Wow, so you are saying that all front line staff know nothing?

It was a 30 minute or 40 minute call and he was speaking to his managers or supervisors about it. You were not involved in the call so why not keep your opinion to yourself?
If you had actually read what I said, it would help. I said that front-line support are for simple queries and don't know the details of what goes down behind the scenes. That you can't wrap your head around this is not my problem. I also suggested that maybe they WERE tweaking their QoS due to the crisis they are currently experiencing. Which would place what you were saying in a more logical (and useful) context.
Funny that MWEB is the ONLY one on Seacom having this problem.
Uh, it's very possible that this could happen... any number of issues could hit between M-Web and the SEACOM cable that could have an effect on their performance, this could include the backhaul they likely purchased via Neotel, etc. additionally it depends on what backup plans they have. As has been established before, M-Web has some backup bandwidth via another link (likely SAT-3), though this is far from enough to deal with their DSL requirements. Axxess for example uses IS as their provider for uncapped ADSL, IS, as we know, has multiple backup routes (despite the IS-based uncapped service being significantly worse performing than M-Web - except for now that is), so they tend to not be as affected.
Now you know how much I know as well? Are you psychic?
Please, you seem to lack even the basic understanding of how an ISP/large-scale network functions, pretty unfortunate for someone who's spent almost 4 years of their life commenting on this forum.
Tell me do you work for Mweb? Why is it that Mweb are the
ONLY ones having this issue? Please enlighten me as I clearly dont understand what is going on
Nope, but I used to work for Web Africa. Let me drop some knowledge on you:
1) Of the multiple ISP's you're likely comparing M-Web against when referring to them being the "ONLY" one, 99% of them are likely providing IS uncapped accounts.
2) That means that actually there are only 2 ISP's we're really talking about here, M-Web and IS.
3) IS has likely got more redundancy than M-Web and their network is also far more established than M-Web's is, having being in the "own network provisioning" game for years and years (lets forget about IS performance right now). IS also has more experience running their own network(s).
4) Running a network (and making sure redundancy and contingency plans work) at the size of an ISP is not easy. I would argue that IS is better equipped for that at the moment.
5) IS *might* in fact be experiencing issues via SEACOM as well, *however* since they have better backup plans, have more ways to route the data out. Since their ADSL tends to be pretty crummy anyway, it's likely users don't really notice. Therefore the RELATIVE performance dip is more pronounced with M-Web.
No-one is lying to you... to even assume that is psychotic. It's definitely tin-foil hat territory. Do I trust M-Web implicitly, hell no, but since they have a terms of service that states they can change their QoS when they want, WHY ON EARTH would they resort to lying that it's a SEACOM problem when they can just come out and say "hey, we're changing our QoS" and point to their ToS when people complain? Again, it makes no sense.