michael.bytz
Member
Lets look at this logically......
Hi All,
I have been following these discussions fairly carefully for the last few days. I was one of the users who was not cut off (barely used my connection due to slow speeds), but was outraged at the action that WBS took. To put my cards on the table my connection has VASTLY improved since they took action.
Lets go back to basics as see where the problems lies.
1. We all agreed on a cap (1Gb, 3Gb, 6Gb or 9Gb) when we signed up for the service.
2. Once the cap had been reached, we all expected to be throttled to 64k.
3. What appears to have happened was that people reached their cap and were not placed onto a throttled service by WBS. If so - WBS are at fault here.
4. These individuals continued to use the service knowing full well that they had breached the cap. No problem with this as they are entitled to in terms of our understanding.
5. The usage on some accounts became excessive - I certainly think that when you use more than 5 times of what you have purchased it can be considered excessive. Maybe this should be defined by WBS - ie breaching your cap by x will be considered excessive - although this is two edged because some people will consider this to be the "new" cap (albeit at a slower speed). At this point it becomes hazy - should you morally continue to use something excessively because you can when your behaviour could negatively impact on others? Also if these "abusers" found a way around the cap this would certainly be immoral and I'd loose all sympathy for them as they showed that they don't care about the impact of their actions on others. Also they are breaching the agreement because they can although they know that they are in the wrong.
6. WBS decided to disconnect the "abusers" to try and rectify the performance issues. Anecdotal evidence suggests that this has certainly worked - a number of us who have not reached our cap are experiencing a much better level of service. I am not saying that this was the cause - but their is both anecdotal and logical evidence to support it.
7. Those disconnected "throw their toys" and while accepting that they breached the cap complain that they should get their service in terms of the agreement.
8. Not sure what the contract says - can't find it, but I have seen ISP's include a paragraph stating that they can terminate the service if it is abused . Abuse is not defined. I would assume that iBurst took legal opinion to see if they were legally entitled to do what they did - management do not appear to be incompetent if you look at theit other businesses.
So where to from here? Had I been iBurst I probably would have done the same thing - albeit following a different path.
1. Sent out a mail to all users stating that some users were using the service excessively.
2. Personally contacted those users and asked them to slow down on usage because of the impact on others and that they were appracohing "abuse"
3. If no response - disconnected the problem individuals.
So end result would have probably been fewer disconnections, but at least people could not say "you didn't warn us".
Using a shared service does come with compromises - respect for others goes a long way. In this scenario, both WBS and the "abusers" have shown little respect for each other. Come on guys - we are all adults - let all parties look at themselves and accept fault where it lies. Fault here lies on all sides.
I for one certainly hope this blows over and all parties emerge stonger - we need all the competition in this space that we can get.
Michael
Hi All,
I have been following these discussions fairly carefully for the last few days. I was one of the users who was not cut off (barely used my connection due to slow speeds), but was outraged at the action that WBS took. To put my cards on the table my connection has VASTLY improved since they took action.
Lets go back to basics as see where the problems lies.
1. We all agreed on a cap (1Gb, 3Gb, 6Gb or 9Gb) when we signed up for the service.
2. Once the cap had been reached, we all expected to be throttled to 64k.
3. What appears to have happened was that people reached their cap and were not placed onto a throttled service by WBS. If so - WBS are at fault here.
4. These individuals continued to use the service knowing full well that they had breached the cap. No problem with this as they are entitled to in terms of our understanding.
5. The usage on some accounts became excessive - I certainly think that when you use more than 5 times of what you have purchased it can be considered excessive. Maybe this should be defined by WBS - ie breaching your cap by x will be considered excessive - although this is two edged because some people will consider this to be the "new" cap (albeit at a slower speed). At this point it becomes hazy - should you morally continue to use something excessively because you can when your behaviour could negatively impact on others? Also if these "abusers" found a way around the cap this would certainly be immoral and I'd loose all sympathy for them as they showed that they don't care about the impact of their actions on others. Also they are breaching the agreement because they can although they know that they are in the wrong.
6. WBS decided to disconnect the "abusers" to try and rectify the performance issues. Anecdotal evidence suggests that this has certainly worked - a number of us who have not reached our cap are experiencing a much better level of service. I am not saying that this was the cause - but their is both anecdotal and logical evidence to support it.
7. Those disconnected "throw their toys" and while accepting that they breached the cap complain that they should get their service in terms of the agreement.
8. Not sure what the contract says - can't find it, but I have seen ISP's include a paragraph stating that they can terminate the service if it is abused . Abuse is not defined. I would assume that iBurst took legal opinion to see if they were legally entitled to do what they did - management do not appear to be incompetent if you look at theit other businesses.
So where to from here? Had I been iBurst I probably would have done the same thing - albeit following a different path.
1. Sent out a mail to all users stating that some users were using the service excessively.
2. Personally contacted those users and asked them to slow down on usage because of the impact on others and that they were appracohing "abuse"
3. If no response - disconnected the problem individuals.
So end result would have probably been fewer disconnections, but at least people could not say "you didn't warn us".
Using a shared service does come with compromises - respect for others goes a long way. In this scenario, both WBS and the "abusers" have shown little respect for each other. Come on guys - we are all adults - let all parties look at themselves and accept fault where it lies. Fault here lies on all sides.
I for one certainly hope this blows over and all parties emerge stonger - we need all the competition in this space that we can get.
Michael
