Do I really need Uncapped? Or do I need 100GB?

[kaspaas]

Hi,

with all the AUP and abuse issues, the question came to me:

Do I need Uncapped Bandwitsh open to abuse by a few, effectively killing such products,

OR

do I need almost uncapped like 100GB per month?

The adavantage of virtually uncapped is that the rules are very nice - 100GB - you decide how to use it. And it can be sold at top line speed.

 

[Budza]

Problem is, when you put a number on it, people will always try to get the magic number.

If you leave it as uncapped, lots of people will be happy with less than that, whatever they happen to use for the month, be it 40GB or 85GB.

They make their money on those that under-utilise their account...

 

[Valerion]

Problem is, when you put a number on it, people will always try to get the magic number.

If you leave it as uncapped, lots of people will be happy with less than that, whatever they happen to use for the month, be it 40GB or 85GB.

They make their money on those that under-utilise their account...

Agreed. Look at the standard end-of-the-month rush for capped accounts, because you will "lose" the remaining unused bandwidth. This has the additional effect of putting a high load on a specific time period (beginning and end of the month) instead of spreading traffic out over the course of the month. And since it's contended, everyone suffers there.

 

[Wyzak]

Go for the 100GB

 

[moron51]

Go for the 100GB

Agree! Capped accounts get better contention ratios, less shaping, and multiple simultaneous logins. Unless you're trying to build a movie collection?

 

[alkit]

As said above, capped is obviously a better connection.

The only question you need to ask yourself is if it is worth the extra cash for those benefits...

 

[who.is.michael]

150 GB account would do for most, high end users...

 

[davemc]

The question that this thread is asking is the fail point.

In order to prevent the beginning-of-month and end-of-month congestion and bad product quality that the expiring per-month allowances cause, either:

1 - You buy 100GB that never expires and use as you wish.
2 - You buy n GB per-day or rolling window usage.

Besides, bandwidth that expires at the end of the month equates to theft and should be illegal.

 

[Budza]

A 150GB account will cost an arm and a leg.

A slow uncapped account is better for per GB value.

Depends what you want: speed or volume. Having your cake and eating it costs, but is possible too...

 

[Budza]

The question that this thread is asking is the fail point.

In order to prevent the beginning-of-month and end-of-month congestion and bad product quality that the expiring per-month allowances cause, either:

1 - You buy 100GB that never expires and use as you wish.
2 - You buy n GB per-day or rolling window usage.

Besides, bandwidth that expires at the end of the month equates to theft and should be illegal.

True. Theft it is. Will we ever see a change? Not in the immediate future

 

[PeterCH]

Problem is, when you put a number on it, people will always try to get the magic number.

If you leave it as uncapped, lots of people will be happy with less than that, whatever they happen to use for the month, be it 40GB or 85GB.

They make their money on those that under-utilise their account...

The problem is that most ISPs want to resell 10GB as uncapped and not 100GB. They don't want you to do 100GB - not at current residential uncapped prices.

I also don't believe most people would run and use up their 100GB at the end of the month. Maybe when you deal in 1-10GB accounts which were in the R300 - R800 range, but not for R500 accounts in the 100GB range.

 

[PeterCH]

A 150GB account will cost an arm and a leg.

A slow uncapped account is better for per GB value.

Depends what you want: speed or volume. Having your cake and eating it costs, but is possible too...

A 200GB unshaped account (unshaped a/h and on weekends/public holidays) costs R899. However, after that it still downloads, just that it's shaped.