Vodacom throttling image quality on 3G?

jannievanzyl said:
You made the statement, so you should provide the legal opinion to back it up surely. :rolleyes:

If I agree with it, or not, image compression is used all over the world, including Europe.

But, in any case, you decided it's illegal and breaking three laws, so post the laws contravened or admit you've got no clue.

Your arguments above are pretty silly but let's see your legal backing for them. Especially Vodacom "making copies". Are you suggesting....actually just forget it, your attempt at being a forum-lawyer is mostly amusing.

But, of course, you might be correct, so please quote the relevant Acts as requested before.
Click to expand...

I just said I don't *think* it's entirely legal, which is supported by the other comments. I'm sure that if Vodacom continues with this route, either customers will go elsewhere or someone is eventually going to go the legal route with this.

And there is a world of difference between image compression and quality reduction, or changing the nature of the thing you're compressing by injecting scripts.

I really don't think these objections are silly, or that one needs to quote the letter of the law to know that something is not broadly speaking above board. You are basically intercepting my communication, making a poor copy of it, or mangling it, and then presenting it to my clients as if it was my original work. If you are going to do this then please also inject a script that displays a large permanent alert on a red background across all web pages that you have similarly inflicted with the words "The quality of this page has been reduced by Vodacom".
 
Last edited:
garp said:
I just said I don't *think* it's entirely legal, which is supported by the other comments. I'm sure that if Vodacom continues with this route, either customers will go elsewhere or someone is eventually going to go the legal route with this.

And there is a world of difference between image compression and quality reduction, or changing the nature of the thing you're compressing by injecting scripts.

I really don't think these objections are silly, or that one needs to quote the letter of the law to know that something is not broadly speaking above board. You are basically intercepting my communication, making a poor copy of it, or mangling it, and then presenting it to my clients as if it was my original work. If you are going to do this then please also inject a script that displays a large permanent alert on a red background across all web pages that you have similarly inflicted with the words "The quality of this page has been reduced by Vodacom".
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong. I think your objections, and your right to object, are perfectly valid and I don't necessarily disagree with them.

I do disagree though (with anyone, on any topic) when they make a claim based on an assumption. Much better to first ask before making potentially wrong statements.

If you follow my posts, you'll see I often talk about this.

Much better to post "Is this legal or not?" than "I think it's illegal". In the latter case the onus is now on you to provide the proof for your statement. Which is what I did.

To then say it's not the responsibility of the person who made the statement to provide proof is a bit of a cop-out.
 
Last edited:
jannievanzyl said:
Much better to post "Is this legal or not" than "I think it's illegal". In the latter case the onus is now on you to provide the proof for your statement.
Click to expand...

Seems like splitting hairs, seriously :)

I did not say "it is illegal", I said "I think it is not entirely legal" and then gave the reasons for my thinking.

I've mentioned multiple reasons why I (as an individual commenting on a forum conversation) *think* this, ranging from RICA to copyright law. Surely I'm not obligated to consult a lawyer to construct a formal legal argument citing specific acts and precedents every time I happen to think something is not entirely kosher, besides which, Vodacom, or anyone else, is free to respond with why they *think* otherwise.
 
Last edited:
garp said:
Seems like splitting hairs, seriously :)
Click to expand...
Maybe, though I don't 'think' so :)

Guess it's the engineer in me that wants to ensure facts are dealt with as facts and speculation as such.

Any way, this issue will be gone pretty soon. ;)
 
PJBadenhorst said:
@jannievanzyl. What does the "Vodacom Rep" below your name mean?
Click to expand...

Rep = Representative.

What he says and does represents Vodacom's stance. In this case, cluelessness about the situation, rolling of eyes at users, and asking us whether filtering data is even illegal or not...
:erm: ... Shift+R improves the quality of this image. Shift+A improves the quality of all images on this page.
 
Keeper said:
In this case, cluelessness about the situation,
Click to expand...

I think Jannievanzyl is not clueless about this situation.

And I think the legality and ethical issues should be cleared up, because I think data interception (not necessarily modification) is happening far more often than some people here believe, and it's important. But not in this thread.
 
"Uh, what device is this happening on guyz?"
"Um okay people giff me 48 hours"
"Okay i'll test it after midnight"
"Uhh press F5...or shift F5...or something, I cant remember the difference"
"You're still seeing ugly images? Ok I need more info.. what area are you in? ...is it better or worse than before?"


Yeah, seems like he was "briefed" extremely well :rolleyes:
 
From my side the images seem fine. I also get the Gordon JavaScript flash player implementation injected on my files. I went to the Urban Rivals website and all the flash players (that used to be fine before injecting Gordon) are broken!!! If I browse to a page with HTTPS (no injection) they work. Same page with http (and the injection) and the flash players are messed up.
 
Let's not be too harsh on Jannie, folks. At least it's nice to be able to talk to a real human representative of Vodacom and not a call centre zombie :)
 
garp said:
Let's not be too harsh on Jannie, folks. At least it's nice to be able to talk to a real human representative of Vodacom and not a call centre zombie :)
Click to expand...

Thanks,

And that's exactly it. I've been on this forum for many years, you might recall the first 'vodacom' post by a certain vodacom3G.

But I allways said I'm not a call centre agent. I'll comfortably outgeek most of you guys (not all!) and, just like you, I prefer to call a spade a spade. Sometimes that means admitting Vodacom just plainly effed-up. And sometimes it means I'll take you on for being illogical or challenge you to provide backing for statements.

But never not have have an open and honest discussion. On any topic. Ever.

And yes, I love ":rolleyes:" Seems quite appropriate in dealing with some posts. :)
 
Last edited:
jannievanzyl said:
And yes, I love ":rolleyes:" Seems quite appropriate in dealing with some posts. :)
Click to expand...

Keeper said:
"Uh, what device is this happening on guyz?"
"Um okay people giff me 48 hours"
"Okay i'll test it after midnight"
"Uhh press F5...or shift F5...or something, I cant remember the difference"
"You're still seeing ugly images? Ok I need more info.. what area are you in? ...is it better or worse than before?"


Yeah, seems like he was "briefed" extremely well :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I rest my case.....
 
Last edited:
garp said:
Let's not be too harsh on Jannie, folks. At least it's nice to be able to talk to a real human representative of Vodacom and not a call centre zombie :)
Click to expand...

Cool head. Listens. Understands. Investigates. Responds. Nothing wrong with that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X