See, that's the kind of info users need to be told first. That is, is a monthly cap also a daily cap.

I think that's why they said 25GB is heavy user already. Maybe that is the number they are targetting. If you say 60 or 100GB etc, you are saying everyone is heavy user according to their definition.

All this does not make sense. You cannot ask users to on eg quota when you don't tell them what you plan to do. You cannot ask to agree on bandwidth limit when you don't tell what speed you will be reduced to.

IMO, this meeting was just another PR for TM as if to try and explain what they are doing etc. Those who attended have not let us know what questions they asked and what answers they got. Were the questions raised by some before the meeting even asked? Was there even a Q&A session? Or was it just the presentation from TM side. It looks like that would have taken at least 30-45 mins.

Does anyone have any links to blogs etc of those who attended where more info has been posted?

There must be something coming up early next year...

On a lighter note...

wongpeter, go on and sing...


I heard there was a survey
I heard it wasn't good
And so I came to lyn
To read whatever I could
And there was M XFive Ten
But he didn't say much at all

Slowing our lines for bit-torrent
Throttling our lines for P 2 P
Killing us slowly with their fup
Killing us slowly with their fup
Capping our downloads with their fup
Killing us slowly with their fup... fup fup, fup fup fup fup fup fup

No point arguing amonst ourselves. We do not determine such details as quota, speed or pricing. TM will do what they want.

While I say this survey is incorrect, if you still look at the current results, a total of 60% say they do not agree to revise the FUP or they will leave Streamyx. That should say something. If majority don't want the FUP revised, then not much point talking about what or how to revise.

Its not like they need hundreds of people to sit and watch user accounts. Its all automated. Each user has a profile, they can customize. How do you think they are getting stats? How do you thhink they know there are 1TB downloading users? They are and have been monitoring accounts.

In fact, don't be surprised that they are refining their monitoring right now. After sending this change of FUP etc news to users, maybe a lot of users are frantically downloading right now just in case a CR, VB or LB or whatever is implemented. Gives them a nice opportunity to "catch" more users....

For a little more info about the meeting, have a look at:

http://arsyan.com/blog/2010/12/18/tm-secre...nary-gentlemen/

Yes, that is one main reason I posted the link when I found it.

The other reason is that it says Unifi bandwidth tracker will be ready in Q2 2011. And that the limits may be started in Jul 2011 (though there was a typo and it shows 2010). Does this mean that the limit system was not ready at all right from the start? Is that why TM temporarily suspended it and said it was due to user feedback? Maybe it was really because there was no system in place to begin with? But they made sure they advertised the limits and its included when you signed up.

---

Added on December 19, 2010, 12:07 pmMX510, and Tentris and others who were there. Are you all not able to tell us any more info about the meeting? No one had mentioned about the VPN issue until I found that blog article. Are you all sworn to secrecy? What point is it that you all are supposedly there to represent the users but only act as passing messages back from TM to users?

---

Added on December 19, 2010, 12:11 pmFor this point, please see the presentation slides. It is stated there:


What does this mean? MX510, Tentris, can you clarify? Did you all ask about this?

Is this a way for TM to get ALL Streamyx users on a new 1-2 year contract and thus be subjected to a new FUP that they decide on? There was already discussion earlier that maybe the very old Streamyx users are not even supposed to be subjected to the FUP as it came along later. What does the above statement imply?

---

Added on December 19, 2010, 12:18 pmThis has been my question for a while now. Everyone was sort-of getting along prior to the capping fiasco. And everyone is sort-of getting along now. There does not seem to be much complaints at all abut slowdown nowadays. So why the change? Does it not seem that there is some hidden agenda behind all this?

Sure, its sounds like a conspiracy theory as we have no proof. But now that they liften / relaxed the capping, how many users are still having major problems? Apart from the occasional ones, vs the complaints in the other thread like every 5 mins.



This post has been edited by mylinear: Dec 19 2010, 12:18 PM

Thanks for the clarification. This is why we need more info from the meeting.

No, generally you do not need to go to TMPoint. If they come up with some new packages like Super Upgrades or BlockBuster etc like last time, when you switch to it, you have a new contract and agree to the new TOS, FUP etc automatically.

This is long, but I hope you read with an open mind and can see my point of view. I reserve the right to change my opinion based on new info about this issue.

Note: I am using extreme heavy users as an example to show TM is not doing what they can do, but instead trying to get users to do what may not be necessary in the first place. Apologies to extreme heavy users in advance.

I repeat. This survey is wrong. The question is:
"Fair Usage Policy Revising Do u Agree ?"

