Is uncapped broadband really uncapped?

Mathematics: the tool of the oppressor

There's this thing called mathematics. If your actual download speed is 1 Mbps, and your month has 2592000 seconds then you can only download 324 Gb during that month. This is a travesty and a grave injustice. Someone should take action against the mathematics people and make them fix this.
 
Last edited:
So since Telkom is blatantly using false advertising with their "unlimited" offering, which does not even align with the ASA definitions, is anything going to be done about them?
 
Last edited by cfilorux; 23-10-2014 at 07:09 AM. Reason: Or is it 302Gb? What's a GB anyway?
Good question - from wikipedia:

Definitions

The megabyte is commonly used to measure either 10002 bytes or 10242 bytes. The interpretation of using base 1024 originated as a compromise technical jargon for the byte multiples that needed to be expressed by the powers of 2 but lacked a convenient name. As 1024 (210) approximates 1000 (103), roughly corresponding to the SI prefix kilo-, it began to be used for binary multiples as well. In 1998 the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) proposed standards for binary prefixes requiring the use of megabyte to strictly denote 10002 bytes and mebibyte to denote 10242 bytes. By the end of 2009, the IEC Standard had been adopted by the IEEE, EU, ISO and NIST. Nevertheless, the term megabyte continues to be widely used with different meanings:

:confused: - :D
 
So since Telkom is blatantly using false advertising with their "unlimited" offering, which does not even align with the ASA definitions, is anything going to be done about them?
You can bet your bottom dollar that if there was an opportunity to nail Telkom, then VC, MTN, Cell C, Neotel, et al, would be at ASA's door.
 
You can bet your bottom dollar that if there was an opportunity to nail Telkom, then VC, MTN, Cell C, Neotel, et al, would be at ASA's door.

So is it in the pipeline or do they think their chances are too low for winning since Telkom is not hiding the FUP? Even with the FUP stated it is still blatantly false :(
 
I have seen that ruling, and I accept that uncapped is not open to download as much as you want. However, Telkom have now used unlimited in its latest two offerings. This is distinctly different from uncapped, although their products are actually just uncapped.

From that ruling:
Uncapped cannot mean "unlimited access”

The Directorate does not share this view, and believes that "uncapped” and "unlimited” are not synonymous. It is also worth noting that there is no reference to "unlimited” on the relevant portion of the respondent’s website.

I had aquick look on their website, and this is how they advertise the unlimited plan:
telkom unlimited.jpg

See the small print at the bottom? Only mentions T&C's. Couldn't fins any reference to FUP. Also couldn't find it in the data contract section, or mentioned anywhere.
 
The ASA should force ISP's to disclose the throttle rules eg. "at 120GB your 4Mbps will drop to 0.4Mbps and our contention ratio is 30:1"

This would allow for a more competitive and transparent ISP landscape.

It is difficult for customers to compare and choose a suitable package.

I agree. All I have ever asked for (from the ISPs) are the rules governing the throttling / shaping / slowing of my throughput, expressed in such a way as to make it easy for me to stay within the rules.

Fat chance :(
 
Mweb didn't free the web... they broke it.
They stuffed up the whole uncapped market for everybody.
 
Mweb didn't free the web... they broke it.
They stuffed up the whole uncapped market for everybody.

Not sure it's fair to blame Mweb. While they did launch that first affordable uncapped product, they didn't start the price war.
 
Not sure it's fair to blame Mweb. While they did launch that first affordable uncapped product, they didn't start the price war.
So who do we blame?

It's easy to say Telkom but are they solely to blame?

I don't think so... I blame ALL the network operators for not ploughing more of their profits back into our networks in order to provision more bandwidth.
 
So who do we blame?

It's easy to say Telkom but are they solely to blame?

I don't think so... I blame ALL the network operators for not ploughing more of their profits back into our networks in order to provision more bandwidth.

I think it was Afrihost that started the cheap instead quality uncapped crap.

After that everyone had to follow suit. That's why mweb released standard uncapped and Telkom and IS based accounts too.
 
I don't blame the ISP's...

Well people on this forum don't like blaming consumers.

ISPs wouldn't be releasing these products if consumers didn't want them.

Most consumers just look at the price and think cheaper is better. That's the real problem.
 
Not sure it's fair to blame Mweb. While they did launch that first affordable uncapped product, they didn't start the price war.

I'm not referring to the price, I'm referring to the quality and material nature of the uncapped product.
They were the first (or at least the first major ISP) to offer a broken uncapped product.
 
I think it was Afrihost that started the cheap instead quality uncapped crap.

After that everyone had to follow suit. That's why mweb released standard uncapped and Telkom and IS based accounts too.

Nope, Afrihost never had any uncapped products when Mweb "Freed the Web"...
 
Next article should be: "Is unshaped broadband really unshaped?"

Let's hear what Afrihost have to say...
 
Who in their right mind would trust an internet service provider association definition of anything?

In fact that they try to say that what everyone really understands to be uncapped is really called unlimited. BS. Because unlimited is actually limited by the speed of the link.

Think of it as an all you can eat buffet. Uncapped means you'll chug along as fast as you can stuff food into your pie hole. Unlimited means you can bring extra pie holes.

Is there not an honest service provider?
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X