Telkom, ISPs and uncapped ADSL bandwidth

[j4ck455]

rwenzori is correct, Telkom's implementation does not separate international from local usage. ISP's are therefore unable to discern which is local and which is international usage without the user first having used his/her full 3GB or whatever his/her cap size is.

Assuming that WebAfrica implements Telkom's interpretation of the ADSL Regulations, please could WebAfrica implement a checkbox on dsl.webafrica.co.za that allows customers to specify hard capping once the cap has been depleted, the default setting should be hard capped (no uncapped local) until a customer decides to change this.

I much prefer to continue using a separate IS Local Only ADSL account for my local ADSL needs, I do not want to pay Telkom one more cent than I am currently forced to pay Telkom.

 

[rwenzori]

So you are not really gaining anything are you , you are just setting yourslef up to get a moerse account for the local you used after you were capped from your intl ? We might aswell stay with what we have .

This is what i think REALLY happened , someone at telkom thought that if he could sell the idea of us lemmings having to pay for local use , it would keep him gainfully employed at telkom , he brought forth this drivel , they complimented him on his genius , then fired him in any case 'cos he thought of it before they did and they felt threatend by him . Now we are being bent over even more thanks to this villiage dunce .

I agree with you. Only Telkom ( I suspect that miserable Maritz SC to be involved ) could put this interpretation on the regulation that was lobbied for to force Telkom to return to the pre-Nov-2005 way of doing things.

It is ABSOLUTELY CRIMINAL. Bend over, brace, and enjoy!

 

[Gatecrasher]

So you are not really gaining anything are you , you are just setting yourslef up to get a moerse account for the local you used after you were capped from your intl ? We might aswell stay with what we have.

Absolutely. Telkom have converted a regulation designed to give added value to consumers into a regulation that gives added value to themselves.

Consumers and ISPs are left high and dry with a large and unexpected headache.

Will ICASA let them get away with it? Probably, if only to... avoid litigation.

 

[Messugga]

...

Excuse me, but wasn't the reason given by Telkom for this whole thing taking so long in the first place, that they needed time to develop software to seperate Local from International traffic? I think their original idea WAS to make local free, until some monkey realised they didn't have to, and could actually charge for the local bandwidth only. Now, WA has been using their current system for a while(2 years +-), so obviously the setup needed was already available. Doesn't this make their reason for putting everything off until November 1 (which they missed anyway), null and void? In effect they lied about being in the process of doing something in order to avoid penalties. I just have a feeling that this isn't legal, in some form, as you could take advantage of many scenario's, based on this reasoning.

My brain's not feeling up to arguing this out properly, this morning, so if someone else wants to take the baton and run with it, feel free

 

[igloonaut]

“Local bandwidth usage shall not be subject to the cap.”

surely a lawyer could argue that this means that if you have a 3gb cap - it excludes local and is Not blended. It means you have a 3gb international cap, as local can not be subject to the cap. Therefor only once you reach 3gb of internation usage will you have been deemed to have reached your cap.

It amazes me that they were granted a TV licence by ICASA, when they do not comply with ICASA's regulations. Their license should be withdrawn until they comply with the "spririt" of the regulation.

Imagine what you will pay for for Telskums TV!!!! So:

you pay an annual TV licence,
a monthly fixed line rental,
an ADSL "line" rental
an ISP for CAP
and if you exceed your CAP, then you will pay per MB of TV that you watch.
the line will be shaped, and you will be warned if you use protocols outside of the shaping like gaming, music, or MOVIES. and your hard earned spendoolas will be used to advertise Do Music, Do Movies and Do Gaming right back at you, but don't Do.

A more insane and stupid bunch you would probably not be able to find anywhere else in the world. Telskum are trying their hardest to be hated by all of their customers, it must be a part of some bizarre reverse brand building exercise.

Sorry for the rant, but it is too much now!!!

 

[icyrus]

Uncapped local was never going to be a feasible solution. The local ADSL loop would soon become as saturated as the IS News Server and since there would be no reason to improve the network (they're not making any money from the it), we would probably all end up with like 5kb/s.

Whilst some of ICASA's regulations were vaguely intelligent, this one certainly wasn't very well thought through...that kind of thing is becoming ICASA's trademark.

Edit: I apologize in advance if my "seeing it from the other side" irritates you. I've been on the business end of SA Broadband for a while now and I'm speaking from my own experience.

Yawn.

So what exactly are we paying for with all those fees we pay? And how exactly does nearly every other country in the world manage this then?

I don't think you are "seeing it from the other side", I think you just weren't thinking at all.

 

[krycor]

I think icasa is being stupid if this is deemed an acceptable interpretation of their regulation.

No-one i see has mentioned this but WTF was telkom doing for an entire YEAR ? If no-one in icasa has the balls to query this then we are truely beyond lost. This new system is just a pre nov2005 build with cost system built on to either have pre/postpaid bandwidth after cap. For a large corporation like Telkom its shocking that they try & claim this took them an entire year to implement. Heck network wise there is buggerall change since local is still being charged for as an international traffic.

An mentioned we already have uncapped accounts which are dependant on your wallet as to how 'uncapped' they are. Fixed cost uncapped is what icasa arguably meant, else I personally don't see why any ISP cannot start advertising uncapped accounts available and then charge per gig used post paid.[heh that would kill isp tho if they don't pay up]

If at the very least there icasa doesn't push for a complete seperation in cost and traffic separation, i.e. local vs international then icasa has failed consumers entirely

 

[redheadfan]

This is how it should work:

The User looks at ISPs and decides the best product vs service most appropriate to him.

The factors in regards to product are:
- speed (Download speed)
- quickness (Latency & Packet Loss)
- data limit (Cap size)
- access to download / newsservers

Service Factors:
- proficiency of telephonic support
- ease of payment / billing system
- email / online support
- support hours
- ease of product change
- SLA

Each individual ISP should offer multiple products and one or two service service options (normally residential v business).

The user makes a monthly payment which covers his chosen product and service.
Added to that monthly payment are extras
- in South Africa due to the apparent scarcity of international bandwidth your extras would include extra international bandwidth.
- premium VOIP services


From the ISPs side they should be buying local bandwidth (and by this I mean data per second NOT data per month.)
Say you have 10,000 users with an average usage of 15 Gigs per month. This gives your ISP an average usage of 5,000 GB per day and average usage 475 Mb/s.
Now you need to factor in uneven usage - taking a factor of 3 as being the peak usage means that you need to provide a connection of 1,425 Mb/s per second to support your 10,000 users.

So you should be buying a wholesale product of 1,4 Gb/s of network access - Instead Telkom / SAIX provide this ridiculous capped product which gives you x many gigs per month per account. No wonder we have capacity issues!

Anyway my fundamental point is that we need to move away from this culture that you are paying your ISP based on your data usage. It should be recognised that you are Paying for a service and product. Extra data use should be just that EXTRA.
An example to illustrate:
- R 200 should get you an 256 kb/s connection with office hours support, unlimited local downloads, access to a speed limited newsserver, 3 Gigs international usage.
- An extra R 50 should get you a 5 Gig international cap.
- An extra R 100 should get you a 10 Gig international cap.
- An extra R 200 should get you a 30 Gig international cap.

Of course with Hellkom / SUX there's little change of this happening in the South African market.

 

[Messugga]

Krycor, that's exactly what I said. Telkom promised to do something, took a year to not do it, and the end result is that we as consumers get #$#@ over once more. - Good grief my grammar sucks today o_0

 

[Piesang]

"Telkom said that they plan to offer uncapped local bandwidth, but that subscribers will have to pay for usage after being capped."

How does this work? Its uncapped but you will have to pay for usage after being capped. It's like your Petrol is free but you have to pay to fill up again.

 

[ebudae]

No-one i see has mentioned this but WTF was telkom doing for an entire YEAR ?

They were busy devising a way to make money off the new regulations and formulating the arguments that would allow them to get away with it. Perhaps they were even greasing a palm or two.

 

[Wisemansa]

ive been 'capped' on my IS local only. isnt this breaking the regulations

 

[spacebar]

Question regarding changing terms of service:

As Heklom accounts have always been hardcapped at 1/2/3GB (with the additional discresionary traffic allocation of 2 & 3 GB on the 2 & 3 GB accnts, does this new system, where the customer can run up potential mega accounts, not need prior written notification to the customer (at least), or alternatively prior authorisation from our 'favourite' Telecomms regulator?

