Next phase of ADSL speed upgrades begin

Graal said:
Not trying to accomplish anything with the point, just asking whether you're aware that even 1mb/s is going to fall away. Telkom is trying to up broadband quality in the country by improving the entry-level broadband. They're trying to improve the overall bigger picture. Can kind of understand why they don't want to keep 384 when they're aiming to improve entry-level uncapped.
Click to expand...

I get where the miscommunication is creeping in now. You're replacing actual targets set by ICASA and industry with painting big rosy pictures.

The goal of Telkom and ICASA has always been better penetration, in other words increasing the number of people in the country with access to broadband internet. ICASA already outlined a plan to get 15-20% broadband penetration back in 2005. It was pretty much seen as a pipe dream, but one with noble intentions. Telkom eventually revised their target to try and reach that at the end of 2010. (With a source written by our very own James!)

Their goal has stayed on penetration; Government and ICASA wants every citizen to have access to broadband internet. Their goal was set by government to get that right by 2020(Kindly see page 26). Another pipedream, but that's the target they're working towards.

So no, I can't understand why they won't keep 384 as an option. There is no justifiable reason to remove it as a product, and the addition of it on the product roster certainly won't affect the elitist 1 Meggers. No one wants to improve entry level uncapped. It has never been a target of any of the role players, and I don't quite understand why Telkom aren't taken to task over it.
 
Okay, so let's put it another way. You said it yourself yesterday, entry-level ADSL is about R175 (seeing as I factor voice-line rental in and you didn't). R175 is pretty affordable. If someone cannot afford that for ADSL, then ADSL is probably not their biggest concern.
 
Graal said:
Okay, so let's put it another way. You said it yourself yesterday, entry-level ADSL is about R175 (seeing as I factor voice-line rental in and you didn't). R175 is pretty affordable. If someone cannot afford that for ADSL, then ADSL is probably not their biggest concern.
Click to expand...

How does that justify removing the 384 option?
 
Avatar said:
How does that justify removing the 384 option?
Click to expand...

By saying that it's too much work and it takes up too much ports, to introduce this inferior product back into the market at a cheaper price. You would be shooting yourself in the foot as Telkom, if you did this. ISPs on the other hand could do this, but you would still need a 1MB circuit and Telkom line, hence bringing down the total cost with only a few rands, especially if they know without it, you HAVE to go for the more expensive product...
 
TBlaar said:
By saying that it's too much work and it takes up too much ports, to introduce this inferior product back into the market at a cheaper price. You would be shooting yourself in the foot as Telkom, if you did this. ISPs on the other hand could do this, but you would still need a 1MB circuit and Telkom line, hence bringing down the total cost with only a few rands, especially if they know without it, you HAVE to go for the more expensive product...
Click to expand...

Sooooo.. it's justifiable since they can milk folks? Are you fucking serious?
 
And because people on the dirt cheap line will be taking up lines in on the exchange that could have been given to people who aren't cheapskates.

You are also aware that in many areas people are on waiting lists for ADSL lines?

Also, business 101.

Personally, and this is my opinion, I don't see any reason to keep 384 lines. 1mb lines are only R150 now. That's not overly expensive. Sure, it would be nice if some old baboon can pay R50 for his 384 line, but it's not necessary. If the cost of a 1mb line is going to cripple you financially then ADSL shouldn't be on your agenda anyway.
 
Sure if you can't afford R150 for internet you don't need it but what about the guy out there who can't afford it and has kids in School. The internet has many resources that could help kids out there with their work and studies but you say if they can't afford it they don't need it.

Did you know the access to the internet is now not only a South African agenda but a world wide agenda. This is simply due to fact that there is much info out there that can really help everyone but we still have a purely capitalist perspective. The cheaper you can make it, the better the access will be.
 
Most public libraries have free internet access by now. Most schools should also have internet access. It's not like being incapable of paying R150 for internet means you don't have internet access at all.

Having internet access at home is still only a luxury.
 
Last edited:
Graal said:
Most public libraries have free internet access by now. Most schools should also have internet access. It's not like being incapable of paying R150 for internet means you don't have internet access at all.

Having internet access at home is still only a luxury.
Click to expand...

