Telkom plans uncapped local bandwidth

[Ekhaatvensters]

W.T.F

Agreed, that is the lamest possible way to get out of ADSL regulations. Oh no, ADSL is the line you use to get to the exchange, the internet access isn't controlled by us, go talk to SAIX. Amazing that they can do this.

I'm seeing Telkoms true colours in a whole new light.. this stuff is maddening.

 

[Chavez]

I unfortunately cannot divulge our wholesale rates, what I can say however is that if we want to provide an additional 27 or so GB of local access it would justify an increase from R199 - approx. R500, that's with little in the way of profitability attached, if we were looking at still wanting to make a little bit off of that it would go a bit higher.

You costing doesn't make ANY sense?!?!?!

I purchase 3 gigs Int at R180 + 30 gigs local at R130 = R310. That's WITH the ISP's markup!!

1+1 != 500!!!

 

[Highflyer_GP]

You costing doesn't make ANY sense?!?!?!

I purchase 3 gigs Int at R180 + 30 gigs local at R130 = R310. That's WITH the ISP's markup!!

1+1 != 500!!!

Those 30gigs local are on the IS backbone, which is for the most part irrelevant to the issue at hand here.

 

[krycor]

Except the reason they waited to implement this was that they had to make big upgrades on their network etc to record local seperately from international. Meaning, hopefully, that your currect cap will only be depleted by international bandwidth. This is the one thing I'm happy about...

Anyone have a definite answer about this? Will local still be counted and billed seperately while you are using international, because this makes packages have no fixed price, and most people who could live on thier cap will now pay a few aribtrary rands extra. However it is very useful for me and a lot of others.

Well the reason i say this is due to what was said in the article..[incidently i was hoping for the seperation of local and international]

Maritz said that when a user has downloaded or uploaded 3 GB of data in any one month period, the service will be capped so that the user will only have access to South African based IP addresses.

Current TelkomInternet subscribers are not immediately capped when reaching their monthly limit – typically 3 GB - but Maritz said that this will happen in future.

“The cap would therefore be placed on international bandwidth usage and not on local bandwidth usage,” Telkom pointed out in its submission

fact is here they say 3GB data and do not specifically say international! and then they say cap affects international, just like it did pre nov2005 so theres no seperation of local BEFORE the cap

Telkom argued that the complaint revolved around the measuring of local and international traffic which is counted towards a monthly cap, something which the company says falls within the legal requirements of the regulations.

The capping of local bandwidth was not explicitly addressed, but Telkom did submit that it plans to provide uncapped – but not free - local bandwidth on its ADSL service for which subscribers will be billed.

 

[Ekhaatvensters]

Ja, I read the "data" part and thought the same.

They've said before that they were getting ready to seperate local and international, which has no use unless they bill each one individually while you're using your international cap.

If they really just made up some excuse to stall this for a whole year them implement a 2 year old system except add another charge to it.. well, then there's probably no point trying with them anymore, just lube up and wait for real competition.

 

[ldmelsa]

I would suggest you think before you reply. Do you not understand that with cheap local bandwidth it would become worthwhile for companies and individuals to host content locally! Which would allow for the growth of SA content!

Exactly!

 

[kris860911]

My head hurts.

Telkom sucks. Is this the point?

 

[LifelongGamer]

Telecoms in South Africa is quite simply a joke. The focus is on profit generation by ANY means.

What happened to grand ideals like customer service? Best interest for the economy? Affordable telecoms access for all?

It is becoming clearer that all the hype about 'changes' and 'cheaper bandwith' is simply smoke-screens to convince the world that we will be ready for 2010 as promised.

Meanwhile, there's still no further clarification on what's already started around LLU, confirmation that additional undersea cables are welcome on our shores, the MTN buyout of Telkom is actually going to be a positive thing for the country, etc.

Methinks strings are being orchestrated so that obscene amounts of cash can be made behind the scenes (if not now, then once InfraCo is operational and thus protect future share-earnings). OK, conspiratorial musings aside let's look at some facts.

1) Telkom previously announced they were working on separating local bandwidth from international (not to belabour the obvious fact that pre-Nov 2005 local was uncapped anyway).
2) Telkom now confirms what we've known all along - that the ADSL Regulations are pathetic and inadequately addressed the issues raised at the time.
3) Telkom plans to charge for all 'uncapped' local bandwidth after a user reaches their monthly cap.
4) Telkom isn't contrevening Regulation 3.4 of the ADSL Regulations because there is no definition of the term 'cap' provided in the Regulations.

So, the way I see this is as follows:
Telkom are side-stepping responsibility of not following the intention of the ADSL Regulations by using an excuse that suits them. BUT how then can they turn right around and say they'll charge customers for local bandwidth if Telkom DOES NOT understand what a 'cap' is or when such is reached in a month?? Double-standards?

ICASA should not fall for this. But I say - give Telkom their due. Allow billing of local bandwidth. BUT, 2 provisions MUST be made and enforced:

1) Monthly cap CANNOT under any circumstances count towards local bandwidth. This means that if I purchase a 3GB account and only surf locally for the first half of the month, then I should still have the full 3GB international bandwidth I've paid for but not used.
- This either means separate international and local accounts (not a preference but suitable for pre-paid accounts ... perhaps with some form of account-bridging) or intelligently routing costs based upon IP addresses and managing the ADSL account accordingly (suitable for post-paid accounts as the month's bandwidth usage is calculated at the end of the billing-cycle / month).

