 
slimothy said:
I dont think it was done long agao and I don't think the ideas behind the cap were done long ago either since new packages are a recent addition, actually I still don't think this stuff is completed, the web interface or the cap.
Click to expand...
I totally agree, the fact that stuff was still being developed on the fly as of Friday & over the weekend is evidence of this. The concrete isn't set yet, so we need to request a system that works the way we want it to work, from there it is entirely up to WBS to implement or not to implement.
Gary Waterworth said:
The problem with UUNET is that I was also enquiring at one stage on their pricing for a project i am busy on. When I asked for a split in pricing between international and national , I was told there is a single price because their internal pricing structure caters for so much international and so much domestic consumption of teh total consumption of traffic.
Granted , my usage would be nowhere near WBS's consumption , so i did not have the clout to take that type of neotiation further.
Click to expand...
I think WBS certainly would have considerable clout now considering what they must be paying UUNET SA each month, as to whether they had savvy/clout in negotiating their contract with UUNET SA - who knows...probably the beancounters @ WBS will be the first to have retrospective knowledge if the marketeers @ WBS are too constrained by that contract & cannot implement the packages & options that we iBursters want.

PS: Any comments on the VoIP Kwaga Crossing...?
(perhaps better to quote post in that thread - it needs to attend a revival meeting :D)
 
I doubt WBS even tried to negotiate on price. They seem to be a bunch of "we will believe anything if someone tells us it is so" type of people
 
I think they negotiated a price but not based on local or international, I think they buy bandwith in bulk and get some sort of bulk discount but I don't think there is any difference at all about price for local or international.

Do the math right now they make no distinctions anywhere about local or international traffic, the only reason we talk in these terms is because of the ADSL pricing structure. Thats why WBS count local and international toward the cap and throttle local and international to 64k after the cap, if they were gettign local at a fraction of the cost of international as apposed to the same price it makes sense they would use some sort of incentive to get people to use local, like not capping local or not counting it towards the cap because at the end of the day they'd save more money.
 
slimothy said:
...
...if they were gettign local at a fraction of the cost of international as apposed to the same price it makes sense they would use some sort of incentive to get people to use local, like not capping local or not counting it towards the cap because at the end of the day they'd save more money.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: if WBS were paying UUNET SA a fraction of the price of international for local bandwidth consumption, WBS would simply pocket the difference between income & expenditure - it is called profit.
 
indeed but they'd lose money with the international traffic, its called cost.

I'm just saying theres a reason telkom puts everyone on one 64k pipe after they reach the cap for international and yet local remains uncapped, because telkom don't want to bleed revenue and international costs alot where as local is next to nothing. if WBS was also payign more for international than they did local then why would they put us each on a 64k pipe, it doesn't make sense because then they'd lose the profits you're talkign about. you can do 18Gb someone said with your own 64k pipe per month, so lets say 2500 users hit the cap and go download 18GB a month on thier 64k line that makes 45 terrabytes that WBS need to pay for, all international, if that were true then WBS would just say well screw it why not get them to download twice as much from local servers and it'll cost half as much.

I'm telling you the price of local and international is the same to WBS
 
slimothy said:
...
I'm telling you the price of local and international is the same to WBS
Click to expand...
I have not said you are wrong, I have been saying that you do not know that to be fact, just as none of us know the truth, it does not change the fact that we have a constitutional right to debate the matter.

Until there is concrete evidence (as in a copy of the contract between WBS & UUNET SA, coupled with the UUNET SA Tax Invoices addressed to WBS) I will continue to debate.
 
How do we know that you know that ic doesn't know that you don't know it to be a fact, for sure? :P
 
slimothy said:
you do not know that I don't know it to be a fact :)
Click to expand...
Raithlin said:
How do we know that you know that ic doesn't know that you don't know it to be a fact, for sure? :P
Click to expand...
ROFL - sounds like an idea for a polling thread *joking* :D.
 
slimothy said:
I find that comment highly offensive
Click to expand...
Slimothy, do you honestly? - or are you just kidding? - if you do, I suggest that you p.m. RPM & ask to have the word lesbian added to the vBulletin filtration system...note: no guarantee that it will actually happen, but you can try ;).
 
slimothy said:
geez dude i was kidding, you need to chill a bit more
Click to expand...
I'm chilled :D - still mellowd from last night & suffering all day long - could've done with a few more hours of sleep...

Anyways, I now know that when you say you're highly offended all the time & you don't add an emoticon, you are kidding :).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X