What does uncapped broadband really mean?

[MickeyD]

<snip>
Wouldn't it be helpful to know that when you see something called "unrestricted, uncapped Internet access", you know exactly what that means? Wouldn't that at least be an improvement on the current situation?

Pity, but understood.
Valid point regarding non-ISPA members.
Yes, it would be a step in the right direction.

 

[Electron1]

I agree with most of the discussion around uncapped meaning unrestricted etc is consistent with what we as consumers expect.
Ant's comments around the current usage of uncapped clarify the dilemma faced by ISP's so I do agree that better terminology should be used in future and the ISP's should all be very clear in their Advertising as to what they are really selling.

•For capped services, a customer should not be automatically switched to a more expensive traffic-based charging scheme once they have exceeded their specified cap. Consent should be obtained from the customer before moving them to any other charging scheme.

The above paragraph in the document is very interesting - This should be applicable right now to all the Cell providers. As consumers we deserve to be told each and every time we exceed our cap, before being "Raped" (term most often used on the forums) by the Service providers when exceeding the Cap.

The only one so far to have implemented a consumer friendly notification for ALL their customers that supposedly works is 8ta, where you are redirected to a webpage and you have to agree to exceed your cap. (This is based on reading posts in the forums and not real life experience - so I hope this is the case).

A quick scan of the list of members does not show 8ta, Cell-C, MTN or Vodacom as members - what a shame as they should pay close attention to this (except of course 8ta as they already have shown good faith).

Now the response from the Cell providers will be that you agree to the higher rates somewhere in the fine print - maybe so, but still the consumers deserve to be properly and automatically notified EVERY time the cap is exceeded and hopefully in a similar manner to 8ta, or even better by being redirected to an opt in page and via sms & email notification - surely this is not unreasonable.....

 

[Gatecrasher]

Wouldn't it be helpful to know that when you see something called "unrestricted, uncapped Internet access", you know exactly what that means?
Wouldn't that at least be an improvement on the current situation?

Not really. These products are generally beyond the price range of the vast bulk of consumers and so the distinction will have virtually no impact whatsoever. It will not address any of the concerns that have been raised about the umbrella usage of the term "uncapped".

 

[Gatecrasher]

I find it more and more disturbing that users assume that the ADSL line they are renting is dedicated capacity for only themselves. Dear friends you are paying for a time share and then complaining when you can't stay all year round

Well, of course there is always contention and the potential for congestion. I don't think anyone is making the assumptions you suggest. That is why contention ratios should be provided by ISPs and that is definitely a positive point in the discussion document. AUP usage and behaviour restrictions, shaping and throttling go beyond the physical contention restraints. Not everyone is going to be downloading full steam 24/7/365 so 1:1 contention is seldom required. And if it is required, then the user should expect to pay appropriately.

 

[Ant_Brooks]

Not really. These products are generally beyond the price range of the vast bulk of consumers and so the distinction will have virtually no impact whatsoever. It will not address any of the concerns that have been raised about the umbrella usage of the term "uncapped".

They might be beyond the price range of many consumers right now, but they certainly aren't going to stay that way. All the more reason to try to get some marketing clarity now.

 

[PsyWulf]

Well, of course there is always contention and the potential for congestion. I don't think anyone is making the assumptions you suggest. That is why contention ratios should be provided by ISPs and that is definitely a positive point in the discussion document. AUP usage and behaviour restrictions, shaping and throttling go beyond the physical contention restraints. Not everyone is going to be downloading full steam 24/7/365 so 1:1 contention is seldom required. And if it is required, then the user should expect to pay appropriately.

If you read the sections I quoted and even some other threads,the expectancy is there that 4Mbps means 440Kb/s download rates 24/7,or it isn't uncapped or value for money

 

[Gatecrasher]

They might be beyond the price range of many consumers right now, but they certainly aren't going to stay that way. All the more reason to try to get some marketing clarity now.

I'm all for marketing clarity.

If you look at MTN's "uncapped" (3Gb then restricted to 128kbps) which category would you put it into: Uncapped or Soft Capped? A very good example of the abuse of the term "uncapped" and a good example why your 2nd and 3rd categories are essentially indistinguishable.

 

[Ant_Brooks]

If you look at MTN's "uncapped" (3Gb then restricted to 128kbps) which category would you put it into: Uncapped or Soft Capped? A very good example of the abuse of the term "uncapped" and a good example why your 2nd and 3rd categories are essentially indistinguishable.