There should be details on what revision is to be made. Answers should be only Yes and No. Only if majority say Yes, then we talk further on the details. If its No, then why discuss methods? Of course, this is only if TM really is bothered with the result anyway... or they will do what they want anyway...

While I really don't see what the problem is at this time to bring about such a change, I think this is a way for TM to force something upon users.

If the main problem as they say is the bandwidth issue, and they have stats that show 1% of users is the problem, then they should solve this in stages and not affect the rest of the 99% users.

1. Identify the extreme heavy users. Not according to the definition of 25GB. Instead, according to historical data (eg last 3 months) of the data volume being downloaded. Highest data users are affected first. Lets say its 1TB.

2. The current FUP already caters for this to be done.

So based on that clause, go cap / throttle those accounts. Forget the 25GB heavy user definition. start from the highest heavy users.

3. Study the results.

4. Repeat steps 1-3 for the next batch by reducing the threshold to 800GB, then 600GB, then 400GB. Note these are example figures.

By that time, they would have stabilised the network (if needed) and recovered / conserved bandwidth and contained the extreme heavy users / hoggers.

I already posted before. A 1TB downloading 24/7/365 is equal to probably some 90 normal average users. So you can see if those highest volume users are contained, there will be benefit for many other users.

The other 99% will not be affected. They will not need to pay more. They do not need to worry about CR, VB, LB or whatever. They do not need to worry about PAYU. They can use more data when they need to etc etc. If they so happen to become a extremely heavy user, they will fall into the 1% category and be dealt with accordingly.

So why should the 99% users have to discusss what volume is suitable or what bandwidth limit is suitable etc? Or how much to pay for a GB of data etc? We will never have a suitable figure as each user will want different things for their own usage. We can come to a reasonable figure eg for data limit, or bandwidth limit, but why discuss that when the main problem is something else?

Solve the main problem first. If there are further problems, then that is the next stage. I cannot see why TM is not solving the main problem of the hoggers, if that is actually the problem in the first place. Or there is some other hidden agenda and we are all being forced to go along with some myth...

Lets see. Are the extreme users here eg say downloading 500GB - 1TB per month willing to say how long they have been doing so? Past few month? Since last year? Since few years ago? Ok, if so, why in Nov 2010 suddenly there needs to be a change and have capping? What did that solve? Nothing. And in Dec 2010, all is back to normal. The heavy users are downloading again. So what is the exact problem here?

Previously, they were throttling streaming like .flv etc. This is against their own FUP. It seems they just do whatever is easier to control the bandwidth. So everyone gets affected like what happened last month. This is wrong for TM to do. TM did not follow their own agreement. Users have the right to complain about that.

I will leave out the above point for now.

This is not what happened last month. IMO, there was no bug. It was what they wanted to implement. Again, IMO, it was a flaw in their methodology. With all the complaints, although they say they relaxed it, I think it was actually pulled out. Although we were told by Tentris who was told by TM that it was only relaxed. A point in the blog article also mentions it. For those who may have missed it, see:

I think that's a typo, its not FTP, its FUP.

Last month, TM did not keep to their own FUP when they did not make it a priority for all their customers to have a positive experience. It was a negative experience for almost all users instead. TM did not follow their own agreement.

So go ahead and allow P2P. If users are abusing it to cause the network or other users to have problems, once again, go identify those users and deal with them. Leave everyone else alone. Others are using P2P for valid purposes. P2P is only a problem when it is used to do heavy downloading 24/7/365. Not when users want to download updates, opensource, games etc etc when necessary. I'm not talking about legal vs illegal use of P2P. Just about using P2P in excess by extreme heavy users.

TM, be responsible then. Go educate those so-called hoggers then. They have already been warned in the FUP. Educate them by throttling them. Make tem more responsible by capping them. Leave the rest alone.

I repeat, TM's FUP already allows for controls. There must be some reason they are not implementing it properly and want to revise it instead. It does seem that they want to make AL users accept a new FUP mainly to their own advantage.

To summarize, IMO, we are heading in the wrong direction. I do not know why we are discussing CR, VB, LB etc when there is a solution to the problem. I don't know why some may be pushing PAYU etc when there is a solution to the problem. Yes, PAYU will prevent extreme heavy downloaders, but there is already a ready solution to that problem in the first place without having other users pay more or be restricted more.

So, why discuss what and how to implement rather than discussing whether there is a need to implement at all in the first place. I believe there is a ready solution to the problem without affecting 99% of users. And remember, the 1% is going to be affected one way or another so no difference for them.

