iBurst gets tough on caps

[Abe]

Customers want a service, they see one advertised that looks to fit their needs and then they pay for it and use it. If the companies didn't want them to use it in a certain way then they should have stipulated exactly how they could use it upfront and the cut off those who went against the agreement from the beginning.

And companies are in business to make money. Obviously if everyone downloaded 20GB a month on a 1.5GB service they would not make any money as it has the potential to cost them R1200 per customer per month, tower costs aside. There is no way they can say "You can only use twice your cap on the 64K limit as in that case, everyone will use twice their limit. Even the people who are not doing so now. You effectively set the limit. They have two choices, stop the people who are going way over or they hard cap everyone and stop the 64K option. It seems to me that they chose the former. There is another problem. It seems to me that people have found a way to get around the 64K limit as some people are doing 60GB a month which is impossible on 64K. If someone is knowningly using a trick etc to get around the limit then I also have a problem with that.

As for ISPs all over selling their services: that is there problem. I don't care what they have to do or how I just want the service they advertised. If they know they can't provide it at those prices they shouldn't have advertised it as such.

So you would have them cancel the option and the other 39900 customers will suffer because iBurst don't do anything about 100 that are going crazy. Look at it from iBurst's perspective or that of other customers.

These companies deserve no compassion. They are like blood sucking parasites. They offer crappy services with even more crappy support and yet expect their clients to treat them as if they are doing us a favor.

I don't know iBurst so I have no idea how they treat their customers. I am looking at it from the point of view of the customers that are not "taking advantage" of the service. Because there are only two options. Either iBurst stop it for everyone or the few who are going over the top. People here are so quick to think about me that they end up messing things up for themselves. Do you think that iBurst would have taken this stand if the people were only doing 10GB-15GB per month on 1.5GB account? No, I doubt it, the PR is not good. Now the people who could have gotten away with that 10GB-15GB per month will have to switch to a service which is going to cost them a lot more then the R470 odd that they are paying. Remember, the ADSL alternative is R670 odd for a 3GB Telkom account which one may be able to get 7GB from. In addition to this, the normal Joe Soap who only goes mad once every 3 months or so when the new Red Hat Linux is available for download is going to get a nasty supprise when he is now cut off.

 

[Abe]

icyrus - i'd be inclined to agree with you that if they do not communicate these capping limits then they are acting in bad faith. we as consumers cannot be expected to suck this knowledge from our thumbs.

I don't see how they can. Say it's 15GB and everyone will use 15GB, including the people who are now using 1.6GB. So you will have the 95% of people who are using 1.6GB suddenly start using a whole lot more.

 

[milomak]

well then don't offer the service. or don't cry when people use it to its maximum. for me it is foolish to build something and then be surprised when people use what is there (not through any nefarious means). provided by you.

EDIT: You see Abe, what I am saying is that iBurst must have known that traffic between towers is not subject to the throttle. iBurst must have known that it is possible to finish you download cap and then remain on the throttle for the balance of the month. I then contend that even if they did not, they have had at least the 2 years I have been on iBurst to find this out. They have then had the time to communicate what is accepatable and unacceptable behaviour to their clients in a professional manner. They did not. That in my eyes is tacit accepatance of what is happening on your network.

There is something in common law which states that your actions lead someone to believe that you condone an action if it is not illegal in law. I think iBurst could find themselves foul of that common law ruling.

 

[Abe]

iBurst must have known that it is possible to finish you download cap and then remain on the throttle for the balance of the month. I then contend that even if they did not, they have had at least the 2 years I have been on iBurst to find this out. They have then had the time to communicate what is accepatable and unacceptable behaviour to their clients in a professional manner. They did not. That in my eyes is tacit accepatance of what is happening on your network.

I would imagine this may have something to do with their new owners and profitability etc. It just does to show, don't be nice to anyone otherwise they may just take advantage of it and you could end up foul when you try and stop being nice. It would also be interesting if there have been some changes to the iBurst network or software that have highlighted this issue. It does seem likely to me that this has occurred so soon after the VC purchase and the software upgrade hinting that one of them is the cause.

 

[icyrus]

And companies are in business to make money. Obviously if everyone downloaded 20GB a month on a 1.5GB service they would not make any money as it has the potential to cost them R1200 per customer per month, tower costs aside. There is no way they can say "You can only use twice your cap on the 64K limit as in that case, everyone will use twice their limit. Even the people who are not doing so now. You effectively set the limit. They have two choices, stop the people who are going way over or they hard cap everyone and stop the 64K option. It seems to me that they chose the former. There is another problem. It seems to me that people have found a way to get around the 64K limit as some people are doing 60GB a month which is impossible on 64K. If someone is knowningly using a trick etc to get around the limit then I also have a problem with that.



So you would have them cancel the option and the other 39900 customers will suffer because iBurst don't do anything about 100 that are going crazy. Look at it from iBurst's perspective or that of other customers.

The reduction of your argument here is that iburst are incapable of monitoring and controlling their network to the extent that they would like and this has somehow become their users' fault.

This "trick" you talk of, how is it a trick that the users exploit rather than lazy or incompetent management of their network by iburst?

The point still remains that they should have had a usage policy signed up front by all their users and that policy should have made it very clear what is grounds for being disconnected.

They didn't and, as as far as I know, still don't and are now disconnecting people on how they feel on the day. Correct me if I am wrong?

 

[Abe]

The reduction of your argument here is that iburst are incapable of monitoring and controlling their network to the extent that they would like and this has somehow become their users' fault.

This "trick" you talk of, how is it a trick that the users exploit rather than lazy or incompetent management of their network by iburst?

I have no doubt that iBurst does not have the control over their network that it should have. There is also obviously some trick / flaw that is being exploited as people like DarKWateR are using 30GB of International traffic. My point is just that the people who will suffer are the other users, not iBurst.

