Warning: Mweb will slow down heavy Internet users

[daveza]

Hell I would love to stream 4k video all the time for R20 per month, but I know it is not possible currently, so am not going to try screw over my ISP to provide it to me for some brief time which means they go out of business and I loose the decent previous service because of this.

Mweb didn't think that when they promised to never throttle that some would abuse the system ?

 

[grok]

Paul I like your restaurant analogy, there are some fat kids in this forum crying about getting pushed back in the queue for blocking the queue and stuffing their faces. 600GB+ is going completely nuts as an average, especially if you are bypassing shaping.

Naspers/MWEB are not going about this the right way, so perhaps the debate should be separated from good, open business practice vs the validity of shaping/throttling.

blah .. blah .. blah

Hell I would love to stream 4k video all the time for R20 per month, but I know it is not possible currently, so am not going to try screw over my ISP to provide it to me for some brief time which means they go out of business and I loose the decent previous service because of this.

Dude, it's about neither of those .. it's about MWEB advertising a product then trying to use their UAP to justify delivering only a portion of it.

Admit it, you've just plucked that 600gb figure that you're holding up as a banner for us 'fat kids' out your arse. Did you miss the articles about other ISP's bragging of terrabyte usages per month on their network? MWEB, while asking a premium for their >4mb products, advertised that you could use as much as you want. No throttling they said, their shaping system would even things out so everyone gets a fair deal. Well, obviously not.

Anyway, done with you. I'm starting to think you are Derek Hershaw, if so your nom de plume's showing. Justify/support MWEB all you like, marry it & have its babies, see if I care .. but stop trying to make MWEB's douchery it's customer's fault. That's being dishonest.

 

[Bern]

Dude, it's about neither of those .. it's about MWEB advertising a product then trying to use their UAP to justify delivering only a portion of it.

Admit it, you've just plucked that 600gb figure that you're holding up as a banner for us 'fat kids' out your arse. Did you miss the articles about other ISP's bragging of terrabyte usages per month on their network? MWEB, while asking a premium for their >4mb products, advertised that you could use as much as you want. No throttling they said, their shaping system would even things out so everyone gets a fair deal. Well, obviously not.

Anyway, done with you. I'm starting to think you are Derek Hershaw, if so your nom de plume's showing. Justify/support MWEB all you like, marry it & have its babies, see if I care .. but stop trying to make MWEB's douchery it's customer's fault. That's being dishonest.

600GB was Marine1's figure, I just used it as an example. I actually went with 1/5 of potential for the month as a good benchmark for abuse.

All the other ISPs throttle/shape their users. All of them unless you get a 1:1 contention business account, it is just HOW they do it that varies. There were so many complaints when WebAfrica, Afrihost, IS and so on implemented their restrictions, same story. MWEB works for me and I think they have done a lot for the broadband market in SA, so am willing to give them a little leeway before I blow my top and jump ship.

How is an ISP bragging about how many TB a user gets going to make them not get downrated on the "star" system or other method employed? It isn't - MWEB are making the mistake of not being open about how they plan to implement it and they will lose a few customers no doubt, but probably only the ones that kill the network.

 

[Seriously]

600GB was Marine1's figure, I just used it as an example. I actually went with 1/5 of potential for the month as a good benchmark for abuse.

All the other ISPs throttle/shape their users. All of them unless you get a 1:1 contention business account, it is just HOW they do it that varies. There were so many complaints when WebAfrica, Afrihost, IS and so on implemented their restrictions, same story. MWEB works for me and I think they have done a lot for the broadband market in SA, so am willing to give them a little leeway before I blow my top and jump ship.

How is an ISP bragging about how many TB a user gets going to make them not get downrated on the "star" system or other method employed? It isn't - MWEB are making the mistake of not being open about how they plan to implement it and they will lose a few customers no doubt, but probably only the ones that kill the network.

Not a fat chance I did not kill the network yet I canceled.

 

[Necuno]

600GB was Marine1's figure, I just used it as an example. I actually went with 1/5 of potential for the month as a good benchmark for abuse.

