Will SA mobile networks block WhatsApp?

Rusty0 said:
I dont see why everyone is harping on about this.
Its available now, nobody is complaining, why make it a mountain?
Click to expand...

Let me put this to you :

You develop an internet-aware application which can be used on a laptop, tablet, phone or whichever device the user prefer.

It is an instant hit, and is downloaded 10 million times, and people uses it daily, and it consumes a fairly large bit of internet data this way. On its own it doesn't consume a lot of data at all.

What will your response to any Internet Service Provider be should they ask you to start paying for the internet data your application consumes? Will you ask your users to pay for this data?
 
Rickster said:
And what about youtube?


Has this article got something to do with network bandwidth issues or are they just being stupid?
Click to expand...

It's to do with a low bandwidth service like Whatsapp killing their SMS revenues by offering a cheap(and better) alternative. They charge per meg or gig so they're happy with high bandwidth "OTT" services like Youtube chowing up your data.

They're crying about revenue that they feel is there right to extract from the SA public by divine decree of government.

Btw, MTN, are you aware that Whatsapp is owned by Facebook who are probably the largest drivers of data traffic on your network? IOW they're already making you a fcck ton.
 
I can't recall where, but I do know that the actual cost of sending an SMS was 2c. No idea what it costs now, but I suspect it costs a fraction of that. It could be argued that the users have already subsidized a decent portion of the operators' network costs.

The profit margins on SMS usage was (and still is) huge. SMS revenue will come from retailers and companies communicating with their customers. The "internet of things" could also drive SMS usage by an impressive margin if priced correctly. I would much rather receive critical alerts (such as my gate opening, my alarm triggering, etc) by SMS than email or through some other means. I can see a lot of opportunity and room to grow just by giving it a few minutes thought.

These statements from these "executives" are very shortsighted and are doing more harm than anything else.
 
The "internet of things" could also drive SMS usage by an impressive margin if priced correctly.
Click to expand...
The IoT is by definition, internet connected devices. SMS is not internet. With delays and non-delivery of SMS in this country, many product vendors opt to rather use TCP/UDP sockets over GPRS and EDGE connections as minimum.
 
Nick333 said:
It's to do with a low bandwidth service like Whatsapp killing their SMS revenues by offering a cheap(and better) alternative. They charge per meg or gig so they're happy with high bandwidth "OTT" services like Youtube chowing up your data.

They're crying about revenue that they feel is there right to extract from the SA public by divine decree of government.

Btw, MTN, are you aware that Whatsapp is owned by Facebook who are probably the largest drivers of data traffic on your network? IOW they're already making you a fcck ton.
Click to expand...
This is the real issue. WhatsApp uses next to nothing in data so doesn't make them any money but is severely eating into their revenue. What we are seeing is the usual knee jerk response from a stagnant industry that doesn't know how to adapt to the times. Cell C has managed to tap into this market. R5 for WhatsApp data that probably isn't even used by 90% of the people paying for it. That's smart and innovative.

MaryJane said:
I can't recall where, but I do know that the actual cost of sending an SMS was 2c. No idea what it costs now, but I suspect it costs a fraction of that. It could be argued that the users have already subsidized a decent portion of the operators' network costs.

The profit margins on SMS usage was (and still is) huge. SMS revenue will come from retailers and companies communicating with their customers. The "internet of things" could also drive SMS usage by an impressive margin if priced correctly. I would much rather receive critical alerts (such as my gate opening, my alarm triggering, etc) by SMS than email or through some other means. I can see a lot of opportunity and room to grow just by giving it a few minutes thought.

These statements from these "executives" are very shortsighted and are doing more harm than anything else.
Click to expand...
SMS is an over the top service so doesn't really cost them anything. It's all just a balance of price and preventing abuse.
 
Last edited:
1441568916 said:
The IoT is by definition, internet connected devices. SMS is not internet. With delays and non-delivery of SMS in this country, many product vendors opt to rather use TCP/UDP sockets over GPRS and EDGE connections as minimum.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that, I was daft. I would still like my devices to send critical notifications via SMS. So maybe I used the wrong terminology. Maybe it should have rather been "home automation".

1441568916 said:
many product vendors opt to rather use TCP/UDP sockets over GPRS and EDGE connections as minimum.
Click to expand...

Even if vendors use TCP/UDP, they still need to send it through an SMS gateway connecting to MTN/Vodacom/etc? This still means SMS income, just much less.
 
IoT will drive data even more & the SP's should plan accordingly.

The SP who will have support for IoT things will get most of the traffic (and revenue).

But I digress. We're seeing the death of SMS.

What is SMS usage overseas anyway? I'll ask on two overseas forums for their input and see.


edit : question inputted, now we wait for feedback!
 
Last edited:
AFAIK texting was very popular in North America because the pricing was right.

Not sure what is happening there now.
 
If MTN and Vodacom start charging for whatsapp data seperatley expect Cell C and Telkom to gain subscribers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X