What does the future hold for iBurst?

[Durandal]

Not a thread intending to lambaste iBurst or anything like that, just a genuine question. I have a few more months left on my iBurst contract through MWEB, after which they no longer offer the contracts, only month-to-month options.

I'd like to stay wireless, as my experiences at work with ADSL has left me anything but impressed. But...what are the options? What, in reality, can iBurst do to keep its customer base *if* the mobile networks start offering, finally, sane broadband prices?

For me, personally, I am more than happy with say a 2 or 3 Gig account per month, as unlike a few members here, I don't spend each day trying to download half the Internet . So iBurst can't, for example, make me happy to stay on by offering me extra Gigs at the same price.

What would make me more happy, is speed - so that if I want to download a file, I can get it done as quickly as possible with the least bit of waiting. And from what I understand, iBurst is not in a position to upgrade its network to allow great speeds.

So the question would be then, what are they likely to do to keep customers? It would seem their only option for those who don't mind the slower speeds would be to offer uncapped access during the day as well?

 

[EasyUp Web Hosting]

Not a thread intending to lambaste iBurst or anything like that, just a genuine question. I have a few more months left on my iBurst contract through MWEB, after which they no longer offer the contracts, only month-to-month options.

I'd like to stay wireless, as my experiences at work with ADSL has left me anything but impressed. But...what are the options? What, in reality, can iBurst do to keep its customer base *if* the mobile networks start offering, finally, sane broadband prices?

For me, personally, I am more than happy with say a 2 or 3 Gig account per month, as unlike a few members here, I don't spend each day trying to download half the Internet . So iBurst can't, for example, make me happy to stay on by offering me extra Gigs at the same price.

What would make me more happy, is speed - so that if I want to download a file, I can get it done as quickly as possible with the least bit of waiting. And from what I understand, iBurst is not in a position to upgrade its network to allow great speeds.

So the question would be then, what are they likely to do to keep customers? It would seem their only option for those who don't mind the slower speeds would be to offer uncapped access during the day as well?

We aren't getting any sort of uncapped access now, unless you take the VAS @ speeds of 64kbps or 128kbps...

 

[Durandal]

Oh, I was under the impression that the after hours thing was uncapped?

 

[r00igev@@r]

Oh, I was under the impression that the after hours thing was uncapped?

The afterhours thing is uncapped but the daytime part of it is throttled.

 

[r00igev@@r]

Not a thread intending to lambaste iBurst or anything like that, just a genuine question. I have a few more months left on my iBurst contract through MWEB, after which they no longer offer the contracts, only month-to-month options.

I'd like to stay wireless, as my experiences at work with ADSL has left me anything but impressed. But...what are the options? What, in reality, can iBurst do to keep its customer base *if* the mobile networks start offering, finally, sane broadband prices?

For me, personally, I am more than happy with say a 2 or 3 Gig account per month, as unlike a few members here, I don't spend each day trying to download half the Internet . So iBurst can't, for example, make me happy to stay on by offering me extra Gigs at the same price.

What would make me more happy, is speed - so that if I want to download a file, I can get it done as quickly as possible with the least bit of waiting. And from what I understand, iBurst is not in a position to upgrade its network to allow great speeds.

So the question would be then, what are they likely to do to keep customers? It would seem their only option for those who don't mind the slower speeds would be to offer uncapped access during the day as well?

I understand the opinion you have forwarded. However, wireless is dependant on a finite resouce called spectrum and we only have 5Mhz and 1 Mb/s is an EXCELLENT return and the best spectrum use of any technology.

If we had sufficient spectrum like 50Mhz, which Sentech as an example is parking on unused, we would be able to provide higher speed products.

There have been a host of product ideas, which are with the product team awaiting a decision.

 

[Jagtiger]

I understand the opinion you have forwarded. However, wireless is dependant on a finite resouce called spectrum and we only have 5Mhz and 1 Mb/s is an EXCELLENT return and the best spectrum use of any technology.

