Telkoms Economies of truth in Cape TImes 2007/02/13

T

Tommygun

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2006
Messages
681
Reaction score
1
Location
Cape Town
Reading the very obviously sponsered advetorial on page 9 of the business times (CapeTimes 2007/02/13) can make ones jaw drop. Amongst the corporate jargon and horn blowing they quote with pride government gazette 29141 and point 3.6 saying they are doing adsl instalations within 30 days...whoopee (not like a normal business should really be forced to sign up customers and provide service) but the galling thing is that in the ssame gazette
http://www.info.gov.za/gazette/notices/2006/29141.pdf
it says local bandwidth must not count towards the cap and there must be no ip resets without 7 days warning.
Its generally a badly worded doc and goes on about price capping in point 9, some mistake Im sure.
Clearly they quote bits they like and ignore the troublesome articles totaly.
The other really irritating thing is the Telkom ad for a "closer plan 4" which is almost looking like a good deal at R499 for 384k DSL...!! but read the fine print and find out there is no access fee included. I wonder how many people will fall for that then find out closer is actually R800 and not R499.
Using the government gazette which Telkom themselves quote they are cheating the ZA public of money selling local bandwidth and to be honest their int bw is probably all cached too. ARRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH
 
Yup. Good that you bring this up because many of these issues need to be highlighted from time to time. In the interest of folks who may not have come across them before.

Telkom is evil and government is like the big evil dark overlord holding the hordes of good knights at bay with thick walls and draconian laws.

One thing is for sure. This AINT helping the poor people of this country.
 
Tommygun said:
Amongst the corporate jargon and horn blowing they quote with pride government gazette 29141 and point 3.6 saying they are doing adsl instalations within 30 days...
Click to expand...
Funny that.. we've been waiting for 40.
 
kifoth said:
Lodge a complaint with ICASA, I'm sure they'll get right on it... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Just be sure to provide Dozy Mashile with proof, he seems to overlook this now and again. Maybe a Hellkom calender for him with a piccy of the berg on it.
 
I just called ICASA and spoke to a lady regarding this and she said the gazettes were legaly binding and I should submit a complaint to [email protected] which I have now done. THis is what I sent...

Hi there,
In yesterdays cape times business section ( Feb 13-2007 page
9 of business section)there was and article quoting Telkoms broadband
officer, Alphonzo Samuels. Mr Samuels proudly quoted Telkoms adherence to
government gazette 29141, schedule 3.6 (installing adsl lines within 30
days). What Mr Samuels failed to point out was their non-compliance with
sections 3.4, 5 and 7 of the very same Government gazette 29141.
My question is, is the Government gazette legally binding? If so all ISPs
are operating in direct contradictions to those regulations. What can be
done about this?
Most of the points in gazette 29141 are very clear and easy to implement
however, I do understand that other ISPs really need SAIX or Telkom to
implement changes first being virtually the sole provider of bandwidth in
the country.
In conclusion, if the gazettes are not legally binding what is the point of
them?
Thanks for your time and attention.


Ill keep you updated.
 
Tommygun, if you get a response.. i'll fall over.

I've sent LOTS of emails to !C#S#.... and never heard a peep from them
 
ToxicBunny said:
Tommygun, if you get a response.. i'll fall over.

I've sent LOTS of emails to !C#S#.... and never heard a peep from them
Click to expand...

I know why you don't hear a peep. It's the wrong sound. You should be listening for a p00p :p

We'll wait for Tommygun's response, maybe he's lucky.
 
What happens if for instance we all refuse to pay our full ADSL bill based on what portion of bandwidth was local (should be free) and international?
Or if you get capped an your whole bandwidth allocation was not used for international browsing as such they are breaking the law.

If the line is cut-off or the account is suspended then they (Telkom/ISPs) are doing so incorrectly and they are breaking the law by trying to charge you for the local bandwidth.
Small claims court, few thousand cases? No TELKOM lawyers there!
 
Sneeky, all I can say is good luck.. those "regulations" wouldn't stand up in any type of court i reckon.. and telkom couldn't care.. small claims court will find in your favour, telkom won't pay... and you'll be without a line...
 
