MWEB cancels my Uncapped 4MB Account with NO Warning

[Pr⊕phet]

while understanding == 0 or ignore_T_and_C == TRUE:
   line.bypass_shaping == TRUE
   line.shared_wifi == TRUE
   while line.active == TRUE and line.shaped == TRUE:
      line.use(max_speed, 24, 7, 365)
   feel(confused)
   feel(angry)
   horse.flog(death)
   feel(self_righteous)
   horse.resurrect()

LFH : Flog a Horse

[Lounger]

"Free the AVERAGE internet user from the burden of watching gigabytes"??? What happened to FreeTheWeb?

Another pertinent question which Will or SabreWillfy will
never answer.

Still waiting to hear if he got cut off without proper warning which Will promised would not happen again.

[Tpex]

Another pertinent question which Will or SabreWillfy will
never answer.

Still waiting to hear if he got cut off without proper warning which Will promised would not happen again.

and who are you waiting to hear that from?

Will said they did send a warning.

Crybaby said they didn't.

Your pick.

[Lounger]

Where did he say that?

[milomak]

Hi Lounger

We do not cut anyone off if they have used 'too much'.

<snip>

the two most salient points being the intentional bypassing of network shaping and placing an unnecessary burden on the network infrastructure by constantly downloading at 'near' line speeds over an extended period of time.

are the two bold parts not directly related?

[jasonchrome]

It's all BS man, they launched "uncapped" to get all the customers from the other ISP's.

But they actually can't afford the International Bandwidth cost. End of Story.

are the two bold parts not directly related?

[fivelza]

It's all BS man, they launched "uncapped" to get all the customers from the other ISP's.

But they actually can't afford the International Bandwidth cost. End of Story.

Perhaps you would like to browse the previous threads on this topic before you end up with both feet in your mouth.

[milomak]

Perhaps you would like to browse the previous threads on this topic before you end up with both feet in your mouth.

how is not being banned for doing "too much" and then being banned for using your line consistently tie up?

and also you probably shouldn't assume that people are in every thread where mweb is being discussed.

but again - when is too much too much in respect of using your line consistently?

[Lounger]

Well they've definitely downgraded the product and upshaped it.

[milomak]

i have to say the fact that the op got banned is water off my back. at the least through openly sharing his account he was in breach of the T&Cs. so it probably is fair to think people who shared it would have used shaping bypassing methods. we of course don't know this to be true, but i will concede the likelihood is fairly high. i do still find it interesting that Will didn't mention bypassing as the reason he was banned. Given it is such a huge part of their T&Cs, I would have thought it would be mentioned if it was an issue. but not knowing the facts here makes it difficult to steadfastly stand on one side or the other.

that being said, it seems clear to me that mweb are saying that they admit there is some threshold over some time they will tolerate. i have quoted the relevant parts above. they have denied this. and in fact they deny it even in the statement where it is acknowledged.

what will likely happen is that mweb will be defended by people saying that people who download 600GB+ should be kicked off in any event. accept i take a differing view. i believe mweb is just lowering down your expectations. i would like to think utilising 80% of your supposed uncapped line is acceptable. most people will not.

while when i left them there was a matter of principle involved, the service level was what made me leave.

[Off-The-Chart]

I am sure it isn't so badly that he did 600GB in a month, but more the issue that is was done, according to OP, since April last year.

should think that you could do say 400+ in one month, the next month on a more stable limit like say 100-200 and then again maybe 400+ the next month.

as long as there is a break in your high usage I can't see there being an issue.

every1 should remember: most of us so called "mweb fanboys" more than likely don't disagree with adam's intentions and most of what he says, like using his line to full extent and the huge amount one should be able to download...
the fact remains, our situation requires we maintain a certain level of "obedience" and thus if you do not, you will be punished.

we would all love to be able to "share bandwidth" and download at our full line speed 24/7, but sadly atm that just isn't possible unless ofc the account you have is made for it and you pay through your teeth for it.

[Tpex]

Personally I have never used mweb in my life, I just don't like stupid people...

[Kosmik]

I'm trying to understand why people fail to grasp the concept but I will explain it one more time.

When purchasing a shaped account, you agree to have your account bound by shaping rules defined by Mweb at times of load. There's already talk about contention ratios so consider this:

Lets say a true 4 Mbps connection through Seacom costs R 10k, what ISP's do is sell that connection to consumers contended on the assumption that not all users will be maxing out their line and that portion of the pipe. So to make this more affordable to the man on the street, shaped uncapped was born. Shaped uncapped has a contention ratio of something like 20:1 whereas the unshaped uncapped has a contention ratio similar to 3:1. hence the huge price difference ( 10k/20 and 10k/3 ). So how can a contention ratio like 20:1 be a feasible consumer model? Well, ISP's assume that only portions of the subscribers will be using heavy traffic ie: continuous high speed traffic. If a person is browsing, email etc, these are small bursts of traffic and easily handled among st many people, whereas someone demanding a large amount of bandwidth speed all the time is denying that traffic to others. Now obviously Mweb have a lot more than a single segment of 20 people and 4Mbps so this is further divided across their entire shaped customer base.

So to allow P2P and high speed downloads, they implement shaping. Shaping basically on their sys says : I have a total pool of bandwidth, during times in the day subdivide that pool for http,browsing etc and P2P,highspeed downloads. Lets assume 80/20 split. So from 8am in the morning to 7pm, we basically contend with each other over that ratio for traffic however browsing etc is prioritized to ensure that those packets go through first. The ratio says that out of say 100Mbps, 20Mbps can be utilized for P2P and that is fought over among st all the users. Now when it comes to evening this ratio is changed because the assumption is that all the traffic utilized by business during the day is now freed up at night. So the ratio now jumps to 20/80. This translates into a much higher P2p pool and thus allowing more speed to consistent downloads. Http traffic is still prioritized so that folks can browse but that fact that so many business users are now offline means that the sys can process those packets much quicker as the std contention ratio of 20:1 becomes a virtual one of say 5:1 . However even though there is now a greater pool for P2P etc, this pool is unmanaged, so folks will contend with each other over that speed but due to the larger size of the pool, folks will get decent high speeds.

Disclaimer All figures, ratios etc are purely for example purposes. I have no idea what the figures actually are, they are merely used to display how the model works.

[Tinuva]

I'm trying to understand why people fail to grasp the concept but I will explain it one more time.

When purchasing a shaped account, you agree to have your account bound by shaping rules defined by Mweb at times of load. There's already talk about contention ratios so consider this:

Lets say a true 4 Mbps connection through Seacom costs R 10k, what ISP's do is sell that connection to consumers contended on the assumption that not all users will be maxing out their line and that portion of the pipe. So to make this more affordable to the man on the street, shaped uncapped was born. Shaped uncapped has a contention ratio of something like 20:1 whereas the unshaped uncapped has a contention ratio similar to 3:1. hence the huge price difference ( 10k/20 and 10k/3 ). So how can a contention ratio like 20:1 be a feasible consumer model? Well, ISP's assume that only portions of the subscribers will be using heavy traffic ie: continuous high speed traffic. If a person is browsing, email etc, these are small bursts of traffic and easily handled among st many people, whereas someone demanding a large amount of bandwidth speed all the time is denying that traffic to others. Now obviously Mweb have a lot more than a single segment of 20 people and 4Mbps so this is further divided across their entire shaped customer base.

So to allow P2P and high speed downloads, they implement shaping. Shaping basically on their sys says : I have a total pool of bandwidth, during times in the day subdivide that pool for http,browsing etc and P2P,highspeed downloads. Lets assume 80/20 split. So from 8am in the morning to 7pm, we basically contend with each other over that ratio for traffic however browsing etc is prioritized to ensure that those packets go through first. The ratio says that out of say 100Mbps, 20Mbps can be utilized for P2P and that is fought over among st all the users. Now when it comes to evening this ratio is changed because the assumption is that all the traffic utilized by business during the day is now freed up at night. So the ratio now jumps to 20/80. This translates into a much higher P2p pool and thus allowing more speed to consistent downloads. Http traffic is still prioritized so that folks can browse but that fact that so many business users are now offline means that the sys can process those packets much quicker as the std contention ratio of 20:1 becomes a virtual one of say 5:1 . However even though there is now a greater pool for P2P etc, this pool is unmanaged, so folks will contend with each other over that speed but due to the larger size of the pool, folks will get decent high speeds.

Disclaimer All figures, ratios etc are purely for example purposes. I have no idea what the figures actually are, they are merely used to display how the model works.

Good job explaining that. That is pretty much exactly how it works. Did you know that usually the top 5% users are incurring 90% of the costs on a network? (My values might be a bit of but that is from research done in the US).

ISPs don't want that, those users are really bad for business and the performance of the network. Sadly in SA that 5% of heavy bandwidth users are much much higher than 5%.

[SabreWolfy]

Where did he say that?

In Post 98 on Page 7 of this thread. I took the time to find it for you, quote it below and highlight the relevant sections.

Hi Adam

I'm sorry that you're upset, however I can assure you that our abuse team followed their normal process in terms of the warnings issued, which were sent to your primary MWEB mailbox. An attempt would also have been made to contact you telephonically. These warnings related to your excessive usage patterns placing an unnecessary burden on our network with long periods of constant line speed downloading on your shaped product. This is covered by our acceptable usage policy.

Further to this publicly sharing your MWEB connection, as you have indicated you were doing, is also in contravention of the terms and conditions you agreed to on joining up with MWEB.

To the others reading this thread thanks for your ongoing support and for colouring inside the lines . The acceptable usage policy is something that has been discussed at length here. It really is not one of the things that we enjoy doing, but it is a necessary process that we have to follow to protect the experience of all of our customers and I can assure you once more that we make every effort to be as fair as possible in doing so.

Thanks again
Will