Why doesn't Telkom just wakeup and...

[fragtion]

Would you be happy if Telkom did the following:
- Same price (R219~) for 10GB cap in place of the 3GB cap. (all users just upgraded for free - like they do overseas)
- "DSL Line rental" reduced to a reasonable ~R100 (Telkom has to make profits for you using DSL. If you're using another ISP such as IS, what will Telkom be getting out of it once the SNO is here?)
- Telkom implements an IS-like capping strategy where users are granted the 10GB of combined bandwidth, and once reached are softcapped at international USABLE speeds of around 4<K/s<10...

Even the "abusers" wont be able to pose a threat to Telkom because 10K/s stable throughout the month surely can't really do much damage, but it'll keep everyone happy? Especially if the majority of users will stay below 3GB regardless of the change. According to Telkom most of their subscribers don't reach their 3GB cap?

So would such a great leap forward really do any harm to Telkom's profits?

I can see a very mixed response. I'm pretty sure a lot of you will tell me "10GB is still a joke." or "Why R100 line rental - you're already paying telkom R92 for your copper line?", as well as the other side.. "Telkom would never reduce their line rental costs so much" and so forth.

What you see above is simply my ideal. The reason I am so against capping is because it becomes impossible to do anything internationally. I wouldnt mind TelkomInternet capping us at all if I could USE the service, even if at a greatly reduced speed. What about unrestricted access to the SAIX cache and reduced speeds on new content? SAIX caches so much content and that "EXPENSIVE INTERNATIONAL BANDWIDTH" which has been cached locally is deducted from your 3GB cap along with all the local bandwidth you consume.

I just find it unfair that 95% of the bandwidth I use on my SAIX account (gaming, irc, browsing) happens to be local, and gets me totally restricted (capped) on international bandwidth when I've only used a few megs of international bandwidth for that month?? That certainly doesnt make sense especially coming from Telkom who are implementing a pay-per-use system (in which case local and international bandwidth, both according to Telkom in this strategy, must cost the same if they both add to the cap??)

Sorry if I didnt make any logical sequence in this post, I just spoke my mind and hope someone agrees with me? :/

 

[pope24]

Along the same lines I would think they should chop another R100 off the cost of the connectivity service so that the 192 offering comes in at R150/month. At the same time they should include the base line rental in that price, or unbundle the two services and charge a separate R50 for voice services.
Then Telkom could CPIX link those prices but start upgrading the services as they move on, so instead of having 5 packages when 2Mbps ADSL comes along they kill the 192 service and move everyone up the food chain one level. Or cut the price of the 192 even further to make it more affordable.
I wonder how much the average dial up user pays per month for connecting to the Internet. How cheap does DSL have to be to make it a no brainer.
Then there should be a pay as you use bandwidth offering which allows entry level users to get bandwidth at R50/GB plus a R25 ISP fee, putting it in line with dial up costs. This means that a ordinary consumer would be able to get ADSL and a voice service for R300/month. Then there should be a 10GB cap for R250 and these subscribers are then billed R30/GB after they hit the limit.
My problem is not that I get capped, but that I have to ask for more bandwidth after I get capped. It should be just like using the phone, I don't have to ask Vodacom for more minutes after my 100 free minutes are used up, why shouldn't it be the same for bandwidth.

 

[krycor]

I think the whole avg use is 1.4GB is whats prevents them from/they'll use against offering bandwidth for cheap esp with the new per gig billing... why ? cause if the have to sell it for less, acc to the avg their profit would be less. ie per gig would drop from R55? to R20? or less(10GB@R200) etc. and with the avg being lower that means big drop. rental i see droping though. Also its not like anyone can compete with per gig cost cause they have excl access to the cable and IS is as expensive. so much for competition eh. In the end though people use less cause they are getting less/being restricted. Would be interesting to see if the avg goes up if bandwidth cap's was higher. 1.4GB is also partly incorrect cause they have 2GB accounts as well as 3GB and 1.4GB could be cause people are using it sparingly on their 2GB acc.

Paying for local sucks. ICASA has been quiet which is sad cause they ruled against it. ICASA to me is worse than the UN, just talk and barking but when people transgress unless its a little guy they can squash, they just keep quiet and bark.