Are you hurting your ADSL ISP?

[Albereth]

I'm pretty sure the ISP people know how to do maths, and if they're are stupid about it, well I guess they have their own school fees to pay.

I have an uncapped service and that is exactly what it means - uncapped.

I don't think that I have ever had someone come to me and say that they've noticed that I've used less than the breakeven point's worth of data, please can they return some money.

Another thing, it's shameful that this site seems to be promoting some agenda of some whiney ISP or ISPs.

 

[MKFrost]

For September I 'killed' them (465GB).....

However, looking back at my data use since the start of the year; If I base it on R6/Gb then then my ISP came out on top with me as a client. There were 2 months where I did not download anything (was overseas) and 2 months where I did just over 10Gb. Three killer months where they capped my ***** and the rest average months.

So with me as a 'power user' my ISP still came out tops.

 

[fs87]

Those numbers don't add up.Afrihost is selling their capped products at R4 per GB which means that they are making a loss of R2 per GB on all their capped customers!!!
Sorry just don't believe it.

+1

 

[Necuno]

Everyone is in it for the dollar bill or else we would have localized hulu or alike by now. It's not magick or mystery, but quite simple. If most traffic is... Series or movies do the smart thing and alleviate it, but every one is in it for the dollar bill.

 

[rpm]

Scenario: There are 10 ISPs offering uncapped services and dropping prices in order to remain relevant. Eventually 9 of them decide to scrap uncapped accounts and only offer capped products. Indignant users decide to migrate to the last man standing... in their droves! Based on the pricing in the article, would the last man standing be filing for bankruptcy in a few months time?

I think there are other options - shaping, throttling, cutting off high end users and the like.

An ISP must just make sure the average usage remains below the cut-event point. This can happen in a few ways - lower input costs, lower usage from users, higher retail prices.

Uncapped will remain, but things will have to change if it needs to remain in its current format. We already know that some ISPs changed, so the argument is substantiated

 

[ebendl]

+1. At this stage I will happily pay R8/GB as long as line speed and end-to-end speeds are excellent. I think the problem with uncapped is that capped accounts exist. So people that don't use the internet a lot just buy a cheap capped account and then there is not enough subsidization of the people that use more data than average... meaning uncapped is probably more expensive in SA because we have cheaper options (especially mobile data).

^^ this. If ISPs introduced uncapped services from the start we wouldn't have this problem. Telkom should be blamed for introducing the capped ADSL services in the beginning and we never got to a point where there is enough subsidization in the uncapped services.

 

[MickeyD]

I think there are other options - shaping, throttling, cutting off high end users and the like.

An ISP must just make sure the average usage remains below the cut-event point. This can happen in a few ways - lower input costs, lower usage from users, higher retail prices.

Uncapped will remain, but things will have to change if it needs to remain in its current format. We already know that some ISPs changed, so the argument is substantiated

I posted an opinion a year or two ago where I predicted a consolidation in the ISP market with the smaller ISPs being either wiped out or bought out by the bigger ISPs.

Without the economies of scale and balance of power users vs casual users no ISP can exist in today's market. And to exist they are being squeezed... users want lower prices and higher usage while the ISPs suffer from higher costs (salaries, rentals, utilities, etc.) and profit expectations.

Something has to give. And that something is the "poor old" ISP, hence their whining about high input costs... I'm yet to see their directors stating that they are willing to take a remuneration cut or move to cheaper premises, etc.

 

[R13...]

I am hurting my ISP, but there are 5 other guys that are not, that subsidize me, and therefore the ISP still makes a profit.
Of course not everyone is going to consume the same amount of data.

It's like the fat guy at the buffet eating 3 plates. Sure he might be costing the restaurant money for his plate, but for every fat guy there are 5 other people that don't eat as much.
In the end everyone still gets to eat how much they want to and the restaurant makes a profit.

If buffets/uncapped aren't making their target, then why are they still offering it?
It's because they make money.


Some of us consume too much, but most of us don't. It balances out - I don't see a problem.

The problem appears to be that the number of fatsos is creeping up and therefore threatening the viability of the buffet.

 

[krycor]

Kinda why i cancelled my MWeb.. 100GB as a max point is too low. 120-150GB sure, on avg i get to 130 unless i go all out and even with their previous throttles you could get to about 180 or so and that was when i know i was being ridiculous.

So yah.. moving away from them simply because 100GB mark is a too easy to get to & my 2nd link which is shared with double users(5) gets to it fast(at uncapped 384kbps use to do 80-120GB). Remember consumers buy uncapped because they dont want to worry about usage.. so that will always be marketed.

Also the whole how much did i do in the last 30 day window and what is the cut off being undisplayed is just ridiculous.. <-- this is what kills it for me as its one thing setting the max low, its another when u don't tell the consumer what it is and the product is sold as a 'don't worry about usage' yet... you are throttled as some point which is undefined. If they had this clearly defined i'd be in a better situation to decide if i wanted to stick with them or not but current situation is just to vague so bye bye mweb

 

[krycor]

The problem appears to be that the number of fatsos is creeping up and therefore threatening the viability of the buffet.

It's not really that.. people are using the internet more and more.. i watch streaming tv on my smart tv these days even. Point is the speed of the entry product has increased drastically.. (384kbps -> 2Mbps(2048kbps)) so this enables users to do more. a LOT of professional people are now using it for personal clouds ive noticed, streaming media etc and so consumption across the board has increased.

 

[krycor]

btw i still main tain that the price of uncapped 1Mbps is about 100 shy of where it should be. the new entry level is 2Mbps.. will be fascinating to see what they do wrt pricing

 

[rpm]

I posted an opinion a year or two ago where I predicted a consolidation in the ISP market with the smaller ISPs being either wiped out or bought out by the bigger ISPs.

Without the economies of scale and balance of power users vs casual users no ISP can exist in today's market. And to exist they are being squeezed... users want lower prices and higher usage while the ISPs suffer from higher costs (salaries, rentals, utilities, etc.) and profit expectations.

This I agree with. Some of the smaller ISPs pay over R20 per GB on wholesale - impossible to compete. Unless you have scale - buying high capacity links and increase the number of subscribers per staff member - you are likely to struggle.

 

[grim]

If they advertise it as unlimited, whats the problem with some people using it that way?
How does one abuse an unlimited offer..... by using it too much? That's like Netflix complaining I watch too many movies.

If Burger King has a problem with me drinking too much soda, they shouldn't advertise it as bottomless in the first place. Display "7 glasses maximum" if that's your limit.

Don't give me an option to unlimited services if you have a problem with me using it that way.

There is still a fair use policy that governs your usage of the account that you agree to when signing up for the account, so yes they are displaying a limit which I agree should be more clearly defined as to what exactly that limit is which none of the ISP's here provide currently.

FUP aren't unique to South Africa either, you will find a lot of European ISP's have FUP of 250-500GB attached to their uncapped accounts.

 

[Chevron]

Let uncapped die. Cheaper capped accounts. Full speed FTW

I think the other option is better. Ban capped accounts.

 

[bekdik]

Seems to me that effectively what we are being told in relation to 'uncapped' accounts, is that they are too cheap and that the price needs raising if they are to be sold at a fixes price. So maybe the ISP's who are hurting need to adjust their prices and take the risk of losing business?

An alternative would simply be to charge an amount per GB and let all lines run at their connect speeds. Of course the ISP would then lose out on the under eaters, and the fact that this isn't done makes one think that charging on a prepaid basis is more lucrative.

 

[MKFrost]

This whole ISP story is like Toyota deciding that they are going to conquer the market and start selling cars at a reduced price and with a guaranteed buy back.

Months down the line they see it ain't working or that their profits are less than expected and then turning around and crying about the people abusing their 'promotion', that they cannot afford it etc.... etc.......

I'm sorry but I feel a diddly squat for the ISP's. They decided on the business model after I assume doing their homework, they did the marketing and now they have the results of that. If they cannot afford it then they need to change their business model.

If this 'uncapped' thing does not work for them then they should find another model, they should be innovative and stop crying about their own models not working. Its not our fault.

 

[Chevron]

Its not our fault.

Of course it is. Do you know how many people max their line just for the sake of it? because they think they "deserve" it?
because they think if they don't max their they're "not getting what they paid for". Even though what they paid for is a highly contended, shaped, home uncapped account.

 

[Hectic]

There is also the very simple fact that by selling cheap people buy more than they use - you break a culture of buying as little as possible which is driven in part by low caps and high prices. I suspect that with their 5 gig mobile data offer at least 10% of us had more than a gig outstanding from August/September.

I agree with you.
Many of us have backup accounts and some of those backup account rarely gets to be used.

 

[Leatherman]

Of course it is. Do you know how many people max their line just for the sake of it? because they think they "deserve" it?
because they think if they don't max their they're "not getting what they paid for". Even though what they paid for is a highly contended, shaped, home uncapped account.

Of course I deserve it I have paid for it did I not. If I go to KFC and buy a barrel With 21 pieces I expect 21 pieces. Why should ISP get away with giving less than you buy but others not?

 

[Chevron]

Of course I deserve it I have paid for it did I not. If I go to KFC and buy a barrel With 21 pieces I expect 21 pieces. Why should ISP get away with giving less than you buy but others not?

lol. Buying a 21 piece bucket is like buying a capped account. Think of it like buying 21gigs. getting unlimited chicken from KFC would be like an uncapped account.

You obviously don't understand the uncapped model.