I do

Don't be stupid.

Your contract is 2 years. If you guys register just because "no cap for now", they already win. They can implement any cap they want and then you're going to complain at that time. You people have to be SMARTER CONSUMERS.

Don't buy into their bullshit.


Another naive and gullible person.

Do you build a highway, and assess how many people use it before charging a toll or deciding if you need more lanes? No. You do market studies, research and analysis to get a future projection. When its launched, you already know how much you should be charging and how much the capacity would be like. Any and every product/service is like this. You don't launch wait for customers, then only decide on limitations.

Do you really think TM will give an appropriate amount? That is laughable. The more of you sign up, the less international bandwidth they'll have and the more they'll likely have to cap. So don't be surprised if suddenly the 60GB becomes 30GB, and they pull out some bullshit statistics that says that average person only using 30GB. You people are giving them too much power to decide what your internet should be like.

They already have data from beta testers, so they already have some assessment there. THAT is the whole point of beta testing. If they wanted to assess bandwidth, they should just give us all a free trial for 3 months or something and then implement a cap based on our usage and see if we would like to continue using the service.


I don't care too much for IPTV and I would rather pay for something I know what I'm getting. Rather than pay for a 2 year contract for something which I have no idea what I'm getting. Am i getting a 60GB cap? or maybe 30GB? 150GB? What? I don't know, why should I put money down for something uncertain? You shouldn't be putting money down for an UNCERTAIN & AMBIGUOUS CONTRACT.


No matter what, installation costs would not be anywhere near the price of 3-6 months of unifi. So even if you pay the for installation costs, that is FINE because you know what you're paying for. If you subscribe to unifi now, and get waived off for the installation fee, and later they cap you to a level you do not agree with. What then? You already signed the contract and have to pay the remainder of the 2 years.

Be a smart consumer, dictate the terms to them before we even subscribe so its all written in the contract.


Don't take this negatively, but people like you is exactly why our country doesn't progress. Its why tmnet can come out with stupid excuses and why they can mistreat consumers. Its why politicians can make stupid lies and get away with it. Its because you're all so damn gullible. A fast one is being pulled on you, and you can still defend it.

Nope, you then purchase the 20mbps line which would give you a cap close to that, or you just go purchase the business line The line stops at a reasonable cap, which IMO would be around 150GB per month for 5mbps.


The pockets aren't necessarily deep, you can buy a game at anytime, perhaps one every few months, but that doesn't mean it should be additional cost from your internet as well! Don't forget games have patches, and have you seen the patch sizes for some games on steam?


Its a fact, just check our international bandwidth crisis, it can be solved by investing more, but they're not.

Once again, this isn't looking from a proper perspective. As a business, you should have done market research and also had plans for expansion. You're sold something to your customers, with a level of expectation in the form of a contract. You later then just amend that contract because you want more subscribers but you don't want to increase your own capacity to handle that.

Streamyx in its early days was amazing, I loved the speed (I started with the 384kbps, 60 hours package when it first came out, and later upgraded to 512kbps unlimtied when that package was available). Customer service was great, and I enjoyed that for about a year+ before they started the mass recruitment campaign. They got so many people on board, they couldn't handle the load.

When its obvious they couldn't handle the load, what did they do? Increaes the capacity? No, they recruited more people, released higher packages that used even more bandwidth for higher prices.

Its not our fault we're using for WHAT WE PAID FOR, its tmnet's fault for not coming up with proper packages, and not expanding to fit the capacity, they just keep overselling to reap in profits and blame the consumers. If secret recipe were to sell you a cake, you paid full price for the cake, and expect to eat the whole cake, but they tell you that you're not supposed to eat the whole cake, you take a bite and pass it on to the next person. Cause he also paid for a whole cake and should get a bite, and there are many more.

What would your response to that be? Blame the person for buying a whole cake? Or blame secret recipe for not making enough cakes available?

Then don't market is as such. Simple as that no?

If you tell me I get unlimited downloads, don't complain when I actually use it like that! Which is why I'm saying caps are fine, but if you want my business and others, make it reasonable. Don't just give empty marketing promises, and then pull back what you promised when people use what you advertised for.

---

Added on March 28, 2010, 1:39 pmNo, not exclusive use, but I am paying for my 1mbps, so I do expect to get 1mbps use out of it. You want to cap me, that's fine, as long as the cap is reasonable. So I know what I'm paying for. Using back the cake analogy, if I pay for a bite of a cake, and I get a bite, I'm fine with that. I pay for a slice, and I get a bite, I'm going to be pissed. I pay for a cake, and get a bite, I'm going to even more pissed.

