SA internet cost reductions expected soon!

thats an uncapped product obviously.
the problem is not the data part. its the telkom rental which is the real problem here. i understand the analogue voice rental payment, but the price for a 4meg line is ridiciliously too high. a 4meg line should be in the region of R200-R250. i think we should focus on telkom's adsl rental and put real pressure on them to drastically reduce the price.i am happy with my data usage of 130GB from Webafrica special.
 
This article talks about the submarine cables that will drive down prices, but then at the same time it states that it's the local bandwidth that's expensive. Very confusing for me. :-(
 
Stevie G said:
its the telkom rental which is the real problem here. i understand the analogue voice rental payment, but the price for a 4meg line is ridiciliously too high. a 4meg line should be in the region of R200-R250.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. In fact I think you have it backwards. DSLAMs and backhaul are not free. If they brought the high-end product's price down, they'd have to raise prices at the low end. This is no good for anyone in the long run.

The same thing happens when you buy a coffee. The large one costs far more extra than can be justified by the additional water and beans; the guy who buys the large one does so because he cares more about the size than the price. Everyone else buys regular because they care more about price than size. Everyone is happy.

I think our main problem is that there aren't enough ADSL customers overall. One reason why is the analogue line rental. In a time when fewer people care about landlines than ever, Telkom insists on selling you a dialtone. This to me looks like the best target for consumer pressure, because it's in everyone's interests for Telkom to stop doing this. Telkom should give resellers the ability to commission naked ADSL lines and handle all the admin with Telkom themselves. (The way they already do for the ADSL rental component, to great effect.) No doubt this works in our favour. It probably works in favour of resellers too. And if my intuition is right, it'll work better for Telkom because it'll attract new swathes of customers who are otherwise put off ADSL by the cost of an analogue line they neither want nor need. Win-win-win.
 
Last edited:
BGE said:
Agreed Dolby... R1500 for 7.2mbps + 2GB/month... for 12months from CellC is perfect for me. Start of this year CellC's network was a bit buggered up, but since mid April this seems to have come right, I get 2.5mbps - 6mbps... I can live with this!
Click to expand...

Cell C have already announced their 43mbps network (in PE), but no modem/hardware packages to match. I suspect that very soon there will be an even better offer with the faster modem thrown in. In any event, I'm holding out.
 
I'd like to meet these analysts ........ and feed them some arsenic
 
Communications Minister Roy Padayachie announced at the unveiling of a cyber-lab at a rural Kwa-Zulu Natal High School in Ndwendwe last Thursday South Africans can expect the cost of broadband to steadily decline as the country has benefited from major undersea cables that have recently come online.
Click to expand...

Don't you hate it when government tries to take public credit for something the private sector did (even as the government fought against them)? "Roy Padayachie announced at the unveiling" ... "South Africans can expect the cost of broadband to steadily decline" .. all designed to give the impression to a casual reader that the government is doing something. "Yeah, no thanks to you MOFO!" - I still remember when his department was making noises about blocking companies from landing new cables, about nationalizing any new cables, etc., frightening off cable investors. Next up, Tick@MyBroadband announces and unveils that prices will be coming down.
 
Last edited:
Tomtomtom said:
I don't think so. In fact I think you have it backwards. DSLAMs and backhaul are not free. If they brought the high-end product's price down, they'd have to raise prices at the low end. This is no good for anyone in the long run.

The same thing happens when you buy a coffee. The large one costs far more extra than can be justified by the additional water and beans; the guy who buys the large one does so because he cares more about the size than the price. Everyone else buys regular because they care more about price than size. Everyone is happy.
Click to expand...

Good analogy, but...
Telkom should only charge for the "extra water & beans" and not double up on charges - there's a lot of double in POTS+ADSL rental.

POTS Line - R133
ADSL384 add-on - R152
ADSL4096 add-on - R413
4Mbps costs 2.72x more that 384Kbps.

