iBurst response to current ADSL pricing.

[r00igev@@r]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if your bandwidth monitor goes bananas after an upward or downward migration, then I'd say there is a major flaw in the design of the monitor or the guys who wrote that were not the sharpest pencils in the packet. Those figures that are emailed will only be seen as valid after a good six months of accurate reporting without a single flaw (that includes modems switched off not downloading).

The bandwidth monitor is correct. It is the bucket size that is an issue as it has changed.

 

[r00igev@@r]

Discrepancies? What discrepancies? I thought every byte was measured accurately. You have the proof of the discrepancies and you admit that they are there.

Regardless, I'm glad to see some CUSTOMERS (you know, people who put your kids through school and who put the food on your table) agree with my suggestions. Maybe if iBurst were interested in CUSTOMERS we wouldn't be migrating to other ISPs.

The bandwidth usage is always correct. Migrations causes an issue with the bucket size which changes.

 

[r00igev@@r]

How about this for a product line-up Iburst:
(Excluding modems)(shaped BW)

256k uncapped R400
512k uncapped R650
1024 uncapped R900

I am willing to bet this would be a damn site easier to manage as well, uncapped users don't call in to complain they were incorrectly billed, they don't go to the website to top up and you get a fixed revenue for a fixed service. You just make sure torrents and high volume websites like rapidshare are low on the shaping priority list. Simple...

Then all you do is make sure your cost base is well controlled instead of only looking for new sales(suckers) as this market has to be drying up.

Oh and to reduct your BW cost you may want to get an internal file share service running like a GOOD dc++ hub. That way your BW would be clogged with rapidshare etc users.

Will forward your suggested pricing to the product team.

 

[r00igev@@r]

+10000000000

You know Ronald, you should tell Jannie that if you guys fixed your products and actually started to give a **** about your customer base, then the business would do a 360 degrees for the better but we all know that this won't happen because you're trying to milk all of your contract members while they are tied in, for everything you can milk them for. However, you all know that once their contracts are up, they're gone..... Where is the logic?!

The logic is to provide long term contract holders a better deal than short term contract holders.

 

[AchmatK]

The logic is to provide long term contract holders a better deal than short term contract holders.

People are moving away from long term contracts. We are seeing this move with all ISP's. Surely this logic is completely flawed as a customer is important irrespective of if they sign a 24 month contract or buy the hardware and go on month to month. In fact, prepaid and month to month contract should be more important as there is less admin involved in terms of billing. Most companies are making more from prepaid services than contracts because of the less admin involved.

 

[Zodiak]

Ronald, your answer makes no sense at all....

 

[Mercury]

The bandwidth usage is always correct. Migrations causes an issue with the bucket size which changes.

Now I'm confused. How then do you respond to eltherza's example of the downloaded figure reducing from one day to the next (http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthr...L-pricing.&p=3746097&viewfull=1#post3746097)?

 

[Mercury]

The logic is to provide long term contract holders a better deal than short term contract holders.

You have an interesting balancing act to perform then, since short term contract holders are in the best position to move on if they don't get a decent deal.

 

[eltherza]

The bandwidth usage is always correct. Migrations causes an issue with the bucket size which changes.

In which case, I've been migrated 3 times in Feb. I keep a good track of my usage (so i can trend it and choose the best package for me) here are some issues I found in feb:

Feb 7th : Recorded no usage at all which is not possible.
Feb 17th : 300KB download only, which is not possible.
Feb 21st : Recored no usage at all, which again is not possible.

Of course, all of these went in my favour which is why it doesn't matter much. But really, there is (or was) a bug in the reporting system or someone at iBurst turns off tracking for a day or 2. Unless, those are the days I hit the cap and "throttled" usage isn't monitored or reported? Still doesnt explain how some days I went down in download usage though...

But, if you believe it's fine, and I get free days of usage, I don't mind at all

So I went and dug up some Jan values:
Day -Upload -Download -Total
11 -247.29 -1800.71 -2048
12 -262.93 -1785.07 -2048
13 -272.94 -1775.06 -2048
14 -287.59 -1760.41 -2048
15 -300.37 -1747.63 -2048
16 -319.69 -1728.31 -2048
17 -340.9 -1707.1 -2048
18 -340.9 -1707.1 -2048
19 -364.83 -1683.17 -2048

So what it seems to happen is:
If capped, then Downloaded = total bundle amount - uploaded amount

So that the total bundle amount is always at the cap.

Could be fun to upload more than 2GB when capped to reflect download usage as negative

 

[OoMk0o5i3]

The bandwidth monitor is correct. It is the bucket size that is an issue as it has changed.

Unless your bandwidth monitor is operated by a fish, there shouldn't be any buckets near your servers... </sarcasm>

How does the change in amount of data you are allocated change the amount of data you already downloaded?

 

[r00igev@@r]

In which case, I've been migrated 3 times in Feb. I keep a good track of my usage (so i can trend it and choose the best package for me) here are some issues I found in feb:

Feb 7th : Recorded no usage at all which is not possible.
Feb 17th : 300KB download only, which is not possible.
Feb 21st : Recored no usage at all, which again is not possible.

Of course, all of these went in my favour which is why it doesn't matter much. But really, there is (or was) a bug in the reporting system or someone at iBurst turns off tracking for a day or 2. Unless, those are the days I hit the cap and "throttled" usage isn't monitored or reported? Still doesnt explain how some days I went down in download usage though...

But, if you believe it's fine, and I get free days of usage, I don't mind at all

So I went and dug up some Jan values:
Day -Upload -Download -Total
11 -247.29 -1800.71 -2048
12 -262.93 -1785.07 -2048
13 -272.94 -1775.06 -2048
14 -287.59 -1760.41 -2048
15 -300.37 -1747.63 -2048
16 -319.69 -1728.31 -2048
17 -340.9 -1707.1 -2048
18 -340.9 -1707.1 -2048
19 -364.83 -1683.17 -2048

So what it seems to happen is:
If capped, then Downloaded = total bundle amount - uploaded amount

So that the total bundle amount is always at the cap.

Could be fun to upload more than 2GB when capped to reflect download usage as negative

Hmm, I'll speak to the techies as it seems that a shortcut was used to calculate the usage in the report without actually reading the downloaded value.

If you PM me your account details I'll provide feedback on what happened on the 7/17/21 Feb.