MWEB Abuse Notices Complaint

[marine1]

Pathetic reply from them. 300 gigs on a 4mb uncapped line is not abuse. It has been fine up until now, for the last few years? Sorry MWEB, you guys are behaving in an unethical manner and are lying to the public

 

[politallycorrect]

Go for it Paul. I can't wait to be rid of Mweb...sad that they turned on their supporters. Idi Amin syndrome

 

[Fudzy]

their collective membership
the question though is whether MWEBs conduct - and ISPA failing to act - prejudices the industry. I would argue that any situation where ISPA cannot be relied on to act in good faith severely prejudices any capacity to meaningfully negotiate with Telkom. I have argued before that criticisms directed at the ISPs - - failing to build their own network for example - - are not ungrounded.

But yes the next step is to commence the complaint with ISPA. Another step is for MWEB to discard other complaints as well.
I am going to take a few days break and am putting out a general request that people do make their complaints (the template is on its way) and I could do with some copies of volunteered user information.

Well that's why I asked, I've often seen committees and organisations being influenced by their biggest contributors.

I will be interested to see what the ISPAs response will be.

 

[Paul Hjul]

As part of the complaint process I have taken to checking on the veracity of the News24 article and written to the editor. I will chase up on MoneyWeb next week.

- I haven't forgotten but haven't sat down to do the template file - I am deducing at the moment though the policy is to ignore complaint letters altogether so I have prioritized taking up the veracity of the representations such that the ammunition to depend on once they clearly ignore complaints is going to be the Code.
As should be clear in the opening paragraphs the approach I am taking is, is that in contract law etc ... MWEB can simply fall back to their T&Cs but that their right to operate depends of some T&Cs between MWEB and ICASA which find expression in the
It will fall to their GM: Regulatory Affairs to explain why their CEO and their product manager made certain representations which were then discarded if the matter ends up at ICASA (they may also have to explain why MWEB did not advise me to refer the complaint to ICASA but based on the fact that I already have indicated a knowlege of that right its a bit of a minimus).

If I've learnt anything this last week it is that what might seem a futile exercise done to simply cover the bases can produce unexpected fruit when you least expect it.

Mr Momberg

As a result of the rather unsavory handling of consumers by MWEB this month and my decision to take same to task it is necessary to confirm the veracity of information appearing in a News24 article written by a member of the editorial staff Mr Duncan Alfreds. Attached is a copy of the complaint made to MWEB who by way of their GM: MWEB Operations have effectively declined to take action internally necessitating taking the matter to the DMMA, ASA and ISPA - and possibly eventually ICASA. Two particular matters arise firstly a need to establish the veracity of all media publication

Owing to Mr Alfred's position in the company I believe you are the editor to check with. At the outset I firmly believe that the story correctly reflects what was represented but a cursory check on my part is for obvious reasons necessary before proceeding further. In essence I need to ask if News24 stands by in its totality the contents of the article appearing http://www.news24.com/technology/news/mweb-fights-back-on-adsl-pricing-20130129.

It is in particular the line:
Up to 1Mbps Premium Uncapped ADSL (unthrottled) for R199per month
which gives rise to a veracity query.

I am acutely aware of the potential delicacy of the situation arising as a result of the fact that both News24 and MWEB form part of the Naspers stable.

I have cc'd this email to Mr Cloete the GM: MWEB Operations and regard the contents hereof as an "open letter" if you could kindly indicate in any response whether you have any objection to the contents of your response being published (by way of a posting) on the MyBroadband forum in the thread where the complaint against MWEB is being discussed. I am posting this email to same thread.

Yours Sincerely
Paul Hjul

 

[Fudzy]

Techcentral could prove a good unbiased platform to publish information too.

 

[Paul Hjul]

I don't think there has been any problem on reporting bias on a very basic level. There is an unfortunate situation in SA reporting in general that PR guys know to create a situation where a story is always split such that they can exercise a "right to reply" to their advantage. This is a classic example of PR spin games - MWEB did something evil and a story was written; the company concocted a company line and has presented that as the truth (depending on journalists to either be lazy or find themselves dependent on the "right to reply") and they are going to stick to it.
Now unless a journalist finds a newsworthy proposition to challenge MWEBs response - such as a legal (or regulatory) opinion being secured that MWEB could well be in hot water, or (which I think is going to be the case) the January representations issue becomes a big deal, or (as I am hoping we will see an article on in the next few days) MWEB billing people full price despite those people having put forward product downgrade requests. Good journalists unfortunately have to investigate things and this takes time and energy.