If we had sufficient spectrum like 50Mhz, which Sentech as an example is parking on unused, we would be able to provide higher speed products.

There have been a host of product ideas, which are with the product team awaiting a decesion.

How long will it take?

 

[Durandal]

I understand the opinion you have forwarded. However, wireless is dependant on a finite resouce called spectrum and we only have 5Mhz and 1 Mb/s is an EXCELLENT return and the best spectrum use of any technology.

If we had sufficient spectrum like 50Mhz, which Sentech as an example is parking on unused, we would be able to provide higher speed products.

There have been a host of product ideas, which are with the product team awaiting a decesion.

Look, I know you have a job, a responsibility here that I wouldn't want, and you have managed to keep a sense of humour in the face of complaints where I'd have eventually told the bloke to **** off and get a life....but honestly, I don't see iBurst offering a way forward here, and time is running out.

 

[ibb]

I understand the opinion you have forwarded. However, wireless is dependant on a finite resouce called spectrum and we only have 5Mhz and 1 Mb/s is an EXCELLENT return and the best spectrum use of any technology.

If we had sufficient spectrum like 50Mhz, which Sentech as an example is parking on unused, we would be able to provide higher speed products.

There have been a host of product ideas, which are with the product team awaiting a decesion.

Actually, no.

1Mb/s in 5MHz is so 1990's.....

HSPA+ is already running at 42Mb/s using just over 10MHz and LTE is running in production at around 80Mb/s in the same spectrum. LTE-Advanced will push this over 100Mb/s.

Cell-C is rolling out a 21Mb/s network using 5MHz!

The reality is iBurst as a technology has come to the end of its life a few years ago already and no further speed increases will be forthcoming. Ever. There is only one developer of the hardware (Kyocera) and they cannot spend more R&D on a networking technology with no footprint.

South Africa, with its 50000+ iBurst users is the largest iBurst network in the world and today cannot compete anymore against the likes of MTN, Vodacom and Cell-C. So, with no possible growth in subscriber base, iBurst number will only dwindle. This means that Kyocera will lose its biggest client and will stop development. It's a vicious circle and unfortunate for iBurst, but also a fact.

To answer the original question; iBurst is dead and will quickly drop to a few thousand users at which time they will have to close down the network. Your best bet, as a current iBurst subscriber, is to hope Cell-C will become available in your area. You will get somewhere between 5 to 8 times the speed, at a slightly lower cost.

 

[r00igev@@r]

How long will it take?

The decision for more spectrum allocation lies with the regulator.

 

[r00igev@@r]

Look, I know you have a job, a responsibility here that I wouldn't want, and you have managed to keep a sense of humour in the face of complaints where I'd have eventually told the bloke to **** off and get a life....but honestly, I don't see iBurst offering a way forward here, and time is running out.

I do not agree with your sentiments. iBurst is the best placed wireless operator to ride the wave of WiMAX and LTE.

 

[r00igev@@r]

Actually, no.

1Mb/s in 5MHz is so 1990's.....

HSPA+ is already running at 42Mb/s using just over 10MHz and LTE is running in production at around 80Mb/s in the same spectrum. LTE-Advanced will push this over 100Mb/s.

Cell-C is rolling out a 21Mb/s network using 5MHz!

The reality is iBurst as a technology has come to the end of its life a few years ago already and no further speed increases will be forthcoming. Ever. There is only one developer of the hardware (Kyocera) and they cannot spend more R&D on a networking technology with no footprint.

South Africa, with its 50000+ iBurst users is the largest iBurst network in the world and today cannot compete anymore against the likes of MTN, Vodacom and Cell-C. So, with no possible growth in subscriber base, iBurst number will only dwindle. This means that Kyocera will lose its biggest client and will stop development. It's a vicious circle and unfortunate for iBurst, but also a fact.

To answer the original question; iBurst is dead and will quickly drop to a few thousand users at which time they will have to close down the network. Your best bet, as a current iBurst subscriber, is to hope Cell-C will become available in your area. You will get somewhere between 5 to 8 times the speed, at a slightly lower cost.

