Mweb BAN at what point?

Osiris85 said:
Oh ok cool, though I wont use HTTP download that much ( just for the odd update here and there). What if I use uTorrent and remote into my pc from work to monitor the progress? That way my downloads are not "unattended" and therefore not in contravention to the T&C's right?

They don't have anything against remoting into your machine do they?
Click to expand...

I don't think MWeb really cares about whether you watch the downloads or not -- and they certainly can't/aren't monitoring this. The issue of "watching" downloads is just a result of interpreting the phrase in the T&C which mentions that the service is for "period, active" use of the internet.

AFAIK, queuing HTTP downloads to constantly run flat-out on your line 24/7 would be in contravention of the shaped account T&C. Torrents are shaped so, unless you bypass the shaping, leaving torrents to run is acceptable, AFAIK.
 
GingerBeer said:
So if they don't monitor client accounts (as they say),

how would they know which method is in use?

All they see is a cumulating download figure.
Click to expand...

I imagine they look at usage by protocol/port? They can't look at WHAT you're downloading, but they can see what protocol it is and where you are downloading from (how else could they shape?).
 
SabreWolfy said:
I don't think MWeb really cares about whether you watch the downloads or not -- and they certainly can't/aren't monitoring this. The issue of "watching" downloads is just a result of interpreting the phrase in the T&C which mentions that the service is for "period, active" use of the internet.

AFAIK, queuing HTTP downloads to constantly run flat-out on your line 24/7 would be in contravention of the shaped account T&C. Torrents are shaped so, unless you bypass the shaping, leaving torrents to run is acceptable, AFAIK.
Click to expand...

Ok cool, I'm with you so far.

What do they mean by "periodic use"? Do they want me to disconnect for certain times of the day or do they mean that I actively have to use the net?

Also, stupid question......what does AFAIK mean?
 
SabreWolfy said:
They are interested in users who queue up HTTP downloads to run at line speed, unattended, constantly, for the entire month.
Click to expand...

So at last we are getting somewhere, takes time with some people. So they advertise not what they preach then. HTTP are not shaped and thus I should be able to use it as I please, therefore the "Uncapped" See there are to many "connotations" to the Mweb deal. They want e-mail readers and whatever, not active users. As I said, better use the other ISP's that do not have this CEO schit attitude, those who understand the meaning of Internet at speed.
 
Osiris85 said:
Ok cool, I'm with you so far.

What do they mean by "periodic use"? Do they want me to disconnect for certain times of the day or do they mean that I actively have to use the net?

Also, stupid question......what does AFAIK mean?
Click to expand...

Good question regarding "active, periodic" use. The words appear in the T&C in a paragraph which also prohibits running servers, etc. on the shaped ("Home") accounts, so the interpretation could also be simply in relation to this. However, leaving a download manager running 24/7 is not active, periodic use of course. We don't know exactly what MWeb means with these words. We do know that downloading (HTTP content) at line speed all day, every day, for the whole month is unacceptable on shaped accounts.
 
I am Penguin said:
So at last we are getting somewhere, takes time with some people. So they advertise not what they preach then. HTTP are not shaped and thus I should be able to use it as I please, therefore the "Uncapped" See there are to many "connotations" to the Mweb deal. They want e-mail readers and whatever, not active users. As I said, better use the other ISP's that do not have this CEO schit attitude, those who understand the meaning of Internet at speed.
Click to expand...

I'm not prepared to engage in further discussion with you when the first line of your post is an insult.
 
SabreWolfy said:
I imagine they look at usage by protocol/port? They can't look at WHAT you're downloading, but they can see what protocol it is and where you are downloading from (how else could they shape?).
Click to expand...

They shape all the accounts at the same time, not specific individuals.

They would only see a trend of users, not single ones.
 
GingerBeer said:
They shape all the accounts at the same time, not specific individuals.

They would only see a trend of users, not single ones.
Click to expand...

Correct, they don't shape individual users, but they can monitor the usage patterns of individual users, particularly with respect to the protocols which that user is employing, as well as whether the traffic is encrypted. How else would they be able to determine which users are contravening the T&C?
 
SabreWolfy said:
You're embarrassing yourself.
Click to expand...

