Where exactly is this mentioned?

See:
http://biz.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?f...06&sec=business

I had already posted yesterday that I was told that there was no cap until end of this year. It seems like they decided to announce this today and say it is based on user feedback. I really think they had already decided not to have a cap till end of the year anyway, but they had to put in the cap in the advertisements to prevent future complaints from users when a cap is introduced.

It is clear that they are temporarily not implementing the cap for now, most likely till end of this year. It does not mean that there will be no cap at all forever. It probably means that they will resume the cap next year or before that if the situation needs it to be done.

I think the initial cap was put in the packages so that users would already know from the start that there is (or will be) a cap. That is better than suddenly introducing it a few months later.

Also since there are only 4 areas where Unifi is currently available, not having a cap currently should not affect overall performance for new customers. When more areas come on-board in Q3 and Q4, then that will be the time to see if overall performance can be good or not with the increasing number of customers. That is why they have said there would be no cap till end of the year.

What they will probably do now is to monitor users usage over the next few months to see what sort of cap wil be suitable. It will either be more than 60/90/120GB or else they know users will start complaining again then. I do not think they will decide to not have a cap at all later on. In fact, if they have learnt anything from Streamyx operations, they would be smart to most definitely have a cap, which they have done with their initial introduction of the Unifi packages.

The website has probably not been updated. The 7pm radio news today mentioned TM is temporarily suspending the cap for now. Please check previous posts in the past couple of pages, there was a link to a Star article that mentions it too.

Thank you antwar . That was the link I was referring to.

My current impression is that many here were initially against any sort of cap, wanting "unlimited". But now it seems many are willing to accept a cap, as long as it is fairly reasonable. I think this is one thing TM has done by advertising the cap. It has changed some people's mindset. From "unlimited", it has become "bigger cap". Meaning a cap is becoming acceptable.

There will be no way to please everyone with a cap. If they say 500GB, there will be someone who is unhappy as they want 800GB maybe. TM is actually in the best position to study Streamyx users usage and also new Unifi users usage till end of the year and come up with something after that.

I do not think it will be "unlimited". Also, don't be surprised that Streamyx will also be capped eventually. Then you will have to choose between caps and let go of the "unlimited". Or you can get a dedicated leased line if you require that.

You obviously know that is not how it works. If 100 people use 500GB now, do you think when they have 1,000 or 10,000 users, they are going to give 500GB each? There will not be capacity for that.

In fact, it probably works the other way. If initial users use very little, they will give a higher cap since they think not many will actually use the higher cap anyway.

Whatever it is, it is TM who has the statistics from Streamyx users and new Unifi users to decide what cap is fair. Some users will say 30 or 60GB is enough. Some users will say 300 or 600GB is what they want. There is no magic number to suit all users. There can only be a fair number to suit most users.

These figures are just examples.

I had already mentioned something similar a couple of days ago. I think at that time everyone was more interested in "unlimited" rather than a cap. As I said in an earlier post, it seems to me that what TM has done with this cap issue is to get more people to be more accepting of a cap, as long as it is a reasonable cap. I think based on Streamyx experiences, most people just want to have better and stable connections.

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.

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?

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.

You may find some info here:
http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v5/newsbusiness.php?id=472219

While it is true that you can download more with a higher speed connection, please also consider the other point of view. That is, with a higher speed connection, you can download what you used to downoad faster than you used to do. This means you can work more efficiently and save time. So higher speed does not just mean more download, it also helps in being more efficient and productive. It also opens up uses for applications that may not have been possible before.

The problem is that we are only concentrating on wanting to download more with higher speeds. When you moved from 1M to 4M, it was most likely because you felt 1M was too slow to download a movie (for example). Using a 4M, you could download it faster. That was probably the intention. The side effect was that you also now had time to download even more. Thus the thinking became the faster the speed, the more downloads. This is not wrong, but my point is there is also another view to it.


If the NS highway speed limit is raised from 110Km to 150Km, it means you can go from KL to Johor to see your family in less time than it used to take. It does not necessarily mean you can visit 2 or 3 times a day.

I think you are misunderstanding. You do not pay for the whole cake. You are paying for your share of the cake. Everyone is paying for a share only, not the dedicated cake.

When you want to do comparisons like this, you need to take into consideration the product or service and many other factors. You do not just look at prices andconvert the prices and and compare.

For example, a meal at McD's in SG may cost SGD10, in MY may cost RM10, in NZ may cost NZ10. You cannot convert in this case and say one is cheaper than the other. Because meeals are produced locally with local employees etc etc. These sort of things are related to local earning power.

Lets say you have a product from US costing USD100. In SG it may cost SGD140, in MY it may cost RM340. The figures will be different based on forex rates, taxes etc etc. Now say the company in MY is selling that for RM640 instead of RM340. Then you can say that the local company is overcharging because if you go to SG and get it and convert the SG price, it won't come to as much as RM640.

It should be RM88 + RM26 = RM114. Anyway, making a comparison like this is only valid if you accept that a 1M package should cost RM88. If you think that we should have 1M package for RM40 (for example), then you may think differently. At the moment, a 4M package is RM140. So 5M is not expensive at all compared to that. In fact a 10M is also not too expensive compared to that. The point is, it is all relative to what you are comparing with.

This is probably one of the reasons why TM did not reduce Streamyx prices before Unifi was launched. Because then we would be comparing lower Streamyx prices with current Unifi prices and there may be a bigger difference.

Yes, they are not exactly the same, but they are sort of the same. Streamyx combo has Internet + Phone. So does Unifi but with added IPTV. If really not many users are interested in the IPTV, then they are sort of the same just with higher speeds.

If you think Unifi is very different then, Streamyx 4Mb at RM140 must be overpriced a lot since with extra RM9 you can get Unifi with IPTV. So it just depends on which way you look at it and compare them.

While the discussion is mostly about Unifi packages, there is also an underlying issue of having more affordable broadband to the general public. If Unifi prices were lower, Streamyx prices should be lower too. These lower packages would enable those who have not been able to afford broadband to subscribe to it.

Raven-X, you do not have to be rude or condecending to others to put forth your point. If you can afford it, and are happy getting what you are paying for, then go ahead. You do not have to insult others who may be less fortunate than you or have less money than you. What goes around comes around...

I'm also trying to find a definitive answer to whether the fiber line is succeptible to lightning like the copper line.

Also, its not only the copper line which is affected by lightning. Other equipment powered on could also be affected, so most of the time we turn off the equipment and power socket. So even if the fiber line is operating, you can't watch IPTV if your PC/TV is switched off anyway.