Hey, I was wondering whether it's possible for ISPs to be forced under a law (which can be enacted if one doesn't exist) to host applications on their servers that clients can use to check how much bandwidth the client is recieving. I believe it's very unfortunate when ISPs say they are giving a client x bandwidth but the client is experiencing far much less. Isn't that stealing? Bottom line is that the clients need some assurance as to what they are paying for. o_O?
Wesley - Your concern is an important one, especially for consumers. I agree with what Mhseshimiwa Rege said yesterday that CCK needs to take more seriously its obligations of ensuring service providers and operators meet obligatory service levels. I do not think that ISPs or other operators/service providers can police themselves. A service like Telkom's ADSL is another example that Kenyans are willing to live with extreme complacency. This service takes to another level what was taught at University that data communications are "bursty", Sometimes you will be lucky to get a few "bursts" in an hour. Two weeks ago our office even lost the ADSL service for about 5 days and yet we are paying a fixed charge of 9,188/= per month. CCK needs to move beyond issuing licences and do its duty under law to ensure that the licensees are meeting the Service levels. This is the only way consumers (who are often ignorant of what to expect) can be protected. Waudo On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 07:17:47 -0700 (PDT), "wesley kiriinya" <kiriinya2000 @yahoo.com> said: Hey, I was wondering whether it's possible for ISPs to be forced under a law (which can be enacted if one doesn't exist) to host applications on their servers that clients can use to check how much bandwidth the client is recieving. I believe it's very unfortunate when ISPs say they are giving a client x bandwidth but the client is experiencing far much less. Isn't that stealing? Bottom line is that the clients need some assurance as to what they are paying for. o_O? People make a plan work, a plan alone seldom makes people work (Confucius).
I should also add that we should accept that the said bandwidth will not always be constant, but a certain acceptable margin should be guaranteed. For example someone signing up for 512 may not receive less than about 400. For some businesses where bandwidth is critical then a smaller variance may apply. I've also heard that the 512 (or whichever amount of bandwidth) can be shared. As long as a client is aware of sharing and s/he knows the net bandwidth they should recieve and the variance to expect, and the client goes ahead and signs the contract then no problem. All in all it's a serious issue that leads to a lot of losses when employees can't work because net is down or too slow. If there was a sturdy on this I wouldn't be surprised if the economy is loosing lots(billions) of money. Also consider companies that are afraid to come into the country because of this bandwidth issue. Regards. --- On Fri, 8/1/08, waudo siganga <emailsignet@mailcan.com> wrote: From: waudo siganga <emailsignet@mailcan.com> Subject: Re: [kictanet] ISPs and Bandwidth: CCK Problem To: kiriinya2000@yahoo.com Cc: "KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions" <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Date: Friday, August 1, 2008, 12:44 PM Wesley - Your concern is an important one, especially for consumers. I agree with what Mhseshimiwa Rege said yesterday that CCK needs to take more seriously its obligations of ensuring service providers and operators meet obligatory service levels. I do not think that ISPs or other operators/service providers can police themselves. A service like Telkom's ADSL is another example that Kenyans are willing to live with extreme complacency. This service takes to another level what was taught at University that data communications are "bursty", Sometimes you will be lucky to get a few "bursts" in an hour. Two weeks ago our office even lost the ADSL service for about 5 days and yet we are paying a fixed charge of 9,188/= per month. CCK needs to move beyond issuing licences and do its duty under law to ensure that the licensees are meeting the Service levels. This is the only way consumers (who are often ignorant of what to expect) can be protected. Waudo On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 07:17:47 -0700 (PDT), "wesley kiriinya" <kiriinya2000@yahoo.com> said: Hey, I was wondering whether it's possible for ISPs to be forced under a law (which can be enacted if one doesn't exist) to host applications on their servers that clients can use to check how much bandwidth the client is recieving. I believe it's very unfortunate when ISPs say they are giving a client x bandwidth but the client is experiencing far much less. Isn't that stealing? Bottom line is that the clients need some assurance as to what they are paying for. o_O? People make a plan work, a plan alone seldom makes people work (Confucius).
