LOL I just realised something about Mtshali's comment!

[guest2013-1]

You know the ITWeb article where the COO said that the users were downloading with speeds of 5mbps and 100mbps....

Here's something for you : I think he was talking about the ethernet/usb connection TO your modem, not the modem speed itselfs.

Hahahahahaha, I bet you marketing told him to say that, and the technical dudes went, "where the fuxk do you guys get that from!?"

hahahhwhahehhhhahehahahaha

 

[slimothy]

I'm hoping hes either an idiot or was high at the time because if ANYONE was downloading at 100mbit... I want a piece of that action

 

[Gatecrasher]

You know the ITWeb article where the COO said that the users were downloading with speeds of 5mbps and 100mbps....

As I understood it, he was refering to total bandwidth (pipe) used by the "good" users (5mbps) and the "abusers" (100mbps). It was not a reference to individual download speeds.

He was indirectly telling us that 95% of available bandwidth was being used by 5% of the users.

 

[ic]

The problem with the WBS attributed allegations in the ITWeb article is that they are completely ambiguous - as if it was intentional to sow seeds of confusion over what was or was not said - it is a problem for us existing iBurst forumite customers, but the general public would not know the diff...

 

[swordfish1]

noone sorry but your analogy don't work

the ethernet connection runs on 10 Mbits and the USB at 12 Mbits so I don't think he was refering to that.

I think that this idiot is just a way too stupid to exist, not to mention managing a company.

 

[Gatecrasher]

I think that this idiot is just a way too stupid to exist, not to mention managing a company.

Noone manages a company?

 

[nocilah]

You know the ITWeb article where the COO said that the users were downloading with speeds of 5mbps and 100mbps....

Here's something for you : I think he was talking about the ethernet/usb connection TO your modem, not the modem speed itselfs.

Hahahahahaha, I bet you marketing told him to say that, and the technical dudes went, "where the fuxk do you guys get that from!?"

hahahhwhahehhhhahehahahaha

i think even his own staff are trying to figure out exactly what he was trying to say... but for now it makes more sense replacing the Mbs with KBs

 

[nickv]

The man is not actually the CEO. He's the BEE PR guy.he probably did'nt even own a pc until WBS found him!!!!!!!

 

[guest2013-1]

He was indirectly telling us that 95% of available bandwidth was being used by 5% of the users.

stop sounding like sentech!!!!!! ARGH!

 

[UtterNutter]

I'm hoping hes either an idiot or was high at the time because if ANYONE was downloading at 100mbit... I want a piece of that action

What are you talking about, Slim?!? If anyone is downloading at even "5Mbit" I want some of that too!!!

 

[slimothy]

damn straight, as one of the worst abusers I DEMAND my 5mbit or higher before they cut me off again

 

[ic]

damn straight, as one of the worst abusers I DEMAND my 5mbit or higher before they cut me off again

LOL, I think the question that could be asked, is exactly how much of an iBurst network abuser is Mtshali himself if he has been flying at speeds ranging between 5Mbits/s and 100Mbits/s, perhaps WBS need to suspend his @ss...

 

[Kei]

His PC is probably plugged in directly into their network and thus enjoys plently of bandwidth without contention or having to go through radio link

 

[Razer0]

He was indirectly telling us that 95% of available bandwidth was being used by 5% of the users.

Just kick em off the network and let them whine like little babies without their pacifier. Just get up and go elsewhere, where you can have all the cheap ice cream you want.

 

[Darke]

Just kick em off the network and let them whine like little babies without their pacifier. Just get up and go elsewhere, where you can have all the cheap ice cream you want.

Kick who off? The 95% who don't use their connections to full potential or the 5% who were? I pay to use my connection, when I use it, I want it to be fast, stable and I really don't want to have to be arsed with monitoring myself with a big brother eyeball. Thats what the damn cap is for and what we pay I-Burst to do, in short, according to our contracts we pay them to switch us over to a slow 64Kb link when we REACH the cap limit. I don't pay them so I can do their network monitoring for them. Its their job to monitor and control us (mores the pity), their network and their own bandwidth. How about they do that and when there is a f00k-up and their stuff doesn't work right, they then take responsibility for their own mistakes and make it right?

This lack of accountability is in business and government, coupled with total disregard for paying customers rights. When in doubt, publicly blame the little guy and make him the scapegoat/abuser of the community? In a normal situation (read country), no business would dare do mass disconnections without first isolating the fault and weighing up the legal implications of their actions and in most cases, trying to find an alternative arrangement that tries to satisfy both parties. Here it seems to be the first choice, a simple extension of the "I do, because I can" mentality". Jeesh, thats the same type of mentality that we assign as the reason why a dog licks his balls!

 

[guest2013-1]

here here Darke...

Everyone pays for their connections, and those who choose to actually use their connections gets kicked off for being "bandwidth hogs"

Fact, they even kicked off those users who bought EXTRA bandwidth... how is buying more bandwidth and using what they give you BAD?

 

[Darke]

Fact, they even kicked off those users who bought EXTRA bandwidth... how is buying more bandwidth and using what they give you BAD?

Point is we pay, as per the contract we signed and advertised service for 24/7 Connectivity at speeds of up to 1mbps until we reach a 3GB limit then we are throttled to a maximum of 64kbps for the remainder of the month. Nowhere is there a mention of another CAP being imposed on the 64K link. So if I am happy to chug along doing my thing, after being capped at sub-64k speeds, thats my right, I have paid for that right and I do expect 24/7, sub-64k speeds.

It would really gall me, nay it would do a bit more than piss on my battery to then be called an abuser and disconnected. For this case in point, I have no (legal) means of ensuring that once my 3GB cap is reached, I can throttle/choke/be incredibly stupid and limit myself to 64k, with the sole exception of turning my PC off or unplugging my modem. In which case the 24/7 connectivity sales pitch fails, as it is then conditional to me having full bandwidth.

Based on WBS's Top-guy, Sassens(sp?) analogy using a reservoir to portray available bandwidth, a counter-analogy is, for a Seller to tell me, the end-user that I am responsible for their stock and have to count the amount of jars of peanut butter on the shop shelf and make sure that there are least 20 left before I can buy one, is ludicrous.

I suppose that is when people do a "stock-take", and 'take a fcking lot of stock' , which is exactly what happened. Message to WBS is simply, "Don't make me do your job for you or I will do it in a manner that benefits me".

 

[guest2013-1]

Yea, its like going into the lemonade business, then blame your customers that there's not enough lemonade left over to sell, and then forcing your customers to pay more for the lemonade you failed to supply in the first place.

So hows that work?????????????

 

[Darke]

I can't answer that without stooping to their level of blaming.

 

[stoke]

Bad examply noone - you've just shown a classic example of supply and demand. The lemonade will become more expensive.

Better example =
It's like going into the beer business, and as the beer is consumed, *HIC*, you put less and less beer into each glass for the same price, and hope that your customers are drunk enough not to notice. (Or just water it down). And if they do notice, throw them out of the bar for being unruly and disrespectful.