Cell C is lying about MTRs: Vodacom, MTN

[marine1]

Never going to happen; yet VCs choice to keep OOB rates excessively high speaks volumes.

Exactly, and having spin doctors spin stories thinking the public are stupid which they are not.

 

[Gulio]

Do people still get caught out with OOB?
Has to be less than 1% of people and it will only happen once.

 

[jannievanzyl]

Do people still get caught out with OOB?
Has to be less than 1% of people and it will only happen once.

A fraction of that, vast majority of people don't even use their full allocation. And, as I've posted, bulk of bill shock complaints are not due to OOB.

 

[[)roi(]]

A fraction of that, vast majority of people don't even use their full allocation. And, as I've posted, bulk of bill shock complaints are not due to OOB.

So why then do VC maintain such an excessive OOB rate? Surely it's not to piss people off?

 

[OGroteKoning]

A fraction of that, vast majority of people don't even use their full allocation. And, as I've posted, bulk of bill shock complaints are not due to OOB.

So why then do VC maintain such an excessive OOB rate? Surely it's not to piss people off?

Good question. Surely if the number of OOB data is in fact a fraction, and the the vast majority do not use their full allotted data, there must be enough purchased data (by VDC) to go around to warrant OOB=IB. Why punish those who go OOB with those massive cost?

 

[[)roi(]]

@jannievanzyl
Oh and while we at it; please explain the huge difference between Vodafone UK OOB rates vs. VC; at today's exchange rate I calculate it to be: 26c vs. R2

The above comparison btw is based this info:

• Vodafone UK is £15 per Gb (R264.56)
• VC is R2 per Mb

http://www.vodafone.co.uk/about-this-site/terms-and-conditions/mbb-paym-price-plan-june-2011/

 

[jannievanzyl]

Good question. Surely if the number of OOB data is in fact a fraction, and the the vast majority do not use their full allotted data, there must be enough purchased data (by VDC) to go around to warrant OOB=IB. Why punish those who go OOB with those massive cost?

I thought Arthur explained it quite well above. Did you not read his post?

http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthr...odacom-MTN?p=12380636&viewfull=1#post12380636

 

[R13...]

I thought Arthur explained it quite well above. Did you not read his post?

http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthr...odacom-MTN?p=12380636&viewfull=1#post12380636

Arthur's post doesn't explain for example how the small players are able to absorb these possible OOB shocks while behemoths like yourself and MTN profit freely from this small minority even with your vast resources that should afford you lots more leverage in negotiations with your upstream providers. The reason is simply that given your more extensive networks you have no incentive (or competition) to change.

 

[OGroteKoning]

I thought Arthur explained it quite well above. Did you not read his post?

http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthr...odacom-MTN?p=12380636&viewfull=1#post12380636

Yes Jannie I did. His explanation is valid and I have no problem with it. I just did not quote it in my post. You in fact have described the same to me previously and I can accept it. But since then new info came about with your post. My question is still valid especially viewed against your quote where you said that OOB data is a fraction, and the vast majority do not use their full allotted data. By deduction, you take all already paid unused data and in theory re-sell it to those going OOB at a massive premium. I don't have the figures, perhaps you can show us in terms of data usage exactly how much data goes unused and how much goes OOB.

 

[[)roi(]]

Arthur's post doesn't explain for example how the small players are able to absorb these possible OOB shocks while behemoths like yourself and MTN profit freely from this small minority even with your vast resources that should afford you lots more leverage in negotiations with your upstream providers. The reason is simply that given your more extensive networks you have no incentive (or competition) to change.

Nor does it explain the huge variance between Vodafone & VC? Or even why it has to be so excessive?

By my determination (and a lot of Google searches); this OOB rate puts VC squarely in the top 2 most expensive per mb charges for any operator world wide; certainly excessively above world averages.

As to it affecting only a small minority; without an independent audit we can only assume it's the work of a spin doctor.

 

[R13...]

As to it affecting only a small minority; without an independent audit we can only assume it's the work of a spin doctor.

What doesn't make sense for me is that VC are able to cut you off when you reach a CLL. Why can't they cut you off at R0? Why can't they disrupt the data session to prevent you exceeding that CLL? We are yet to get explanations for these from jannie.

 

[Arthur]

A side chirp: I only described why OOB rates are defensible in principle. I have no knowledge whatsoever of the real numbers. I have little doubt in my own mind that the continued state prohibition on competition provides cover for MNOs to make larger margins than they otherwise could in a genuine free market. Also, the real blame for this lies not with the MNOs but with the State, and in a democracy, with the electorate.

 

[[)roi(]]

What doesn't make sense for me is that VC are able to cut you off when you reach a CLL. Why can't they cut you off at R0? Why can't they disrupt the data session to prevent you exceeding that CLL? We are yet to get explanations for these from jannie.

He has substantiated this with system limitations; but as it's been said before, this very acknowledgement raises questions about their internal technical competence; and even with that, nothing would prevent them from sourcing the best skills (they certainly have enough money to pay for that).
Hence our argument that it's a lack of incentive; and quite probable for financial reasons.

 

[[)roi(]]

A side chirp: I only described why OOB rates are defensible in principle. I have no knowledge whatsoever of the real numbers. I have little doubt in my own mind that the continued state prohibition on competition provides cover for MNOs to make larger margins than they otherwise could in a genuine free market. Also, the real blame for this lies not with the MNOs but with the State, and in a democracy, with the electorate.

On blame matters; I would argue that even in the absence of good regulation; the rule of law still applies i.e. I certainly think there's enough merit for a comprehensive CC audit of VC and MTN.

