iBurst softlaunch prices

Perdition and Stoke, thanks for the numbers, something I've been wondering about for a while. Let me add my thoughts: one could offer unshaped gaming packages on fibre and 'surf' packages on satellite uplink. The possibilities are endless.

Methinks it's time we offer our service, for the people, by the people.
 
Martin - 'surf' packages can be verry effectively PROXY'd. BUT - High latency kills any kind of package, and sattelite has problems with weather. To provide maximum service levels, fibre is the only way.
What I need is a way to connect to the Underwater cable without going through Teklom.

But that is not going to happen soon so - until that happens, we're stuck with sattelite, and that makes intl gaming impossible. This is probablee the same position that IBurst is in.

PS: A teeny presentation on the cable can be found at: http://mt.intnet.mu/downloads/about_us/learners/safe1.pdf
 
I know everyone wants unshaped bandwidth but the reality is that every ISP employs shaping to some degree on non CIR (Committed Information Rate) bandwidth. The difference is you don't notice it because they have enough bandwidth to support their user base. The effects of shaping (should) only kick in when the network is congested which is why Sentech are having such an awful time with it. What ISP's must not do is limited the amount of bandwidth per protocol like WBS are proposing. You've paid for the bandwidth, you should be able to use it how you please.

I'm glad you guys agree with my pricing, I'm just sick of all the current broadband players pulling the wool over everyone's eyes saying they can't provide cheaper packages because of bandwidth costs. Yes bandwidth is still far too expensive but that doesn't mean you can use it as an excuse to rip off the public. It's no different to the companies that raised prices when the rand was weak but failed to lower them again when it strengthened.

If anyone (including WBS) disagrees with my calculations then please feel free to challenge them. Perhaps someone working at an ISP can offer a real world contention ratio so I can adjust my calculation to be more accurate.
 
Perdition, at first I liked the look of your numbers, but on doing a few more calculations, things start to fall apart!! 128kpbs pulls a total of approx 40GB / month. Since we have contended that by 50 that is on ave a miserly 800 MB, per contended account. I know the idea is that the lite users will subsidize the heavy users but how many people are going to pull less than 800MB/month on a 24/7 connection. People have talked of uncapped or cap in the 15-20GB range, as far as I can see, it really is not possible. The sad thing is if MTN and IS have signed 3 yr contracts at this price then we are really going to be screwed as they obviously don’t see any hope of bandwidth prices coming down for the foreseeable future. On a different note I am sure I read somewhere that the total bandwidth of sat3 is 150Gb/s. Now 7,5M *10 = 75M/month. At that rate maybe we should consider laying our own cable, it should be paid off in about 6 months!!
 
The funny thing about contention in real world usage is that it works despite it seeming like it shouldn't. This is how ISP's can support 128k ISDN users pulling 20 gigs per month. While you are correct that 800MB per per person doesn't seem like much rather think about it as ~50 TERABYTES per month spread amongst 60000 people... doesn't seem so unfeasible does it? [;)]

EDIT: I forgot to mention that technologies like transparent proxies help alleviate congestion and become more efficient the more users you have (especially in situations where a large file is requested by many people e.g. Win XP SP-2)
 
Granted the proxying http etc would be a good bandwidth conservator and we are only taking international bandwidth, so we could add in some local, but i still think it is enough for the average joe but does not provide enough excess to susidize all my p2p!! I am one of those ISDN hogs who are getting 10-20GB a month but i am sure the only reason why i can do this is that the vast majority of ISDN users are too scared by the dial up costs to use there connection for anything other than a quick check of email and a web site. If there was not the constraint of dial up costs i am sure my bandwidth would go down the tube. Most people don't know about infinicall since telkom quickly stopped advertizing it once people like myself came along!! So as far as i can see its a sorry state of affairs for everyone except our big friend telkom, at least someone is happy.
 
