What is the logic in limiting bandwidth?

ponder said:
I know it sucks here but you cannot compare the two markets. You cannot even compare the USA to HK. Deploying high speed broadband in places like HK, Japan etc where the population density is so high is relatively easy.
Click to expand...

I agree.

But i think in mentioning the extreme i'm pointing to the fact that the bar is sustainably much higher than 384 even in our supposed "low population density" enviroment.

Part of me thinks the real issue here is sat3 and telkoms reluctance to equitably saturate the line when spare capacity is so usefully profitable.
 
fragtion_ said:
It throttles to like 3KB/s (better than nothing, sure), but then when I load a website sometimes the site stops loading half way through, and I have to refresh it so it loads fully
Click to expand...

Fasterfox plugin would help for that I think. I used to use it when I had dialup.
 
Can we really do anything? If someone would make a petition and get all of S.A's web users to force telscum to upgrade because the government owns a huge deal in them... would they legally have to do it?

MTN is btchn about telscum now why don't they make a yes/no service for their users to agree or disagree for telscum to wake up!

All the ISP's can do it and the cell phone companies because if they get better infrastructure from telscum they would have to spend less on over investing on making up for the low bandwidth and complaints from consumers and for all now that we can SUE THEM "STUKEND" per complaint with the new act, I think they will also wake up!

Think of the "good rep" the cell phone company that does it first to fight for lower prices for their customers lets pitch that to them or ask virgin mobile to start is because the seems to like doing the "odd thing." Would wouldn't want to be with a company that cares for you :) ?
 
fragtion_ said:
This is one of the things that I wonder too.
Either cap or speed should be unlimited, with a "you get what you pay for" restriction on the other. Having a two-level layer of restrictions for the same service is somewhat absurd.
...
Either capping should be scrapped completely, or speed limits should be removed...
... At least that's what I think
Click to expand...

Hear! Hear!
 
It actually makes more sense to limit bandwidth (speed) than total cap, but incentives like allowing more bandwidth/cap in off-peak could help a lot.

If everybody had limitless bandwidth, the peak times would be very harsh. You'd have people doing all their downloads during peak times, making the things like gaming a nightmare. This might not happen every night because they soon get capped, but for a while every month, the internet would become a useless tool for many people.

It would've been interesting if they throttled everyone based on usage. Give you x amount of bandwidth every day (depending on how much you pay), then for every Gig of bandwidth you have left, you are allowed 1 Mbps. So if you have 10 Gig saved up, you can use it at 10Mbps. Then maybe just add in a minimum rate, like 384Kbps.

I would LOVE that.
 
Last edited:
Pyro said:
It would've been interesting if they throttled everyone based on usage. Give you x amount of bandwidth every day (depending on how much you pay), then for every Gig of bandwidth you have left, you are allowed 1 Mbps. So if you have 10 Gig saved up, you can use it at 10Mbps. Then maybe just add in a minimum rate, like 384Kbps.

I would LOVE that.
Click to expand...
That's an awesome idea, I like it. seems like it would be too complex to set up though, lol (line sync and ISP connection are independent - how would it work if you were routesentry'ing ? ;p)
 
What really bits me is that we all pay the same for what ever speed connection we have. Now just because i live in a small town my connection is slower than someone who lives in jhb/cpt. If mine is slower i should pay less...
 
The problem is Telkom is using every single possible way to contend the service. Typically isp's have just transparent proxies to ease congestion and combined with priority for protocols less draining, it should make contending better(from international pipe).

But Telkom took a further step and limited on a usage basis/capacity(limits local connections e.g. from exchange to network etc as well as international pipe)(typically they do this for wireless as you have mobile users so you can't predict(well you can e.g. if people go to work etc humans are behavioural but there is an element of unknown) bw usage + its too costly to overkill(the itu defines a % minimal service level as well as regulations for dropped/rejected calls which providers work into their cost calculations etc) and then have max usage for 5minutes of the day as users roam to other stations). The combo of the three allows them to contend adsl lines from the exchange a lot better than it would be without it as they can then grow their network faster with minimal overhead per exchange(they can skimp on the lines out of the exchange more than normal because end users now worry of being capped for usage).

Consider this.. if they were required to provide unlimited access(we ignoring international pipe), then each local exchange would have to basically provide pipes out statistically close to the max need.(No telecom provider wireless/fixed will equip an exchange with the same output as input as its not cost effective esp when not everyone leaches 24/7. this same theory is why everyone on your exchange can't simultaneously make a call)

So basically its all about the contention taking place. In fact, technically, the more people you have at an exchange, the cheaper it should be(cost saving)! as there will be a greater % of people not using their full alloted bandwidth(not capacity, i.e. 384kbps/line utilization)

In the end it will sort itself out as lines from exchange to mainline becomes more abundant.. but also international pipe enlarges.(hence i say telkom's congestion excuse on international is no more with seacom -for expense and bad service)
 
Last edited:
Oh please.
We are ready to stream the world cup to all the other countries in continuous HD, multiple angles, and multiple games, etc etc.
But we still have 384 and 500mb caps? Surely.
 
fragtion_ said:
That's an awesome idea, I like it. seems like it would be too complex to set up though, lol (line sync and ISP connection are independent - how would it work if you were routesentry'ing ? ;p)
Click to expand...

Throw open the sync to your dslam, but limit it at the ISP itself per account.

Yes, quite complex, but would make for an interesting fair usage system.
 
As I've mentioned in another post I am amazed at how far behind SA is in terms of ADSL.
I've just finished reading all these posts and still can't believe it.
I live in Greece and all the forums here bitch about the prices they are charging us for ADSL as compared to the rest of Europe...but after reading what you guys go through I see that there is no comparison.
ADSL was introduced about 5 years ago and we also started at 384 but never with a cap and prices were around R600 per month (you had to pay for your line plus provider) then the monopoly on telecommunication was abolished(EU law) and all these new companies were formed
The result is that today the lowest and cheapest ASDL connection starts at 2Mbps and costs about R160 but most of us have all in one packages (called Double play or Triple play) which include unlimited national/international phone calls and a 24Mbps connection...the "Triple play" includes TV total cost is R300 and obviously unlimited.
What it boils down to is that unless Telkom gets some competition you are going to be stuck with whatever they dish up.
On the plus side at least I see your mobile companies are keeping up with the times and providing some fairly decent speeds.

To illustrate my point

http://www.ontelecoms.com/on/changeLanguageAction.do?tab=null&language=en&lastPath=/main.jsp?null
 
it's all about making money, everyone should be offered a fast, reliable and cheap ADSL service.....
 
Telegamer said:
it's all about making money, everyone should be offered a fast, reliable and cheap ADSL service.....
Click to expand...
Actually, when taken literally, I give you a +1 for that : Effective, reliable, CHEAP communications / good internet infrastructure is a characteristic of a successful first-world country. By providing such service, you're providing food for economical growth. So yeah, it's all about money making - but if the Government has brains, it will enforce strict regulations on the Telco's to provide cheaper & better service rather than encourage them to milk us dry like just any other company.
Sure that's just my 2c, but when you look at the world you see the proof in the pudding - while it may seem counter-intuitive to offer cheap communications from a business perspective, it actually results in more productive economy: one with healthy competition and satisfied customers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X