The problem with uncapped mindset in SA

[grok]

You lot are sounding like the ANC "you have to take whatever so-and-so said in context". That's bull, Julias didn't sing 'stand up to the evil oppressors' he sang 'kill the boer'.

The reason for the backlash is cos ISP's have been re-writing the dictionary as they went along. Remember how Telkom had us all fuming with their interpretation of uncapped local. Uncapped to them simply meant that you are able to buy more after you've reached your limit. They got away with it then, result is we still pay per GB for local.

I love the new offerings & I do realize that fair use is necessary for the products to survive. I also think 200GB softcaps are justifiable for a home/consumer product at that price. We finally have cost-effective broadband!

However, people have the right to question. We've been burned by advertiser's unique interpretations of the meaning of words, vague T's & C's etc.
Ask yourself this .. would any of you be less excited if MWeb/Afrihost had suddenly advertised 200GB accounts for R500?
Didn't think so.

 

[LazyLion]

That's true, after a few months people will go back to using a normal amount, and will have the freedom to download when they need something. An initial spike but then when it becomes the norm people won't feel the need to max out their lines.

That never happened with the local uncapped trial. People were still using it to the max after a year. And the reason they were using it to the max was because they thought it was an uncapped product. It wasn't their fault, it was the supplier who had mislabeled the product.

And the same thing is going to happen here. They label it as uncapped and people will treat it as uncapped. If they don't want people using it to the limit, then call it something else.

You can't blame people for thinking something is unlimited when you label it as unlimited. That's the ISP's fault... not theirs.

TRUTH IN ADVERTISING.

 

[LazyLion]

Ask yourself this .. would any of you be less excited if MWeb/Afrihost had suddenly advertised 200GB accounts for R500?
Didn't think so.

That is an excellent point. People would have still been very excited about this had it been 200 Gb for R499. Heck I would still use that.

But the ISP is hoping to attract more people by labeling it as uncapped. And that is wrong. Because they would be attracting people that they don't really want on the network. They are attracting them under false pretenses. It is not an unlimited product. There is a limit.

They are saying "cap yourself" or we will cap you.

 

[Smiley_lauf]

Internet should be used for what is truly is--why do you want to download the entire internet (piracy, illegal torrents etc)? Just use it at high speed for as long as you want--legally that is. The entire world where broadband is available does this. Look at IPTV, perfect example; and now GoogleTV. Please come off it already.

 

[LancelotSA]

I think we need limits! Even US ISPs are considering implementing caps of some sort. You are unfortunately always going to get the idiots who feel they are entitled to download everything they can just because they can. This has been proven time and again when an uncapped service is offered. The first posts to appear usually always revolve around how much the individual has been able to download in as short a time as possible.

 

[LazyLion]

Internet should be used for what is truly is--why do you want to download the entire internet (piracy, illegal torrents etc)? Just use it at high speed for as long as you want--legally that is. The entire world where broadband is available does this. Look at IPTV, perfect example; and now GoogleTV. Please come off it already.

So you're saying we should use the internet lots, but we shouldn't really use it that much?

 

[LazyLion]

I think we need limits! Even US ISPs are considering implementing caps of some sort. You are unfortunately always going to get the idiots who feel they are entitled to download everything they can just because they can. This has been proven time and again when an uncapped service is offered. The first posts to appear usually always revolve around how much the individual has been able to download in as short a time as possible.

That's fine... but then don't give people the impression that it is an unlimited product.

 

[SliverZA]

This thread is a really a joke, all you people jumping on the bandwagon of stating the service is not a real "uncapped" service should stop looking at it from your greedy little download wh0re point of view and consider what this means for the rest of the country that download only what they need.

