MWEB:
As a company, either internally or from a technical perspective, what metric are you running the network on, ie. your "network mission statement" for example:
"Our intention is to have a network that has the best performance for gaming, browsing, e-mail, streaming, etc, better than all the other ISP's out there".
or is it,
"Our intention is to have a network that's best for browsing, but we won't really be placing any priority on the performance of other 'non-critical' protocols".
Now you may not always meet the goals you set out for yourself (such as best of breed gaming or whatever), but it helps indicate where your focus and efforts lie. Really it boils down to are you caring about the "average consumer" (ie. browsing and e-mail) or are you equally cognisant of "power users" such as those streaming videos and playing online games both locally and internationally, it also helps us as power users determine what exactly will be likely to suffer first should your network become saturated or heavily utilised.
When I was working for Web Africa, and we were rolling out the network, our goal when doing so was ALWAYS to make it that the distinction between shaped and unshaped would eventually be minimal, that it would "just work". The idea was gaming has to be the best, video streaming has to be the best, etc.
Has WA met those goals? I don't know, though from experience I maintain that WA has one of the best, if not the best, networks out there from a performance perspective (especially if you're on unshaped), though I haven't as of yet taken the opportunity to compare it to MWEB to see which is better. I know where WA's intentions lie from a usability and performance perspective, but I'm interested to see what MWEB's stance re. theirs (and please, less PR more honesty).