Hellopeter
Share Your Experience
CJvR
Christo Jansen van Rensburg

1 reviews | Active since Feb 2012

02 May 2026, 20:48

RSAWEB billed me for an upgraded fibre package while their supp**** router limited me to 100 Mbps

Before I report the problem, I want everyone to be easily able to check if they are "experiencing the same issue" as I am with these steps:

Take a photo of the sticker on your router, and a photo of your RSAWEB invoice. Send it to ChatGPT or your preferred AI assistant, and ask it: "Is my router able to provide the service that my provider is billing me for"

I raised RSAWEB ticket *** after discovering that I had been billed for a higher fibre package than the service I originally ordered and the service I was practically receiving.

I ordered a 100/100 Mbps service. My real-world usage and speed experience remained consistent with that level. Yet RSAWEB’s position is that my account had been upgraded from 100 Mbps to 200 Mbps, with a related price adjustment, because communication was allegedly sent in 2023.

My concern is not simply that a price increase happened. My concern is that RSAWEB moved the billing to a higher package while the service installed in my home was still limited to the original 100 Mbps experience.

The timeline matters.

I logged the query on 13 April 2026, asking for the incorrect billing to be credited. By 15 April 2026, RSAWEB had already defended the billing, saying the package and price had changed over time, that notifications had been sent, and that the relevant email was delivered and opened.

At that stage, there was no meaningful engagement with whether I had actually received the upgraded benefit.

I then had to provide my own evidence that I was still effectively receiving around 100 Mbps. Only after I pushed back did RSAWEB say they would investigate. Their eventual explanation, sent on 22 April 2026, was that the speed limitation appeared to be because my current router only supports up to 100 Mbps, and that a router upgrade would be required to benefit from the 200 Mbps service.

That explanation is the heart of the problem.

The router on my account is a TP-Link Archer C20 AC750, supp**** by RSAWEB. Despite the “AC750” name, this router’s physical internet/network ports are limited to 100 Mbps. In plain terms: the router RSAWEB supp**** could not deliver the upgraded fibre speed they were billing me for.

So I am left with one central issue:

RSAWEB billed me for an upgraded service while their own supp**** equipment prevented me from receiving the upgraded benefit.

That is why I believe the refusal to credit the account is unfair.

RSAWEB is the ISP. They supp**** the router. They control the package and billing history. They should understand whether the equipment installed for a customer can support the package being billed. A customer should not have to discover years later that they were paying for a higher-tier fibre package while the provider-supp**** router was still physically limited to the lower-tier speed.

I am asking RSAWEB to answer these questions directly:

Why was I moved away from the 100/100 service I ordered when RSAWEB still provides a 100/100 service? Why was I billed for a higher package while using RSAWEB-supp**** equipment that could not practically deliver that package? Why was credit refused before RSAWEB properly investigated whether the upgraded service was actually deliverable to me? Why did I have to provide evidence before the router limitation was considered? Why is credit still being refused after RSAWEB identified that a router upgrade would be required? Please provide the exact 2023 upgrade communication RSAWEB relies on. Please provide proof of clear acceptance, not merely proof that an email was sent or opened. Please reassess the billing and provide a fair credit for the period where I was billed for a service level I could not practically receive.

In my view, RSAWEB’s handling of this complaint places the burden entirely on the customer: notice the billing issue, understand the technical limitation, gather the evidence, challenge the provider, and then still be refused credit.

I do not believe this is a fair way to treat customers.

An email notification should not be treated as a substitute for actually delivering the upgraded service. If RSAWEB supp**** equipment that could not support the higher-speed package, then RSAWEB should have addressed that before billing me as though the upgrade was fully delivered.

I am asking RSAWEB to stop treating this as closed and provide a fair credit.