An acceptable useage policy is used all over the world, the 200Gb limit is not a "cap" per say but more of what X ISP would consider to be abuse of the prodcut/network by a single user. Lets say for instance sakes that the average user after months of research uses 10 to 15 Gb's per month (hypothetical figures and I guess that this would actually be a lot less in SA), double this would be a heavy user, five times this a power user etc etc. As soon as you are getting to users that are using 10 times or more than the average person out there companies have to start looking at it and saying hang on a minute. There has to be some point where companies can allowably say that X user is abusing the product and should be throttled or capped after extensive abuse. The wording by some ISP's do make it sound more like a cap which is wrong on a seemingly "uncapped" service, these things need to be clearly defined to avoid confusion and mass hysteria as is evident in this case.

At the end of the day all the companies offering these "uncapped" services are paying a price per Gb and will be offsetting the fact that some users will use very little and some users will use a lot, all they are doing is setting a limit on what they would consider abuse to be. If this wasn't done an ISP could find themselves in a seriously bad place extremely quicky, it boils down to risk management and ensuring business continuity.

At the end of the day the product is good value for money, if you want pure uncapped and unshaped there are products out there that are in the region of 5 times more expenisve. If these products aren't worded right for you or have terms that you don't like you are more than welcome to go pay the extra bucks on something else, nobody is forcing you to buy!

 

[RogueRunner]

This thread is a really a joke, all you people jumping on the bandwagon of stating the service is not a real "uncapped" service should stop looking at it from your greedy little download wh0re point of view and consider what this means for the rest of the country that download only what they need.

An acceptable useage policy is used all over the world, the 200Gb limit is not a "cap" per say but more of what X ISP would consider to be abuse of the prodcut/network by a single user. Lets say for instance sakes that the average user after months of research uses 10 to 15 Gb's per month (hypothetical figures and I guess that this would actually be a lot less in SA), double this would be a heavy user, five times this a power user etc etc. As soon as you are getting to users that are using 10 times or more than the average person out there companies have to start looking at it and saying hang on a minute. There has to be some point where companies can allowably say that X user is abusing the product and should be throttled or capped after extensive abuse. The wording by some ISP's do make it sound more like a cap which is wrong on a seemingly "uncapped" service, these things need to be clearly defined to avoid confusion and mass hysteria as is evident in this case.

At the end of the day all the companies offering these "uncapped" services are paying a price per Gb and will be offsetting the fact that some users will use very little and some users will use a lot, all they are doing is setting a limit on what they would consider abuse to be. If this wasn't done an ISP could find themselves in a seriously bad place extremely quicky, it boils down to risk management and ensuring business continuity.

At the end of the day the product is good value for money, if you want pure uncapped and unshaped there are products out there that are in the region of 5 times more expenisve. If these products aren't worded right for you or have terms that you don't like you are more than welcome to go pay the extra bucks on something else, nobody is forcing you to buy!

Brilliant post! Next thing they gonna say is that it's all legal content

 

[Spartaniz]

AfriHost and the other ISP's have the right to enforce a limit on what you can download.

Imagine hundreds of people torrenting the latest movies, and totally killing the service for you who just want to get some work done. Fair? No.

so what your saying is that BECAUSE you want to work, all the other clients have to wait..? Dont they have a business class uncapped for office use?

 

[undesign]

This thread is a really a joke, all you people jumping on the bandwagon of stating the service is not a real "uncapped" service should stop looking at it from your greedy little download wh0re point of view and consider what this means for the rest of the country that download only what they need.

An acceptable useage policy is used all over the world, the 200Gb limit is not a "cap" per say but more of what X ISP would consider to be abuse of the prodcut/network by a single user. Lets say for instance sakes that the average user after months of research uses 10 to 15 Gb's per month (hypothetical figures and I guess that this would actually be a lot less in SA), double this would be a heavy user, five times this a power user etc etc. As soon as you are getting to users that are using 10 times or more than the average person out there companies have to start looking at it and saying hang on a minute. There has to be some point where companies can allowably say that X user is abusing the product and should be throttled or capped after extensive abuse. The wording by some ISP's do make it sound more like a cap which is wrong on a seemingly "uncapped" service, these things need to be clearly defined to avoid confusion and mass hysteria as is evident in this case.

