BBSA
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2005
- Messages
- 30,227
- Reaction score
- 28,804
- Location
- People's Republic of South Africa
Yup, just like we have full control over what Apple does.
You did not know RIM was going to release of a 3G handsets?
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Will you be subscribing to the new Disney+ R49 streaming package?
Vodacom CEO explains BlackBerry problems and plans
- Thread starter rpm
- Start date
You did not know RIM was going to release of a 3G handsets?
jannievanzyl
Telecoms expert
The speed of the handset is not related to the service delivered. All it would do is make the service faster. The problem here is not the speed of the network or handsets, but rather that usage patterns changed.
Previously the OS imposed certain limits, today some of those are removed or people found ways around them.
The network operator controls neither the OS, nor the deployment of international proxies allowing downloads over HTTP, for example.
BBSA
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2005
- Messages
- 30,227
- Reaction score
- 28,804
- Location
- People's Republic of South Africa
If speed does not matter, why did you plan to do the throttle thing?
You do test and approve handsets/OS before it is used on your network, right?
Last edited:
jannievanzyl
Telecoms expert
You're confusing fundamentally different things. Or you're just bored and looking for an argument.
(I've only got time for the 5-minute argument now, we could do the 30-minute argument later).
1. Speed x time = capacity. Think a bit about it and what the service was designed to do. Then remember that the intention is not to outright throttle everyone (which you seem to think), only those over a certain capacity.
2. Again, the handset capabilities (especially speed) and the service are not directly related.
BBSA
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2005
- Messages
- 30,227
- Reaction score
- 28,804
- Location
- People's Republic of South Africa
You're confusing fundamentally different things. Or you're just bored and looking for an argument.
(I've only got time for the 5-minute argument now, we could do the 30-minute argument later).
1. Speed x time = capacity. Think a bit about it and what the service was designed to do. Then remember that the intention is not to outright throttle everyone (which you seem to think), only those over a certain capacity.
2. Again, the handset capabilities (especially speed) and the service are not directly related.
Yes Jannie, I am bored. Not to worry, I can see Vodacom has everything under control
But it's this quicker service that has caused the problems, so we're back at my original questions posed. If it wasn't for the ability to download 300gigs of data in one month, we wouldn't be sitting with this issue.
I'm not sure how you're able to dismiss the argument that 3g-able handsets haven't cause the problems, when you have from the outset stated that "data hogs" abusing the system have been the cause of the problems for everyone. Let me rephrase my question then - if everyone was still limited to 2G speeds, would we have the same problem? And now allow me to answer on your behalf: the answer is, of course not, because this is precisely the measure Vodacom suggested to fix the problem - limit to 2G.
We can therefore state categorically that 3g has been the problem. We're therefore back to my original points relating to the business plans, overall planning, strategy, operating in the dark, etc.
You state that usage patterns changed - well of course they did - people could all of a sudden download a lot quicker.
On a side note, but a very important one that needs some clarification:
Someone emailed me this morning about this situation. They have been using BIS for many years and have never abused the system - this I know without a doubt. Yesterday though she decided to test the BIS service considering that no soft-caps are being introduced. So she downloaded a large file on her 3G handset - 500MB. Everything seemed 100% normal with fantastic speeds. Then after 300MB she received a message stating "you only have 3MB left before costs will be deducted from your call account". Within a second later, she received another message stating "costs are now being deducted from your call account". And they were.
So as far as I can tell, there is a cap in place, and it isn't a soft-cap, it's a hard cap and it costs you money. Now this is all from hearsay based on what she has sent through to me. She's sent me the file link and the two messages.
Can you comment on this before I write an article about it, the fallout of which will be even worse than the original debacle?
Before writing any articles, read the first post in this thread:
http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthr...IS)-or-the-quot-Is-it-really-free-quot-thread
Thanks for that ginggs. which is why I didn't immediately jump on the wagon there. Were a lot of these limitations not scrapped with the new OS?
What we can deduce then is that there is already a 300MB leeway for certain downloads though.
