When is uncapped not uncapped?

CataclysmZA

Executive Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
5,595
Reaction score
1,613
I just thought I'd leave this for those who still demand a 200GB limit with Afrihost's new uncapped accounts. Comments and criticisms are welcome, and I hope the myBB users can hold a decent thread here.

When is uncapped not uncapped?

Wesley Fick - NAG Online said:
The answer to the above depends entirely on your idea of what uncapped is, but for the sake of transparency lets all agree that uncapped (read: unlimited) means that a user has unlimited bandwidth, and can download as much as he/she wants. Are we on the same page here? Good.

However, the current uncapped accounts are not uncapped, at least not in the sense that we have just settled on. Somewhat justifiably so, people are complaining about this, but I don’t think this is the underlying issue. Personally, I think people are missing the point here.
 
Last edited:
Thanx for the post, but this just leads to the point I am trying to make.

First of all then, it's false advertizing, as they no-where state what their "fair usage" is per month. A friend of mine is also looking at getting one of these accounts and he actually phone them. Results:

Mweb's fair usage = 100Gigs
Afrihost = 60Gig
Axxess = The lady told me that they don't have a fair usage amount.

I think this should be made clear on the ISP's page of the uncapped account and not in the small print in the AUP.
 
The ISP's have murdered the term "Uncapped" in South Africa

I believe South Africa has yet again failed to bring us closer to International standards. Now ISP's have butchered the term "uncapped" and have given it a whole new meaning.
 
+1 Totally agree.

Been doing some reading and it seems Mweb is the one to go with, even with the 100gig limit, it is still a great deal.
 
Trying to get through to Mweb to get details is a nightmare, some line options are dead while others just go nowhere.
 
Um, your article completely fails to address the issue of what uncapped is defined as in South Africa. I'm going to repost the two ASA rulings on the issue for you so that you can see how they define it.

BTW, not all of us heavy downloaders made the move. I did my homework and decided to stay with the OpenWeb Uncapped Express, since the new products are not actually uncapped and do not meet my needs.
 
I just thought I'd leave this for those who still demand a 200GB limit with Afrihost's new uncapped accounts. Comments and criticisms are welcome, and I hope the myBB users can hold a decent thread here.

When is uncapped not uncapped?

I agree 100%.

The bottom line is pricing has dropped dramatically for everyone besides the 1000 gig downloaders who used to pay thousands for the privilege. Stuff getting so much cheaper so fast is a good thing. In a year or so these uncapped account will probably offer more, but for now the homeless man has been given a slightly dirty 2 bedroom house. Sure he may have also expected a Ferrari in the garage because his street is called "ferrari lane", but the bottom line is he is now far better off. In a year one of his neighbors will give him a ferrari, and then he will really be happy.
 
Thanx for the post, but this just leads to the point I am trying to make.

First of all then, it's false advertizing, as they no-where state what their "fair usage" is per month. A friend of mine is also looking at getting one of these accounts and he actually phone them. Results:

Mweb's fair usage = 100Gigs
Afrihost = 60Gig
Axxess = The lady told me that they don't have a fair usage amount.

I think this should be made clear on the ISP's page of the uncapped account and not in the small print in the AUP.

Agreed, AUPs of many ISPs are not forthcoming in this regard, but Afrihost did start out with 200GB - a number that would comfortably suit many people here on myBB, but then the complainers came in droves, and completely missed the point of these new packages.

I think Afrihost should rather consider how their FUP affects the line speeds. If I'm on a 384DSL line, I will almost never get throttled, whereas a 4Mb/s owner will see throttling within two weeks. Consideration is necessary here, as seen below:

R197 / 60GB = R3.2833

On the cheaper accounts, Afrihost is making even less money than before, which indicates a change in their business model - now the premium users are subsidising the low-end, just like taxation. I'm all for change, but this has to be thought through properly.
 
Agreed, AUPs of many ISPs are not forthcoming in this regard, but Afrihost did start out with 200GB - a number that would comfortably suit many people here on myBB, but then the complainers came in droves, and completely missed the point of these new packages.

I think Afrihost should rather consider how their FUP affects the line speeds. If I'm on a 384DSL line, I will almost never get throttled, whereas a 4Mb/s owner will see throttling within two weeks. Consideration is necessary here, as seen below:

R197 / 60GB = R3.2833

On the cheaper accounts, Afrihost is making even less money than before, which indicates a change in their business model - now the premium users are subsidising the low-end, just like taxation. I'm all for change, but this has to be thought through properly.

Thats not really true, afrihost have said they are still planning what limits will be applied to the cheaper accounts. The current limits are only for 4Mb users.
 
Here are the relevant ASA rulings which deal with the definition of uncapped ....

http://www.asasa.org.za/ResultDetail.aspx?Ruling=3915
http://www.asasa.org.za/ResultDetail.aspx?Ruling=3957

The ISPs are allowed to throttle you and slow you down... but the one thing they cannot do is cut you off. Then it is no longer an uncapped service.
If an ISP cuts you off at anytime then that is not an uncapped service.
If they specify a usage limit after which they will cut you off then that is not an uncapped service.
If they throttle you to the extent that the line becomes unusable, then that is not uncapped.
Any limit or cut-off on the uncapped products is a no no.
They can throttle you, but the line must still be usable for normal browsing and e-mail.
Here are the relevant portions...



The complainants are of the opinion that the advertisement is misleading as the word “uncapped” implies limitless Internet access. However, the respondent disconnects a user if his/her data limits have been reached.

The respondent submitted that that its service is uncapped as every customer that conforms to the Fair User Policy will potentially have continuous uninterrupted data transfer with no set data cap or bandwidth cap.

From the above it becomes apparent that a hypothetical reasonable person confronted with a claim such as “uncapped”, would expect never to have his connection terminated. Practices such as reducing (throttling) connection speed are often used as an alternative to capping.

“If, based on your chosen package, your usage in a particular month becomes excessive to the point that it will impact negatively on other users, we reserve the right to ask you to reduce the amount of data you are downloading to a minimum until the beginning of the next month. If you still need to continue with heavy downloading for the rest of the month you are welcome to purchase extra GBs of data for the purpose, or you could upgrade your package to one which is better suited to your usage requirements. Only if you ignore our reasonable request to drastically reduce your usage do we reserve the right to disable your account for the remainder of the month. Should you continuously ignore our reasonable requests to be fair in your usage of your SAIX uncapped account we reserve the right to ask you to find an alternative broadband provider” (respondent’s emphasis).

The respondent therefore monitors usage and it appears that a user is in danger of being blocked entirely from accessing Internet content once a specific amount of traffic has been transmitted. It therefore appears that there are limitations attached to usage. Such a service with limitation is usually referred as a “capped” service, as the flow of information is stopped if the user does not heed a warning to reduce usage, or if certain limits are reached.

While the Directorate accepts that the respondent may have sound business reasons for doing so, the fact remains that the product is monitored and “capped” at some point.

Based on the above the Directorate is of the opinion that the advertisement is misleading, as it appears ex facie that the service is not “uncapped” as claimed and understood by the hypothetical reasonable person.

Given the above finding:

* The claim “uncapped” must be withdrawn;

* The claim may not be used again in its current format unless the respondent provides an uncapped service.
 
Um, your article completely fails to address the issue of what uncapped is defined as in South Africa. I'm going to repost the two ASA rulings on the issue for you so that you can see how they define it.

BTW, not all of us heavy downloaders made the move. I did my homework and decided to stay with the OpenWeb Uncapped Express, since the new products are not actually uncapped and do not meet my needs.
+1

I have also chosen to stay with my original option, Axxess Uncapped Express at home. I have, however signed up for a month of the axxess shaped account for the office. I thought it would be nice to have 4 mg during office hours. Anyways, so far I think they should at least change its name to a 2 mg account, since I cannot achieve speeds faster than that no matter what I do. Still good enough tho.
 
