Data rollover on all contracts?

[Hummercellc]

ok forget the fish.... Put it this way.... you buy R500 Petrol... they tell you that you have 30 Days to use it. Because they are coming to collect the unsed petrol. So you have to purchase more at the end of the month.... Just like Data Bundles.... I vote yes to roll over

I am sure everyone will be P*ssed! if that happened

 

[ingeon]

I am all for this regulation.

The Telecoms operators charge us exorbitant fees and got additional inspiration from the movie Office Space.

In the movie they write some program that just slices of the cream of the top, the 0.00001cents from every transaction and makes an insane amount in no time...

The Telecoms operators loved it and thought to them selves "How can we do this"
"Aha, we sell them SMS bundles, Data bundles and airtime pre&post paid but we stipulate only 30days. Ingenious, the majority won`t use everything and the remainder expires into our bank accounts and nobody will see it as a crime"

I mean think about it, if Vodacoms 20million subscribers just send 1sms @ 49cents per day = R9,800,000
I would love to see the stats on unused airtime and bundles!

 

[snail]

at the end of the day....when you buy cap....it's yours, i dont see the big isp's canceling any of those debit orders that bounced off people's accounts, as it's the same thing indirectly....they screw you over for money, but they wont let you screw them over...uncalled for if you think about it

 

[McGuywer]

Biggest regrets in life:
• Mentioning "fish" on MyBB

You know where this is going...

 

[Kaufies]

ok forget the fish.... Put it this way.... you buy R500 Petrol... they tell you that you have 30 Days to use it. Because they are coming to collect the unsed petrol. So you have to purchase more at the end of the month.... Just like Data Bundles.... I vote yes to roll over

I am sure everyone will be P*ssed! if that happened

Another metaphor. This should be fun

So now you buy petrol @ R500 a month, every month. For some people, like me, that is just the right amount for the month. Now, the petrol regulator turns around and says petrol doesn't expire. Look at the situation this leaves the petrol stations in. Suddenly they aren't guaranteed R500 from their consumers each month. What do they do? Increase the price of petrol as they know not everyone will be paying them R500 a month anymore. Where does this leave me? Paying more for the same amount of petrol each month.

Ok, next metaphor...

 

[chubster]

Following your logic, most resellers will have to revise their business models and will probably be out of business soon thereafter.

I agree, the whole point to why an ISP actually exists. To do what? Add a service on top of reselling others so called bundles. But they are buying in throughput instead of data usage.

Why do ISPs exist? We don't really need them, how many of you actually uses your e-mail accounts, or so called 10MB web space. Or any other kind of services that they provide? Is it really necessary? If I use the internet, then most of the time I'm using services that other people/companies/institutions on the web provides. GMail/Hotmail, what ever mailing system. Internet Banking is provided by Banks. Youtube is provided by Google. etc etc etc.

If ICASA can shove this down their throat, it will force them to actually provide a real service that we need -> access to the internet. That is all we really need. Instead of being a reseller of internet, become a direct competitor.

This seems to be the common thing in the business world. Your wholesaler/distributor to your resellers. :-/ Those that do not want to listen to the BS that the reseller is trying to shove down your throat, goes directly to the distributor/wholesaler, because that is what we are interested in. Not somebody to hold your hand while you browse their products. So what are our options as a more advanced consumer? Can we afford to go directly to the wholesaler and not lose an arm and a leg

I hope that this will change and break up the comfort zones that some ISPs have created for themselves. Stop telling us that is not in our favour if they don't over sell their network.

 

[Joy-Energiser]

Wow, so they are finally trying to enforce a system where we actually
Get what we pay for
Its about God damn time, any logical and rational person would have expected this type of agreement from the get go.

But still, we can expect the money grabbing greedy Telecom companies to fight this with all their energy,hell how can you survive with just a few billion rand a year profit, God knows they need more.

PS. Oh yea, and my absolute favourite part is when the ISP/Telecom company actually have the audacity to comment on this in that it is not in the best interest of the consumer, just like when they were forced to lower the interconnect rate.

Are you idiots f%#$@ing serious ? Its not in our best interest to get value for money service and products instead of being ripped off(Everyone knows South Africa has the highest Telecoms prices in relation to the rest of the world, its common knowledge).
I mean are you guys kidding me? Its in the consumers best interst to provide the Telecoms/ISP with the highest possible profit margin at prices that are Detrimental to us and our economy ? Please get a clue and stop ripping us off, you greedy f%#ks.

Rant off: God it makes me so angry

 

[Sting]

But still, we can expect the money grabbing greedy Telecom companies to fight this with all their energy,hell how can you survive with just a few billion rand a year profit, God knows they need more.

You need to be more specific about who will be losing... the network providers will not lose, the ISPs and resellers will. And this will not necessarily be a good thing for us, unless we get an uncapped/fair usage product at a fair price.

