Telkom implementing new cutoff with 3gb account!?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Sinisa</i>
<br />OK people, I've had same problem with 3Gb cap few weeks ago ( http://www.itweb.co.za/sections/columnists/doubletake/weidemann041027.asp ). We've got case number from SAPS ( as per TELKOM request ) and we are going to proceed with subpoena. We'll keep you updated ![:D]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Hi Sinisa,

See my follow up http://www.itweb.co.za/sections/feedback/feedcopy.asp?CommentID=3717
basicaly a reissue of what I said here.

Perhaps your lawyer can combine the two cases into one?
Drop me a line

Cheers
Chris
 
This is what we've received this morning from Telkom
http://www.itweb.co.za/sections/internet/2004/0411031243.asp[:0]
 
Hello there, we've got case number from SAPS ( as requested by Telkom ) and we've send subpoena this morning ... Still waiting for the outcome. Furthermore, this morning we've received offical statement from TELKOM http://www.itweb.co.za/sections/internet/2004/0411031243.asp

Interesting, indeed
 
Telkrap's response is downright disingenious, given my understanding of the situation.
1.) If your user name and password are available to their support staff, they cannot absolve themselves of all responsibility and refuse to "take responsibility for the subscriber base's usernames and passwords".
2.) As I understand it, they contend that the theft is occurring because of no firewalls or anti-virus software. This belies the fact that the theft is occurring outside of one's router/modem, i.e. beyond the area of control which the end-user has, and which lies squarely under their jurisdiction.
3.) It is simply sick for them to refer users to their shopping site to buy Trend, which will not fix the problem. Just shows the mind-set we have to deal with: downright incompetent and apparently blissfully ignorant, too...
 
Giggle - go go go Sinisa.

According to the article:
"According to Telkom, subscribers should put in place the necessary measures to protect themselves against bandwidth theft, such as a personal firewall and anti-virus software".

How in the hell is installing a personal firewall going to help. Ha ha ha. They still think that we are stuuuuupid.

So ...

I phoned Teklom 0800 DSL DSL and told them I want to install a MAC-Style firewall rule on their end to protect myself from bandwidth theft. I explained what a MAC address was. I then referred them to their article (which this person is aware of [Shock Horror]) and they explained that thats not the way it works. So I asked them how the hell I was supposed to protect myself like they have advised me to. Much confusion and babbling later I gave up.

Teklom seems to have published that article to try to blind the public, and to put the blame on the user. Buggers.

Sigh.
 
Just read the article. Possibly the dumbest response ever. They could have just as well advised that users put up barbed wire and motion sensors around their property to ensure that their passwords don't get stolen.
 
Telkom never accepts responsibility for their stuff-ups - ever.


<font color="navy"><font size="1"><b>Where others have progress, we have Telkom.</b>
Hellkom website - www.hellkom.co.za</font id="size1"></font id="navy">
 
Spyware and Virus is just sorry excuse ( smoke and mirrors ). My PWD is not on the PC but on the router flash-ram, serious NAT configured on the router ( ports, access rights etc. ) after ADSL I do have my own wireless router ( again serious settings since I do not want to be HotSpot for my neighbors ) on the PC ZoneAlaram and Symantec Corporate V9.0 ... My personal opinion that someone is leaking USN's and PWD's to friends/relatives etc. But we'll see shortly how TELKOM will respond to official subpoena !!! [:D]
 
Telkom`s response:

Good day

I'm not in the position to accept the attached document. It is not formal, and not approved by a Magistrate.

Please request the Investigating officer to hand the original 205 to their Technical Support Unit for delivery on Mr xxxxx.

Kind regards
 
You followed their request and they refuse to accept it.
OUTCRY !!!!!
How to we escalate this ?
This is the perfect opportunity to deface them, on the basis that they are NOT "We are customer-focused" (http://www.telkom.co.za/portal/page?_pageid=554,72063&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&paramURL=/pls/portal/docs/page/company/vision.jsp)
 
Eerr... methinx Telkrap are actually correct, though its clear that they're slipping through a technicality. Subpeonas are considered to have 'the weight of legal structure and authority' behind them, so it's best to ensure that they're properly completed, endorsed and served by an authorised official of the court. I think it's just a question of the Sheriff of the Court doing his/her job, though I may be completely wrong about all of this. Legal types on the forum, please comment...
 
It actually makes sense why Telkom can't refund abused bandwidth (sorry, late to the topic I know), but imagine the following scenario:

User A willingly gives his account information to 10 people he has no real-life connection to over irc for example. The 10 users proceed to transfer 30gb using p2p. User A gets refunded and the 30gb of fresh content gets shared over local p2p.

As a side note, read the following:

http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=44435

There are better solutions than caps.
 
Fair enough, but I believe that the problem can be managed to some extent even without the use of sophisticated traffic management systems, merely through the implementation of a small procedural change in administrative approaches. Something like:

1.) End-user complains of bandwidth theft;
2.) Provider agrees to investigate jointly with end-user;
3.) Both provider and end-user take steps to secure the service (password change, firwall rules, etc.);
4.) Both provider and end-user monitor the traffic for a period;
5.) Review and assessment - conclusions are drawn, defaulting party carries the liability.

Note the service orientation - instead of acrimonius interaction and legal avenues having to be pursued, one has a win-win situation at the end of the day. This presupposes that common benefit remains the point of departure from both ends - provider is interested in ensuring that bandwidth provision is not affected by p2p traffic and that equable distribution occurs, and end-user does not wish to be faced with a cap or an enormous potential charge/cost...
 
The bottom line is - until Telkom allows us to easily change our password without their staff knowing the password, theft of bandwidth should be THEIR responsibility.

----------------
United we stand!
----------------
 
Ping Sinisa

Do you have any further update on this story?

Thanks
Chris
 
Well we CAN change passwords now...

And the total cutoff after 3gbyte cap, well apparently its put on hold again until later, for some reason they postpone this every time it get close to the deadline to implement it....

We will see what the future holds for us...
 
/me peers into his 8ball...

Behold the future, spaceships in Africa... small bodies/big heads moving around.. Telkom gets abducted and SA builds a neural network infrastructure supporting lifeforms from another dimension...

Oh thats just fiction, what I mean.. Telkom will never impliment a local cap aswell.. Everyone will jump onto sentech/iburst altho they are pathetic it will still rape telkom capping local/international.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X