I don't think you understand but the whole iBurst network is in 5Mhz which is reused. It is impoosible to provide a 21 Mb/s network in 5Mhz, you'd need a minimum of 40Mhz.

iBurst's biggest asset is not just the Kyocera towers but the backhaul and core which carries a huge amount of traffic for services not exclusively limited to broadband but also SLA driven voice and data offerings.

BTW: In the 1990's ISDN was the cat's whiskers (seem to have lost a decade somewhere?).

 

[Jagtiger]

The decision for more spectrum allocation lies with the regulator.

Do you mean "On a Thursday after feint rain, at full moon."?

 

[ibb]

I don't think you understand but the whole iBurst network is in 5Mhz which is reused. It is impoosible to provide a 21 Mb/s network in 5Mhz, you'd need a minimum of 40Mhz.

iBurst's biggest asset is not just the Kyocera towers but the backhaul and core which carries a huge amount of traffic for services not exclusively limited to broadband but also SLA driven voice and data offerings.

BTW: In the 1990's ISDN was the cat's whiskers (seem to have lost a decade somewhere?).

You're right, I did lose a decade there. Meant the 2000's. And, make no mistake, circa 2006, iBurst was the best mobile data technology available. But the world has moved on and the 3GPP standards (3G / HSDPA / HSPA+ / LTE) overtook iBurst and left it far behind, both in footprint and technology. Fair, or not, iBurst is dead, it never moved past that initial flash of brilliance. Today you buy EXACTLY the same technology (and bulky modem) as 5 years ago. There's been zero development since the first launch of the product. Zip. And there will never be. iBurst never reached critical mass. And now it's too late.

Then; you are 100% wrong if you believe you can't run a 21Mb/s network in 5MHz. It's being done all over the world. Maybe go read up on HSPA+.

As a matter of fact, Cell-C is not using 5MHz, they're actually only using 4.8MHz of their 11MHz allocation in their 900MHz spectrum to run their HSPA+ network at 21Mb/s down and around 5Mb/s up. And they (and MTN and Vodacom....and I think Telkom) can do a pure software upgrade to 42Mb/s.

WBS might have other assets, but Durandal's question was: "Quo Vadis iBurst?" and the answer is "Nowhere, it's dead. R.I.P.".

As to your statement that WBS is well poised to capatilise on WiMax and LTE, I'd like to hear your rationale for that statement.

WBS have had the 'biggest' WiMax network in the country for a number of years. Yet it's been a commercial failure and they have, at most, a few hundred subscribers on it. Why is that, and why will it now suddenly change? Especially that WiMax is the next technology to come to end-of-life due to very similar reasons iBurst did, i.e. the vast majority of the industry accepted 3GPP over WiMax, relegating WiMax to a fringe technology. Just like iBurst.

So if WBS wants to succeed, I would agree with you that LTE is the answer. But where is WBS going to get R5B to build a national network? You need much more than the 250 base stations you have today, especially if you want to compete with Vodacom's 9000, MTN's 6000 and Cell-C's 3000 towers.

Do you really think there is space in the market for another operator, and especially, where will WBS get the money? Which of your shareholders will fund this? Vodacom is out, that leaves Blue Label and Mtshali. Neither of them has the money to put into the business, even if there was a business case.

iBurst will be dead within the next 18 to 24 months as subs churn away and WBS itself will get chopped up into little pieces and sold. Or it will just go bang. What is your current churn rate? I would think around 5% per month? This means the network will collapse under its own cost within less than two years.

We've seen Sentech go this way and Neotel is showing similar signs but iBurst will collapse before Neotel's CDMA-2000 effort which is still subsidised by their corporate efforts.

But WBS does not have such a cash-cow. Thus the writing is on the wall.

iBurst (the technology) is dead, iBurst (the SA network) id dead and WBS on its last legs.

