ADSL cap usage explained

bekdik said:
That's where you need to do the maths :D
Click to expand...
But by nature it is a moving target depending on collective usage.

The whole thing is actually quite simple, except that there is no guarantee as to the size of the international 'quota' after reaching the individual cap. The more people go over their individual cap, both in people numbers and in bandwidth use, the lower it will be.
 
risingtide said:
But by nature it is a moving target depending on collective usage.

The whole thing is actually quite simple, except that there is no guarantee as to the size of the international 'quota' after reaching the individual cap. The more people go over their individual cap, both in people numbers and in bandwidth use, the lower it will be.
Click to expand...
But, mathematically, for this to be true, it is then possible for the "collective usage" to hit a negative figure, where people who are on (say) 2.6 GB / 3 GB will end up with nothing from the "collective usage" to use, because their bit of unused allocation was given to somebody else, which will NEVER happen because "collective usage" is NOT exactly the pool of all accounts' unused allocation.

This is my point. Collective usage is not actually everyone's unused allocation, it's something else, and therefore, Teklom is being anti-competitive.
 
We've been stuck with these same caps for years now while the rest of the world moves up incrementally in bandwidth allotment. Those countries who DO employ capping are far above where we are. Isn't it time Telkom upped our caps to match the increasing data demand on the internet? :mad::mad::mad:
 
i am not sure if this has been mentioned but with the introduction of Neotel is telkom not giving us a kind of freebee to entice us to stay with them and not cross over to the competition.
 
stoke said:
This is my point. Collective usage is not actually everyone's unused allocation, it's something else, and therefore, Teklom is being anti-competitive.
Click to expand...
I think collective availability is something like:
maximum possible transfer rate on all international links (maybe weighted by cost) on locally unstored content (minus number of users * soft cap per user) equals collective bandwidth pool.
Available inidvidualised usage from collective pool = (Collective bandwidth pool minus numbers of users above soft cap * maximum individual( overusage, hard cap ) ) divided by number of users above soft cap.

I am not sure why this is seen as anti-competitive as you are fully entitled to and will always get the soft cap bandwidth. The 'overusage' is a essentially a freebie.
 
telkom same crap of yesterday today with a different smell.
 
I do not agree with this article at all as I have experienced exactly the opposite behaviour this month. In previous months we use to be able to get up to 180% usage on a 3GB account before we were capped. On the 4 accounts we have this equates to 21.6GB instead of the 12GB.

However this month all 4 accounts were capped between 102% and 107%. For two of the capped accounts I get daily usage reports saying that they are not capped with 0% usage.... Even though the accounts do not work internationally at all and can only access local sites!

We have already decided to cancel all 4 TelkomSA accounts and rather buy bandwidth from another ISP in 10GB bundles which will work out cheaper for us and be more trustworthy as well.
 
dear god...what a sad sad state of affairs the fact that we have to be happy bout an xtra two gigs..in any 1st world country they whould laugh at that
 
bekdik said:
That's where you need to do the maths :D
Click to expand...

Can it be that complicated? This is my take :
Collective means all users within that cap group.
collective usage is : total usage of the group divided by number of users in the group.

Example, if you have 50 users with a 3GB account, 25 of those users have done 2GB for the month, the other 25 have done 3GB. So, ((25 * 2GB) + (25 * 3GB)) / 50 = 2.5 GB. Meaning that there is still some space for individual users to go above cap, until the average goes above 3GB.

??
 
risingtide said:
I think collective availability is something like:
maximum possible transfer rate on all international links (maybe weighted by cost) on locally unstored content (minus number of users * soft cap per user) equals collective bandwidth pool.
Available inidvidualised usage from collective pool = (Collective bandwidth pool minus numbers of users above soft cap * maximum individual( overusage, hard cap ) ) divided by number of users above soft cap.

I am not sure why this is seen as anti-competitive as you are fully entitled to and will always get the soft cap bandwidth. The 'overusage' is a essentially a freebie.
Click to expand...
In your example, collective bandwidth pool has nothing to do with their (Telkom's) wholesale rules of being forced to purchase a set measure of throughput at a set cost.
To be truly competitive, the same rules that apply to the purchasers of wholesale throughput from teklom (SAIX) must also apply to teklom ISP.
ICASA and the competition commission should be working together to have the "collective pool" clarified.

Though, having said this, nothing stops the other ISP's from doing a proper collective pool thing, and if they go into the red, then purchasing more throughput at their own cost.

Perhaps the bigger ISP's should start doing this.
 
sin_x said:
Can it be that complicated? This is my take :
Collective means all users within that cap group.
collective usage is : total usage of the group divided by number of users in the group.

Example, if you have 50 users with a 3GB account, 25 of those users have done 2GB for the month, the other 25 have done 3GB. So, ((25 * 2GB) + (25 * 3GB)) / 50 = 2.5 GB. Meaning that there is still some space for individual users to go above cap, until the average goes above 3GB.

??
Click to expand...
In your example, the 25 users who still have 1GB left have given away 1/2 of that GB to the pool, and if they all then want to use the remaining 1GB which they are entitled to, the pool balance goes into negative.

The anti-competitive point would arise when the pool goes into negative balance. And, here, teklom have the advantage over another ISP that is forced to use teklom.
 
stoke said:
In your example, the 25 users who still have 1GB left have given away 1/2 of that GB to the pool, and if they all then want to use the remaining 1GB which they are entitled to, the pool balance goes into negative.

The anti-competitive point would arise when the pool goes into negative balance. And, here, teklom have the advantage over another ISP that is forced to use teklom.
Click to expand...

Sure, they might go into negative, but this is a simple example. Multiply that by 1000's, and you will without a doubt have a large portion of users who never get close to their cap.
That is Telkom's gamble, and trust me, it works.
 
stoke said:
The anti-competitive point would arise when the pool goes into negative balance. And, here, teklom have the advantage over another ISP that is forced to use teklom.
Click to expand...

Also, remember that TI is subject to the same reseller model as all other reseller ISPs. The only way it becomes anti-competitive is if SAIX covers the shortfall.

As for the chance of the average going above the group cap, I very much doubt it. The fact that MyBroadband users are aware of, and understand capping does not mean that they are the majority of TI's users. Have a look at their adverts and tell me how much emphasis is placed on cap size?
 
@sin_x, yup, yup, yup, you are correctomundo, but ... where in Teklom's explanation at the start of this post do they define what you are assuming?

Where does teklom say that Teklom ISP is subject to the same reseller model as all other ISP's?
 
stoke said:
@sin_x, yup, yup, yup, you are correctomundo, but ... where in Teklom's explanation at the start of this post do they define what you are assuming?

Where does teklom say that Teklom ISP is subject to the same reseller model as all other ISP's?
Click to expand...

well, in the absence of a definitive explanation from TI, we are forced to make assumptions.
I am not saying that I am right, but it seems (to me) to be the most logical explanation. Quite frankly, I doubt TI would go for anything more complicated, cos they'd just screw it up.

I'm pretty certain it was reported on MyBB at the time that TI started that they would follow the same reseller model, as they are a (semi) seperate, (semi) independant entity. Anything else would surely have prompted investigation by the CC?

The only thing that is certain is that whether you get "free" bandwidth or not, telkom and TI are not losing money because of it.
 
What I'd really like to know is: when I get capped on my TI account (the last two months it's been at somewhere between 5GB and 6GB on my 3GB account), and I then buy a top-up: will the top-up first be applied to the overage above 3GB before I can start surfing again? I.e. if I get capped at 5GB must I buy 3GB to have a spare GB for the rest of the month? Anybody else tried this?
I'm usually too scared of this scenario so I just top up an Axxess pay as you go account which I keep for month-end...but it IS more expensive than topping up at TI.
 
Its not that hard to explain. First tier ISPs buy their bandwidth in kilobits/second not kilobits, so, used continuously, a 1 Kb/s line can download 2.592 Gb/month (324 MB). If I've got 100 customers with 30 b/s lines, each (soft) capped at 2 MB, they will only reach 200 MB, so I've got 124 MB unused at the end of the month.

But I can't sign up more customers because then, at peak times, they would be competing for the same 1 Kb/s line (and only getting 10 b/s - if they all use it at once).

So I provisionally set their (hard) cap to say 3 MB each and shape their usage. The line will be used more and they all benefit. But now I sign up another customer who's 2 MB cap needs to be guaranteed, and suddenly the hard cap must drop slightly. (I need to shape their usage to encourage usage (for less time sensitive activities - P2P) at not peak times.)

Similarly, the theoretical maximum hard cap is a function of the time remaining and the line speed. And because the line isn't used continuously at its maximum throughput this theoretical number drops as the month goes on. I can't hard cap at 3.24 MB on the first of the month and steadily decrease this number.

So I set a provisional hard cap that has been statistically calculated to encourage maximum usage of my 1 Kb/s line, (ie: encourage use at off peak times, and discourage cramming at the end of the month) while still maintaining a high probability of each users speed at peak times being acceptable to them (say 95% of their quoted maximum). This cap can obviously change, due to it being a number based on certain probibilities (established through prior usage stats). the fact that the users know that this cap can change, and can't be guaranteed, also feeds the statistical model.

I think that after several years (I never called them smart) Telkom has finally realised that their statistical model is accurate, and that they can disclose the current estimated hard cap to their users. I agree with this as it allows more efficient use of my cap. I also think that there's nothing stopping other ISPs from doing the same thing. IMHO Telkom is being very competitive in a competitive market (the barriers to entry are relatively low). It's only anti-competitive if they're getting their wholesale bandwidth cheaper than others.

The question we should really be asking is: how can we bring down the cost of bandwidth, so that the price/gig drops significantly? We know the answer to this already, and plans are afoot to make this happen (Seacom et al). I think a truly competitive ISP will drop its prices by 90% two months before Seacom lands, and sign up EVERYONE, but we can only wait and see (and demand).

Off topic: is kilobit kb or Kb, Google spellchecker says Kb, but I've always thought it's kb.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X