 

[0rk0]

Arrrrrgh (not pirate sound- sign of frustration). This whole metaphor kicked off when it was mentioned money doesn't have an expiry date but data does. So I extrapolated by saying fish (bought with money that doesn't expire either) has an expiration date (whether you can eat it or not is irrelevant- it expires). Granted, this metaphor has gone to hell. Should never have been extended this far.

Anyway, this is my concern: when buying data month-to-month from Axxess, 1GB costs R59 but prepaid (which lasts longer than a month) costs R69. It stands to reason the price of month-to-month will increase if this is regulation is effected. I'm looking out for myself here. I don't want to pay more each month because some people don't use all their data. I simply ran with the fish metaphor to explain my point of view. Apologies if it were too abstract for comprehension.

Thanks for the introduction, but I was here from the begining.
I understood you perfectly, it's you who don't want to grasp what I'm trying to show you.You seem to be confused over whether your metaphor was valid or not. Has it gone to hell or is it now beyond my comprehension? Let me help you out. Your metaphor just wasn't applicable

Data, like any other item that's in demand, doesn't lose value.
We paid for it and it should be ours to use as we please.
We are also looking out for ourselves and don't want to carry those, like you, who can't manage their portion.

Apologies if we don't want to waste our bandwidth on useless downloads just for the sake of reaching our CAP. We'll rather save it for something worthwhile.

 

[yavahn]

Give everybody uncapped, then you don't have to worry about units carring over.
Rather manage the network by line speed than usage.

simplicity indeed

 

[0rk0]

Another metaphor. This should be fun

So now you buy petrol @ R500 a month, every month. For some people, like me, that is just the right amount for the month. Now, the petrol regulator turns around and says petrol doesn't expire. Look at the situation this leaves the petrol stations in. Suddenly they aren't guaranteed R500 from their consumers each month. What do they do? Increase the price of petrol as they know not everyone will be paying them R500 a month anymore. Where does this leave me? Paying more for the same amount of petrol each month.

Ok, next metaphor...

LOL!

You are only looking out for yourself, but we should be driving up and down in the driveway just to keep somebody else happy.

Your logic is flawed...

 

[bekdik]

carry over makes good sense for prepaid items. If there's to be a time limit then it should be at least 12 months

 

[Kaufies]

Thanks for the introduction, but I was here from the begining.

You're welcome.

I understood you perfectly, it's you who don't want to grasp what I'm trying to show you.You seem to be confused over whether your metaphor was valid or not. Has it gone to hell or is it now beyond my comprehension? Let me help you out. Your metaphor just wasn't applicable

It's validity is determined by how effective it is in explaining my point of view. It seems wasted on you therefore it has gone to hell because it is beyond your comprehension.

Data, like any other item that's in demand, doesn't lose value.
We paid for it and it should be ours to use as we please.
We are also looking out for ourselves and don't want to carry those, like you, who can't manage their portion.

Why do you think I can't manage my portion? I use almost exactly 56GBs per month. Not because I have to but because it is exactly what I need. If my data usage varied month-to-month (like yours does) I would look into prepaid instead of forfeiting data each month. If the data you forfeit each month is worth more than the difference between the price of month-to-month and prepaid then you aren't the brightest bulb in the tanning bed. If not, you're still getting a good deal.

Apologies if we don't want to waste our bandwidth on useless downloads just for the sake of reaching our CAP. We'll rather save it for something worthwhile.

See my reply to your previous paragraph. If you're paying for more than you need that is your problem. Again, why not consider switching to prepaid?

 

[ingeon]

I don`t know about your cars but my petrol stays in my tank till i have driven all of it out :wtf:

 

[Kaufies]

LOL!

You are only looking out for yourself, but we should be driving up and down in the driveway just to keep somebody else happy.

Your logic is flawed...

Yes, I'm looking out for myself. That is what the smart ones do in the free market. Fortunately for you we don't live in a perfectly free market. Icasa is here to help you out.

Anyway, if R500 is more petrol than you need each month, why not consider a smaller bundle? In today's data scene you can tailor make your bundle to suit your needs perfectly. Sure it takes a bit of time/research/diligence but it is possible!

 

[Kaufies]

I don`t know about your cars but my petrol stays in my tank till i have driven all of it out :wtf:

Judging by your choice of apostrophe I'm not surprised you're lost.

 

[McGuywer]

/ queue Unreal voice

0rk0 and Kaufies is dominating!

 

[0rk0]

Yes, I'm looking out for myself. That is what the smart ones do in the free market. Fortunately for you we don't live in a perfectly free market. Icasa is here to help you out.

Anyway, if R500 is more petrol than you need each month, why not consider a smaller bundle? In today's data scene you can tailor make your bundle to suit your needs perfectly. Sure it takes a bit of time/research/diligence but it is possible!

So based on your first paragraph:
1.We should look out for ourselves in a free market, as smart people like you do.
2.We don't have a free market.


So if it isn't a free market, shouldn't smart people look out for each other?