All the other ISPs throttle/shape their users. All of them unless you get a 1:1 contention business account, it is just HOW they do it that varies. There were so many complaints when WebAfrica, Afrihost, IS and so on implemented their restrictions, same story. MWEB works for me and I think they have done a lot for the broadband market in SA, so am willing to give them a little leeway before I blow my top and jump ship.

How is an ISP bragging about how many TB a user gets going to make them not get downrated on the "star" system or other method employed? It isn't - MWEB are making the mistake of not being open about how they plan to implement it and they will lose a few customers no doubt, but probably only the ones that kill the network.

And yet those who had rolling windows had them defined; CLEARLY. Mweb keeps on saying you should stay within the limits, but they never want to give the limits. Neither ethical or legal imho.

 

[Bern]

And yet those who had rolling windows had them defined; CLEARLY. Mweb keeps on saying you should stay within the limits, but they never want to give the limits. Neither ethical or legal imho.

Please note I am not defending HOW MWEB went about this, I don't agree with it. I am just irritated with people getting upset when they are blatantly abusing the system and I expect my ISP (and others) to have methods to deal with this type of problem so my connection speeds don't get affected.

MWEB needs to clear up the process to determine what constitutes abuse and the steps taken to counter this - this includes making sure clients can get some advanced notification in order to alter their habits. I like the star system they are using on the IS based ISPs, it is clear and fair.

 

[Fulcrum29]

Please note I am not defending HOW MWEB went about this, I don't agree with it. I am just irritated with people getting upset when they are blatantly abusing the system and I expect my ISP (and others) to have methods to deal with this type of problem so my connection speeds don't get affected.

MWEB needs to clear up the process to determine what constitutes abuse and the steps taken to counter this - this includes making sure clients can get some advanced notification in order to alter their habits. I like the star system they are using on the IS based ISPs, it is clear and fair.

The only reason I’m challenging MWEB is due to ethics. I am a MWEB Premium Uncapped user in personal capacity and have not received any letter as to my knowledge since I don’t have received any mail in either the MWEB personal or MWEB business email accounts related to this issue.

- Yes, we have shaping
- Yes, we have approximate 1:20 (depending) contention ratios

But, there are many issues with the new policy:

- Marketing (Advertising/PR) vs. policy
- Policy transparency
- Etc.

These two named issues can be discussed broadly over many topics related to unethical business practices. Can anyone tell me when you know when you are “possibly” violating the new policy terms and conditions, and is this known to you?

So naturally anyone within the 100% can be the 3%... Without clarity it is actually MWEB who will violate their own policy. Waiting to see how the advertising will change coming September, but their current uncapped user base had already been deceived.

Now this is exactly where my problem is with MWEB. Allow this, then any other organisation can do this with FORCE as per policy.

 

[HapticSimian]

Funny how MWeb's forum presence has disappeared like mist before the morning sun. I remember when Afrihost's did the same. They've bounced back stronger for it; I don't think MWeb has the integrity to follow suit.

 

[Paul Hjul]

Well their Facebook team swung into action this morning on their Free the Web:

Will MWeb still be driving this campaign after undermining its credibility over the weekend? The choice is between hypocrisy, abandoning the crusade or taking responsibility for the monumental mishap the company has created. The buck stops with the CEO who must serious consider resigning.

Hi Paul, MWEB is still lobbying for Naked ADSL and will continue to do so. However, the recent abuse on our network has compromised the experience for our users which left us no choice but to enforce our AUP to ensure a great experience for all our customers on our network. Trust that you understand.

(own emphasis)

Of course as somebody who genuinely believes in a free web I had to respond immediately:

I understand perfectly. You need to enforce your AUP as it states. It states UNCAPPED and your policy is to render it a throttled service when thresholds are met but are declining to set out those thresholds. This contravenes ISPA policy and consequently will be taken further. Additionally your company catagorically and repeatedly represented that MWeb will "never throttle" this representation formed a core component of your company's marketing for more than a year and was used to entice hundreds of customers to join MWeb and therefore the matter will also be taken up with the ASA.

