Telkom answer local bandwidth issue with the finger

I didn't get one of those e-mails. The whole installing software thing sounds dodgy though. Is this genuine? Surely there would have been earlier mention of this on these forums if it was genuine.
 
Dodgy indeed, and bizarre. How will you wasting bandwidth on local sites prove that Telkom is screwing you, except to yourself?
 
Feedback at last. After a bit of goading I have had some feedback regarding my last mail from ICASA. I wont post it yet (it pretty much says they have another meeting coming up). However. If you support my argument (basicly that local bandwidth should not be subject to the capRef #CA/WC854/06) it would be useful for you to say so by sending a mail to Obakeng Tlhabi <[email protected]> saying you support Mr Cleghorn and his complaint Ref #CA/WC854/06 and believe Telkom are in breach of regulation 3.4 of Gazette 29141 amongst others.

Main thing is send it and include the complaint ref and 3hatever esle you feel good. I have checked this is ok with Mr Tlhabi and he says its fine and more sigs will lend weight. If anyone could set up a poll thing or automated sender that would be good too.

@Slinky...giood piont, I jenraly do byt lokin at hte responses from ICASA ive nooot bin to put to 5hame ;)
 
jenraly. :D

Very polite email sent, thanking him for the attention given to this issue and lending my support to the complaint.

How can we get this thread more attention?
 
Email campaign?

A friend mailed me about this thread, so just plain email can be quite effective if sent with simple instructions on what to do about the situation...

This is what was mailed to me:
Hi all,

As per the ICASA regulations that were gazetted in August last year,
local bandwidth usage is not supposed to count towards your cap.
Telkom have been in breach of this law since it came into effect and
claim that they cannot distinguish between local and international
traffic, even though during consultation when the regs were drawn up
they had no objection and stated that they could distinguish between
the two. Despite being in breach of the law and still charging us for
local bandwidth, nothing is being done to enforce the regulations.

Thomas Cleghorn (Tommygun) on MyADSL forums has taken up the cause and
is in communication with ICASA regarding this. If you support this
cause and believe that Telkom are in breach and you want something
done about it, please voice your support for Mr Cleghorn and his
complaint (Ref #CA/WC854/06) by emailing Obakeng Tlhabi at this
address: [email protected].

In your email please quote the complaint reference number
(#CA/WC854/06) and that you believe that Telkom are in breach of
regulation 3.4 of Gazette 29141 amongst others. Mr Tlhabi is aware of
this action and if fine with it as these emails will lend weight to
the cause.

If you want to read the thread about this yourself, it's here:
http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?t=75471
Click to expand...
 
With respect to Section 3.4 of the Regulation, we indicated that, with
regard to the combination of local and international bandwidth
counting towards the cap, at this stage Telkom is not in a position to
control the ratio of local versus international bandwidth usage in
real-time.
Click to expand...
Who's asking them to control the ratio in real time? The regs require that they distinguish between the two. If they can't do it in real time, then what about doing it at set intervals? Why they hell are they still resetting connections every 24 hours or so? :mad:

How about refunding local bandwidth counted as international at the end of the month then? Surely they can do that then? :confused:

How about we give them Zim dollars instead of rands as payment for services because we can't control the ratio of real money vs worthless money? :D
 
What I don't understand is why everyone is so focussed on Telkom. Yes they're doing us in but what about IS?

The provide local and international and are CLEARLY ALSO breaking the law?!?!?!?!?:confused: Why is no one giving them a hard time?

And what about the ISP's, why are they not being taken to court for selling illegal products?

**and this is where they jump up and down saying they don't control the product** But the fact remains they are in DIRECT contravention of the law buy selling on illegal products to the public.
 
Last edited:
Chavez said:
What I don't understand is why everyone is so focussed on Telkom. Yes they're doing us in but what about IS?

The provide local and international and are CLEARLY ALSO breaking the law?!?!?!?!?:confused: Why is no one giving them a hard time?

And what about the ISP's, why are they not being taken to court for selling illegal products?

**and this is where they jump up and down saying they don't control the product** But the fact remains they are in DIRECT contravention of the law buy selling on illegal products to the public.
Click to expand...

