Re: Smartass Telecom

Snowbat

Also posted to ie.comp

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 00:28:18 +0000, Howaret Ings wrote in ie.comp:

> conor long <latest@utvinternet.com> wrote:
>> Just spotted this on smartass site
>> There is no limits on the amount of data that can be downloaded or
>> uploaded however users whose usage is deemed excessive on a regular
>> basis will be contacted and restrictions will be used if the activity
>> persists
>>
>> OR SURF NO LIMITS 2

> Take a look at the following! It at least makes some sort of sense.
> http://thenet2k.spunge.org/faq/index.php?p=all#a27

It clarifies Smart's reasoning, but stating that there is no
download/upload limit and then going on to describe an actual
download/upload limitation (excessive use) makes no sense at all.
Additionally, while the link hints at an example they might consider
excessive use, they do not quantify in GB where they draw the line.

While I can see the operational and marketing reasons behind such
policies, the consumer is put at a real and definite disadvantage by
contradictory wording and unspecified restrictions. These are problems
that IrelandOffline should monitor closely on behalf of internet users and
shout "unfair" where appropriate.

Slutmonkey57b

Every ISP in the world reserves the right to suspend excessive use by residential customers.

If you don't like bandwith limitations or fair usage agreements, you need a leased line. There's a reason why they're expensive you see.

Discussed in depth over on the broadband forum already.

Snowbat

The issue is not bandwith limitations or fair usage agreements nor if I or anyone else likes them.

The issue is contradictory wording and unspecified restrictions in both ISP marketing and account T&C.

DonegalMan

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

Every ISP in the world reserves the right to suspend excessive use by residential customers.

In regard to the Surf No Limits fiasco, I don't think too many people argued Esat's right to deal with excessive users, it was their sledgehammer approach that caused the problems.

dahamsta

Speaking personally, that was part of it, however the main issue for me was precisely what's going on here: There should be an onus on the provider to explain limits clearly and concisely, and Smart is doing the exact same as EsatBT here: Marketing a product as having "no limits", when clearly there have to be limits. Using abusers to prove a point is and always has been circular logic to me.

I should add that I highlighted this point to Garfield Connolly in a series of observations and questions when he appeared on Boards.ie and invited input, however despite assurances in a private exchange where I explained who I was, why I was asking, and why I thought it was important he answer, he chose not to. The phrase "low hanging fruit" would seem appropriate.

adam

Sponge Bob

Smart have totally avoided answering any questions on their LLU telephony product.

It could well be that the €35 customers will have to pay €5 a month to get Voicemail on their unbundled lines if they want it and that their call costs are higher than Eircom. Until I get answers I simply cannot tell what will happen !

One is always minded to balance all of this against the overall need to make a success of LLU in the national interest but God help Smart if they ramp their margin by price gouging the telephony aspect of the LLU package.

DonegalMan

dahamsta wrote:

There should be an onus on the provider to explain limits clearly and concisely

Whilst I'm inclined to agree with you, I can see arguments against this.

1. If a provider gives an absolute limit, there is a tendency for people to try to use that limit as it's 'there anyway'
   
   
2. Usage patterns should be considered. If a provider has a defined limit of say 4 Gb per month, I normally use 1 Gb and then in a particular month I go to 5 GB, I certailnly wouldn't like to get hammered for that.

If someone constantly has a very high usage, then I think the Provider should be entitled to talk to them and suggest that this isn't really what their package is designed for, that they really need to upgrade to a higher one.


I also think that they are being reasonably upfront here by warning that whilst there is no defined cap, they reserve the right to deal with people who make excessive demands on bandwidth. Esat gave no such warning whatsoever, they just unilaterally closed accounts out of the blue.

SkepticOne

In their FAQ:

"There is no limits on the amount of data that can be downloaded or uploaded however users whose usage is deemed excessive on a regular basis will be contacted and restrictions will be used if the activity persists."

Apart from the gramatical mistake, I think this is fairly straightforward. Possibly you could insert "specified in advance" after the word "limits" to make it more explicit but I think all but the most pedantic types should understand it as it is.

I'm thinking of providing a service to those who want fixed caps. A piece of software could be installed on the users equipment that monitors traffic. If the trafic exceeds a particular limit in a month, then 3c per megabyte exceeded is transferred into my bank account from the users account. This would provide the user with all the benefits of the Eircom-style cap that people desire. Everyone wins.

dahamsta

I don't think we need to restate the arguments in detail here, they've been covered dozens of times. However I would add that limits certainly aren't new, and certainly aren't exclusive to the broadband industry -- web hosting has included limits almost since the industry's birth, and "unlimited" packages are treated with the scorn they deserve. (Search for "unlimited" on the WebHostingTalk website if you need proof.)

