Uncapped ADSL: How much data are you allowed to use?

Do you think a ‘Fair Use Policy’ on uncapped broadband services is a good thing?

  • Yes

    Votes: 158 64.0%

  • No

    Votes: 89 36.0%
  • Total voters
    247
jak3 said:
If everyone sticks below the "fair usage limit" then we will all experience good speeds. I see nothing wrong with them being honest about what that number is.

I would even go further than this. Telkom is still taking the largest slice of the pie, and frankly i'm extremely impressed with how much isps are doing with the little they have been given. I've come to the conclusion they have taken it far enough, and all pressure going forward should be directed at telkom's extremely high ipc costs.

Thanks mweb, afrihost, sainet, and others.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with you on this. For now I can't see how the average residential user will need more than 200 gigs of data a month. As long as the fair use increases over the years to keep pace with what is happening in the market I am happy.
 
The ISPs need to provide a good service to all of their clients - as long as they're transparent about it I have no problem with them culling those users who they deem to be using excessive bandwidth across their own network.
 
So "uncapped" is not uncapped? that just doesn't make any sense. In other words.. Uncapped means 100gig capped?
 
Xzib1t said:
Pfft, it’s called propaganda....

Uncapped is internet without limits, whether or not you affect the next person.

nonetheless 100 GB for these prices are cheap.
Click to expand...

There is a bigger issue at play here. If they were to change the name and calls these 100 gig cap accounts overall network usage would go up because everyone would feel they have to use their 100 gigs each month otherwise they lose them. People would begin to moan that there is no rollover.

The uncapped name coupled with some kind of fair usage softcap generates the lowest volumes, which means prices can be further lowered.
 
jak3 said:
There is a bigger issue at play here. If they were to change the name and calls these 100 gig cap accounts overall network usage would go up because everyone would feel they have to use their 100 gigs each month otherwise they lose them. People would begin to moan that there is no rollover.

The uncapped name coupled with some kind of fair usage softcap generates the lowest volumes, which means prices can be further lowered.
Click to expand...

No it's just that everyone thinks: “aww ,man 100 Gigabytes is such a lot. Will I ever use that much.” Now everyone thinks that 100 GBs + is extravagance. Yet in the true sense of the word uncapped means that nothing (50 GB, 500 GB *cough* 1 TB [In some countries]) is too extravagant.
 
What would even help more is to not have a usage counter. If people dont know how much they use they will not feel the need to somehow grow the number just for the sake of having a big number.

..and yes i know you need a usage counter to know when you will hit the fair usage limit. I'm mostly mentioning it to highlight the psychology involved. The my number is bigger than your number plays a huge part in this. Look at those who upload a lot on torrent sites, the truth is they like seeing their upload number go up. I'm of course generalizing here.
 
Last edited:
As we get more international capacity the fair usage limit should increase.
 
Nothing against AUP as long as it's better than what we can currently get for R200 pm.
 
It's still stupid to call it "uncapped" imo, they should call it something like softcap 200 or something else that isn't misleading. :wtf:
 
Mweb

To my understanding mweb does not have a fair usage limit, they will just shape and throttle where they see fit.
This model being similar to that of axxess, although not exactly the same.
Or am I wrong?
 
LancelotSA said:
The pareto principle as pointed out by Gian. Why should 80 percent of us subsidise the "habits" of the other 20%!
Click to expand...

um, because they are sheep trained by the ISPs to accept what they are given and to obey without question?

Last time I checked, I am the consumer. I tell the provider what I want.
 
jak3 said:
There is a bigger issue at play here. If they were to change the name and calls these 100 gig cap accounts overall network usage would go up because everyone would feel they have to use their 100 gigs each month otherwise they lose them. People would begin to moan that there is no rollover.

The uncapped name coupled with some kind of fair usage softcap generates the lowest volumes, which means prices can be further lowered.
Click to expand...

I agree with you - ISPs still need to keep their per gig model running (to actually make money) so can you imagine when they change the name to 200Gig for R200? The next blow up thread will be " how can they charge R29/gig as well as R1 per gig? weh weh weh.. we're being ripped off" .

If its a 200 or 300gig fair use policy today then people need to shut the hell up, be patient and learn to limit themselves till the next charlie isp comes around and says "wait a minute, i can offer 1TB without any catch for the same price" then we can all go and rip him to shreds to see if its real or not.
 
i will keep my IS Bus uncapped for now, 350 gig a month :D
 
It's NOT a 200Gb cap, it IS uncapped, they never said they will cut you off at 200Gb.
They said users who consistantly use more than 200Gb will be contacted.

How can people expext to pay R500 for 1Tb of data?
Users who want to download more than 200Gb each month, get the bussiness uncapped, unshaped, and suited for higher usages.

The rest of the people will be more than happy to have an uncapped account for much cheaper than ever before, and will not use 200Gb for home usage.
 
I would love to hear the conversation mweb has with its first customer that gets through their +- 990GB at full speed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X