 

[jannievanzyl]

Nor does it explain the huge variance between Vodafone & VC? Or even why it has to be so excessive?

By my determination (and a lot of Google searches); this OOB rate puts VC squarely in the top 2 most expensive per mb charges for any operator world wide; certainly excessively above world averages.

As to it affecting only a small minority; without an independent audit we can only assume it's the work of a spin doctor.

This is exactly why I stopped responding to your posts. A question is asked, I post an answer and your only response is to call me a liar. So I don't bother to respond to you anymore. Your ability to discuss seems to be nonexistent.

As to the VF/VC comparison, either you don't understand the difference (and the fact that the vast majority would prefer the VC option) or you intentionally try to skew the facts. So, who's the real spin doctor here?

 

[Arthur]

Of course the Rule of Law is a fundamental principle. Without it, we descend into a government of men and not of laws, and barbarism reigns.

But this is not and cannot be an absolute principle. Even more foundational is that any particular law must be just, equitable, and agnostic in respect of secondary or non-essential attributes in the subjects and objects of its provenance.

This means that upholding the Rule of Law cannot be applied to just any law that Caesar happens to pass. It cannot apply to unjust laws, as is obvious with those that mandate say racial discrimination.

The same applies to more technical laws such as those that govern telecommunications. Not only is it possible but it is quite common that many laws that enable and perhaps even mandate state interference in market mechanisms are ab initio and in principle unjust. So, upholding those bad and unjust laws is in truth no different to upholding unjust laws with more obvious violations of the precepts of justice.

The Rule of Law argument was used by most of the defendants in the Nuremburg Tribunals. And it was definitively rejected in the case of Crimes Against Humanity. But the same principle applies even here in telecomms law - we can use unjust laws and unjustly acquired State powers to impose unjust restrictions on actors.

I believe this is the case here, in the current spat.

 

[[)roi(]]

This is exactly why I stopped responding to your posts. A question is asked, I post an answer and your only response is to call me a liar. So I don't bother to respond to you anymore. Your ability to discuss seems to be nonexistent.

As to the VF/VC comparison, either you don't understand the difference (and the fact that the vast majority would prefer the VC option) or you intentionally try to skew the facts. So, who's the real spin doctor here?

So it wasn't that I asked questions you'd rather not answer?

Btw did you ever explain why the OOB rates have to be so high, especially when by your own submission the number of customers blowing through their bundles and those being penalized by OOBShark, are both minor. Did I miss it?

On whether customers would prefer 26c OOB to the current R2; I doubt your conclusion, but then maybe as you imply I don't have all the facts; so do you care to enlighten us?

 

[[)roi(]]

Of course the Rule of Law is a fundamental principle. Without it, we descend into a government of men and not of laws, and barbarism reigns.

But this is not and cannot be an absolute principle. Even more foundational is that any particular law must be just, equitable, and agnostic in respect of secondary or non-essential attributes in the subjects and objects of its provenance.

This means that upholding the Rule of Law cannot be applied to just any law that Caesar happens to pass. It cannot apply to unjust laws, as is obvious with those that mandate say racial discrimination.

The same applies to more technical laws such as those that govern telecommunications. Not only is it possible but it is quite common that many laws that enable and perhaps even mandate state interference in market mechanisms are ab initio and in principle unjust. So, upholding those bad and unjust laws is in truth no different to upholding unjust laws with more obvious violations of the precepts of justice.

The Rule of Law argument was used by most of the defendants in the Nuremburg Tribunals. And it was definitively rejected in the case of Crimes Against Humanity. But the same principle applies even here in telecomms law - we can use unjust laws and unjustly acquired State powers to impose unjust restrictions on actors.

I believe this is the case here, in the current spat.

I don't dispute that; except by rule of law I was specifically referring to competition law, hence my reference to Competition Commission (CC).

 

[Paul Hjul]

A fraction of that, vast majority of people don't even use their full allocation. And, as I've posted, bulk of bill shock complaints are not due to OOB.

Going out of bundle is the only cause of a bill shock. Not having a mechanism to lock usage is the problem - and I have indicated why some customers want the ability to go out of bundle and why their paying for that is not a problem but make a proper choice mechanism.

You seem to want to confuse going out of bundle with a differential in bundle tariffs

 

[Paul Hjul]

You are confusing Rule by Law with Rule of Law. International law recognizes Rule of Law as the prevailing value of any tribunal but rejects positivism.

The Nuremburg defendants used superior orders and Law and Order as a defence not Rule of Law. Subtle but significant differences. Technical legal provisions aren't at issue here, willful use of those provisions by a politically connected enterprise to secure an unlawful end is.

Of course the Rule of Law is a fundamental principle. Without it, we descend into a government of men and not of laws, and barbarism reigns.

But this is not and cannot be an absolute principle. Even more foundational is that any particular law must be just, equitable, and agnostic in respect of secondary or non-essential attributes in the subjects and objects of its provenance.

This means that upholding the Rule of Law cannot be applied to just any law that Caesar happens to pass. It cannot apply to unjust laws, as is obvious with those that mandate say racial discrimination.

The same applies to more technical laws such as those that govern telecommunications. Not only is it possible but it is quite common that many laws that enable and perhaps even mandate state interference in market mechanisms are ab initio and in principle unjust. So, upholding those bad and unjust laws is in truth no different to upholding unjust laws with more obvious violations of the precepts of justice.

The Rule of Law argument was used by most of the defendants in the Nuremburg Tribunals. And it was definitively rejected in the case of Crimes Against Humanity. But the same principle applies even here in telecomms law - we can use unjust laws and unjustly acquired State powers to impose unjust restrictions on actors.

I believe this is the case here, in the current spat.