Why is Uncapped internet actually Limited connectivity in SA?

[Arthur]

Because the free in freeway refers not to money but to free from traffic lights, stop streets, yield signs and other controlled intersections.

 

[Acid0]

But they still can be at least a bit upfront and say "listen guys we will start at 100gb if you dl that in a week or 200gb for the month"
But at least have a ball park we can play in, I think alot of us if we know what they deem to be bridging the FUP, we would at least try to keep in them.

But no you will just wake up one morning with virtually no internet.
I have been knocked over the knuckles for using 100gb andfrom a full 2mb line I get 15 - 20 kb/s right now.
That is on a uncapped line.
Might as well just switch it off and get it done with.

But it boils down to who is better than helkom and where do you move from them.

Its easy to say just leave.... but leave to where

 

[Space_Chief]

Well I'm just gonna answer the thread title and ignore your rant for now. (I'm on Web Africa 10Meg Business btw.)

Challenges:
1. The problem in SA is we have capped and uncapped options. The only way for uncapped to really work out properly for ISPs is if we banned capped accounts and all used uncapped. Then the model would work.

LOL. I wonder what methodology was followed in working out that brilliant gem.

2. People want low price. Not quality. By moving to the cheapest accounts the whole time consumers basically told the ISPs that we don't care about a good connection. We just want cheap. That's why many of us are on Business accounts.

No. People were told they're getting an UNCAPPED connection at prices still on average higher than elsewhere, including much of Africa. To have to get a business account is disingenuous as it implies dishonesty from the side of the ISP.

3. Home uncapped accounts are designed for people that go to work during the day and only use the internet when they get home in the evening. Consumers don't get this. This is one of the sacrifices that need to be made when you go cheap.

Maybe consumers "got this" if it was stated up front in the description of the account. What consumers get is that they get UNCAPPED accounts without limits. They're told not to worry about caps. They're not told to get business accounts if they want to download more than 50GB or want actual advertised speed at most times.

My Advice:
If you need day time usage then you need capped or Business.



Pressure needs to be put on consumers to choose the right account for their needs.

These sort of industry shills are what's wrong with the sad state of consumerism in this country. You get people like this with the gall to tell others what to do with their money and clearly stated advertised accounts.

The pressure I think should be put on ISPs to be honest and describe these accounts accurately.

 

[Space_Chief]

But they still can be at least a bit upfront and say "listen guys we will start at 100gb if you dl that in a week or 200gb for the month"
But at least have a ball park we can play in, I think alot of us if we know what they deem to be bridging the FUP, we would at least try to keep in them.

But no you will just wake up one morning with virtually no internet.
I have been knocked over the knuckles for using 100gb andfrom a full 2mb line I get 15 - 20 kb/s right now.
That is on a uncapped line.
Might as well just switch it off and get it done with.

But it boils down to who is better than helkom and where do you move from them.

Its easy to say just leave.... but leave to where

There is no honesty and there is purposeful obfuscation present. Accounts are said to be uncapped but come with caps. Now that's OK, just be clear about what the cap is. Tell the customer he or she may experience only 10% of the advertised speed as much as 70% of the time, or some such. That's what people want. They want honesty. They want to know what they're buying. That's not really the case in the ISP sector.

 

[Space_Chief]

If ISPs advertise and market "uncapped" services then that's what they should be: no soft caps calculated on the number of bits down/uploaded. Period. Introducing restrictions when some arbitrary threshold is reached, and justifying it in terms of an "acceptable use" clause, in my view amounts to misleading advertising. By all means shape. But you cannot sell uncapped on the one hand and then tell users that their total monthly usage is not acceptable.

100%

 

[Space_Chief]

Sadly ISPA - or at least the "independent" adjudicators - disagree in the strongest of terms. Large ISPs can and do call users abusers on uncapped products exclusively on the quantity used.

Further there is a massive distinction between fair use policies and acceptable use policies. The inclusion of terms that permit an arbitary threshold or gives some officiant without consideration, hearing or notice the power to decide that a particular form of usage is "unfair" and therefore abuse because the AUP states that users will use the resources fairly violates every principle of natural justice - and this is before the judge in own cause question creeps in.

That's still OK. But be clear about what you're selling. Spell this all out in clear terms that everyone can understand without any confusion. Eliminate all contradictions and apparent contradictions. However, I doubt we'll see that as the marketing industry wants to create an aura of limitless internet when the decision is made to buy the product.

A product can on its stated specification state thresholds at which additional shaping or throttling provided this information is known to the customer in advance and it is not a cap (hence uncapped) but there is a degree of honesty needed here - so for example that uncapped mobile offering from MTN a while back (not sure if it still runs) that throttles to 128kbps or whatever is uncapped but the clearly pointed out the 3GB threshold. Similarly a FUP that indicates a threshold at which more severe shaping or throttling (in the sense of a reduced line speed) kicks in are reasonable measures to control demand on a network BUT knowledge of the policy is really important.

