Skip navigation.

Man-down: Cell C takes another painful blow

  • strict warning: Only variables should be assigned by reference in D:\iis\nml\modules\links\links_related.module on line 190.
  • strict warning: Only variables should be assigned by reference in D:\iis\nml\modules\links\links_related.module on line 190.
  • strict warning: Only variables should be assigned by reference in D:\iis\nml\modules\links\links_related.module on line 428.
  • strict warning: Only variables should be assigned by reference in D:\iis\nml\modules\links\links.inc on line 1085.
  • strict warning: Only variables should be assigned by reference in D:\iis\nml\modules\links\links.inc on line 1085.
Precious Mncwango's picture

Photo By: http://yomzansi.com
 

ICASA recently released their latest results of the Quality of Service (QoS) report. This report specifically looked at Cell C, MTN and Vodacom in the Johannesburg and Pretoria region. The report provides an indication of the level of user satisfaction when using the service provider. This is evaluated using Retainability and Accessibility.  

According to the report Retainability refers to the ability for a call to stay connect without abnormally disconnecting on a cell site of interest. Accessibility is defined as the percentage of time a user is rejected due to the unavailability of system resources when attempting to place a call.

The KPI parameters which were used to measure Retainability and Accessibility were Drop Call Rate (DCR) and Call Setup Success Rate (CSSR).

In terms of Retainability MTN and Cell C did not meet ICASA’s target in Johannesburg while in Pretoria all service providers met the target.

In terms on Accessibility all providers tested above ICASA’s set target of 95% for the Johannesburg region, while in Pretoria Cell C did not meet the target. Accessibility image

 

 The Average Retainability scores however showed that only Vodacom met ICASA’s target of 3%. Retainability image

 

ICASA notes however that the voice quality measurements were not measured and in some areas the received Signal levels were below the average which could affect the customer experience during the voice call.

 It is important to note that this test only represents certain regions in South Africa.  The results also do not reflect mobile service provider’s overall network performance and they are also based on the specified routes during the time of day when the measurements were carried out, using a certain kind of handset.

The fall of Cell C in this quality test could not have come a worse time. This is also the same month that several articles have been written by numerous publications reporting on the numerous complaints reported by Cell C users about the quality of Cell C.  Times Live reported that these complaints range from “terrible network reception” to incorrect billing and poor service overall.

These are not desirable traits especially in a space where your competitors are powerful giants who have the funds to offer better quality. In this light, it does not matter if Cell C is currently ridiculously cheap; no one wants to use a crappy network!

Cell C spokesperson Karin Fourie said that the company is upgrading the network to accommodate more capacity as the traffic on the network had doubled over the past 12 to 15 months.