It should not cost 2.72x more to provide 4Mbps pipes/DSLAMS/infrastructure,
especially, since the POTS fee covers the bulk of the infrastructure costs.

The ISP provides the data - for which you pay a consumption charge.
 
system32 said:
Good analogy, but...
Telkom should only charge for the "extra water & beans" and not double up on charges - there's a lot of double in POTS+ADSL rental.
Click to expand...

But how do you justify this argument in principle?

There are two separate issues here as far as I can see, and neither of them is the one that matters.

The original issue I was responding to is the price differential. But it's clear that this is normal business practice. Companies will always try to get customers to pay exactly as much as they are willing to for any product. Coffee, seats on an aeroplane, or ADSL. If you have a problem with this, you must have a problem with practically every company on earth.

You have also introduced what looks like a moral or legal question -- whether Telkom should be allowed to "double bill" us.

This isn't really the issue either. It just so happens that we say rental costs R152 and the line R133. Insofar as we know these are the inseparable costs of ADSL, who cares how they are divided? We ultimately only care about the total cost: R285. As customers as opposed to shareholders, it's really none of our concern how this revenue is distributed between the operational expenses. They may have made a bad business decision to call these charges what they did, but where's the harm? I think you'd have to show that customers were not getting something they were told they would.

But the real problem is exactly the opposite! We're getting something we don't want: analogue phone service. So what should concern us is the waste. If you got your line only for ADSL, and don't even have a phone, then Telkom's billing, support, retail infrastructure and maintenance of the POTS network are all going to waste on you. This is as much Telkom's problem as ours, which is why I'm confident it will be fixed in time.

This doesn't mean we should get R133 off the price of ADSL. That's probably untenable. But we should expect Telkom to allow us to cancel our POTS service and save, say, R50. This benefits everyone, not just the guys ordering the grande latte.
 
Last edited:
I don't believe "trends" or what they call it...
There is rule in statistics: "...This estimation is unreliable, because it is out of range of observable statistics..."
Also, check my signature.
 
system32 said:
Good analogy, but...
Telkom should only charge for the "extra water & beans" and not double up on charges - there's a lot of double in POTS+ADSL rental.

POTS Line - R133
ADSL384 add-on - R152
ADSL4096 add-on - R413
4Mbps costs 2.72x more that 384Kbps.

It should not cost 2.72x more to provide 4Mbps pipes/DSLAMS/infrastructure,
especially, since the POTS fee covers the bulk of the infrastructure costs.

The ISP provides the data - for which you pay a consumption charge.
Click to expand...

100% correct system32
Why should we as the customer pay 2.7 times more for the same copper as the 384k and 512k user's pay. we all using the same infrastructure/medium to get access to the internet. an example would be that we all use public roads to drive our cars on the roads, because i drive a lamborghini you cannot charge me more for driving faster and getting quicker to my destination. the guys with a mini and a toyota use the same road, but it takes them longer to get to their destination. it does not make sense for penalising me because i drive faster. this is where speedtraps (throtteling) and speedlimits (cap) being put in place to regulate the cars (data) in peak traffic. i understand measures must be put in place to limit certain people during certain times of the day, but you cannot charge me x2.7 times more then other road user's for using the same bloody road (copper).

@Tomtomtom
Do you understand what i am trying to explain to you. We all pay our licenses (ADSL Rental) to use the road to drive on. I guess our roadworthy cars (POTS) must be the reason for us to use our cars to be able to drive on the road.

I don't mind paying for POTS as we need a phone line to have access to adsl. I do have a problem with Telkom charging me x2.7 times for using the same bloody copper infrastructure. I think Telkom should be charging everyone the same amount to rent out the adsl line. Telkom and ISP's should throttle home users an businesses accordingly on their different speeds during peak times.
 
Stevie G said:
I don't mind paying for POTS as we need a phone line to have access to adsl. I do have a problem with Telkom charging me x2.7 times for using the same bloody copper infrastructure. I think Telkom should be charging everyone the same amount to rent out the adsl line. Telkom and ISP's should throttle home users an businesses accordingly on their different speeds during peak times.
Click to expand...

