If IPTV had good sports channels, you would see people jumping on to subscribe

I'm not much of a TV watcher myself, I prefer to go cinemas or do series marathon with friends.

I also don't watch sports channels, but I can see the value in getting sports channels for IPTV, its almost a necessity considering how much people love their sports. I would easily settle for discovery and nat geo

Yes, its a good marketing strategy.


Be thankful? Most people don't even want the IPTV in the first place, to them its just extra cost. Remember, nothing is ever truly free, its all calculated as part of the cost already.


I keep hearing this statement, and while its true, what most people don't realize is that the ones making the argument isn't any different from the ones they are criticizing. Both are greedy and selfish and only want things to work well for them. Yes, the heavy downloaders are abusing, but only because the ISP marketed it that way to them.

The light users are also selfish because they want to limit other users so their own experience is better. The only justification they have is that they use less than the heavier ones, failing to take note that their 'light' usage, could be another person's heavy usage. Its all relative. When the international link went down, how many of you "selfless" people stopped using the internet to watch youtube and download files? How many of you thought to yourselves "shit, international line down, perhaps I shouldn't be streaming youtube videos and downloading so others can surf at decent speeds".

So seriously, get off your moral high horses, stop blaming the users, its not their fault to maximise what they paid for.

People will always try to maximise what they pay for, and that mentality isn't wrong per se. Just that it gets abusive because companies are greedy, they want to cater to these people but at the same time they want to limit them. Abit of a oxymoron.

Cap is too low and the price too high. Take a look at some comparisons



I'm still compiling the list and double checking figures for household incomes. Still, it just shows you how much more expensive broadband is for us.

Let me ask you a question, what is the purpose of having a HSBB project? What is the purpose of having a good internet connection? What benefits does it bring to the society and the economy? Does unifi cater to a broadband future?

I don't think unifi is going to support a broadband future for Malaysia, the way its being rolled out and the plans they have for it doesn't reflect that. Typical of a Malaysian project, its all for show and bragging rights, maximizing its potential is just not part of the plan. So hung up on the idea of broadband penetration, they forget to make the internet usable for the people. Its pointless to have a 100% penetration if you don't even have the capacity to handle it.

All around the world, the media content on the internet is getting bigger, youtube allows for HD videos already, websites are getting bigger. Do you know how much a typical webpage loads? It used to be below 50kB, but now, with all the javascript, high res images, flash etc. A website can easily load up to 500kB per page and its only going to grow.

Where will Malaysia be when the supply and demand for rich media content grows? Behind the times, trying to play catch up, or should we be prepared for it? Do you build roads and highways to cater for the CURRENT traffic? No, you build it for future predicted traffic, our internet service should be no different.


No, they still have a monopoly. Just because there is some competition, doesn't mean they're off the monopoly status. No other company is the size of TM or even has the government support TM has. Was the HSBB project opened for tender by other companies? Nope, it was given straight to tmnet.


Hence my argument still holds, they're charging high rates to match the high income areas (its the reason it starts there) and move on later to the lower income and less densely populated areas. It still doesn't change the fact that its expensive, do you really think lower income groups are going to subscribe for it?

I agree, even some of the points thrown out by people in my camp is ridiculous.

actually, your 4m is faster is because your package gets higher priority and with 4m you have a much higher buffer. Its not always due to the line. My line quality is great, but during peak hours my downloads won't break 30kBps, try again later around 2-3am, and suddenly I can be going at 150kBps.

been there done that, after a while goes back to the same thing.

Its a network congestion issue, not a line quality problem.

Yea, we use the internet and they slow it down. Brilliant strategy to advance Malaysia.

Actually, basic economics would dictate that wiring up rural areas is a poor economic decision as its a waste of resource. Internet can already be delivered to rural areas where they can get enough speed for their needs.

The internet infrastructure should be something public in the first place and the private companies use it.

How do you then explain how australia does it? or any other country which provides internet at CHEAPER rates than ours when you factor in their average household incomes and their own labour rates?

Australia for example has a much higher cost just from being so bloody far from the rest of the world, their labor cost is also a lot more expensive, and their cities and towns are much more spread out and dispersed compared to ours. Yet, they provide much better service at a better price.

Why?