An important point to consider when discussing "bandwidth" especially within the context of ISP provided bandwidth is what specifically the "bandwidth" being purchased is: 1) between the customer and the ISP (access) 2) between the customer and the rest of the world (transit) In most cases you will find that the perceptions of both parties (ISP & customer) are completely at odds: - The ISP believes he/she is selling "access" bandwidth - and sizes/prices based on this - the customer believes he/she is buying "transit" bandwidth - and ends up getting frustrated and complaining to no end Obviously this situation is aggravated by the fact that all Kenyan ISPs currently connect internationally via satellite which has built-in latency i.e. delay of over 400-500 miliseconds. This means that a 1Mb link can perform like a 128k or 256k link when measured against fiber optic. Hopefully all of this will change next year when we get TEAMs connected. Then we can have apples for apples.... But there will always be a misunderstanding regarding "access" and "transit" the way I see it.... Regards, Brian On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 1:07 PM, wesley kiriinya <kiriinya2000@yahoo.com>wrote:
I should also add that we should accept that the said bandwidth will not always be constant, but a certain acceptable margin should be guaranteed. For example someone signing up for 512 may not receive less than about 400. For some businesses where bandwidth is critical then a smaller variance may apply.
I've also heard that the 512 (or whichever amount of bandwidth) can be shared. As long as a client is aware of sharing and s/he knows the net bandwidth they should recieve and the variance to expect, and the client goes ahead and signs the contract then no problem.
All in all it's a serious issue that leads to a lot of losses when employees can't work because net is down or too slow. If there was a sturdy on this I wouldn't be surprised if the economy is loosing *lots(billions)*of money. Also consider companies that are afraid to come into the country because of this bandwidth issue.
Regards.
--- On *Fri, 8/1/08, waudo siganga <emailsignet@mailcan.com>* wrote:
From: waudo siganga <emailsignet@mailcan.com> Subject: Re: [kictanet] ISPs and Bandwidth: CCK Problem To: kiriinya2000@yahoo.com Cc: "KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions" <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Date: Friday, August 1, 2008, 12:44 PM
Wesley - Your concern is an important one, especially for consumers. I agree with what Mhseshimiwa Rege said yesterday that CCK needs to take more seriously its obligations of ensuring service providers and operators meet obligatory service levels. I do not think that ISPs or other operators/service providers can police themselves. A service like Telkom's ADSL is another example that Kenyans are willing to live with extreme complacency. This service takes to another level what was taught at University that data communications are "bursty", Sometimes you will be lucky to get a few "bursts" in an hour. Two weeks ago our office even lost the ADSL service for about 5 days and yet we are paying a fixed charge of 9,188/= per month. CCK needs to move beyond issuing licences and do its duty under law to ensure that the licensees are meeting the Service levels. This is the only way consumers (who are often ignorant of what to expect) can be protected. Waudo
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 07:17:47 -0700 (PDT), "wesley kiriinya" <kiriinya2000@yahoo.com> said:
Hey,
I was wondering whether it's possible for ISPs to be forced under a law (which can be enacted if one doesn't exist) to host applications on their servers that clients can use to check how much bandwidth the client is recieving.
I believe it's very unfortunate when ISPs say they are giving a client x bandwidth but the client is experiencing far much less. Isn't that stealing? Bottom line is that the clients need some assurance as to what they are paying for.
o_O?
People make a plan work, a plan alone seldom makes people work (Confucius).