At the end of the day all the companies offering these "uncapped" services are paying a price per Gb and will be offsetting the fact that some users will use very little and some users will use a lot, all they are doing is setting a limit on what they would consider abuse to be. If this wasn't done an ISP could find themselves in a seriously bad place extremely quicky, it boils down to risk management and ensuring business continuity.

At the end of the day the product is good value for money, if you want pure uncapped and unshaped there are products out there that are in the region of 5 times more expenisve. If these products aren't worded right for you or have terms that you don't like you are more than welcome to go pay the extra bucks on something else, nobody is forcing you to buy!

+1

And a person tech savvy enough to download 200gigs+ a month will know the T&C's states a fair usage policy. So it is not really false advertising in the sense that you "think" it is uncapped and at the end of the month you are completely and bewilderingly surprised that you can't do 500gigs. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

 

[BLaZor2]

This thread is a really a joke, all you people jumping on the bandwagon of stating the service is not a real "uncapped" service should stop looking at it from your greedy little download wh0re point of view and consider what this means for the rest of the country that download only what they need.

An acceptable useage policy is used all over the world, the 200Gb limit is not a "cap" per say but more of what X ISP would consider to be abuse of the prodcut/network by a single user. Lets say for instance sakes that the average user after months of research uses 10 to 15 Gb's per month (hypothetical figures and I guess that this would actually be a lot less in SA), double this would be a heavy user, five times this a power user etc etc. As soon as you are getting to users that are using 10 times or more than the average person out there companies have to start looking at it and saying hang on a minute. There has to be some point where companies can allowably say that X user is abusing the product and should be throttled or capped after extensive abuse. The wording by some ISP's do make it sound more like a cap which is wrong on a seemingly "uncapped" service, these things need to be clearly defined to avoid confusion and mass hysteria as is evident in this case.

At the end of the day all the companies offering these "uncapped" services are paying a price per Gb and will be offsetting the fact that some users will use very little and some users will use a lot, all they are doing is setting a limit on what they would consider abuse to be. If this wasn't done an ISP could find themselves in a seriously bad place extremely quicky, it boils down to risk management and ensuring business continuity.

At the end of the day the product is good value for money, if you want pure uncapped and unshaped there are products out there that are in the region of 5 times more expenisve. If these products aren't worded right for you or have terms that you don't like you are more than welcome to go pay the extra bucks on something else, nobody is forcing you to buy!

+1 You summed up what I was thinking all along. thank you!

 

[ponder]

If it was unlimited, then they would have said so.

Unlimited = No limit to your bandwidth usage
Uncapped = No cap, which means there is no limit or ceiling on your bandwidth usage.
Thus Unlimited = Uncapped (within the boundaries of what your line can physically download over x amount of time.)

Are people to thick to understand the terminology? Fsck, a grade 4 kid could tell you this.

How about everyone complaining about the use of the term just not use their service? Show your disgust at their dishonesty by speaking with your wallet. Anyone up for it? Thought so.

I'm not signing up. I'm sticking with my 'honest' isp which delivers TRUE uncapped/unshaped with now 'fair use' policies.

 

[LancelotSA]

An acceptable useage policy is used all over the world, the 200Gb limit is not a "cap" per say but more of what X ISP would consider to be abuse of the prodcut/network by a single user. Lets say for instance sakes that the average user after months of research uses 10 to 15 Gb's per month (hypothetical figures and I guess that this would actually be a lot less in SA), double this would be a heavy user, five times this a power user etc etc. As soon as you are getting to users that are using 10 times or more than the average person out there companies have to start looking at it and saying hang on a minute.

There is no doubt that I am in total agreement with the sentiment of your post as it is well known that I have a certain dislike for download whores, however, the average usage stats in this country are always going to be a little loaded in favour of lower usage due to the fact that we have been weaned on small, and expensive, caps for so long and are used to keeping an eye on the data we use. We have been unable to stream music, use video skype to our heart's content etc etc without keeping half an eye on the data usage figures.

