Change to AUP - Section (d)

[Peleus]

Hey all,

As I'm sure everyone did, I just received an e-mail about the change to the acceptable usage policy of Exetel. Outlined in it is the following.

d) For all plans that have an 'uncharged' off peak period Exetel will deem any individual customer who downloads more than three times the average of all other customers on these types of plans in any period as 'unfair users' and will ask such customers to move to another Exetel plan or to move to another provider.

My question is this, can you please be more specific or at least give a ballpark of what this figure will be? For instance let's say Exetel have a heap of heavy downloaders, they all chew through their plans and the average for the month is 60gb, anyone downloading 180gb or more will be disconnected - fine I can understand that massively excessive usage. A different month though they get an influx of light users because of their wonderful cheap plans, and the average is down to 20gb per user. Suddenly we're being disconnected for downloading 60gb a month, the same as what our quota was in the past?

I must say I absolutely hate not having a limit, but being told in vague terms that if you download "too much" that you'll get disconnected. Exetel have always been a great company, pioneering the way in terms of value - and as I customer I appreciate that. But really, if you're going to start disconnecting people for downloading "too much" and you're still looking to have the bandwidth used up in those offpeak periods just increase the actual offpeak quota. That way everyone knows exactly where they stand. You guys are smart enough to calculate something such as "on average our users used 76% of the 60gb offpeak, using the same ratio we can have them download 140gb safely per user offpeak so we'll make their quota 140gb/0.76 = 185gb a month", and the same light users will balance out the heavy users, and everyone is happy.

Anyway, just my opinion. Thanks.

P.s. I should state that I understand that really excessive users should be disconnected, and I'm not really arguing with that - if you're downloading 170gb, 180gb, 200gb a month you're unprofitable to Exetel, and should be gone. All I'm saying is that I don't particularly want to stay at downloading 50gb, 60gb to avoid running the risk of automatically loosing my service one month - if I wanted that I'd just wish the old plans were restored. Not knowing where the line is, 60gb - 80gb - 110gb etc is the issue.

P.p.s Suggestion - Maybe if you still insist of doing it this way give the heavy down loader a month's warning about their usage. An email along the lines of "Your service has been recorded as downloading more than three times the average user in our non-metered offpeak period. According to our Acceptable Usage Policy this is unacceptable. If you continue to download more than three times the average customer in the following month, your service will be disconnected - Regards Exetel".

[jokiin]

P.s. I should state that I understand that really excessive users should be disconnected, and I'm not really arguing with that - if you're downloading 170gb, 180gb, 200gb a month you're unprofitable to Exetel, and should be gone.

I would think that the people that do download these types of numbers are questionable anyway, I don't think there are that many "Linux iso's" available each month

[cdonges]

Why not just be honest and fair and make it a set limit again? Even if it's 60GB. Anything else is deceptive.

[Peleus]

I would think that the people that do download these types of numbers are questionable anyway, I don't think there are that many "Linux iso's" available each month

I'd happily concede that point - but also raise that really anyone downloading more than 10-20gb (in most, not ALL) cases is probably "questionable". I think it's a completely separate issue to what we're looking at here however.

[ForumAdmin]

I would think that the people that do download these types of numbers are questionable anyway, I don't think there are that many "Linux iso's" available each month

I'd happily concede that point - but also raise that really anyone downloading more than 10-20gb (in most, not ALL) cases is probably "questionable". I think it's a completely separate issue to what we're looking at here however.

It is a reasonable position to take that Exetel are trying to give as many users as possible the ability to access a facility (in this case off peak bandwidth) that is at no charge and is of a variable amount.

We have been doing this for well over five years (coming up to six years) and have found it always difficult to provide for a variety of reasons - however we have kept trying.

Perhaps Exetel is the wrong provider for the sort of customer who thinks that an internet service is something to be used to its fullest extent irrespective of whether there is any real purpose in its use.

Our/my view in gradually extending the allowances and time frame of the off peak periods has always been to ensure that an Exetel user got as much for their 'dollar' as it was possible for Exetel to give and we have only been in business to do that. For 98% plus of current users the services that Exetel provides have been and are more than sufficient to accommodate their needs and are provided at aprice that is lower than any other provider (if that is not the case then we would expect to lose any customer who can find a better deal somewhere else)....that happens every so often.

We gradually built the free time period up to a hard limit of 60 gb a month and that has been suitable for many people for quite a long time. For those people who went over it there was a charge for doing that and that discouraged people who think that downloading as much as they can is somehow a useful thing to do - and so it proved to be.

As we have continued to add users we have added IP and connectivity bandwidth - almost doubling IP capacity over the past 12 months (check the yearly graph here):

http://mrtg.exetel.com.au/combined/tota ... width.html

That figure, in excess of 5 gbps, is very, very large for the number of users we have and meets all demands of all people at all times including the very heavy down loaders. However it does not, and never will be able to, meet the demands of users who were quite happy to stay under 60 gb per month for as long as they've been with Exetel who suddenly decide that they can now download 500,000 gb per month in the uncharged period.