The point still remains that they should have had a usage policy signed up front by all their users and that policy should have made it very clear what is grounds for being disconnected.

If you take a look at the post by VJB 449 (http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showpost.php?p=1097779&postcount=87), you will see what they can't give a limit. Because people will use every last Meg. There are always going to be a few people that push things. Publish a limit and everyone will.

 

[Vrotappel]

If you take a look at the post by VJB 449 (http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showpost.php?p=1097779&postcount=87), you will see what they can't give a limit. Because people will use every last Meg. There are always going to be a few people that push things. Publish a limit and everyone will.

I don't understand your logic. Cell C currently has an offer that you can phone 120 free minutes a weekend. Why can they put a limit on their offer but an ISP cannot provide a limit "because people will use every last Meg". Are you an abuser when you use "every last Meg" but not an abuser when you phone up your 120 free minutes? Please enlighten me.

 

[milomak]

So what is wrong with using every amount of usage limit they give you?

EDIT: and tbf the limit should be no less than what you can get at 64kbps after you have utilised your "normal" cap at full speed.

 

[Ekhaatvensters]

Well I'm sure iBurst didn't want people to just buy the lowest cap account and use their cap as fast as they can and then leach 24 hours a day on 64kb. The service was meant to just be a backup so that you never have to worry about being capped. Also sure they knew it would happen : /

I think putting a limit on the after cap usage is the simple answer, no one will look down on a 30GB soft cap, quite impressive for SA. But there is the problem that new users will sign up just for that and push it to 30Gb every month, a lot of people don't even know about the softcap atm, but if they had to advertise it....

 

[Abe]

I don't understand your logic. Cell C currently has an offer that you can phone 120 free minutes a weekend. Why can they put a limit on their offer but an ISP cannot provide a limit "because people will use every last Meg". Are you an abuser when you use "every last Meg" but not an abuser when you phone up your 120 free minutes? Please enlighten me.

Because Telkom make sure that bandwidth prices are excessive in SA. So if iBurst say 10GB then they will probably have to charge around R850 to everyone so they can cover the 10GB cost.

 

[Abe]

So what is wrong with using every amount of usage limit they give you?

EDIT: and tbf the limit should be no less than what you can get at 64kbps after you have utilised your "normal" cap at full speed.

Because in order to cover 20GB of usage for everyone, iBurst would have to charge a whole lot more then the R470 they are currently charging. If everyone is using up 20GB of international, the price would be around R1600 per month.

 

[milomak]

Well until they can tell me that using 20GB+ is against their fair usage policy they cannot cry coming back to me.

 

[Vrotappel]

Because Telkom make sure that bandwidth prices are excessive in SA. So if iBurst say 10GB then they will probably have to charge around R850 to everyone so they can cover the 10GB cost.

iBurst don't pay by the GB. They also do know what the theoretical maximum is on their advertised offer.

I'm sure as hell not going to sell 1Lt coke's and hope the people buy the bottles that are only half full!

 

[Abe]

iBurst don't pay by the GB. They also do know what the theoretical maximum is on their advertised offer.

I'm sure as hell not going to sell 1Lt coke's and hope the people buy the bottles that are only half full!

What I am saying is that they can't advertise the maximum because then all customers will use up to the maximum. They make money because some people use more then others. It all evens itself out. It's the same way the Telkom can let people go to about 6-7GB on a 3GB account because they pool all of the users together and the ones that use less effectively subsidise the ones that use moe.

 

[Ekhaatvensters]

iBurst don't pay by the GB. They also do know what the theoretical maximum is on their advertised offer.

I'm sure as hell not going to sell 1Lt coke's and hope the people buy the bottles that are only half full!

This isn't the same thing, the point is that the 64kb service isn't their main product, they wouldn't bother with different cap limits if they expected people to just use the 64kb service after killing their cap as quickly as possible.

It would be stupid to call this abuse if it was a plain 64kb uncapped account like the smaller WISPs offer, but their 64kb service is meant to serve a different purpose.

 

[milomak]

EHV - where do they state that this 64kbps is meant to serve a different purpose?

 

[Ekhaatvensters]

Nowhere, directly, I thought that it was pretty obvious though. They never actually even advertised it at all. Their only mention of it looks like this:

"Pro packages - Users are throttled once cap is reached and will be able to top-up with Bandwidth Booster."

I'm saying it's obviously not intended to just be relied on for downloading 24/7 otherwise they wouldn't both with their caps and normal accounts.

Of course there is nothing saying you can't just buy a 1Gb account and do this, but if you thought they weren't going to be angered by it then I guess it's too bad. They need to just work something out and you can decide if iBurst is still worth it or not.

 

[milomak]

I'll counter you with the bit on this page: http://www.iburst.co.za/default.aspx?link=products_packages

No out-of-bundle charges when cap is reached on Pro packages.
Speeds are merely throttled.

I am well aware that any service provider will try means to manage their network when its general speed starts to decrease. However all I am saying is that they should expect me to throw up a fuss when they try and cut me off for usuage they have never before declared as being against their policy. If they don't say don't do this, then they should not hope I will not do x, y and z.

 

[milomak]

In fact it's like the TelkomInternet account on do3. It is advertised as a 3GB account but we have been told here by a Telkom representative they will allow you to do twice that at your line speed. If I found a way to do more than 6GB (say 10GB each month) and they phoned me to tell me I was abusing the service, I would be more understanding of their position given they have given guidelines.

 

[Ekhaatvensters]

Heh well most people do a lot more than twice their usage seeing as no one stops them, you wouldn't have to find a way.

I'm sure people would still be irritated (at least leave Telkom as an ISP for sure) if they started hard capping again or even just implemented the 2X cap rule with hard capping.