MWEB - Message from CEO - Acceptable Use Policy

[Browser]

so what is considered fair, 20gb, 100gb ?? Why cant these guys say, if you use more than xx gb, we will ask you to leave, not be airey fairy about it all ??

They won't say because then they can no longer advertise as uncapped. However they will soon find out, as other ISPs have, that just because their fair use policy gives them the right to cancel high usage accounts it does not allow them to continue advertising as uncapped if they do.

Also as far as I know the ASA relies on residents, their previous rulings, and since they've already made an ISP in the past stop advertising as uncapped when canceling accounts due to usage citing their fair usage policy MWeb won't even have a wobbly table to stand on to continue the "uncapped" advertising while they loose customers.

edit,,,,
If they do cancel accounts due to usage citing their fair use policy, they will be forced to either change their policy to be inline with their "uncapped" advertisement or bring the advertisement inline with their fair usage policy. Either way they'll loose this fight and customers.

 

[Kosmik]

edit,,,,
If they do cancel accounts due to usage citing their fair use policy, they will be forced to either change their policy to be inline with their "uncapped" advertisement or bring the advertisement inline with their fair usage policy. Either way they'll loose this fight.

At the moment the accounts are being cancelled due to circumvention of the shaping on which the account is based.

 

[Icarium]

They won't say because then they can no longer advertise as uncapped. However they will soon find out, as other ISPs have, that just because their fair use policy gives them the right to cancel high usage accounts it does not allow them to continue advertising as uncapped if they do.

Also as far as I know the ASA relies on residents, their previous rulings, and since they've already made an ISP in the past stop advertising as uncapped when canceling accounts due to usage citing their fair usage policy MWeb won't even have a wobbly table to stand on to continue the "uncapped" advertising while they loose customers.

edit,,,,
If they do cancel accounts due to usage citing their fair use policy, they will be forced to either change their policy to be inline with their "uncapped" advertisement or bring the advertisement inline with their fair usage policy. Either way they'll loose this fight and customers.

I know some ISP's have been slapped by the ASA for throttling accounts, as yet I've yet to see any ASA rulings regarding outright cancellatons. Any examples?

 

[Alestorm]

well from what have been said before MWEB heavily shapes rapid share or any file sharing service
with exclusion of HTTP and FTP traffic
now you have a site do a download so that you can pull it using HTTP (or the other ports they supply)

to me that sounds like you are doing it to bypass the shaping
otherwise you would just download it directly wouldn't you?

Megaupload is exactly the same as rapidshare, it is a direct download. MWeb should and do shape this, possibly unless Megaupload moves to the VPN port.

This could explain MWeb wanting to cut off some users who just use these services, but it's obviously not intentional to bypass the shaping. MWeb should shape the filesharing services that use VPN ports then.

 

[milomak]

At the moment the accounts are being cancelled due to circumvention of the shaping on which the account is based.

why is it that there doesn't seem to be 384k users that have been cancelled?

 

[Alestorm]

why is it that there doesn't seem to be 384k users that have been cancelled?

Well most power users downloading huge amounts wouldn't be on 384kb. If they happen to be they also can't do nearly as much damage to the network as 4mb users can. The underlying reason for all these rules is of course to maintain the network. Maybe if someone bypassed shaping and pulled the max on a 384kb line hey'd get cancelled, but the usage still wouldn't be all that bad.

 

[Kosmik]

why is it that there doesn't seem to be 384k users that have been cancelled?

Personally I hope there will be. And if not now then hopefully the next round.

 

[Smiley_lauf]

I agree they should just scarp the uncapped for 4MB and above accounts and make uncapped standard on low end speeds like 384 or even 1MB and make it unshaped--I mean how much can these accounts download is doing so 24/7/365? With the contention ratios they will suffer either way.

 

[Kosmik]

I agree they should just scarp the uncapped for 4MB and above accounts and make uncapped standard on low end speeds like 384 or even 1MB and make it unshaped--I mean how much can these accounts download is doing so 24/7/365? With the contention ratios they will suffer either way.

Shaping, as its meant to be. As I said previously it's probably worse having 100 384k users than 10 4meg users. Higher ratio of people maxing out thier line.

 

[Budza]

Well most power users downloading huge amounts wouldn't be on 384kb. If they happen to be they also can't do nearly as much damage to the network as 4mb users can. The underlying reason for all these rules is of course to maintain the network. Maybe if someone bypassed shaping and pulled the max on a 384kb line hey'd get cancelled, but the usage still wouldn't be all that bad.

I'm trying my hardest. I'll never get to more than ~100GBs. Will squeal like a stuck pig if the f#ckers ever ban me. I currently average around 85GB/m.

