This is IMHO.

TM may not want to unbundle the services because I think they had already said that if other players decide to offer services using the HSBB infrastructure, those players have to offer at least 2 services. Those players cannot offer just high speed internet alone. It remains to be seen how many of the other players will offer 2 or more services later down the line.

By offering 3 services from the start, TM has already got a competitive edge against the others. If they only allow HSI, then other players may also come in and start a price war like how it has been with mobile operators. This is of course good for the consumers, but TM will lose foothold if this happens.

For the objective of increasing broadband usage in the country, the Unifi prices which are above Streamyx prices, and Streamyx prices which has not been lowered across the board will not help at all. If someone can explain how it will, I'd like to hear your opinion.

If someone (does not matter whether in the city or in a village) does not have broadband because they feel even Streamyx packages are not affordable to them (eg RM88), then how do you expect those same people to even consider Unifi packages at RM149? What digital lifestyle do they want for RM149 when they can't even afford RM88 normal broadband lifestyle?

Think about it. Forget our unlimited vs cap for a moment. Think about those who have not been able to afford broadband. What logic is there thinking that by showing them high speed downloads and videos of how a digital lifestyle may look like, these people can suddenly fork out RM149 and get it? Because it has voice also? Because it has IPTV also? If they had RM149, they would probably already have Streamyx combo + Astro for around the same price.

I also think that the Unifi packages are mostly attractive to 2 / 4 Mb users. I do not have statistics, but my guess is that majority of Streamyx users are at 1Mb. This is probably why those lower package prices are not being reduced. Again, think about it. 2/4 Mb has been around for RM140-160 for a while now. Why hasn't most 1Mb users moved to that? Most likely because they do not think that the increase in price is worth it or they don't need it. So what are the chances that same 1Mb user will consider 5Mb now? Because it is fiber? Because there is IPTV? After all, the price for 2/4Mb is roughly near the 5Mb.

I think the 1Mb users who moved to 2/4 Mb did so mostly when they were experiencing Streamyx slow down over the past 1 year or so with the hope of getting faster connections. Then there was that premium IP thing so many moved to the higher packages. But later it seems that they too continued to experience Streamyx slow down etc.

How many brand new users (never had broadband before) are going to get Unifi straight away at RM149? Most such brand new users would have had Streamyx available to them for the past few years at least. So I do not think that is the target market. The target is existing Streamyx users, especially 4Mb). Which is why Unifi is priced more than Streamyx. TM hopes that theses users will migrate to Unifi. How exactly does that increase broadband users in the country if its just the same users moving from one package to another?

If TM is serious on promoting digital lifestyle using HSBB, then the HSBB pricing should be comparable with current Streamyx pricing so that most Streamyx normal broadband lifestyle users can move on to the new digital lifestyle. The Streamyx packages must then be drastically reduced in price so that at least those who don't even have broadband now can slowly get it at a very low price and hopefully move on to the digital lifestyle in the future.

All that has been done now is to introduce "higher Streamyx packages known as Unifi" with no or very little adjustment to overall broadband prices to make it more affordable to everyone. At this rate, it seems to me that the so called new digital lifestyle is only going to increase the digital divide gap even more.

You are, of course, making the unfortunate assumption that TM and the government actually have the people's best interest at heart

This post has been edited by mmmaak: Mar 27 2010, 06:21 PM

Well, looks like i'm not jumping into the whole HSBB anytime soon. Went to TMpoint this morning only to find out that they haven't covered my postcode yet, although I am residing less than 15KM from the Main Exchange. *duh*

You see, the thing is, they're FORCING us to subscribe to IPTV. Now, I wouldn't care much if it's a good proposition but the fact of the matter is, it is not. The IPTV channels are simply channels that brings little to no excitement or interest to most people. I can understand abt the VOIP but that's insignificant since even if offered as an option, it wouldn't cost much.

There SHOULD be other players to compete with them at least on an equal level. Competition breeds progress as each companies tries to one-up each other. After all, TM would have the least worries if it has competitions. They're backed by the govt and the government would never let any of their investments go bankrupt.

