MWEB Uncapped ADSL - Unofficial Q

[Icarium]

I don't know that. They unshape it because maybe online banking and shopping sites use encryption and they don't want to penalise that.



So it is legal to use a VPN for privacy but also illegal to use VPN for privacy. So I may not have privacy if I want to download a file over x MB/GB of size while browsing because that may be misinterpreted by MWEB as 'abusing' VPN too for downloading stuff they shape.

Now all I want and I hope your logic will agree here and find it reasonable, is a quantification of the x figure above. So if I am enjoying privacy and decide to download a 300MB file, I will have to disconnect my privacy and download that file. In other words I may not have privacy while using the internet for anything more than browsing, or perhaps there is a limit to what MWEB considers abusive in this instance. So if I have to download some files while browsing I can do so while still in VPN mode. I want to know the limit because the double think here is terrible.



The two points contradict each other because they are explained in too vague a way.

If I am in VPN mode and browse for 90% of the time, is it ok to download files which I may browse out for 10% of the time too? Or perhaps the % is a megabyte indicator. If I do 10MB of browsing, how much of that can be continous so that I may see if my browsing/downloading behaviour is able to co-exist with privacy or not on this MWEB product.



A reasonable person would see that this is too vague especially as you risk a 'ban'.

I'll put it another way. If I do 1-2GB traffic per day while shaped - is it ok to do 1-2GB of traffic per day while in VPN mode? If it's not, it is obvious that there are serious restrictions on privacy usage.

Pick up the phone and phone Mweb. Record the call if you feel the need. No one on this forum is going to be able to give you the answers you want - all you're going to get is best guesses, even from the Mweb rep(s).

Best guess? A 300MB file is a 12 minute spike on a 4mbps line - unlikely to bring the banhammer down on you even if it's through a VPN. 1-2GB a day? Again - they'll look at traffic patterns and decide.

They're *never* going to give out exact details of the kind you require, mostly because for most of your questions there is no exact answer.Thier policies with regards to what constitutes abuse is fluid because how people use thier internet connections is fluid. If they had set parameters they wouldn't need a division to "investigate" abuse - they'd simply capture the x/y/z values that constitute abuse and let thier system take care of it (Ala Afrihost - and we all know how happy thier uncapped customers are).

 

[mika1000]

MWEB lives in some fantacy world, where false advertising is real. I've laid official complatnts at ASASA and the ISPA. MWEB is still the fakest ISP around and none of their business practices had change. Bye bye.

 

[MWEBHelp]

@Icarium

Thanks for pointing this out. The x/y/z options are something that we have discussed at length, but it simply isn't the correct solution. Putting a set of rules like this in place simply opens up a whole new set of administrative headaches and customer frustration to deal with. It can also have a negative impact on network performance as it creates artificial usage spikes at different times of the month as heavy downloaders rush to ensure that they use up every last byte in their quota.

 

[Icarium]

MWEB lives in some fantacy world, where false advertising is real. I've laid official complatnts at ASASA and the ISPA. MWEB is still the fakest ISP around and none of their business practices had change. Bye bye.

Let us know how that turns out. Who are you going to complain to if and most likely when ASASA and the ISPA dismiss your claims?

 

[SSung]

Hi Sabrewolfy

Obviously there is some trigger behavior involved that caused us to examine someone’s usage more closely and to react to it, which I think is the point everyone keeps coming back to. This is ground I have covered previously however let's go over it again.

It's almost like the trigger is some kind of 'cap'?

We looked at user behavior, with the initial trigger being long periods of high speed downloading.

Please define "long periods" and "high speed".

Bear in mind that this is already in contravention of the AUP.

Technically, so is leaving your browser open while you fetch a drink.

We then looked at other factors such as the bypassing of shaping rules and the pattern of behavior over an extended period of time.

It's quite possible to unknowingly bypass the shaping rules as many Rapidshare-class sites automatically create tunnels to do just that. How is the average user supposed to know about all of this when I wasn't even aware of it until recently?

