Sign up with Google(This may have been discussed before but not recently.)
It is given that most people find the 3 gig cap insufficient, even for what Telkom considers "normal usage". Telkom targets ADSL towards heavy web and e-mail users however these kind of users easily exceed 100MB usage per day. Telkom claims that the cap is in place to prevent abuse e.g. web hosting and P2P applications. Initially the cap included only inbound traffic but was soon adjusted to include outbound traffic as well.
The problem with the cap as it stands is that users are penalised for traffic they have NO control over i.e. virus/worm traffic from across the internet. Also once a user is capped it is extremely difficult to obtain virus updates to prevent their machines from becoming infected and thus using even more bandwidth.
Given the above one can extrapolate that what Telkom considers "abusive usage" is applications with a large amount of outgoing traffic. Both P2P applications and web hosting require outgoing traffic to function. My question is why does Telkom not just cap outgoing traffic? The benefits of this would be that people are not penalised for "normal usage" and incoming virus/worm traffic. If a user's machine gets infected then their outgoing usage will rise causing them to reach their cap quickly and alerting them to a problem. They would then not be able to blame Telkom for stolen bandwidth.
A cap on outgoing usage does not mean infinite incoming usage as TCP/IP sends out control packets during downloads which would count towards the cap. One would eventually hit the cap but those who use their connection for "normal usage" would get a lot more mileage than those that abuse it. The only problem is that if you send a lot of e-mails with large attachments you would be penalised.
Perhaps I'm missing something fundamental in my logic and I'm sure I will be suitably corrected but it just seems that if we must have a cap to prevent abuse then it should be on the "abusive" traffic.
Any thoughts welcome [
]
It is given that most people find the 3 gig cap insufficient, even for what Telkom considers "normal usage". Telkom targets ADSL towards heavy web and e-mail users however these kind of users easily exceed 100MB usage per day. Telkom claims that the cap is in place to prevent abuse e.g. web hosting and P2P applications. Initially the cap included only inbound traffic but was soon adjusted to include outbound traffic as well.
The problem with the cap as it stands is that users are penalised for traffic they have NO control over i.e. virus/worm traffic from across the internet. Also once a user is capped it is extremely difficult to obtain virus updates to prevent their machines from becoming infected and thus using even more bandwidth.
Given the above one can extrapolate that what Telkom considers "abusive usage" is applications with a large amount of outgoing traffic. Both P2P applications and web hosting require outgoing traffic to function. My question is why does Telkom not just cap outgoing traffic? The benefits of this would be that people are not penalised for "normal usage" and incoming virus/worm traffic. If a user's machine gets infected then their outgoing usage will rise causing them to reach their cap quickly and alerting them to a problem. They would then not be able to blame Telkom for stolen bandwidth.
A cap on outgoing usage does not mean infinite incoming usage as TCP/IP sends out control packets during downloads which would count towards the cap. One would eventually hit the cap but those who use their connection for "normal usage" would get a lot more mileage than those that abuse it. The only problem is that if you send a lot of e-mails with large attachments you would be penalised.
Perhaps I'm missing something fundamental in my logic and I'm sure I will be suitably corrected but it just seems that if we must have a cap to prevent abuse then it should be on the "abusive" traffic.
Any thoughts welcome [
]