So now tell me, do you really think that TM cannot manage the extreme heavy users? Or this is some other hidden agenda and we are all going to fall victims to it?

Finally, with apologies to the extreme heavy users, everyone think carefully.

1. Light / average users
- let TM handle heavy users, not your problem
- you remain happy with current method
- don't worry about CR, VB, CL etc
- don't worry about PAYU
- what you got to lose?

2. Extreme heavy users
- Let TM handle you. You may be unhappy
- If CR, VB, LB etc implemented, you are going to be unhappy anyway
- if PAYU implemented, you are going to be unhappy anyway
- so you are going to be unhappy one way or another

Everyone needs to see the real problem at hand and the solution and the bigger picture, not just their own little picture.

I do not think we should accept that 25GB figure from TM. If you use 30GB, do you consider yourself as a heavy user if you are doing normal surfing activities?

I hope you read my post #414. I think we are on the wrong track of trying to decide what is fair for everyone when there should be no need to do so.

25GB is what they have said is heavy user. Their average / normal user is like 11GB. My point is that 25GB is not a heavy user. So don't base on that. Don't even bother with a figure. Start with the highest hogger and come down from there.

As I said, this has to be done in stages. Control the highest ones first and see what happens. You may not even reach down to say 500GB for all you know once you control the very highest ones.

---

Added on December 19, 2010, 9:29 pmExactly my point. So why are we trying to decide what figure should be used for everyone as a base? And as I say, we don't even need to be looking at that. Let TM handle the highest heavy users first and work their way downwards in stages and see what happens from there.


This post has been edited by mylinear: Dec 19 2010, 09:29 PM

As I said in my previous posts, don't worry about all the calculation. Just start from the highest end and work downwards. You cannot go wrong that way. After all, to be fair, the higher hoggers should be affected before the lower hoggers...

---

Added on December 20, 2010, 2:07 amThat just shows the various offerings from different providers right? It does not mean that they have to be unlimited packages. Also see the footnotes of the document at the end.


This post has been edited by mylinear: Dec 20 2010, 02:07 AM

There is another article here.

http://ghost301tech.wordpress.com/2010/12/...ession-with-tm/

Just a reminder. Deal with the hoggers from the highest first. Not just a blanket thrown on all hoggers at the first stage. Especially when there is no clear defninition of a hogger. When you take the top down approach, you can see what the effects are and stop when it is normalized. Who knows, users using 500GB may not even be affected in this way if there are hundreds / thousands of 800GB hoggers (example only) who are contained.

Maybe there should be a FHP (Fair Hogger Policy) as well...

Actually, you do not have a 1Mbps dedicated line. If dedicated, then yes. Otherwise, you should mostly get 1Mbps but no guarantee of that 24/7. Thats what a contention ratio is about. You have to go get a dedicated / leased line if you want guaranteed bandwidth 24/7. As much as we may not like this, it is a fact.

---

Added on December 20, 2010, 12:30 pmDo you really think these hoggers are actually physically in front of their computer 24/7? No, Its probably all queued / automated to run 24/7. They are probably at school / work while the PC does its thing at home.


This post has been edited by mylinear: Dec 20 2010, 12:30 PM

I think if you just look around these forums, you can already find a handful who have said they download a large amount. There was a post a few days back somewhere where someone said a friend of his downloads 24/7 just because he can, as he pays for it, so he might as well use it fully. Whether it is necessary or not is not the question.

This is nothing to do with VPN, P2P etc etc. Everything has legit uses. So nothing should be targetted or blocked. Just focus on the highest hoggers from top down. The problem will then resolve itself for the majority of others (including light weight hoggers).

Sorry, couldn't remember who it was. Thanks for clarifying the story. I am sure there are many many users like that

I think that 25GB was shown to try and indirectly sway the users to that figure. Then if they say they will give 30GB, we will think that's better.

Also it says 25GB is heavy user. In the FUP, they talk about extremely heavy user. Big difference. And it is very silly for them even to say 25GB is heavy user when they and we know there are users doing eg 500GB to 1TB. This is the kind of point that discredits them even more.

---

Added on December 20, 2010, 2:12 pmYes, I remember that too. Can't remember when though. Maybe 2-3 years back?


This post has been edited by mylinear: Dec 20 2010, 02:12 PM

Remember, you are not subscribing to a 1Mbps or 4Mbps etc Streamyx dedicated line. You would have to pay hundreds RM per month for that instead.

You cannot take eg a 4Mbps package and say that you can download 24/7 to get 1.2TB. That is correct in theory and maths only if you actually have a dedicated line. Not with shared contention based broadband packages.