-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: What's the most interesting small town you've visited in South Africa?
Uncapped ADSL
- Thread starter technobyte
- Start date
Yeah, ICASA say that, and then still do not do anything about the monopoly that costs us R6,000 per 64k international bandwidth. It's like the government going to Makro and telling them to drop all their prices by 50% and forcing them to buy their stock from the same supplier at the same price before the drop.
Carlhead
Expert Member
Then you are in direct violation of Gamco's usage policies.
Carlhead
Expert Member
That's a really valid point...
what about uncapped with 2 connections but limiting the total amount daily to the equivalent of one connection on average ....then they could allow say 100 gig per month but 3 connections will only put through 33 gig each or 50 gig 2 way
Carlhead
Expert Member
Not at all, the service is uncapped, the penalty for exceeding the 30GB or 10 day monitoring is that your bandwidth is halved not stopped. According to gamco they have clients using 200GB + per month on this service.
"The service is allocated a certain threshold for the month which is divided into a 10 day rolling window. If a customer reaches his 10 day threshold before the 10th day, his bandwidth will be halved (e.g. 512Kbps will be dropped to 256Kbps 1MB to 512K). However, if his consumption is reduced, his bandwidth will be restored to the purchased level. "
Carlhead
Expert Member
No - its about ICASA finally doing away with such atrocities as port shaping so we're not forced to pay more for the service we should be getting anyway. An unshaped service for an account with a cap on it is ridiculous. Not being able to use VOIP as well as it should be used because telkom wants to protect its revenue stream is finally illegal.
If ISPs have a problem with these services they must take it up with ICASA or the courts or with the competition commission but as far as I'm concerned they should stop making their problems mine. They've got an association who should be looking after them.
No, you are missing the point. Port shaping comes into effect because bandwidth in South Africa is an extremely limited commodity BECAUSE Telkom are allowed to monopolise it by ICASA. P2P traffic utilises far more of this limited commodity than other internet services.
ISP's have taken this problem up with ICASA many times and with the competition commission. The problem is that ICASA and the commission are hopeless, and are essentially government bodies, as is Telkom.
This is everyone's problem. How can ISP's provide the internet services that users "should be getting" when their supply is extremely limited? We can't just 'manufacture' bandwidth. Believe me, we would love to have free reign to offer you guys unlimited bandwidth, but how can we when that bandwidth is so expensive? No business, ISP or otherwise, would be able to exist in such an environment.
Hence there are courts and commissions. Right now they have to work within the regulations. I dont see ISP after ISP taking telkom to court so it seems to me they're quite happy operating in their current environment. Maybe they are and I just havent heard much about it but still - they're looking after themselves at the end of the day - dont kid yourself about that.
That I am forced to pay so much for 3gb is bad enough - at least this addresses the fact that before this I couldn't do with it what I want without having to pay a surcharge.
EDIT - Dont misunderstand - I dont dislike my IPS at all - he's a great guy but at the end of the day I have to put food on my table just like he does.
Last edited:
Carlhead
Expert Member
All that'll happen is internetional traffic is giong to grind to a halt on the ADSL network... so you'll get 100KBps local and 10KBps international and Telkom is going to tell every one it's a "best effort" service.
I know ICASA had some other requirements regards QOS, but whether they'll be adheard to is another thing.
I know ICASA had some other requirements regards QOS, but whether they'll be adheard to is another thing.
The courts and commissions are useless. The ISPA has taken Telkom to court on MANY occassions, believe me. ICASA's latest regulations were meant to address the stranglehold on the supply of bandwith in the country (by Telkom) but didn't at all! The courts and commissions are controlled by the same people who own Telkom. Hence ICASA's complete lack of power.
I agree that the fact you're forced to pay so much for 3gb is bad enough, but the problem is the SUPPLY. The ISP's have no control over that, it's all Telkom. And your ISP has to put food on his table too. It's like any business.
I don't know what business you're in, but let me try and put it in context for you:
It's as if the government told you that you have to buy from a single supplier, and that supplier, because of their monopolistic position, charged incredibly inflated prices for their service.
Then the government turns to you, the retailer, and tells you to drop your prices by a large amount. But does not require your supplier to drop their prices at all. How are you going to stay in business?
The bottom line is that ISP's pay Telkom Rx per GB of bandwidth - it's a very simple model, with no room to maneuvre. How can they run a business by then reselling unlimited bandwidth?
I understand the plight of the ISP and feel for them but for right now they have to provide me with what the regulations say and that makes me better off than before - not that there isnt plenty of room left for further improvement.
I dont need a crystal ball to see that ICASA is going to be inundated with complaints.
I dont need a crystal ball to see that ICASA is going to be inundated with complaints.
Matt my question is still basically not answered ......why can we not get uncapped accounts with 2 seperate connects at once but you guys limiting the bandwidth to a max of say 100 gig per mth....irrespective whether 2 or 3 connect concurrently
No, the ISP doesn't have to provide anything. They can close their doors, which is what will happen if ICASA try and squeeze the ISPs without reducing their cost pricing. And everyone will suffer.
I'm not sure if this is the case but if the ISP supplies a locked router then that could be the reason why.
Some might just do that but definitely not all. As far as I can see the major stumbling block will be the cost of local access now that its not covered in the cap. How much extra are the isp's going to be charging for that.
Last edited: