Change to AUP - Section (d)

Open discussion regarding technological or telecommunication issues
ForumAdmin
Exetel Staff
Posts: 3663
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2004 2:31 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Change to AUP - Section (d)

Post by ForumAdmin » Mon Nov 16, 2009 2:45 pm

cdonges wrote:When will the daily average become available?

Will you be kicking off users based on this month's off peak downloads?
No.

ForumAdmin
Exetel Staff
Posts: 3663
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2004 2:31 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Change to AUP - Section (d)

Post by ForumAdmin » Mon Nov 16, 2009 2:47 pm

brod wrote:
ForumAdmin wrote: I think getting rid of excess charging in off peak time is a very beneficial thing to do....I can't believe that anyone thinks that isn't the case.
Prior to October 1: Customer goes over set offpeak limit, pays excess usage fee per GB
November 1 to November 15: Customer has no set offpeak limit
November 16 onwards: Customer goes over set offpeak limit, is forced to switch to a different ISP

I hope that helps you understand why either of the previous systems were more favoured.
The point is we don't want ANY user to exceed what the bandwidth can support - it is not a matter of paying for it - there is no more paying for exceeding 60 gb.

cdonges
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 9:18 am
Location: Toowoomba, Australia

Re: Change to AUP - Section (d)

Post by cdonges » Mon Nov 16, 2009 2:47 pm

ForumAdmin wrote:
cdonges wrote:When will the daily average become available?

Will you be kicking off users based on this month's off peak downloads?
No.
Thank you for answering half my questions.

I guess if you aren't kicking people this month then there is no particular need for the average to be displayed until December 1.

Orkon
Posts: 81
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 12:38 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Change to AUP - Section (d)

Post by Orkon » Mon Nov 16, 2009 2:50 pm

ForumAdmin wrote:
Peleus wrote:FA - Do you feel, for a user who used to use 60gb of their offpeak usage and wish to use more, the change to unmetered has been a benificial or negative change?
My view is that the 60 gb limit was too restricted and introducing some flexibility was to everyone's advantage.

No amount of bandwidth is enough if there are sufficient customers who think it's OK to download far more than the average that the bandwidth can handle.

Similarly it is wasteful to have bandwidth that isn't used if it is available.

We have tried many ways to make the 'spare bandwidth' available to customers and this iteration is simply a step along the road.

I think getting rid of excess charging in off peak time is a very beneficial thing to do....I can't believe that anyone thinks that isn't the case.

I didn't think it was much to ask that our customers didn't use so much personally that they took away the ability of other users to download their more modest requirements.

I thought that publishing a guideline that allowed 'heavier' users to use more without either being charged or screwing up the scenario for everyone else was very positive.
And i think most people who have responded in this thread agree with you.

The main concern is that if the overall average of all people who have "Unmetered Off Peak" is < 20GB then the previously existing quotas of 60 GB would never be reached and not allowed by the AUP. This would increase the spare bandwidth instead of consuming which is the intention.

ForumAdmin - Is that not a valid conclusion based upon the letter of 9.1 (d)?

I re-iterate that I am not proposing free reign of off-peak.

Scott

Peleus
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 5:45 pm
Location: Wollongong

Re: Change to AUP - Section (d)

Post by Peleus » Mon Nov 16, 2009 2:53 pm

ForumAdmin wrote: My view is that the 60 gb limit was too restricted and introducing some flexibility was to everyone's advantage.
Thanks for answering the question.
ForumAdmin wrote: We have tried many ways to make the 'spare bandwidth' available to customers and this iteration is simply a step along the road.
I think getting rid of excess charging in off peak time is a very beneficial thing to do....I can't believe that anyone thinks that isn't the case.
From my understanding - no one has a problem with removing excess charges on off peak, or even quota's on off peak. The issue I think the majority have at the moment is the extremely flakey definition of "what is too much to download", and the severe concequences of exceeding such an vague limit (disconnection).
ForumAdmin wrote: I didn't think it was much to ask that our customers didn't use so much personally that they took away the ability of other users to download their more modest requirements.
I don't think that it's to much to ask either - however the problem is only your company knows the big picture. Only you guys know how much other customers are trying to download, and what the total percentage of bandwidth being used is at any one time. It's like having your air-conditioner on 5 days in a row, and then being told to find a different provider because someone down the road who has only had his aircon on 1 day wanted to use it but there wasn't enough electricity. Hey if you had known you might have said sure, no problem - and stopped. But again you don't know what's happening in the big picture.


