The truth about mobile data prices in South Africa

[Swa]

So you are saying South Africa has great pricing, but South Africa is very expensive? Remember, Vodacom and MTN are not equal to South Africa.

Where have I said SA has great pricing? We are still far behind with all options.

So you are suggesting more regulation and therefore more government involvement in the telecoms market?

Yes. It's precisely because it was left up to the operators that we are in this mess. Probably the only country where if the regulator actually regulates it gets taken to court and then ends up backing down.

 

[rpm]

Where have I said SA has great pricing? We are still far behind with all options.

Can you find the product in the rest of Africa which beats Rain unlimited for R299 (or R369 after the promotion)?

 

[rpm]

Yes. It's precisely because it was left up to the operators that we are in this mess. Probably the only country where if the regulator actually regulates it gets taken to court and then ends up backing down.

We definitely have a different view on this. I believe in free markets with as little interference as possible from the government/regulators. I further believe competition will ensure better pricing and service levels, not regulation.

 

[wizardofid]

Rain is indeed mobile. In fact, it is a "mobile only" deal because you may only use it on a mobile phone.

I still do not understand what you want to happen. Should the government start to regulate prices in a free market? I assume you do not trust the free market?

In fairness of doing a comparison, drive into a rain coverage area from one end to the other, with your mobile phone downloading a file while doing a test on mtn and vodacom.Test file should last the entire journey.
Would be quite surprised if you managed to complete the rain download if you compare the rain coverage map to that of mtn and vodacom, rain coverage is quite spotty and has quite a few holes between one tower and the next.

Mtn and vodacom can revert to edge, 3g and 4g on that journey.Rain will likely lose connection and will result in the download failing as it has no other fall back.

So yes rain 4G will allow mobile connection and not force fixed coverage within the coverage area, but it is nowhere close to conventional mobile data.Don't ignore rains 5G which in its current form is fixed, is it not. ?

So no rain is mobile only in the coverage area, with no fallback it is still technically fixed data to a fixed area.True mobile data you would be able to drive from pta to jhb download a file without any hassle as you will have fallback
to other technologies.

If you want a even better comparison, force both mtn and vodacom to only use 4G and not fall back to 3g and edge in the rain coverage area it would likely still preform better.

But like I said before rain isnt conventional mobile data, and it is still ''fixed'' to the specific coverage area.

So no rain isn't any where close to what is considered ''mobile''.

At no point have I mentioned pricing in the last few posts.Have only mentioned why is rain being compared to actual mobile data, as well as there not being a similar network else where in Africa.


Now let's discuss pricing.
Why point out rain as proof and justification that mobile data is cheap when more then half of south Africa don't have access to it, as others have mentioned it is cherry picked, without giving an ounce of consideration to actual coverage.?

Why not cherry pick cellc and telkom's own network data as proof of cheaper data after all, own network data is a lot cheaper then mtn and vodacom with national coverage.

After all own network coverage more or less the same to a fixed area like rain and you would be constantly jumping between own network and roaming network and that is more mobile data like then rain.

 

[rick9k]

Can you find the product in the rest of Africa which beats Rain unlimited for R299 (or R369 after the promotion)?

This is the issue, you only bring one factor into the situation, the price. You completely ignore the fact that the product is literally broken and unusable for many.

 

[Swa]

Can you find the product in the rest of Africa which beats Rain unlimited for R299 (or R369 after the promotion)?

They've been posted.

We definitely have a different view on this. I believe in free markets with as little interference as possible from the government/regulators. I further believe competition will ensure better pricing and service levels, not regulation.

Then you don't believe in competitive pricing. In all markets that have that they also have effective regulation. Telecoms is not a free market game as much as we would like it to be.

 

[rpm]

They've been posted.

I must have missed it. Can you link me to it?

 

[rpm]

This is the issue, you only bring one factor into the situation, the price. You completely ignore the fact that the product is literally broken and unusable for many.

This was my argument from the start. Have you investigated the network quality and coverage of the countries to which people compare Vodacom and MTN's prices?

To achieve great coverage and network quality, you have to spend billions each year. That, in turn, means higher prices.

It is the same in all industries - higher input costs = higher quality = higher prices.

 

[rpm]

This is the issue, you only bring one factor into the situation, the price. You completely ignore the fact that the product is literally broken and unusable for many.

From the article:

What is often overlooked in mobile data pricing comparisons is the overall value proposition of a data product.

Network quality and coverage are key components of a mobile data offering and it should be considered when comparing prices.

 

[wizardofid]

@rpm

I am not trying to step on your toes or get into a heated fight.But quite evident from users posting in this thread the article is a bit of a booboo, which has me annoyed and frustrated and questions my sanity.

Will say this if one person has an apple and the other an orange, how do you do a fair comparison between the two, not saying you can't compare them, I am saying they have equal and common characteristics which can be compared like for like, to get fair summary you can only compare characteristics they both have in common or else what is the point of trying to compare them.

 

[rick9k]

This was my argument from the start. Have you investigated the network quality and coverage of the countries to which people compare Vodacom and MTN's prices?

To achieve great coverage and network quality, you have to spend billions each year. That, in turn, means higher prices.

It is the same in all industries - higher input costs = higher quality = higher prices.

Err the coverage and network quality is exactly the same between my two rain sims, they connect to the same tower on the same frequency using the same modem. However the "uncapped" sim is just throttled to death, now where does the cost difference come in to play here?

