When we will see dramatically cheaper broadband

Pilgrim said:
How about setting up a proxy server in the datacentre next to the seacom landing station? Use local only bandwidth (at ~R4 per gig) to connect to said proxy, then pay the cost for Seacom bandwidth?

Anyone want to explore this avenue?
Click to expand...

Thats a good idea. We could even use the WUG's for people who cannot get ADSL. Can you imagine if you plug that datacentre into Durban's WUG how much trouble that will cause :D
 
We will get cheap internet in SA when Zuma freely and openly admits that he is guilty of corruption and wants to go to jail for his crimes.
 
You cannot connect customers directly to the landing station

Pilgrim said:
How about setting up a proxy server in the datacentre next to the seacom landing station? Use local only bandwidth (at ~R4 per gig) to connect to said proxy, then pay the cost for Seacom bandwidth?

Anyone want to explore this avenue?
Click to expand...

If anyone has read the Landing station documentation you will find that you cannot terminate customers at the landing station it is for core equipment such as mpls routers etc
 
Gary your posts are always positive, and I'm hoping that you do know more than you are alowed to put in writing. I agree that things are going to get better, but just not unrealistically. We just dont have the numbers of EU an US to make things as cheap as they are. I accept that, no fooling myself there!
 
A lot of people mention switching en masse every month to the ISP with the cheapest service, but nobody seriously tries to do something about it.

If even a third of the mybb members form a consumer group they might be able to start putting pressure on ISP's to make special deals for their members. Might not be able to switch ISP's every month or even every 2d month, but you should be able to get broadband a bit cheaper than each individual might. And ISP's will notice when you leave :D
 
davemc said:
Gaz{M}, the difference between a GB of data at no specified speed and data at 1MB/s is phenomenal.

You simply are not even close to comparing apples with apples.
Click to expand...
km2 said:
Care to explain why?
Click to expand...
The article and I am talking about purchasing bandwidth in MB/s or GB/s.

This unit of measurement (MB/s) refers to the amount of data that can pass through the cable in a single second.

Gaz is talking about 1GB for R4.00.

Gaz is trying to compare 1024 Megabytes of transferred data over any period of time to 1 Megabyte of transferred data per second.

So, depending on the line-speed, Gaz would get a his 1GB in 1024 seconds on a 1024MB/s line, or much longer if he has a slower line.

It's like trying to compare a car doing 120km/h to a bus that must travel 120km.

Or another way to look at it: A single 1024MB line can serve the 1GB every 1024 seconds. That's R4 a second. Over the entire month, that's R4 * 30 days * 24 hours * 60 minutes * 60 seconds = R10,368,000 a month. But, the problem is that the line is not used 100% of the time. So, you simply cannot use it as a comparison.
 
Why do you need a group? I thought people would just switch for a cheaper product. I for one shop around every month to find the cheapest unshaped to fuel my WoW addiction. B

But sadly a huge part of SA broadband users have their e-mails and crap tied to an isp and that is all they really use the internet for :P E.g. all MWEB users :P
 
IRG said:
Gary your posts are always positive, and I'm hoping that you do know more than you are alowed to put in writing. I agree that things are going to get better, but just not unrealistically. We just dont have the numbers of EU an US to make things as cheap as they are. I accept that, no fooling myself there!
Click to expand...

Yes, I do know more than I am allowed to say. Certain of my "sources" are bound by non-disclosure agreements. But even despite that, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the pressure that is building..... she's gonna blow.

As was mentioned above.... wireless providers will also be putting heavy pressure on pricing.

If Telkom went ahead and did what they actually wanted to do... they would get dragged before the competition commission every day... they would be accused by the competition of undercutting them again.

I can guarantee you 100% that Telkom is fully aware that in order to continue profits they need to grow the market... and in order to grow the market they need to reduce prices or grow their packages. I have this in first hand knowledge from someone on the inside.
 
wirelessvsadsl said:
If anyone has read the Landing station documentation you will find that you cannot terminate customers at the landing station it is for core equipment such as mpls routers etc
Click to expand...

Uhm, nooo, I never said put the equipment inside the landing station, I am talking about the data center next to or close by the station.

Are you telling me that nobody will be able to peer with the landing station?

How exactly will ppl connect to seacom then? I can assure you that the area around the seacom landing station will start to develop into a high tech business park.

Sure, getting from the datacentre onto the local network will be a problem, and that is what I want to explore.

There will be a lot of costs involved, but it should be looked into at the very least.
 
Over-hyped expectations around the 90% drop in prices we were suddenly going to see with the arrival of the Seacom undersea cable are now somewhat more "grounded"
Click to expand...

dear mr moneyweb "reporter": What you refer to as hype is the voices of ordinary consumers shouting for lower prices (for years now).