Possible solution.

Why not look at the percentage utilisation of the quota, and base it off that to set a hard limit for each customer per month. I'm picking figures out of the air, purely for illustration - obviously they will be way off from reality.

Let's assume that during the offpeak period, exetel can cope with everyone downloading their previously full 60gb of usage. Currently the average usage you said was that about 50% of the quota got used. So set the quota for 120gb per user, minus say 10% for saftey of your network - 108gb. The reality of the situation is that some use more, some use less, but on average the same amount of bandwidth is used which you know you can cope with - users know where they stand - light users get to download what they want, when they want - heavy users get to download up to a certain extent, then get penalised with excess usage charges for going over. Recalculate this each month. You had a little bit less utilisation then what you thought, the average usage of the 108gb quota was 30%. Next month the quota becomes what you can handle for your network, while still imposing that hard cap on those customers who go overboard.

It has the pluses for your customers - Hard cap, generous download limits, happy customers and it has the pluses for you - Full bandwidth utilisation, happy customers, in some cases some extra income from excess fee's.

ForumAdmin
Exetel Staff
Posts: 3663
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2004 2:31 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Change to AUP - Section (d)

Post by ForumAdmin » Mon Nov 16, 2009 2:59 pm

Orkon wrote:
ForumAdmin wrote:
Peleus wrote:FA - Do you feel, for a user who used to use 60gb of their offpeak usage and wish to use more, the change to unmetered has been a benificial or negative change?
My view is that the 60 gb limit was too restricted and introducing some flexibility was to everyone's advantage.

No amount of bandwidth is enough if there are sufficient customers who think it's OK to download far more than the average that the bandwidth can handle.

Similarly it is wasteful to have bandwidth that isn't used if it is available.

We have tried many ways to make the 'spare bandwidth' available to customers and this iteration is simply a step along the road.

I think getting rid of excess charging in off peak time is a very beneficial thing to do....I can't believe that anyone thinks that isn't the case.

I didn't think it was much to ask that our customers didn't use so much personally that they took away the ability of other users to download their more modest requirements.

I thought that publishing a guideline that allowed 'heavier' users to use more without either being charged or screwing up the scenario for everyone else was very positive.
And i think most people who have responded in this thread agree with you.

The main concern is that if the overall average of all people who have "Unmetered Off Peak" is < 20GB then the previously existing quotas of 60 GB would never be reached and not allowed by the AUP. This would increase the spare bandwidth instead of consuming which is the intention.

ForumAdmin - Is that not a valid conclusion based upon the letter of 9.1 (d)?

I re-iterate that I am not proposing free reign of off-peak.

Scott
I think it means that, for October as an example we would have not charged anyone who used up to 78.5 gb in off peak.

Perhaps you should consider whether or not the people who make these decisions know what they are trying to achieve or not and whether they have enough experience . If your view is that they don't then perhaps you need to consider your current situation regarding internet providers.

I can think of well over 100,000 Exetel users who will be better off with this change and a handful who will leave us for pastures new.

Tazz
Posts: 177
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 11:05 pm
Location: Launceston

Re: Change to AUP - Section (d)

Post by Tazz » Mon Nov 16, 2009 3:04 pm

ForumAdmin wrote:
raedphiz wrote:To give us a guide as to what the "quota" will be for this month could the averages for October please be posted.
26.5 gb
Is this the average use per user for the month?
or
the average use per user for the month in the offpeak period only?

MiserD
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 1:07 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Change to AUP - Section (d)

Post by MiserD » Mon Nov 16, 2009 3:05 pm

1) Glad you don't take anything said on this forum personally!

2) Maybe from your idea of what the changes to Exetel's AUP half way through the billing cycle... but this is how CUSTOMERS are seeing this.