 

[Jagtiger]

You're right, I did lose a decade there. Meant the 2000's. And, make no mistake, circa 2006, iBurst was the best mobile data technology available. But the world has moved on and the 3GPP standards (3G / HSDPA / HSPA+ / LTE) overtook iBurst and left it far behind, both in footprint and technology. Fair, or not, iBurst is dead, it never moved past that initial flash of brilliance. Today you buy EXACTLY the same technology (and bulky modem) as 5 years ago. There's been zero development since the first launch of the product. Zip. And there will never be. iBurst never reached critical mass. And now it's too late.

Then; you are 100% wrong if you believe you can't run a 21Mb/s network in 5MHz. It's being done all over the world. Maybe go read up on HSPA+.

As a matter of fact, Cell-C is not using 5MHz, they're actually only using 4.8MHz of their 11MHz allocation in their 900MHz spectrum to run their HSPA+ network at 21Mb/s down and around 5Mb/s up. And they (and MTN and Vodacom....and I think Telkom) can do a pure software upgrade to 42Mb/s.

WBS might have other assets, but Durandal's question was: "Quo Vadis iBurst?" and the answer is "Nowhere, it's dead. R.I.P.".

As to your statement that WBS is well poised to capatilise on WiMax and LTE, I'd like to hear your rationale for that statement.

WBS have had the 'biggest' WiMax network in the country for a number of years. Yet it's been a commercial failure and they have, at most, a few hundred subscribers on it. Why is that, and why will it now suddenly change? Especially that WiMax is the next technology to come to end-of-life due to very similar reasons iBurst did, i.e. the vast majority of the industry accepted 3GPP over WiMax, relegating WiMax to a fringe technology. Just like iBurst.

So if WBS wants to succeed, I would agree with you that LTE is the answer. But where is WBS going to get R5B to build a national network? You need much more than the 250 base stations you have today, especially if you want to compete with Vodacom's 9000, MTN's 6000 and Cell-C's 3000 towers.

Do you really think there is space in the market for another operator, and especially, where will WBS get the money? Which of your shareholders will fund this? Vodacom is out, that leaves Blue Label and Mtshali. Neither of them has the money to put into the business, even if there was a business case.

iBurst will be dead within the next 18 to 24 months as subs churn away and WBS itself will get chopped up into little pieces and sold. Or it will just go bang. What is your current churn rate? I would think around 5% per month? This means the network will collapse under its own cost within less than two years.

We've seen Sentech go this way and Neotel is showing similar signs but iBurst will collapse before Neotel's CDMA-2000 effort which is still subsidised by their corporate efforts.

But WBS does not have such a cash-cow. Thus the writing is on the wall.

iBurst (the technology) is dead, iBurst (the SA network) id dead and WBS on its last legs.

And is there nothing to do about it?

 

[ibb]

And is there nothing to do about it?

For iBurst the technology? Sadly, nothing. It will be known, with countless others, as a technology ahead of its time but which got killed off by market forces. No new countries are deploying it, so the vendor has stopped development.

iBurst, the SA company? It will disappear together with the technology.

WBS, the SA company? It will need to find an investor or buyer otherwise it too will disappear. But it has a change to survive outside the realm of iBurst.

 

[diegoa]

Sorry but HSPA+ is still not the answer for wireless gamers. Latencies on HSPA+ are still quite high and not good for online gaming locally and internationally, and I know people who use iBurst/Wimax primarily for online gaming when they dont have a Telkom landline. I get just as good latency on iBurst with online gaming compared to Wimax and ADSL.

 

[Durandal]

Sorry but HSPA+ is still not the answer for wireless gamers. Latencies on HSPA+ are still quite high and not good for online gaming locally and internationally, and I know people who use iBurst/Wimax primarily for online gaming when they dont have a Telkom landline. I get just as good latency on iBurst with online gaming compared to Wimax and ADSL.

Diegoa, please explain latency to me? I don't understand many of these terms. Is it a problem mainly for gamers? How does it affect you?

 

[diegoa]

Usually it is the time it takes to talk to gaming server and back (other factors can change this), higher it is, much more longer you will need to wait to interact and get feedback in the game, its a serious issue for online games.

