DotCo versus Telkom, Round Two

[allyoucaneat]

http://www.ispa.org.za/about/constitution.shtml
4. Mission
The ISPA's mission is to provide a non-profit forum in which Internet access providers can address issues of common interest and interface with industry stakeholders so that end- users receive world-class service and industry participants earn a fair return on their investments.

 

[pupa]

http://www.ispa.org.za/about/constitution.shtml
4. Mission
The ISPA's mission is to provide a non-profit forum in which Internet access providers can address issues of common interest and interface with industry stakeholders so that end- users receive world-class service and industry participants earn a fair return on their investments.

They failed miserably in their mission. Lots of grounds for “no votes of confidence” here. I wonder who is their biggest sponsor or contributor to ISPA. TELKOM and GVT shareholders.? Would be a nice challenge to unravel this one

 

[Prometheus]

DotCo for the win!!!!!! You guys should start an ISP association , especially with SA consumers interests at heart.

There already is an ISPA.

I think Peter7 was referring to a new separate ISP association.

 

[Peter7]

I think Peter7 was referring to a new separate ISP association.

Most definitely!

 

[noxibox]

"The case has now been adjourned until 16 May"

I Can't believe it has been delayed again!! Why untill 16 May!! That's like 2months from now!

Never been involved in a civil case I take it. I'm amazed it is proceeding so quickly.

 

[noxibox]

I'm intrigued as to how many of you blindly support DotCo.
Simple because they're against Telkom you're FOR them?

For those of you who don't know, When telkom started offering ADSL they allowed the reseller ISP's to cap accounts anywhere upto the point of 30gig's of traffic (We've been through this before, but it's clear that a refresher is needed)

DotCo, went ahead and sold uncapped accounts (not the 30gig's they were ment to limit things too), and encouraged users to use as much as possible.
Telkom got upset, I think quite fairly in this case.

As a result Telkom introduced per gig billing to prevent this sort of activity.
I'm not trying to blame DotCo for Telkom shafting us at any available chance, but they certainly played a part.

Be very careful about supporting someone or something simply because they also hate your enemy.

You're not really making a lot of sense. Telkom introduced an extremely high per gigabyte price. If getting paid for bandwidth used by charging per gigabyte was their goal then they would have been charging R10, maybe R20 per gigabyte. Like Telkom you're throwing around this charging per gigabyte like they're doing nothing wrong to draw attention away from the real issue which is the price being charged per gigabyte, not charging per gigabyte itself. Besides which if one, out of a long list of ISPs, all of whom were enforcing the 30Gb cap, is using more than they're entitled then you deal with them specifically. You don't attack everyone, and undermine the country to boot (hell if there were any justice Telkom would be considered to be committing treason and dealt with accordingly).

And although DotCo's account was referred to as uncapped a visit to their site always immediately showed that it was in fact a 30Gb account. I know, I visited their site at the time it was being promoted. It may have actually briefly been an uncapped account, but that must have lasted very little time, although it continued to be promoted as all you can eat uncapped.

Can we have documentary proof of the statements you have made regarding DotCo encouraging users to use unlimited bandwidth and Telkom selling up to 30Gb, but no more? Telkom has in fact repeatedly denied ever selling anything more than 3Gb accounts.

 

[noxibox]

that you felt it was ok to violate the rules (albeit Telkom's rules, but rules that were VERY clearly stated) in the first place.

What happens if you loose the court case?
You will have to pay Telkom for all the back dated accounts on the per gig structure? (That would be enough to bankrupt most small countries, and certainly put you out of business)

It is perfectly acceptable to violate bad rules. And what constitutes a bad rule is something individuals have to decide for themselves. People who just blindly follow the rules belong in a police state.

They've stuck their neck out sure, but sometimes you have to risk a lot.

 

[noxibox]

No government that cares about the interest of the public will drag out an issue of national importance for so long.

At this point the ANC are completely corrupt. It is an inevitable consequence of too much power.

Politicians should be required to live at the average income, that'll open their eyes.

