Food for thought...
What I have noticed now since last year November is that speeds on iBurst tend to fluctuate (maybe a lot of that was techie tweaking on the network - only WBS will know), so while today I may not be able to get 500Kbits/s, maybe tomorrow I will, and the day after maybe I will get 20Kbits/s...
The point is, if WBS actually have a system in place to throttle speed down to 64Kbits/s, then why not have packages that give maximum speeds that are multiples of 64Kbits/s...?
I think the answer to this debate lies with the way that WBS appear to be structuring their business model, i.e. how they intend to turn a profit.
Looking at the launch packages, it looks like WBS have structured their entire business model & profit making, on bandwidth alone, this is evidenced by the apparent high prices of packages, as well as the price of additional bandwidth. A lot like the way Telkomonopoly are cross-subsidising and simultaneously over-charging.
I think the economies of scale point is extremely relevant, and is a proven way of establishing such a business, you just have to look at Sentech to see that with few customers the entire business model falls apart. Rather give us more options & flexibility & we the consumers will pick that which best suites our needs, and more than likely upgrade if we are in areas where higher speeds are possible...
This is exactly why I am disappointed with the launch packages - I was expecting WBS to follow the trend that PBA (iBurst) Australia, Telkomonopoly and Sentech have set in offering different speed options.Luke7777 said:Re the lower speed/higher cap options proposed above, I'm sure a lot of ppl will prefer/consider a 256K/nocap over a 1M/3GB cap.
Something else that should also be considered is the following: If your location does not allow you to *ever* reach speeds of 1Mb, why should you be forced to pay the same as someone that resides within the 'dark green zone" ?
What I have noticed now since last year November is that speeds on iBurst tend to fluctuate (maybe a lot of that was techie tweaking on the network - only WBS will know), so while today I may not be able to get 500Kbits/s, maybe tomorrow I will, and the day after maybe I will get 20Kbits/s...
The point is, if WBS actually have a system in place to throttle speed down to 64Kbits/s, then why not have packages that give maximum speeds that are multiples of 64Kbits/s...?
I think the answer to this debate lies with the way that WBS appear to be structuring their business model, i.e. how they intend to turn a profit.
Looking at the launch packages, it looks like WBS have structured their entire business model & profit making, on bandwidth alone, this is evidenced by the apparent high prices of packages, as well as the price of additional bandwidth. A lot like the way Telkomonopoly are cross-subsidising and simultaneously over-charging.
I think the economies of scale point is extremely relevant, and is a proven way of establishing such a business, you just have to look at Sentech to see that with few customers the entire business model falls apart. Rather give us more options & flexibility & we the consumers will pick that which best suites our needs, and more than likely upgrade if we are in areas where higher speeds are possible...