In response to Mike's smarmy suggestion that I'm demanding caps, well, if he wants to call it that way, that's his lookout. Me, I'd say that if Smart want me as a customer they're going to need to define my entitlements, in the same way I expect to see weights and maeasures specified on packaging in a supermarket.

However he's also outlined a response to the "caps", which I specifically and intentionally haven't addressed. How Smart deal with abusers is entirely their decision, and they have plenty of options all the way from constructive communication with users, to outright service cancellation. If anything, how they deal with overages could define them.

I'm a UTV customer and I've gone over my limit a few times. On two occasions this was an error, but on the other occasion I ponied up the cash because I did exceed the limit. And it wasn't cheap, because UTV's overage charges are excessive. But at least I know what they are, and can choose an alternative if necessary...

BTW Martin, on a technical front there's no reason why you should be hammered for that usage pattern; the web hosting industry has been carrying limits forward for years. Technically, there are dozens of possible ways of dealing with limits. Obviously Mike needed to pick a nasty one to prove his point.

adam

eircomtribunal

Snowbat wrote:

The issue is not bandwith limitations or fair usage agreements nor if I or anyone else likes them.

The issue is contradictory wording and unspecified restrictions in both ISP marketing and account T&C.

While I would agree that T&Cs should be clear (or clearer in this case), this is not a "nolimits 2" situation at all.

From the set-up SMART will have no technical or financial problems with heavy usage, totally different to the nolimits situation, where ESAT had a big problem when users used more than a small fraction of all the hours of a month. Therefor I have no difficulty taking their word when they talk of no bandwidth limitation for residential users.

A restaurant can advertise its "all you can eat" offer, despite having a policy to restrict bulimics.

P.

SkepticOne

I've argued before that under no circumstances should Smart introduce fixed, specified in advance caps. I think may be some who will sign up and possibly take offense if Smart contact them but I think it will be a small proportion.

I think if this wasn't Ireland, people probably wouldn't be raising these objections since Smart's approach is fairly common around the globe. I blame Eircom and the nolimits fiasco.

The purpose of my "suggestion" was to illustrate that Smart not providing fixed caps was not something people should see as a cause for complaint. A simple piece of software could provide the exact same "benefits" that people think they are getting with UTV, Eircom and the like.

Positive suggestions regarding how Smart might improve their product are a different thing.

dahamsta

I don't see anything particularly negative about my commentary on Smart, and I specifically stated in my original query that it was intended as constructive criticism. I can't help it if they only choose to answer the easy questions, and I'm afraid I don't deal with providers that don't provide a full picture of their service offerings.

I agree with ET that this isn't a NoLimits sequel btw, Smart have been more forthcoming that EsatBT were. They just haven't been forthcoming enough.

I notice they used the €11 thing on the radio the other day btw. Bollocks.

adam

Boston

dahamsta wrote:

I'm a UTV customer and I've gone over my limit a few times. On two occasions this was an error, but on the other occasion I ponied up the cash because I did exceed the limit. And it wasn't cheap, because UTV's overage charges are excessive. But at least I know what they are, and can choose an alternative if necessary...

adam

Their charges are not excesive when compared to others. It's like 1 cent as apposed to 3 cent per mb. Not cheap by and stretch of the imagination though. And they do offer you the choice to have your service suspended. obviously you don't choose that one.

iano

Boston wrote:

Their charges are not excesive when compared to others. It's like 1 cent as apposed to 3 cent per mb.

From UTV Broadband FAQ

If you go over this allowance then UTV reserve the right to charge you for any additional downloaded material (at 1.5 cent inc VAT per MB).

15 euro per additional gig (GB). It's certainly not cheap!!
And (before anyone posts to the contrary) UTV has been charging people lately for going over cap.

Boston

Who siad it was cheap? I didn't. They are cheaper when compared with eircom, which is twice that. Also I'm well aware they charge for going over the cap, I don't think you actually read my post.

Sponge Bob

Smart are now apparently telling prospective customers on their handful of live exchanges in central Dublin that they cannot port their existing number before the Autumn.......but nice Smart will give em anudder wan instead .

Bit of a show stopper that

Boston

Thats Quiet serious, how sure are you.

jesus_thats_gre

I assume Eircom are possibly dragging their heals on releasing numbers and Smart Telecom has provided the above as a quick fix alternative?

Sponge Bob

Boston wrote:

Thats Quiet serious, how sure are you.

Very Sure now , Discussed Here and Garfield unsurprisingly skipped around the discussion today as he knew it to be true.