Based on this we used our discretion, rather than the application of a fixed rule which has no flexibility, to determine what course of action was appropriate to follow with each customer involved.

You decided that they were downloading too much and decided to disconnect them. There was no discretion involved.

In the case of customers where shaping bypassing was clearly involved, we did not offer them any choice other than to move onto the appropriate product, or to cancel their service.

Which is effectively terminating their service.

In certain other cases we used our discretion in offering the customer the choice to remain on the same product and bring their usage patterns more in line with those of the average user.

Haven't heard of this happening. I'm not saying it hasn't happened. Anyone know anything about this?

We have given the assurance on more than one occasion that only a small group of customers were affected in this initial exercise.

What does the number affected by your actions have to do with anything?

Let me put this another way:

Every customer affected by this exercise was making a concerted effort to max out their line utilization on a constant and ongoing basis.

Please define "max out", "line utilization", "constant" and "ongoing".

There has been a lot of discussion involving all you can eat analogies so let me continue the theme by stating quite simply that if this type of ‘binge’ downloading is your sole purpose for having an Internet connection then you need to be on the Internet Addict product.

Are you calling me greedy?

I really can’t put it more plainly than this.

I can: MWEB have lied, are lying and will continue to lie.

 

[milomak]

i think i'm gonna stump up the extra cash and move to the openweb gold account. see what that offers.

and that will be mainly to see if i can get better than 60-70kB/s at this time of night on a Friday.

 

[Shayd]

/FLAMESUIT ON/

I cannot believe the whining going on on the forum. Do you honestly believe they are going to create new complex rules just to make a few(very few) myBB boys happy. It's simple if you don't like the product don't use it. If you use VPN's and they call you on it then go to Openweb or one of the other ISP's.

Too many people think Uncapped means 4mb 24/7 and will break every rule to make sure that happens even if it makes the company lose money. All uncapped means is there is no limit on data that they will cut you off as long as you abide by the AUP. If the AUP doesn't work for you because of any reason, do the free market thing and leave, this will make companies come up with alternatives aka Openweb Gold.

Whining about AUP's is like whining that McDonalds doesn't serve pizza, if you don't like it go somewhere else!

Go ahead and tear into me now folks, odds are you belong on a business or premium package and you know it!

 

[mika1000]

Let us know how that turns out. Who are you going to complain to if and most likely when ASASA and the ISPA dismiss your claims?

I've also instruced a very reputable law firm in Sabdton who likes to take on the big boys, to look into other legal options.

I'm the CEO of a multi-national company, which has its own legal division, they looked into it and then instructed a legal firm which specialise in civil cases.

I've never used any illegal sothware to download, or a VPN or whatever. I mainly stream hd movies from a subscription service which costs me an arm and a leg.

But MWEB seems to think otherwise.

I've got a business account for downloading which costs several thousand rand per month.

 

[remybfg10k]

I've also instruced a very reputable law firm in Sabdton who likes to take on the big boys, to look into other legal options.

I'm the CEO of a multi-national company, which has its own legal division, they looked into it and then instructed a legal firm which specialise in civil cases.

I've never used any illegal sothware to download, or a VPN or whatever. I mainly stream hd movies from a subscription service which costs me an arm and a leg.

But MWEB seems to think otherwise.

I've got a business account for downloading which costs several thousand rand per month.

What do the shareholders think about you wasting company money on a personal issue?

 

[xrapidx]

Hi Sabrewolfy

Obviously there is some trigger behavior involved that caused us to examine someone’s usage more closely and to react to it, which I think is the point everyone keeps coming back to. This is ground I have covered previously however let's go over it again.

We looked at user behavior, with the initial trigger being long periods of high speed downloading. Bear in mind that this is already in contravention of the AUP. We then looked at other factors such as the bypassing of shaping rules and the pattern of behavior over an extended period of time.

Based on this we used our discretion, rather than the application of a fixed rule which has no flexibility, to determine what course of action was appropriate to follow with each customer involved.

