SEACOM price cuts will take time

Is it too much to ask to just get more? We all know that the prices are "fine" the way they are. We need much bigger caps for the same price, not free broadband (well it would be nioce;)).

Anyway... EPIC FAIL!
 
Dunno, I always thought of iBurst as a company that likes to rip off custmors, kinda like Mweb.

Let the idiots continue using them then.

Axxess, Web Africa, Openweb and Cybersmart - show us what you can do with open access to cheap international.
 
This is such BULLSHYTE! Kenya, KENYA, of all freakin places has had their prices dropped by 50% ALREADY! WTFFFFFFFFFFFF. Now they are making excuses to milk us even more.
 
Sorry Mr Briggs, but that's an absolute heap of steaming shyte right there. The additional input costs listed are common for all businesses, including international service providers who are able to provide cheap, reliable and affordable internet access to their customers. Having spent time overseas in various countries, I never once had the displeasure of hearing any of them state that they couldn't lower prices because they had to market to me. FFS Mr Briggs, use your noggin before trying to fool everyone with BS.

The inhibitive factors in providing cheaper and faster internet access has been the lack of bandwidth and the unnecessary control of the only international bandwidth this country had. Your own company has stated this. Now that the problem is slowly being resolved, you're attempting to bullschit the consumer into believing that it was in fact not the critical factor, and we won't see noticeable price reductions because of your marketing (not our problem and not unique to your business), the cost of modems (sorry but do the economies of scale not apply to your business?), the cost of infrastructure (um, again, not our problem and not unique - you telling me that because there is now additional bandwidth that the cost of additional infrastructure cannibalises any potential cost saving you could pass on to the consumer - try pulling the other one, twit), and let's not forget the pearler - support! WTF!?

Mr Briggs - evidently you need to hone your bullschitting skills a little more before your next foray into public relations. And to be honest, if you're not prepared to provide your clients with price reductions and attempt to use these drivelous excuses as reasoning, then you deserve every little bit of subscriber attrition that it results in.

Now for once in your life, listen to your customers instead of trying to preach to them. FFS...:mad:

EDIT: I'm disappointed that the 'staff writer' merely reported on Mr Briggs' comments and chose not to dig holes in the statements made. It would make for harder hitting journalism and be a far more interesting article had this been done. I believe the journalists are in a much better position to do this than many of us are and to take it a step further - I feel they have a responsibility to do so - for the sake of making a difference. Otherwise, what purpose do they serve apart from disseminating information?
 
Last edited:
The only fsking part we really need a drop in price for is international bandwidth, it's by far the most ridiculously priced aspect of our broadband. Seacom should solve that problem?

I'm not sure if these providers who "specialise" in 40mb -> 5GB accounts are saying that those types of accounts can't decrease much in price from Seacom's effects, but we really just need higher caps.
 
...seems like iBurst will use any excuse to maintain it's exorbitant pricing structure!

I think we are still going to see much more of this crap, but consumers will also start moving away from these type of service providers.

Good luck iBurst.
 
DJK said:
Sorry Mr Briggs, but that's an absolute heap of steaming shyte right there. The additional input costs listed are common for all businesses, including international service providers who are able to provide cheap, reliable and affordable internet access to their customers. Having spent time overseas in various countries, I never once had the displeasure of hearing any of them state that they couldn't lower prices because they had to market to me. FFS Mr Briggs, use your noggin before trying to fool everyone with BS.

The inhibitive factors in providing cheaper and faster internet access has been the lack of bandwidth and the unnecessary control of the only international bandwidth this country had. Your own company has stated this. Now that the problem is slowly being resolved, you're attempting to bullschit the consumer into believing that it was in fact not the critical factor, and we won't see noticeable price reductions because of your marketing (not our problem and not unique to your business), the cost of modems (sorry but do the economies of scale not apply to your business?), the cost of infrastructure (um, again, not our problem and not unique - you telling me that because there is now additional bandwidth that the cost of additional infrastructure cannibalises any potential cost saving you could pass on to the consumer - try pulling the other one, twit), and let's not forget the pearler - support! WTF!?

Mr Briggs - evidently you need to hone your bullschitting skills a little more before your next foray into public relations. And to be honest, if you're not prepared to provide your clients with price reductions and attempt to use these drivelous excuses as reasoning, then you deserve every little bit of subscriber attrition that it results in.

Now for once in your life, listen to your customers instead of trying to preach to them. FFS...:mad:

EDIT: I'm disappointed that the 'staff writer' merely reported on Mr Briggs' comments and chose not to dig holes in the statements made. It would make for harder hitting journalism and be a far more interesting article had this been done. I believe the journalists are in a much better position to do this than many of us are and to take it a step further - I feel they have a responsibility to do so - for the sake of making a difference. Otherwise, what purpose do they serve apart from disseminating information?
Click to expand...

Very well said.

Absolutely agree on the comments regarding the writer, seems to be more and more the case on this site.

All it's going to take is for one provider to cut prices and the rest will have to follow, including our friend over here.

I Wish you good luck Mr Briggs :D

PS You'll never see a dime from me, not that you would have, but this served to further cement my disdain for your organisation.
 
DJK said:
EDIT: I'm disappointed that the 'staff writer' merely reported on Mr Briggs' comments and chose not to dig holes in the statements made. It would make for harder hitting journalism and be a far more interesting article had this been done. I believe the journalists are in a much better position to do this than many of us are and to take it a step further - I feel they have a responsibility to do so - for the sake of making a difference. Otherwise, what purpose do they serve apart from disseminating information?
Click to expand...

Thank you!
 
The input bundle for internet services is made up of factors beyond international bandwidth, including the costs of the network providers’ infrastructures(1), the costs of the customer’s modem(2), as well as marketing, distribution and support(3). “Unfortunately, the popular press has created a perception that lowering the cost of international bandwidth alone would prove to be the panacea for higher internet broadband prices”, states Briggs.
Click to expand...

1. Hah, it depends on how u look at it, Seacom has already made its prices known so its all about who is buying it and how much they charging for you to get it. Aren't there like 5 companies? Seems like the CC will be busy in 6 months time. ;) The rest of the network is in existence already! so its that portion of cost remains the same, unless they expand and trying to pull a eskom. ps. who uses iBurst anyway?? they always were the most costly

2. is a once off fee! or rental but has a fixed cost

3. is in existence already and their current customer base is paying for it. Increasing the usage or making the cost per gig(from a base cost) does not affect this. Of cause iBurst doesn't have a base cost/rental like most wireless however with bandwidth costs dropping there should be some noticeable cost savings unless they already tied in to a lengthy sat-3 deal.. All i can say is wifi/wisp providers are gonna be the first on the scene and the rest are gonna start whining or upping connection costs.
 
Last edited:
I don't understand the redundancy claim.. I think the sat3 systems redundancy is via safe(to the east)? or something? but then there is always satellite(which seems to cost the same almost according to IS pricing ;))

I just think they want to not make a huge loss on their existing contracts with telkom.
 
DJK said:
EDIT: I'm disappointed that the 'staff writer' merely reported on Mr Briggs' comments and chose not to dig holes in the statements made.
Click to expand...
Name and shame the so-called "staff writer"... Like so many other articles on this site "produced" by a "staff writer" it is a repeat of what whoever said - little insight or anaysis provided
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X