-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: How do you normally pay for purchases in stores?
Idiotic Free Bandwidth Campaign a SCAM!
- Thread starter henkk78
- Start date
Jonny Two Shoes
Expert Member
Forgive me if Im being stubborn but then why count local traffic at all?? Why not just have a default uncapped local account when you order DSL and then if you order your International afterwards it can count towards what you paid.
If someone can give me a local only account whereby I can only access local sites then sure as bloody hell they can monitor one or the other is it not?? Otherwise I would be gaining access to International sites unknowingly. If they can implement that they can seperate the two Im sure of it.
Nope something still seems wrong to me.
Actually, I think you can get local only accounts. Check out OpenWeb
jetpacman
Senior Member
I forgot that I posted here the other day.
Henk you are bordering on paranoia or is this a subtle publicity stunt. I wasnt trying to discredit you, just make a statement. The FBC might seem stupid to you but why are you so passionately against it.
I am prepared to suffer for a few minutes if it does slow traffic down. Its something that Telkom needs thrown in their face. We might all end up with a lot of latency during the period but maybe it will get big business and government to actually take note and make Telkom look stupid to even more people.
Surely as a person who is trying to make inroads into "sharing" of bandwidth, you will understand this. But perhaps I should make the following an "accusation" this time:
Skyrove is supposed to be helping people to not need a Telkom ADSL line by allowing people to sell off their bandwidth to others. Correct?
A brilliant idea. I had a friend who wanted to setup a hotspot by his flat in Newlands, so he could sell off bandwidth to his neighbours in the same block for fee. He ended up doing it in a convoluted way which was both difficult and prone to abuse. If he was still living in the country Skyrove would have been ideal for him since he wanted to break even on his costs and the neighbours didnt want to shell out for a line etc. They could only afford between R100 and R200 max per month.
That is a true story that highlights the fact that as long as bandwidth costs money and connection costs are so high people will want to find ways to share costs.
Lets say bandwidth became free and unlimited and all you did was pay a fixed amount everymonth. Lets say R200 per month for the line and R100 for an uncapped account. Then you might still want to share with your neighbours to save costs. Now you could all split the costs evenly without having to charge for bandwidth on a traffic basis. I mean who in there right mind would pay access per meg from you if there was uncapped... So if bandwidth did become free then why set up a billing system.
I have outlined the idea very roughly but my logic is that billing for bandwidth you share only really makes sense because you are paying for that traffic.
Now if bandwidth was free then my friend wouldnt have needed something like Skyrove. He would just employ securtiy mechanisms on his AP and then everybody would pool the cash at month end.
Now if FBC succeeded and we all get Telkom to give us free bandwidth, it may severly impact the business model of something like Skyrove. Which would explain why Henk is so upset even if he doesnt realise it yet
I have nothing against Skyrove but I am just outlining the facts. Dont worry though Henk, I reckon (and I could be wrong) that its going to be a while before bandwidth becomes free here.
Henk you are bordering on paranoia or is this a subtle publicity stunt. I wasnt trying to discredit you, just make a statement. The FBC might seem stupid to you but why are you so passionately against it.
I am prepared to suffer for a few minutes if it does slow traffic down. Its something that Telkom needs thrown in their face. We might all end up with a lot of latency during the period but maybe it will get big business and government to actually take note and make Telkom look stupid to even more people.
Surely as a person who is trying to make inroads into "sharing" of bandwidth, you will understand this. But perhaps I should make the following an "accusation" this time:
Skyrove is supposed to be helping people to not need a Telkom ADSL line by allowing people to sell off their bandwidth to others. Correct?
A brilliant idea. I had a friend who wanted to setup a hotspot by his flat in Newlands, so he could sell off bandwidth to his neighbours in the same block for fee. He ended up doing it in a convoluted way which was both difficult and prone to abuse. If he was still living in the country Skyrove would have been ideal for him since he wanted to break even on his costs and the neighbours didnt want to shell out for a line etc. They could only afford between R100 and R200 max per month.
That is a true story that highlights the fact that as long as bandwidth costs money and connection costs are so high people will want to find ways to share costs.
Lets say bandwidth became free and unlimited and all you did was pay a fixed amount everymonth. Lets say R200 per month for the line and R100 for an uncapped account. Then you might still want to share with your neighbours to save costs. Now you could all split the costs evenly without having to charge for bandwidth on a traffic basis. I mean who in there right mind would pay access per meg from you if there was uncapped... So if bandwidth did become free then why set up a billing system.
I have outlined the idea very roughly but my logic is that billing for bandwidth you share only really makes sense because you are paying for that traffic.
Now if bandwidth was free then my friend wouldnt have needed something like Skyrove. He would just employ securtiy mechanisms on his AP and then everybody would pool the cash at month end.
Now if FBC succeeded and we all get Telkom to give us free bandwidth, it may severly impact the business model of something like Skyrove. Which would explain why Henk is so upset even if he doesnt realise it yet
I have nothing against Skyrove but I am just outlining the facts. Dont worry though Henk, I reckon (and I could be wrong) that its going to be a while before bandwidth becomes free here.
feo
Honorary Master
I seriously hope that last line is wrong, we need to push for this to happen ASAP and even if henk is against it, it's not gonna stop the rest of us participating.
I forgot that I posted here the other day.
Henk you are bordering on paranoia or is this a subtle publicity stunt. I wasnt trying to discredit you, just make a statement. The FBC might seem stupid to you but why are you so passionately against it.
I am prepared to suffer for a few minutes if it does slow traffic down. Its something that Telkom needs thrown in their face. We might all end up with a lot of latency during the period but maybe it will get big business and government to actually take note and make Telkom look stupid to even more people.
Surely as a person who is trying to make inroads into "sharing" of bandwidth, you will understand this. But perhaps I should make the following an "accusation" this time:
Skyrove is supposed to be helping people to not need a Telkom ADSL line by allowing people to sell off their bandwidth to others. Correct?
A brilliant idea. I had a friend who wanted to setup a hotspot by his flat in Newlands, so he could sell off bandwidth to his neighbours in the same block for fee. He ended up doing it in a convoluted way which was both difficult and prone to abuse. If he was still living in the country Skyrove would have been ideal for him since he wanted to break even on his costs and the neighbours didnt want to shell out for a line etc. They could only afford between R100 and R200 max per month.
That is a true story that highlights the fact that as long as bandwidth costs money and connection costs are so high people will want to find ways to share costs.
Lets say bandwidth became free and unlimited and all you did was pay a fixed amount everymonth. Lets say R200 per month for the line and R100 for an uncapped account. Then you might still want to share with your neighbours to save costs. Now you could all split the costs evenly without having to charge for bandwidth on a traffic basis. I mean who in there right mind would pay access per meg from you if there was uncapped... So if bandwidth did become free then why set up a billing system.
I have outlined the idea very roughly but my logic is that billing for bandwidth you share only really makes sense because you are paying for that traffic.
Now if bandwidth was free then my friend wouldnt have needed something like Skyrove. He would just employ securtiy mechanisms on his AP and then everybody would pool the cash at month end.
Now if FBC succeeded and we all get Telkom to give us free bandwidth, it may severly impact the business model of something like Skyrove. Which would explain why Henk is so upset even if he doesnt realise it yet
I have nothing against Skyrove but I am just outlining the facts. Dont worry though Henk, I reckon (and I could be wrong) that its going to be a while before bandwidth becomes free here.
First of all, I don't hide my name or my company's in any obvious way on MyADSL and I like to debate issues in order to move things forward. (One of the ways I did that was by engaging fbc directly and to start discussing ways to effect change without affecting SA businesses.)
That being said:
Free local bandwidth is in no way a threat to our business model. We provide a value added prepaid service. VERY few of our customers are currently neighbours sharing bandwidth with each other. Most of them are short-term and medium-term visitors to South Africa who are willing to pay for a premium service.
Of course, you are right on one thing, IF bandwidth became free for everyone, Skyrove's short-term business model probably would be under threat. But no more than any ISP's. There are so many scenarios and counter-scenarios to this in any case and new business models that will spring up.
Germany has just released new bandwidth packages. 16Mbps uncapped for 50 Euros PLUS all national phone calls are free. (This is the more expensive business package) I do believe we will see similar offerings locally in due time, and that it will be a massive boost to the SA internet economy.
But back to the topic at hand: Downloading loads of bandwidth on 30 June to (pro)test Telkom's non-responsiveness on local bandwidth is NOT going to make Telkom care more or do something about it.
It IS going to harm SA businesses. And Yes, here is the one place where I WILL admit a personal interest in the matter as potentially our server could be hit. Our server is not as much a content server, as an e-commerce server and we will suffer financially, just as many others.
Once again, you could argue that we are only suffering in the short-term, and that in the long term we will get cheaper bandwidth.
And once-again, there is no basis whatsoever, logical or historical, that shows that downloading a bunch of data on a certain day will have any effect on Telkom's operations.
Please feel free to debate this on the virtue of the argument, but I respectfully ask you not to accuse me of 'ulterior motives' when my argument is really simple and straightforward (that being: downloading loads of data on 30 June will have no effect on Telkom's operations)
http://www.bruandboegie.co.za/index.php?date=2007-06-04
Last edited:
AntiThesis
Executive Member
Well it's an interesting idea certainly but I don't think Henkk is involved personally here. I think he's just someone who feels very strongly about this whole topic.
And once-again, there is no basis whatsoever, logical or historical, that shows that downloading a bunch of data on a certain day will NOT have any effect on Telkom's operations.
