Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Bump Topic Topic Closed RSS Feed

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

Unifi Boycott Unifi - capped connection

views
     
billytong
post Mar 26 2010, 12:47 PM

Lord Sauron
*******
Senior Member
4,522 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
From: Mordor, Middle Earth.


Which is why I take the Combo package 384kbps + free telephone calls for only RM70. The lowest package of is always the best one because it is the closest you can get FULL speed on what u pay for all the time.
billytong
post Mar 27 2010, 09:43 AM

Lord Sauron
*******
Senior Member
4,522 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
From: Mordor, Middle Earth.


I dont like the idea of capping, if they cannot afford to deliver the bandwidth, they should stop offering higher download speed. In fact we are paying at least 10-30 times higher than international Major Telcos. I still cant see how they cant offer unlimited with the small broadband speed they offer here while charging the rates where we should be getting 50-100mbps.

This post has been edited by billytong: Mar 27 2010, 09:44 AM
billytong
post Mar 27 2010, 10:22 AM

Lord Sauron
*******
Senior Member
4,522 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
From: Mordor, Middle Earth.


QUOTE(prasys @ Mar 27 2010, 09:46 AM)
You guys are expecting for 1TB of cap. Common even some website packages do offer  20GB of bandwidth quota. But then if you're a heavy downloader you're screwed. For me and to be honest , I rather have the cap which is rather reasonable , umm say 75GB for 5Mbps

I dont want to suffer with slow connection just like streamyx because of certain group of self-centered folks who think that they are the only ones that are paying taxes and downloading things 24/7 !
*

Well the fact is the price that TM charging us is way capable of offering unlimited. A common youtubing HD content can easily outdo 75GB,I am fine with a higher capping if the DL speed is what it is like our neighbor, if our neighbor can do it so are us. Why should we be any inferior than them?

This post has been edited by billytong: Mar 27 2010, 10:22 AM
billytong
post Mar 27 2010, 12:17 PM

Lord Sauron
*******
Senior Member
4,522 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
From: Mordor, Middle Earth.


QUOTE(wKkaY @ Mar 27 2010, 10:33 AM)
On what grounds do you say this? Do you know something about TM's cost structure that we don't?
*

While I do not have the data on that, but I do not believe cost structure in KL city is 10-30 times more expensive than anyone else.

This post has been edited by billytong: Mar 27 2010, 12:17 PM
billytong
post Mar 27 2010, 04:27 PM

Lord Sauron
*******
Senior Member
4,522 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
From: Mordor, Middle Earth.


QUOTE(Zepx @ Mar 27 2010, 03:59 PM)
For your information, 60GB is MORE THAN SUFFICIENT. No one asked you to surf youtube. No one asked you to download songs. No one asked you to download movies.
*

Good without all that, why should I need a 5mbps line?

billytong
post Mar 28 2010, 06:05 AM

Lord Sauron
*******
Senior Member
4,522 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
From: Mordor, Middle Earth.


QUOTE(prasys @ Mar 28 2010, 12:05 AM)
Reminds me of :-

Boycott Astro Max

Boycott Call of Duty MW2

Boycott Left 4 Dead 2

Trust me , its not going to work. You can try. TM will just execute plan b. Well lets advertise no cap and then screw up users by providing slow speeds. Once most of the users realise that they have been rick-rolled by TM , there would be a lot of users would say that the cap is a must so that they can enjoy high-speed broadband (my POV that is).
*

Well without this boycott, we wouldnt have TM moving 1 step backward by "no capping 4 now". TM is a company, installation of fibre across the country cost money, they have put their investment already. It would be silly for them to see all their invested infrastructure left under utilize without making sufficient money. If there is enough or majority of user do not buy their product, they have to lower their price and step backward again. The problem is whether there are enough Malaysian that are smart enough to know their "rights". Control is on our hands, not them, money is ours too.

When ask about capping thing, they said "there is no capping for now" which means there will be in the future. There is no a clear answer for the user on where is the limit.
Then people are asking regarding why bundle IPTV with it, are user subsidizing the cost of the IPTV etc. They are saying "It is not about subsidizing blah blah blah" which already mean the user is paying for the cost of the IPTV when it is not their intention to buy the product from the first place.



This post has been edited by billytong: Mar 28 2010, 06:13 AM
billytong
post Mar 28 2010, 06:14 AM

Lord Sauron
*******
Senior Member
4,522 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
From: Mordor, Middle Earth.


QUOTE(rewlie @ Mar 28 2010, 06:12 AM)
Errr.. i thought they already update their Twitter saying that no capping involved? Why so serious now?
*

Unless they put into the term & condition we have to sign for 2 years, otherwise dont buy their words.
billytong
post Mar 28 2010, 09:42 AM

Lord Sauron
*******
Senior Member
4,522 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
From: Mordor, Middle Earth.