Sneeky said:
What happens if for instance we all refuse to pay our full ADSL bill based on what portion of bandwidth was local (should be free) and international?
Or if you get capped an your whole bandwidth allocation was not used for international browsing as such they are breaking the law.

If the line is cut-off or the account is suspended then they (Telkom/ISPs) are doing so incorrectly and they are breaking the law by trying to charge you for the local bandwidth.
Small claims court, few thousand cases? No TELKOM lawyers there!
Click to expand...

Now see this is where everything starts going in circles. All that happens is that we ask our ISP's why we no getting free local. In fact some ISP's are even selling LOCAL ONLY accounts - blatanly in contrast to what the regs say. So we moan to the ISP: Why are you charging for a local only account? ISP answers: Well because SAIX / Telkom / (even IS got in on the deal)charge us for it, so we have to charge you. Then you go to SAIX / Telkom and ask: Why are you charging ISPs for local bandwidth? Telkom goes, oh, no we are not, it's your ISP charging you for local, not us. So round and round the freaking bush we go. It's the same with the 24 hour reset.

Question I ask myself is this: So why is ICASA not "getting tough" on these issues, why are they not enforcing the law? Answer: Telkom...:sick:
 
Where do the regs say local must be free?.. they just say it mustn't be subject to a cap IIRC... thats the problem with them, they're not worth the paper they were written on.
 
ToxicBunny said:
Where do the regs say local must be free?.. they just say it mustn't be subject to a cap IIRC... thats the problem with them, they're not worth the paper they were written on.
Click to expand...

Hmm very true, suppose there is a difference.
/me go off to burn regs...

Also then I suppose ISPs could very easily say that they don't cap local, as you can buy an uncapped account for something in the region of R 1900.00 (or something). Eish, we not gonna win this one, are we?
 
Last edited:
Tommygun said:
Reading the very obviously sponsered advetorial on page 9 of the business times (CapeTimes 2007/02/13) can make ones jaw drop. Amongst the corporate jargon and horn blowing they quote with pride government gazette 29141 and point 3.6 saying they are doing adsl instalations within 30 days...whoopee (not like a normal business should really be forced to sign up customers and provide service) but the galling thing is that in the ssame gazette
http://www.info.gov.za/gazette/notices/2006/29141.pdf
it says local bandwidth must not count towards the cap and there must be no ip resets without 7 days warning.
Its generally a badly worded doc and goes on about price capping in point 9, some mistake Im sure.
Clearly they quote bits they like and ignore the troublesome articles totaly.
The other really irritating thing is the Telkom ad for a "closer plan 4" which is almost looking like a good deal at R499 for 384k DSL...!! but read the fine print and find out there is no access fee included. I wonder how many people will fall for that then find out closer is actually R800 and not R499.
Using the government gazette which Telkom themselves quote they are cheating the ZA public of money selling local bandwidth and to be honest their int bw is probably all cached too. ARRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH
Click to expand...
DUDE .. you RAWK!

ICASA .. where is the FINE you're supposed to levy for non compliance??
 
damn stoke thinks someone rawks....*sigh* :D

Maybe I should post all my e-mails to ICASA on this forum.... I just spend so long writing them, and I KNOW they just get ignored.... *mutter*
 
3.4 Local bandwidth usage shall not be subject to the cap.
Click to expand...

THE cap.

Okay, so you buy an ISP account, say 3GB. Therefore your cap is 3GB (regardless of the ability to "top up", that is your cap as defined in the regs) and local shouldn't be subject to it.

As far as I can see this can be interpreted 2 ways - either uncapped local, or local doesn't count towards bandwidth usage (what happens after the cap is another story).

How many more ways could this possibly be interpreted? I don't see how any lawyer could squirm out of that one.

What the hell, I'll send an email to [email protected]. We all should, even if we know we're not getting a response. We have to make our voices heard. (I just hope someone's actually reading the mail to that address and it's not just redirected to /dev/null)
 
Go for it Eremos, theres no way they can squirm out of the port prioritisation either as I see it...except if the Icasa Governmment gazettes are not worth a damn. We all need to follow this up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X