In the case of customers where shaping bypassing was clearly involved, we did not offer them any choice other than to move onto the appropriate product, or to cancel their service.
In certain other cases we used our discretion in offering the customer the choice to remain on the same product and bring their usage patterns more in line with those of the average user.

We have given the assurance on more than one occasion that only a small group of customers were affected in this initial exercise. Let me put this another way:

Every customer affected by this exercise was making a concerted effort to max out their line utilization on a constant and ongoing basis. There has been a lot of discussion involving all you can eat analogies so let me continue the theme by stating quite simply that if this type of ‘binge’ downloading is your sole purpose for having an Internet connection then you need to be on the Internet Addict product. I really can’t put it more plainly than this.

In closing let me state again that we have listened to all of your concerns here and that a lot of them will be taken very seriously in terms of how we take this process forward, particularly in the area of how we notify customers who are in contravention of the policy.

Kind Regards
MWEB Operations (Tech Manager)

Here's a fairly simple idea - why don't you tell us what the average user is allowed to use?

 

[Rands]

Here's a fairly simple idea - why don't you tell us what the average user is allowed to use?

They won't, or cannot, beacuse as soon as they provide a 'limit' they cannot advertise the product as uncapped....it immediately becomes capped, i think

We should rather ask what a reasonable amount will be before any phonecalls or warnings

 

[xrapidx]

They won't, or cannot, beacuse as soon as they provide a 'limit' they cannot advertise the product as uncapped....it immediately becomes capped, i think

I'm not asking for a limit - I'm asking for average use. Other ISPs state use in their T&Cs

 

[SabreWolfy]

/FLAMESUIT ON/

I cannot believe the whining going on on the forum. Do you honestly believe they are going to create new complex rules just to make a few(very few) myBB boys happy. It's simple if you don't like the product don't use it. If you use VPN's and they call you on it then go to Openweb or one of the other ISP's.

Too many people think Uncapped means 4mb 24/7 and will break every rule to make sure that happens even if it makes the company lose money. All uncapped means is there is no limit on data that they will cut you off as long as you abide by the AUP. If the AUP doesn't work for you because of any reason, do the free market thing and leave, this will make companies come up with alternatives aka Openweb Gold.

Whining about AUP's is like whining that McDonalds doesn't serve pizza, if you don't like it go somewhere else!

Go ahead and tear into me now folks, odds are you belong on a business or premium package and you know it!

+1

 

[SabreWolfy]

Jeez, I'm not with MWEB, never have been, and have no association with them either, but some of you okes are such drama queens. You ask the same questions all the time, and get the same answers from MWEB. They cannot be more clear, and you aren't going to get the answer you want. Just aint gonna happen.

+1

 

[SabreWolfy]

Hi Sabrewolfy

Obviously there is some trigger behavior involved ...
<snip>

Kind Regards
MWEB Operations (Tech Manager)

Thanks for the detailed reply.

Their T&C's specifically state that the account is intended for periodic use, which 24/7 downloading is not.

Icarium reminded me of this clause in the T&C relating to constant downloading, which is also what I was looking for regarding why heavy downloaders were banned. I just wanted to ensure that everyone understood that MWeb is not banning because of the amount downloaded per se, but rather because the account is being used for constant downloading which is in contravention of the T&C.

 

[SabreWolfy]

What do the shareholders think about you wasting company money on a personal issue?

I'm interested in the rulings we can expect on this issue from ASASA/ISPA. ASASA recently ruled that "uncapped" as advertised by another ISP in the country which throttled users is not unfair advertising as the service was not terminated. This MWeb "ban" issue is different of course, and relates to terminating the service because of contravention of the T&C.

Maybe I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm quite sure MWeb would have drawn up their T&C after consulting with legal experts. I hardly think they sat around a coffee table and threw them together. I'm not saying that that makes the T&C 100% perfect and wonderful and that MWeb can do whatever they like and "hide" behind the T&C. What I am saying is that I suspect they anticipated that this scenario would arise and that they have accounted for it in the T&C. We'll see when ASASA and the ISPA make their rulings.