Obviously none of the staff @ MyBB are Will McAvoy but as far as SA journalism goes MyBB doesn't scrape the barrel at all. Most of the tripe articles I've seen are actually syndicated pieces. There is a lack of column writing for my likening (and far to much attention is given to gamers ). Tech Central are however on my list of guys to drop an email to during the next week (News24 being a priority due to the DMMA angle) because of this article: http://www.techcentral.co.za/mweb-hits-back-with-new-dsl-tariffs/37787/

At the end of the day though MWEB have responded in one of the many ways I prepared contingency in the approach to the complaint which I adopted. It wasn't the response I was expecting and to be brutally honest it is the approach that is in the long term the least in their interests. It has however been an interesting week; I've had more lawyers than usual check my horribly unupdated LinkedIn page so evidently some people are trying to do their homework.

 

[AfricanTech]

/follows with interest/

 

[reactor_sa]

Paul, please see this post for more interesting info.
http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?p=11070417

Basically on the mweb site, mweb state clearly that the standard uncapped accounts are throttled. However, they are purposely omitting that very important fact from the premium uncapped accounts which are also throttled since September 1st.
Surely this business practice should be taken to task??

 

[Paul Hjul]

thanks for the heads up on the developments on that thread (I hadn't actually seen them - not being an MWEB subscriber). This really is the issue which MWEB don't want to address - not only do they not indicate that the "premium" accounts are throttled they represented that they weren't and wouldn't be- the bottom line is Derek Hershaw is a big bad liar and he has been caught out. When MWEB introduced their cheaper products they specifically described their rebranded as "premium" products as unthrottled. This description was used in repeated interviews and press releases and was published as such my Media24 publications (I am waiting confirmation of the publication standing by the veracity of their article). They refuse to provide any distinction between their cheaper "throttled" product and their more expensive product and provide that anybody using the product in a manner they don't intend is abuse. Based on the limited feedback I have gotten so far MWEB had better get itself some good lawyers on board because falling back to "but read the contract" is not going to help them. The tragedy is that they will rather waste money trying to defend reprehensible behaviour than spend the same amount of money fixing the problem that they have created. In the long run though the consequences of the decisions taken by their executives will cost the company and lets face it without support coming in from the top does anybody see MWEB holding a top 3 spot as a consumer ISP in three years time?

Interestingly the have moved from saying "3%" to saying a "small percentage" - probably because they have been caught lying - the evidence on it suggests that 25% of MWEB customers will be falling into the parameters of obtaining such a warning and that the 1Mbs - MWEB is welcome to challenge this by providing the parameters they use.

 

[Fudzy]

That would really be the best move, I see they are sending out notifications on your usage and throttle state. I haven't received anything yet.

 

[Paul Hjul]

News24 has replied to my email inquiry:

Good morning Mr Hjul,

News24 stands by the article we published. The content published was based on information distributed to the media.

Regards,

Jannie Momberg

 

[Lydon]

*popcorn*

 

[MalcolmF]

"Give that man a bells"
I will keep an eye on this

 

[Neo_X]

many eyes on this - Thank you for supporting the community Paul!

guess we all can help by capturing any related data ( and saving screenshots where needed.... internet data is so "unreliable" these days..... )

 

[TheTraveler]

many eyes on this - Thank you for supporting the community Paul!

+1

 

[McGuywer]

News24 has replied to my email inquiry:

That's not a very thorough reply. I would have expected more but since they are in the same stable, I guess I was wrong....

 

[Paul Hjul]

It is a brief but professional reply. I think the bottom line is that News24 is illustrating editorial independence - which is commendable - as they are standing by the story as it is based on the representations made to the media. I personally was expecting a slightly longer reply which attempts to cover non-existent bases - the article needing to be understood in some mysterious "context" or whatever.

 

[dominic]

Paul
You are making some very sweeping statements and suppositions about ISPA before you have even raised the matter with them.
On the basis of what information do you say Telkom refuses to join ISPA?

Okay some feedback:

Of course now the problem is that if MWEB has a founded belief that it can flaunt the ISPA Code - which can also be invoked concerning their handling of the complaint - then the cynical remarks I've come across about ISPA are unfortunately correct. However, and this is a big thing, if ISPA is not prepared to be a proper industry self-regulatory body then it should be no surprise that Telkom refuses to join and then it really necessary to take the matter to task with ICASA. It would be a sad day if ISPA regards MWEB's interests as more important than the industry's.