 

[onlyme]

Independent Courts

As far as I know the courts are by definition independent, last time I checked we did not live in a police state were the courts are controlled by the state, as much as I dislike government and their incompetence with regards to telecommunications, claiming that government is holding back this case is an unfair statement.

 

[allyoucaneat]

As far as I know the courts are by definition independent, last time I checked we did not live in a police state were the courts are controlled by the state, as much as I dislike government and their incompetence with regards to telecommunications, claiming that government is holding back this case is an unfair statement.

I agree. Our Justice and State departments are seperate and should be. I would not want the government, as a major shareholder in Telkom, have any influence on a judge.

 

[Prometheus]

This is not entirely true. Yes, the government does not control the decisions of the courts. BUT, this independence also means that the government decides what the law should be and the court has to follow it (the only exception is with the constitutional court). If a judge decides anything different then they have to continuously worry about picking up slack from the judicial council. And although the government can't make the court's decisions, they certainly can put pressure on them to resolve an issue quicker.

 

[allyoucaneat]

prometheus, my expertise is not legal. But you are referring to criminal law. This is civil law matter. Perhaps dominic can give a definite answer.

 

[MaD]

I would not want the government, as a major shareholder in Telkom, have any influence on a judge.

It's not the Gov itself that would have the influence, but rather that papery stuff with 100 and 200 printed on it..

 

[allyoucaneat]

MaD, sorry I can't agree with that. I'm sure our judges are beyond such influence.

 

[pupa]

Originally Posted by Hxx
"The case has now been adjourned until 16 May"

I Can't believe it has been delayed again!! Why until 16 May!! That's like 2months from now!

Probably TELKOM is delaying this case to see what the "new" laws would be. They can then easily make a case that this new laws make the current court case invalid aka what they are doing to the current DoC hearings. Point is that it did not bother them when they made the unilateral decision regards the per Gig billing scheme last year before the new rules were to be set in February, that did not come as yet!

 

[MaD]

MaD, sorry I can't agree with that. I'm sure our judges are beyond such influence.

Let's hope so - allyoucaneat is the only ISP offering 30GB for less than 2 grand a month

 

[pupa]

MaD, sorry I can't agree with that. I'm sure our judges are beyond such influence.

If I were You I would pray so. But with this corrupt country anything goes. What we do not know is only because we have not caught them out Yet!

 

[allyoucaneat]

Let's hope so - allyoucaneat is the only ISP offering 30GB for less than 2 grand a month

Why is TelkomInternet not offering bigger caps other than their original 2/3/4GB. Their caps have not changed. Why are they not taking advantage of the per GB billing and bringing bigger caps. Could Telkom's per GB billing be a ruse? Like TelkomInternet's Funny Money?

Why is TelkomInternet not bringing out a 1GB cap? They are mos saying that the average is 1.4GB. So surely many of their users would benefit from a lower cap.

 

[MaD]

Why is TelkomInternet not offering bigger caps other than their original 2/3/4GB. Their caps have not changed. Why are they not taking advantage of the per GB billing and bringing bigger caps. Could Telkom's per GB billing be a ruse? Like TelkomInternet's Funny Money?

Why is TelkomInternet not bringing out a 1GB cap? They are mos saying that the average is 1.4GB. So surely many of their users would benefit from a lower cap.

But Telkom IS offering higher cap accounts - their 3GB account is 3GB go-for-broke-until-you-get-cut-off.. then its only R250 odd rand for another account - a damn sight cheaper than R2,000 for 30GB - all planned to steal business away from the ISPs.

If Telkom didn't have the relaxed capping policy then the ISPs would have more customers.

Question: If an ISP buys 900GB for March and only 600GB is used - do they get the money back for the unused bandwidth or is it credited toward the next month?

 

[allyoucaneat]

Yeah, but TelkomInternet could milk it by selling larger caps and under cutting everyone. Just not like them to give up an opportunity like that.

ISPs are post billed. So an ISP gets a billed and pay for only what he has used. The whole "pool" thing is a load of polony. If you did not know it already.

EDIT: You should have been on this side of the keyboard. I made the 2 pairs of fingers wave for the double quotes when I typed "pool".