Finally the matter will be taken up with ICASA in terms of their consumer protection mandate with the ultimate hope that a failure to return to an honest position by MWeb will result in the ECS and ECNS licences that your company depends on being suspended or revoked. Grow some actual integrity and come clean on when the decision to undermine uncapped Internet was taken. It will help in amending my further submissions on broadband policy and ICT reform to be able to pinpoint when MWeb moved from one of the good guys into a grovelling useless company.

So I understand perfectly and I hope you do as well. Its time to go back to the drawing board and think again about abusing the public.

https://www.facebook.com/FreeTheWebSA

 

[Fulcrum29]

Well their Facebook team swung into action this morning on their Free the Web:



(own emphasis)

Of course as somebody who genuinely believes in a free web I had to respond immediately:


https://www.facebook.com/FreeTheWebSA

Yes, they can still go on lobbying to get Naked ADSL into action, but why then limit the web?

In regard with the abuse on the network, don’t blame your users as this was known to happen. Why they established two standard (MWEB Uncapped ADSL and MWEB Premium Uncapped ADSL) connection accounts… don’t really know, it did not exactly help with the capacity issue, but it did pushed it along to the boundaries. This I already mentioned here on MyBB when the entry-level package was introduced.

I would concur with Bern that they should have rather implemented a system like the star rating system to strengthen the shaping throughout levels determined by cap usage. The stars can also indicate how the user can change his behaviour accordingly. Explaining each star level in detail would have not caused them this much trouble...

 

[snidge]

"Going forward".

Well my share of that 3% is a lot higher as I have been the one who has advised colleagues and family members to join Mweb. I have sent out an email to my mailing list warning them and advising them to switch to Openweb or Telkom. I have already received responses. Power users are more than likely the ones who friends and family come to for advise on things like ADSL because of their technical knowledge. Mweb will pay and it will cost them more than that 3% going forward.

"3% going forward".What does "going forward"mean in the context of your posting?

 

[siraman]

Wonder what the "Harmful Business Practice Act" would have to say about this matter?

A harmful business practice is defined in the Act as any practice that may harm relations between business and consumer or unreasonably prejudice or deceive the consumer.

Is this act still in the statute books?If so, I then feel that a lot of consumers(silent & vocal) are being deceived if MWEB will not state these thresholds and parameters and therefore the act should become relevant.

 

[Paul Hjul]

They shouldn't claim that they wont throttle and then throttle.
They shouldn't call a product uncapped and then allege abuse on the basis of quantum of usage.
If they are going to have usage thresholds these must be clearly stated in their AUP.

They should manage their network to enforce "fairness" by prioritizing certain traffic and by making tools available to customers to manage demand (nothing stops an ISP from making a downloader available for customers which the customer installs to queue unintended downloads which is automatically and remotely controlled - throttled by the ISP).
They should identify customers who are on an "incorrect" product for their usage and approach such customer to change products to a better suited product failing which terminate the contract and service gracefully.
They should identify customers who abuse the network to the detriment of the network integrity - spam, intentional by-passing of shaping etc ... - and take action against such customers. I would prefer it if ISPs actually collectively setup an AUP adjudicatory process which independently of the ISP itself adjudicated on abuse complaints where a termination of service is a prospective outcome and that such a termination would be stored on a registry (so ISPs can check whether IDNumber X has been registered as an AUP abuser) but there are obvious costs and you'll need to feed the system in.

If VPN and (other) tunneling practices pose a problem for management then they should make it an explicit disclaimer of proper use and implement such a policy after giving 90 days notice to allow customers to cancel their accounts. Similarly if the use of Newsgroup servers outside of their network is a problem they can follow the same route.

 

[Rocket-Boy]

They shouldn't claim that they wont throttle and then throttle.
They shouldn't call a product uncapped and then allege abuse on the basis of quantum of usage.
If they are going to have usage thresholds these must be clearly stated in their AUP.

