-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: How often do you receive spam calls?
iBurst gets tough on caps
- Thread starter rpm
- Start date
risingtide
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2007
- Messages
- 693
- Reaction score
- 0
Does this mean that the collective threshold is now equal to the individual threshold? IOW, Telkoms is maxed out?
Vrotappel
Bulls fan
This has now been added to their TOC:
4.10 The Service Provider reserves its right to cap off-net (internet) and on-net (Service Provider to Service Provider) traffic as per its capping limits applicable from time to time. In the event of the subscriber account being capped, the Service Provider reserves the right to charge the subscriber for every megabyte utilised above the cap limit.
Now use to get hold of those capping limits...
4.10 The Service Provider reserves its right to cap off-net (internet) and on-net (Service Provider to Service Provider) traffic as per its capping limits applicable from time to time. In the event of the subscriber account being capped, the Service Provider reserves the right to charge the subscriber for every megabyte utilised above the cap limit.
Now use to get hold of those capping limits...
Vrotappel
Bulls fan
Another interesting tidbit from their TOC:
12.5 Variation, cancellation and waiver: No contract varying, adding to, deleting from or cancelling the Agreement, and no waiver of any rights under the Agreement, shall be effective unless reduced to writing and signed by or on behalf of the parties.
12.5 Variation, cancellation and waiver: No contract varying, adding to, deleting from or cancelling the Agreement, and no waiver of any rights under the Agreement, shall be effective unless reduced to writing and signed by or on behalf of the parties.
Well if you believed in conspiracies you could say that Vodacom's only interest in iBurst is WIMAX spectrum, so if they can get people to leave iBurst the company's value drops, making it an easier acquisition target. Alternatively they're aiming iBurst at a lower 40MB/month etc. market now with Voda HSDPA being aimed at higher income, higher cap markets and Voda ADSL at those that require caps above 2GB...
GavinMannion
Executive Member
VJB since you say your are one of the capped, how far over your cap did you go?
My humble opinion is that if you download more than 100% of your original cap your are blatantly abusing... Yes we should not be capped at all and it is all crap but we are so they can really say you are abusing..
If you need so much then pay for more like the rest of us
My humble opinion is that if you download more than 100% of your original cap your are blatantly abusing... Yes we should not be capped at all and it is all crap but we are so they can really say you are abusing..
If you need so much then pay for more like the rest of us
Cap Limit
Hold on. I have a problem with this. Assuming a throttled soft-cap of 64kbps after one has reached his/her fill of high-speed 1Mbps, what constitutes the "cap limit"? Every megabyte is very vague because if one downloads continuously at 64kbps, and should be perfectly entitled to do so (VoIP, data replication, etc), the final month-end totals could vary considerably. The totals could also be influenced by signal strength and network conditions.
Hold on. I have a problem with this. Assuming a throttled soft-cap of 64kbps after one has reached his/her fill of high-speed 1Mbps, what constitutes the "cap limit"? Every megabyte is very vague because if one downloads continuously at 64kbps, and should be perfectly entitled to do so (VoIP, data replication, etc), the final month-end totals could vary considerably. The totals could also be influenced by signal strength and network conditions.
Each tower actually has the capacity to support 10 users at full speed so that contention ratio is closer to 27:1...
But then that only refers to on net traffic (and assuming the backhaul is the same capacity as the tower) You'll probably find the contention ratio at the international gateway is considerably higher.
In spite of all that I have no problem with iBurst implementing policies to reduce abuse. Considering the packages that some of my customers are using these abusers are consuming the equivalent of R20 000 worth of bandwidth each month. That revenue could be well spent on upgrading the network for others to have a better internet experience.
Unlimited internet is still a privilege in this country... not a right - as much as we might wish it were otherwise.
Pilgrim
Wugger
And does this apply to people that signed up years ago? Can iBust just add things to their TOS and enforce them against clients that never saw or signed the new TOS?
Gatecrasher
Executive Member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2005
- Messages
- 6,728
- Reaction score
- 624
I don't think iBurst are concerned about subscribers downloading at 64k. Just that the 64k throttle only applies to traffic leaving the network. There is no such limit for traffic moving around within the network. So iBurst to iBurst, peer 2 peer, runs along at full tilt before and after capping.