Sorry, I enjoy my fair share of sweeping statements as well.
Henkk, despite your claim to the contrary, you still haven't substantiated the patently false claims that you made earlier about the nature of the (and I stress this bit) possible FBC application. Comics containing those same logical falsehoods just won't cut it
We've all provided arguments, logical standpoints etc. I'm most likely done with the discussion because I recognize a die-hard when I see one. I'm guessing that if we gave you a hand written note, authored by the creator of the universe him/her/itself stating that FBC was a good idea your next sentence would start with "Yes but..."
Believe what you will and I'll believe what I do. I may turn out to be wrong but if I'm right I'm set to gain much more than you will. Hopefully you wish for this to be true at least. Not that it makes much difference I suppose as I assume you won't be taking benefit of the uncapped local access (should it come to pass) due to your standpoint.
And to answer a question, no I don't hate Henkk
Seriously.
And once-again, there is no basis whatsoever, logical or historical, that shows that downloading a bunch of data on a certain day will NOT have any effect on Telkom's operations.
Sorry, I enjoy my fair share of sweeping statements as well.
Henkk, despite your claim to the contrary, you still haven't substantiated the patently false claims that you made earlier about the nature of the (and I stress this bit) possible FBC application. Comics containing those same logical falsehoods just won't cut it
We've all provided arguments, logical standpoints etc. I'm most likely done with the discussion because I recognize a die-hard when I see one. I'm guessing that if we gave you a hand written note, authored by the creator of the universe him/her/itself stating that FBC was a good idea your next sentence would start with "Yes but..."
Believe what you will and I'll believe what I do. I may turn out to be wrong but if I'm right I'm set to gain much more than you will. Hopefully you wish for this to be true at least. Not that it makes much difference I suppose as I assume you won't be taking benefit of the uncapped local access (should it come to pass) due to your standpoint.
And to answer a question, no I don't hate Henkk
Seriously.jetpacman
Senior Member
Good response Henk, but ultimately its too bad. Tough titties. I will be hit by this as well but you dont see me complaining. Perhaps if big businesses suffer they will see the bandwidth issue as a threat and take it up in arms instead of being so complacent .
OMG there are so many egotistical "I am right" people on this forum, yes we all can be like that but some people take it too far and don't seem to realise when they are out numbered.
As for the cartoon, there is nothing funny about it at all except for the ignorance of the author
OMG there are so many egotistical "I am right" people on this forum, yes we all can be like that but some people take it too far and don't seem to realise when they are out numbered.
As for the cartoon, there is nothing funny about it at all except for the ignorance of the author
Roman4604
Executive Member
You wouldnt, but you'd still need the logic to know that you shouldnt (for any particular traffic flow).
Of course this type of solution would be easy peasy, two seperate accounts (authentication entities) would nicely segregate traffic and accounting. However the average person doesnt have the savvy for the half-bridge RouteSentry type setups. So you need to do it on single account where theirs no clear distiction between local & intl except within the traffic flows themselves.
Jonny Two Shoes
Expert Member
@ Roman4604 and henkk78 I don't think I make myself understood.
Simply what Im trying to get at is the fact that you can get a local only account can you not?? Therefore some sort of segregation is taking place is it not?? Therefore I don't buy the story that they say they cannot seperate local from International, they seem to do it pretty well by restricting access on local only accounts don't they?? see?
If they can restrict it then they can measure it!!
Simply what Im trying to get at is the fact that you can get a local only account can you not?? Therefore some sort of segregation is taking place is it not?? Therefore I don't buy the story that they say they cannot seperate local from International, they seem to do it pretty well by restricting access on local only accounts don't they?? see?
If they can restrict it then they can measure it!!
Of course they can - they're routing the traffic. They also control the SAT landing station and believing that they couldnt account for every byte going through there would be silly.@ Roman4604 and henkk78 I don't think I make myself understood.
Simply what Im trying to get at is the fact that you can get a local only account can you not?? Therefore some sort of segregation is taking place is it not?? Therefore I don't buy the story that they say they cannot seperate local from International, they seem to do it pretty well by restricting access on local only accounts don't they?? see?
If they can restrict it then they can measure it!!
Ekhaatvensters
Executive Member
On a single account they would know what is local and what is international, so they simply don't add any local usage to the cap calculations.
Roman4604
Executive Member
@J2S & Bwana
Look guys, we're going around in circles here. I've never said Telkom couldnt do it, just that the complexity is much greater than that required for the current accounting regime.
A completely different method/technology for performing traffic accounting is need for Telkom to comply with point 3.4 of the new ADSL regulations (local traffic not counted towards the cap) . This requires them to redesign core parts of their network which if not properly planned & tested could lead to catastrophic failures on their network backbone.
