Iburst after hours unlimited package

The only constant @ Iburst is its failure to deliver what its' customers want. With the suggestions and comments by MyBB users the Iburst product development team had
their requirements analysis handed to them, yet they still FAIL.

I recall MyBB members indicating that they would be prepared to pay for the throttled service as an add-on. I guess iBurst took those suggestions onboard. See this thread for example:

http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?171362-New-Iburst-Acc-Type

[P.S. to iBurst reps and MyBB admin types: It's quite weird looking at old threads and seeing posts made by Sean Green but now signed by Gcebile. Was it not possible to have an iBurst2 for her. Also an iBurst3 for rooigevaar? With the latter especially, doesn't it make sense that a corporate rep is identifiable as such?]
 
The problem is that it will problably be a VAS.

EG: R445 (Wireless 5) + R500 (Uncapped after hours VAS) = R945 excluding modem

R945 gets you ADSL uncapped all day including line rental.

That will kill their 15GB offerings. Why would anyone pay more to get 10GB extra during the day and then nothing. On the a/h service you could download 100s of GBs per month.
 
My opinion is that caps, boosters, access and throttles all need to be viewed in a balanced fashion. None are free, and if they are they are then cross subsidized by the other attributes.
I have a personal view to express and hope it will stimulate some constructive debate. The views expressed by my good friend Ivan, I believe are very relevant:

Internet Socialism: All-I-can-eat mentality

Every few months, my good friend Jeremy finds a reason to write another post against bandwidth throttling and usage-based billing. Unfortunately, all the blog posts of this world will not change the basic fact (sometimes known as the first law of thermodynamics): there is no free lunch. Applied to this particular issue:

* Any form of fixed Internet pricing is effectively an “all-you-can-eat” buffet. Such a buffet works as long as the visitors’ stomach sizes have comparable capacity. In the high-speed Internet world a torrent user can consume two or three orders of magnitude more resources than a regular user.
* In an environment where a minority of users consumes most of the resources, you’re simply forced to treat the large consumers differently. Otherwise, you’re forcing the majority to pay for the excesses of the few and the majority will eventually revolt (which is why the big socialist experiments didn’t work).
* Obviously you need to upgrade your network as the average use increases, but being forced to upgrade due to a few large consumers and distributing the costs across the whole customer base simply does not make sense (not to mention the fact that providing Internet connectivity is far away from being a lucrative business).

Unfortunately, the basic facts are usually obscured by controversies like companies choosing PR disasters over fixing their networks or Service Providers incompetent enough to call port scanning a DOS attack. It’s also highly unreasonable to expect the users to consume less than 5GB a month and charge any over-the-quota traffic without any safeguards.

There are technical solutions (for example, Cisco’s SCE) that allow the Service Providers to give each user a fair share of the bandwidth (or even limit the number of TCP/UDP sessions in a time period). However, without end-users and bloggers adopting a realistic view of the world, we’re facing a lose-lose scenario. Whatever the Service Providers do, however much they might invest in their network (and charge everyone), however reasonable their throttling/capping decisions might be, the all-I-can-eat zealots will cry foul … or am I yet again completely wrong?

Read more: http://blog.ioshints.info/2009/06/internet-socialism-all-i-can-eat.html
 
My opinion is that caps, boosters, access and throttles all need to be viewed in a balanced fashion. None are free, and if they are they are then cross subsidized by the other attributes.
I have a personal view to express and hope it will stimulate some constructive debate. The views expressed by my good friend Ivan, I believe are very relevant:



Read more: http://blog.ioshints.info/2009/06/internet-socialism-all-i-can-eat.html

No Ronald, I don't agree with your friend Ivan. Firstly, let me go on a tangent. All-you-can-eat is exactly that, all I can eat. The problem with ISPs are all these AUPs and limits and thresholds and caps. it makes as much sense as a restaurant serving "bottomless coffee" and then saying but you're only allowed 5. Its not about getting a free lunch - I'm paying for something that says "unlimited" - and by crakey, I want what I pay for!

Ivan can say yes, coz the 1 torrenter uses the same as 3 normal users, that "insert random reason to throttle and apply caps etc", but that's shifting the blame isn't it? If the ISP has oversold the bandwidth - then whose fault is it? Its definitely NOT the end-users fault whose making use of the service he paid for.

This is assuming that the ISP is offering an all-you-can-eat option - in SA, this is obviously the minority. But if i've bought a Gb of data from a provider - I want to use it when I want to use it, at my full connection speed, so the same logic applies. We, the end-users, buy a product based on what its advertised at - if the ISP cannot really provide the service its advertising, then I will moan and kick up a fuss. Simple.

I think what Ivan is really saying is that partially-intelligent customers are irrational because we're not willing to accept the **** that gets shovelled to us. We get told "internetz in SA is expensive coz we've only got a small international cable and some satellite and its expensive to get some of that pie". We then get shovelled this local cap and international cap rubbish. Then we get Seacom and its "oh wait, its not the international bandwidth thats the issue, its the other costs that are the issue" ... and little changes ... we still get ripped off by prices that are either arbitrarily inflated to maintain profit margins, or to cover the costs of the largely inefficient people in those companies.

Why should we accept this? Because its the way its always been? Maybe we should be taking heed of whats happening in China with their "hacker schools" and take some time to think about the true implications of digital repression.
 
I agree with JustinB.
Dont tell me that I will get something and then fail to deliver.
I prefer to get told straight what is the product and what i can expect from it rather than getting played for a fool with carrot-on-a-stick promises the whole time and then when I finally catch the carrot realise thats its not even a carrot at all.
 
Iburst should just be honest and say that they are scrapping the possibility of an after hours uncapped services instead of being silent about the whole thing.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X