Who are the spectrum wasters?

I suggest to rather use the amount of data transferred as the measurement. Thus, if you have 2 players, A with 100 towers and B with 100, but A only transfer say 1TB of data, while B transfer 2TB of data, then B will be the more effective player (with most likely the lower prices as well).
 
I don't fully understand the math. If you have more spectrum you can offer higher speed services.

Please note, these figures are made up:

Lets say company A only has 10mhz spectrum, so they can only offer 2mbps links, but they have 500 towers in the country.

Now, company B has 50mhz spectrum, so they can offer 10mbps links, but they also have 500 towers.

A has UILI of 500/10 = 50
B has UILI of 500/50 = 10

Who is using their spectrum better?

Now lest say company C has 50mhz spectrum, but 2000 sites, their UILI is 2000/50 = 40. Still less than A.

But what if company C actually maxes out each one of their sites and has thousands of subscribers?

What if company A struggles their backsides off to keep only 100 customers happy?

What if a company with a better UILI value has the most pathetic backhaul network ever and thus no customers?

In my opinion this is just a bull**** calculation made up by the CEO of iburst to make his company look best when compared to the rest.

I agree sentech is a total disaster and should not have any spectrum, but to try and impose a useless calculation is pointless.
 
I think iburst got the most wireless subscribers of the mentioned service providers (last i read it was something like 100000). Just on that i think they should have at least the same amount of spectrum. In a perfect world they should have given telkom some trouble, but ya.
 
kaaskop said:
I think iburst got the most wireless subscribers of the mentioned service providers (last i read it was something like 100000). Just on that i think they should have at least the same amount of spectrum. In a perfect world they should have given telkom some trouble, but ya.
Click to expand...

Very few of those subscribers are using WiMax. They use the proprietary iBurst technology, that is limited to 1mbps.
 
I was under the impression that the majority of iBurst users/modems piggy backed on GSM current/new networks? That would be GSM range only then and not to be associated with WiMax spectrum.
 
My take on it:

Towers are an easily measurable unit to use.

There will be a direct relationship between towers, users, data transfer, backhaul etc - because that is why people subscribe to a wireless service.

Service providers will obviously only erect more towers to make better profits.

They can only make better profits by enabling customers to transfer more data at quality speed at economical rates with superb adminsytems and support in the background.

Therefore, more towers would only be possible when existing towers are providing customers internet connectivity in a way percieved as super value for money.

As crude as it seems, the indexing method Jannie proposes, is a cheap and nasty, but excellent indicator that will weed out the major abusers with little cost.

If ISP's don't offer customers what they want, the iBurst forum is a stark reminder on what customers think about bad and expensive service.
 
kaaskop said:
Is the 2.6 and 5.5 Ghz spectrum just for WiMax?
Click to expand...

No. The 2.5 / 2.6 GHz band is also the target band for LTE (Long Term Evolution, a 4G candidate) in Europe (as defined by the CEPT):

  • 2500-2570 MHz: FDD uplink - Typically LTE
  • 2570-2575 MHz: Guard band
  • 2575-2615 GHz: TDD - Could be WiMAX
  • 2615-2620 GHz: Guard band
  • 2620-2690 GHz: FDD downlink - Typically LTE
If we don't use this band plan in South Africa, the rollout of LTE in South Africa is likely to be severely curtailed. Judging by the success of WiMAX in South Africa to date, maybe we should scrap the idea of WiMAX altogether. Just like in Casablanca, "We'll always have Paris" - NOT!
 
ads said:
Judging by the success of WiMAX in South Africa to date, maybe we should scrap the idea of WiMAX altogether. Just like in Casablanca, "We'll always have Paris" - NOT!
Click to expand...
Yeah right, thereby cementing the mobile operators monopoly on the airwaves so they can continue peddling the products they refer to as broadband, when in reality they are the equivalent of wireless dialup in an age when double-digit GBs or uncapped usage is becoming the norm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X