theory about the slowdown

guest2013-1

guest
Joined
Aug 22, 2003
Messages
19,804
WBS implemented their bandwidth cap system, it counted bandwidth used, but it never throttled anyone past the cap. Now they're scrambling to figure out what went wrong, and to cut down on costs re: bandwidth, they imposed a system wide throttle, which severely caused problems and towers to be erratic and unstable. The uptime of the towers are stable now, but now it's less bandwidth for all because of the slowdown.

"Its either a slowdown or turn the whole system off" - That being said led me to believe that this is what WBS is up to. Their cap system failed miserably, and now it's impacting on us.

Funny how we, the paying consumer, seems to always tug at the short end of the stick (moreso slimothy, pun intended)
 

nocilah

Banned
Joined
Sep 2, 2004
Messages
7,624
interesting theory and believable... makes pure sense... yup... Another theiry is Telkom are utilising their influence to fark up any competitors... How many people here are thinking of getting ADSL right now :D
 

LandyMan

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 28, 2005
Messages
10,928
vowthorn said:
How many people here are thinking of getting ADSL right now :D

I was thinking about it, then realised that the application form is hosted on Telk0m and not hellkom, and decided f@ckit, my cellphone can handle all my Internet traffic :D
 

nocilah

Banned
Joined
Sep 2, 2004
Messages
7,624
noone said:
WBS implemented their bandwidth cap system, it counted bandwidth used, but it never throttled anyone past the cap. Now they're scrambling to figure out what went wrong, and to cut down on costs re: bandwidth, they imposed a system wide throttle, which severely caused problems and towers to be erratic and unstable. The uptime of the towers are stable now, but now it's less bandwidth for all because of the slowdown.

"Its either a slowdown or turn the whole system off" - That being said led me to believe that this is what WBS is up to. Their cap system failed miserably, and now it's impacting on us.

Funny how we, the paying consumer, seems to always tug at the short end of the stick (moreso slimothy, pun intended)

only one hole in this theory... They were giving us uncapped for so long so why would it matter?
 

gigtech

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2005
Messages
253
hummmm, maybe a good idea, as something would work properly and be even cheaper. slave labour, don't you love it! :)
 

Gimli

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2005
Messages
437
I can not believe that something just 'breaks' like that and within two days no one (not noone) knows what happened.

I have just spoken to them and they say they will post an incedent on the website. Surely we should know the full truth of what the issue is.

Who knows, maybe they are in financial difficulty and have not payed their internet bill, and now they are being throttled by UUNET. Now there is a thought!
 

guest2013-1

guest
Joined
Aug 22, 2003
Messages
19,804
vowthorn said:
only one hole in this theory... They were giving us uncapped for so long so why would it matter?

Well let me plug that hole with this dildo the hot lesbians from last night left behind.....

MONEY. Prelaunch saw uncapped bandwidth, which was fine, but now that they officially launch, they need to show the finance department that this thing can make a profit. This means a stricter stance on their bandwidth use and expense on bandwidth.

The cap would have solved that, but seeing as the cap didn't kick in, they used a massive amount of bandwidth which they have to pay for.

Money drives the devil to insanity
 
Last edited:

jjtoymachine

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2005
Messages
918
i think they just getting us used to throttled speeds...so we dont complain that much when we get capped
 

ic

MyBroadband
Super Moderator
Joined
Nov 8, 2004
Messages
14,741
Hmmm...interesting theory, but I don't have the energy right now to start speculating, so I ditto my previous post, i.e. no comment.

What still puzzles me to death is why WBS didn't implement the cap (throttle methinks to be more accurate) during pre-launch - unless they didn't think there'd be a few serial downloaders that would jump onboard...:confused:
 

slimothy

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2005
Messages
4,808
i never understood that saying seeing as how bees like honey and flies like ****
 

guest2013-1

guest
Joined
Aug 22, 2003
Messages
19,804
lol, bee's don't like honey, they make honey

flies like sweet things more than ****, the only reason they're around **** is because it's where they mostly lay eggs.
 

Jakes

Active Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
74
WBS paying UUNET

I was told WBS are paying UUNET R89 per client. The cap is just a "speed control" there are enough bulk bandwith that they bought from UUNET. Our company is buying bandwith via a reseller for R0,24 p/MB out and R0,08 p/MB in and our reseller are buying it bulk from UUNET and I don't no what they are paying. We tried to go direct but are to small. UUNET quoted us R0,25 in and out p/MB. I presume WBS is paying about R0.081 p/MB (Telkom cost on ADSL R249 for 3gig = R0,081 p/MB). Ok to make my point, the cost for a 3gig client for WBS is R89 + R249 = R338 p/m. WBS client base now 4000 users before the launch. So with a gross profit of R1,35mil a month I think there are now enough cash to pay for bandwith. btw. the can ask the LoneGunman for a shortterm loan if there are a cash flow problem.

OK this is my theory!
 
Last edited:

Gimli

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2005
Messages
437
Plenty room there to drop prices seing as the capital they have to invest is marginal. I which they could get away from only one bandwidth supplier though. If the **** hits the fan, then everybody suffers.
 
Top