Firstly, I'm not a lawyer, so please feel free to correct me.
South Africa is bound by the rule of Law, nobody, no company is
above the rule of law and no country can afford to have this
perception questioned.
In law, provision is made for systems of commerce, these systems
would also adhere to and be "under" the rule of law. When an invoice
is generated, it is the justification used to determine "dues" or
"obligations" owed until paid.
When my business pays R701.75 for an ADSL service, Telkom has an
"obligation" to render me that service. This is then taken
further in that I paid R701.75 for one calender month of service, lets
say 31days, which equals 44640 minuets of service that they are "obligated"
to provide.
The "feature" capping changes the above "obligation" in that Telkom no longer
has to provide the previously obligated service, they now have to provide a "finite resource"
namely your 3Gig limit.
So in South Africa, when you purchase ADSL, you do not purchase the ADSL service, you
purchase an amount of "units" which is measured in bytes. Telkom uses ADSL technology
to deliver you these bytes, accounting
for each byte that is delivered. Once all bytes or units have been delivered, all
obligations and agreements are concluded.
In all industry, you have the right to questions and collaborate the details of an invoice
(Your obligation), it is the itemized details that account and authenticate an invoice.
Without the provision of itemised usage of my 3Gig purchase, such invoices surely can't be legal ??
This argument highlights the problem in that we don't have ADSL in South Africa,
Telkom makes YOU PAY for an ADSL line that THEY use to deliver YOUR 3Gig,
once they have delivered the 3Gig, they suspend your ADSL service.
The claim that it's not suspended because local usage still works, is like saying
the world doesn't trade on the dollar!
South Africa is bound by the rule of Law, nobody, no company is
above the rule of law and no country can afford to have this
perception questioned.
In law, provision is made for systems of commerce, these systems
would also adhere to and be "under" the rule of law. When an invoice
is generated, it is the justification used to determine "dues" or
"obligations" owed until paid.
When my business pays R701.75 for an ADSL service, Telkom has an
"obligation" to render me that service. This is then taken
further in that I paid R701.75 for one calender month of service, lets
say 31days, which equals 44640 minuets of service that they are "obligated"
to provide.
The "feature" capping changes the above "obligation" in that Telkom no longer
has to provide the previously obligated service, they now have to provide a "finite resource"
namely your 3Gig limit.
So in South Africa, when you purchase ADSL, you do not purchase the ADSL service, you
purchase an amount of "units" which is measured in bytes. Telkom uses ADSL technology
to deliver you these bytes, accounting
for each byte that is delivered. Once all bytes or units have been delivered, all
obligations and agreements are concluded.
In all industry, you have the right to questions and collaborate the details of an invoice
(Your obligation), it is the itemized details that account and authenticate an invoice.
Without the provision of itemised usage of my 3Gig purchase, such invoices surely can't be legal ??
This argument highlights the problem in that we don't have ADSL in South Africa,
Telkom makes YOU PAY for an ADSL line that THEY use to deliver YOUR 3Gig,
once they have delivered the 3Gig, they suspend your ADSL service.
The claim that it's not suspended because local usage still works, is like saying
the world doesn't trade on the dollar!