I was just pulling your leg, think about this following situation. If I were to use a VPN or have my HTTP constantly downloading on a 384k or 512k line I wont get any hassles from MWeb... But as soon as I use a 4m line it's an issue to achieve the same tasks? The discussion was raised in the Q&A that the person in questioning of being banned was given the option of either dropping their line speed down to 512k or bump up to the unshaped package. From what xraidx has said the T&C is the same across all of the shaped/unshaped packages, be they capped or uncapped, so that makes absolutely no sense. In the words of George Orwell: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
 
DJNgoma said:
I was just pulling your leg, think about this following situation. If I were to use a VPN or have my HTTP constantly downloading on a 384k or 512k line I wont get any hassles from MWeb... But as soon as I use a 4m line it's an issue to achieve the same tasks? The discussion was raised in the Q&A that the person in questioning of being banned was given the option of either dropping their line speed down to 512k or bump up to the unshaped package. From what xraidx has said the T&C is the same across all of the shaped/unshaped packages, be they capped or uncapped, so that makes absolutely no sense. In the words of George Orwell: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
Click to expand...

The T&C are exactly the same, check for yourself - its how they enforce them thats different - which is open to how ever they see fit.
 
DJNgoma said:
I was just pulling your leg, think about this following situation. If I were to use a VPN or have my HTTP constantly downloading on a 384k or 512k line I wont get any hassles from MWeb... But as soon as I use a 4m line it's an issue to achieve the same tasks? The discussion was raised in the Q&A that the person in questioning of being banned was given the option of either dropping their line speed down to 512k or bump up to the unshaped package. From what xraidx has said the T&C is the same across all of the shaped/unshaped packages, be they capped or uncapped, so that makes absolutely no sense. In the words of George Orwell: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
Click to expand...

My understanding is that 384kbps users are not exempt from the penalties resulting from contravening the T&C. It is unlikely, though not impossible, that 384kbps users will pull down enough to trigger a response from MWeb. Before anyone gets hysterical that this is now "usage" based, realize that MWeb will focus on a user who pulls down 100GB through an encrypted tunnel before/rather they do the same to the user who pulls down 5GB through an encrypted tunnel. Both are technically in contravention of the T&C, but MWeb will obviously focus attention on the high-usage users in this regard, as their usage will impact on the larger network more, of course.
 
DJNgoma said:
I was just pulling your leg, think about this following situation. If I were to use a VPN or have my HTTP constantly downloading on a 384k or 512k line I wont get any hassles from MWeb... But as soon as I use a 4m line it's an issue to achieve the same tasks? The discussion was raised in the Q&A that the person in questioning of being banned was given the option of either dropping their line speed down to 512k or bump up to the unshaped package. From what xraidx has said the T&C is the same across all of the shaped/unshaped packages, be they capped or uncapped, so that makes absolutely no sense. In the words of George Orwell: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
Click to expand...

It's because they undercharged for the 4meg package and as such had to under provision it.
 
Qwikslver said:
It's because they undercharged for the 4meg package and as such had to under provision it.
Click to expand...

This also has to do with the skewed line speed offering: 384, 512 and 4096. Why not something more reasonable and spread, like 512, 2048 and 4096. Considering 384 "broadband" is also debatable :)
 
mika1000 said:
The user would never win - they're in business to make money.
Click to expand...

They launched very cheap, if not under-priced, uncapped accounts that are being used by users to download far more than what was possible before or is profitable for MWeb (in some cases). How is the user losing? The only users losing are the few out of 70 000 that are being disconnected. And those users already "won" a considerable amount at the expense of MWeb.

Unless of ccurse you mean Telkom's line speeds!
 
Last edited:
SabreWolfy said:
I'm not prepared to engage in further discussion with you when the first line of your post is an insult.
Click to expand...

I am not insulting YOU i was referring to the baseline discussion in as much a four threads on the same topic. Please take note it was not aimed specifically at you.

Also just for information (for us) are you a Mweb rep? or just self appointed?
 
Alestorm said:
They launched very cheap, if not under-priced, uncapped accounts that are being used by users to download far more than what was possible before or is profitable for MWeb (in some cases). How is the user losing? The only users losing are the few out of 70 000 that are being disconnected. And those users already "won" a considerable amount at the expense of MWeb.

Unless of ccurse you mean Telkom's line speeds!
Click to expand...

Must of missed the part about MWEBs business plan being our problem in the T&C.
 
xrapidx said:
Must of missed the part about MWEBs business plan being our problem in the T&C.
Click to expand...

Perhaps they should rather just make more concrete terms and conditions, most users would remain unaffected and the rest.. well they would go mad about it on MyADSL I guess. :D

As long as the service remains profitable enough for MWeb to keep offering it I'm happy. If they have to kick the top downloaders so be it, much better than not having uncapped at all which is the other reality. Smaller ISP's could not keep offering uncapped at below MWeb's prices if they end up with mostly the high downloaders. IS already succumbed to this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X