Well, i've recently upgraded from 64k to 128k ISDN, and i must say i'm quite happy. I'm not a hog though, I'm the Hog's Big Daddy. I'm squeezing every byte i can out of Telscum. At 15bucks a night x 4 plus another 15bucks 4 the w/end, its not bad, average about 14kb on p2p, local gaming is good, overseas is not 2 bad. Browsing & email is as quick as i need it 2 b. More than enough for Voice & Video International chat. so thats about 75x4=300 for call costs, 200 for isp (u can get it cheaper, check Mads list, but i've only had quality service from Imaginet, so i'm sticking with them), 180 for line rental, 50 (i think) for infinitecall.
So its +-R750/month. I can think of only 2 reasons to exchange this for iburst's pathetic offering: 24/7 (don't need it), and easy notebook anywhere connectivity (whoopidy doo! i'll live.)
My crystal ball predicts single figures subscriber list for iburst, and that'll be friends & family.

Telkom - South Africa's Handbrake to progress.
 
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Strobemeister</i>
My crystal ball predicts single figures subscriber list for iburst, and that'll be friends & family.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Eheheheheeeeee. [:D][:D]

<center><h6> MyWireless <s>Hacks</s> Tweaks & Tech Info || Have you checked the fawking FAQ? <br /> <font color="red">Tired of Sentech's bad service? Want to compare speeds? We at least listen...</font id="red"></h6></center>
 
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by TheRoDent</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Strobemeister</i>
My crystal ball predicts single figures subscriber list for iburst, and that'll be friends & family.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Eheheheheeeeee. [:D][:D]

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

You mean they'll be competition for Sentech ? [:D]
 
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by sihen</i>
<br />Billy where did you get that information from? information of the other packages have not even been reliesed to WBS staff so please share with us where you got that information from.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

If you recall there was a "Product Launch" in Sandton.
Amongst the "slides" of the presentation was one with 4 proposed packages, also with names, which they said were working ones. The Trial package was number 3 the 7.5GB cap was on number 4.

I made a particular note of the package details.
 
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Daveogg</i>
<br />Perdition, at first I liked the look of your numbers, but on doing a few more calculations, things start to fall apart!! 128kpbs pulls a total of approx 40GB / month. Since we have contended that by 50 that is on ave a miserly 800 MB, per contended account. I know the idea is that the lite users will subsidize the heavy users but how many people are going to pull less than 800MB/month on a 24/7 connection.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
If it's priced right (i.e. to Joe Public), then the <b>majority</b> of users will actually pull less than 800MB/month. The proof of this is wildly apparent in every other country in the world where this has been implemented - and the economies of scale always work. I know MANY people, e.g. my gf and my dad and my sister who all would have signed up for (and were EAGER to sign up for) iBurst - if it had been under R350/month - and I would be surprised if they would use a few hundred meg between them. All my dad does is a bit of e-mail! It may be hard for us "hardcore" "techie" users to imagine it, but most people couldn't give a fig about trying to max out their connection .. in fact most people people avoid using the computer as much as possible, and only use the Internet when they need to for e-mail or Web research. Most people have better things to do than sit and download movies on their computer.

Come on, this works for broadband providers in every other country in the world. To suggest it somehow couldn't work here is pure superstition. There is no reason why South Africans should have a much higher percentage of "bandwidth rapers" than any other country, in fact I'd wager it's lower here.

All a company like iBurst need do is have the balls to try compete with DIAL-UP and grab a large market share.
 
Billy, could you perhaps give us detail about these packages and their proposed prices.
 
Turtle, i wish you were right but i still dont think so. My parents would tell me i was mad if i tried to sell them iburst even at R350/month. Who would pay R2800 for a modem to use with iburst if all i sent was the odd email. Remember these "lite" users computer is probably not worth the cost of the modem. Then Absa or polka is only 70 bucks a month so how do i convince them of the value of getting iburst.

But i want to ask a question and something that i have not seen mentioned before. Ibursts core business seems to be provision of so called last mile access, and from the early results posted before the price furore they seemed to be doing quite a good job of it. So why not concentrate on setting up that network and peering into the major isps who would then provide any package they want. Iburst would obviously charge the isp per user. This would provide competition and would allow the isps to susidise bandwidth between packages and even between dial up and wireless. It would provide iburst a steady and reliable revenue stream without the risks of calculating bandwidth usage etc. I bet sentech wish they went this route. Stick to what you are good at.
 
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by chop</i>
<br />Billy, could you perhaps give us detail about these packages and their proposed prices.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

They didn't have prices for the other options nor for extra bandwidth when the cap was reached.

My feeling is that the whole exercise was a kite flying one, and that they wernt really ready to answer questions.

(Doesn't that sound like Sentech?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X