Acceptable Service Policy (ASP)

[gripen]

Guys, with all this AUP stuff in motion and the countless problems we have experienced.. I think its time (as the famous 5% of users i.o.w forum users) we draft a ASP to submit to Sentech. Obviously we cant make them accept it but it can serve as a valuable mission statement for them.

I will start with a few things. Add the ideas you have about what constitutes fair but not overly demanding levels of service. Nothing like "full 128kbps 100% of the time".

Here goes:
* detailed technical descriptions for ALL problems if required by the user
* full package speed for email access (and for the local sentech speed test)
* password encryption (only the user knows the password)
* emails/calls to users for ALL maintenance. This is a 24/7 service. Disruptions must be treated as disservice and handled with apology.
* Fair pro-rata refunds for users for excessive downtime
* No shaping,capping,limiting,moaning about excessive use. This is an unlimited service. Contention ratios should handle excessive users
* balanced bandwidth sharing. A user should get 1/(no of users) share of the bandwidth according to contention (256kbps treated as 2 128kbps users etc.)

If I think of more, I will add to the list. It may be ambitious but eventually we can draft a very nice document to send to them everytime we hav problems much the same as what they do to us.

 

[ASF]

What I cannot grasp is why Telscum and Sucktech cannot provide a SLA - shared service or not! So they work out what the "worst" case metrics would be, in their favour of course, and it becomes the basis of the SLA - and if they did it right they would come out tops every time...

But no - and I think I can guess why - because even if they take the above approach they would still be in the sh*t as they are raping the consumer so much that if the truth was known they would actually have to provide the bandwidth they "advertise" as allocated to the services....

 

[gripen]

The point is to politely ask them to stick to the rules much like they want us to stick to the AUP which by and large we do. Unfortunately we cannot enforce it.

* accepting a user's reporting of a problem as genuine and not requesting useless information such as physical address (when tower information has already been supplied)

 

[hArTh]

Bump []

-Professional information anarchist-
www.sentechhatesfreespeech.org.za
I support:
www.hellkom.co.za

 

[gripen]

Nothing to add?

 

[Donovan]

* The provider shall not be a bunch of filthy stupid monkeys, whose sole purpose seems to be to sink themselves as quickly as possible.

 

[Luke7777]

Verification of user when requesting password change/reset via IMEI number

128K|21%|13SNL|66 Menlopark 2530

 

[TrXtR]

>
User should be informed of any modification of contract, or additions of contract, via sentech e-mail address, and if provided, personal e-mail address.

 

[hArTh]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by greedyflyza</i>
<br />Guys, with all this AUP stuff in motion and the countless problems we have experienced.. I think its time (as the famous 5% of users i.o.w forum users) we draft a ASP to submit to Sentech. Obviously we cant make them accept it but it can serve as a valuable mission statement for them.

I will start with a few things. Add the ideas you have about what constitutes fair but not overly demanding levels of service. Nothing like "full 128kbps 100% of the time".

Here goes:
* detailed technical descriptions for ALL problems if required by the user
* full package speed for email access (and for the local sentech speed test)
* password encryption (only the user knows the password)
* emails/calls to users for ALL maintenance. This is a 24/7 service. Disruptions must be treated as disservice and handled with apology.
* Fair pro-rata refunds for users for excessive downtime
* No shaping,capping,limiting,moaning about excessive use. This is an unlimited service. Contention ratios should handle excessive users
* balanced bandwidth sharing. A user should get 1/(no of users) share of the bandwidth according to contention (256kbps treated as 2 128kbps users etc.)

If I think of more, I will add to the list. It may be ambitious but eventually we can draft a very nice document to send to them everytime we hav problems much the same as what they do to us.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Greedy. Mail RPM and ask him to make this a sticky so we can grow it over time. Dont want to have to bump it every day


-Professional information anarchist-
www.sentechhatesfreespeech.org.za
I support:
www.hellkom.co.za

 

[gripen]

Lets get some content in here and later on I will edit it nicely into a neat list. Im actually opposed to sticky's. I liked the previous clean look. But it has to be done.

Please be advised that I will be editing posts in this topic. Mainly for clarity and for compaction.