I confess that I am not intimately familiar with MTN's service offering, but based on the description in the article currently sitting on the front page of this site, I'd say that that service is closest to "Capped Internet access: Soft cap", which we've defined as follows:

• The access service is provided on a metered basis. Usually this means that the customer purchases a limited volume of traffic (typically per month) but it could also mean that the customer has purchased access for a limited amount of time.
• After the customer exceeds this limit -- referred to as the "soft cap" -- their Internet access service has certain restrictions applied to it. Restrictions might include limited international access/only local access, or vastly reduced speeds. The up-front description of the service provided to the customer should specify what limitations will apply to the service once the soft cap is reached.

From the sounds of it, the service is automatically throttled back to 128 kbps once the user hits 3Gb of usage. If that's the case, that doesn't seem like an uncapped service with an Acceptable Usage Policy, it seems like a soft cap. I do take your point about the possibility of confusing category 2 and category 3 through. I can see MTN arguing that their service falls into category 2 and their AUP is just "don't use more than 3Gb" :wtf:

 

[Mouse]

If you read the sections I quoted and even some other threads,the expectancy is there that 4Mbps means 440Kb/s download rates 24/7,or it isn't uncapped or value for money

My expectancy on a 4MB line is that it varies between 3mbps to 4mbps. I can live with that.

But this is ridiculous: http://www.speedtest.net/result/1375538167.png
And I'm tired of complaining to Openweb every month because they 'fix' it and then a few days later it starts degrading again.

 

[PsyWulf]

My expectancy on a 4MB line is that it varies between 3mbps to 4mbps. I can live with that.

But this is ridiculous: http://www.speedtest.net/result/1375538167.png
And I'm tired of complaining to Openweb every month because they 'fix' it and then a few days later it starts degrading again.

Nope. With 1:20 contention which is the average for ADSL you can fairly expect sustained speeds of 4000/20 = 200Kbps which is lower than your Speedtest. If you need to stop sharing your bandwidth go ahead and get a leased line,or kill the other 19 people you share a pipe with

 

[Gatecrasher]

Nope. With 1:20 contention which is the average for ADSL you can fairly expect sustained speeds of 4000/20 = 200Kbps which is lower than your Speedtest. If you need to stop sharing your bandwidth go ahead and get a leased line,or kill the other 19 people you share a pipe with

Theoretically, with a 1:20 contention, you share a 4MB/s pipe with 19 others. But in reality, you are sharing a much fatter pipe with a much larger pool of users. In reality, you can always expect more than 200kbps because not all of those users will be trying to run their lines at capacity at the same time.

 

[PsyWulf]

Theoretically, with a 1:20 contention, you share a 4MB/s pipe with 19 others. But in reality, you are sharing a much fatter pipe with a much larger pool of users. In reality, you can always expect more than 200kbps because not all of those users will be trying to run their lines at capacity at the same time.

Till the 20/200/400 users your Exchange/ISP pipe is servicing expects the same speeds. Sorry but expecting maximum on a shared service is flawed logic if there isn't enough low-end to subsidize high-end. If you are lucky you can expect more,but don't be optimistic when more and more people join expecting the same amount of subsidizing.

 

[system32]

Only >5Mbps ADSL qualifies as Broadband by ISPA definition

Only >5Mbps ADSL qualifies as Broadband by ISPA definition.

Let me explain why 5Mbps - ISPA Guidelines state:

Ensure that “broadband” is only used in your advertising to refer to services which have a minimum download speed of 256 kbps.

Telkom's ADSL conditions state that Telkom are legal up to a 1:20 contention ratio.
http://www.telkom.co.za/products_services/dsl/conditions.html

Government Gazette 29141 (Notice 1112 of 2006)
The contention ratio for ADSL is 1:20

Using simple maths, you need 5Mbps ADSL with a 1:20 to give a minimum download speed of 256Kbps.

As you can see:

My expectancy on a 4MB line is that it varies between 3mbps to 4mbps. I can live with that.

But this is ridiculous: http://www.speedtest.net/result/1375538167.png
And I'm tired of complaining to Openweb every month because they 'fix' it and then a few days later it starts degrading again.

It's not an ISP issue, it's a Telkom issue.
During "prime time" the contention will reach 1:20 and you will only get 0.2Mbps which is below the ISPA/DoC/ITU minimum requirement of 256Kbps.
This happens to lots of ADSL users where during "Prime Time" the speed drops to below 256Kbps due to 1:20 rule - just check these forums.
PS. The 1Mbps, 384Kbps 1:20 simple calculation is left to the reader.

@Ant_Brooks, What is the ISPA going to do to prevent this blatantly false advertising?