2) This is the critical provision: Cost PER GB must be drastically and immediately reduced. I would have no objection to the following pricing model (maximum case mind you):
- Local: R10 PER GB. 30GB local will then cost R300 per month
- International: R30 PER GB (R60 PER GB if Telkom insists on FORCING UNSHAPED on consumers that need LOW LATENCY for online gaming, share trading etc.)
This would mean an effective R390 per month for 3GB Shaped international (for LOTRO / WOW / GW) + 30Gb local bandwidth requirements (for when XBox Live SA finally launches). I can live with that price and I'm sure a lot of other gamers would too / R480 for the same but with Unshaped international bandwidth. A compartison at current prices equate to R715 for Shaped / R885 for Unshaped (roughly double the cost!)

Problem is that without an EFFECTIVE Regulator we'll only begin to see offers like this in about 2 - 3 years time. Oh, and I haven't even commented on the QUALITY of the current service yet.

I do not have high hopes for Neotel to change our situation drastically. I'm counting on their promise to deliver superior service AND to only charge me for the service I actually get. Paying 4mbps prices when Telkom can only reliably give me 1mbps service is pure theft - but as 1mbps is much better than anything slower in this country I'm held hostage until competition arrives.

 

[TheLoot]

Well then all pay-as-you-go accounts should be advertised as uncapped because that's all that they are doing, turning 3GB+ TI accounts into flat 3GB accounts with prepaid local-only after cap

EDIT: My post not directed at any1, only t3lk0m

 

[Tns]

unshaped or local only without requiring a username change (as in the past shaped, unshaped and local only is determined by the name of the DSL realm your account is on - the bit after the @ sign - and the 3 different types of access needed 3 different realm names). Telkom has now solved that, and is providing that to ISP's come November.

What it doesn't do is stop local access from using your initial 3 or 4 or 10GB's of international bandwidth, which, from how I understand the regulation SHOULD read, is what should be happening. That isn't and local access still eats away at your international portion of cap

So after Nov if you access local internet that will not count towards your international cap then? which then means if i have 1gig account unshaped and only access local content it should last me just about for ever?

 

[raven69]

uhh this is the same as buying a localy only account wtf? **** Telscum

 

[feo]

uhh this is the same as buying a localy only account wtf? **** Telscum

It's worse because with a local only account you actually get cut off after you reach your 5/10/30Gb limit, with this you go crazy with uncapped local and then have to give up your life savings to pay for it.

 

[fdaniels]

Heh, this is insane. Telkom really knows how to make money. They can't be serious now can they? Seems like they are trying to be spiteful. Seems like something a person would do to intentionally anger someone.

 

[PostmanPot]

Argh fsckit!

 

[Ekhaatvensters]

So after Nov if you access local internet that will not count towards your international cap then? which then means if i have 1gig account unshaped and only access local content it should last me just about for ever?

Not anymore, see the CCC thread.

I also doubt they would have let that happen, they should have just billed local and international seperately despite where you are on your international cap.

 

[mooK]

Firstly, why is MyADSL supporting this new definition of 'uncapped'?

An uncapped service should be set at a fixed fee, yet this article seems to be helping Telkom create an ambiguity in the term, somehow making it refer to a pro-rata service as well. If we accept this, we might as well go about defining everything as 'unlimited' 'eat as much as you can', etc. Unbelievable.

I don't understand how this can be accepted at these hearings, why are they allowing Telkom to redefine terms as it suits them? It's obviously a lack of understanding.

Also, this article is FULL of contradictions...

Telkom’s legal representative N Maritz, said that the company plans to only cap international bandwidth after users reach their monthly usage allowance.

Implying continued local bandwidth usage.

Maritz argues that “the cap which Telkom places on the bandwidth usage relates to Internet access and not to the ADSL service per se.”

We know the cap is for internet access you *&#$'ing moron.

And why is he referring to the ADSL service? We know the cap is for bandwidth, for God's sake we're the only place in the world where we actually pay a separate fee for the "ADSL service" - ADSL line rental.

“The cap would therefore be placed on international bandwidth usage and not on local bandwidth usage,” Telkom pointed out in its submission.

Okay, so in accordance with the first quote, this means local usage will not be capped and will continue after the international bandwidth is capped. Unless we use different definitions for 'capped' depending on if it refers to international or local bandwidth

Consumers will be charged for any local bandwidth usage after the service has been capped.

Wha? You just said it wouldn't be capped?

This basically means that international hard capping will be strictly enforced

As per usual, fair enough.

while local bandwidth charges will be levied on any additional usage after being capped.

Hmm... charges will be levied on any additional usage after being capped?... Why, doesn't that sound like 'hard capping' to you all? Use the correct terminology instead of creating a false impression!


I just don't understand this article, it creates so much confusion about the terminology we use, all to Telkom's benefit, it used different terms to refer to the same thing, it's creating euphemisms to make it appear like some progress is being made, when in fact - Nothing is happening. Very disappointed with MyADSL.

It's almost like language has lost all meaning.

 

[feo]

I don't think MyADSL supports this, total opposite in fact, that's why it exists in the first place.

Basically all the article says is, you have your TI account, you browse both local and international and when capped, your local continues "uncapped" but at a price. You're right when you say that uncapped is supposed to be defined as no cap for a FIXED price but hey, Maritz is not the sharpest puppy in the pet shop, if ya know what I mean.

 

[Byrd]

Firstly, why is MyADSL supporting this new definition of 'uncapped'?

LOL, now we know why Telkom havn't paid Hellopeter, they're paying MyADSL for PR instead

 

[Ekhaatvensters]

Where is MyADSL supporting this random definition of uncapped?

 

[feo]

Where is MyADSL supporting this random definition of uncapped?

I suppose the title gives that impression maybe?