Subscribe early get advantages? Goand check early streamyx subscriber, see it is cheaper than todays combo,blockblaster deal or not.
billytong
post Apr 1 2010, 10:54 PM

Lord Sauron
*******
Senior Member
4,522 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
From: Mordor, Middle Earth.


QUOTE(silverhawk @ Apr 1 2010, 02:54 PM)
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.
*

Thats right, it is like going to cake house buy a piece of cake but u are only allow to take a slide of it.

I simply cannot believe there are still people agree with bandwidth cap when the whole selling point is "unlimited" & is rather miss leading. The term unlimited should be more define properly if the ISP intention is to sell what they are going to offer.


Another example like LED TV is isnt LED at all, it is a normal LCD that using LED backlight.
billytong
post Apr 2 2010, 10:00 AM

Lord Sauron
*******
Senior Member
4,522 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
From: Mordor, Middle Earth.


QUOTE(Wan @ Apr 1 2010, 11:43 PM)
Why not ask for them to give us free. Free water, free food, free cars, no tolls, heck, we shouldn't even work to get money.


Added on April 1, 2010, 11:51 pmI used to think of it like that as well. We pay for 1mbps unlimited, so we should be able to max it 24/7 But why do they charge so much for dedicated bandwidth(or those business users) if it's 'cheap'. That term can mean anything. What they meant by saying unlimited from the start was probably that you can stay online 24/7, not that you should hog the bandwidth 24/7.

Now billy, they offered the new Unifi with those caps in place right from the start. It's a new package from them. So whatever your argument about unlimited doesn't involve Unifi.
*

Unlimited can mean anything, but it is not clearly stated in the advertisement, so as far as I concern, the user definition of Unlimited is 24/7 fullspeed, Tmnet's unlimited definition it is like saying Astro offering 24/7 of broadcasting, but if the user watch too much of TV, they cut the broadcast service in the middle.

Which ultimately bring to the fact that average user will also think a typical Streamyx 4mbps is a much better deal than any Unifi package. To make it even worst it has drop another RM20. I still wondering how the TMnet staff do any case study on Unifi package alone. Base on the Cap that Unifi have, they should have only cost 50% of what they are charging now to reflect streamyx pricing, and why would any resident be limited to this cap thing or require register a company to get the unlimited Unifi?

Besides, Streamyx isnt really unlimited yet. We dont get 80% of the speed 90% of the time. So if a user go all out doing 24/7 Download/Upload, he is still not getting anywhere near 80% of what he pay for.


Added on April 2, 2010, 10:22 am
QUOTE(Wan @ Apr 1 2010, 09:44 PM)
And the cap thing was a long time coming. I don't like it, and in a fantasy world, I would not want the cap at all. But we have to give and take in this case. For whatever reasons, with 1-4mbps connections, it was already crawling. Just imagine having some of those users converted to 10-20mbps packages.. everyone would suffocate. If you need the bandwidth, go get a dedicated line. Why do you think they offer it so high? Bandwidth isn't free. If it was cheaper, we wouldn't have to pay expensive prices for streamyx all these years.
*
Explain to me why all our neighbors can do it at much lower price, unlimited, no cap. Why our TM which monopoly the almost the whole Malaysia Internet market cant do that, with that kind of market share they could have easily offering packages as competitive as our neighbors. But they dont, which ultimately bring to the fact they every single Malaysian is overcharged a lot by TMnet for the low quality internet they offer.


This post has been edited by billytong: Apr 2 2010, 10:22 AM
billytong
post Apr 3 2010, 11:51 AM

Lord Sauron
*******
Senior Member
4,522 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
From: Mordor, Middle Earth.


QUOTE(Wan @ Apr 2 2010, 09:12 PM)
Well not everyone is a heavy downloader. So to a lot of them, they don't care that much about the cap as long as they're able to have fast and stable connection.

Different country, different ball game. Maybe for whatever reasons we pay for bandwidth higher? It's TM we're talking about here.  doh.gif

*

It is true that not everyone are heavy downloader, but I am pretty sure majority are into "Bandwidth on demand" wheres we are once a blue moon using maximum speed of what we pay for. But somehow our TMnet think that a user who only DL 2GB a month or youtube every weekend deserve to be consider a heavy user & needed to receive throttle. doh.gif

As for Unifi, the cap should have triple of what they are offering now. 180GB,360GB,720GB respectively for each of those consumer package.

This post has been edited by billytong: Apr 3 2010, 11:56 AM
billytong
post Apr 3 2010, 03:00 PM

Lord Sauron
*******
Senior Member
4,522 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
From: Mordor, Middle Earth.


QUOTE(Wan @ Apr 3 2010, 12:08 PM)
You meant 2GB a day(or 60 GB monthly, even they dunno what terms they wanted to put, now put on hold until they can study it again)? Yeah that was a crap move, but they haven't enforce it yet. I agree with that. We need bigger cap, and different price structure and cap quota of the same package. I would be so into that..  just make the cap bigger!


