Uncapped ADSL must mean uncapped

I do not think it is reasonable to have your product description worded in such a way that one has to do a thesis on the exact interpretation of what the end product actually is. They are hiding behind excuses and technical terminology to try and create the illusion that they are providing a product comparable to world standards and favourable price structures, when in fact they appear to not be able to provide the products they advertise.

Getting connected to the internet is not a science, and should not be made out to be such. If I purchase a 4mbs uncapped service I expect to receive a service where I can download at a speed of 4mbs with no fear that my internet access will be blocked at any point. I would not expect to receive a service where I only get 4mbs download speed on the odd occasion.

Most of these so-called "uncapped" accounts should be sold as either an "up to 4mbs uncapped limited access" service, or an "uncapped 4mbs internet browsing and e-mail" service. But that does not sound like something that will sell like hotcakes, now does it...
 
I'd be happy with throttling after X gigs, provided I wasn't throttled before. What I'm seeing now is shaping to a 1024k service and all I have to look forward to is potentially more throttling or even disconnection.
 
bekdik said:
It's ingeneous for products to hide their limitations behind the small print and companies that do so will lose out.

As far as most "uncapped" offerings go, they should simply be sold as either "partially uncapped" or "mostly uncapped" thereby alerting the potential client of potential limitations.
Click to expand...

NO. They should be sold as accounts with a 100GB (or whatever) non-transferable cap with afterwards throttling to whatever speed. Exactly the same way that iBurst used to function. You could buy a 10GB iBurst account and then after 10GB you'd be throttled to 64kbps speed. Then the consumer can budget his usage - if he downloads 90GB in the first 3 weeks, he will know that for the last week he'll need to make do with no more than 10GB. Easy as pie.

Uncapped on the other hand should have no limit and only if the user's downloads are hurting other users should he be throttled/shaped, perhaps to extreme values - maybe even to 64kbps or 56kbps if the network can't handle it, but once the network is healthy again, he should be unthrottled automatically.
 
Jacques said:
agreed

If ISPs want to throttle, then advertise something like this:

384K Uncapped (throttled to 56K after 100GB transfer)

Then we all know what we are paying for.
Click to expand...

Yes. Even the ISPs that throttle according to their AUP have ads that are false/misleading.

Even more honest and accurate (but not more marketable) would be:

56kbs uncapped, with the first 100GB at 384kbs.

Think about it: it is not 384kbs uncapped; it is 384kbs capped at 100GB, and the 56kbs is the uncapped part.

I restate: it cannot read 384kbs uncapped, because that is false. The 56kbs is the part that never gets capped.
 
mika1000 said:
The Business ADSL is subsidizing the consumer, as the business accounts, normally only works through 9-5, and its this extra gigs that laid unused, which became the normal uncapped accounts.
Click to expand...

The way I understand this is that MWEB RENTS a pipe of a certain capacity - eg 100 Mbps and whether that pipe is 10% or 99% utilised, MWEB pays the same amount of money for rental. So if the network is free and you can DL at 440KB/sec you are not hurting MWEB's profits (beyond the fact that had you been on capped, you'd be buying boosters) but MWEB doesn't have to pay more as expense to their provider. They only have to pay more if they need to rent additional pipes/connections. If everyone stopped downloading MWEB would still pay the same.
 
haha... here we go again... but you all know my opinion by now.

1) These products are essentially mislabeled. I think the ISPs were trying to capitalize on the usage of uncapped, but this was disingenuous when we already have fairly good uncapped products on the market. They would have attracted the same level of interest had they labeled the products something else, since their pricing is excellent.

2) The FUP/AUP policies that were introduced are all heavily restrictive and clearly go against the definition of what uncapped really is. While it is understandable that they wanted to prevent any "abuse" it must be remembered that it is impossible to "abuse" a service that is by definition limitless. They should have clearly defined their "abuse" as 24/7 filesharing so that customers knew from the outset that these products were not designed for that use.

3) Any threat of disconnection for heavy usage amounts to a "cap" and almost all of these FUPs contain such wording. They are therefore all in contravention of previous ASA rulings. The FUPs should therefore be changed to only mention a throttle for those who use too much. If anyone gets cut off for using too much, they will have an excellent case with the ASA.

