Data rollover and the CPA

[Mouse]

@ jannievanzyl
Why do you want to take back unused data we paid for? Why can we not use what we bought? Why do you draw up conditions that prevent a user from using his own data whenever he/she wants?

Have you read my numerous explanations on the difference between bits/s and bytes?

@OGroteKoning:
he was referring to the difference between bits/s (bits per second) and bytes

@jannievanzyl:
I would also like to know why we need to buy the data bundle to pay less for data.
For example, I'm on a top up contract for about R320/month with Vodacom.
Last month, my usage led to me refilling R200 airtime halfway through the month and then another R50 or so near the end of the month.

This month I used the top up airtime that I receive at the beginning of each month to buy data (500MB)
This left me with something over over R100 to use on sms/calling.
This month also had the android 80c app sale so I sometimes ended up using even more data when I was away from WiFi.

Despite higher usage, having the bundle meant that the top up airtime seems to be enough for the month
(I still have over 100MB left and pver R100 airtime)

The trouble here is I don't know how much data/voice I will use in any month, but I have to divide it anyway, ahead of time.
Why can't I just get those data rates without the bundle? Since its obviously affordable for you to provide it.

 

[jannievanzyl]

@OGroteKoning:
he was referring to the difference between bits/s (bits per second) and bytes

@jannievanzyl:
I would also like to know why we need to buy the data bundle to pay less for data.
For example, I'm on a top up contract for about R320/month with Vodacom.
Last month, my usage led to me refilling R200 airtime halfway through the month and then another R50 or so near the end of the month.

This month I used the top up airtime that I receive at the beginning of each month to buy data (500MB)
This left me with something over over R100 to use on sms/calling.
This month also had the android 80c app sale so I sometimes ended up using even more data when I was away from WiFi.

Despite higher usage, having the bundle meant that the top up airtime seems to be enough for the month
(I still have over 100MB left and pver R100 airtime)

The trouble here is I don't know how much data/voice I will use in any month, but I have to divide it anyway, ahead of time.
Why can't I just get those data rates without the bundle? Since its obviously affordable for you to provide it.

Networks sell bundles for the same reason they can't provide rollover indefinitely; the need to have as much predictability as possible.

As to the better rates for bigger bundles; in any business, the more you commit, the better the price you get. In the case of bundles, the bigger bundle you commit to, the better rate you get.

Why are you not buying Advanced bundles? This will allow you to buy a single bigger bundle up front and then run at that same rate when your bundle runs out, i.e. your OOB is the same as the in-bundle rate you bought in the first place.

I'm always surprised that people don't use the Advanced bundles more to avoid topping up with smaller bundles at a higher rate or running at a higher OOB rate.

 

[OGroteKoning]

again @ jannievanzyl

Why do networks want to prevent us from using unused data we paid for?
Why can we not use what we bought?
Why do networks draw up conditions that prevent a user from using his own data whenever he/she wants (after 60 days)?
Now, I guess on all these questions you will give a technical answer justifying why people are being "robbed" by networks of purchased data, but I would still like to hear/read it.

You say that "the need to have as much predictability as possible". Well if the data is unused, assume it will be used in the next month and add it to your predictability model AND ALLOW PEOPLE TO USE WHAT THEY PAID FOR.
And if there is another hugely technical answer why networks can not do this, then just pay the consumer back for the data he/she has not used at the same rate as purchased. Fair???

And I would still like to know: Are you allowed to supply the profit per hour for contract data? Are we talking about say R27million per hour throught the data switches next to Vodaworld?

On all of the bove, the same applies to airtime for voice calls ...

PS I searched for the bit/s vs bytes explanation and could not find it. Please point me in the right direction.

 

[jannievanzyl]

again @ jannievanzyl

Why do networks want to prevent us from using unused data we paid for?
Why can we not use what we bought?
Why do networks draw up conditions that prevent a user from using his own data whenever he/she wants (after 60 days)?
Now, I guess on all these questions you will give a technical answer justifying why people are being "robbed" by networks of purchased data, but I would still like to hear/read it.