But in saying this I still reckon 200Gb is fair usage for all these things. And Afrihost has said "hundreds of gigs" rather than 200 anyway.

 

[LancelotSA]

so what your saying is that BECAUSE you want to work, all the other clients have to wait..? Dont they have a business class uncapped for office use?

Um, it may be called "business uncapped" but it should in fact be the download whores who pay the premium for this service as it will mean unshaped bandwidth. If you want to smoke over 200Gbs then YOU pay more for it, not the chap who wants to use it for work and is well within the limits.

 

[Bona Botse]

I'm not signing up. I'm sticking with my 'honest' isp which delivers TRUE uncapped/unshaped with now 'fair use' policies.

and which provider/package might that be?

 

[undesign]

I'm not signing up. I'm sticking with my 'honest' isp which delivers TRUE uncapped/unshaped with now 'fair use' policies.

You are in the minority mate. Really, WhoTF needs more than 200 gigs a month?

 

[LazyLion]

This thread is a really a joke, all you people jumping on the bandwagon of stating the service is not a real "uncapped" service should stop looking at it from your greedy little download wh0re point of view and consider what this means for the rest of the country that download only what they need.

OK, we're all adults here. There is no need to go all potty mouth to try and make your point. Take a deep breath and try and say it like an adult. There are plenty of reasons why people would need a true uncapped product. Just because you have your preferences does not mean everybody should be forced into your little mould.

An acceptable useage policy is used all over the world, the 200Gb limit is not a "cap" per say but more of what X ISP would consider to be abuse of the prodcut/network by a single user. Lets say for instance sakes that the average user after months of research uses 10 to 15 Gb's per month (hypothetical figures and I guess that this would actually be a lot less in SA), double this would be a heavy user, five times this a power user etc etc. As soon as you are getting to users that are using 10 times or more than the average person out there companies have to start looking at it and saying hang on a minute. There has to be some point where companies can allowably say that X user is abusing the product and should be throttled or capped after extensive abuse. The wording by some ISP's do make it sound more like a cap which is wrong on a seemingly "uncapped" service, these things need to be clearly defined to avoid confusion and mass hysteria as is evident in this case.

If they are going to go to that length to clearly define things... then why not go the whole way and call the product what it is... a High cap limit product. is that really too much to ask and too difficult to do? There are many countries in the world that have true uncapped internet. I have a friend in Switzerland who has 50 mbps internet with no limits whatsoever. Some countries are more honest with their internet. How many Gb a month do you think that users in Japan who have a 1 Gigabit per second are using? They can download 200 gigs in a few hours. They would laugh at a pathetic 200 Gb cap.

At the end of the day all the companies offering these "uncapped" services are paying a price per Gb and will be offsetting the fact that some users will use very little and some users will use a lot, all they are doing is setting a limit on what they would consider abuse to be. If this wasn't done an ISP could find themselves in a seriously bad place extremely quicky, it boils down to risk management and ensuring business continuity.

Actually, you are wrong. They are not paying per Gig. They are paying for a set speed. They can quite easily let people use uncapped as long as they can keep within the speed limit. That's what the contention ratios are all about. South Africans are just used to being told what to do when it comes to our internet...we take it like good little sheep. And your post is proof of that.

At the end of the day the product is good value for money, if you want pure uncapped and unshaped there are products out there that are in the region of 5 times more expenisve. If these products aren't worded right for you or have terms that you don't like you are more than welcome to go pay the extra bucks on something else, nobody is forcing you to buy!

I'm already using one of those other products and I will be staying with it. Because I can see this product is a sham and will not give me what it claims to give me.

 

[Bona Botse]

I'm already using one of those other products and I will be staying with it. Because I can see this product is a sham and will not give me what it claims to give me.

aren't you on an after-hours only uncapped from openweb?

 

[rippedoff]

What Garyvdh said