-
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?
Internet Solutions ADSL Capping Kicks In
- Thread starter rpm
- Start date
Moederloos
Honorary Master
I believe that IS is on their limit - hence the need for another IPC link and the stop gap mini-upgrade that took place last month.neio said:
Whether a hard cap is the answer is doubtful, there would still be vast amounts of capacity outside business hours. Then again, to introduce a "semi-hard-softish cap", allowing "capped" users X bw after hours, would be another laughable exercise.
ettubrute
Expert Member
Yes, that's exactly it!bwana v.9 said:
You signed an agreement to use 3GB, but you're using 10GB! In honest business terms, that means you abused their loopholes in the capping, by using 7GB you haven't paid for...
Lets take an analogy: Car rental. If you rent a car for 5 days with 200km/day for free, and applying your bandwidth logic to it, you would say: "What the heck! The car is not going to be used by anybody else in these five days, and thus has spare capacity, and therefore I will drive 500km a day!" And then, when handing the car back, you gonna complain when they charge you for the extra 300km/day you used? Remember, the car doesn't stop driving after 200km has been done per day...
Applying this same logic to bandwidth, you should pay for the extra 7GB you used! That's normal, honest business!
PS. All this being said, I'm not promoting that the current state of affairs with regard to bandwidth and internet is correct in this country! I hate teklom as much as you do, and maybe even more! But... I try to stay honest during the fight!
There's no loophole - they clearly state that after the guaranteed 3gb you then become subject to available shared bandwidth - even if you use an extra 20 gb it is at their discretion. Do you seriously not understand this?ettubrute said:
EDIT - sorry for straying off topic
Last edited:
ettubrute
Expert Member
If it is explicitly stated in your agreement, then you're not stealing...bwana v.9 said:There's no loophole - they clearly state that after the guaranteed 3gb you then become subject to available shared bandwidth - even if you use an extra 20 gb it is at their discretion. Do you seriously not understand this?
So, what they're telling you is that there is no more "available shared bandwidth". And, since it was free, they are completely correct to abolish the structure, and give you what you pay for! Do you seriously not understand this?
Moederloos
Honorary Master
[ducks flying buns and enters fray]
unless I am mistaken, the agreements tend to be of the nature "once you have used X GB, you will be moved to Y pool of users". Where Y would be soft caped or hard capped.
That would imply that the movement is done by them and need no intervention on your part.
[bye!]
unless I am mistaken, the agreements tend to be of the nature "once you have used X GB, you will be moved to Y pool of users". Where Y would be soft caped or hard capped.
That would imply that the movement is done by them and need no intervention on your part.
[bye!]
geoffr
Telecoms Expert
Unpacking the issues
The issues being raised here are stil symptoms of the real underlying issue that all ISPs are being forced, somewhere along the line, to buy facilities or services from Telkom - that is whether a small ISP is reselling SAIX accounts, or IS is purchasing IPC capacity from Telkom, the market is (rightly or wrongly) being controlled by Telkom.
Theoretically, IS can compete with Telkom in the provision of Internet access (in competition to SAIX) but in reality, Telkom price IPC and other inputs (like SAT3 access) at prices that make competition impossible. Given that Telkom is the only supplier of facilities, including IPC, SAT3 access etc, the only way to provide some competition at an Internet access level is to force Telkom to provide facilities inputs (IPC, SAT3 etc.) at cost-related prices. This issue is probably a matter for the competition commission, and is the subject of an ongoing dispute between IS and Telkom, as well as a further ADSL complaint recently lodged by ISPA with ICASA.
While the pain felt by consumers is very easy to perceive and understand, the legal basis, either within the framework of telecommunications law or competition law, is a very complex one to fight. Especially in the arena of competion law, there are few precedents in South Africa, and due to the complexity of the economic arguments involved, a body of case law still largely needs to be developed.
Until these issues can be addressed, competitors, like IS, are, at best struggling to contend with Telkom's abuse of its dominant market position.
The issues being raised here are stil symptoms of the real underlying issue that all ISPs are being forced, somewhere along the line, to buy facilities or services from Telkom - that is whether a small ISP is reselling SAIX accounts, or IS is purchasing IPC capacity from Telkom, the market is (rightly or wrongly) being controlled by Telkom.
Theoretically, IS can compete with Telkom in the provision of Internet access (in competition to SAIX) but in reality, Telkom price IPC and other inputs (like SAT3 access) at prices that make competition impossible. Given that Telkom is the only supplier of facilities, including IPC, SAT3 access etc, the only way to provide some competition at an Internet access level is to force Telkom to provide facilities inputs (IPC, SAT3 etc.) at cost-related prices. This issue is probably a matter for the competition commission, and is the subject of an ongoing dispute between IS and Telkom, as well as a further ADSL complaint recently lodged by ISPA with ICASA.
While the pain felt by consumers is very easy to perceive and understand, the legal basis, either within the framework of telecommunications law or competition law, is a very complex one to fight. Especially in the arena of competion law, there are few precedents in South Africa, and due to the complexity of the economic arguments involved, a body of case law still largely needs to be developed.
Until these issues can be addressed, competitors, like IS, are, at best struggling to contend with Telkom's abuse of its dominant market position.