QFT.



This post has been edited by Demonic Wrath: Mar 27 2010, 06:58 PM

But whether we like it or not, a cap has to be in placed for this UniFi.. Due to speed and human nature, it is only natural that people fully utilize it... lol!

Besides, with cap in place, TM will not have an excuse to throttle any services such YouTube or p2p or direct streaming...

At the same time, we are also putting them in a position if at all we compromise... If they continue to behave as stupidly as they usually do, then, I think consumers would rather just wait for YTL and other ISPs to roll out their next generation broadband... In the mean time, TM will be making losses...

Ahh... more like Rapidshare's method... I could be a good idea, but I don't bringing forward the cap would help consumers in any way... Imagine consumers who rarely download stuff... This month use 28 GB, next month use 25 GB, following month use 22 GB... In those period, they've already accumulated 15 GB in those three months... But the thing is that, consumers with such consumption is not going to utilize it... So why waste it??? Just give it to someone who will utilize it... lol!

---

Added on March 27, 2010, 7:05 pmGoes to show how ignorant our government has been about the people... They are so out-of-touch with what the average person goes through in life... Its probably due to the fact that they are more of businessmen than politicians... TM as a monopoly has a responsibility of providing the best quality and continuously making internet affordable in Malaysia and since they are also a GLC... If they are not competent to provide such services, then they shouldn't be allowed to be a monopoly... lol!

This post has been edited by bluephoenix87: Mar 27 2010, 07:05 PM

In the report about access to HSBB infrastructure by other providers, one of the points was

What exactly is the problem for another provider to sell the bandwidth (which they are leasing) at a higher price to a consumer (to make their own profit)? It seems to me that by having this restriction, Rather than to protect the consumer, is it more to protect TM itself so other providers do not sel HSI at a lower price than what TM is doing now?

I think I saw a diagram, either on this forum or on some website, which showed how a consumer could subscribe for services from more than one provider on the same HSBB line. Can anyone remember such a diagram?If so, how is that possible if Unifi already bundles all 3 services?

I don't know how TM can make a definition between raw data and video services to be honest. Raw data itself can encapsulate video, audio and basically anything to be interpreted by a PC and most people just want bandwidth anyway.

Just look at the amount of SG user with 1080p HDD Media Players & you'll know that they are also "Pirates"

While everything is eventually classified as data, I think in this case video refers more to video-on-demand kind of service, maybe pay-per-view etc, or maybe some sort of video conferencing service etc.

The govt has a substantial investment in TM. Of course the HSBB infrastructure laws were constructed to TM's favor.

there is no such thing as good capping.

bandwidth is selling at the unit of 'bit / sec', in other words at ANY given time of the subscription period the user should and entitled for the capability to access the data desired at the promised bandwidth.
instead today they are selling you limited 'capacity', but making claims of 'high bandwidth' as the selling point.

it is simply wrong, how hard is this for ppl to understand anyway?

lol its unlimited now until they have enough customers^^

i won't subscribe :\

I just found out that Thailand's TRUE broadband service offers 4mbps at RM60. http://www.trueonline.com/th/package.aspx

WTH TM?! This is how you should do things!

TRUE is another monopoly FYI, but about their internet quality, I don't really know.

Yeah sure but at least they offer better pricing than TM.

when compare to singapore, they will say singapore is a small country so its easy for them to lay good quality bandwidth with low cost, and when compare to bigger country like thailand, they will say bigger country got bigger population thus more income to lay the network, and when compare to some advanced country, they will said they have advanced technology, basically, there is no reason we can compare with any1.

That's why we neevr progress.
Don't compare, do the best you can do.
But I think TM can do way better than this if they didn't monopoly .

Indeed. As I mentioned a few posts back, competition breeds progress. And innovation.

Too bad that ain't gonna happen anytime soon. The govt is backing TM and to them monopoly means money money money.

This post has been edited by lamusiqa: Mar 27 2010, 07:59 PM

Bottom line....it's not the size of the country that matters, but the brain size of the people who run it