80gig You Are Disgusting

Telkom can no longer call people who go over their cap abusers for a simple reason: In their new system Telkom is allowing the heavier users to capitalize on unused bandwidth by the light users. Telkom, for the first time, is saying in effect: "Even if you've got a 3GB account its cool if you use more than 3GB so long as the average use is below 3GB." So whats my point? Telkom now endorses users exceeding 3GB. In other words, they can no longer call exceeding your quota abuse because they are explicitly allowing it. With their new system they've effectively contradicted their previous stance of 'Anything over 3GB are the abuse!". Basically they themselves have endorsed using more bandwidth than the prescribed amount. So if they don't have a problem with it then who are we to complain?
 
You know this really is so stupid - its so Telkom.
Create an artificial "shortage" then release the noose a little - what do you expect to happen?
Of course people are going to test the limits, and especially if a user has no idea of when the noose will be tightend again.

How difficult would it have been to introduce this system properly? If they are so sure that on average people only "need" 3gb then set a soft cap(ie a warning mail or call that you are using in excess of what you are entitled too) at 10gb and a hard at 30gb.

I had 3 months of a 30gb account. Used 20gb then 15gb then 10gb i would guess my usage would proberbly average 10gb per month if i did not worry about counting every bit.

If someone wants to use 80gb a month then yay for him. If that usage results in a degradation of the network then the problem is with TELKOM, who have not used their vast income to build a reliable network. TELKOM and its shareholders are the only abusers in this situation.
 
fergus said:
Telkom can no longer call people who go over their cap abusers for a simple reason: In their new system Telkom is allowing the heavier users to capitalize on unused bandwidth by the light users. Telkom, for the first time, is saying in effect: "Even if you've got a 3GB account its cool if you use more than 3GB so long as the average use is below 3GB." So whats my point? Telkom now endorses users exceeding 3GB. In other words, they can no longer call exceeding your quota abuse because they are explicitly allowing it. With their new system they've effectively contradicted their previous stance of 'Anything over 3GB are the abuse!". Basically they themselves have endorsed using more bandwidth than the prescribed amount. So if they don't have a problem with it then who are we to complain?
Click to expand...

But per there standard Terms and Conditions on DSL, they still refer to abuse. I guess once you reach your 3gb capped they would start monitoring your usage more closely?
 
Obelix said:
So we all become thieves instead ?
Click to expand...

Who is thieving here Obelix? If Telkom cannot cap effectively they cannot blame the customer. Use your connection to the max. Telkom is ripping us off Obelix.

Turn a little of your anger on Telkom... :D

It would be energy well spent...
 
So what Telkom is doing to all the other ISP's is not "unfair labour practice"? I will explain here what I meant (for all the illeterate) (you too bwana)

Telkom had a policy that when you reach the 3 gig cap you will be capped .. so this forced all the other ISP's to hadcap us as well, based on what the agreement with Telkom was.

All the other ISP's get the bandwidth from Telkom, in other words they purchase a certain amount and have to sell that specific amount, therefore when we reach our cap the ISP's are forced to cap us or else they will be running at a loss, on the other hand Telkom is not keeping their side of the agreement by not capping their subscribers when cap is reached. (get it?)


At least I get people talking
 
HellTel said:
So what Telkom is doing to all the other ISP's is not "unfair labour practice"? I will explain here what I meant (for all the illeterate) (you too bwana)
Click to expand...

Is "illeterate" the South African spelling of illiterate :eek:
 
HellTel said:
So what Telkom is doing to all the other ISP's is not "unfair labour practice"?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I still don't get what Telkom's bandwidth policies have to do with labour law? The only people that can be affected by any "unfair labour practice" on Telkom's part are Telkom's employees and direct contractors. I don't see how this has anything to do with their customers (including other ISP's).
 
Last edited:
HellTroll said:
All the other ISP's get the bandwidth from Telkom, in other words they purchase a certain amount and have to sell that specific amount, therefore when we reach our cap the ISP's are forced to cap us or else they will be running at a loss, on the other hand Telkom is not keeping their side of the agreement by not capping their subscribers when cap is reached. (get it?)
Click to expand...

Actually I don't believe Telkom is being unfair here. Any ISP if they wish can also implement a shared cap system. It just so happens that Telkom can do this the easiest because they have the most users, and in all likelihood they have the largest amount of 'light' users who just took a Telkom account cos it was the easiest and probably don't use the net to its full. ISPs like Web Africa, Axxess, etc, who have the heavy users left offer from the 30 gig days would be crazy to try this because most of their users are going to use their accounts to the max. But there's nothing stopping an ISP from doing shared-cap if they want.

(This doesn't mean Telkom isn't crooking the system in some way, just that the act of doing shared-cap in and of itself isn't wrong and any ISP could do it if they wished.)

Disclaimer for those that might misunderstand: I do believe Telkom is doing this with the motive of killing the smaller ISPs and that I definitely don't agree with. I just don't think shared-cap itself is wrong, although there are definitely better ways to do things.
 