0
Replies (6)
RSAWEB
RSAWEB's reply03 May 2026, 11:22
Official
Thank you for your feedback — we’re truly sorry to hear that the experience didn’t meet expectations. This is not the level of service we aim to provide. We are looking into resolving and bettering the overall customer service experience, this matter will be looked into and forwarded to the relevant team. Kindly send us a dm with your profile information to locate your account and assign this to a Rsaweb representative.
RSAWEB
RSAWEB's reply07 May 2026, 21:38
Official
Hi there, thank you for your feedback. This matter will be looked into and forwarded to the relevant team.
CJvR
Christo Jansen van Rensburg's update18 May 2026, 13:49
Reviewer Update
I still have not received a response to this complaint
CJvR
Christo Jansen van Rensburg's update23 May 2026, 08:59
Reviewer Update
RSAWEB has now responded by saying that the speed upgrades were implemented by Octotel across the network, and that neither RSAWEB nor the end user had the option to opt in or opt out before implementation.
However, in the very same response, RSAWEB offered me a complimentary downgrade to a package of my choice.
That raises the obvious question:
If RSAWEB can now downgrade me to a lower package, why was I told that the upgrade was effectively unavoidable as a justification for billing me at the higher package?
I understand that Octotel may have made network-level speed changes. That is not the same thing as saying RSAWEB had no responsibility for how my account was packaged, billed, communicated, and supported.
RSAWEB was still my ISP. RSAWEB still billed me. RSAWEB still supp**** the router. RSAWEB still had the customer relationship. RSAWEB still had the ability to offer a downgrade now. So RSAWEB cannot, in my view, hide behind the network provider while also retaining full control over the billing and package resolution.
Their latest response also confirms another key point: RSAWEB supp**** routers that were compatible with the original package selected by the customer, but then says it is the customer’s responsibility to ensure equipment remains compatible with future package or network speed changes.
I find that unacceptable in this context.
If RSAWEB knew that customer packages were being upgraded, and if RSAWEB knew that some customers had RSAWEB-supp**** routers limited to 100 Mbps, then RSAWEB should have proactively addressed that before continuing to bill those customers for higher-speed packages.
Instead, I had to discover the issue myself, raise the billing dispute myself, provide evidence myself, and only then was the router limitation acknowledged.
RSAWEB is now offering either:
  • a complimentary upgraded router, supp**** on a free-to-use basis, or
  • a complimentary downgrade to a package of my choice.
While I appreciate that these options are finally being offered, they do not address the core issue: I have already been billed for a higher-speed service while using RSAWEB-supp**** equipment that could not deliver the upgraded benefit. My request remains unchanged: RSAWEB must reassess the billing and provide a fair credit for the period where I was charged for a service level I could not practically receive. This is not only about getting a new router or being downgraded now. It is about the period where RSAWEB billed me as though the upgrade had been meaningfully delivered, while their own supp**** equipment limited me to the original 100 Mbps experience.
CJvR
Christo Jansen van Rensburg's update23 May 2026, 09:12
Reviewer Update
I also want to add a timeline update because RSAWEB’s handling of the latest part of this ticket shows a concerning double standard.
I rep**** to RSAWEB on Saturday, 2 May 2026 at 20:56.
RSAWEB only responded on Wednesday, 13 May 2026 at 16:51.
That means RSAWEB took 11 days to respond to me.
Then, on Monday, 18 May 2026 at 10:37, only 5 days after their own delayed response, RSAWEB sent another email saying they had not received a response and that they would be closing the ticket.
So RSAWEB took 11 days to respond to an active billing dispute, but then treated 5 days from me as enough reason to move toward closing the ticket.
That is not a reasonable or fair standard.
This is especially unacceptable because RSAWEB has all my contact details, including my phone number. During those 5 days, nobody attempted to phone me. Nobody attempted to escalate the matter properly. Nobody attempted to make sure I had seen their response before moving toward closure.
This was not a minor support query. It was an active billing dispute involving a refused credit request.
In my view, this timeline reinforces the same concern I have raised throughout this complaint: RSAWEB’s process appears more focused on defending the billing position and closing the ticket than on properly resolving the dispute.
I do not accept that RSAWEB should be allowed to take 11 days to respond, then treat 5 days of silence from the customer as a reason to close the matter.
CJvR
Christo Jansen van Rensburg's update23 May 2026, 09:24
Reviewer Update
I want to clarify RSAWEB’s proposed “resolution”.
RSAWEB has offered either a router upgrade or a complimentary downgrade. I do not accept that either option resolves the historic billing issue.
A router upgrade now may help me receive a higher speed going forward, but it does not address the period where I was already billed for a higher-speed service while RSAWEB-supp**** equipment limited me to the original 100 Mbps experience.
A downgrade now may correct the package going forward, but it also does not address the period already billed.
I also do not want RSAWEB to frame this as though I have refused a fair resolution. I am not refusing resolution. I am rejecting the idea that a future-facing router change or downgrade is a complete remedy for a past billing dispute.
My requested resolution remains the same: place me on the package I originally signed up for, which RSAWEB still offers, and apply a fair credit for the period where I was charged for a service level I could not practically receive.