 

[SabreWolfy]

Cars and Buffets

I think many people are not able to distinguish between "uncapped/use as much as you want" and "download at line speed 24/7" and therein lies the problem.

The first means drive your car "free of charge" around town or around the country to go about your normal daily business as much as you want to, or as much as you need to for normal usage.

The second means use your car to constantly drive between Jhb and Cape Town at 160k/hr for the entire month non-stop.

The first means return to the buffet for ONE NORMAL plate of food as often as you want, or need, to, for the whole month.

The second means return to the buffet for TEN plates piled HIGH with food every 5 minutes.

People who cannot, or will not, understand the difference between these two concepts will never be happy with uncapped ADSL, the T&C, MWeb or any other ISP and are best served by another account which ALLOWS THEM to race between Jhb and Cape Town for the whole month non-stop.

I once again encourage those who feel the need to reply with comments -- such as they purchased uncapped and they want what they paid for and uncapped means they can drive to Cape Town and back 1000 times if they want and that they can take 1000 plates of food if they want -- to read and understand the T&C. There are always T&C. If you purchased the product without reading them, knowing about them or caring about them and are now unhappy, well, who's fault is that now?

 

[PeterCH]

MWEB is just not being clear here. Neither are the other ISPs.

Point is that we need to know what they consider FAIR USE per month. I think that's fair. Nowhere else do you see these issues.

Medical Aid - there are unlimited plans but they all have basic limits - for ex, 2 million Rand.
Armed Response companies - state they will charge a call out fee for false alarms after x false call outs per month.
VOIP companies like VoipCheap - unlimited calls during freedays but maxed out at 300 minutes per week.

None of these companies advertise and make a selling point on unlimited either, yet because their plans can be considered in some regards to be unlimited they offer very clear quantified explanations in their fine print. Imagine a medical aid which said you have unlimited cover but only if you use your medical aid in an average fashion or don't abuse it. Such would never work. There have to be fixed limits and there are.

In SA we're already limited by the expensive yet slow 4Mbit line speed. That's already a limit and for all intents and purposes SA's ISPs should offer true unlimited accounts because that alone limits us already. No matter how hard you try, with one line and one account, you can never go over 1000 GB. Probably because IPC costs and international cable costs the ISPs still don't offer such services - and I doubt the R2000 Addict or R3000 VodaCom Platinum accounts are like this - if you consistently use the line fully - they will nail you - maybe get you to buy a second account. However, the ISPs need to be fair and provide a reasonable number so that our human minds can know what the limits are so we don't push them.

 

[lerouxh]

@PeterCH

well said.

 

[SSung]

MWEB have now effectively all but admitted to some kind of cap/threshold that triggers "further investigation" and almost certain termination. It's a cap in all but words.

Icarium reminded me of this clause in the T&C relating to constant downloading, which is also what I was looking for regarding why heavy downloaders were banned. I just wanted to ensure that everyone understood that MWeb is not banning because of the amount downloaded per se, but rather because the account is being used for constant downloading which is in contravention of the T&C.

MWEB has admitted to a trigger. The trigger is a threshold of data downloaded, which is in turn effectively a cap on the service.

From the T&Cs:

The ADSL Service is intended for periodic, active use of the internet.

I don't believe that this is enforceable for a number of reasons:

1. It's too vague. The words "periodic" and "active" are not defined. Do I have to be at my computer for every second of downloading? Do I have to be moving the mouse? What if I fall asleep? Are MWEB paying my neighbours to spy on me?

2. It's too broad. 100% of MWEB users have almost certainly already violated it in some way; even without a strict reading of it. Leaving your browser open and fetching a drink for example, or common software that updates automatically in the background (often waiting until the internet connection is idle).

3. It's obviously setup as an excuse to expel undesirables from the service.