4) The throttle that is implemented should also not be too restrictive to render the line essentially unusable. That in effect is the same as a cap.

5) If a throttle is used, then the product again falls foul of Advertising Laws as it then can no longer be classed as a "4 mbps" line. The product names should therefore again be changed to reflect that these are not continuous unrestricted 4 mbps lines.

This mess could have all been avoided had the ISPs simply chosen a more appropriate name from the start. And it is not fair to complain that some customers are spoiling it for others by using too much. You cannot blame a customer for using a product in a way that fits the label of the product, despite what the AUP may say.
 
j@w said:
They can put you on burst. 384 Kbps for 0.5 seconds, and then downwards towards 64, or something like that. You still got 384kbps, they just didn't say how long or constant it is going to be.
Click to expand...

That's exactly why it is misleading then.
 
I said it before:
Change the name from Uncapped to Fair Usage DSL.
There are true uncapped options. I have a 1.5mb line in the states with no thresholds. True Uncapped.
So since that exists you confuse people when you use the same term to define something that is not!
 
I'm planning to get myself ADSL in the near future. I would rather pay an ISP a bit more that's offering a product as advertised. What would be the Top 5 right now?
 
And that's why it shouldn't be called uncapped it should be called "uncapped".
 
Garyvdh said:
This mess could have all been avoided had the ISPs simply chosen a more appropriate name from the start. And it is not fair to complain that some customers are spoiling it for others by using too much. You cannot blame a customer for using a product in a way that fits the label of the product, despite what the AUP may say.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
Well uncapped is a marketing term anyway. It is basically alot of business psychology going on here if you think about it.

If they had a package and called it "30GB for R500" or "60GB for R500" (and both packages would be the cheapest capped packages on the market btw) , alot of average users will not take it purely because they would argue "i don't need that much" . The moment they put an actual GB cap to a package, people start "quantifying" it and work out whether they will or will not use as much. So the ISP lose as the package will only attract more heavy users, not your mom&pop, regardless of the price.

Likewise the ones that DO take a "30GB for R500" package, will ensure they use 30GB [end of the month random downloading to ensure you don't waste any bandwidth]. So the ISP lose again, since there's nothing left unused.

It's like where i won't take a 100GB package, no matter how cheap the per GB pricing is and based on my usage that is below 100GB. I would immediately feel i'm gonna lose 50GB every month. Now comes uncapped, same price...now i suddenly don't think i'm gonna lose 50GB.....see the psychology at work here? :)

Uncapped has no physical quantity to it, so average users do not get a sense of "is this too much?" and the more heavy users don't have a sense of a "must use up a certain amount". Best of both worlds for the ISP.......

...catch is if you don't get a nice balance between low and high usage users, the thing doesn't work...hence all kinds of complicated throttling and FUP schemes.

So in short uncapped is kinda trying to make us all less aware and less efficient of our usage, for a higher price than if you had a capped solution and monitored it like a hawk.
 
Last edited:
Has there been a comparison of the different UAPs, or is it still top secret.... ?
 
I'm not an abusive consumer, but throttling us after 30GB to more aggressive shaping and 1024kbps after 60GB is just plain ridiculous! I'd be better off with my local only and normal shaped accounts.
 
Method said:
I'm not an abusive consumer, but throttling us after 30GB to more aggressive shaping and 1024kbps after 60GB is just plain ridiculous! I'd be better off with my local only and normal shaped accounts.
Click to expand...

me too.
 
PeterCH said:
NO. They should be sold as accounts with a 100GB (or whatever) non-transferable cap with afterwards throttling to whatever speed. Exactly the same way that iBurst used to function. You could buy a 10GB iBurst account and then after 10GB you'd be throttled to 64kbps speed. Then the consumer can budget his usage - if he downloads 90GB in the first 3 weeks, he will know that for the last week he'll need to make do with no more than 10GB. Easy as pie.

Uncapped on the other hand should have no limit and only if the user's downloads are hurting other users should he be throttled/shaped, perhaps to extreme values - maybe even to 64kbps or 56kbps if the network can't handle it, but once the network is healthy again, he should be unthrottled automatically.
Click to expand...

I like that idea. pity they didnt market it like that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X