O no not at all - on the apologies for thread derail. Its a more than worthy derail.
I also don't object to the basic premise of your argument: I actually gave the matter some thought and ultimately concluded that because the subject is MWEB - rather than ISPA - the remark falls in the same parameters as commenting on the implications of court accepting a particular case which in the absence of sub iudice rules is pretty broadly practiced.
As I have said before one of the biggest problems I have observed with Telkom is it thinking of itself as an incumbent - and behaving as an aggressive incumbent. Nothing will make me happier than to see a situation where the changes at Telkom get it into seeing itself as one of our ISPs.
The question of self-provision for me in simple terms is whether Telkom has access to IS's network or had access to MWEBs wimax experiments. With respect to LLU its only Neotel that has taken the matter to the CCC to the best of my knowledge. MWEB has tried a "free the web" and "naked DSL" campaign.
The Code does allow for investigation on its own bat and certainly possibilities to ventilate are currently on line - the primary reason I am taking the full 14 days before going the ISPA route is in the belief that without admitting as much MWEB are taking the issue deadly seriously. What I find curious is MWEBs "We take notice of your confirmation that the matter will subsequently be handed over to ISPA", and it is that particular sentence that underlies the expressed fear - if anything (and this is included in the current draft of the complaint to ISPA) the provision of paragraph 30 of the Code of Conduct really does come into question on MWEBs response; the fact in this circumstance is that the complainant has afforded MWEB ample opportunity for direct resolution - the official and written response has been well go run along to ISPA. As a rule on a matter of a consumer orientated complaint I don't believe ISPA should exercise its powers but the circumstances here are somewhat different and the scope in my mind puts this within the parameters where an investigation on own authority is warranted - to be entirely honest I am not convinced that paragraph 34 is ideal, but that is a separate issue.
I also don't object to the basic premise of your argument: I actually gave the matter some thought and ultimately concluded that because the subject is MWEB - rather than ISPA - the remark falls in the same parameters as commenting on the implications of court accepting a particular case which in the absence of sub iudice rules is pretty broadly practiced.
As I have said before one of the biggest problems I have observed with Telkom is it thinking of itself as an incumbent - and behaving as an aggressive incumbent. Nothing will make me happier than to see a situation where the changes at Telkom get it into seeing itself as one of our ISPs.
The question of self-provision for me in simple terms is whether Telkom has access to IS's network or had access to MWEBs wimax experiments. With respect to LLU its only Neotel that has taken the matter to the CCC to the best of my knowledge. MWEB has tried a "free the web" and "naked DSL" campaign.
The Code does allow for investigation on its own bat and certainly possibilities to ventilate are currently on line - the primary reason I am taking the full 14 days before going the ISPA route is in the belief that without admitting as much MWEB are taking the issue deadly seriously. What I find curious is MWEBs "We take notice of your confirmation that the matter will subsequently be handed over to ISPA", and it is that particular sentence that underlies the expressed fear - if anything (and this is included in the current draft of the complaint to ISPA) the provision of paragraph 30 of the Code of Conduct really does come into question on MWEBs response; the fact in this circumstance is that the complainant has afforded MWEB ample opportunity for direct resolution - the official and written response has been well go run along to ISPA. As a rule on a matter of a consumer orientated complaint I don't believe ISPA should exercise its powers but the circumstances here are somewhat different and the scope in my mind puts this within the parameters where an investigation on own authority is warranted - to be entirely honest I am not convinced that paragraph 34 is ideal, but that is a separate issue.
Interestingly, they've reversed the throttling on one of our accounts once I complained and escalated. Another interesting bit is that we're on the packages that they recommended would be perfect for a school environment.
. Will give a proper update tomorrow.