Last edited:
HellTel said:
So what Telkom is doing to all the other ISP's is not "unfair labour practice"? I will explain here what I meant (for all the illeterate) (you too bwana)
Click to expand...
ok - I wont harp on the misspelling of illiterate - though it is kind of ironic - Labour deals primarily with workers. So when telkom sacked all those workers then they were arguably guilty of unfair labour practices. What I believe you're referring to is an unfair business practice. Ie they are abusing their monopoly position.

Now what telkom is doing certainly is an unfair business practice as I doubt they are going to be held accountable, essentially by themselves, for any additional bandwidth charges. No money is really going to change hands is it?
 
I think what he means is that it is an unfair/anticompetitive business practice because TelkomInternet doesn't hardcap their own users at 3GB, but SAIX hardcaps the 3GB accounts they resell to the ISP's, so Telkom is effectively favouring it's own ISP and handicapping all the others.
 
You know I can really see guys like oober and the rest reading this thread and going: "Yes, I'm a rotten fascist abuser. Woe is me, the bad person that I am. Let me stop my abusive ways immediately." Really, I can. :p

Also, what I understand from the nay sayers is that there is a limited amount of bandwidth that Teklom has available for us. Correct? How much bandwidth exactly? Where does one get this info? :confused:

If your answer on the last question was: "Why from Telkom of course." You might be in for a little shock. :)

There's a couple of cents for you. Use it don't use it. ;)
 
:D As for the misspelling of the word illiterate .. so sue me .. no spell check here .... and bwana, yes you're right, maybe the right terminology there would be "unfair business practice" ... so sue me again ... here is an idea .. I would like a representative from Telkom to reply here (but they are too busy manually capping the ISP's) ... how about giving something back to the public? like ... the first 3gig's are free (already paid on the so called ADSL line rental) ....:eek:
 
Obelix said:
Its still theft and i will not have, but while that is the way were trying to fight it, were never going to get anywhere, because the finger will just get shoved back in our faces.
Click to expand...

I've used 50gigs. Have I stolen the extra GIgs? Does Telkom have 47gigs less bandwidth now than before? Does any other ADSL user have less Gigs?

No? The what have I stolen, and who have I stolen it from?
 
fergus said:
Actually I don't believe Telkom is being unfair here. Any ISP if they wish can also implement a shared cap system. It just so happens that Telkom can do this the easiest because they have the most users, and in all likelihood they have the largest amount of 'light' users who just took a Telkom account cos it was the easiest and probably don't use the net to its full. ISPs like Web Africa, Axxess, etc, who have the heavy users left offer from the 30 gig days would be crazy to try this because most of their users are going to use their accounts to the max. But there's nothing stopping an ISP from doing shared-cap if they want.

(This doesn't mean Telkom isn't crooking the system in some way, just that the act of doing shared-cap in and of itself isn't wrong and any ISP could do it if they wished.)

Disclaimer for those that might misunderstand: I do believe Telkom is doing this with the motive of killing the smaller ISPs and that I definitely agree with. I just don't think shared-cap itself is wrong, although there are definitely better ways to do things.
Click to expand...

Did I miss something? Wasn't "shared cap system" just a theory and nothing more? :D
 
Hey Steve!! who is your ISP? and what was your original cap? I wonder ...
 
Slooth said:
Did I miss something? Wasn't "shared cap system" just a theory and nothing more? :D
Click to expand...
Have a look at the bottom of telkomsa.net's home page and tell me if you still think its theory. The way I read it is that its been put into practice.
 
bwana v.5 said:
Have a look at the bottom of telkomsa.net's home page and tell me if you still think its theory. The way I read it is that its been put into practice.
Click to expand...
If you read the original 1 Nov communication sent out to ISPs there was an Option 2 where ISPs would be charged per GB on a global (ie all their ADSL bandwidth) scale.

So, since 1 Nov it has been an option for ISPs to offset high usage users against low usage users. Unfortunately I think TelkomInternet is the only ADSL ISP big enough to actually sustain this pricing model.

[edit]
See here.
 
If you think of it all the guys who will be uncapped will go big for between 2 and 6 months, then after that they will probably bring their usage down to about between 30-60 gigs.

Of course you will still get the odd few who max out there connection just for the heck of it, but then we are talking about such a minimalistic amount of people compared to the total ADSL users.

People ae just getting stuff now that they couldn't get before because of a 3Gig cap, trust me the novelty will, wear off.

Me personally, now if i had uncapped i would use probably 50 Gigs a month, when i first got ADSL i used to max 200 gigs on local, but you eventually get past it. SO maybe Telkom is taking a step in the right direction for once.
 
Guys, if the ISP's have the choice to use or not use the cap policy then what the hell are we getting so uptight about? why are we not going back to momma (Telkom) .... at least they will not cap us ... ahhhh you see .. but in my eyes there is what you call "the principal of the matter" .. Telkom has been taking from me all this time and I will do everything to keep away from them till .. the day .. SNO comes into the picture ....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X