Not at all - my 3gb example was clearly aimed at telkomInternet which is why I apologized for straying off the topic. TelkomInternet and IS use two separate models and while I think its a pity they've now chosen to implement the hardcap I do realize its their prerogative to do so.ettubrute said:So, what they're telling you is that there is no more "available shared bandwidth". And, since it was free, they are completely correct to abolish the structure, and give you what you pay for! Do you seriously not understand this?
Then again that illustrates my point - the agreement is between the ISP and the customer and not necessitate some nosey third party passing judgement on what the account holder choses to do with it.
tibby.dude said:
You presume too much. You are not my moral compass. If I want to scoff Hollywood rubbish I will.
Are you aware of IPTV? Do you also believe all the people who want IPTV are also pigs? How about HDTV? Are you a pig for wanting those extra pixels? High end users are simply the precursor, the pioneers of new technology. You should thank them, since without them constantly pushing for faster and better services the chances are you would not have faster or better services.
tibby.dude said:
Simply because this is a growing trend does not mean it is correct. My feeling is that the only reason caps are happening elsewhere in the world is because broadband has become a mass consumer product. Previously the only people who were subscribing to broadband offerings were tech savvy people who would balk at a capped service. Now days the majority of the consumers wouldn’t even know what capped means, thus providers can get away with offering substandard products.
I also question your ability to judge what is “clearly reasonable”; as it is obvious from your emotive choice of words you have bias and oddly believe content somehow has baring on capacity.
tibby.dude said:
I agree, when I signed up for Telkom ADSL I had 3G international and unlimited local traffic. Suddenly unlimited local was removed, without justification. Now we have the bizarre situation where people seem to have forgotten what we had previously and think of unlimited local usage as abuse.
It is unfortunate that IS had to start capping, but not unexpected. All roads lead back to Telkom and until that problem is solved you can be sure the future will only hold more unpleasant things. It is futile to vent and blame your frustrations on users you think use too much – they are not and never will be the reason why broadband here is pathetic.
ettubrute said:
Your whole argument pivots on people getting what they pay for, yet the sad truth is I pay vastly more than what I should. There is only one thief, and it is not me.
Perhaps if you replace the word "pay" with "extort" or "blackmail" you will begin to see that the criminal is not who you think it is.
ettubrute said:
steal - v.tr.
To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
Like bwana v.9 said, after you have reached your 'cap', you become available to shared bandwidth. There is no clause stating that using more than 3GB is against the law. As far as I am concerned, as long as data is coming down my phone line, I have the right to utilise the internet. The moment I commit unlawful acts to acquire extra bandwidth, then yeah sure I'm stealing. I'm not going to set an alarm clock on my pc that goes nuts and shuts my PC down the moment I downloaded the last bit of my 3GB alloted bandwidth.
While I can appreciate your point of view on this subject and your quest for honesty, you can't convince me that I am 'stealing' bandwidth.
ettubrute
Expert Member
Nope, they did not! The agreed upon price was R65 per gig...sludge said:You're missing something here. @R65 per gig for 3GB's, people who uses, say 10GB, probably already paid for their 10GB's
Again, I'm not saying that price is fair! Why do you think I'm still on dial-up? Because I refuse to pay exhorbitant prices! Same with my car... I would love to drive a big 4x4, but am not willing to pay the exhorbitant price, and are thus driving a little Diahatsu... If more people would think and act like me, I think the suppliers would catch a wake-up, and start lowering their prices, or sit with stock everybody wants, but refuses to buy!
And that is the bad link in this all!geoffr said:
Again, we're in agreement!bwana said:
Moederloos
Honorary Master
aquadog said:
Agreed. It would be like going to a restaurant, ordering a 250g steak, and then weighing it when it arrives. If it weighs too much, cut of the excess and send it back...
ettubrute
Expert Member
No, Moederloos, that's a false analogy! What's happening is, the restaurant normally gave you a little extra, but, due to supply problems, they now weigh the steak more accurately, and give you exactly 250 grams... Are you now gonna complain that you miss the extra grams?
However, if they give you less, please complain!
However, if they give you less, please complain!
belowalthough
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 22, 2005
- Messages
- 380
- Reaction score
- 0
This is ****
I think that this is all Bull ****. ISP do not pay for local bandwith on INT. it is costing them nothing.
So why cannot they be link the rest of the world. ADSL2+ is in the rest of the world so why cannot they give us some freedom on the local bandwith.
This is my views
I think that this is all Bull ****. ISP do not pay for local bandwith on INT. it is costing them nothing.
So why cannot they be link the rest of the world. ADSL2+ is in the rest of the world so why cannot they give us some freedom on the local bandwith.
This is my views
ettubrute said:No, Moederloos, that's a false analogy! What's happening is, the restaurant normally gave you a little extra, but, due to supply problems, they now weigh the steak more accurately, and give you exactly 250 grams... Are you now gonna complain that you miss the extra grams?
However, if they give you less, please complain!
Moederloos is correct. According to you, if you get a 3GB account and use more than 3GB, then you are stealing.
How is this different to going to a restaurant, ordering a 250g steak and getting a 260g one. Is that stealing too?
ettubrute
Expert Member
Nope, that's generosity!
You don't sign an agreement with the restaurant for 250 grams...
And you're not taking 260 grams, but you receive it without asking! Makes for a big difference...
You don't sign an agreement with the restaurant for 250 grams...
And you're not taking 260 grams, but you receive it without asking! Makes for a big difference...