Howsit Guys thanks for this post.

I ahve been on Mwebs uncapped since the 22nd March and from then till the 31st March i did 112gigs with no issue at all. On Average i did 400kbps but during the day throttled to 50-60kbs which is acceptable.... all this done with torrents and HTTP DLs. From my point of view i dont see how it can be "capped" in a sense when i have gone over it. Yes i know its not enough over 100gigs to say its BS but i think the fact that i got there quick enough is saying that i could possibly go way over that but this month i will tell you on the 1st of may or before that if it really is cut at 100-150gigs.

Again thanks

PS forgot to change my Sig before this post! lol digiChilli yea right!
 
Last edited:
I must say, im pretty worried about what the fair usage will be on the cheaper afrihost accounts. If it 15 gigs or something ridiculous like that i'm jumping ship. 30-60 gigs i can live with, but anything less will see me rather going to mweb.
 
Jees its actually quite funny

Just a couple of weeks ago you guys were paying Afrihost R29.00 per gig now you can pay Mweb R5.39 per gig then even when you reach that they won't cut you off you can still browse and have internet access

If you guys want to know what uncapped is please go get a price on a 4meg Diginet line from say IS or telkom then purchase an internet account with 4meg international you will be paying about R500000+ for that account then you can have uncapped

Uncapped when its refered to in broadband adsl is always goverened by a fair usage policy even in the international market but they have had these accounts for years now and they have refined them so that they can make money and still give a good service. A good example of this is the 250Gig caps they introducing in America now.

What our ISP's are trying to get hold of at the moment is how to balance profit and service to the customer but with users that just try pound there network and get as much as they can its not making this easy this will die down over the next few months hopefully then you will more than likely find that these usage policies won't even be enforced anymore but for now they have to be.
 
Um, your article completely fails to address the issue of what uncapped is defined as in South Africa. I'm going to repost the two ASA rulings on the issue for you so that you can see how they define it.

BTW, not all of us heavy downloaders made the move. I did my homework and decided to stay with the OpenWeb Uncapped Express, since the new products are not actually uncapped and do not meet my needs.

I define uncapped as simply unlimited bandwidth, which I believe ASA also agrees on. What is not specified is the speeds at which this package is delivered, and if a definition for uncapped without speed limits is required, it already exists: unlimited.

There is no false advertising, they don't cap you, and their FUP clearly states that this is a best effort service, with speed lowering during business hours.

Also, I realise that not all the torrenters and heavy usage power users signed up, but those who did are now very disappointed because they thought that they could now get the same package for less, and this is where they assumed incorrectly, as Seacom only launched last year. These ISPs who now have a direct link to it, they still have to recoup their costs. Later this year things will settle below R6/GB with the next two lines, and then thresholds will increase.

By the way, you don't see anyone complaining about Axxess' 20GB rolling threshold on their 4MB/s accounts, do you? People must accept that these accounts are brand new and as a result of MWEB turning things on it's head. There are going to be problems, there are going to be abusers, but it will likely settle down during June/July.

Here are the relevant ASA rulings which deal with the definition of uncapped ....

http://www.asasa.org.za/ResultDetail.aspx?Ruling=3915
http://www.asasa.org.za/ResultDetail.aspx?Ruling=3957

The ISPs are allowed to throttle you and slow you down... but the one thing they cannot do is cut you off. Then it is no longer an uncapped service.
If an ISP cuts you off at anytime then that is not an uncapped service.
If they specify a usage limit after which they will cut you off then that is not an uncapped service.
If they throttle you to the extent that the line becomes unusable, then that is not uncapped.
Any limit or cut-off on the uncapped products is a no no.
They can throttle you, but the line must still be usable for normal browsing and e-mail.
Here are the relevant portions...

http://www.asasa.org.za/ResultDetail.aspx?Ruling=3915

http://www.asasa.org.za/ResultDetail.aspx?Ruling=3957

Yes, I saw your post about this recently in another thread, but this is a new service, and teething problems are aplenty. If people would just take it easy for a while and give things time, I think you'll find that the service will improve tremendously.
 