They can't provide free local either because they pay Telkom ridiculous sums of money for ADSL connectivity. And I use IS, so I'd rather have them keep offering a product than force them off the market with legal action to prove a point, thanks.

Ditto for the ISPs. They're the victims of a screwed up system, but they do the best they can to offer us solutions. I don't want to lose that, too.
 
eremos said:
They can't provide free local either because they pay Telkom ridiculous sums of money for ADSL connectivity. And I use IS, so I'd rather have them keep offering a product than force them off the market with legal action to prove a point, thanks.

Ditto for the ISPs. They're the victims of a screwed up system, but they do the best they can to offer us solutions. I don't want to lose that, too.
Click to expand...

It's either wrong or it's right. You can't decide who you feel is more wrong than the other and target that company?!?! IS wants to be in business so it's their problem as to what their interconnection fees cost...the same goes with the ISP's and their related costs. That's business for you!! At the end of the day, irrespective of how you want to view it, they're selling on an illegal product to the public!!

I as a consumer have no loyalty to a business. I will go with who offers the best price and service today.
 
Chavez said:
It's either wrong or it's right. You can't decide who you feel is more wrong than the other and target that company?!?! IS wants to be in business so it's their problem as to what their interconnection fees cost...the same goes with the ISP's and their related costs. That's business for you!! At the end of the day, irrespective of how you want to view it, they're selling on an illegal product to the public!!

I as a consumer have no loyalty to a business. I will go with who offers the best price and service today.
Click to expand...

I agree in principle .. yeah, we are being somewhat selective in who we allow to break the law.

But even if we did go after eg. WebAfrica. They would be powerless to change things (Telkom sure won't listen to them) and thus would be forced to stop reselling ADSL, which would eliminate even more of what little choice we have to begin with.

MyADSL is about consumer activism, not law enforcement. By forcing Telkom to change, everybody will benefit, ISPs included.
 
@Chavez. Start with the beast and then get the others to fall in line. The main problem I see is that all the ISPs will blame Telkom so you get no where. Rather attack Telkom who are ISP and infrastructure provider. Because they controll both they have NO excuse to fall back on. Once we have Telkom playing by the rules and acting legaly then move to the other ISPs. Its the as same as eating an elephant, start one small bite at a time.
As another asside Ive just fired off another letter to ICASA asking them whats up. My first compalint was on MARCH 19th and Telkom continue to breal the law while ICASA sit by doing what looks to me like nothing substantive.
 
Tommygun said:
My first compalint was on MARCH 19th and Telkom continue to breal the law while ICASA sit by doing what looks to me like nothing substantive.
Click to expand...

Hi Tommygun, what recourse do you as a consumer have when ICASA fail to take action, as seems to be the case here with your complaint?
 
Hi Sneeky, apparently I can ask for the case to be moved to the Complaints and Compliance Commission which I shall now do. Ill see if I get an ICASA response today to my last mail then up the heat via Complaints and Compliance Commission (not sure if they have more teeth but they cant possibly be as toothless...)
 
Good luck, this is one ball though that I m sure nobody wants to catch ;)
Perhaps ask ICASA who to next, will be interesting to hear what they suggest, hehe.

Independent Communications Authority of South Africa





Having problems with your communication services and your company does not resolve your complaint?



Consumer Protection Department was established to provide free, independent, just and speedy resolution of complaints.



This guide sets out the procedures for complaints which are related to communication services of licensed communications operators.



1. How to send a complaint?



Every complaint must be put in writing and should be send to: Consumer Department – Complaints Handling Unit. Kindly note, it is an office of last resort and you must give your service provider the opportunity to resolve the complaint before ICASA will become involved.



2. Acknowledgement



We will acknowledge receipt of a complaint in writing via fax, email or ordinary post. The acknowledgement of the receipt will include contact information of the case officer handling the complaint, to whom enquiries concerning the progress of the case may be made.







3. We will examine the information provided by the complainant and if the complaint is not within the scope of services provided by the licensees, the complainant will be informed and may be given the contact information of the agencies that will continue to deal with the complaint.



4. If the complaint falls within our jurisdiction, we will write to the licensee to inform them about the problem.



5. In all cases, we will invite the licensee to comment on the case and provide any information that is relevant towards the complaint and advice the Authority on the outcome.