Those with an interest in maximizing their profits, by extending the current pricing structures as long as possible, have successfully been using the media for their propaganda.... repeating the mantra over and over again that "prices have already come down" and "wait for Eassy before we see price change".

Well, the consumer has seen no change in pricing for Internet access, and no logical argument has been put forth on why our hopes must now be on another cable?

Sometimes I wonder if most IT reporting is not press releases and infomercials?

The consumer is not prepared to wait any more... :mad:

PS: I do hate the words "price point" ! :sick:
 
Last edited:
Everybody talks about convergence between voice and data
Click to expand...

Bleh. As long as I'm still paying for a Telkom land-line just so I can converge voice and data on my ADSL line, then really, what's the point?

Juice
 
OPAQUE

Pilgrim said:
Uhm, nooo, I never said put the equipment inside the landing station, I am talking about the data center next to or close by the station.
Are you telling me that nobody will be able to peer with the landing station?
How exactly will ppl connect to seacom then? I can assure you that the area around the seacom landing station will start to develop into a high tech business park.
Sure, getting from the datacentre onto the local network will be a problem, and that is what I want to explore.
There will be a lot of costs involved, but it should be looked into at the very least.
Click to expand...

I am not sure why you would want to peer at the landing station :confused:

SEACOM / NEOTEL are paying to get the data to Midrand. Your cost is FOB Midrand. As you know all the ISP's peer in JHBG.

So WHERE is the benefit in putting a proxy at Mtunzini :confused: Unless I am completely misunderstanding :)

There is nothing at Mtunzini -- BACKHAUL is the crux of the plot.

DFA / Infraco / Neotel / Telkom -- these are all the backhaul boys ( National Links )

MTN business are building a major centre in EMPANGENI -- there is a SEACOM splice there -- and it is on the INFRACO backbone.

The ONLY way for anyone to get any clarity on this whole thing is if ICASA makes it mandatory for this sort of detailed information to be put into the PUBLIC DOMAIN.

The US the general consumer can see what is going on and make INFORMED choices.

All these non-discloure agreements and company director meetings behind closed doors and nicy cosy meetings with ISPA -- this ALL has to stop.

When all the cards are on the table -- then progress will be made.


MW
 
davemc said:
The article and I am talking about purchasing bandwidth in MB/s or GB/s.

This unit of measurement (MB/s) refers to the amount of data that can pass through the cable in a single second.

Gaz is talking about 1GB for R4.00.

Gaz is trying to compare 1024 Megabytes of transferred data over any period of time to 1 Megabyte of transferred data per second.

So, depending on the line-speed, Gaz would get a his 1GB in 1024 seconds on a 1024MB/s line, or much longer if he has a slower line.

Or another way to look at it: A single 1024MB line can serve the 1GB every 1024 seconds. That's R4 a second. Over the entire month, that's R4 * 30 days * 24 hours * 60 minutes * 60 seconds = R10,368,000 a month. But, the problem is that the line is not used 100% of the time. So, you simply cannot use it as a comparison.
Click to expand...

I say GBs and MB/sec are directly comparable. When the GBs you offer double, the average line speed doubles. Average line usage is the only thing that matters when calculating pricing because that's what the ISPs work with. No one pulls down that 1GB every 1024 seconds because they are forced to spread that bundles of data out over the month. Everyone else has to spread it out too. The only calculation that matters is the one that goes:

2GB monthly cap/2592000 seconds in a month = 6172 kbps (that's over the whole month, but I know they'll change the calculation to reflect more the busiest times of the day)

If I have 20 000 customers, I'll need:

20 000 customers * 6172 kbps = roughly 120Mb/sec IPConnect line

Now what happens if I decide to offer them double the speed? Nothing. The calculation stays exactly the same, it doesn't matter to the ISP. If you end up using more data because the line is so fast, you'll run out of bundle on the 15th of the month. ISPs know that the majority of people will then adjust their usage so that they plan when they run out of bandwidth better, and that brings the average speed needed straight back into line.
 
"If I'm on a contract on the SAT-3 cable and let's say the price (for argument's sake) is R100, and the price on Seacom is R10. I might have 70% of my bandwidth going through on the SAT-3 because I'm contractually bound to it still and I've got 30% going through at R10," he describes.

"Well, the average price is going to be closer to, say, about R70."
Click to expand...

That argument collapses if one's competition is not contractually bound to Telkom and is getting 100% on Seacom at R10. Telkom are going to have to tear up the contracts and reprice or their clients are going to go out of business.
 
Pilgrim said:
How about setting up a proxy server in the datacentre next to the seacom landing station? Use local only bandwidth (at ~R4 per gig) to connect to said proxy, then pay the cost for Seacom bandwidth?

Anyone want to explore this avenue?
Click to expand...

That's where the expensive IP Connect comes in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X