Internet Solutions Acceptable Usage Policy

[ponder]

They really need to jack up the education system in this country, they are breeding corporate whores from what I have seen.

 

[rippedoff]

Just dont reply to each other posts, problem solved, no matter what, dont reply, and then every thread doesnt have an extended argument throughout

 

[Alestorm]

Oh for Pete's sake... only with uncapped products. An uncapped product cannot by definition have an amount attached to it, otherwise it would not be uncapped. Seriously, did you ever do any math in your lifetime?

CAPPED PRODUCTS HAVE A SPECIFIED AMOUNT.
UNCAPPED PRODUCTS HAVE NO SPECIFIED AMOUNT.

Clear enough for you? You want it in another language?

Well I think everyone can appreciate and accept this bit of knowledge, but it's not all that important to us. There are going to be limitations imposed in some form seeing as they can't allow everyone to download 24/7 and still make money, right? So we need to know what they plan to do about this problem, their wording isn't relevant here, the actions are. The IS AUP inspires no real confidence, so I don't see why you punt them as true broadband when IS themselves don't seem to agree. It could well still swing either way like you've said, but you seem interested in protecting the name of uncapped, which is fine. Just not what I'm most worried about, at all.

 

[howardb]

Well, I'm taking the stance that if the "package" I buy monthly is an "uncapped" package, then there are no limits. Mine will be for business use, so if I use 10GB's or 10TB's per month, I'm paying for "uncapped", so there should be no issue. Until they stipulate that my "Acceptable Use" is 100GB's per month, I will continue to use what my business requires - if they do state that 100GB's is the limit, then I'll challenge them on the "uncapped" wording... I'm sorry, but we've been ripped off for too long in this country, and the ISP's need to learn that they cannot have their cake and eat it!

 

[ponder]

Well, I'm taking the stance that if the "package" I buy monthly is an "uncapped" package, then there are no limits. Mine will be for business use, so if I use 10GB's or 10TB's per month, I'm paying for "uncapped", so there should be no issue. Until they stipulate that my "Acceptable Use" is 100GB's per month, I will continue to use what my business requires - if they do state that 100GB's is the limit, then I'll challenge them on the "uncapped" wording... I'm sorry, but we've been ripped off for too long in this country, and the ISP's need to learn that they cannot have their cake and eat it!

I salute you!

 

[PeterCH]

There is no figure specified, because this is a true uncapped product. As we have been saying all along. They don't specify a figure because they don't intend cutting anyone off. It's uncapped remember. Nobody gets capped.

How can you say that?

IS reserves the right, to take necessary steps, to prevent improper or excessive usage. This action includes, but is not limited to:
- limiting throughput;
- preventing or limiting service through specific ports or communication protocols; and/or
- a complete termination of service to customers with improper or excessive usage.
This policy applies to and will be enforced for intended and unintended prohibited usage (e.g., viruses, worms, generating of spam, malicious code or otherwise unknown causes).

 

[LazyLion]

How can you say that?

You didn't read the two ASA links I posted did you?

http://www.asasa.org.za/ResultDetail.aspx?Ruling=3915
http://www.asasa.org.za/ResultDetail.aspx?Ruling=3957

The ISPs are allowed to throttle you and slow you down... but the one thing they cannot do is cut you off. Then it is no longer an uncapped service.
I am of the opinion based on previous first hand experience that IS will NOT cut you off. But I stand to be corrected. We will see what happens with them soon.
Afrihost on the other hand put their cap into Numerical terms... even if it was 200 or "hundreds of gigs" it is still a quantifiable term (max. 1000 gigabytes). Which amounts to a cap.
And using a quantifiable term when talking about an uncapped product is a no no. The ASA has already clearly ruled on that.
Mweb did not use a quantifiable number, so they appear to be safe, but based on previous experience, I think they WILL cut you off.
Any limit or cut-off on the uncapped products is a no no.
Here are the relevant portions...

# The service offered by Open Web does not, in fact, have a “cap” on the volume of traffic a customer may transmit or receive, but there is a limitation imposed on the speed of the users connection once a certain traffic threshold is reached.

# Given the general understanding in the market of the terms “capped” and “uncapped”, it is reasonable for Open Web to market this service as “uncapped”.

