Wbs Bring The Aup Already!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ic said:
The answer to that $1mil question is likely to make the difference between WBS retaining customers and losing them, IMO exactly what we customers were sold when we signed up and paid our subscription fees - that is reasonable, what is it? - well the maximum is the theorectical maximum based on using up all of the packaged/bundled/additional_purchased bandwidth on whatever package you are on - at a maximum speed of 1Mbits/s, and then add to that the theorectical maximum amount of bandwidth you can get running at full 64kbits/s for the remainder of the month, IMO that's reasonable, beyond that theoretical maximum WBS have a right to label you as an abuser, under that limit you are not an abuser [IMO].
Nice post IC
I am glad that i am not the only one who sees it that way
now... we get to the second part of your post re : abuse
If a users "gets' all 24/7/30 ok, how is it possible to go over the maximum dictated to by the bandwidth manager.
coz 64*60*60*24*30 still is only about 20Gb
There is no way of going faster than 64Kb/s ok maybe a little bit by say 30% faster, thats still less than 40Gb.
Unless of course the bandwidth machine failed to cap a user, or it broke.
I say this beacause there was a post today of someone who woke up in the morning and found his 2Gb Distro Download complete, and he was capped!!
or supposed to have been.
IMO the term abuse would refer to hacking into the system and changing the stuff that caps him, or going into WBS building and bribing or moerring someone until they lifted his cap, or getting access and tampering himself.
Now, we, me and everybody else knows that that never happened.
What did happen though is that local Iburst to Iburst wasn,t capped (it is now ) and again in the absence of WBS making a decision, the users "carried on" AT THAT time we didnt even know that IB TO IB connections would form part of the cap.
The reasoning may have been wrong, but thats beacause there was no formal policy from WBS...
They dont know $h1t about what broadbanders want.
erm OK thats HISTORY we all know this story....
BUT think on this
: if you got a axxess or webafrica account or one similar, ok and for some reason the 30Gb limit doesnt stop you and you go over and you do say 90 Gb for that time period, are they going to call you an abuser>?
I dont know the answer coz i bet it will never happen.
For the record, THE WBS throttling machine failed and WBS FAILED TO MAKE AND IMPLEMENT a policy decision IRT local ib to ib traffic.
And in the time period the guys used it, and got the blame for it.
Thus WBS found a scapegoat for their non-plemention.
Further to this, Last week WBS again made the statement inferring (after IT web contacted them) that certain abusers only had been effected by the 0.0Kb/s connection problem, and that the "abusers" had been contacted.
By this time its like "OH WHO BELIVES THEM, WE HAVE DISCREDITED THEM ALREADY"
So GET it? We were discredited by WBS beacuse of the mistake they made.
I personally resent being called an abuser and labeled as such, especially in the absence of any total through-put being defined by them.
Neither WBS or Tradepage contacted me at any stage and asked me to reduce the traffic on my connection.
Now why was that?
They have all my details
Until such time as WBS have a formal AUP in place, in writing, signed by me then there are NO AGREEMENTS.!!!
So the way I see it WBS are actually still in a "testing phase" as their offerings
suggest that certain items would be clarified during the "soft phase" or shortly after the launch, we still wait for the AUP. more than 3months later!!!
As long as I have a "no contract" WBS can do what they like with "port prioritisation and shaping" capping and connectivity.
They can call me a hog, thief,abuser............. because they have no policy in place.
I reckon a good lawyer would run rings round there a$$es in court!!!!!
it would be POONAGE to see them owned
WBS BRING THE AUP ALREADY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sign up with Google