You say that "the need to have as much predictability as possible". Well if the data is unused, assume it will be used in the next month and add it to your predictability model AND ALLOW PEOPLE TO USE WHAT THEY PAID FOR.
And if there is another hugely technical answer why networks can not do this, then just pay the consumer back for the data he/she has not used at the same rate as purchased. Fair???

And I would still like to know: Are you allowed to supply the profit per hour for contract data? Are we talking about say R27million per hour throught the data switches next to Vodaworld?

On all of the bove, the same applies to airtime for voice calls ...

PS I searched for the bit/s vs bytes explanation and could not find it. Please point me in the right direction.

I typically use a river / bucket analogy, so try and search on that. Will type it up again at some point and sticky it somewhere. I'll think of another analogy where people try and sell transient products in chunks. Maybe selling time would be a good example.

We ALREADY assume you'll use it in the next month, thus your unused data rolls over to the end of the next month. So, from your request, you're already getting that.

You've completely lost me on the "profit per hour for contract data" and "data through switches next to Vodaworld". Neither of these make sense to me.

 

[jannievanzyl]

OK, here we go (again);

The problem is that data networks are built based on bit-rates (measure in Megabits/s). A data network is nothing but a bunch of pipes. But we sell it in 'bundles' (measured in MegaBytes).

This 'conversion' of Mb/s to MB's is where the problem comes in.

The analogy I always use is that of a flowing river. Water flows in the river at a constant rate (liters/second - same as Mb/s). At any point can you divert some of this water flow for your usage. Any water you did not divert goes past and is lost forever.

It is the same with data networks. We have a 1Gb/s pipe from the US, for example. If no-one uses the pipe, we still get charged for the 1Gb/s. WE also pay all the other costs associated with running a network, rent, electricity, bandwidth, salaries, etc. Even if not a single customer use the network, all the costs of running the network is incurred.

Because bit-rates are so expensive normal subs cannot afford it, thus it's only sold to corporates. Buying just a bit-rate with no usage limit is called 'uncapped' and is extremely expensive. In addition, subs only want to pay for the data they actually use and not for a constant pipe they might, or might not, use.

The reason it is so expensive is you cannot have a high contention ratio on such a service. Let's say you have a 100Mb/s pipe and sell it in chunks of 2Mb/s. You can only have 50 customers and each customer could do about 600GB per month. Clearly this is way more than any sub (even me!) would need. Subs typically want less than 5GB per month.

The 100Mb/s pipe has a 'total capacity' of about 30TB/month. If you sell 1GB bundles, in theory you could sell 30 000 of them. Practically you could probably sell between 5000 and 10 000 such bundles on the pipe. Thus the costs are now shared between 5000 subs, instead of 50, and the retail price is substantially less.

So the users don't want to pay for a constant running stream of water, they only want to pay for the water they used. We have a stream of water to sell, they want to pay for a bucket of water. And thus we create the concept of a 'data bundle' (a bucket of data).

The problem with this conversion of data streams to buckets of data is that you have no idea when the sub will be using them. In theory you could have a situation where no-one is dipping from the river but the river still flows. (Think 3AM on our network). Though no-one used the network, we still paid for the pipes and any revenue we could've made is lost forever.

But then everyone suddenly dip their buckets in the river, at the same time, and the river literally runs dry (2PM on our network). We call this congestion.

From a network perspective we need to be able to predict when people will dip their buckets in the river so we can plan the pipes better. It's a fine line between having massive pipes that are idle a lot of the time (and thus costly) and being big enough to handle any spike in communal dipping. (Microsoft release patches every Tuesday, for example).

By restricting the lifespan of the bucket of water we can plan much better.

Where the water analogy fails is that we've figured out ways to 'store' water for later consumption. We call them dams. So with water, I can close the gates when no-one is using water downstream and store the water. Then when there is an increase in demand (more people dipping buckets in the stream), I just open the sluices.

But this ability to store the water we don't have on data networks. We've not figured out how to 'store' data. (First person to do this will win the Physics Nobel price and will be an instant billionaire!).

So, data is like water. We buy it in streams but people want to buy it in buckets from us.

