My strategy for achieving great bandwidth ;-)

asqus

Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
17
Reaction score
0
If my (relatively uninformed) guess is right, 2005 will see a whole bunch of new 'broadband' providers enter the fray. Like MyWireless, iBurst, etc. (and those that went before them: MegaWan, InfoSat....) they will likely be really kick-ass for the first few months, and then drift into over-subscription and under-provision.

Sadly, until someone lays out a new international pipe, or ups a new satellite (or figures out some way to transmit data via osmosis) things are going to stay this way. It's just the nature of the beast: South Africans broadband subscribers are on average, according to a very knowledgeable sounding iBurst technician I spoke to, much higher bandwidth users than our European or American counterparts. While in the USA the average broadband provider is utilised by an average of 2% of its subscribers at any given time, in SA that goes up to 30-40%, or so I'm told. This means that adopting international contention/shaping models is probably not going to yield positive results, something indicated most clearly by MyWireless. But, if we don't do something like this, then we have to cap the sucker, because we just don't have enough international bandwidth to go round.

The important part of all this is the thing I mentioned right at the beginning: 'they will likely be really kick-ass for the first few months'.... Obviously all the new providers will have to come in with highly competitive offers, and hopefully a few will follow iBurst's lead and offer an uncapped public beta period. So, if I jump ship every couple of months to the latest greatest offering, I'm pretty much assured decent bandwidth from each provider. Once the halcyon days are over I simply locate the next start-up and fire up my newsgroup binaries, online games (if the latency allows!) and p2p software. Contracts are really simple to get out of, if you find the right person to whine to, and because of the manipulative 'perception management' marketing any SA 'broadband' provider has to in order look competitive, getting out of a broadband contract is easier than pie.

So this is my solution. While it's actually hopelessly inadequate as a way of dealing with SA's bandwidth issues, it will at least provide me with a good chance of high-speed, uncapped bandwidth for a while to come.

Before I finish, perhaps I should mention my perceptions of iBurst, my current provider. As they are still in beta (a beta very well advertised on radio nonetheless), it's obviously not the best time to pass judgements, pro or con, about their service. Regardless, here are some of my observations:

* Speed: I've been able to get between 0.5-1mb per second almost all the time. Even p2p gives me great speeds, although this is bound to change.

* Latency: Oscillates between vaguely acceptable and shocking. I'm hoping this will be addressed before actual launch.

* Pricing: I feel it's competitive. It will also depend on what they charge for top-up gigs once they implement the cap.

* Signal: MUCH better than MW signal, although I suppose one can't really compare, as signal strength affects the two differently. That said, at work in Norwood I get 80% average signal, and at home in Linden I get 98-100%, all the time!!!

* Downtime: probably around 5% for me at the moment, which sucks, but could be worse, and of course there's good reason for this as they're still developing the infrastructure.

* Service: Started off really bad, with nobody ever calling me back, but lately I'm even getting pro-active calls from a number of staff members. Who knows, perhaps I've been put on the troublesome customer list :D

* Technical knowledge: My perception is that the iBurst tech guys are VERY knowledgeable, and have a deep understanding of the potential pitfalls of their service, although it's not hard to observe MW for while and figure out exactly how NOT to provide a broadband service.

* TTL: Time To Live: If I were a betting man, I would give iBurst until late March before they go totally bottoms up, speeds slow down to a crawl, and latency goes out the window.

Blah!
Anyway, that's my ramble for the day, and my first post to myadsl :-)
Oh, and before anyone says anything about my lack of tech knowledge, let me be the first to admit to being a layman ;-)

Later.
 
Welcome asqus.

<forked_tongue_snake_oil_salesman_marketing_speak>
South Africans broadband subscribers are on average, according to a very knowledgeable sounding iBurst technician I spoke to, much higher bandwidth users than our European or American counterparts. While in the USA the average broadband provider is utilised by an average of 2% of its subscribers at any given time, in SA that goes up to 30-40%
</forked_tongue_snake_oil_salesman_marketing_speak>

This is the sort of thing that urks me, and the use of percentages is only applicable when comparing apples with apples. I do not believe any of this twoddle, and if WBS are spouting this I would like to smoke some of that too please... ;)
 
Last edited:
While I admit there may be a hint of snake-oil selling going on, I think there is some validity to the claim.