 

[r00igev@@r]

You're right, I did lose a decade there. Meant the 2000's. And, make no mistake, circa 2006, iBurst was the best mobile data technology available. But the world has moved on and the 3GPP standards (3G / HSDPA / HSPA+ / LTE) overtook iBurst and left it far behind, both in footprint and technology. Fair, or not, iBurst is dead, it never moved past that initial flash of brilliance. Today you buy EXACTLY the same technology (and bulky modem) as 5 years ago. There's been zero development since the first launch of the product. Zip. And there will never be. iBurst never reached critical mass. And now it's too late.

Then; you are 100% wrong if you believe you can't run a 21Mb/s network in 5MHz. It's being done all over the world. Maybe go read up on HSPA+.

As a matter of fact, Cell-C is not using 5MHz, they're actually only using 4.8MHz of their 11MHz allocation in their 900MHz spectrum to run their HSPA+ network at 21Mb/s down and around 5Mb/s up. And they (and MTN and Vodacom....and I think Telkom) can do a pure software upgrade to 42Mb/s.

WBS might have other assets, but Durandal's question was: "Quo Vadis iBurst?" and the answer is "Nowhere, it's dead. R.I.P.".

As to your statement that WBS is well poised to capatilise on WiMax and LTE, I'd like to hear your rationale for that statement.

WBS have had the 'biggest' WiMax network in the country for a number of years. Yet it's been a commercial failure and they have, at most, a few hundred subscribers on it. Why is that, and why will it now suddenly change? Especially that WiMax is the next technology to come to end-of-life due to very similar reasons iBurst did, i.e. the vast majority of the industry accepted 3GPP over WiMax, relegating WiMax to a fringe technology. Just like iBurst.

So if WBS wants to succeed, I would agree with you that LTE is the answer. But where is WBS going to get R5B to build a national network? You need much more than the 250 base stations you have today, especially if you want to compete with Vodacom's 9000, MTN's 6000 and Cell-C's 3000 towers.

Do you really think there is space in the market for another operator, and especially, where will WBS get the money? Which of your shareholders will fund this? Vodacom is out, that leaves Blue Label and Mtshali. Neither of them has the money to put into the business, even if there was a business case.

iBurst will be dead within the next 18 to 24 months as subs churn away and WBS itself will get chopped up into little pieces and sold. Or it will just go bang. What is your current churn rate? I would think around 5% per month? This means the network will collapse under its own cost within less than two years.

We've seen Sentech go this way and Neotel is showing similar signs but iBurst will collapse before Neotel's CDMA-2000 effort which is still subsidised by their corporate efforts.

But WBS does not have such a cash-cow. Thus the writing is on the wall.

iBurst (the technology) is dead, iBurst (the SA network) id dead and WBS on its last legs.

Thanks for writing and posting Janneman. I am not as technically astute as you so would like to understand how interference is resolved when two HSDPA towers are next to each other and they only share 5Mhz?

I beleive your analysis is flawed. I stil use a Linksys WRT54G and haven't seen anything better yet. Just because it was manufactured 8 years ago does not make it unusable...

To tell the truth ethernet was invented in 1973 and I don't see people rushing out and burning their cables because it is perceived as old technology?

 

[Next Thing]

To tell the truth ethernet was invented in 1973 and I don't see people rushing out and burning their cables because it is perceived as old technology?

Actually Ethernet comes in a number of specifications.
The specification you are talking about has been dead for serious use for a long time now.
Ethernet has evolved to the 1GB specifications and better where Iburst still needs to do that

The experimental Ethernet described in the 1976 paper ran at 3 Mbit/s and had eight-bit destination and source address fields, so the original Ethernet addresses were not the MAC addresses they are today. By software convention, the 16 bits after the destination and source address fields specified a "packet type", but, as the paper says, "different protocols use disjoint sets of packet types". Thus the original packet types could vary within each different protocol, rather than the packet type in the current Ethernet standard which specifies the protocol being used.