They should manage their network to enforce "fairness" by prioritizing certain traffic and by making tools available to customers to manage demand (nothing stops an ISP from making a downloader available for customers which the customer installs to queue unintended downloads which is automatically and remotely controlled - throttled by the ISP).
They should identify customers who are on an "incorrect" product for their usage and approach such customer to change products to a better suited product failing which terminate the contract and service gracefully.
They should identify customers who abuse the network to the detriment of the network integrity - spam, intentional by-passing of shaping etc ... - and take action against such customers. I would prefer it if ISPs actually collectively setup an AUP adjudicatory process which independently of the ISP itself adjudicated on abuse complaints where a termination of service is a prospective outcome and that such a termination would be stored on a registry (so ISPs can check whether IDNumber X has been registered as an AUP abuser) but there are obvious costs and you'll need to feed the system in.

If VPN and (other) tunneling practices pose a problem for management then they should make it an explicit disclaimer of proper use and implement such a policy after giving 90 days notice to allow customers to cancel their accounts. Similarly if the use of Newsgroup servers outside of their network is a problem they can follow the same route.

Uncapped in SA just means that it cant hard cap, ISP's are allowed to throttle and manage connections and still comfortably call it uncapped.

 

[siraman]

They shouldn't claim that they wont throttle and then throttle.
They shouldn't call a product uncapped and then allege abuse on the basis of quantum of usage.
If they are going to have usage thresholds these must be clearly stated in their AUP.

Yes! Close thread!

 

[scienide]

Attached pic is my cousins usage.
It is himself, his mom and dad.

All they do is email, watch little bit of youtube and play Facebook games (they are on a 2mb uncapped premium account)

So for someone that has family of 4, that games , watches catchup, downloads a bit , emails etc. it is easy then to reach triple this amount...

 

[Paul Hjul]

Uncapped in SA just means that it cant hard cap, ISP's are allowed to throttle and manage connections and still comfortably call it uncapped.

Not according to the ISPA terminology guide - which is set as a policy:

4.2. Uncapped Internet access

Characteristics of an “uncapped” Internet access service are as follows:

There is no limit placed on the total volume of traffic the customers uploads or downloads.
The service may still be linked to a specific speed (e.g. a 512 kbps, uncapped service, or a 4 Mbps download/1 Mbps upload uncapped service).
The Acceptable Use Policy for uncapped services may place additional restrictions on the customer’s usage behaviour beyond illegal or unlawful usage. Customers not adhering to the AUP may have their services limited or soft capped. Details of usage restrictions and the consequences of breaching these restrictions must be clearly set-out in the AUP.
Traffic-shaping may be implemented on an uncapped service. The general shaping policy to be applied to the service should be clearly disclosed.

MWeb's AUP does not set forth what the usage restriction (which I would call a fair use threshold) is or what the consequence will be - what the new throttled speed is.

 

[Fudzy]

Attached pic is my cousins usage.
It is himself, his mom and dad.

All they do is email, watch little bit of youtube and play Facebook games (they are on a 2mb uncapped premium account)

So for someone that has family of 4, that games , watches catchup, downloads a bit , emails etc. it is easy then to reach triple this amount...


View attachment 65267

Did they get letter?

 

[Bern]

Not according to the ISPA terminology guide - which is set as a policy:

MWeb's AUP does not set forth what the usage restriction (which I would call a fair use threshold) is or what the consequence will be - what the new throttled speed is.

This nails the issue - transparency. Naspers rules coming through here it would seem...

It would have been so easy for them to go

"our network is getting abused, to combat this we need to implement some AUP. In this regard we are rescinding the no throttling and will implement it only on the top users based on the following metrics..."

It could be the top 3 % get throttled during peak periods or the rolling windows for the top users.

Everyone would know where they stand. Abusers could moan, but would know exactly where they stand.

 

[Paul Hjul]

^ and this will only be implemented after affording customers adequate notice of the change - where adequate notice ties to cancellation periods. MWeb has chosen to require a months notice and to work month to month on contract lengths so the earliest is October 1st

And they can still do this:
The can issue a statement retracting their previous warning and announcing that as of the 1st of October users who usage exceeds parameters X will be throttled. If they do this it will save me the effort of taking the fight further and will probably save them from a storm of worse publicity.