The respondent submitted that it is not selling “unlimited” ADSL accounts, but “uncapped” ADSL accounts. Because the user will always have an Internet connection, irrelevant of bandwidth usage, the package remains uncapped. Users who download more than their allocated amount of data are restricted in terms of access speed, but will still have Internet access.

This is distinctly different from models where a user is blocked entirely from accessing Internet content once a specific amount of traffic has been transmitted. According to ISPA, this sort of service is usually referred as a “capped” service. The model used by Open Web does not seem to match the generally understood meaning of a "capped" service, as the flow of information is never stopped. At worst, it is hampered when thresholds are reached, a fact that is clearly communicated to the consumer.

Based on the above the Directorate is of the opinion that the advertisement is not misleading

The complainants are of the opinion that the advertisement is misleading as the word “uncapped” implies limitless Internet access. However, the respondent disconnects a user if his/her data limits have been reached.

The respondent submitted that that its service is uncapped as every customer that conforms to the Fair User Policy will potentially have continuous uninterrupted data transfer with no set data cap or bandwidth cap.

From the above it becomes apparent that a hypothetical reasonable person confronted with a claim such as “uncapped”, would expect never to have his connection terminated. Practices such as reducing (throttling) connection speed are often used as an alternative to capping.

“If, based on your chosen package, your usage in a particular month becomes excessive to the point that it will impact negatively on other users, we reserve the right to ask you to reduce the amount of data you are downloading to a minimum until the beginning of the next month. If you still need to continue with heavy downloading for the rest of the month you are welcome to purchase extra GBs of data for the purpose, or you could upgrade your package to one which is better suited to your usage requirements. Only if you ignore our reasonable request to drastically reduce your usage do we reserve the right to disable your account for the remainder of the month. Should you continuously ignore our reasonable requests to be fair in your usage of your SAIX uncapped account we reserve the right to ask you to find an alternative broadband provider” (respondent’s emphasis).

The respondent therefore monitors usage and it appears that a user is in danger of being blocked entirely from accessing Internet content once a specific amount of traffic has been transmitted. It therefore appears that there are limitations attached to usage. Such a service with limitation is usually referred as a “capped” service, as the flow of information is stopped if the user does not heed a warning to reduce usage, or if certain limits are reached.

While the Directorate accepts that the respondent may have sound business reasons for doing so, the fact remains that the product is monitored and “capped” at some point.

Based on the above the Directorate is of the opinion that the advertisement is misleading, as it appears ex facie that the service is not “uncapped” as claimed and understood by the hypothetical reasonable person.

Given the above finding:

* The claim “uncapped” must be withdrawn;

* The claim may not be used again in its current format unless the respondent provides an uncapped service.

 

[Gatecrasher]

On the basis of those rulings, a product with a policy of "a complete termination of service to customers with improper or excessive usage." would be considered a "capped" product by the ASA. So, Afrihost and IS are in the very same boat. Neither are ASA-uncapped.

 

[LazyLion]

On the basis of those rulings, a product with a policy of "a complete termination of service to customers with improper or excessive usage." would be considered a "capped" product by the ASA. So, Afrihost and IS are in the very same boat. Neither are ASA-uncapped.

Yes, I admit you are correct. They would probably both fail the test. I stand corrected on that. But as I said, First hand experience on both sides has shown me that IS will not disconnect you while Mweb is very likely to disconnect you. I am not sure what Afrihost will do. The best we can do now is to wait and see what happens or to see if someone submits a complaint to the ASA.

There are two caveats though. The two cases cited are nearly three years old.
The ISPA may now suggest to the ASA that it has become common practice in the industry to use a FUP or AUP.
Or the ASA may now rule that it has become common practice in the industry to cut excessive users off.
In that case they may overturn their previous ruling and find that a FUP/AUP is now accepted practice.
I doubt it though. And thus it should be.

 

[ppedrick]

Not that I am playing devil's advocate but I am in the process of getting a line myself... I am asking IS these very questions and am intending to try them out to see just how much I can download before they get upset with me. As long as it doesn't take too long to get it set up as I'm currently on a WiMax connection to the office, then I can let you know how it goes... I'm very keen to know the confines of the products we sell.
P.