I am, however, just wondering who your ISP was before you switched to WAZZUP and why you switched to WAZZUP specifically. Surely it wasn't just a simple "i'm sure they're good folk" gesture. I mean, if you never used the internet before and ended up choosing them then I can understand completely, but moving from a top tier ISP to someone who merely resells their bandwidth is just a ridiculous move from my point of view as you just add more "hurdles" between you and sorting out a problem you might be experiencing.
Wazzup is my first ISP (in my personal capacity). To be honest, my decision ended up coming down to price. Based on the testimonials here, WebAfrica (Titan) and OpenWeb were both strong contenders in my decision-making process. But I just got to the point of information overload from reading myBB, resulting in decision paralysis. So I jumped at Wazzup. Their price and the customer testimonials here were enough to convince me.
I appreciate what you're saying, though I would propose another perspective on the issue. Sometimes it makes sense to have someone with a contractual relationship with the top tier provider advocating for a group of users when there is a problem. Basically, a broker of sorts. While I realise that brokers have generally gone the way of the dodo in the short term insurance business, there are still those that don't want to deal with claims, policy changes and so forth directly with the insurance companies. When I have a problem with my DSL connection, I put in a support request and let my ISP sort it out with their upstream provider.
Where this logic would not make sense, or be acceptable for me, is in the context of a business internet connection. Then it only makes sense (to me at least) to have a contract directly with the top tier provider. When there is downtime, it costs business and money. Contact directly with the top tier provider is essential. At least then one also has the big gun of breach of contract (and the associated legal costs, but that's for another discussion), whereas as a private user in a home context, we are pretty powerless (as evidenced in many other threads on this forum).
What I can't really fathom is why I'm not paying a premium for this ("broking") service. I'm getting an uncapped service (the South African definition of the term) that seems to operate the same (or better) than those offered by top tier providers (it does what it said on the box), yet I'm paying the same or less. At this stage, I'd normally be looking for the camera and Leon Schuster behind a bush, but the performance Wazzup customers are experiencing seems to be consistently good.
Look no offense, I am not attacking you or your opinion - my post was actually aimed at the entirety of mybroadband as 99% of people on here have no idea how internet in this country works and they end up making bad decisions and spreading false information, further contributing to the problem.
None taken. I agree that more transparency is needed. As long as we share good quality, honest information with each other on this forum, the ISPs can only improve their offering. I've always tried to be upfront about what I wanted the internet for, and why I ended up choosing the ISP I did. I have no illusions regarding the fact that ISP I chose may not be good enough for a good many people. My decision to utilise their services may even be considered idiotic by some - but that's cool.
As a further example, from your post above you quote Andre@WazzupInternet saying that "We're not in a position to make any promises beyond the above and unfortunately I cannot put a figure on what is considered to be uncapped."
He says this because he has absolutely no control over the bandwidth he is reselling and can't do any shaping or unshaping or anything for that matter, apart from looking at traffic graphs. People who buy internet kinda expect their ISP to be in charge of the bandwidth they are selling - most of the time it is not the case.
This is not the interpretation I took from what Andre said. The general population around these parts wants to have a definition of uncapped = infinite GB per month, however in the real world (again, South Africa) it looks like it comes down to a number. Some ISPs have an AUP where they clearly state when they're going to throttle you/cut you off. Some ISPs state this number and change it fairly regularly (as they run out of bandwidth). Some ISPs don't quote anything and then start throwing the book at all the "abusers" simultaneously. My take is that Wazzup is not prepared to commit to a number, otherwise they will get inundated by hundreds of new customers demanded that many Gigs per month. And we all have seen what the result is when that happens... The clients that are signing up with Wazzup are getting what they signed up for - but I think it all boils down to what your personal definition of "uncapped" is versus that of the ISP you are evaluating (and yes, I do realise that uncapped is uncapped, as in infinite GB per month. But I also know that we are on the southern tip of Africa and all is not always as it seems. We're a way off from the dream).
Additionally, none of the Wazzup clients that have posted their feedback here have experienced any form of shaping, so I'm guessing that when they say unshaped, they mean unshaped.
Just some point of views. I don't think there is a right answer for this - otherwise this forum would be one page long.
Cheers,
Andrew
.