(1) FTTH was chosen as the delivery method for Unifi. Why? Copper is able to carry up to 24Mbps/8Mbps. Logic suggests that a change in delivery method should only occur when the majority of users are using close to 50% of the bandwidth that an existing infrastructure is able to support. Spending millions on fibre only to offer Unifi packages of 5, 10 and 20Mbps (most likely with a cap in future no less) is questionable to say the least.

If the logic is that fibre is future proof, I'd accept that... My issue with this is, how likely is it that TM upgraded because it's future proof... or because a small group of people will get keys to new Mercedes S500's in the mail... and to get to brag that we have (severely underutilized fibre) in Malaysia? What are the odds that TM will be offering connections even close to 10% of fibre capacity within the next 5 years?

(2) Malaysia started investing in the Internet before South Korea (approximately 2 year head start if I remember correctly)... and yet South Korea is in the news for stuff like this. They have "devised a national plan for 1,000Mbps connections to be commonplace by 2012". Over here in our beloved Malaysia, TM is struggling to roll out our "HSBB" of 5, 10, and 20Mbps. Our "HSBB" which isn't even considered HSBB in any country that isn't wartorn or has bigger problems like starving children. Has our governments decision to let TM have the monopoly on Malaysian Internet come around and bit us in the ass? Does TM believe that we can emulate the South Koreans in any way while we continue down this "TM owns the last-mile" road? (Both were rhetorical questions, don't answer them)

What is TM's standpoint and/or opinion on the current state of our local loop? It is obvious that competition can only improve the quality of our Internet (and hurt the TM bottomline at the same time - which is surprisingly low considering they are the ONLY choice in a vast majority of areas).

This post has been edited by biatch0: Nov 10 2010, 10:13 PM

TM is to blame for the horrible excuse for Internet that we Malaysians have. Don't try to make excuses for them or tell yourself otherwise.

When the decision was made to "gift" the last-mile to TM, TM themselves had only been in the ISP business for about 2-3 years. Jaring on the other hand had been around for about 6 years, had better infrastructure (not counting the last mile) and obviously much more experience in the form of MAL, Big Mac, and a number of "pioneers" who had actually worked to bring the Internet to Malaysia. No "official" statement has ever been made as to why the responsibility of handling the expansion of the Internet in Malaysia was given to a sub-par company that was leaking money out of its ass - and has continued to do so up till today even though it has the monopoly.

As to comparing TM to Maxis/P1, you are comparing apples to oranges. A wired ISP should ALWAYS be better than a wireless ISP... even a horrible excuse for an ISP like TM.

If I was a local wired ISP with my own last-mile like maxis, I would give the exact horrible service maxis is giving right now. I "own" my own last-mile therefore users have to choose between my capped but stable FTTH... or horrible P1 bad service when it rains with a cap anyway.

TM will never be able to provide service on my last-mile (until the day I can provide service on "their" last-mile)... so I have no "real" competition and my customers have no "real" choice.

At the end of the day, TM having the monopoly is still the root of the problem.