Vodacom.. WiMAX Pricing.. seriously

C

cda

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2005
Messages
921
Reaction score
303
I just came across http://www.vodacom.co.za/business/services/wimax_shaped.jsp

Now this is some serious FailBlog material right here.

Not only is it iBurst, it's Vodacom too.... wow, where to start.

First thing I notice is

10 GB shaped for R970.00 per month
10 GB shaped for R1 040.00 per month

It took me almost a minute to notice that R970 is for 10GB over 512k vs 1024k.

Now this leads me to ask, where do Vodacom marketing get their drugs? Do you get them at a good price? Can you share?

You're charging a VOLUME rate, AND somehow it costs more money to transfer 10GB over a 1024k link vs a 512k link???

:confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused:
 
What I have gathered is that you pay more for wireless technology.
So the faster the wireless technology, the more moola you fork out.
So 1GB of data over an old 384K 3G costs less than 1GB over a 7.2Mb connection.
Hence the extra 70 bucks for the 1024K connection. :(
 
WiMAX is being marketed as a diginet replacement and it comes with certain guarantees, service levels and contention ratios. While I agree the pricing is way over the top you need to see it in the context in which it is being sold.
 
morkhans said:
WiMAX is being marketed as a diginet replacement and it comes with certain guarantees, service levels and contention ratios. While I agree the pricing is way over the top you need to see it in the context in which it is being sold.
Click to expand...

So please explain the context for me.

How does 10GB cost more to transfer at 1024kbps than 512kbps?

Why doesn't ADSL bandwidth then cost more if you have a 4Mbps line? I'll tell you why, because you're paying for your data volume already.

Also, diginet replacement my ***. Diginet has no volume costs.
 
P0is3nIvy said:
What I have gathered is that you pay more for wireless technology.
So the faster the wireless technology, the more moola you fork out.
Click to expand...

It's the same kit. The same technology. The same spectrum. The WiMAX stuff can run anywhere up to 20Mbps symmetrically. Your connection is throttled down to those rates, there is no PE/CPE cost involved at all only bandwidth to a base station.

In which case the flat rental would increase IF you were on uncapped. But you're not, you're paying by data volume.

How the idea of paying by data volume works is that you're not paying for your connection speed, but you're paying for the rate that you use by dividing the bandwidth over the time usually meaning that your upstream information rate is significantly lower than your connection speed since you're not running the link flat out.

Charging more expensive amounts so that you can use up your data volume faster... that's just crack smoking, end of story.
 
WOW! that is expensive. Just take Telkom WIMAX for instance.

R240 per month for 512k access + R145 for Afrihost 5GB account.

R240+ R145 = R385 per month. Currently I have Telkom WiMAX coverage. I don't have iBurst coverage. So why if iBurst gets coverage here will I buy that?

OMG its expensive! And Telkom WiMAX is better since you can buy normal adsl accounts. So 30GB local IS will work fine. Its a much better solution that this. :eek:
 
cda said:
How does 10GB cost more to transfer at 1024kbps than 512kbps?
Click to expand...
You are right, the transfer of traffic has no cost, but you must understand how the real costs are made up.

A network operator's costs revolve around the peak throughput they need to cater for on their various links/paths e.g. local backhaul, regional aggregation, national & international transit. If they dont provide sufficient capacity (excessively oversubscribe) the higher the probablity the network (or parts thereof) will reach critical levels of congestion making for an unsatisfactory customer experience.

Therefore the higher the ability of a customer to contibute to the peak demand (by virtue of a faster local lead), the more they should pay. This is exactly how leased line type services are priced, as operators needs to purchase/invest in and commit additional capacity to ensure those customer get their peak rate whenever they wish.

Commited capacity comes at a cost beyond that which the man in the street (broadband type products) can afford, so to make it affordable capacity sharing is required. This is where caps come in, not as a direct cost element, but rather a mechanism for customers to self regulate their demand for peak (local lead) capacity. The smaller the cap the lower the probablity for peak demand over the course of the month, thus great the share probablity, allowing for lower end-user pricing.

cda said:
Why doesn't ADSL bandwidth then cost more if you have a 4Mbps line?
Click to expand...

The calculations and business models required to translate peak demand (input costs) to end-user pricing are complex, and various operators will choose to do it in different ways. Telkom has chosen to use ADSL line rental element to differentiate the peak capacity demand pricing, probably as it would be an administrative nightmare to manage differing cost per GB based on line speed.
 
Roman4604 said:
Therefore the higher the ability of a customer to contibute to the peak demand (by virtue of a faster local lead), the more they should pay.
Click to expand...

That's exactly my point Roman, they are *already* paying more due to the fact that they are using their data faster.

If I'm a business that maxes the line out 12/5 I'm using 55GB a month. If I upgrade to 1024kbps, the law of human nature and internet dictates I'll now use 110GB a month.

Except instead of being charged R5540 * 2, I'm being charged R11440 which is * 2.1

What's the .1 for?
 
cda said:
That's exactly my point Roman, they are *already* paying more due to the fact that they are using their data faster.
Click to expand...
Ya I'd have to agree, their price weighting does seem a bit cockeyed ... 5GB 1024 is R70 more than 5GB 512, while 10GB 512 is R280 more than the 5GB 512 ... 4 times more expensive to have double the cap as opposed to double the throughput.

Since peak demand generally only occurs during certain hours of each work day, one would think having double the throughput has a far higher probablity of increasing aggregate peak demand. Having half the throughput spreads the peak demand for each user over double the time, which should statistically be cheaper (not at a 4 times premium).

As an outsider one will never know how they got to these numbers?
 
Roman4604 said:
As an outsider one will never know how they got to these numbers?
Click to expand...

I can only assume their product managers catastrophically flunked their maths and economies of scale courses at the same time...
 
Actually I see it as really simple. Without comparing prices to anyone the question is simply why is a 512Kb with 10GB cheaper than 1024Kb with 10GB ?? Surely this is correct though ? I think we need to understand that this is a bundled service and if you break it apart ie 512Kb vs 1024Kb without the 10GB and as with ADSL the faster service is more expensive.

So simply put a 1024Kb link which is twice as fast as a 512Kb link will cost you slighly more ?? Does this sound correct or am I misssing something ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X