Uncapped ADSL: why throttle?

Excuses all 'round. It has been shown over and over that a few users using a connection to its full potential can't realistically degrade it to such an extent that would justify the throttling imposed. If congestion occurs then all connections are affected including the heavy users thereby minimising their impact. The real problem as pointed out before is our ISPs buying bandwidth speed based but selling it usage based so they have no idea what the actual cost of data is in their business model. Internationally this scenario is almost unheard of in the developed world.
 
Pretty ashamed to see this on Mybb. A YEAR LATE, and completely in defense of Mweb's atrocious actions. No investigation into how bull**** the 3% claim was (if 3% of your users can screw up your network - news flash - your network is already screwed up), nor any linking to a similar fiasco that occured with iBurst in the past (and was Mybb articled). Even more so OpenWeb's account sharing going above and beyond disgusting was completely left ignored in an article tailor made to expose it.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter what in balls hell it costs an isp to provide the bandwidth, what matters is that they are not delivering on promises. Do not say 4mbs if you cannot deliver 4mbs for that cost. In any other industry you'd be shut down for such behavior.

Oh and that throttling that doesn't cut you off? Yeah it kinda does. Experienced first hand how unusable it makes any connection.
 
I don't think there is anything untoward or defending of MWEB in this article. If anything I think they are trying to report on a subject with some fraught difficulties with as much integrity as possible.

As a paradoxical double disclaimer: I was the complainant to ISPA on MWEBs horrendous conduct and am now a director of an ISP. I will hopefully soon post in a sermon on this issue.
 
I have no issue with the shaping/throttling of P2P protocols on an uncapped product.

I realize that in the real world you will need to have some measure of control over the network, otherwise people will run P2P at full speed the whole day long, and degrade the service for businesses etc who really need the resources.

Rather shape P2P and have good speeds for emails, remote desktop, VPN etc than not shape P2P and battle with emails and so on....

So what if the torrent is taking two or three days longer to download? Just be patient, it won't go away.
 
People who only want email can pay for a slower connection and they can then provision for what people pay for. Besides it's the person who want priority (email, browsing first) that should be paying extra and the speeds they throttle at are completely ridiculous and at times when the network simply doesn't warrant it. It seems throttling is not a network issue but more a business issue where they want to force a small percentage of users that can't realistically degrade a proper network to the claimed extent to pay exorbitant amounts for a higher usage package when uncapped should already be the ultimate.
 
Paul Hjul said:
I don't think there is anything untoward or defending of MWEB in this article. If anything I think they are trying to report on a subject with some fraught difficulties with as much integrity as possible.

As a paradoxical double disclaimer: I was the complainant to ISPA on MWEBs horrendous conduct and am now a director of an ISP. I will hopefully soon post in a sermon on this issue.
Click to expand...

To the dark side you will go.......:sick:
 
I think you are missing the point, the point that has to be made:
We don't mind the shaping or the throttling, just don't be mystical about it. If you want to shape and throttle at least enable the customer to know what is going on when without having to resort to unraveling the sith leaving them in the dark, but you with the power to do what you want and then claim **** like OMGZ YOUR ROUTER MUST NOT BE ATTUNED or OMGZ IT MUST BE TELKOM.

Anyone defending this is just as guilty as the said ISPs and we have to wonder why you are doing it: Yes you know who you are and so do we.

MyBB clearly could have posted an article when it was happening, just as with openweb, but they have chosen not to and now magically after a year or so the articles starts to come out. One has to wonder if this has to do with advert revenue or god knows what.

Why the Hush-Hush? Is this another VodacomData VS The old guard?

As for Paul: I'm sorry you dropped the ball with mweb and icasa and you know it.

The_Librarian said:
I have no issue with the shaping/throttling of P2P protocols on an uncapped product.

I realize that in the real world you will need to have some measure of control over the network, otherwise people will run P2P at full speed the whole day long, and degrade the service for businesses etc who really need the resources.

Rather shape P2P and have good speeds for emails, remote desktop, VPN etc than not shape P2P and battle with emails and so on....

So what if the torrent is taking two or three days longer to download? Just be patient, it won't go away.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I am no lawyer but the following could to be kept in mind:
The Internet Service Providers’ Association (Ispa) is not real law and could be flawed?
In the case with MWeb, never was it stated that if you go over a certain usage, you will virtually have no internet being that it is throttled more.
What does the consumer protection act say about this whole issue?
This issue was not tested in court and once that has happened, you could make rules based on that.
 