Last edited:
I just have something to add, correct me if im wrong.

Maybe we are going about this the wrong way. We are complaining about the term of the word "uncapped". Perhaps its not the word "uncapped" that we should be focusing on.

Perhaps its the advertised speed we should be complaining about. Hear me out for a second....

Afrihost's higher end package is the 4mb uncapped adsl account... But here's the thing, whilst it may still be uncapped, ie they dont kill your connection, they are throttling your speed after a certain limit is reached. So how can that be advertised as 4mb??????

Sure, its 4mb up till a certain limit, BUT its not a constant speed, so in essence the use of the word "4mb" is actually used incorrectly.

We are all so focused on the term "uncapped" that we forget about the advertised speeds. If an ISP is going to use throttling in their packages, then by definition they cannot advertise a certain speed with the uncapped account. They should rename their package as to not implicate speeds.

What do you guys think? am I nuts? or do I have something going on here?
If you think I am making sense, then perhaps this is something that can be brought to the ASA.
 
I just have something to add, correct me if im wrong.

Maybe we are going about this the wrong way. We are complaining about the term of the word "uncapped". Perhaps its not the word "uncapped" that we should be focusing on.

Perhaps its the advertised speed we should be complaining about. Hear me out for a second....

Afrihost's higher end package is the 4mb uncapped adsl account... But here's the thing, whilst it may still be uncapped, ie they dont kill your connection, they are throttling your speed after a certain limit is reached. So how can that be advertised as 4mb??????

Sure, its 4mb up till a certain limit, BUT its not a constant speed, so in essence the use of the word "4mb" is actually used incorrectly.

We are all so focused on the term "uncapped" that we forget about the advertised speeds. If an ISP is going to use throttling in their packages, then by definition they cannot advertise a certain speed with the uncapped account. They should rename their package as to not implicate speeds.

What do you guys think? am I nuts? or do I have something going on here?
If you think I am making sense, then perhaps this is something that can be brought to the ASA.

This is my point, sorta. We're getting uncapped, no doubts about that, but speeds are still a problem. MWEB can give you full line speed because they have their own network, and their testing has finished already.
 
Sure, I think things will settle down in a month or two. I agree with you on the target audience for these accounts and that people had unreasonable expectations (dunno why though if they had read the terms and conditions). But I still think the ISPs completely mislabeled these products. They should have left the term uncapped to the true 24/7 uncapped accounts and to the uncapped express accounts. These products should have been called high usage/fair usage accounts or given a specified limit. You have to ask why the ISPs chose to use the term "uncapped" to refer to these accounts. It is because they were hoping to sign up as many people as possible and cause some kind of revolution. Well that backfired on them, they would have had the same response had they gone with a different product name.
 
I just have something to add, correct me if im wrong.

Maybe we are going about this the wrong way. We are complaining about the term of the word "uncapped". Perhaps its not the word "uncapped" that we should be focusing on.

Perhaps its the advertised speed we should be complaining about. Hear me out for a second....

Afrihost's higher end package is the 4mb uncapped adsl account... But here's the thing, whilst it may still be uncapped, ie they dont kill your connection, they are throttling your speed after a certain limit is reached. So how can that be advertised as 4mb??????

Sure, its 4mb up till a certain limit, BUT its not a constant speed, so in essence the use of the word "4mb" is actually used incorrectly.

We are all so focused on the term "uncapped" that we forget about the advertised speeds. If an ISP is going to use throttling in their packages, then by definition they cannot advertise a certain speed with the uncapped account. They should rename their package as to not implicate speeds.

What do you guys think? am I nuts? or do I have something going on here?
If you think I am making sense, then perhaps this is something that can be brought to the ASA.

no, you have an excellent point there. In fact if anybody does complain to the ASA, they should complain in the first instance about the use or the term uncapped and failing that in the second instance about the use of the advertised speed. None of these product names will stand against those two complaints.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X