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: blongwe@gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/blongwe%40gmail.com
-- Brian Munyao Longwe e-mail: blongwe@gmail.com cell: + 254 722 518 744 blog : http://zinjlog.blogspot.com meta-blog: http://mashilingi.blogspot.com
My take on it is that consumers ought to be educated on the Role of Service Level Agreements, we are used to gentlemens agreements which are abused quite often once the cat is in the bag, maybe CCK/Kictanet can explore that Regards On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 12:20 PM, Brian Longwe <blongwe@gmail.com> wrote:
An important point to consider when discussing "bandwidth" especially within the context of ISP provided bandwidth is what specifically the "bandwidth" being purchased is: 1) between the customer and the ISP (access) 2) between the customer and the rest of the world (transit)
In most cases you will find that the perceptions of both parties (ISP & customer) are completely at odds:
- The ISP believes he/she is selling "access" bandwidth - and sizes/prices based on this - the customer believes he/she is buying "transit" bandwidth - and ends up getting frustrated and complaining to no end
Obviously this situation is aggravated by the fact that all Kenyan ISPs currently connect internationally via satellite which has built-in latency i.e. delay of over 400-500 miliseconds. This means that a 1Mb link can perform like a 128k or 256k link when measured against fiber optic.
Hopefully all of this will change next year when we get TEAMs connected. Then we can have apples for apples....
But there will always be a misunderstanding regarding "access" and "transit" the way I see it....
Regards,
Brian
On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 1:07 PM, wesley kiriinya <kiriinya2000@yahoo.com>wrote:
I should also add that we should accept that the said bandwidth will not always be constant, but a certain acceptable margin should be guaranteed. For example someone signing up for 512 may not receive less than about 400. For some businesses where bandwidth is critical then a smaller variance may apply.
I've also heard that the 512 (or whichever amount of bandwidth) can be shared. As long as a client is aware of sharing and s/he knows the net bandwidth they should recieve and the variance to expect, and the client goes ahead and signs the contract then no problem.
All in all it's a serious issue that leads to a lot of losses when employees can't work because net is down or too slow. If there was a sturdy on this I wouldn't be surprised if the economy is loosing *lots(billions) * of money. Also consider companies that are afraid to come into the country because of this bandwidth issue.
Regards.
--- On *Fri, 8/1/08, waudo siganga <emailsignet@mailcan.com>* wrote:
From: waudo siganga <emailsignet@mailcan.com> Subject: Re: [kictanet] ISPs and Bandwidth: CCK Problem To: kiriinya2000@yahoo.com Cc: "KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions" <kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke> Date: Friday, August 1, 2008, 12:44 PM
Wesley - Your concern is an important one, especially for consumers. I agree with what Mhseshimiwa Rege said yesterday that CCK needs to take more seriously its obligations of ensuring service providers and operators meet obligatory service levels. I do not think that ISPs or other operators/service providers can police themselves. A service like Telkom's ADSL is another example that Kenyans are willing to live with extreme complacency. This service takes to another level what was taught at University that data communications are "bursty", Sometimes you will be lucky to get a few "bursts" in an hour. Two weeks ago our office even lost the ADSL service for about 5 days and yet we are paying a fixed charge of 9,188/= per month. CCK needs to move beyond issuing licences and do its duty under law to ensure that the licensees are meeting the Service levels. This is the only way consumers (who are often ignorant of what to expect) can be protected. Waudo
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 07:17:47 -0700 (PDT), "wesley kiriinya" <kiriinya2000@yahoo.com> said:
Hey,
I was wondering whether it's possible for ISPs to be forced under a law (which can be enacted if one doesn't exist) to host applications on their servers that clients can use to check how much bandwidth the client is recieving.
I believe it's very unfortunate when ISPs say they are giving a client x bandwidth but the client is experiencing far much less. Isn't that stealing? Bottom line is that the clients need some assurance as to what they are paying for.
o_O?
People make a plan work, a plan alone seldom makes people work (Confucius).
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: blongwe@gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/blongwe%40gmail.com
-- Brian Munyao Longwe e-mail: blongwe@gmail.com cell: + 254 722 518 744 blog : http://zinjlog.blogspot.com meta-blog: http://mashilingi.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: otieno.barrack@gmail.com Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/otieno.barrack%40gmail....
-- Barrack O. Otieno ICWE Africa LTD P.o. Box 746 Nairobi 00100 Tel: +254721325277 +254726544442 +254202343960 www.icwe.co.ke http://projectdiscovery.or.ke National Bank Building Harambee Avenue 12th Floor
participants (4)
-
Barrack Otieno -
Brian Longwe -
waudo siganga -
wesley kiriinya