Why do I need to incur additonal costs by buying less, when I can save by buying in bulk?
Having to drive to the garage every day seems like a waste of my time and additional pertol? Or is that what smart people are doing these days.LOL

There is a difference between independence and inter-dependence.
Google it.

 

[Drake2007]

Whatever consumers may imagine bundles and caps to be, ICASA has yet again come up with a very blunt instrument that may put all current broadband services at risk, and could lead to price increases, rather than benefiting consumers. Fortunately, it's unlikely to make it all the way through the regulatory process in its current form.

Agree up to very blunt instrument, don't see how it is going to put current broadband services at risk or price increases.

If, as some legal experts are suggesting, the regulation is referring only to services sold explicitly as bundles (along the lines of prepaid data bundles, or prepaid electricity), then the approach appears fair (although even this will be challenged by most service providers who intend to remain in business).

It would be fair although can we trust our telecoms companys not to just remove the larger bundles currently on offer that users would be more inclined to purchase?

However, if the expectation is that this logic extends to all contracts that have caps or bundled services of any kind e.g. a data cap per month, or free call minutes per month, then there is a very real danger that it could undermine the whole tariffing model, and force the industry back to old-fashioned usage billing for everything.

Some ingenuity would be required if it extends across the board yes, off the top of my head they would simply implement a rental type agreement.

Monthly bundles and caps create a great deal of certainty for both the consumer and the provider - a fixed amount can be budgeted by both, as a cost for the one, and revenue for the other. In the case of broadband services, caps are also typically used as a means of controlling the load on the network - either on the access network, which is a finite resource, especially if radio - or on other parts of the network, such as international, where costs are high, and are shared across all users.

That is if it extends across the board, I see no way the telecoms can predict revenue from pre-paid.

The regulation seems to suggest that any cap or bundle is something that has been sold to the customer, rather than a commercial mechanism to create fair, flat-rated pricing, and a technical mechanism to ensure fair use of the network. (Note that I'm not commenting here on whether the actual prices charged in South Africa are good or bad, just the logic of having different prices for different caps and bundles that do not have an unlimited lifespan.)

We are talking about "free minutes" and "free sms's". Surely it's the telecoms problem that they used dubious marketing techniques in the first place.

Purely in an accounting sense, any attempt to force a service provider to add up all the "unused" data in monthly bundles or caps, and roll this over forever (or pay it out in cash at the end of the contract?), creates a liability for the company that could grow rapidly and exponentially until the service provider is technically bankrupt. It's even more obvious how this will happen where there are real costs involved (e.g. interconnection fees per call), where service providers estimate their costs based on typical monthly usage, and are able to determine a maximum liability. In practice, of course, auditors would simply insist that any contracts that carry high potential future liabilities like this be cancelled, or that services with such contracts be withdrawn from the market.

Auditors shouldn't be running the companies, where are those future liabilities for a product that has already been paid for, or will be paid in the future? Surely the risk is to the customer if they cancel a contract they lose their "rollover" thus encouraging them to stay with their SP.

As there are also practical, technical reasons why caps exist to protect the network, this approach would undermine this control mechanism, and force providers to limit usage in some other way e.g. charge per usage from the first Byte, and avoid any rollover whatsoever. Worse still, service providers may have to apply shaping to all services for the same purpose.

Is shaping not already being applied or did I miss something there?

I'm sure ICASA thinks it's being a consumer champion with this approach, but what it's really doing is limiting the options for charging mechanisms for service providers, and hence limiting the opportunity for real competition in the market. The logical conclusion of this kind of approach is that ICASA should simply set the pricing structure and prices of all services, rapidly reducing competition (and the number of service providers) to zero (OK, maybe one service provider, but government-owned, with matching service levels).

Contracts and bundled services are way to complicated for consumers to fathom already, I find it extremely difficult to compare products from competing SP's when there's bundled Laptops/Desktops (crappy ones at that), routers or cellphones in the mix. The logical conclusion is Telkom has created a complicated market with rules that must cost a fortune in administrative overheads and it needs to be simplified.

 

[Kaufies]

So based on your first paragraph:
1.We should look out for ourselves in a free market, as smart people like you do.
2.We don't have a free market.


So if it isn't a free market, shouldn't smart people look out for each other?

Wow, you are unbelievable. You know, on this forum there is a trend- when someone is losing an argument they shy away from the facts and start nitpicking. I refuse to lower myself to a level of nitpicking. If you are unsure about South Africa's economic system feel free to Google it.

Why do I need to incur additonal costs by buying less, when I can save by buying in bulk?
Having to drive to the garage every day seems like a waste of my time and additional pertol? Or is that what smart people are doing these days.LOL

My whole point is you don't need to incur extra costs. Look at Afrihost, for example. They offer a flat rate of R29/GB. If you can explain to me how, in this instance, you incur extra costs by not buying in bulk, please share it with me.

I look forward to your reply wrt my post before the one you quoted.