Surely The Cap Is illegal

[zEr000]

If TelKom wants to cap us that means that they have to monitor our connection, what they really do is monitor our connection through our username's. But if they monitor our connection that is a invasion of privacy and Illegal. Surely this should not be allowed...

 

[SuPaStA]

they just monitor bandwidth usage not what files you downloading dont worry they not checking out all that pr0n u downloading[]

 

[Sabre]

Seems Telkom isn't the only ISP to cap their service, there are several already doing it albeit with larger caps and it seems it will become more prevalent soon

http://news.com.com/2100-1034_3-5079624.html

 

[Jerrek]

What happened in Canada is now happening to the United States and I'd wager the same results will come in.

About a year ago, Bell introduced a 5 GB monthly cap on their DSL. Additional capacity costed C$0.80 per GB up to C$30. So in essence, people that downloaded a lot paid C$69 a month. This angered a lot of people and in the months after that there was a great influx from Bell to Rogers and Cogeco, the two main cable companies. Some of the other DSL companies got some customers, but for most part people had the "DSL sucks" in their head and wanted a different technology.

Bell Canada must have realized that **** is flying because they are loosing all their customers. I think it severely hurt them. So, in July they announced that they are removing the cap completely, and that they are increasing the speed from 1 Mbps to 1.5 Mbps. Quick change of tune, eh?

So what happened elsewhere in Canada with the other companies?

Well, Rogers, the biggest cable company, considered caps for a while but dismissed the idea after seeing Bell loosing half their customers. Rogers now offers 1.5 Mbps / 384 Kbps as a standard package with no cap.

Cogeco, my cable company, has always had a 30 GB soft cap, but they have never enforced it. According to them, it is there for legal reasons. I've downloaded more than 100 GB some months and they didn't do a thing. I don't think they are going to change their tune either. They are trying VERY VERY hard to get customers. Their standard package is 3 Mbps / 400 Kbps, and their professional package is 6 Mbps / 640 Kbps. They are DOUBLE the speed of Rogers and Bell's DSL and they use that to get more customers.

Shaw's, another cable company, standard package is 8 Mbps. They have no caps and while they considered it decided to put the idea away.

The other DSL providers such as AT&T, Primus, and so on, used to have caps but are now cap free.


This capping thing is really a money making scheme. Cable and DSL companies are getting greedy and wants to get every possible penny out of you. This costed Bell Canada dearly, and I'd wager the more users get grumpy by the cap, the more users will leave.

In Comcast's case, a 2 GB per day cap isn't too bad. 60 GB is a lot per month.



In the end, the users will be either happy or unhappy, and unhappy people tend to take their business to the competitors. This capping thing will not last. Canadian companies tried it and it failed miserably, and the Yanks tend to be more vocal about these things. It just won't last.

 

[Peapod]

Not illegal no, but highly ridiculous given that they cap us at 3Bg per month at the highest ADSL costs on the planet - and yes everyone, i have researched ADSL costs all over the world and we, so far, take the biscuit on ADSL costs vs what we get for our money.
I just cannot understand that our one and only telecomms provider restricts the general population from access to world news, events, information, research, data, education, knowledge, power.....hold on?

 

[Obelix]

Take a look at the new Interception of infomation act. Soon telkom ( and all other ISP ) will be required by law to log and archive all internet traffic ) used in the country.

The govt proposes that the ISP's buy a particular hardware solution that sits on the network and logs everything. Then when someone with a court order rocks up, they must be given access to the device. The device is to be paid for by the ISP. The ISP must also be able to provide real-time traffic scanning and decryption ( yea right ) when provided with a court order.

This hasnt been implemented yet, but probably will soon.

PS - i went and read the constitution cover to cover. There is no such thing as freedom of speech for the general public. Instead we get to have freedom of expression. Freedom of speech is reserved for the parliment that guarantees members of parliment immunity from prosecution for whatever they say in parliment.



We are Dyslexia of Borg, Fusistance is retile, Your ass will be laminated

 

[musnit]

That cant be legal...but its the government they can make it legal if they want to[V]

 

[zEr000]

Does that mean that if we download something illegal they will see it!! and know what we downloaded!

 

[Peapod]

From the SA Constitution:
Here we go then...

<b>Freedom of expression</b>

16. (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes ­

freedom of the press and other media;
freedom to <b>receive or impart information or ideas</b>;
<b>freedom of artistic creativity;</b> and
<b>academic freedom and freedom of scientific research</b>.

<b>Privacy</b>

14. Everyone has the right to privacy, which includes the right not to have ­

their person or home searched;
their property searched;
their possessions seized; or
<b>the privacy of their communications infringed</b>.

Now here we have a moot point - define communications. define privacy - surely the content we choose to view is our business?

Any legal eagles out there? comments please...

Here's a course of action according to our constitutional rights...
<b>Enforcement of rights </b>

38. Anyone listed in this section has the right to approach a competent court, alleging that a right in the Bill of Rights has been infringed or threatened, and the court may grant appropriate relief, including a declaration of rights. The persons who may approach a court are -

anyone acting in their own interest;
anyone acting on behalf of another person who cannot act in their own name;
anyone acting as a member of, or in the interest of, a group or class of persons;
anyone acting in the public interest; and
an association acting in the interest of its members.

Ta da - how to hit the headlines very very rapidly and internationally. All we have to do is make representation to a constitutional court or body and make bloody certain the press are aware of it.

 

[slawrz]

.

 

[VQuest]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by slawrz</i>
<br />.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

That is a classic first post slawrz. []

Welcome aboard.


----------------
United we stand!
----------------

 

[PreyCor]

I must say that I don't think that the government has the right to impose this restriction on the ISP's. Not only would it introduce a serious bottleneck to do something like that, but I would also think that it's a massive privacy infringement.

We have camera's in city centres - those are for the sake of crime prevention, and have worked.

Can you really say that if this were to be implemented it would help with crime prevention?
It would certainly help with job creation, 'cos someone would have to look after the massive systems that do this, and some other bodies would have to analyse the data... but privacy infringement is not a vehicle for job creation. []

I would think that a more reasonable compromise would be to allow a court order to monitor/sniff/capture the traffic of the communications of a suspect in a case. This would allow investigators to get more proof of an offense and catch someone 'in the act'.

If the thinking behind this act is to catch those that have done offenses such as stealing information from companies or other forms of 'hacking', then I would think that the evidence of such acts should be the responsibility of the accusers. The ISP's should be able to produce authentication logs to narrow down the investigation, but the investigators again should have a court order with a specific limitation of times or other appropriate information.