Unlike water, the concept of dams is not applicable so any data not immediately consumed, is lost forever.

In theory, there should be no concept such as 'roll-over' of data, i.e. the storage of data for later consumption. In practice we try and accommodate sub's usage patterns by allowing roll-over. (Many networks don't do roll-over, btw.) The best compromise is a balance between zero roll-over and infinite storage. We thus came to "Up to 60 days rollover".

 

[OGroteKoning]

I typically use a river / bucket analogy, so try and search on that. Will type it up again at some point and sticky it somewhere. I'll think of another analogy where people try and sell transient products in chunks. Maybe selling time would be a good example.

We ALREADY assume you'll use it in the next month, thus your unused data rolls over to the end of the next month. So, from your request, you're already getting that.

You've completely lost me on the "profit per hour for contract data" and "data through switches next to Vodaworld". Neither of these make sense to me.

I don't think time is a good example - time can not be re-offered. Use an anology of fuel in a fueltank.

Good to hear you use the your model includes the unused data from a previous month. But the other questions remains unanswered ..........

Ignore the profit thing - it was something a very senior VDC representative bragged about when the data switches were built.

In a related thread you said:

You're wrong, actually. Think a bit about it and it'll make sense.

I think the networks should think about the basis of these contracts. Even before the user can "complete" his side of the contract (which is using the data even in a following month), your goal is for the user to use the new months data first and hopefully not have to commit to the previous months' data.

You contract your SP to provide you with a fixed amount of data per month, say 250MB @ R99 per month. You pay the money and your SP must give you the data. That is the essence and the core of your contract.

The roll-over to the end of the next month is a value add. You buy a bundle to last 30-days, not 60.

The roll-over can not be a value add if it was paid for already. It is already the "property" of the consumer. It is a purchased product used in bits (pardon the pun) and not expended all at once. You make it sound like the network is doing the consumer a favour by allowing the user to have another chance to use the data HE HAS ALREADY PAID FOR. And only AFTER he used the next month's data.

So, by definition, you must (and will) always get what you contracted your SP first and then any possible 'freebies' will kick in.

The consumer should not be bound when and how or with what device he wants to use his purchased product. the consumer must have a choice, and I will bet dollars to doughnuts, that most/all consumers would like to NOT lose their data they purchased AND that the networks honour a "first purchased, first used" principle.

Another way to look at it; if you did not get roll-over (like with some of the other operators), you would not have an issue, correct? But because you get this extra service, it now is somehow not correct?

I can not believe an intelligent person like yourself would write something like this! What you are saying is that the poster would not have an issue if the data was taken away sooner? And allowing someone to use what he purchased is "an extra service"? What all your arguments tend NOT to address, is that a product is purchased, the network forces a user to use it all in a short period of time and that if the user doesn't, the network feels it is fine to take the rest of the product back WITHOUT COMPENSATION.

Thanks for the explanation (bits/s vs bytes)

In essense, what you are saying is that you pass the risk over to the consumer. From a consumer's point of view - I bought a product and want to use the product, THE WHOLE PRODUCT. And it does not matter what the product is. From a consumer's point of view, it is like buying a tank of fuel and the oil company tells you that you have to use it by the end of the week and if you don't they will take the fuel out from the tank, and fill it up again for the next week. If you so happen to use the fuel up before the week is over, they will give you some fuel back from the fuel they took back and stored on your behalf for only a week. But low and behold!! If you again do not use all the fuel, they will not give you back the previous purchased fuel, they will just keep it. And you can call consumers stupid if you like, but that is the principle. And what the networks do, is come with fancy analogies to prove a point otherwise.

From our side Jannie, we buy something that gets taken away if we don't use it. And that really IS the bottom line

 

[MervynB]

The consumer should not be bound when and how or with what device he wants to use his purchased product. the consumer must have a choice, and I will bet dollars to doughnuts, that most/all consumers would like to NOT lose their data they purchased AND that the networks honour a "first purchased, first used" principle.