* the contract once signed (including AUP) should be constant for signed user over the period of 24 months. Changes only affect new users.
* traffic logs per user should be available to an AUTHENTICATED user. This is for statistical purposes and to have proof if accused of abuse.
* email accounts should be enlarged in accordance with global standards. Typically something like 50MB
* addition of email aliases and forwarding capabilities

Okay this is bordering on suggestions now. I will give it a rethink and keep suggestions separate.

BTW I am able to make the posty stick so I will decide when the time is right (it needs substance to be stickied). Dont worry - my continual additions will keep the post active. I read stickys almost never compared to active topics.

 

[groenie]

I'm really for an SLA type agreement. It could then contain escalation procedures etc.
* Users will receive feedback on an open ticket within x hours (typically 2 hours or so).
* If a ticket remains open for more than x hours, it gets bumped to second level support.
* Refunds should be based on open tickets

This whole business of tickets staying open for weeks is really unacceptable.

 

[Torlin]

OK if I can't get 128K 100% of the time how about.
At least mypackage/1.5 that is 2/3 of 3/3 what I PAY for.

He's a useless shaitte that sentech is...

 

[TadMadLad]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Torlin</i>
<br />OK if I can't get 128K 100% of the time how about.
At least mypackage/1.5 that is 2/3 of 3/3 what I PAY for.

He's a useless shaitte that sentech is...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

EXACTLY, if i bought a car , dont ask me to only drive it when the road it clear, it is my choice to sit in rush hour traffic or sit when the downloads are faster.

If i buy a 24/7 servcie that can go 16kb/s and no cap, dont tell me i must not use for what it was sold as. because frankly, that is lke telling me to drive my car only on a sunday or drive 60 in a 120 zone.

I still think, Sentech cancells service, we cancel payment, and see how many people will still like THEIR abuse of their users.

frankly, it falls in my view of "customer abuse" not "abuse by customers" , we are being blamed for everything, where has the "thankyou Therodent" being posted, could someone post me that link? considering the cost of international bandwidth he saved them litterally MILLIONS, and i am not exaggerating.

I SAVED my ticked last night at helpdesk, Shame feel sorry for callie, compared to when I spoke to him before, i can see he is taking alot of strain on helpdesk from the customers, but i still try to be polite because its not everyone on helpdesk's fault for the mistakes, its some of the techies.

I suggest this,
Sentech gives us the AUP (acceptable usage policy)
We supply the ASP (acceptable service policy)
sentech makes us the list of people who are abusing the network (in their view)
We make them a positive list of people who are helping users properly, i think that would be shorter list than thoses who arnt.
Sentech abuses their customer's trust.
We make every fluckup as public as we possibly can.


In short. The customer is ALWAYS RIGHT, and i think such a little thing is now overlooked by some people who believe that the customer is NEVER RIGHT.

as for tower 12, dont even get me started, they have been missing me around the last 2 days.. been more up and down that a cheap wh0r3

oh btw, i want the prorata refund on downtime, that would be a good start. It would motivate their management to make sure they arent down.

BTW. if sentech has 2500 customers, they make about 1.6 mill on subscriptions a month and pay staff and premisies for that, and then the international bandwidth. Then it cost 1 mill per tower (from what i was told by an orc)..... now.. its seriously in their best interest to treat customers better.. THEY CANT AFFORD THIS SH1T3 TO GO ON LIKE THIS.... especially the customer abuse because we ar paying the bills...

 

[gripen]

The TML is that only a tiny percentage of 2500 (closer to 2000 I think) are on the forum. We need to mobilise our forces and be able to write a petition type of thing (not for petition purposes) which would resemble the mailed out list of users. In order for us to have any shout I would guess we must as a group contain at least 50% of mywireless users or at least be able to contact 50%. Then Rodent can say "Sentech, look, 60% of your customers want pink invoices in the mail. Do it. Or else. " Thats just an example.

About the car analogy..
I too want my full speed all 24 hours but realistically (considering the costs and so on..) I will be quite happy with minimum (as in bottom of lowest spike) 50% package and average 75% of package with full 90+% speeds after say 10PM. I have to say when things are working (kind of like at the moment) it is almost as described above. I still do not see my full 16KB/sec whereas I used to get it fairly regularly.