Added on April 3, 2010, 1:45 pmChecking my daily bandwidth usage, with 4 people in my home on the 4mbps package.. we don't really use that much bandwidth. Less than a gb on most work days, and below the 2gb mark at other times. The only time I go above that is when I download stuff.
*

no I mean A month, why should a light torrent/rapidshare user who download only 2GB a month be consider as bandwidth hogger and need to be throttled(when the torrent is not encrypted it get throttled). in which I do not understand from my point of view.

I personally do not use 2GB everyday....but on someday when I download something. I can exceed 4-10GB. But when we want to download, anyone of us expect FULL speed, which TM cannot deliver it all the time, and I dont think demanding this is too much for TM.

I can understand the capping provided they DO NOT throttle anything on any kind of data/application we download/use.

This post has been edited by billytong: Apr 3 2010, 03:03 PM
billytong
post Apr 15 2010, 08:40 PM

Lord Sauron
*******
Senior Member
4,522 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
From: Mordor, Middle Earth.


QUOTE(jalan2 @ Apr 14 2010, 11:15 PM)
i think you don't understand economics, or the real world.

TM cannot just wire-up KL or Penang and just ignore everywhere else in Malaysia; as Hanzo explained.

If you have 2 parents (Family A) earning $200,000 & have only 1 child; compared to another family (B) where they earn $50,000 with 8 children, do you think these 9 kids have the same education & benefits? Surely the 1 rich kid (A) can afford Ipods, PS3, swimming at clubs,private school, etc. The other 8 kids (B) will have a totally different lifestyle.... or you think the parents can just help 1 kid & leave the other 7 kids with nothing??????

in other words, imagine TM only put fibre in KL & everyone in KL get 50mbs internet, but the rest of malaysia no need any wiring, no need phones, no need communication....?

*

You dont need to be absolutely that extreme for a comparison. Rural area do not need a Skyscraper, LRT or Unifi

We have 56k and streamyx covering most of our country. Rural area do not need Unifi. Covering KL, Penang as several Major cities is more than enough for now.

IMO, it is much better for TM to provide better infrastructure in the city get 10 people to subscribe VIP20, than laying cable across the country to a smaller city to get 3 VIP5 customer. Its is all about business.

This post has been edited by billytong: Apr 15 2010, 08:49 PM
billytong
post Apr 16 2010, 12:44 PM

Lord Sauron
*******
Senior Member
4,522 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
From: Mordor, Middle Earth.


QUOTE(jalan2 @ Apr 16 2010, 12:43 AM)
No, we're not talking sktscraper or LRT... just telecoms line.

I hope you will re-read original question to understand the real question. Getting 56k to most of Malaysia is NOT FREE. If it cost, say, $2 billion to do that, that's $2 billion that Singapore DID NOT NEED TO SPEND, becos they don't have rest of the country except their own measly 700sq km land area, while TM has to cover even 10% of our 330,000 sq km.

.... and while its nice to say "just get 10 people to subscribe VIP20", well I'm sure you're thinking you are one of the 10? Tell me honestly, is it OK for 10 people (not you) to enjoy VIP20, while the rest of us (i think including you, me, and most of the people in this Forum!) to have 56k....??

Well, even if you don't mind that (becos you're a really nice guy), I really doubt the rest of Malaysia willing to sacrifice their access to hi-speed (oklah, 1 - 4mbs can say hi-speed lah) just so that only a small group of people (oklah, lets say 500,000 people for argument's sake) who happen to stay in KL can enjoy that VIP20 line....!?!?

As a side topic: you say rural area do not need Unifi..... why is that? are Malaysians in rural areas less ambitious/ less smart/ less desirous than city people? Who you think will dare make that decision to tell TM "hey, stop all fibre cabling outside the cities.... no need to give Unifi to rural area becos they don't need it".... the PM? CEO of TM? Really?

Would anybody now staying in rural area please reply to say its OK if TM just forget about giving Unifi to your home..... I'm sure we'll get very interesting results from that poll

anyway, all i said is just for sembang-sembang kosong sake, nothing serious lah..  whatever it is, this is all we got & we just have to live with it .......
*

for the ethical point of view, it is true that it is unfair to leave out the rural area, but from the business point of view. I am all for dropping the rural areas, as it does not getting better ROI as compared to major city.

If I am the share holder of TM, I am still voting for picking the best place that produce best ROI. Broadband business is not charity or fairness. 56K and streamyx is more than enough for rural area unless the rural have enough interest to justified the cable laying & generate better ROI. You dont build 100km of fiber into a isolated area when there is only <5 people show interest for Unifi. for Agreeing Unifi for low demand rural area is like agreeing to build LRT/skyscraper in rural area.

This post has been edited by billytong: Apr 16 2010, 12:52 PM

Topic ClosedOptions
 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
0.0348sec    0.45    7 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 3rd December 2025 - 02:52 PM