And you don't see the problem here? Internet access (specifically broadband, actually) is starting to be considered a human right, like basic education and civil fundamental freedoms. It should not be a luxury. (See here and here.)

Also, Telkom is a company charged with government mandate in providing these rights. Business 101 doesn't quite apply.
 
I've been to a couple of libraries and I have yet to see free internet. Even Tuks still charges, R60 an hour.
Btw way is everyone jumping to defend telkom and its failure at service delivery but I'm sure every single person here was bitching at Eskom and their failures. They're both government entities with mandate to deliver.
 
Ike_009 said:
I've been to a couple of libraries and I have yet to see free internet. Even Tuks still charges, R60 an hour.
Btw way is everyone jumping to defend telkom and its failure at service delivery but I'm sure every single person here was bitching at Eskom and their failures. They're both government entities with mandate to deliver.
Click to expand...

The reason is simple: the people normally bitching at Telkom now has 1Meg, so they're happy (for now). I do hope it doesn't really last, so that we can go back to being critical about Telkom and the "service" they offer.
 
Seriously? There are people in this country who still don't have regular access to running water. Internet is still far from becoming a human right. Tell me, is a cellphone also a human right? Certainly it's a much more essential part of our daily lives than internet access directly from home?
 
Graal said:
Seriously? There are people in this country who still don't have regular access to running water. Internet is still far from becoming a human right. Tell me, is a cellphone also a human right? Certainly it's a much more essential part of our daily lives than internet access directly from home?
Click to expand...

Did you even open the links I provided? Whether you like it or not, internet access (as well as telephone access, both form part of communication rights) is being drafted into the widely recognized declaration of human rights. The reasoning that people don't have running water is fundamentally flawed; by the same argument, we should deny you freedom of speech, because "There are people in this country who still don't have regular access to running water." They can't have that right, so why should they get any other?
 
Jesus Avatar, you're really passionate about this? Why do you want cheap slow internet? 384k is only going to cost you like R60 - R70 less than 1 meg now, so will it even be worth it(seeing that line rental + 1mb circuit + ISP, you will only save on the ISP bit)?
 
Avatar said:
Did you even open the links I provided? Whether you like it or not, internet access (as well as telephone access, both form part of communication rights) is being drafted into the widely recognized declaration of human rights. The reasoning that people don't have running water is fundamentally flawed; by the same argument, we should deny you freedom of speech, because "There are people in this country who still don't have regular access to running water." They can't have that right, so why should they get any other?
Click to expand...

Maybe read what's there and not what you want to read? I'm not saying deny anyone anything, I'm saying making internet a human right while basic human rights necessary for survival haven't even been filled yet is ridiculous.

And I stand by what I said, internet access from home is a luxury. If anything, internet access becoming a human right would mean it gets implemented in public areas, not in everyone's house. You do not need internet access in your house. Especially not if R175 is too much for you.
 
So then can we place a communal tap in the street outside your house to share with everyone else. Since internet in your house is a luxury and access to water is still a human right, like internet, so long as you have access out in public its problem solved?
 
I don't think you understand the argument at all.

A lack of access to internet doesn't result in your death, so there's nothing wrong with supplying people with internet connections at communal areas, like public libraries. They don't need it in their house to have access to it. Having internet access as a human right does not mean you have to have it directly from home.

Telkom not supplying 384 lines is not an infringement on anyone's human rights.
 
But like we've said before, Telkom has a mandate to supply internet to South Africa. Why then are they getting rid of a product that would certainly help them meet this objective. Its already there but instead they are pushing away part of their solution.
I also believe that not everyone wants to have to go out and pay for internet at a library or something. We should all be allowed equal access to rights. Its been held in the Constitutional court that no right has preference over another, therefore why should we be satisfied with basic right being ranked out against each other. Why now must we say you can enjoy access to certain rights but others you can't. I certainly don't see why someone can't have access to the internet in their home and people are fine with that but that must have Water in their homes. Would you be satisfied walking out to pick n pay, a 3rd party, to buy water since the government won't provide the service? However its alright to have a 3rd party charge for internet?

Somehow I think you don't get my argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top