Not that that excuses iBurst. That traffic costs iBurst virtually nothing. Even less, I should imagine, than the IS local only ADSL accounts. There is not even IP Connect costs involved.
Even if they are concerned about congestion, hard-capping 8 subscribers is going to make no difference whatsoever.
The root cause of the problem is that iBUrst have oversold, and are continuing to oversell their product.
Not that that excuses iBurst. That traffic costs iBurst virtually nothing. Even less, I should imagine, than the IS local only ADSL accounts. There is not even IP Connect costs involved.
Even if they are concerned about congestion, hard-capping 8 subscribers is going to make no difference whatsoever.
The root cause of the problem is that iBUrst have oversold, and are continuing to oversell their product.
IMO if they want to cap people at whatever figure then they should stipulate that at signup, not imply that your throttled service is unlimited.
Vrotappel
Bulls fan
According to their web site:
Pro packages - Users are throttled once cap is reached and will be able to top-up with Bandwidth Booster.
Pro packages - Users are throttled once cap is reached and will be able to top-up with Bandwidth Booster.
McSack
Executive Member
8 People who affect the experience of 40000 subscribers.
8 people over their cap who affect 40000 subscribers over their caps.
After capping there should be a free for all...how much can you get with 64kbps?
If you read the posts above you'd see they do it with on network p2p which isn't throttled to 64kbs. You can understand that if the towers can only handle 10 people going at max speed then 1 person going at max speed 24/7 for the entire month could potentially use 10% of a towers capacity or if all 8 are connected to the same one as much as 80%. That will leave everyone else in the area with a highly degraded service.
Pilgrim
Wugger
That assumes that one person can hog 10% of the bandwidth no matter what. I do not think this is the case.
Lets say 99 ppl that are not capped connect and one hog connects. Then the hog will get 1% of the bandwidth, and each other person will get 1% as well.
It is not as if one person can grab 10% and the rest then have to battle to use the remaining 90%.
If at night there is low network traffic and the hog can manage to connect to the local only hub and download a full speed then who exactly is getting hurt?
If during the day the hog connects, then he will get his (un)fair share of the pie, aka 10/n where n is the number of connected users and 10 is the amount of uncapped users the tower can handle.
This makes me think that those 8 ppl are in fact NOT connected to the congested towers, for if they were there is no way they could get 40+ gigs.
Just my thought.
Gatecrasher
Executive Member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2005
- Messages
- 6,728
- Reaction score
- 624
Networks get "abused" when network managers allow them to get abused. iBurst cap and throttle to control network traffic. Some users have found a loophole. iBurst need to find a solution that fixes the problem, while not denying users their after-cap access. The 64k throttled service after cap is not a freebie. You only have to compare play and pro packages to see that pro subscribers pay for that service. iBurst have no right to deny it.
If they don't want iBurst-to-iBurst traffic to bypass their bandwidth monitoring system then they need to fix it. It's iBurst's problem.
Users will do whatever they can, whenever they can. If the iBurst network is allowing them access at full speed after they are capped. Look to the iBurst network. Users have no control over their speed. But they have paid in full for their right of access.
If they don't want iBurst-to-iBurst traffic to bypass their bandwidth monitoring system then they need to fix it. It's iBurst's problem.
Users will do whatever they can, whenever they can. If the iBurst network is allowing them access at full speed after they are capped. Look to the iBurst network. Users have no control over their speed. But they have paid in full for their right of access.
Vrotappel
Bulls fan
Not correct in my case. Every now and then when the connection is reset by iBurst it reconnects at faster than the throttled speed. My computer is connected to the net 24/7 and happily continues downloading at the higher speed. Seeing that iBurst disconnects are random (sometimes once a weekend, other times 3 times an hour) should I be held responsible for this?
According to my agreement with iBurst they are supposed to throttle me. They are not doing it (sometimes) and it is thus them that are in breach of the contract.
I have e-mailed them and asked them to provide details of their excessive usage policy, so far no response and I don't expect any response as they are most probably currently busy drafting it.