Big unlimited calling problem in South Africa

mylesillidge

mylesillidge

Journalist
Joined
Jul 29, 2021
Messages
1,616
Reaction score
1,521
Unlimited calling plan problem in South Africa

Mobile networks' attempts to offer personal unlimited calling and SMS plans are proving to be a major headache due to abuse by a handful of users.

Vodacom, MTN, and several mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) like Melon Mobile and Spot Mobile have launched products with uncapped calls for personal use over the past year.
 
They're not the first to do this, there are solutions to abusing unlimited calls used by other providers.

This just sounds like an excuse to start priming us for ending unlimited calling plans...
 
In the terms and conditions of these services, the mobile networks clearly explain that the packages are intended for personal use and not commercial purposes — such as telemarketing operations.
Click to expand...
Can we not get rid of telemarketers? They are clearly overstepping all boundaries set for them and have no respect for anything
 
However, MTN has told MyBroadband it will continue advertising SuperFlex with “unlimited” local calls and SMSes.

The mobile network insists that its application of an Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) differed from a Fair Usage Policy (FUP) that restricted usage when customers reached certain thresholds.
Click to expand...
If there are commercial users violating the T&Cs then cut them off, but don't try to redefine "unlimited". FUPs are limitations.
 
Just stop selling limited as unlimited and problem is solved. I'm not aware of any fibre provider that still limits usage in any way. I can understand people using it for call centres where it's the whole day but why should someone be prevented from making calls for something like a mechanic shop? Mobile providers want their bread buttered on both sides offering an unlimited product but then place such severe limits on it that you can only realistically like call 10 minutes a day.
 
Swa said:
Just stop selling limited as unlimited and problem is solved. I'm not aware of any fibre provider that still limits usage in any way. I can understand people using it for call centres where it's the whole day but why should someone be prevented from making calls for something like a mechanic shop? Mobile providers want their bread buttered on both sides offering an unlimited product but then place such severe limits on it that you can only realistically like call 10 minutes a day.
Click to expand...
I think there is a middle ground here, in that you can define what "uncapped" or unlimited means in terms of telecoms services.

1. an unlimited product must have stated minimums where no-one gets limited
2. the service provider is allowed to restrict no more than the top 1% of its customers on that product, as measured over a 3-month rolling period.
 
I have unlimited (UK) calls, SMS, and data.

I make maybe 1 call a month, maybe send 1 SMS a month, and use around 5GB of data per month.

If it weren't for the great deal I got with the service provider by migrating my fibre to them, I would never have gone with unlimited.
 
Sapphiron said:
I think there is a middle ground here, in that you can define what "uncapped" or unlimited means in terms of telecoms services.

1. an unlimited product must have stated minimums where no-one gets limited
2. the service provider is allowed to restrict no more than the top 1% of its customers on that product, as measured over a 3-month rolling period.
Click to expand...
And there is the issue that we haven't ironed out what the middle ground should be. It can be argued that only 1% of users are ourliers that display clearly abusive behaviour.

What MTN is doing is the same as what Mweb did with what they called uncapped but then placed such restrictions on it that only grannies could effectively use it to read email and gamers being convinced that they weren't ordinary users but should shell out for a more expensive product.

It's fine to say in the terms and conditions that no business usage but then what they're really saying they want to sell an unlimited product but not to ordinary users but a select few that practically fall into it with very limited usage. It's like saying we have this Ferrari but only those who go 60 km/h may use it.
 
Swa said:
And there is the issue that we haven't ironed out what the middle ground should be. It can be argued that only 1% of users are ourliers that display clearly abusive behaviour.

What MTN is doing is the same as what Mweb did with what they called uncapped but then placed such restrictions on it that only grannies could effectively use it to read email and gamers being convinced that they weren't ordinary users but should shell out for a more expensive product.

It's fine to say in the terms and conditions that no business usage but then what they're really saying they want to sell an unlimited product but not to ordinary users but a select few that practically fall into it with very limited usage. It's like saying we have this Ferrari but only those who go 60 km/h may use it.
Click to expand...
Exactly, the terms for determining abuse, needs to be written into the definition

If ICASA was actually useful, it would be doing those sorts of things.
 
quovadis said:
Unlimited should be unlimited as with uncapped should also be uncapped. Don’t use the language if fair usage etc applies. It’s ridiculous.
Click to expand...

They should just call it trans-unlimited. Then they can lie about what they are actually doing and all the leftoids would have to believe them.
 
This is why we can't have nice things.

There is always that guy that walks away with the buffet table and then complains that he can't fit it through the door.
 
Sapphiron said:
I think there is a middle ground here, in that you can define what "uncapped" or unlimited means in terms of telecoms services.

1. an unlimited product must have stated minimums where no-one gets limited
2. the service provider is allowed to restrict no more than the top 1% of its customers on that product, as measured over a 3-month rolling period.
Click to expand...
Words have meaning. Fair usage is just an obfuscation. People should know what they're getting in clear, defined terms imho.
 
Most people commenting here seem to be missing the distinction between Fair Usage and Acceptable Usage. MTN is not saying that there is a FUP, where if you hit a certain threshold you're cut off. They're saying the product has exclusions (commercial usage), and an AUP which prohibits commercial usage. If they determine that you're using it commercially then they would cut it off, even if your usage was only 12 minutes in a month.

I don't see any problems with advertising an unlimited package with limitations on the type of customer usage and then enforcing those limitations.
 
Swa said:
And there is the issue that we haven't ironed out what the middle ground should be. It can be argued that only 1% of users are ourliers that display clearly abusive behaviour.

What MTN is doing is the same as what Mweb did with what they called uncapped but then placed such restrictions on it that only grannies could effectively use it to read email and gamers being convinced that they weren't ordinary users but should shell out for a more expensive product.

It's fine to say in the terms and conditions that no business usage but then what they're really saying they want to sell an unlimited product but not to ordinary users but a select few that practically fall into it with very limited usage. It's like saying we have this Ferrari but only those who go 60 km/h may use it.
Click to expand...
I think it is actually very different to the ADSL issue.

I doubt there is a bandwidth issue like there was with ADSL. SMS and voice usage on the network is minimal compared to data. Real reason is that MTN likely wants these customers to pay full price for a proper commercial package.

MTN's motives here do align with society here, as the thought of more telemarketers in SA gives me shudders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter