WBS responds on ITweb.... AND LIES

S

slimothy

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2005
Messages
4,808
Reaction score
0
by the way for laymen, 5mbit implies you could download at 640Kbytes a second.... 100mbit implies you could download at 12.5 MEGABYTES per second.

As one of the "abusers" and one of the worst "abusers" too I can tell you that is complete BS. 100mbit means you can download 750MegaBytes in a minute. Lonegunman I demand you make a template we can use to email ITweb
 
Mtshali says about 90% of the company's customers only managed download speeds of up to 5Mbps, while the remainder – the alleged abusers – enjoyed speeds of more than 100Mbps

right kids... he is talking in terms of the whole network... and i thought you were all it specialists and stuff... and if i am wrong then send a letter of complaint to the asasa... lol.
 
halicon said:
Mtshali says about 90% of the company's customers only managed download speeds of up to 5Mbps, while the remainder – the alleged abusers – enjoyed speeds of more than 100Mbps

right kids... he is talking in terms of the whole network... and i thought you were all it specialists and stuff... and if i am wrong then send a letter of complaint to the asasa... lol.
Click to expand...

Ok, I see your line of thought ... but how is that possible? In theory they acknowledge the fact that the bandwidth was not allocated correctly?
 
No landy - he's saying that 100Mbps = 100 users at 1MB's. So the article is not wrong.
Duh - sorry - carent read.

Yup - completely acknowledges that something is wrong on the network, but just says that it's the abusers who somehow got around the throttle. i.e. Users fault - NOT WBS.
 
stoke said:
No landy - he's saying that 100Mbps = 100 users at 1MB's. So the article is not wrong.
Click to expand...

So, the guys who got disconnected were over their cap, so they should have been on 64k line, so that should never have happened, so they didn't allocate the bandwidth properly.

Back to square one, no matter how you look at it

Add: Geez, I'm too fast :D didn't see your correction stoke
 
again, linear math fails as idiots try and comprehend how a REAL isp does business... shame
 
He accuses the suspended customers of being irresponsible, and says WBS had no other option but to disconnect them because some users had found a way to bypass the 64Kbps throttle
Click to expand...
Lies
Mtshali says about 90% of the company's customers only managed download speeds of up to 5Mbps, while the remainder – the alleged abusers – enjoyed speeds of more than 100Mbps
Click to expand...
Let change Mbps to Kbps to give it a bit more credibility. Ok. How did the "hogs" manage this. Was it a hack?
Mtshali commented that if subscribers used up their monthly allowance within a week, they should have realised they were abusing the broadband wireless service
Click to expand...
No they ...should have been throttled back to 64kbps and WBS failed to do this.
He stresses that although the disconnected customers are arguing that there should have been some sort of policing by WBS, the users were in a position to know they were going beyond acceptable limits
Click to expand...
Yes the alternative was to plug your modem out and take it out on the 1st of the following month!
He says all the users that had been disconnected had been forewarned by the company via e-mail prior to their services being suspended
Click to expand...
Has anyone received this email - be fair, I did not go over 3GB so I will not know - did'nt receive any form of warning either.
Sasan Parvin, CTO at iBurst, says the 64Kbps throttle is in place and working fine.
Click to expand...
Can anyone confirm?
He accuses the suspended customers of being irresponsible, and says WBS had no other option but to disconnect them because some users had found a way to bypass the 64Kbps throttle.
Click to expand...
Who found this way, was it a hack? Please tell me anyone.
 
stoke said:
No landy - he's saying that 100Mbps = 100 users at 1MB's. So the article is not wrong.
Duh - sorry - carent read.
Click to expand...

It is equally plausible that somebody got Mbs and kBs mixed up...
 
If you would like to do linear maths, 64k * 160 (odd "abusers") = 10mb (thats the pipe they need to give 160 users 64k each with a contention ratio of 1:1)

4000 users on 64k would mean they need 250mb, which, as you all know isn't entirely possible without some anal lube and a willing Telkom Executive Management official.

Thus, lets assume a 40:1 contention ratio :

4000 users on 64k would mean they need a 6.25mb pipe for ALL users on their network at this stage.

however

you receive 1mb speeds (not 1:1 contention ratio) for up to 3 gigs. As we all know, you can reach your cap in under 7 hours (especially with uploads counting towards it as well)

Assuming a contention ratio of 40:1 again, it would mean that iBurst would need a 100mb pipe. Refer to my analogy of the Telkom employee...