3) You have missed the point... you have upset all but a tiny miniority of CUSTOMERS with these changes as you have not provided (until hours after the fact) of WHAT the (previous months)AVERAGE actually was, and you have NOT clarified SATISFACTORILY how you are going to address the issue for those that STUPIDLY understood 'unmetred' to mean WITHOUT RESTRICTION. You say you will ask them to leave and find another ISP, so we as customers can refuse to leave? Does that mean every month heavy users can just say 'no, not going anywhere'? Or do you need to clear up the wording in that too... cause you can ask someone to leave, they can say no, you have the right to refuse service... so does that mean you are going to refuse service to everyone who have gone over the estimated limit this month? which in effect is the same as saying you are going to cut off their internet service. Your definitions are too vague, which is why you have angry customers right now and the timing of the redifinition as to when it takes effect, which is too late for some to actually do anything about.

New point...Maybe before you put changes like this into place, you sample your client base, to cover any issues you do not see from a company perspective? Cause if you had asked around, the fundamental questions would have been asked and solution worked into the new AUP instead of the perverbial hitting the fan.

cdonges
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 9:18 am
Location: Toowoomba, Australia

Re: Change to AUP - Section (d)

Post by cdonges » Mon Nov 16, 2009 3:07 pm

With a limit of around 75GB and daily updates of averages and not getting kicked off for November I am reasonably happy.

But why not say that in the original email?

Orkon
Posts: 81
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 12:38 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Change to AUP - Section (d)

Post by Orkon » Mon Nov 16, 2009 3:08 pm

ForumAdmin wrote:I think it means that, for October as an example we would have not charged anyone who used up to 76.5 gb in off peak.

Perhaps you should consider whether or not the people who make these decisions know what they are trying to achieve or not and whether they have enough experience . If your view is that they don't then perhaps you need to consider your current situation regarding internet providers.

I can think of well over 100,000 Exetel users who will be better off with this change and a handful who will leave us for pastures new.
That probably part of the issue - the general populous have not been made privy to what Exetel are trying to achieve :D All i posted before was a very literal interpretation of the expressed rules.

Why is a civil discussion always turned to a "if your not happy please look elsewhere". Never one have I expressed unhappiness or dissatisfaction with exetel.

Scott

rseydler
Posts: 129
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 12:45 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Change to AUP - Section (d)

Post by rseydler » Mon Nov 16, 2009 3:16 pm

Can I change back to my old plan please? This whole 3x thing is making me nervous. I'd rather pay excess fees if I need to download large work stuff than get booted.

Ron

LordS
Posts: 149
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:56 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Change to AUP - Section (d)

Post by LordS » Mon Nov 16, 2009 3:26 pm

I'd much prefer the old 60GB at least then customers knew where they stood.

I recall a man once saying "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." - Thomas Jefferson, quoted by John Linton monday, december 29. 2008 08:23am

Amazing once again 'the mob' ruins it for the rest of us.

introspekt
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2009 3:04 pm
Location: Persia

Re: Change to AUP - Section (d)

Post by introspekt » Mon Nov 16, 2009 3:33 pm

LordS wrote:I'd much prefer the old 60GB at least then customers knew where they stood.

I recall a man once saying "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." - Thomas Jefferson, quoted by John Linton monday, december 29. 2008 08:23am

Amazing once again 'the mob' ruins it for the rest of us.
Exetel made the choice to set the mob free.

Gidget
Volunteer Site Admin
Posts: 1813
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:33 am
Location: Sydney

Re: Change to AUP - Section (d)

Post by Gidget » Mon Nov 16, 2009 3:41 pm

rseydler wrote:Can I change back to my old plan please? This whole 3x thing is making me nervous. I'd rather pay excess fees if I need to download large work stuff than get booted.

Ron
I'm not singling you out, but your post is typical of many on this thread ...

The email that Exetel sent out (see first post on the thread) said, inter alia,
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.
(bold added by me).

Why is there such emotion being expressed, with the use of expressions like "booted"? Moving to another ISP is an option, but surely you might consider changing to a more appropriate plan (commensurate with your usage) with Exetel first?

Gidget
Log a fault ticket here
or call Exetel VOIP numbers (02) 8030 1000 or 1300 788 141 (log faults 24x7)
Exetel Support Portal

LordS
Posts: 149
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:56 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Change to AUP - Section (d)

Post by LordS » Mon Nov 16, 2009 3:43 pm

because u can't get any higher quota than unmetered?

Locked