So a soft limit has to be adhered to and if such limits mean that any user is unhappy with Exetel then......choice of plan or, if you're really unhappy, choice of ISP is available to you.

On the topic of advising a monthly average - yes, we will do that and it will be updated daily.

[photonbuddy]

if you're downloading 170gb, 180gb, 200gb a month you're unprofitable to Exetel, and should be gone

Whilst I do agree to some extent, you really can't blame users for taking advantage of what is on offer. If Exetel call their plans 'uncharged' then they have to know people will abuse it. It seems a tad unfair to tell these customers they have uncharged quota, and then slap them when they actually use it.

I still find it strange that Exetel made the decision to go uncharged.

They know how many of their users bump the 60gb limit every month, and from that should be able to reasonably accuratly determine what the uncharged usage will be. If they wanted to add value to these customers, which is the only reason I can see (apart from the boasting of uncharged plans thing) to offer such plans, then why didn't they just increase the quota?

I also find the line about moving plans to be a tad telling. The only really viable alternative plans are the ADSL2 plans. Is this just an underhanded way to move heavy users onto the inferior ADSL2 networks?

Finally, kicking people to the kerb for breakingan unknown quota limit is bound to cause a spike in TIO complaints, and we all know how Exetel feel about the TIO.

[cdonges]

On the topic of advising a monthly average - yes, we will do that and it will be updated daily.

When will this be available?

Will you kick off users who go 3x the average this month?

[Orkon]

Perhaps Exetel is the wrong provider for the sort of customer who thinks that an internet service is something to be used to its fullest extent irrespective of whether there is any real purpose in its use.

Our/my view in gradually extending the allowances and time frame of the off peak periods has always been to ensure that an Exetel user got as much for their 'dollar' as it was possible for Exetel to give and we have only been in business to do that. For 98% plus of current users the services that Exetel provides have been and are more than sufficient to accommodate their needs and are provided at aprice that is lower than any other provider (if that is not the case then we would expect to lose any customer who can find a better deal somewhere else)....that happens every so often.

We gradually built the free time period up to a hard limit of 60 gb a month and that has been suitable for many people for quite a long time. For those people who went over it there was a charge for doing that and that discouraged people who think that downloading as much as they can is somehow a useful thing to do - and so it proved to be.

...

That figure, in excess of 5 gbps, is very, very large for the number of users we have and meets all demands of all people at all times including the very heavy down loaders. However it does not, and never will be able to, meet the demands of users who were quite happy to stay under 60 gb per month for as long as they've been with Exetel who suddenly decide that they can now download 500,000 gb per month in the uncharged period.

So a soft limit has to be adhered to and if such limits mean that any user is unhappy with Exetel then......choice of plan or, if you're really unhappy, choice of ISP is available to you.

I am in total agreement with what you have stated. The Main issue with the AUP change is that the "Hard limit" that used to be 60GB may not even be reached. EG If average of all Unmetered users is 1.3GB, then the maximum anyone could "use" in off peak is 3.9GB. If there was a soft limit (being the previous 60GB hard limit) in place that any usage over that mark was subject to the 3x average then there would be less questioning this change (in my view of course).

Scott

[stainsby]

"people that do download these types of numbers are questionable anyway, I don't think there are that many "Linux iso's" available each month "

If Freddy Bloggs want to cache local copies of Wikipedia every night for research purposes, and he buys and uses an Exetel plan because the plan appears to satisfy his requirements, then that's his prerogative, no matter whether you think his research is a worthwhile activity or not.

If the result of users using a service's bandwidth to its fullest extent is detrimental to the network (or somehow proves illegal behaviour) then ISPs should either:

(1) change the plan limits clearly stated in the plan (not obscurely with some random variable in the fine print); or
(2) don't offer the service, or
(3) improve the network; or
(4) all of the above.

[brod]

If this is intended as a beneficial change for customers then I suggest the policy be amended to be 'three times the average monthly quota OR 60 gigabytes, whichever is greater'

I'm assuming the possibility of three times the average being less than 60GB exists, and if this eventuates, the new changes will be considered detrimental.

Also, out of fairness (if this is a consideration at all?) I suggest that this change be implemented as of December 1, not November 1. Many users would have already downloaded more than the new limits impose, under the assumption that offpeak truly was 'unmetered' for this month as advertised.

If a customer is changed to an unmetered plan then they have the right to, and the expectation that they can, download as little or as much as they would like, and it's not Exetel's place to judge whether or not the bandwidth being used is purposeful.