Personally I hope there will be. And if not now then hopefully the next round.

Surely you have bigger fish to fry?? Either way, disconnections spell bad news for everyone using "uncapped" services. They'll start with the PU's. Then, before you know it, your account will be up for review. Siff.

 

[Kosmik]

Surely you have bigger fish to fry?? Either way, disconnections spell bad news for everyone using "uncapped" services. They'll start with the PU's. Then, before you know it, your account will be up for review. Siff.

Pirranhas are small and can take down much larger animals in numbers to use your analogy.

Again, it's not Power Users but folks bypassing the shaping engine or even inadvertently using services that do.

 

[milomak]

Pirranhas are small and can take down much larger animals in numbers to use your analogy.

Again, it's not Power Users but folks bypassing the shaping engine or even inadvertently using services that do.

if that were true then we would definitely have heard of 384k users having their service cut

 

[Kosmik]

if that were true then we would definitely have heard of 384k users having their service cut

You don't think they're getting round to it? Call campaign certainly wasn't one day and the only two who have posted that they got cut off for high usage have spoken about using sites like hotfile etc which have means of bypassing the shaping.

 

[AfricanTech]

Let's forget about downloading torrents, nzb's etc for a bit - what is youtube, video streaming, internet radio, etc (ie all within the ambit of "normal" or other video streaming (eg DSTV) like on the faster lines (i.e above 384)? Do you still suffer with buffering, etc.

 

[SSung]

Torrents going @ ~1k now. Heard that Seacom is now near fully back up, dunno if that has anything to do with it. Maybe somebody should go snip the cable again?

Uncapped Broadband my ass; this is more like capped dial-up.

 

[SabreWolfy]

Why would MWeb cancel the accounts of uncapped users because they are "downloading too much"? Why would MWeb risk the negative advertizing and publicity of this? They offer uncapped, but then as soon as people "download too much" their accounts are canceled. No company would take this route. MWeb is not a newbie in the ISP field. I'm not saying they are perfect, but I reckon they know a thing or two about being an ISP and about the industry in this country. And I'm quite sure they did their homework before launching the uncapped service. Their CEO has once again said that uncapped accounts are truly uncapped (if used within the T&C of course) and that they don't throttle.

The more logical explanation regarding canceled accounts is clearly that they are targeting users who are in contravention of the T&C. If you take out medical aid or a cell 'phone contract or hire a car or stay at a hotel, there are always T&C. An internet account is no different. If you contravene the T&C, the supplier of service is entitled to remove the service. It really is that simple.

 

[PeterCH]

An interesting question is this:

RapidShare is in Germany. MU is in Hong Kong? And so on. South Africa is a member of the World Trade Organisation, it may be illegal or in breach of international treaties to even shape RS, MU, etc traffic because it unfairly discriminates against THOSE COMPANIES. What's more if MWEB does not shape DSTV downloads it also becomes a contentious issue.

Perhaps someone who is a lawyer could chime in on this aspect?

Definately it is something which could be brought against CUSTOMS (SARS) who discriminate against certain online stores by delaying their parcels more than others for example. AFAIK international treaties are binding by law (local law). If SA has a trade agreement with the EU and it is a free agreement, local businesses or government are not allowed to impede foreign companies.

 

[Kosmik]

An interesting question is this:

RapidShare is in Germany. MU is in Hong Kong? And so on. South Africa is a member of the World Trade Organisation, it may be illegal or in breach of international treaties to even shape RS, MU, etc traffic because it unfairly discriminates against THOSE COMPANIES. What's more if MWEB does not shape DSTV downloads it also becomes a contentious issue.

Perhaps someone who is a lawyer could chime in on this aspect?

Definately it is something which could be brought against CUSTOMS (SARS) who discriminate against certain online stores by delaying their parcels more than others for example. AFAIK international treaties are binding by law (local law). If SA has a trade agreement with the EU and it is a free agreement, local businesses or government are not allowed to impede foreign companies.

Unless by mutual agreement with their customers perhaps?

 

[milomak]

The more logical explanation regarding canceled accounts is clearly that they are targeting users who are in contravention of the T&C. If you take out medical aid or a cell 'phone contract or hire a car or stay at a hotel, there are always T&C. An internet account is no different. If you contravene the T&C, the supplier of service is entitled to remove the service. It really is that simple.

but why are they selevtively picking 4mb users out for not following the T&Cs? or are you saying no 384k users have bypassed the shaping?

 

[PeterCH]

Unless by mutual agreement with their customers perhaps?

Not even then. Only if by agreement with RS et al.