This leads me to believe the contention is even higher than that. Lets assume they want to work with only 30meg of bandwidth (as Sentech is using, i might be wrong) this would mean the contention ratio would be 110:1 (around about, thumbsuck)

Which makes sense to me, they don't really need more than that, especially with such a low cap. I would imagine their bandwidth usage being around 5mb to 60mb a month IF their cappping system worked.

Because it DID NOT work, it meant that they in effect HAD to use around 100mb... which degraded the network ALOT. Because of the already high contention, those that should have been capped and give others a chance for some bandwidth, and wasnt, meant that those that were capped experienced low speeds.

Now, I know my IQ is rather high, but I never studied this ****, how would I, with matric only and several years in IT, know this?

COMMON SENSE

Something WBS lacks....
 
Last edited:
halicon said:
dang thats what it is. riiiiight lets all march to itweb's office today!
Click to expand...

One more remark out of you and I will kindly suggest to one of the moderators to delete your posts, you have been NOTHING but unhelpful. Your sarcasm is NOT appreciated. I'm not saying being sarcastic doesn't have its perks, and can sometimes be very funny indeed, but your relentless sarcasm is getting very old very fast.

As to my other post, my math could be wrong, I'd like it to be scrutinized by someone who knows more about this...
 
what about getting the reporter to request a firm statement from IBurst or Sasan - as to whether or not from here on, they are or arent going to continue disconnecting users who've reached their cap?
We still dont know for certain if we have the cap+downloading on 64k or 'cap+64k BUT we disconnect you when you're on 64k and we feel like disconnecting you'
 
Please enlighten me

Sytze said:
Lies Let change Mbps to Kbps to give it a bit more credibility. Ok. How did the "hogs" manage this. Was it a hack?No they ...should have been throttled back to 64kbps and WBS failed to do this.Yes the alternative was to plug your modem out and take it out on the 1st of the following month!Has anyone received this email - be fair, I did not go over 3GB so I will not know - did'nt receive any form of warning either.Can anyone confirm?Who found this way, was it a hack? Please tell me anyone.
Click to expand...

EXCELLENT !!! BTW it has just been edited!!

ALSO THIS EXTRACT 3.6 FROM SUBSCRIBER APPLICATION

3.6 The subscriber hereby warrants and undertakes in favour of Service Provider that the subscriber:
3.6.1 shall not use nor allow the MDN Services to be used for any improper, immoral or unlawful
purpose, nor in any way which may cause injury or damage to persons or property or an impairment
or interruption to the MDN Services;
3.6.2 shall only use the terminal equipment provided by Service Provider, and comply with relevant
legislation and regulations imposed by any competent authority and all directives issued by Service
Provider relating to the use of terminal equipment and the provision of MDN services;
3.6.3 recognises that no right, title or interest in the software contained in the terminal equipment
issued to the subscriber vests in the subscriber;
3.6.4 shall not, nor permit any third party to reverse engineer, decompile, modify or tamper with the
software contained in or pertaining to any terminal equipment.


According to the DEFENSIVE Statement issued on ITWEB TODAY
WHERE MR MTSHALI says :http://www.mybroadband.co.za/nephp/?m=show&id=260

Mtshali also claims that in clause 3.6.1 of the iBurst contract, it states that the company is allowed to disconnect services to users that are deemed to be contravening their cap allowances.

But where above does it mention an allowance?

THIS IS THE FIRST WE HAVE HEARD ABOUT AN ALLOWANCE MR MTSHALI--
Let alone a contravention!!?!?
 
Last edited:
Simple Twist of Fate, may I suggest you contact the reporter with that interesting bit of FACT (unlike the fiction WBS likes to spew out as the truth) ?
 
So why does one not contact ITWeb to dispell with all the myths that Mr Mtshali is dispensing with?

there seem to be enough members on this forum who are more than capable of utilising their expertise and knowledge to openly debate the issue in a publication.

Most lay people would read what Mr M said and accept it without argument. However, if there was a strong enough counter argument it would make them think twice before just accepting a statement from a corporation as fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X