-
Ask a question and get free supportUnlock new privileges and see hidden discussionsWin prizes and earn reputation
-
Question of the day ~ How often do you braai?
-
Afristay giveaway.Win a 2-night stay for two people at an establishment of your choice with R1,000 in spending money. Enter here.
Sign up with GoogleNew LTE AUP from September 2016
- Thread starter mark353
- Start date
CUDlybunny
Expert Member
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,052
No, I'm saying If you read the telkom contract you signed you'll see their asses are covered.
where / how did you enquire?
personally no issue with paying for the equipment but I don't want to be paying any penalties for the service (or lack there of).
HapticSimian
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2007
- Messages
- 15,950
For those who may be interested: https://twitter.com/hermann_otto/status/778555350299664384
Guys there's not much more that we can do. Lets pretend for the sake of argument that the fine print in the contract does not allow them to change the FUP (in light of the Consumer Protection Act or otherwise).
That would mean that Telkom has commited breach of contract. There are legal remedies for breach of contract, you could issue summons to claim specific performance, restitution, cancellation or damages. Let's have a quick look at these:
Specific Performance
This is basically what we all want - A court order that forces Telkom to deliver the service they agreed to deliver. Unfortunately their defense to this is going to be that performance has become impossible, which is a valid defense. You can't deliver a car to a buyer if it turns out the car has been stolen in the meantime.
Restitution
This would be a claim to return both parties to the status quo pro ante. This is however unlikely as it would force both parties to return the performance they received from the other party. We cannot return the bandwidth we have consumed.
Cancellation
This is what Telkom is offering . Cancellation of the agreement without penalty fees. They just need to inform their ground level staff of this fact. This is also what courts would be most likely to grant under the circumstances.
Damages
In order to succeed in a claim for damages you will have to prove that you suffered said damages and that the damages were a direct result of Telkom's breach (on a balance of probabilities). It is worth noting that you will have to prove that you attempted to mitigate said damages by obtaining an alternative connection. This would only be worthwhile in extreme cases, as the legal costs would probably greatly exceed the amount in monthly fees.
A court battle would probably reach it's conclusion some time in 2018 (in the Pretoria High Court). Trying to take this to court is definitely not worth the trouble. If you are still dissatisfied, your best option is to go for cancellation and find a different package that suits your needs.
That would mean that Telkom has commited breach of contract. There are legal remedies for breach of contract, you could issue summons to claim specific performance, restitution, cancellation or damages. Let's have a quick look at these:
Specific Performance
This is basically what we all want - A court order that forces Telkom to deliver the service they agreed to deliver. Unfortunately their defense to this is going to be that performance has become impossible, which is a valid defense. You can't deliver a car to a buyer if it turns out the car has been stolen in the meantime.
Restitution
This would be a claim to return both parties to the status quo pro ante. This is however unlikely as it would force both parties to return the performance they received from the other party. We cannot return the bandwidth we have consumed.
Cancellation
This is what Telkom is offering . Cancellation of the agreement without penalty fees. They just need to inform their ground level staff of this fact. This is also what courts would be most likely to grant under the circumstances.
Damages
In order to succeed in a claim for damages you will have to prove that you suffered said damages and that the damages were a direct result of Telkom's breach (on a balance of probabilities). It is worth noting that you will have to prove that you attempted to mitigate said damages by obtaining an alternative connection. This would only be worthwhile in extreme cases, as the legal costs would probably greatly exceed the amount in monthly fees.
A court battle would probably reach it's conclusion some time in 2018 (in the Pretoria High Court). Trying to take this to court is definitely not worth the trouble. If you are still dissatisfied, your best option is to go for cancellation and find a different package that suits your needs.
SykomantiS
Expert Member
- Joined
- May 7, 2012
- Messages
- 3,797
CUDlybunny
Expert Member
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,052
"coffee"Only one cup of coffee? Cheapskate.
I just asked it on their live chat. I wouldnt expect these people to know about it anyways. Would just be nice if telkom could filter this down to these people. Like in their morning meetings (If that is even a thing at telkom)
Nope. Tried it last night and this morning and still taking off from the Browsing cap. My FUP cap hasn't moved from 34mb
SeaSickMama
Expert Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2013
- Messages
- 2,248
Nope. Tried it last night and this morning and still taking off from the Browsing cap. My FUP cap hasn't moved from 34mb
Well it should still use it from your cap as you are using a space on the network. You causing congestion not in a big way but you using up a bandwidth
Nope. Tried it last night and this morning and still taking off from the Browsing cap. My FUP cap hasn't moved from 34mb
Strange, i'll give it a go from my side to see if it works.
Why not implement a whitelist of domains that don't count towards the softcap?
Telkom is able to identify traffic easily enough so I propose for example, leave the soft cap at 300GB but traffic to Netflix, Youtube, Hulu etc don't count towards this cap. That way users are able to stream without having to worry and 300GB of "other" traffic is imo plenty to survive on.
Telkom is able to identify traffic easily enough so I propose for example, leave the soft cap at 300GB but traffic to Netflix, Youtube, Hulu etc don't count towards this cap. That way users are able to stream without having to worry and 300GB of "other" traffic is imo plenty to survive on.
Because streaming traffic is a large part of the headache for Telkom as it happens mostly during peak times
That's not what I understood... My understanding is that a small percentage of users are abusing the service. The soft cap is in place to prevent users using more than 2tb of data?
If my math works out - 11% of 10000? users are consuming 2.5tb+ per month that works out to roughly 28PB of data (presumably mainly intl) that Telkom has to account for.
If the issue is really one of congestion and not data then why not simply shape traffic during peak times rather than shaping all the time based on some arbitrary number?
For example, consider the user who works nights... If congestion is the issue then there should be no need to shape him at all - even if he did stream 4k on 3 devices 8 hours a day. All his usage is outside of peak and he's consuming 4tb a month, but having minimal impact to the network overall.
Why not shape based on usage combined with contention? During times of high demand shape users with higher totals during the congestion and release shaping when it's no longer needed?
Joe Soap who only uses 50gb a month experiences better throughput and Steve the hoarder gets to keep on hoarding without impacting the rest of us.
Ultimate_Lurker
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2016
- Messages
- 109
Why not just cancel the accounts of the abusers and leave the terms as it were before this whole AUP got implemented?
11% were using more than 200gb, not 2.5tb.
CUDlybunny
Expert Member
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,052
You can do all that with a 2Mb line...
Was doing it with LTE at under 2mbps for days.