It's a given that most/all consumers would not like to lose their data so that should not be an issue. But, like it or not, why should the consumer not be bound as to when the data may be used? For you to use a tank of pertrol requires no further involvement by the petrol company once you leave the filling station. To use data you need access to the Service Provider's network. You cannot use the data without the SP's involvement. Why should the SP not manage and limit that access and specify that a given amount of data can only be used within a given period? You may not like it but if the SP is forced to allow you to use this data without time limit it is going to mean an increase in prices. Such an increase will affect all users including those who manage to use all the data they pay for within the allocated time.

You CAN have unlimited access, with no data ever being lost, by going for an uncapped account but you will be paying for the priviledge. And even with an uncapped account the SP can specify that the bandwidth you can use will be "throttled" after what it deems to be a "fair usage" of data in any given month. And the SP's definition of "fair usage" is almost certain not to coincide with your idea of "fair usage".

From our side Jannie, we buy something that gets taken away if we don't use it. And that really IS the bottom line.

You are not buying a physical product that you can take home in a bag. You are buying the right to use a given amount of data in a specified time on the Service Provider's network. If you don't use all the data in the given time you have lost the right to use the network for the unused data.

 

[OGroteKoning]

Are you also in the employment of a network?

 

[bekdik]

If the ISP's are going to be so hard put with carrying the liability for 3 years, they can simply refund the value of the unused portion at the end of each month, after all it hasn't cost anything.

 

[jannievanzyl]

Are you also in the employment of a network?

Maybe try to understand the facts involved here then you won't need to play the man.

The main point to understand is the difference between transient (data or time) or static (petrol) products.

When you buy a tank of petrol, like your example, your car is filled up and you take it home with you. You can use it whenever you want. The petrol you've not used yet is stored for future use.

Networks don't work like this. A network works in bits per SECOND. Note the time component which implies the data is non-static. You cannot 'store' it.

Here's a question for you: "Why don't you take your GB of data from the network at the beginning of the month and keep it at home to use whenever you want, just like your tank of petrol?" See the problem?

If you buy a GB of data from an ISP, they have to plan that you'll use it within a specific timeframe and this is where the typical 30-days come in (up to 60-days in Vodacom's case).

To avoid all this confusion, what a network really should sell you is a bit-rate and not a fixed quantity of data. Instead of 1GB of data per month, for the same price you really should get 3Kb/s for the month, uncapped. That'll give you the 1GB (you can work it out) and this way there's no concept of roll-over.

Question is; Will you be happy with a bit-rate of 3Kb/s for the equivalent price of a 1GB bundle? I suspect not, right?

Consumers want the maximum speed, if and when, they decide to use their 1GB of data. Now the question is what's an acceptable speed? Let's assume at least 1Mb/s, though many here will want at least 5Mb/s in todays world.

So, you've bought a 1GB bundle and you want to use it at 1Mb/s. The network must now be provisioned to deliver that speed to you. That implies the network must to be configured to deliver the equavalent of 324GB per month to you and must 'buy' that capacity from its suppliers. Yet you only pay for 1GB of that.

(The above explanation also highlights the issues with uncapped services, BTW.)

But with unknown usage patterns it gets even worse. Every month you don't use your 1GB (but just might), the network should in theory up its capacity just in case you do. So the network must increase its spend because you might just use the data at some point. As you can see, this becomes a real issue if you have millions of customers on your network and is te basis for the potential price increase if roll-over had to be extended.

I hope you can by now see the problem in selling a 'static' product (a data bundle) but using infrastructure that does not deliver bundles to supply it? And the best way to bring these two concepts together is to put an 'expiry' on the bundle, i.e. make it semi-transient.

 

[jannievanzyl]

If the ISP's are going to be so hard put with carrying the liability for 3 years, they can simply refund the value of the unused portion at the end of each month, after all it hasn't cost anything.

No, the network incurred the full cost to deliver that data to you, even if you did not use it. See my explanation above.

As the OP explained the 3-year liability the CPA address is the shelf-live of the voucher. not the life of the product the voucher deliver.

 

[borga]

The ISP rent bandwidth from their providers (seacom ect) and then sub rent use of the bandwidth to you.