Tmnet is overselling, and you know it. Rather than increase their capacity, they just continue to overload it, and throttle people and complain that its the consumer's fault.

Load of bullshit.

This post has been edited by silverhawk: Mar 28 2010, 01:39 PM

As long as its advertised up front, I have no problem with it. I can just choose not to go with it, or when I do go, at least I know what the minimum spending amount is. Not that I bring a bunch of friends to go, and we sit down and later the guy says there's a minimum spending amount, that's just utter bull.


No, they advertised as selling cakes/slices. And we paid for that, expecting cakes/slices.

No, it would be solved if they advertised properly and set the limits properly. Then people can't overuse, and they know what their limits are. Rather than arbitrary limit which we have no idea what they are.

It was there when I signed my contract many years ago. If any of you were using streamyx that time, the words "unlimited" was there because their earlier packages were limited by hours.


Its terribly horrible now, I don't expect 1mbps speeds 90% of the time, even 70% would be good enough for me, but I can get 56k speeds sometimes loading sites or streaming videos from youtube. Heck sometimes I download files it goes at 5kBps. I've even transferred files using MSN at paces of like 2kBps to friends in Australia.

You think they should get away with that level of quality just because its "shared"? Perhaps its fine for you, but I pay the RM88 per month, I pay the my taxes, and my taxes were used to subsidise unifi's roll out. I don't think its fine for them to get away by providing such low quality service.

Oh and if you think its "unlikely to happen", you would be wrong, its happening alot and it just continues to get worse. I understand the shared connection and all, I am after all in the internet industry. Most of the time people are just using a fraction of what they are paying for. If streamyx's contention ration is 1:25, but the average speeds people are getting from that contention ratio is 512kbps, then it should no longer be advertised as 1mbps. Advertise it at as 512kbps, and tbe bandwidth is opened for more people, increasing the service quality.

Do they do that? No, what they do is come out with new packages with higher bandwidth and charge more, which makes people use up for bandwidth and even less is available for others. Where's the logic in that?


You're only looking at what you want to look at. Look at what I've wrote, and I've not said "i don't care, I want unlimited". Heck, I hate those people who say that also, because it makes our opposition weaker. If you noticed, I'm all for caps and I've been advocating for it, just that caps have to be reasonable.

If you want to know about dedicated lease lines and stuff, you also have to consider that leased lines are using a different technology. Corporate users can get streamyx as well, and anyone who has used it knows that it performs better because it gets priority. However I've still received complaints about how horrible the corporate streamyx usage is.

The argument is very simple
- advertise accurately
- provide reasonable limitations to cater for a broadband future

Malaysia is not the internet, and frankly speaking, we don't even have a strong enough local culture to support ourselves. We're not like japan/china where they have a pretty strong local culture. Our culture is heavily influenced by external countries, taiwan, hk, japan, american, europe, etc. A good international link is a necessity, and one which tmnet just isn't providing and isn't building up to cater for the demand.

Continue blaming people, it won't solve the problem. There is demand, tmnet just isn't supplying it, and since people are unlikely to get better service, they either leave the country or just stagnate here.

This post has been edited by silverhawk: Mar 28 2010, 03:19 PM

So basically they accept that users are greedy, bring them in then don't satisfy their greed? Now tell me, do they deserve the backlash they are getting? I tell you can get 2 cookies, but give you one, you have the right to complain no?

This is unscrupulous use of marketing, its dishonest and bad business practice. Do you not agree that its unethical for them to do so?

cause if that happens, no one would choose IPTV, means IPTV no customers, means a failure for one of the objectives of HSBB

This post has been edited by silverhawk: Mar 28 2010, 05:10 PM

The analogy is accurate to get the point across. Analogies are use to get the point to people who cannot understand the full technicalities of the issue.

I've nicely explained the difference and how the cake analogy can fit it in. I'm not saying overselling itself is wrong, I'm not saying line sharing is wrong. I'm saying they are doing TOO MUCH of it that it degrades the experience for everyone and yet they want to blame their consumers. Rather than fix the problems they are having, they try to get even more customers, degrading the experience for everyone involved. Making empty promises and continue to blame the users.

If you can't cope with the demands of users using 1mbps, either upgrade your infrastructure or don't offer more when you can't keep up with the demand. It was obvious they couldn't handle the load with 1mbps and 2mbps users, and what did they do? Introduce a 4mbps package. Now they haven't fixed their international line, and they are releasing a 5mbps, 10mbps and 20mbps package.