It is still a cap. It is just implemented differently. It's a softcap. And I agree things should be spelt out clearly. And the accounts can be marketed as SOFT CAPPED accounts.

What you shouldn't be allowed to do - but ISPA says it is fine (so long as you are a sufficiently large ISP) - is claim that you will never throttle and offer an uncapped product and then on the sole basis of quantity both throttle and call your customers abusers.

To be honest here, MWEB did promise not to throttle under their previous policy. Their policy then changed. I don't think that's wrong as long as people are informed and allowed to quit any contract without any penalty or excessive waiting periods.

A business should be allowed to change their policies. Just because MWEB once said they will never throttle, does not mean they should never be allowed to throttle.

 

[Paul Hjul]

That's still OK. But be clear about what you're selling. Spell this all out in clear terms that everyone can understand without any confusion. Eliminate all contradictions and apparent contradictions. However, I doubt we'll see that as the marketing industry wants to create an aura of limitless internet when the decision is made to buy the product.
To be honest here, MWEB did promise not to throttle under their previous policy. Their policy then changed. I don't think that's wrong as long as people are informed and allowed to quit any contract without any penalty or excessive waiting periods.

A business should be allowed to change their policies. Just because MWEB once said they will never throttle, does not mean they should never be allowed to throttle.

Not a a problem - or disagreement at all, (and one of the issues I went to pains to set out) except that MWEB specifically disavows changing their policy and has made no efforts - quite the opposite actually - to correct the marketing. South African practice on mistaken marketing is exceptionally lenient and an undertaking to correct suffices for all but the most heinous offences. More importantly at the time of the introduction MWEBs marketing material with currency included the "we will not throttle" proposition. The line at which something moves from puffery to representation is seldom clear and is generally difficult to draw, however some of the attributes of a representation is that (i) it is not made in passing (being repeatedly made can be a feature), (ii) it is deliverable and definable [in the case of MWEB throttling the term has meaning within the context of their own T&Cs - again the verbosity of the complaint was to set this out], (iii) offers a real value proposition to a potential customer.

And here is really the problem within things certain statements are always puffery, some statements are usually puffery (in my view "we will never ..." tends to be), some statements are of a technical nature and so on ...
Invented words (like limitless) tend to be puffery whilst a term that you give meaning to should be thought of in that sense.

Moreover I regard the use of representations even if purely within the domain of "mere puffery" as a means to slag off a competitor in grid lock [in the case of MWEB, Telkom Internet] in order to perform a comparative marketing approach as a generally bad business practice and when this representation is made with the intention of not delivering starts to enter into a very dangerous ethical domain.

Retracting a statement like "we will never throttle" should be a part of business but it needs to be retracted rather than skirted. The argument could also be made that it is the sort of representation that a predecessor cannot bind their successor on although I would not go as far as to argue for the corollary that there must be a change in management. Moreover there is a time and circumstances factor at play, when a statement is made in materially different market conditions to what is presently found the situation is quite different to where the representation is made publicly shortly before it is discarded and the evidence suggests intent at the time of making the representations to discard them. [Basically bait and switch intent]

Now there is an element of factual finding necessary (whether there is sufficient to infer intention to discard the representation at the time of it being made) and a measuring of whether conduct even if undesirable rises to the point of contravening a code. In all discussion on the matter and the complaint itself the full case is presented, including reasons why I as an adjudicator rather than complainant could find differently. So as I've said before its procedure more than outcome that demonstrates the outright failure of ISPA. If we look at the history of how the terminology problem arises in South Africa it is (to paraphrase Justice Harms [Telcordia, para 42])clearly symptomatic of a culture of seeking regulatory capture and "verbal manipulation" by reclassification and relabelling which is indulged in by ISPA, ICASA and others. It is a refusal to have meaningful discussions and the imposition of a deepest pockets win mentality in the stead of innovation. It is a culture that has lead to every single large operator being a "follower" and failure at some point in their existence.

As for the need to mark a threshold as a "soft cap" while preferable in my opinion when there is a major change in the product I don't see it as being universally preferable at all. A threshold at which a product delivery change can take place being marked as a soft cap can be meaningless both to the consumer and to any observing third parties.

 

[Chevron]

LOL. I wonder what methodology was followed in working out that brilliant gem.

It's quite a basic part of the ISP business model. Surprise you don't know this. Low end users subsidize high end users. It's like medical aid.

 

[Space_Chief]

It's quite a basic part of the ISP business model. Surprise you don't know this. Low end users subsidize high end users. It's like medical aid.

Has it been shown that forcing only uncapped accounts would allow enough cross subsidy?
Would just many of those low end users just give up on internet or go on 3G instead? Would it be enough? And surely companies can just offer uncapped plans and no laws are required to force this. They still offer capped plans, ergo they think there must still be enough people wanting that too. And most capped plans are also subsidy plans, after all, most users probably don't reach the end of their cap and carry over is limited.

 

[Space_Chief]

Not a a problem - or disagreement at all, (and one of the issues I went to pains to set out) except that MWEB specifically disavows changing their policy and has made no efforts - quite the opposite actually - to correct the marketing. South African practice on mistaken marketing is exceptionally lenient and an undertaking to correct suffices for all but the most heinous offences. More importantly at the time of the introduction MWEBs marketing material with currency included the "we will not throttle" proposition. The line at which something moves from puffery to representation is seldom clear and is generally difficult to draw, however some of the attributes of a representation is that (i) it is not made in passing (being repeatedly made can be a feature), (ii) it is deliverable and definable [in the case of MWEB throttling the term has meaning within the context of their own T&Cs - again the verbosity of the complaint was to set this out], (iii) offers a real value proposition to a potential customer.

I agree with you. If MWEB wants to play games and push "we will never throttle" while throttling in some way, direct or indirect, you have a point.

And here is really the problem within things certain statements are always puffery, some statements are usually puffery (in my view "we will never ..." tends to be), some statements are of a technical nature and so on ...
Invented words (like limitless) tend to be puffery whilst a term that you give meaning to should be thought of in that sense.

There's a lot of puffery. I agree. We see it in political, geopolitical commentary and even in scientific papers. Especially when you have a scientist comment on his/her work you'll get a lot of "tends to be", "may not always" and such language which is not clearly defined and is subjective. Now that can stem from the statistical nature of the source work but it's also known that clear messaging is necessary when approaching issues of public health and reporting significant (not just statistically but from the POV of policy) findings. Yet people will still say such things when clear messaging in needed and such a need is acknowledged. (There is a lot of a-s covering in it too.)

Moreover I regard the use of representations even if purely within the domain of "mere puffery" as a means to slag off a competitor in grid lock [in the case of MWEB, Telkom Internet] in order to perform a comparative marketing approach as a generally bad business practice and when this representation is made with the intention of not delivering starts to enter into a very dangerous ethical domain.

I agree. Sort of like vapourware.

Retracting a statement like "we will never throttle" should be a part of business but it needs to be retracted rather than skirted. The argument could also be made that it is the sort of representation that a predecessor cannot bind their successor on although I would not go as far as to argue for the corollary that there must be a change in management. Moreover there is a time and circumstances factor at play, when a statement is made in materially different market conditions to what is presently found the situation is quite different to where the representation is made publicly shortly before it is discarded and the evidence suggests intent at the time of making the representations to discard them. [Basically bait and switch intent]

Can MWEB not argue however that the "never throttle" promise has a colloquial meaning which need not imply a genuine condition where never implies "till the end of time" or "till our company ceases to exist or ceases to be in the market" but rather a more accented message borrowing on colloquial language. When people throw "never" or "best" or such, they don't usually mean that but they usually mean "we'll put effort not to have to" or "we'll try to be outstanding but not necessarily best". Hyperbole so to say.

Now there is an element of factual finding necessary (whether there is sufficient to infer intention to discard the representation at the time of it being made) and a measuring of whether conduct even if undesirable rises to the point of contravening a code. In all discussion on the matter and the complaint itself the full case is presented, including reasons why I as an adjudicator rather than complainant could find differently. So as I've said before its procedure more than outcome that demonstrates the outright failure of ISPA. If we look at the history of how the terminology problem arises in South Africa it is (to paraphrase Justice Harms [Telcordia, para 42])clearly symptomatic of a culture of seeking regulatory capture and "verbal manipulation" by reclassification and relabelling which is indulged in by ISPA, ICASA and others. It is a refusal to have meaningful discussions and the imposition of a deepest pockets win mentality in the stead of innovation. It is a culture that has lead to every single large operator being a "follower" and failure at some point in their existence.

The verbal manipulation is terrible. I agree.

As for the need to mark a threshold as a "soft cap" while preferable in my opinion when there is a major change in the product I don't see it as being universally preferable at all. A threshold at which a product delivery change can take place being marked as a soft cap can be meaningless both to the consumer and to any observing third parties.

Or variably capped or load capped or some such where the definition is clearly spelled out in size 12 and higher font on a linked page or in the "FAQ".

 

[Albereth]

The short of it is that the ISPs are scum.

Trying to justify that the model works like medical aid is crap. Medical aid is a society where the members have agreed to subsidise one another, the fact that you get companies like Discovery being administrators is by the by. Anyone can form a medical aid society.

ISPs are selling a product. The fact that they hope to be able to resell that product many times over is their business. In essence they have sold me 10Mbps X 24*60*60*30 data units at a price. They did math to come up with a price that was attractive to me hoping that I wont use all the data units so they can sell the left over data units to someone else.

Now, we know the internet doesn't always work at full speed and that's part of the deal, but when the ISP starts slowing it down they are robbing me of my data units.

 

[gideonschnetler]

Hi
If you read the small print of all isp's you will realise that you receive a limited service. Do your maths and changed to a capped service. I did so for the same amount of money and can download or browse at the same speed 24/7.