You are barking up the wrong tree. You should mind paying for POTS if you don't need that service. You shouldn't mind paying for faster speeds, because you want them.

Your analogy is off. You should be thinking about it like this: if you buy a Lamborghini so that you can drive twice as fast as that Toyota, it's going to cost a heck of a lot more than 2.7 times the price. The roads are the same but you're not just paying for roads. You're paying for roads and the ride.

Yet you don't mind paying for that analogue service that you never use? That's like Toyota selling you a baby seat with your car, but you don't have a baby.
 
Last edited:
Tomtomtom said:
You are barking up the wrong tree. You should mind paying for POTS if you don't need that service. You shouldn't mind paying for faster speeds, because you want them.

Your analogy is off. You should be thinking about it like this: if you buy a Lamborghini so that you can drive twice as fast as that Toyota, it's going to cost a heck of a lot more than 2.7 times the price. The roads are the same but you're not just paying for roads. You're paying for roads and the ride.

Yet you don't mind paying for that analogue service that you never use? That's like Toyota selling you a baby seat with your car, but you don't have a baby.
Click to expand...

You missing the point here dude
How the hell are you going to have adsl access if you don't rent an analogue line?
Why must i pay for the speed if everybody is using the same road. your analogy does not make sense. we all using the same road and get being limited on that road. nobody is allowed to drive as fast as they want, only MP's,Ministers,etc.
The wireless providers does not charge user's to how fast they can download stuff, but on how much they use. surely Telkom's model is wrong and which must be addressed
 
Stevie G said:
The wireless providers does not charge user's to how fast they can download stuff, but on how much they use. surely Telkom's model is wrong and which must be addressed
Click to expand...

Actually, Telkom's model is half correct in that there should just be a flat rental for any broadband service subject to a FUP.

The problem here is that Telkom charge R550+ rental per month without any supplying any bandwidth whatsoever.

The idea that you must then also pay per gig is a Telkom invention designed to charge you yet again. Even if you buy your bandwidth from another ISP, Telkom pockets the lion's share via IPConnect.

It is quite clear that this article was not referring in any way to Telkom, but ultimately Telkom will have to come to the realization that, other than for high volume users, ADSL is being left far behind in the price war. I wouldn't recommend ADSL for anyone except those with deep pockets wanting 4MB uncapped. Too damn expensive, otherwise.
 
Communications Minister Roy Padayachie [...] The prices we pay for internet access are largely determined by the cost of international bandwidth, as most content and services sit offshore.
Click to expand...
I think our Minister of Communication should read more MyBB articles.

Gatecrasher said:
ADSL is being left far behind in the price war.
Click to expand...
What? In the other thread VC says <10cents a meg is not possible, yet mweb delivers it at <2cents (Thats 384k w/ rental). How is ADSL losing the price war?
 
Last edited:
Tomtomtom said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_DSL

It does not matter whether it comes from Telkom or the ISP, you still going to pay extra to use the service.



Because you don't get speed from the road, you get it from the car.
Click to expand...

We all using the same flippin copper. there is a difference when you use different type of infrastructure's, fiber will obviously be more expensive because of the speed,voip,satelite tv,etc. whith copper you cannot do much because its limited. you pay according the medium (road) that you use. same if you use a gravel road, tar road and a beach road.

speed got absolutely BS to do with price. you pay according how much you use irrespective at what speed.
 
good to hear, but kinda numbing, when Helkom still charges you for an analogue connection with every ADSL connection. Bring on naked ADSL, then we can rejoice!
 
Valis said:
Yep, agree. I pay R284 for 260 GB of (unshaped, unthrottled, fullspeed 24/7 p2p) data, and then my Telkom costs are another R547! It's just ridiculous :(
Click to expand...

Whaaat!!!!
Is this for the 4meg ADSL line rental?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X