 

[Ant_Brooks]

@Ant_Brooks, What is the ISPA going to do to prevent this blatantly false advertising?

That's an odd question. It's not really ISPA's role to police advertising. That's more the ambit of the ASA. ISPA holds its members to the ISPA Code of Conduct, and if a member is discovered to breach the Code, we take action against them. But in any case, I'm afraid I don't really understand from your post what blatantly false advertising you think is going on.

 

[dominic]

Agreed - Now for them to draft a similar set of guidelines for the mobile network operators!

where to start...:|
but hopefully this document - taking into account some good suggestions made in this thread - can develop a more general application than just ISPA members

 

[dominic]

The 4 proposed definitions works well though a fair amount of education seems to be in order to differentiate between 'uncapped' and 'unrestricted'.

that seems to be coming through loud and clear

Some points to consider:

1. Stating a specific speed as 'broadband' is not good enough. We need a definition on how this is measured. Networks tend to quote line speed, but consumers use a service. Some guidelines are needed. You can refer to all the recent activities at the ASA where link speed and service speed are often confused.

2. It is logical that not every consumer will receive the advertised speed all the time. We thus need a definition to state what is an acceptable service level. In my dealings with the ASA, it's become apparent they are comfortable with a number of at least 80%, i.e. You must receive the speed at least 80% of the time.

3. We need to consider different speed access networks. A logical example would be EDGE which most likely fall outside the broadband definition. However, EDGE is provided as a fallback from 3G. Thus a consumer could have bought a 'broadband' service but find himself on a non-broadband service. How do we handle that? As a network, we could stop automatic fallback but most consumers would not want that.

All in all, the framework you guys have put in place looks solid. A logical next step would be to throw real-world examples and use cases at it and see what needs to be tweaked.

As a separate, but related, topic there are a number of other parameters that should be standardized and I believe ISPA could, and should, play a role there as well.

very useful input thank you - what other parameters would you have in mind?

 

[markings]

I can guarantee that as soon as the DoC increases the national definition, ISPA will also do so.

Can you then at least assure that this already low defintion is not further diluted by a "best effort" clause? IOW, 256 Kb is guaranteed.

Edit: I see that jvz proposes that 80% of advertised should be achievable in practice. I think that is reasonable considering his arguments of line speed vs experienced speed at user level.

 

[MickeyD]

Only >5Mbps ADSL qualifies as Broadband by ISPA definition.

Let me explain why 5Mbps - ISPA Guidelines state:


Telkom's ADSL conditions state that Telkom are legal up to a 1:20 contention ratio.
http://www.telkom.co.za/products_services/dsl/conditions.html


Using simple maths, you need 5Mbps ADSL with a 1:20 to give a minimum download speed of 256Kbps.

As you can see:

It's not an ISP issue, it's a Telkom issue.
During "prime time" the contention will reach 1:20 and you will only get 0.2Mbps which is below the ISPA/DoC/ITU minimum requirement of 256Kbps.
This happens to lots of ADSL users where during "Prime Time" the speed drops to below 256Kbps due to 1:20 rule - just check these forums.
PS. The 1Mbps, 384Kbps 1:20 simple calculation is left to the reader.

@Ant_Brooks, What is the ISPA going to do to prevent this blatantly false advertising?

Not necessarily as Asynchronous data transmission does not work this way.

 

[Tns]

throttling and uncapped shouldn't be together

 

[system32]

That's an odd question. It's not really ISPA's role to police advertising. That's more the ambit of the ASA. ISPA holds its members to the ISPA Code of Conduct, and if a member is discovered to breach the Code, we take action against them. But in any case, I'm afraid I don't really understand from your post what blatantly false advertising you think is going on.

The ISPA asks that members don't use the term "Broadband" to refer to speeds below 256Kbps.
Due to Telkoms contention ratio of 1:20, anything less that 5Mbps will not guarantee 256Kbps.
For example:

• 4Mbps/20 will give 204.8Kbps
• 1Mbps/20 will give 51.2Kpbs
• 384Kbps/20 will give 19.2Kbps

All of which are less that 256Kbps

I've experience (and many others) 4Mbps ADSL crawling at 204.8Kbps.
This is usually during "Prime Time" 10am-10pm when the Telkom exchange is running at capacity.
I don't care that ADSL can run at 4Mbps at 4am, that's not when I need to use it.

Mathematically only 5Mbps ADSL at 1:20 contention ratio can provide a minimum of 256Kbps.

According to ISPA guidelines, members should not advertise anything that cannot provide a minimum of 256Kbps as broadband.

What does ISPA do when members are not following ISPA Code?