[alinos]

yeah this is my first month with exetel after being on a pathetic 25Gb a month plan with telstra

my main HDD crashed 4 days before i churned and lost my 300Gb+ steam directory which ive been recovering this month with other stuff that i needed to recover on top of my monthly usage to the extent of currently 83GB but now it seems i should stop for the rest of the month as i have no wish to be kicked out so soon(was extremely happy that the plans changed only days after i applied

the average being posted is neccesary and good to see they will keep it up although just means youll see people who push the upper boundarys anyway

if they want to offer us more than 60GB tho why not cap it at a 100-120GB hell on ADSL you can only download say 220Gb since the 8Mbps plans have been decommissoined and switching to an ADSL2 plan is implausible for some and just moves people back to the 60GB off peak anyway nullifying the changes that have been made to the ADSL plans anyway tops so 100-120 should be more than enough i mean its double the old limit and my guess would say average is between 30-50GB per month if the average was at 20Gb they would have had little reason to change it

and the reason i was able to get 300Gb of steam stuff on telstra is the simply fact that all that stuff was hosted for free download of there content servers

so i guess its time to just w8 and see this average although i would expect this being the first month its probs rather high

[ForumAdmin]

I am in total agreement with what you have stated. The Main issue with the AUP change is that the "Hard limit" that used to be 60GB may not even be reached. EG If average of all Unmetered users is 1.3GB, then the maximum anyone could "use" in off peak is 3.9GB. If there was a soft limit (being the previous 60GB hard limit) in place that any usage over that mark was subject to the 3x average then there would be less questioning this change (in my view of course).

Scott

Exetel is an ISP that tries its best to provide as much as possible for as little as possible....it has always done that. We act far more like a 'co-operative' than we do as a commercial company - and we expect the customers who choose to use our services to act similarly - or if they don't want to do that we know there are a wide range of choices they can make in terms of ADSL provision.

If we perceive that our whole basis for being in business is being threatened by a tiny percentage of users we aren't going to meekly allow that to happen we are going to eliminate the problem.

If any user thinks that being given 12 hours a day where the internet service isn't charged for (in terms of downloads) is somehow a disadvantage then...there are lot of ISPs to choose from. I think we may have run out of our 'use by date' for being an ISP who caters to very high down loaders who, without wishing to sound offensive, are almost certainly not using our services for legal purposes and therefore are an 'exposure' that needs to be dealt with in the not so distant future. I could easily be wrong in that thinking but then I have a responsibility not to knowingly endanger the company's future.

Perhaps Exetel's future is with the type of customer that will appreciate that they get the lowest possible internet costs that allows legal use of our services to be maintained at a known fixed price provided that they learn to use a download scheduler and ensure their children do the same.

I don't know enough about 'legal' downloads to determine whether they could be greater than 60 gb a month or any other figure for any single service but I guess we'll find out over time.

In the mean time 'uncharged' doesn't mean 'unlimited' because if it did we would have used the word "unlimited" and not "uncharged" - by all means check a dictionary together with Fowler's, the OE or the Cambridge Modern English Usage and if I'm wrong in that belief please point out a more accurate description.

As Exetel's ONLY reason for being in business is to provide the lowest possible cost ADSL service (in this case) then we will continue to look for ways of doing that better each month we are in business.

As usual, we welcome any suggestion that assists us to do that.

[Les]

I originally posted this in the first thread that was opened on this tiopic, but as this thread seems to be the more active I thought I should also post here.

Hi,

I didn't realise I had been moved to an plan with an uncounted period until I received the "Modification Of Acceptable Use Policy" notification earlier today.

As someone who has never downloaded more than 15Gb in the off-peak period and who usually downloads less than 5Gb in the off-peak period I'm also concerned that if the average downloads by other users on these plans is quite low than this level of usage could now result in me being considered an "unfair user".

I too would like to see point "9.1 d" changed to make some reference to the old 60Gb limit.

You could change point "9.1 d" to something like

d) For all plans that have an 'uncharged' off peak period Exetel will deem any individual customer that has downloaded more than 60Gb and has downloaded more than three times the average of all other customers on these types of plans in any period as 'unfair users' and will ask such customers to move to another Exetel plan or to move to another provider.

or

d) For all plans that have an 'uncharged' off peak period Exetel will deem any individual customer who downloads more than three times the average of all other customers on these types of plans or 60Gb whichever is the larger amount in any period as 'unfair users' and will ask such customers to move to another Exetel plan or to move to another provider.

Les

[cdonges]

If you don't want people to download 60GB in a month, set the limit to 40GB, or 20GB or whatever?

If you don't want people to download even more don't make a change where there is *no limit*?

You set the boundaries, so you will decide how much people download in the end.

Legal ways to use heaps of bandwidth:

Linux ISOs.
Hi def TV and Movie downloads from iTunes.
Free live music from eTree.
Game Demos.
Steam.
Streaming video and audio.
'Catch up' services on TV websites such as 7 or 9.
ABC iView.

[Col]

In the mean time 'uncharged' doesn't mean 'unlimited' because if it did we would have used the word "unlimited" and not "uncharged"

I'm sorry, but by removing the 60GB hard limit and making it uncharged, how did you expect that to be perceived? Almost everyone would take it as being unlimited. I agree that massive downloaders should be kicked, but I just hope the limit is reasonable.

Edit: As I don't want Exetel getting a bad name. "Aww they say no charge but they kick you off at 70GB, screw them".

*Note: I am not a massive downloader trying to justify anything, I am on track to reach roughly 60GB by the end of the month.