Think about it, in the USA, everyone and their granny has a broadband connection.

Here, it's mainly early adopters, who tend to be high volume users.

That means that if you have a 10mb line in the states, it will tend to be a lot less saturated than the same 10mb line in SA, if you have an equal amount of users sharing each line. Using your analogy, the users here would be the apples, which leads to what I think IS a fair comparison.

Another thing to consider is that in the USA, quite a bit of the traffic is probably local, while in SA most of us do most of our surfing and downloading from international sites. This is just something I thought of now, and it could have no bearing on anything. Heck, it may not even be true, but it is likely.

Add to this the fact that international bandwidth is incredibly expensive here (Isn't it something like R8000 for 64k directly through the international pipe?) and you've got yourself quite a difficult system for anyone to implement.

Oh yes, something else I noticed just this minute, while looking at the leaked iBurst offering that's been doing the rounds, is that they offer a 1MB per second maximum BURST rate. What does 'burst rate' mean? Does anyone here know?
 
asqus - Now you're getting no my bad side. It IS not an Apple to Apple comparison.

The solution to the (30-40% at one time) problem is to get more non-intensive clients.

Now - to get more clients you have to drop the price so that they can afford it. Simple.

Therefore - because of our high price, the Apple = Apple theory cracks.

But they won't drop the price and they'll keep using the 30-40% excuse while being completely blind to the amazing cleverness of the Americans. The Americans always aim to grab the largest possible customer base, and because they've done decent market research, they know what the average usage is going to be like, and they know that they'll win. In this country, the suppliers do not plan ahead and only solve the immediate. They have absolutely no foresight at all.

Oh well - my opinion.
 
asqus said:
...if you have a 10mb line in the states, it will tend to be a lot less saturated than the same 10mb line in SA...
While there is some truth to parts of the theory, the fact remains, we do not have publically available 10Mbps broadband, which is why I say that it's not an apple to apple comparison.

The claim that our backbone (which Telskum monopolises) is saturated is also questionable - Telskum claims that the backbone is saturated and uses this to justify their over-pricing of bandwidth, which affects everyone because we all rely on that backbone no matter what ISP we use (unless you use satelite).

If you want to compare apples with apples, compare the average amount of bandwidth Americans use with the average bandwidth used by South Africans, you should find that capping etc drastically reduces that 30%..40% thumb suck to less than the 2%. ;)
 
"The claim that our backbone (which Telskum monopolises) is saturated is also questionable"

It isn't questionable it's a flat out lie, the ATM network which our ADSL infrastructure connects to is, according to a telkom network engineer, sufficient to allow every household in South Africa (I have no idea what he means by household though) to simultaneously connect at 1 MBit. This wasn't a low level technician bragging either, this was told to myself and several people I work with in a meeting between Telkom, ourselves and one of the largest ISP's in the country who are currently negotiating for access to Telkom's ADSL infrastructure.

Now as to Telkom's pricing structure, the cost of the physical line has absolutely nothing to do with the cost of international bandwidth. The claim that the high costs for the line are to offset the equipment costs has also been proven to be false, it was worked out in the old forum but I believe the rough calculation was that the equipment was paid for after the second month.

I think Telkom have yet to explain why the line rental should be as high as it is? If you see what is on offer from say http://www22.verizon.com/ForHomeDSL/channels/dsl/forhomedsl.asp?ID=Res for [HIGHLIGHT] R 168 a month[/HIGHLIGHT] ($29.99) for the line and the ISP portion, why should we pay 4 times as much for 1/3 of the product? In other words we are paying 12 times the amount for just the line.
 
Hey guys, some very interesting perceptions about the current state of things.

ic: I'm sorry if I was vague: what I meant by 10mb line is the amount of bandwidth an ISP has available to distribute amongst its clients.

Stoke: VERY good point! If the user-base boasted a broader usage demographic, the 30-40% thing would be a moot point. If iBurst was R300 a month for example, and marketed to everyone earning 5-6K a month and up as the logical 'modem' choice for the new millenium, we'd all happily chug along, capless and speedy, I'm sure, with the low-usage contingent basically subsidising the high-usage minority (most of the people on this forum, I think :D).

Spamtheman: very interesting information, and now that you mention it, I DO remember reading somewhere (a link from these forums most probably) that the Telkom backbone's capacity was quite massive. A quick search on google reveals the following info:

"Capacity situation
Cable deployed in 2002: SAT-3/WASC/SAFE with 120 Gbps
initial capacity of 20 Gbps, and only 10 Gbps has been commissioned

Slow deployment due to access restrictions : Network operators with ownership interests have a five-year exclusive right to use the cable, even though the majority lack adequate network infrastructure to cater to local demand.

As a result, the bulk of the cable's capacity has not yet been provisioned to carry Internet traffic."

Then, of course, if you look at the www.safe-sat3.org.za site, you get the following figures:

"Submarine Cables carry more than 80% of all overseas voice, fax and Internet communications. They generally offer better efficiency, reliability and security than satellites.The link from Europe to South Africa has a total capacity of 120 Gigabits, equal to 5.8 million telephone calls, 1.45 million 64kb/s data channels or 2304 television channels.

The link from South Africa to Malaysia has a total capacity of 130 Gigabits, giving it the potential to carry 6.28 million simultaneous telephone calls, 1.57 million 64kb/s data circuits or 2496 television channels. Cable faults are very expensive and create costs, which are ultimately paid by consumers of telephone, data and Internet services."

Sorry, drifting OT a bit....but out of interest, where can I find solid statistics on SA's total international bandwidth?
 
""Capacity situation
Cable deployed in 2002: SAT-3/WASC/SAFE with 120 Gbps
initial capacity of 20 Gbps, and only 10 Gbps has been commissioned"

Again that has nothing to do with access to the ATM network or it's capacity, the Sat3 link is only for international traffic which has nothing to do with fixed line costs, as far as International links go we have the following according to the cia factbook:

international: 2 submarine cables; satellite earth stations - 3 Intelsat (1 Indian Ocean and 2 Atlantic Ocean)

Sat-2: In-Service: 1993
Melkbosstrand, South Africa -- El Medano, Tenerife Island, Spain -- Funchal, Madeira Island, Portugal - 9,500km at 2 x 560 Mb/s
Maintenance Authorities: Telkom SA, Telefonica, PT Comunicações

Sat-3: In-service: April 2001
Melkbosstrand, South Africa -- Luanda, Angola -- Libreville, Gabon -- Douala, Cameroon -- Lagos, Nigeria -- Cotonou, Benin -- Accra, Ghana -- Abidjan, Ivory Coast -- Dakar, Senegal -- Alta Vista, Gran Canary Island -- Chipiona, Spain -- Sesimbra, Portugal - 13000 Km at 2x10 Gb/s
Maintenance Authorities: Telkom SA, PT Comunicações, Telefonica, Sonatel, Angola Telekom, CIT, Ghana Telecom, Camtel, Nitel, OPT Gabon, OPT Benin

I can't find any data on the 3 Intelsat Links
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure I follow, but I get the feeling I should read up a bit about it :confused:

Where can I find more info on our ATM network?
It seems odd that it's not publically available.
Or then again, maybe not :rolleyes:
 
asqus:

I agree with your arguments -- the most prevalent fact is that we download most of our "stuff" from the US or Europe. For the Americans or Europeans international contention is not much of an issue.

Sad thing is, when I try to use local resources (such as IS's brilliant ftp archive) it's still slower for me as an ADSL customer to download the latest Linux kernel from ftp.is.co.za than directly from ftp.kernel.org. Why? Because IS throttles down non-IS customers to 128kbits/sec.

SAIX/Telkom should be pro-active by making a deal with IS to allow full-speed local downloads from ADSL customers and supply the peering link to IS. That will save Telkom a ton of intl. bandwidth.

Just FYI, according to the SAIX website, the total incoming International IP bandwidth stands at 465MBits/sec. See http://www.saix.net/diagrams/saix.pdf. Boy, would I like to see a usage graph on that!

--deckert
 
Deckert said:
Sad thing is, when I try to use local resources (such as IS's brilliant ftp archive) it's still slower for me as an ADSL customer to download the latest Linux kernel from ftp.is.co.za than directly from ftp.kernel.org. Why? Because IS throttles down non-IS customers to 128kbits/sec.
Ah, thanks for that information. I wondered why it was quicker to go to SuSE in Germany for my updates!
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X