In essence this is Telkom's reason for delaying implementation of 3.4 to Nov 2007.
Look guys, we're going around in circles here. I've never said Telkom couldnt do it, just that the complexity is much greater than that required for the current accounting regime.
A completely different method/technology for performing traffic accounting is need for Telkom to comply with point 3.4 of the new ADSL regulations (local traffic not counted towards the cap) . This requires them to redesign core parts of their network which if not properly planned & tested could lead to catastrophic failures on their network backbone.
In essence this is Telkom's reason for delaying implementation of 3.4 to Nov 2007.
Do you have anything official about this? A press release or something on a letterhead? Has Telkom filed anything with ICASA about an extension for not complying to 3.4?
I guess I'm just having a very hard time buying that Telkom can't do it right now. Why can IS sortof do it and Telkom does not even attempt to? Telkom wholesales local ADSL bandwidth so it would just make sense for them to delay 3.4 for as long as possible.
Roman4604
Executive Member
Not so easy. The basic dilemma is this ...
At the point of the network where traffic is isolated for each particular account (virtual access port) the is no comprehension of what local or intl is.
At the point of the network where traffic is already segregated into local only there is no comprehension of which traffic belongs to which account.
Of course its doable, but it requires some network redesign and a quite different traffic accounting mechanism.
Roman4604
Executive Member
Nothing official, but senior Telkom execs have mentioned it in various places.
Here's a nice coincidence ... it's mentioned in an article about you ... http://www.itweb.co.za/sections/telecoms/2007/0706011038.asp?A=BRO&S=Broadband&T=Section&O=FPSH
Thats because you dont have a clue about networking technology.
Sortof doesnt count, what's asked for in 3.4 of the ADSL regs is quite specific.
Roman, the ITWeb article quotes RPM about the November thing. RPM is a great guy and he might be privvy to information but there was no Telkom exec that was quoted in that article about November. You might have just misread it. Thanks for clarifying that there is nothing official from Telkom about a commitment about 3.4.
The article also states that the regulation has gone into effect in April 2006. So, there has been more than a year to either to seek an extension or implement the regulation. None has been done.
The article also quotes ICASA as not yet received any complaints regarding 3.4. Some complaints to ICASA about 3.4 have been posted in the forums here before. Can someone explain how the complaints procedure works with ICASA? Does one get a reference number or a case number? How can one follow up a complaint and what is the time frame one can expect a complaint to be handled?
The article says that Telkom argues that it is unfair for consumers to target it directly. What is really unfair is that you and I have to be law abiding citizens and Telkom gets away with breaking the law.
The article also states that the regulation has gone into effect in April 2006. So, there has been more than a year to either to seek an extension or implement the regulation. None has been done.
The article also quotes ICASA as not yet received any complaints regarding 3.4. Some complaints to ICASA about 3.4 have been posted in the forums here before. Can someone explain how the complaints procedure works with ICASA? Does one get a reference number or a case number? How can one follow up a complaint and what is the time frame one can expect a complaint to be handled?
The article says that Telkom argues that it is unfair for consumers to target it directly. What is really unfair is that you and I have to be law abiding citizens and Telkom gets away with breaking the law.
Of course it would require some redesign but we're already 9 months into the regulations and they're stalling for even more and they're getting away with it.
Hi fbc, why not support my complaint and get as many people as possible to mail ICASA
See the link here
http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?t=76906
I have been at this with ICASA for a while now (nearly 4 months and lots of mail). All the other info you need is on the ICASA web site re COMPLAINTS HANDLING PROCEDURES.doc. You actualy need to lodge a complaint with the ISP etc first and if they cant help you then you apply to ICASA...
It seems like unnessesary duplication of effort and the comunity need to stand together on this point and be loud.
People talking about the technical byte counting are missing the point, we dont care if they can or cant, dont bill till you can.
See the link here
http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?t=76906
I have been at this with ICASA for a while now (nearly 4 months and lots of mail). All the other info you need is on the ICASA web site re COMPLAINTS HANDLING PROCEDURES.doc. You actualy need to lodge a complaint with the ISP etc first and if they cant help you then you apply to ICASA...
It seems like unnessesary duplication of effort and the comunity need to stand together on this point and be loud.
People talking about the technical byte counting are missing the point, we dont care if they can or cant, dont bill till you can.
Roman4604
Executive Member
I didn't say there was a quote in the article, just that their intentions were mentioned (to RPM).
Ask Tommygun ... http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?t=75471
Look nobody is saying Telkom are darlings. They are breaking the law and it about time they were bought to book, however this wont be achieved with a campaign like yours.
I understand your intentions are noble, but Telkom are big, smart & powerful and if you to make any dent on them you must have done your homework properly (legal, regulatory & technical) and have a solid case with genuine substance that can stand up to scrutiny by all concerned.