You know, sometimes I just get the feeling these sensitive articles are made to cause a reaction among the MyBB readers.
Who knows, even to keep a captive audience.
 
I think Afrihost has proven that this is not true. COme on MBB. Mweb is dying a slow death. Let them die.
 
From the article I get that the issue with the 3% is that they cause P2P to degrade for all users i.e. they cause that protocol to be shaped constantly for everybody.

Can the ISP not simply shape per protocol and per user combined?

Then you could let Jimmy go nuts with downloads, but as soon as Timmy also wants some you shape Jimmy and let Timmy have a chance.
 
Swa said:
Excuses all 'round. It has been shown over and over that a few users using a connection to its full potential can't realistically degrade it to such an extent that would justify the throttling imposed. If congestion occurs then all connections are affected including the heavy users thereby minimising their impact. The real problem as pointed out before is our ISPs buying bandwidth speed based but selling it usage based so they have no idea what the actual cost of data is in their business model. Internationally this scenario is almost unheard of in the developed world.
Click to expand...

Swa said:
People who only want email can pay for a slower connection and they can then provision for what people pay for. Besides it's the person who want priority (email, browsing first) that should be paying extra and the speeds they throttle at are completely ridiculous and at times when the network simply doesn't warrant it. It seems throttling is not a network issue but more a business issue where they want to force a small percentage of users that can't realistically degrade a proper network to the claimed extent to pay exorbitant amounts for a higher usage package when uncapped should already be the ultimate.
Click to expand...

You're making all these claims without any proof. This isn't your church group.

I'm just gonna tell you that you're talking out your ass.
 
ISP should be as transparent as possible with regards to their shaping/throttling rules upfront, then the user can at least plan according to it to a certain degree. Like it was said in the article, on the cheaper uncapped account you can do +/- 110GB and the more expensive one 400GB. You'll immediately know which one will work better for your usage. With easy tools to track your usage, you'll know when to slow down before month end if you still want a good connection. Also give the user the option to extend this threshold, say a R100 booster upgrade, should he have used more bandwidth than expected. None of this top 50% of users to be shaped BS as well, because the ISP could be lying about this group's usage. Unless the ISP provide you every single user's usage stats, but then that could be fabricated figures as well.
 
The ISP's also like to throttle you based on your PREDICTED usage. So when I download a game from PSN, then I'm automatically throttled for the next few days, even though I should still technically be unthrottled according to my average usage. It is harder to manage these new-fangled uncapped accounts than a normal capped account.

Star-rating? Shove that crap where the sun don't shine. I only wan't to see stars when playing Mario games.
 
The real problem here is Telkom. They are the culprits creating artificial bandwidth scarcity.

When looking at the graph, Telkom's costs looks like 60% ... International looks like 15%

International bandwidth should be 60% and the local cost should be 15% ... not the other way round.

ISP's should look into bypassing Telkom somehow.. Maybe 'fibre to the home' could see them bypass Telkom somehow or some other comparable tech to ADSL where Telkom is not in the mix.
 
eye_suc said:
The ISP's also like to throttle you based on your PREDICTED usage. So when I download a game from PSN, then I'm automatically throttled for the next few days, even though I should still technically be unthrottled according to my average usage. It is harder to manage these new-fangled uncapped accounts than a normal capped account.

Star-rating? Shove that crap where the sun don't shine. I only wan't to see stars when playing Mario games.
Click to expand...

Also started noticing this. Recently I downloaded a couple of Linux ISOs (yes, really) and the line was heavily throttled for a while.
 
plugger123 said:
The real problem here is Telkom. They are the culprits creating artificial bandwidth scarcity.

When looking at the graph, Telkom's costs looks like 60% ... International looks like 15%

International bandwidth should be 60% and the local cost should be 15% ... not the other way round.

ISP's should look into bypassing Telkom somehow.. Maybe 'fibre to the home' could see them bypass Telkom somehow or some other comparable tech to ADSL where Telkom is not in the mix.
Click to expand...

This^^

Why are they charging R920 per Megabit per second?
 
If this article is true, AH are actually loosing money from me, eg:

I use +-120GB of data on my 1Meg business account for R397,and if they pay R4 per GB that i use then it works out to R480.

R480-397= R83, they are loosing R83 from me per month. Is this correct?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X