Geez, like almost all companies in the world overpromise anyways. It's business as usual

In the end the heavy downloaders take these justifications to the Nth degree by saying: "The best way to say "FAKK U" to Telekom is by 24/7 downloading muahaha, I paid for it!." In the end, there is nothing to justify. Telekom may be a sloppy monopoly. But the downloaders maximize 100% of the TOS on an ISP service, when it is never economically feasible to support 100% 24/7 for every user in Malaysia. Because of them, my online gaming suffers, my basic surfing after work suffers too.

I don't dislike people who utilize 100%, it's human nature to max out everything in life. It just gets annoying when people use "false advertizing" or "Telekom is evil" or "I pay for it!!!" to portray their heavy downloading as morally right.

Which last I know, in our region would retail in the ballpark of ~RM2xx to 3xx per Mbps, depending on your commit... yes even in singapore.

---

Added on March 28, 2010, 2:00 pmHmm I guess you mean that someone else somewhere else in the world pays the same and gets 10-30x more? Or pay 10-30x less and get the same thing?

Using the 5Mbps package as an example - that would mean either 1) getting 50-150Mbps for RM150/mo, or 2) being able to download at least 600GB-1800GB/mo for RM150/mo, or 3) getting 5Mbps for RM5 - 15/mo, 4) or some mix of these..

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.

so youre saying that the billions (from the tax payers) spent on laying fiber is just for a framework to deliver iptv and voip and local network access. forget the internet, we will be fine with local content from local servers?

add:

iptv:
ask anyone, makcik in kampung, 4 year old kid, apek in kedai kopi, expat in msia. show them the list of chan from hypp and astro. ask them if they can only pick one which one would they choose? why only one? average msian is not rich and getting smarter by not mambazir duit.

voip:
cannot reuse existing pstn number? businesses will love this. and so will millions of faithful tm customers who have been using the same number for eons.

sme...kalo takde elektrik voip takle guna? dulu letrik takde pun telefon boleh guna, sales call, customer call, still business as usual. lebih baik i just stick with the normal phone. apa faedahnya guna voip?

in conclusion:

kalo tak nak triple play boleh? apasal tak boleh? our economy is not doing so well. as enlightened consumers, we prefer not to waste money and save where we can.

This post has been edited by almaty: Mar 28 2010, 02:36 PM

I did not say that, you are @ through assumption.
A broadband connection is a gateway to a whole slew of new services and content delivery. Delivery through the Internet is just one of those possibilities.

ok if you didnt mean that, my bad.
gtg now. other things to do.

I though g0v use our rakyat money to supply to tmnet hsbb how many billion ? 5 billion .
So , should rakyat get cheaper price ? why still need to pay the same price over RM 100 ?

I'd rather get a RM99 for 2mb hsbb which anything as for me anything over RM100 is expensive

Could you please point to where you find "unlimited download" or "unlimited data transfer"? I have been looking but have not been successful.


Also, pleas understand difference between shared and dedicated.

The problem here is that just because you were getting full speeds or were able to download lots of stuff in the past, most have not bothered to understand how things were working. You made your own assumptions about it. Now that you do not get what you used to get, there is complaints. But the sharing has been there all this while, maybe not so noticebale few years ago, but more noticeable now.

Why do you think there are also options for dedicated leased lines (especialy for corporate users)? If Streamyx was actually not shared, then there would not be any need for dedicated lines. Users need to take some time to understand all this so that when arguments are put forth, it will be more reasonable. No point just going on with "I don't care, I want unlimited...".

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

The "unlimited" is very different from "unlimited download" or "unlimited data transfer". In the case above, the unlimited would refer to unlimited usage, as in use as many hours as you want, ie not a limited 60 hour package. Not time limited.

As I've said, the unlimited has been interpreted by users in a way most suitable for them which is not really the correct interpretation unless it was explicitly stated in that way.

silverhawk, the "I don't care..." was not directed at you. It was a general statement. Sorry if I was not clear.

i have seen the words "unlimited downloads" on streamyxs website in the past. iirc, it even goes to say you how fast/much music we can download or something along those lines.

now if it were not tm or tmnets intention and consumers were construing it as such. why did they not take the initiative to spell it out clearly so it is unambiguous?

look at what is going on with unifi in the t&c again. tm reserves the right to implement FUP if you exceed the cap. BUT OH THEY FORGOT TO mention what exactly the penalties are. why?



also, if TM knows for a fact that 6% of its users are abusing its T&C and continually hogging the bandwidth and thus ruining the internet experience of the other 94%. why didnt they do anything about it?

a few years back, TM said it was 20% using 80% of the bandwidth.

instead they just use them as an excuse for their networks shortcomings.

Related
http://business.theage.com.au/business/isp...90824-ewkk.html

ISPs should pay no mind to the cap
Joshua Gans
August 25, 2009

ONE of the great anomalies of the Australian broadband industry is the existence of usage caps, which around the world are virtually non-existent.