The other thing to take heed of then, is that the actual abusers are circumventing these limitations, not simply downloading as normal. It surely makes it easier then to prevent it?
I thought this had been made clear.
I think that's why Vodacom are in discussions with RIM.
I'm merely reiterating my point that abusers were not necessarily targeted effectively from the get go, and that caps are not the best solution to the problem...
jannievanzyl
Telecoms expert
No, you (and BBSA) are still confusing two fundamentally different things. The service used to have certain restrictions, irrespective of the speed. You could not download large files, nor stream video. If you introduced 3G into this environment, the restrictions would still apply. You would get your e-mail faster and browse faster but still could not download large amounts of data.
What changed was the service itself plus people realised how to circumvent certain BIS limitations. Nothing to do with 3G. 3G does allow abusers to abuse even more, but even at 2G speeds they could do 15GB per month. In fact, the 3G handsets were introduced before this became a problem.
BTW, your argument that the problem is speed related seems to support Vodacom's proposed solution; Remove the speed advantage for those above a certain usage, i.e. throttle. So you're actually beginning to agree with the solution proposed. (though you probably don't agree with the trigger point of 100MB
)(Hint) Always good to do some research before shooting from the hip. Your friend clearly ended up on the internet APN. Either via a setting or most likely by tethering the phone.
As with the other service restrictions mentioned above, this one's been in place from day-1.
So basically, it's RIM's fault then? Are you telling me that Vodacom were unaware of the change in RIM's service? The problem seems to lie in the right hand not knowing what the left is doing...
And as is quite evident, I'm not a BIS user and therefore not one of the abusers. I've just taken an interest from a consumer activism perspective, on principle...
BTW, your argument that the problem is speed related seems to support Vodacom's proposed solution; Remove the speed advantage for those above a certain usage, i.e. throttle. So you're actually beginning to agree with the solution proposed. (though you probably don't agree with the trigger point of 100MB
LOL. Cunning linguist in the house. My discussion around speeds stems from trying to get a better understanding of where Vodacom was from the outset and at what point this was identified and solutions proposed. The etymology of the discussion is there for all to see and in no way supports blanket soft caps in any way. Let's not start putting words in people's mouths - that's a dangerous area to tread and a little disingenuous because you've been part and parcel of this entire discussion so far.
It's rather ridiculous to state that I must agree with Vodacom's proposals merely because I agree with the issues.
I can easily turn this around and state that because you disagree with my arguments relating to 3G speeds, you're (by your argument) agreeing with me. That's silly...
Oi, what do you think the question was? I didn't go out shooting from the hip with accusations - I was provided information I was quite evidently unsure about and I asked for clarity on the matter which was subsequently provided, and I accepted. No need to start condescendingly accusing me of shooting from the hip for merely asking questions. If that's how you want to discuss this then we might as well turn it into a mudslinging fest here and now. I'd prefer not to - let's discuss it like adults, please. I didn't go and start a thread on the issue. I didn't make any assumptions. I questioned the validity of the information. I even stated that I'd like clarity on the issue before I decide what credence to lend the information. Again, rather silly to start accusing me of things - I think I've been fair from the outset and have discussed this quite rationally with you so far.
I was going to summarise this again but it seems an impossible task. Such a complicated discussion simply cannot be summarised into a few points without losing context on both sides of the equation.
It really boils down to where responsibilities lie, and whether or not Vodacom are willing to show good faith to restore some sense of brand loyalty with their customers. I think everyone would also like to hear the "other" solutions put on the table - the solutions that Pieter Uys has been referring to since he defended Vodacom and accused the PR people of wrongdoing. It's all good and well passing blame, but how about some tangible actions for your customers?
jannievanzyl
Telecoms expert
Remember me alluding to Apple before in this conversation? There was a subtle hint in there.
Actually, this is something I often see, especially with us engineering types.
Person A mulls something for a long time, consider various factors and eventually come up with a solution. Be it a new product, a new design of some sort or whatever. He then announces his final result after a lot of work and considerations.
