-
Ask a question and get free supportUnlock new privileges and see hidden discussionsWin prizes and earn reputation
-
Question of the day ~ Do you queue to fill up your car before the fuel price increase every month?
-
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 GoogleTelkom plans uncapped local bandwidth
- Thread starter rpm
- Start date
Ekhaatvensters
Executive Member
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2005
- Messages
- 7,247
Oh, you're right.
The article does makes it quite clear though."Maritz further pointed out that this new system is dependant on technical developments on the company’s local and international IP Networks."
Just noticed that he mentioned this again, but I'd love to know: What are they doing to the network for an entire year (apparently still not complete) when all that will come from it is local being allowed after cap as they had always done 2 years ago?
Local not counting towards your cap was all I wanted from these hearings after it was obvious we weren't getting uncapped local.
It makes my blood boil hearing those idiots with ADSL lines at home moaning about the cap and pricing. They are the cause for the situation we are in by supporting f...cking Telkom. Nothing is going to change unless people cancel theirs ADSL line on masive scale.
You've just insulted every single member on this forum, you do know that right?
We need some sort of connectivity at home and I sure as **** ain't going with dialup, what about people that run businesses from home and need fast reliable internet, Gogga just doesn't cut it.
Telkom took 75% of the morning to tell the CCC why they do not accept their authority, and why the hearings should not commence at all due to alleged procedural faults and other petty points of law, which were ultimately rejected by the CCC as a body.
mooK I invite you to read through the transcripts of the hearings if you think you're confused now. It's not that the article doesn't make sense to you, it's that Telkom's lawyer doesn't make sense to you.
The hearing was conducted like court hearing, except Telkom got to say whatever they liked without restriction, while the rules and lawful process followed dictated that there was only so much tommygun could say, and a whole lot he couldn't say. Very importantly, hearsay was not allowed. This meant that, for example, tommygun was not able to use the fact that Telkom caps as evidence, since tommygun himself had never been capped. Telkom's arguments make little sense to you because of how this information emerged- through comments made during tommygun's cross-examination, and through Telkom's defending statements made at the beginning of the hearing and substituting for a formal written response to the CCC. Thus throughout the hearing Telkom presented numerous alternative interpretations of the law- and this went something like this:
Telkom: x =y
Telkom: if x does not = y, then x = z
Telkom: if x does not equal z, then z = w
...and so on.
This is not a badly written article by any means- it is a pretty good representation of what was said.
mooK I invite you to read through the transcripts of the hearings if you think you're confused now. It's not that the article doesn't make sense to you, it's that Telkom's lawyer doesn't make sense to you.
The hearing was conducted like court hearing, except Telkom got to say whatever they liked without restriction, while the rules and lawful process followed dictated that there was only so much tommygun could say, and a whole lot he couldn't say. Very importantly, hearsay was not allowed. This meant that, for example, tommygun was not able to use the fact that Telkom caps as evidence, since tommygun himself had never been capped. Telkom's arguments make little sense to you because of how this information emerged- through comments made during tommygun's cross-examination, and through Telkom's defending statements made at the beginning of the hearing and substituting for a formal written response to the CCC. Thus throughout the hearing Telkom presented numerous alternative interpretations of the law- and this went something like this:
Telkom: x =y
Telkom: if x does not = y, then x = z
Telkom: if x does not equal z, then z = w
...and so on.
This is not a badly written article by any means- it is a pretty good representation of what was said.
Last edited:
Telkom is laughing at these people. They moan but still pay these ungodly prices.
Does not make a f..cking sense to me. People, wake up or stop moaning.
That is why this country is in this f...cking state. Ignorance.
Sorry about my language, but thats how I feel.
Does not make a f..cking sense to me. People, wake up or stop moaning.
That is why this country is in this f...cking state. Ignorance.
Sorry about my language, but thats how I feel.
So we cancel our DSL, then what?
Ekhaatvensters
Executive Member
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2005
- Messages
- 7,247
Won't happen. Not enough people care, so new signups will still be in the thousands every month and Telkom have made sure that their service is superior to others seeing as they are the only fixed line provider and control bandwidth pricing. ADSL is your best option and nevermind that, they have millions of normal phone lines that aren't going to be cancelled.
btw I don't have an ADSL at home, so you have not insulted me with your words.
BTTB
Executive Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2004
- Messages
- 8,196
Where are you from and what connection do you have bobdihi?
The problem I have with the article is that it seems to differentiate between "hard-capping" and "charges levied on additional local usage" when it should be clear that they are one and the same, instead it may blur the line to the layman.
The title of the article is totally inane too, it serves Telkom's apparent strategy to cause confusion or redefine the the industry lexicon.
Anyway, I'd like to read those transcripts, I'll try to find them.
If there was an alternative to Telkom DSL e.g. cable internet or something I'm sure we would've all jumped ship a long long time ago.
BINGO!
Okay, understood.
The transcripts should be done in a few days. I will request the CCC to make the transcripts available on the ICASA website.
I don't see the problem. It's quite clear.
That traffic which exceeds the cap is uncapped unless it's included in the traffic which falls below the cap which is not capped as the cap can only be capped when it is included in a cap of caps which themselves are uncapped. But, as Telkom has no understanding of 'cap', it can't be.
Perfectly clear.
That traffic which exceeds the cap is uncapped unless it's included in the traffic which falls below the cap which is not capped as the cap can only be capped when it is included in a cap of caps which themselves are uncapped. But, as Telkom has no understanding of 'cap', it can't be.
Perfectly clear.
Nick333
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 35,114
This article is very confusing but of course that is Telkom's intention.
Correct me if I'm wrong but are they actually proposing a metered pay-per-usage system for local traffic once you are capped as a supposed attempt to comply with the ICASA ADSL ruling?
Correct me if I'm wrong but are they actually proposing a metered pay-per-usage system for local traffic once you are capped as a supposed attempt to comply with the ICASA ADSL ruling?