I would argue that any situation where ISPA cannot be relied on to act in good faith severely prejudices any capacity to meaningfully negotiate with Telkom. I have argued before that criticisms directed at the ISPs - - failing to build their own network for example - - are not ungrounded.

too many sweeping statements for my taste here
how does it severely prejudice?
what have criticisms about self-provision (which i will argue with you about) got to do with this?

 

[Paul Hjul]

I haven't made any statements directed at ISPA itself - instead I have said IF MWEB's belief is founded. - The problem now is if

I can dig up the cynical remarks made by others on this forum about ISPA but this thread alone has the poignant question raised.

I have previously said Telkom joining ISPA would be a bloody good thing and IIRC each Telkom staff member I know of said that it is not currently possible. Ranger made the point quite clear. The extent to which there is an us vs them relationship with ISPA and Telkom is quite well documented historically and it is something which no suggestion of changing has come forth despite many other changes at Telkom.

With all deference to ISPA at this juncture it is common cause that MWEB is kicking a hornets nest and it shouldn't be necessary for my complaint - which will come at the earliest on Monday (after affording MWEB 14 days to deal with the matter properly) - before ISPA acting in terms of paragraph 34 of their Code of Conduct institutes its own investigation. I will be greatly pleased if that actually happens. Of course it isn't likely and it would be a precedent setting move - and might well see MWEB leaving ISPA.

A failure to self-provision on the local loop is a criticism of ISPs - particularly larger ones - in that it really smells of wanting Telkom to carry the costs on something they make profit off. If ISPs are providing last mile access to ECS providers including Telkom then the case for Telkom to provide to all ECS providers increases - facilities leasing and all that. As soon as Telkom is able to honestly say that collectively ISPs are simply scraping profits and not contributing towards the network ecosystem we are in trouble. At the moment ISPA has the moral high ground over Telkom but it would be a great pity if it looses it. I sincerely hope that MWEBs attitude is simply bravado and a hope that cynicism will prevail but if it isn't then we are in deep deep trouble.

 

[dominic]

I haven't made any statements directed at ISPA itself - instead I have said IF MWEB's belief is founded. - The problem now is if

not convinced - if's make definite statements in the minds of readers.

I can dig up the cynical remarks made by others on this forum about ISPA but this thread alone has the poignant question raised.

I have previously said Telkom joining ISPA would be a bloody good thing and IIRC each Telkom staff member I know of said that it is not currently possible. Ranger made the point quite clear. The extent to which there is an us vs them relationship with ISPA and Telkom is quite well documented historically and it is something which no suggestion of changing has come forth despite many other changes at Telkom.

as someone at the coalface of this relationship all i can say is that there are things you are not party (and which are confidential) which render this statement incorrect

With all deference to ISPA at this juncture it is common cause that MWEB is kicking a hornets nest and it shouldn't be necessary for my complaint - which will come at the earliest on Monday (after affording MWEB 14 days to deal with the matter properly) - before ISPA acting in terms of paragraph 34 of their Code of Conduct institutes its own investigation. I will be greatly pleased if that actually happens. Of course it isn't likely and it would be a precedent setting move - and might well see MWEB leaving ISPA.

like you say it would be a precedent-setting move and not sure why it would be expected that ISPA would intervene off its own bat. the CoC also requires a complainant to exhaust direct resolution (as does the ICASA process). This has value in ensuring the matter is properly ventilated. Once a complaint is escalated it will be dealt with under the Code.

A failure to self-provision on the local loop is a criticism of ISPs - particularly larger ones - in that it really smells of wanting Telkom to carry the costs on something they make profit off. If ISPs are providing last mile access to ECS providers including Telkom then the case for Telkom to provide to all ECS providers increases - facilities leasing and all that. As soon as Telkom is able to honestly say that collectively ISPs are simply scraping profits and not contributing towards the network ecosystem we are in trouble. At the moment ISPA has the moral high ground over Telkom but it would be a great pity if it looses it. I sincerely hope that MWEBs attitude is simply bravado and a hope that cynicism will prevail but if it isn't then we are in deep deep trouble.

larger ones
- IS has an extensive network, not consumer facing
- MWEB, for example, built a test WiMAX network in 2006 but as you know are not able to secure access spectrum

smaller ones
- i have to take both shoes off to count the number of isps currently doing fibre deployments
- the entire WISP industry

tilting the balance takes a lot of time and money and it is hard to justify the spend against a set of demonstrably aggressive incumbents.

//apologies for thread derail here