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 1:54 pm

tropt wrote:[

1) I would sincerely hope, that your only reason for being in business is to make money. That being said, it's rather difficult to make money if you upset your customers with policy changes that make little sense to anyone but the people within your company.

2) The first i heard of this change, was the 'Modification Of Acceptable Use Policy' email i received today. That doesn't provide me with much of an opportunity to remain a happy customer, especially considering i signed up for one set of rules... which have now been changed 'in my best interest'.

3) In our house, all my family uses the internet connection we have with Exetel. Some to download movies, some play online games, some are studying and watch online training videos on a daily basis. We can work with a static hard limit. It's easy to manage and everyone in our house gets a percentage of the quota as their own.

4) What you're proposing is madness. How can we accurately plan our internet usage that depends on a 'constantly changing average monthly user download limit'?
1) Exetel is not in business to make money, never has been, never will be and has always stated that was the case.

2) How else would you have liked to have heard about it?

3) With due respect - that statement is unbelievable.

4) If it's "madness" then the company is run by lunatics.

stainsby
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 11:47 pm
Location: Bunya, Brisbane, QLD
Contact:

Re: Change to AUP - Section (d)

Post by stainsby » Mon Nov 16, 2009 1:59 pm

Tazz wrote:
alinos wrote:also add to legal download methods
Direct2Drive
Impulse
Netflix
DLC for games PC,Console

id be happy if the plans returned to what they were i can deal with pre defined limits having a moving magic number
just like budgeting your pay

as i said for earlier till i recover my steam directory i will be using a large amount of DL after that it should quiet back down
Plus Foxtel
Plus data backups - if I chose to backup my two servers in the US to a local machine (which I don't currently, but I could) then that would chew through some GB per night.

Also, cloud storage (e.g. S3), ...

I doesn't take much imagination.

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 2:08 pm

MiserD wrote:
1) To the forumadmin... It seems as if you are taking what is said personally...

2) Say Ergon says' anyone using 3 times the average household will have their power turned off', and you had been working late and you have 2 fridges and 2 freezers and an electirc hotwater system, etc, you are left with the question "what is the average household use?" you would be very upset that they are possibly going to turn your power off, when in actual fact, you maybe under the average. This isn't the arrangement you signed up for with Ergon and that is how people who have joined Exetel feel about the rewording of the AUP.

3) You are probably seeing a lot of the bigger users in the forums complaining as they have probably pushed the boundaries of what was thought a reasonable change, but the company did put them onto these new plans without sending a request of confirmation and the terms were obviously not clear as you wouldn't have had to change the AUP if they were. It is ok to admit making a mistake with the structure of these new plans that everyone has been put on, however own up to it, clear up the issues that people have raised repeatedly with you, the big 2 is the lack of consent to be changed to such plans with out notice and a finite boundary on what is AUP in an 'uncharged' plan.

4) It sounds like your business plan was to attract more customers...

5) which it did! Well done... you have them on a minimum contract of 6 months and if they break those contracts you get more money out of them... but think of the badwill this venture has cost Exetel? Not only with current clients, but the bad press you are going to/ are getting around this issue, will be seen by even more potential clients and that will be bye bye money for you. I think the easiest solution for Exetel is to go back to Octobers structure, and learn from November. Cause this is the best practice for Exetel and for the customer and allows you to properly budget bandwidth as well as the customer.
1) I take nothing personally I see on a forum.

2) A bad analogy and unrelated to the situation....no-one faces being cut off....the worst that could happen is that they are asked to move to another provider with plenty of time to do that.

3) Over almost six years of running this ISP and an equally long time running other ISPs it is clear that a tiny minority will always be unwelcome customers - I don't think any commercial organisation has 100% of 'nice' customers.

4 It wasn't....it was to keep the customers we had that found our services suitable and gracefully allow customers who wished to do so to move to a more suitable provider.

5) If the terms of service are changed within a contract period to the disadvantage of a customer within contract then they can cancel their contract without penalty.....hard to see how we can be accused of making money out of that scenario....I would have thought that we would actually lose money/customers.....certainly that is what we anticipated.

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 2:12 pm

stainsby wrote:
Tazz wrote:
alinos wrote:also add to legal download methods
Direct2Drive
Impulse
Netflix
DLC for games PC,Console

id be happy if the plans returned to what they were i can deal with pre defined limits having a moving magic number
just like budgeting your pay

as i said for earlier till i recover my steam directory i will be using a large amount of DL after that it should quiet back down
Plus Foxtel
Plus data backups - if I chose to backup my two servers in the US to a local machine (which I don't currently, but I could) then that would chew through some GB per night.

Also, cloud storage (e.g. S3), ...

I doesn't take much imagination.
It would be very foolish to operate any mission critical service on a residential plan.

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 2:19 pm

Les wrote: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
Perhaps that would have been a better way of wording it - for the time being.

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 2:23 pm

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?

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 2:24 pm

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

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 2:27 pm

So, why not just make the off peak limit 75GB?

Everyone would be happy.

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 2:31 pm

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.

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 2:34 pm

cdonges wrote:So, why not just make the off peak limit 75GB?

Everyone would be happy.
Anyone who is unhappy has the ability to remedy that situation at any time of their choosing.

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 2:35 pm

So, you want users to be able to download more, except you don't?

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 2:40 pm

cdonges wrote:So, you want users to be able to download more, except you don't?
We would like Exetel customers to use, at no charge, as much bandwidth as we ourselves pay for - as a group of users.

We definitely don't want a very few users to use so much there is not enough left for everyone else.

We also don't want to waste bandwidth that has been paid for by it being idle.

Hence the guideline.

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 2:42 pm

When will the daily average become available?

Will you be kicking off users based on this month's off peak downloads?

nks1978
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2007 6:49 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Change to AUP - Section (d)

Post by nks1978 » Mon Nov 16, 2009 2:44 pm

Long time customer, first time poster.

There's a lot of heat in this forum, and from my perspective, much of it stems from the starting point "Exetel are trying to screw us".
A friend has just joined this ISP, and has negative memories of the other big providers who, let's be honest, have all tried to screw us, which is why we've come to Exetel.

But take a moment here, in all of your time with Exetel, have they done the wrong thing by you?
In my two years, they've upped my limits (without me having to apply), cut my costs (again, no application), let me switch to naked DSL, been open and honest about their philosophy, added tech support (and admitted it's an overseas service) and had very, very limited downtime.

At the moment, Exetel says the average is 20 odd gigs, so 3x that is 60+ gigs.
Maybe the average will go down, and the 3x will get reduced (and therefore we get screwed).
Maybe the average will going up, and the 3x will be more than the current set limit.
I don't know that, and frankly no-one in this forum does either. Until we do, it's all conjecture.

My expectation, based on Exetel's [b]actions[/b] (not conjecture) in the past, is that if the average drops, and the 3x comes down below the current cap, they won't be cutting anyone off who goes over the existing cap.
That's how they've acted in the past.

Again, I could be wrong, and if I am, I can review my needs and see if another ISP is better for me, just like all of you can.
In short, stop thinking Exetel is another Telstra, Optus etc, and just give this a chance to see how it works out over the next month or so.

Nathan

brod
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 7:25 am
Location: Perth

Re: Change to AUP - Section (d)

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

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 November 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.

edit: typo
Last edited by brod on Mon Nov 16, 2009 2:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Locked