Now tell me, is that the right thing to do? When people sign up and use it, find that everything is slow. They're going to use the excuse "oh, your line is shared... don't expect full speeds, its best effort only. You paid for 5mbps, but its shared with other users also, so now you're getting 512kbps speeds its ok, its still within our contention ratio. Its all the fault of those people who are downloading! Its not our fault for increasing the available bandwidth so we can cater for your package".

Its not part of the objectives, if you noticed, tmnet has always bundled something together, in hopes it will catch on with the public. Bluehyppo for example.

I can understand why they are bundling IPTV, its almost necessary, otherwise no one is going to pay for it when they already have astro. The problem is that IPTV doesn't have any good channels that people want.

The link has to come from somewhere, which means current streamyx users get even less. Heck, I'm pretty sure that the line isn't 100% dedicated to streamyx services unless you actually pay for such dedication. The line is definitely shared with a sharing ratio, otherwise it wouldn't be making full use of what they paid for. I won't be surprised if there's too much bandwidth request for streamyx, some of the traffic gets routed to HSBB's reserves.

Considering they are an ISP and they oversell, such practice is common.

Is it right to be greedy and hog resources? No, of course not. However, if you play on people's greed, then you would get greedy people in your service, don't expect people not to be greedy when you enticed them with greed in the first place.

Yes, that is greedy, but once again, its all about setting expectations and limitations, so people know what they are getting and whether it can be abused or not. I know some people when sharing connections, things get slow, they either come up with download schedules, or they just buy a faster line.

All of it won't get routed, but I'm just assuming, not too sure. What I was trying to say to you was, if 6% is allocated to streamyx, and that gets maxed out, its likely that some of the traffic will be routed to other capacities, but there will be a sharing ratio limit. Say HSBB has 10% and streamyx has 6% and only 2% of HSBB is allocated for spillage from other services, so HSBB will still retain a maximum 8%, and have 2% to share with others.

This is just my guess, and seems to me to be a better way to manage the bandwidth for services in the cases where usage suddenly peaks/spikes for a while.


I do have my own dedicated server where I run a VPN through Though I don't download with it, just use it to access sites if they're too slow.

Still most people are not like us, and those of us with better knowledge should stand up to defend them no? People are already paying extra for their own VPN access to torrent and surf faster.

No one wins, everyone loses. People complain and get unhappy, company loses money in handling customer service and support, lose customers due to poor image. Customers have poor internet connection and lousy customer service as well.

It would all be solved from the company setting up expectations properly. Some friction and conflict upfront, but once that is resolved, things would be smoother from there. People who are greedy simply won't have anything to use, so they either get nothing, or re-evaluate their demands.

I really wouldn't mind a schedule also, an off-peak and on-peak wouldn't be too bad but still wouldn't solve the problems IMO.

Though if unifi increased their caps to 150GB for 5mbps at least, I would sign up

Lost customers? Probably not a lot. As horrible as they are, they are the best of worst unfortunately.

Still, they do have to spend a lot on their customer support, which is quite a heavy ongoing expense I'm sure.


Not many, and consumers should educate consumers no? That's what we should be doing.


Perhaps they are I myself would use such a strategy. Advertise lower caps, then later increase the caps. So people would feel that you listened to them and gave more than you initially promised. Art of negotiation, though I'm not sure if tmnet is using such a strategy.


Yeap, 150GB is the minimum I would go for, the more the merrier I would be of course

I feel that 150GB gives a nice amount of buffer to download what we need to download and have some to spare just incase we need abit more than usual or for usage to grow as demands of the future increases. I might settle for 120GB, depending on the price. If TmNETcan come out with a clause saying "We are uncapping you for now, to analyse usage patterns, but we will definietly not cap you below 100GB for 5mbps" then perhaps less people would be boycotting.

My figures of 150GB comes from some calculations

a 5mbps maxed out, can download roughly 1.3TB a month. So 10% of that would be 130GB, and I just rounded it up to 150GB for additional buffers.

I did that as well.

However a public voice is also good

Its the whole household Which is a total of 4 computers (1 desktop, 3 notebooks). I'll be adding a household server for centralised backup and storage soon, but that won't really use the internet much.

anyone know any politicians we can contact/email regarding the issue? might help in getting our voices heard even louder

I don't see the 5 cents a minute calls

Whenever you people see things like that, you should screenshot it

Do provide us with speed and latency results when you get your service