Persons B to Z (typically engineers themselves - and most of this forum included) promptly comes out and say it's a k@k idea or new product design and they could've done a much better job themselves. Some (like you) then actually do start to think about it and consider the various factors at play. Unfortunately many don't - remember our friend who posted here he can roll out a FTTH network for R300/month?
Invariably what happens is that once all the factors are understood, most people will come up with the same answer. I always say that most sane people will come up with the same solutions if the same factors are considered and this is why I always give us much info here as I can.
I'm talking about making a statement such as "......before I write an article about it, the fallout of which will be even worse than the original debacle? ". Always a good idea to ask a question before getting violent. In any case, just something to consider.
I'll answer the rest later, off to watch the rugby.
Last edited:
I have to deal with this same problem far too often, and often with people who don't know enough to be able to come to a proper solution by themselves, but they still feel like they are qualified to debate the point.
Then I have to explain the rationale behind every decision, with references, or they keep arguing until I get tired of explaining.
Now, on to some thoughts I had while reading this thread:
Because of the pitiful state of our fixed line internet.
Now, we know that Telkom fixed line connections are in decline, while mobile has been growing from the time they've opened for business here in SA, and we also know that Vodacom has more users than everyone else.
Therefore, I am not surprised at all that the issue(note that I am not calling it abuse yet) showed up on Vodacom's network. You've probably got most of SA's internet users.
The issue though, isn't purely because loopholes were found. The real problem is that everyone wants to be a part of this web community, social media, youtube, torrents and so on.
And they can't afford to do so
But they all know how to Google, so they found ways of using their "unlimited internet" to do just that, unlimited use. They don't care for your infrastructure, or for your other users that have to suffer. They're human after all, and will use their ingenuity to find a way around the problem (the problem being, how to get onto the internet in the most cost effective way possible and have access to everything that people in other countries have)*
Now on to the next issue:
Vodacom did not properly define "abuse" or "unlimited use" in their contract with a BIS user, and more importantly, they did not define it in the marketing material (because we all know most people don't read the T's & C's, but they do read the adverts)
So I have to wonder, what is unlimited internet?
To me that means the ability to connect to any IP address via any port and send/receive as many bytes as I like, at the fastest possible speed that my hardware can handle.
To you that would mean abuse, but the consumer doesn't care. That's your problem to deal with, you marketed "unlimited" and the proper way to provide unlimited is to provide a faster link to the RIM servers until all your customers have proper service.
I also have to wonder, what is abuse?
If the marketing + contract also state unlimited browsing with some examples of twitter, facebook and email, then abuse should include torrents, large downloads, NNTP, gaming, etc, right?
Have you specifically stated that torrents etc are not allowed in the marketing + contract?
The problem you face here is that the consumer will not care about the definition of these protocols and uses if you called it unlimited internet. Without any sort of education about what they're using, to them its all "the internet"
This quote implies that you targeted having a fixed connection speed, and keep adding more subscribers without appropriately adding capacity to that link to sustain the expected quality of service.
It a reasonable assumption to make with the data we have: that 2% of your users were able to ruin the connection for everyone else.
The proposed solution to this, that you post the data in this forum when links are upgraded, is useful, but only to a very small subset of people. I would prefer if this sort of data appeared on the vodacom website, both as a graph and as a set of values.
*regarding the initial issue above,
What part are you playing in our quest to to get affordable, unlimited high speed internet access in SA?
Does your corporate social responsibility as a company only extend to things that don't interfere with your business?
How about providing a means for people to make full use of the internet while satisfying your corporate social responsibility requirements at the same time, for example: http://www.khanacademy.org/
I just tested this by asking someone with a Blackberry to watch one of these videos. The response I got back was, "I can go there but it says 'buffering' instead of playing anything
"How about providing an affordable service so that the so called "abusers" are not using BIS?
You have "Vodacom business" providing ADSL connections indirectly via the likes of Openweb, how about providing "Vodacom residential" ADSL access? (and without the need to go via a 3rd party to sign up)
This last bit is just wishful thinking, I know it will never happen.
Disclaimer: I cant possibly be one of the BIS abusers, I use an Android phone.
Last edited: