Mweb uncapped ADSL is truly uncapped: ASA

Fudzy said:
Where did you find that doc? I see it's creation date is 2010.
Click to expand...

Google "mweb unlimited"

Unlimited is also included within their website META descriptions. This is advertising and also search terms (related to online advertising). SEO including unlimited under uncapped.

E.G.
MWEB - ADSL
www.mweb.co.za/adsl/‎
Unlimited Internet access for a fixed monthly price. R219 - R899. Basic Home & Office. Capped. 1, 2, or 3GB internet access bundles. R69 - R259. Internet Addict.

They have various search terms including unlimited.
 
Something that makes this all even more ridiculous is that their "AUP" that enforces throttling was not the same AUP most users signed on with (that mentioned shaping). So not only are the rules of the ball game dynamically changed without informing the players, but now they get to feel "right" by this clearly incorrect ruling.

Riddle me this: I was considered in the magical "Top 3%". My downloads are always on a limiter, 2mbs premium, never exceeding half of my obtainable speed. Yet....that's abuse?

Either-way though, having to nanny your own uncapped connection is unacceptable, and shame on ASA for setting a bad precedent.
 
Fulcrum29 said:
Google "mweb unlimited"

Unlimited is also included within their website META descriptions. This is advertising and also search terms (related to online advertising). SEO including unlimited under uncapped.

E.G.
MWEB - ADSL
www.mweb.co.za/adsl/‎
Unlimited Internet access for a fixed monthly price. R219 - R899. Basic Home & Office. Capped. 1, 2, or 3GB internet access bundles. R69 - R259. Internet Addict.

They have various search terms including unlimited.
Click to expand...

But are any connected to uncapped? Looks like the meta data is out of date too. Why don't you send MWebGuy a PM suggesting they should update their info if it's rustling your jimmies so much.
 
Capped refers to packages that allow you a predetermined amount of data, but terminate connection once you reached this predetermined limit.

Uncapped refers to packages where your connection is never terminated, irrespective of how much data you use. However, it is accepted that instances of throttling or shaping may well occur at some threshold levels to ensure sustainability of the service for all customers.

Unlimited refers to instances where there are literally no limits, i.e. no throttling or shaping and no restrictions on use.
Click to expand...

At least the one good thing that came from this ruling, is that the type of services are now clearly defined when these scamming companies advertise.

I am now relatively sure that we will never see any 'Unlimited' advertisements anymore and hopefully no attention or publication will be given to any company mentioning 'Unlimited'.

What consumers should release now is that the term 'Uncapped' does not mean unlimited. Uncap will be placed on your usage if you use too much!

For what it is worth, I know that a few people inside the telecoms industry either sh@t their pants or sat on a toilet for the most of today after this ruling. I will not be surprised if some commit suicide today or tomorrow when reality will hit them that they are no longer allowed to use the word 'Unlimited' in scamming consumers into signing contracts.
 
Last edited:
Fudzy said:
But are any connected to uncapped? Looks like the meta data is out of date too. Why don't you send MWebGuy a PM suggesting they should update their info if it's rustling your jimmies so much.
Click to expand...

Yes, I am on Mweb Uncapped. I have no reason to update Mweb Guy on their own company as it does nothing to enhance my value. Mweb wanted to amend their policies, then they should change their advertising. I’m sorry, but META descriptions are advertising, improved search results etc.

Two ASA complaints were lost due to ASA clearly putting these broadband packages apart; Capped, Uncapped and Unlimited. Although Mweb still have clear unlimited terms within their uncapped packages which are not changed.

I’m sure that both these Mweb subscribers signed-up with Mweb prior the policy amendments, according to ASA we the subscribers have actively accepted the AUP and agreed to abide it, but in this case Mweb uncapped products are totally misleading as per their prior advertising and today their uncapped product (policy) totally oppose their previous press releases, statements and advertising.

For me it is the policy overwriting advertising. To make matters even more complicated, what about the uncapped subscribers who signed in the last month prior the amended policy, did they experience the advertised product?

But are any connected to uncapped?
Click to expand...

What does this have to do with anything? People usually searching these terms are doing it due to their needs, thus wanting an unlimited product.

Any website and its terms are an advertising medium (which is communication).
 
So, since i need to now cancel my uncapped Mweb, who is offering an unlimited service and at what prices? Any takers for my business?
 
“As is the case with all networks, you have a mix of users, and at the very top-end you have a small group who consume a significant and disproportionate amount of your capacity,”

“When that starts to have a negative impact on the experience of the rest of your customers, you have to intervene,”

Can they stop the BS.
They don't give a rats a$$ about the end user experience.
It's simply about profit and if they can at least be truthful about that then I may have agreed with them to a point.

At the end of the day they have to pay of the bandwidth used and still make a profit.
But to do that they need to stop with the false marketing and give he end users a number that they deem too high, and if we don't like it we take our money elsewhere.
Instead they make us out to be the villain and publicly blame us for network congestion, while privately offer us business accounts or we must get lost.

Edit: Also, how can they call it uncapped, if they have capped your speed at dailup.
 
Basjohn said:
Something that makes this all even more ridiculous is that their "AUP" that enforces throttling was not the same AUP most users signed on with (that mentioned shaping). So not only are the rules of the ball game dynamically changed without informing the players, but now they get to feel "right" by this clearly incorrect ruling.

Riddle me this: I was considered in the magical "Top 3%". My downloads are always on a limiter, 2mbs premium, never exceeding half of my obtainable speed. Yet....that's abuse?

Either-way though, having to nanny your own uncapped connection is unacceptable, and shame on ASA for setting a bad precedent.
Click to expand...

The dynamic thing needs to be taken up, the e-signing is fine BUT you can't sign documents that are not static or present. Heck when I sign legal contracts where in the documents are not present, it allows the consumer a get out of jail card at the very least which is why they send you reams of paper upon signing. I think this sets a very poor example and will lead to either exploiting this or clamping after someone important gets taken for a ride.

House said:
At least the one good thing that came from this ruling, is that the type of services are now clearly defined when these scamming companies advertise.

I am now relatively sure that we will never see any 'Unlimited' advertisements anymore and hopefully no attention or publication will be given to any company mentioning 'Unlimited'.

What consumers should release now is that the term 'Uncapped' does not mean unlimited. Uncap will be placed on your usage if you use too much!

For what it is worth, I know that a few people inside the telecoms industry either sh@t their pants or sat on a toilet for the most of today after this ruling. I will not be surprised if some commit suicide today or tomorrow when reality will hit them that they are no longer allowed to use the word 'Unlimited' in scamming consumers into signing contracts.
Click to expand...

Well that is the positive.. albeit they have unlimited in the doc which is why although ruling makes sense as a general case, this scenario is wrong as its right there. Is the guy blind perhaps? or was the evidence not presented? I mean it's a dumb ruling.. kinda like that killing case going this way.. Pretorias didn't shoot Steenkamp he just happen to have gun in hand and be alone with her there.. with the expended bullets happen to be lodged in her
 
Didn't ICASA rule that even on capped accounts there cannot be a complete termination?
 
Paul Hjul said:
they don't tell us who made the complaint and on what grounds. The ruling is available here:
http://asasa.org.za/ResultDetail.aspx?Ruling=6711
I have hitherto left the matter on the ISPA track because it isn't the description of uncapped that is at issue but the description of of unthrottled and non-compliance with the ISPA guidelines

Regardless for the reasons already set in this thread an appeal must be prosecuted and I will have a look into proceeding further because frankly reading the ruling is a rehash of the distinction between uncapped and unlimited appearing in the ISPA guidelines and that is not the issue at all.
Click to expand...

They do:

Mr Ryan Roxo Mr Joshua Gilbert Complainant(s)/Appellant(s)
 
Fudzy said:
They do:

Mr Ryan Roxo Mr Joshua Gilbert Complainant(s)/Appellant(s)
Click to expand...
The ASA does in the document you read that I linked to. The ASA ruling says a hell of a lot which the article - and MWEB don't

For example the question of uncapped is long settled but MWEB describes their products as unthrottled and unlimited in places
 
Paul Hjul said:
The ASA does in the document you read that I linked to. The ASA ruling says a hell of a lot which the article - and MWEB don't

For example the question of uncapped is long settled but MWEB describes their products as unthrottled and unlimited in places
Click to expand...

They should retract those descriptions. I know they have in some of the main places but their marketing team needs to step up here and have all ads updated.
 
Fudzy said:
They should retract those descriptions. I know they have in some of the main places but their marketing team needs to step up here and have all ads updated.
Click to expand...

well they'll need to do that before Friday when I send in an ASA complaint ...
 
nope because I am more focused on the ISPA line and haven't gotten a chance to look into lodging forward on this ruling. I just find the response from MWEB to be standard showmanship after a ruling that will in the long term hurt them even though I think the complainants brought a "frivolous" complaint on the wrong issue
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X