 

[rpm]

I am not trying to step on your toes or get into a heated fight. But quite evident from users posting in this thread the article is a bit of a booboo, which has me annoyed and frustrated and questions my sanity.

Will say this if one person has an apple and the other an orange, how do you fair comparison between the two, not saying you can't compare them, I am saying they have equal and common characteristics which can be compared like for like, to get fair summary you can only compare characteristics they both have in common or else what is the point of trying to compare them.

With mobile networks there are characteristics which can be compared. Coverage, speed, network technologies, and the like. That is what the article did.

The problem is not the article or the data. It is that the conclusion is not what people want to hear.

The best measure I can think of is CAPEX per subscriber (the money a mobile operator invests for each subscriber it has). Surely it is a good thing for operators to invest in their network to give their subscribers a good service?

 

[rpm]

Err the coverage and network quality is exactly the same between my two rain sims, they connect to the same tower on the same frequency using the same modem. However the "uncapped" sim is just throttled to death, now where does the cost difference come in to play here?

I am not sure what you mean here. If you are unhappy with Rain's service, all good. If you are unhappy with Vodacom's pricing, also good. The great thing is that you have a choice. You can choose cheap and worse quality, or expensive with great quality. I like the fact that we have this choice.

 

[rick9k]

I am not sure what you mean here. If you are unhappy with Rain's service, all good. If you are unhappy with Vodacom's pricing, also good. The great thing is that you have a choice. You can choose cheap and worse quality, or expensive with great quality. I like the fact that we have this choice.

You said "To achieve great coverage and network quality, you have to spend billions each year. That, in turn, means higher prices." . Ok, that's been spent on rain, the tower exists, the network exists, everything is in place, but this brilliant uncapped sim you keep harping on about does not perform as it is advertised. But if I simply put my other sim in it performs as expected, the only difference isn't jus the price, there is a lot more going in the background and that's what and article like this should be telling us, how things actually are.

 

[supersunbird]

They've been posted.


Then you don't believe in competitive pricing. In all markets that have that they also have effective regulation. Telecoms is not a free market game as much as we would like it to be.

So you can't find it either?

 

[supersunbird]

You said "To achieve great coverage and network quality, you have to spend billions each year. That, in turn, means higher prices." . Ok, that's been spent on rain, the tower exists, the network exists, everything is in place, but this brilliant uncapped sim you keep harping on about does not perform as it is advertised. But if I simply put my other sim in it performs as expected, the only difference isn't jus the price, there is a lot more going in the background and that's what and article like this should be telling us, how things actually are.

No, that's other articles, about rain, that have been done. They were warned about over-subscription (guess why, this cheap price the advertised all over), which is why they now have these issues. Do you want the links?

https://mybroadband.co.za/news/cell...cklash-over-slow-speeds-and-poor-support.html - 17 Nov

https://mybroadband.co.za/news/broadband/370543-rains-fall-from-grace.html -12 Oct

 

[Oboe]

Article is warping the truth

 

[Swa]

I must have missed it. Can you link me to it?

First your comparison is wrong. Should be countries similar to us and not arbitrarily countries in Africa.
But

Somalia leads Africa's giants in affordable mobile data prices | TechCabal

That mobile data prices in Africa are high is something we take for granted. But new data now shows which countries account for high prices

techcabal.com

Read it and weep

This was my argument from the start. Have you investigated the network quality and coverage of the countries to which people compare Vodacom and MTN's prices?

To achieve great coverage and network quality, you have to spend billions each year. That, in turn, means higher prices.

It is the same in all industries - higher input costs = higher quality = higher prices.

And that is the point. Rain is hardly an alternative for most. And the whole reason as I said Vodacom has higher input costs is because it has a higher number of customers and so higher profit. Higher input costs aren't automatically a justification for higher prices without considering the circumstances.

Rain only has a fraction on the coverage area so while their costs are less they don't have nearly as many customers.

 

[wizardofid]

With mobile networks there are characteristics which can be compared. Coverage, speed, network technologies, and the like. That is what the article did.

The problem is not the article or the data. It is that the conclusion is not what people want to hear.

The best measure I can think of is CAPEX per subscriber (the money a mobile operator invests for each subscriber it has). Surely it is a good thing for operators to invest in their network to give their subscribers a good service?

Well then we should throw fixed data into the mix as well, it is still mobile data technology, with restrictions in place.What about wireless providers their technology is also based on similar tech.Who else has a network like rain.

Only conclusion I have is compare mobile operators to mobile operators and rain like operators to rain like operators.As there is distinct differences between rain and a actual mobile operator.

Rain has no fallback no voice and only offers data.
Mobile operator, offers, voice, data, text, and has fallback technologies.

It is two entirely different services, the deployment and usage of the network is entirely different to a conventional network.

There are 55 odd countries in Africa if all 55 has 4G it is a fair comparison, if a vast majority has 4g it is still a fair comparison. One country has a rain like network to what network do you compare that to.

It is not a fair comparison, not in the slightest.

 

[rick9k]

No, that's other articles, about rain, that have been done. They were warned about over-subscription (guess why, this cheap price the advertised all over), which is why they now have these issues. Do you want the links?

https://mybroadband.co.za/news/cell...cklash-over-slow-speeds-and-poor-support.html - 17 Nov

https://mybroadband.co.za/news/broadband/370543-rains-fall-from-grace.html -12 Oct

Please explain how "over-subscription " means my one sim runs at 1.5Mbps and my other sim runs at 20Mbps.