So imo you are not buying bandwidth, you are just renting the use of the ISP bandwidth from them for a x amount of use (data).

Taken in that light I believe the the ISP are correct in limiting your use of their bandwidth to a certain period just like you would in a normal renting agreement.

That said, if you allow data to be used over longer periods, you are adding more uncertainty and risk for the ISP, like if they have enough bandwidth for any users who may or may not use their bandwidth during the period which might mean that ISP will have to increase available bandwidth which will increase costs which have to be passed somewhere. The loss of some bandwidth for some users which the ISP doesn't currently have to deliver have been factored into the current price as a gain for ISP so that they can give that gain back to consumers in the form of a bit lower prices, so if you remove that gain (bandwidth not required to deliver since it wasn't carried over), the overall price of bandwidth for consumers might rise.
Also then there would be less incentive for ISP to offer higher packages (10gb+ ) at a cheaper price per gig than what they charge on lower gig packages.

 

[bekdik]

No, the network incurred the full cost to deliver that data to you, even if you did not use it. See my explanation above.

As the OP explained the 3-year liability the CPA address is the shelf-live of the voucher. not the life of the product the voucher deliver.

So if I buy a voucher for any product whatsoever, I cannot redeem it after 30 days?

 

[OGroteKoning]

@ jannievanzyl
Im not trying "to be the man". When on my phone, my posts are short and to the point. It was a legitimate question.

Thanks again for the elaborate explanation. The more you guys tell us the better we understand. Although it all makes sense from your business perspective, from most consumers' points of view it feels lobsided.

The networks will always call the shots and that is something we have to live by.

Thanks for your time

Sent from my outdated N97

 

[jannievanzyl]

So if I buy a voucher for any product whatsoever, I cannot redeem it after 30 days?

No, it depends on the T's&C's of the actual product. The point is that the CPA states the voucher must have a shelf-life of 3 years, but once the voucher is redeemed, the rules of the product kicks in.

 

[bekdik]

No, it depends on the T's&C's of the actual product. The point is that the CPA states the voucher must have a shelf-life of 3 years, but once the voucher is redeemed, the rules of the product kicks in.

Then I guess that the man in street can only hope that the T's&C's are tested for acceptability by the CPA & ICASA.

 

[OGroteKoning]

@ jannievanzyl

I have a question however it be a lil off topic - I have often asked that my wife and my own voice sims be linked to my 2G + 2G for data. Meaning I don't have to buy seperate data bundles and therefor all data used on our cellphones be taken from my "data account". The answer was "no" (and probably still is).

Why can this not be done?
Is there a way that VDC will investigate this to make it happen for those who are interested?

 

[jannievanzyl]

@ jannievanzyl

I have a question however it be a lil off topic - I have often asked that my wife and my own voice sims be linked to my 2G + 2G for data. Meaning I don't have to buy seperate data bundles and therefor all data used on our cellphones be taken from my "data account". The answer was "no" (and probably still is).

Why can this not be done?
Is there a way that VDC will investigate this to make it happen for those who are interested?

We've been havin' it!

Actually, the answer is yes; Vodacom offers the facility where you can have up to 5 SIMs sharing the same data bundle. It's called Data-SIM (how's that for an original name ). It's got a few limitations, but in principle you start off with a voice or data contract, strap data to it and then get up to 4 additional Data-SIMs eating from the same bundle. But they can't do voice.

I use it quite a lot to drive all my tablets. And the beauty is, they can be active at the same time.

I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that this is a Vodacom-exclusive at this point in tim;, providing up to 5 concurrent users from the same bundle.

 

[marine1]

wouldn't it make more sense for the networks to lower the prices of the products and then have the rollover for less time? this would hall the consumer but not the ISP as they will say their networks are now congested........sorry but your network is so congested at the moment I doubt it would make any difference

 

[jannievanzyl]

wouldn't it make more sense for the networks to lower the prices of the products and then have the rollover for less time?

Can definitely look at that, but remember the current pricing is calculated on 30-days, so anything longer would imply a price increase.

What % increase are you willing to pay for a roll-over of, say 3-, 6- and 12-months?