Nov 2005 Broadband Report

Well this is just the beginning.....

The journalist has been misled by myadsl.

The research is irrelevant and flawed.

It's like comparing battery-powered motor cars with petrol driven cars.

The empirical data such as speed, performance, cost and "support" for each technology type is relevant and of interest, however..........

The "algorithm" which then extrapolates empirical data to Rating percentages by comparison is absolute RUBBISH.

I do hope that TheRodent and rpm will come to their senses and realise they have blundered right royally in the "Results".
 
Last edited:
These research results are rubbish because, just change the algorithm.

Telkom adsl is 4X more costly than international --->> divide telkom by 4
3G is 1.25 more expensive than international ---->> divide Voda/MTN by 1.25

Then you get all about the same results - also rubbish.

The algorithm is so poorly oversimplified to make it nonsense.

"If you bake a bad cake don't serve it"
 
If this it the "draft form" of the report why is it not labeled as such? I would have expected a watermark or headers/footers indicating that it was not the final version and that it was subject to change.
 
Last edited:
Hi guys

Thanks for the feedback.

Bwana: Usually the report goes through an editing phase, but that is completed now. It can therefore be seen as the final version (I just update the document, not the thread).

Kaspaas: Point taken. Before the next report we can suggest a broadband target value and either give the service the thumbs up as a broadband service or indicate that it falls outside that range.

Crummy Gummy: It is a good idea to create a more comprehensive report where all the different aspects of the services are evaluated. Such a report will obviously be more technical and there more suitable for a technical audience, but it will definitely be of value to many members. If time permits I will include this kind of data in the next report.

St3ve: I am partly to blame for the exclusion of international results as I did not include this in the journalist information. The aim with this report was just to compare local services. A comprehensive international comparison will follow next year.

Kalvaer: Space :D

Regards,

RPM
 
When are we going to take the time to define "broadband"?
 
Hi Bwana

We have tried in the past, but without success. Suggestion? 200 kbps?
 
rpm said:
Hi Bwana

We have tried in the past, but without success. Suggestion? 200 kbps?
Click to expand...
I know the FCC defined broadband as 200 kbps but that definition comes from report from January 1999!

I also believe that our definition should not be contingent on whats available here in South Africa but what available globally lest telkom become even more complacent with their adoption and adaptation of the term 'broadband'.

The definition will have to be revised on a continuing basis but for now I would suggest 512 minimum but preferably 1024 be used.

It might be wishing for too much but in a media sheet from 2003 the ITU Standardization Sector defines broadband as a
“transmission capacity that is faster than primary rate Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) at 1.5 or 2.0 Megabits per second (Mbits)” - http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/publications/birthofbroadband/faq-en.html
Click to expand...
Using this definition we dont yet have broadband in SA do we?
 
Last edited:
I agree that we cannot use 1999 stats or reports - how much has happenned since then? I would also suggest 512 or 1024
 
Just for the record I also believe the minimum speed requirement in the new ICASA definition (as found in the draft regulations) of 256 Kbps is also too low.
 
Last edited:
The term broadband has been used for speeds as low as 80kbps (Netherlands)
and as high as 20Mbps (Japan) probably even higher.

The term has also been described for differing technologies :
Fixed line, cellular, wireless, satellite and so on.

ISPs are going to milk the term and probably there is nothing
which can be done about the term per se.

ISPs will refer to 512kbps as "high speed" broadband and even "lightening speed" broadband.

What telkom will call 20Mbps broadband - who knows ?

imho the best which ICASA could do would be to permit the
unqualified term "broadband" as reference to a "speed" +192kbps.

Further ICASA might decide to define that broadband must be qualified
by "broadband" type :

DSL broadband
cellular broadband
wireless broadband
satellite broadband

ICASA could define "High speed broadband" as broadband which offers "speeds" above 2Mbps.

ICASA does need to do something to prevent misleading representations by ISPs and others.
 
nOhIwAy said:
imho the best which ICASA could do would be to permit the
unqualified term "broadband" as reference to a "speed" +192kbps.
Click to expand...

Well the good news is they've finally introduced this regulation :) except, broadband has to be faster than 256k
 
Another one of these reports coming out this yr? Hopefully changes wrt regulations would happen before nov.. hopefully.
 
Hi Krycor

We are finalizing the details of the next testing...should run from 1 - 7September. Details to follow soon.
 
rpm said:
Hi Krycor

We are finalizing the details of the next testing...should run from 1 - 7September. Details to follow soon.
Click to expand...
It will be interesting to compare traditionally shaped/unshaped ADSL accounts with the new regulations in play.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X