6. The licensee will be given sufficient time to respond. We have a standing Memorandum of Understanding with operators that they have to respond to us within 14 days.



7. If the case is complex, we take an approach of inviting both the licensee and the complainant to a meeting that will be mediated by the Authority.



For more information contact:



Consumer Protection Department:

Tel no: 011 321 8277

Fax no: 011 448 1870
Email address: [email protected]
Click to expand...
http://www.icasa.org.za/Content.aspx?Page=128

Doesnt help I know, but according to this you should be invited to a meeting to discuss the issue with TELKOM.
 
Unbelievable. I sent a mail asking where my complaint was in terms of the complaints handling proceedure found on their web site on wednesday. This morning I got a call saying that they may be passing my complaint on to the CCC (Complaints and compliance commission) but in addition they asked...
Was I saying that local should not be charged for or that local should not count towards the cap!!! Its like no one read my complaint or even Telkom and Dr Hortons response. I sent this in response, I really am amazed and disgusted at once.



Dear sir,
Despite my irritation I must thank you at least for the call this
morning and your mention of my complaint #CA/WC8854/06 being sent to the
ccc. However I am incredulous that you need me to reiterate my complaint and
that you are unsure if I am saying local bandwidth should not be charged for
or if I mean it should not be subject to the cap.

Did you ever read my complaint?
What part of

"Everyday I play games or move files locally My international bandwidth
allocation gets smaller because local traffic IS subject to the cap In
violation of Government gazette 29141 section 3.4.

Telkom SA/Telkom Internet should explain the mechanisms they use to ensure
local bandwidth usage is NOT subject to the cap."

Are you unsure of?
And what part of Dr Horton and Telkoms reply, specifically

"With respect to Section 3.4 of the Regulation, we indicated that, with
regard to the combination of local and international bandwidth
counting towards the cap, at this stage Telkom is not in a position to
control the ratio of local versus international bandwidth usage in
real-time."

And

"Therefore, any usage whether local or
international, will count towards the customer's cap until the
necessary development is completed on the IP network."

I personally dont understand the need to do this real time but there is no
denying that Telkom fully admit they are in breach of the regulations. I
restate that until such time as they can distinguish traffic there should be
no cap applied (or being flexible certainly way higher)

I will be sending a formal request to have this matter sent to the CCC
shortly.

Mr T. G. Cleghorn.


On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Thomas Cleghorn wrote:

> Dear sir,
> in relation to my complaint Ref #CA/WC854/06 what step are we/you
> at using the document "Complaints handling proceedures.doc" found on your
> web site?
>
> Mr T.G. Cleghorn
 
One thing with respect to the ISPs other than Telkom is that they in theory should have even bigger clout than us as individuals given they have more resources available to them than we do as individuals. I sometimes do feel that they too need to be pushed into action. After all let's face it that those that resell SAIX bandwidth are profitting from a situation they should not be.
 
Silly question. No bandwidth is "charged for" unless they mean that if you plug in your ADSL modem you should immediately have local access regardless of whether you actually have a paid account with an ISP.

I don't think anybody's demanding that, so yeah, local bandwidth should not count towards the cap.

I hate the use of the term "cap" (unless very clearly defined in a legal document) because they can be fluid. If an ISP automatically tops you up for example, they can't really be considered to be "capping" you because you never reach a cap.

Can't think of a better way to phrase it though. Anyone?

Edit for thinking out loud:

Cap = The amount of bandwidth currently allocated to your account?

A post-paid ISP would then not be subject to it, because you basically have an infinite cap.

Perhaps rephrase the whole thing:

Bandwidth accounting = The process used to determine how much bandwidth has been used on an account.

And then have a regulation stating "local access must be exempt from bandwidth accounting."
 
Last edited:
Capping is implemented on the basic SAIX, IS or Verizon account.

These wholesale accounts are sold with a set monthly usage (the cap).

Retail ISPs can choose to restructure the cap and implement solutions such as carry over or prepaid or soft cap throttling. But the cap itself is there regards of the end package, as it is implemented by the Tier 1 ISPs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X