 

[Ekhaatvensters]

Question regarding changing terms of service:

As Heklom accounts have always been hardcapped at 1/2/3GB (with the additional discresionary traffic allocation of 2 & 3 GB on the 2 & 3 GB accnts, does this new system, where the customer can run up potential mega accounts, not need prior written notification to the customer (at least), or alternatively prior authorisation from our 'favourite' Telecomms regulator?

Yes, they will inform users of the changes, but these changes might not apply to TelkomISP yet, they have to decide what they want to do with the new SAIX model.

ive been 'capped' on my IS local only. isnt this breaking the regulations

Afaik it is. But IS are trying hard with their local only accounts, there is nothing they can do about it. They cant afford to give completely uncapped local, so taking them to the CCC would be a waste of time imo. They would simply do the same as Telkom and possibly be forced to make the accounts pay-per-gig.

Telkom are the ones making money off the ADSL rental which they run their network on, this means that bandwidth on the network costs them near nothing once their costs are covered.

 

[plugger123]

One of these days Telkom will decide that everybody has to pay... even if they don't even have a telephone line. They might call it something like: 'You pay for oxygen'. The planet is now ours and so you will pay for each molecule of oxygen you consume...

 

[XCentricdave]

I'm very confused...

So how will it work with my Imaginet SAIX Unshaped account then? Once I hit my 'cap' I pay for more in 100Mb chunks.

So with these new bastardised regulations I will see no difference at all? I don't hit a cap, so I'll not ever get the cheap local only option.

I kind of hoped that my international traffic would count towards the cap and that any local access would be, like the words say, free...

I can't help feeling that discussing the details of local and international costs is a little off the point. The aim of the regulation is to make useful internet access more affordable for more people. This patently does not do that.

 

[Tns]

More like ConsumerWallet-centric...

good one Bobb

 

[Prometheus]

Unfortunately since the ADSL Regulations do not explicitly state that local bandwidth should be free it left the ‘uncapped but paid for’ loophole open and presented an easy argument for any lawyer to win.

Bollocks. Any lawyer worth their salt can argue a good case that it is not uncapped. If you have to pay for local usage after being capped there is NO WAY IN HELL it is uncapped. What if you don't pay for extra usage? Do they cap your local usage? If they do it can not be uncapped. What if after what you pay for runs out are they going to cap you again? If they do it can not be uncapped. If local usage counts towards your cap then it IS capped. No matter what argument they come up with uncapped and per GB can not logically be seen the same.

“It is recommended that service providers allow local only access to continue even after the blended CAP was consumed by the customer. It is the most cost effective solution from both a customer and service provider’s perspective. Local access to content can therefore be ensured even after the blended CAP was reached; therefore local usage will no longer subject to the CAP,” Telkom informed ISPs.

ROFL
Come on Telkom we know you can lie better than that.

Finally, someone with some common sense!!!

Nothing is ever for free... I also had this question in mind: How do we expect Telkom to maintain and grow the network if we are not willing to pay for the usage of that network (See my previous posts). Its like wanting to drive your car on the highway without paying for the maintenance of that road (Fuel taxes, toll gates etc.) The money has to come from those that use it, not?

This however does not excuse the extremely high cost of local bandwidth, Telkom needs to be open and transparent with regards to their network costs in order to justify these high prices!!

People here have far more common sense than you give them credit for, in general in any case. No one has ever expected it to be free. If so then everyone can get a local only acount for free. The spirit of the regulations was to make it uncapped and not counted at all so you would get unlimited local with any adsl account like you get 30GB on any IS account.

Unfortunately no amount of pressure from anybody is going to force Telkom to provide a proper standard for service. When Icasa was considering forcing them to drop the adsl "line rental charge" they actually threatened to stop adsl service altogether. You make a good point that there will be no incentive for Telkom to upgrade the network as more people starts using it though and believe me a lot of people are thinking the same. The ONLY thing that will provide everything we want is a completely open environment where every Tom, Dick and Sally can plug into your Telkom line or lay a line to your doorstep to provide a service directly to you. The place to put this pressure is on the DoC not to introduce even more regulation but to completely deregulate and open it up to everybody.

Once you have spent some time here you will also hold this sentiment. This may come as a surprice but the US is actively asking congress to deregulate the industry because a "lack of competition" has resulted in high pricing and poor service.