Once again they dont know how powerful customers are. By refunding us (they wont lose money as they didnt pay any cost-of-sales for the "sales" in laymans terms) they will literally be buying happy customers. It would be a nice gesture. The downside is that everybody will want a refund for low speed.. I do believe a customer should be entitled to 1 months refund if having suffered excessive downtime (such as me for example with my username fsckup and the horribly unstable sunnyside tower). I have had (since April 1) around 8 full days of downtime. Added to that my 5 days due to username. Plus all the cumulative downtime (avg 1 hour a day) and the speed issues I feel I am entitled to at least 1 full month's refund.

Saying that you got only 50% of your speed and you want 50% of the money back is a little overboard IMO. You are basically saying out loud that you are an abuser. They wont like this and you will go straight on the baddie list.

 

[arf9999]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by greedyflyza</i>
<br />

About the car analogy..
I too want my full speed all 24 hours but realistically (considering the costs and so on..) I will be quite happy with minimum (as in bottom of lowest spike) 50% package and average 75% of package with full 90+% speeds after say 10PM. I have to say when things are working (kind of like at the moment) it is almost as described above. I still do not see my full 16KB/sec whereas I used to get it fairly regularly.


<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Greedy, your idea is pretty much the same as one which I suggested in another thread somewhere (can't be bothered to find it). I think that your figures are the best basis for an SLA:

Minimum bandwidth = 50% of maximum bandwidth
Minimum AVERAGE bandwidth = 75% maximum bandwidth
Maximum downtime=0.1% (This is still quite generous = 10 minutes per week)

And there should be financial penalties if these are not adhered to.


MW128, Tower 50 (Northpark Plaza), Signal:12%,S-N-L: 5, BER: 40%

 

[Tharaxis]

Remember, contention ratios aren't merely a "divide by X" situation, and are greatly dependant on the size of the pipe feeding them.

So a 512K contended service over 30 people is not equal to 512/30 for your potential speed, in fact, if the pipe feeding the tower is big enough, you should see nearly no dropoff in speed at all, even with all 30 people making "heavy use" of the network. So don't be happy to think that "oh, I'm on 128K contended amongst 30 people so I should be seeing 4K", which is what Sentech would want you to believe. In fact, at WORST you should be seeing only half of your connection rate (64K in this case). Remember, 512K ADSL, ISDN and Dialup all have high contention ratios (one can argue equal or worse than the Sentech contentions), have SUBSTANTIALLY more users on the network compared to MyWireless, yet are capable of offering close to advertised speeds, while Sentech finds itself unable to do this. Something is up, and it's not contention ratios that are causing it, regardless of what they would want you to believe.

 

[Brolloks]

I would have reasoned the the contention ratio would mean that for 30 512k users the pipe would be able to handle 512x30. That would not make sense. All the towers should physically be able to handle the same amount of traffic (shouldn't it?) unless they upgrade only the towers that have a lot of users contending for bandwidth They will only know how many users are connected once they have the users signed up, meaning that you could wait a while once you signed up before you get the speed you're allowed, since they need to upgrade the tower first. ie proactive tower upgrade versus reactive upgrade

contention (The Pocket Oxford) =n. contending; point contended for in argument; ~ious (-shus) a., quarrelsome, involving contention.

Alternative for contention ratio: the ratio where people will start to fight.

 

[gripen]

i think the towers each have some sort of contention for traffic. it is also fairly evident that some towers for some reason have more bandwidth than others.

the idea of contention ratios is to place a figure on the method of distributing a pool of resources (bandwidth) over a number of users. since some users will be idle - their bandwidth is or should be redistributed. The problem is the point of application (well Sentech is not applying contention at all-also a problem. This is supposed to be fixed before end August at the latest). If the contention is applied at the tower entry then that towers users will share its bandwidth. What Im getting it is that the higher up the chain your contention is applied, the better it will be i.t.o speed sicne there is technically more idle bandwidth available to be re-distributed more economically...

 

[zeroimpact]

I just find it funny with Sentech , they send out an e-mail to remind us that we should not abuse the network and then gives us an e-mail address if we have any questions,
Now I have sent two e-mails in a space of two weeks to ask them what they deem as there AUP, because on there web site it just says do not abuse, no guidelines, no real rules ?
Th joke is they only seem to respond when they can have a lawyer threaten some one, or when a customer can take legal action (for example the e-mail addresses they sent out). It seems that just putting a ASP together is not going to cut it, it has to be done with a lawyer to be taken seriously.
That’s just my 2 cents