In the US, some internet providers have talked of a 250 gigabytes-a-month limit. That has led to consumer outrage that forced those providers to desist lest they lose customers. This is despite the fact only 0.003 per cent of US broadband users exceed that level - just 0.21 per cent exceed 100GB.

To an outsider, the Australian system seems very strange. Telstra boasts a basic package on its BigPond Cable Extreme network that, for $39.95 a month, gives 200 megabytes in usage. At Telstra's boasted 30MB a second speeds, that amounts to a minute of high-quality video downloads. After that you pay 15¢ a megabyte. It is hard to imagine that being an option for consumers.

But even its Liberty plan, which costs $69.95 and offers 12GB a month - after which the extreme speed is slowed to the speeds of last century - only allows you 20 hours of video watching a month, provided you do nothing else. That's about 45 minutes a night.

No wonder so many people do their YouTube watching at work.

Had the US and rest of the world had similar practices, requiring users to carefully watch their megabytes, YouTube and similar services would never had been conceived, let alone put into practice. Perhaps the carriers would have hosted content, under the cap, but then we would be in a world where they decided what we saw rather than the demonstrably better one where that choice is truly free.

There are costs to bandwidth. But rather than being 15¢ a megabyte, they are in the order of 15¢ a gigabyte - or 1000 times less. So if you are using 500GB a month, you are costing your carrier $75(RM220) a month. It seems reasonable that you pay for it. But, in Australia, if you want to use 50GB a month, you'll pay $2.60(RM7.70) a gigabyte to Telstra. Paying for bandwidth is fine. Getting gouged for it is another matter.

It is not just Telstra, although it has a special role. No internet provider in Australia offers a plan like they do in the US. The best ones are cheaper than Telstra but offer more by dividing between peak and off-peak use.

They have not tried to grab market share by going for it and freeing people from dreaded usage monitoring.

Why isn't competition working here? It is difficult to say but consider what would happen if a smaller provider lifted its cap to 250GB and charged 15¢ beyond that. It would attract a disproportionate share of those who would use that much. That may represent a small part of the market but a large part of its customers. Add to that the potential congestion caused by such usage - if concentrated in the evenings - on the equipment installed in Telstra exchanges, and that 15¢ a gigabyte may be something much larger.

This is a problem that Telstra likely does not face. But it does face conflicts that might give it pause when lifting caps.

For instance, a higher cap moves video watching online and out of the living room where Foxtel boxes reside. That is a cost it faces that others do not. But it is a cost borne of choice, the choice to be integrated with Foxtel.

We are told that the new management of Telstra is more open and ready to meet the challenges brought about by the national broadband network. The NBN will have the capacity to break through usage caps. But why wait eight years?

There is an opportunity for Telstra to demonstrate its new responsiveness and get rid of this anachronism. It could lift its Liberty plan to 100GB and likely face few additional costs if it charged 15¢ a gigabyte. It would send a strong signal to markets.

For others, there is a similar route. Smaller providers need not offer high-cap plans widely, but, for example, as an employee deal with businesses they also serve.

Think about it. Employees would be offered plans that gave them incentives to watch YouTube at home rather than at work. Employers would be happy and there would be only a marginal increase in traffic for the service provider as usage moved from work to home.

There is a way out of tight usage caps that stifle appropriate internet use. These will not be costly given international experience, but will open up more services to broadband usage. The NBN will provide this, but Australians shouldn't have to wait that long.

Joshua Gans is an economics professor at Melbourne Business School. He writes on these issues at economics.com.au

I think I've only seen terms such as unlimited access and always-on. Anyway, as I've pointed out several times already, what you can find now is:

http://www.streamyx.com/customer_care/cust...stomer_care_faq


Because that is part of how marketing works. The unlimited term has been used as a marketing gimmick to entice consumers. You can see the similar issue in website hosting as well. This plays on the desire of consumers to get as much as possible and pay as little as possible.

I have not looked through Unifi website in detail. But for Streamyx, which may be similarly applicable to Unifi:


http://www.streamyx.com/customer_care/cust...ir_usage_policy


Maybe the 20% was at that time and now is down to 6%... ??

The 6% are the 4mbps streamyx users. Soon to be replaced by 99% HSBB users.

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?

http://biz.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?f...23&sec=business
Posted at koptiam , why can't it unbundled ?

This post has been edited by Maxieos: Mar 28 2010, 05:06 PM

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

we have to pay for something we dont need?

that analogy is not accurate. heck, analogies are for people who cannot deliver their points coherently so they rely on analogies. like you.

check a few pages back, a moderator has already explained why line sharing is not illegal and not ethically wrong. in short you as a consumer are NOT paying for a dedicated line, thus the line sharing and when you share you should try to be ethical and not hog the bandwidth.

so shut it already with the cookies, apples or any other analogies you uncreative lot come up with.

shouldn't they make a survey first of those IPTV services before bundling it together. why market something people do not bother buying...