I think they shouldnt touch the 512/128k lines... 512k is just enough to browse a webpage with decent speed, provided it's 512k all the way and 128k of upload is also needed to be constant. hav to remember that in order to receive... u hav to send(layman terms)

Heavy users should be the one who are throttled. not the whole network. there should also be exclusion to certain websites that have relays nearby or locally such as youtube and google (do not count data from these website)

While i rest my case on banning illegal downloading, i still think heavy users should be throttled. since TM wont buy bandwidth to cater all and they have said that many times... it's something that has to be done i guess.

Yes, the 10% affecting 90% might sound like an excuse, but this is the only choice they are giving us, so i think we have to get the best of what they are giving. 1% of something is better than 100% of nothing. unless we are ready for full scale "war" with TM, which is a GLC...

And well... TM is one of the only major GLC that has not been suffering losses. others like sime darby, perwaja, MAS etc has lost big amounts of money, belonging to the public, so i would take it as they do not want to end up like the others. thus, giving priority to business users, cooperation, enterprise, while normal home users will have to give in to them. - just an assumption.

But then again, we are already so far left behind from other developed countries in terms of internet technology, in overall speed and quality of service. while taking measures like FUP, TM should allocate more resources to improve quality. and not to look at it in a sense of expenditure to the company. but benefit for the nation instead.

Also, their FUP policy is very sketchy... no clear definition as to what and how they are doing it.
is the FUP going to take account LOCAL HTTP downloads?
is the FUP going to take account LOCAL media streaming and LOCAL sites?
because i think that if they have to resort to implementing FUP on local /near neighbors, they really fail as an ISP.
international links? what kind? torrent protocols? all protocols? voip? all executable extensions? all archived extensions?
yeah, a 500mb exe file from megaupload is most likely software piracy, but what about a 500mb file from download.com?
what about antivirus softwares that use archives to update?

then again they have to remember that 1 streamyx line does not equate to 1 streamyx user.
for example a 4mbps international capacity, if shared by 5 persons, would be okay for normal browsing and casual video streaming etc as there is .8mbps to share among all 5. but if they hard cap the international link to 1mbps, everyone is only left with .2mpbs to work with, and that would not be good for a house with 5 users.

TM has to set up a research team on their own if they really want this to happen. Dont say that they are using us to do surveys, this is actually the best way, for them to know what is needed to be done, provided it is done properly

This post has been edited by andrew9292: Dec 18 2010, 01:57 AM

Nope i wasnt at any meeting, except last year's...

And yes i agree with that too. There has to be more info given to the FUP they are devicing, if they want us to save their bandwidth for the benefit of all, we need to know what to save on!

And also there is just too many conditions to take into account... like my example above of 1 streamyx account doesnt equate to 1 streamyx user (which puts the hard cap on international links extremely ridiculous especially for anything lower than 5mbps, a hard cap on the line overall is even more ridiculous) even if household of 5 online users do not pirate the internet, it will easily reach their quotas... so a hard cap is a no-no.

i would lean on much deeper traffic management such as by protocol, but more importantly by the source then file extention. but then again, this requires their NOC to be monitoring 24/7/365 on the network, to discover new protocols and new sources, which should be throttled, and which should be excluded. which is legit and which isnt and this (if they really put resouces into doing it) might end up costing as much as buying more bandwidth

Hopefully asap

This post has been edited by andrew9292: Dec 18 2010, 02:24 AM

Go ahead, Then we will go back to these days:

http://forum.lowyat.net/index.php?showtopi...xtreme+Streamyx
http://forum.lowyat.net/index.php?showtopi...xtreme+Streamyx
http://forum.lowyat.net/index.php?showtopic=1040300&hl=
http://forum.lowyat.net/index.php?showtopic=990708&hl=

Extreme Streamyx slowdown V6, 5, 4, 3 ... where there is even packet loss to local links... where even webpages will not load...where latencies spike as high as 1000ms. Where downloads crawl as low as 0.5kBps... where 1 day in LYN in that thread can register 10, 20 pages or more!

This post has been edited by andrew9292: Dec 18 2010, 02:36 AM

Bro, it's very misleading. I think many have clicked on No assuming that they ( tm ) shouldnt even think of implementing the FUP. You didnt state that earlier...
Suggest you close and create a new poll.

This post has been edited by andrew9292: Dec 18 2010, 02:39 AM

and we're not even sure what the current FUP is... it has changed so much in such a short time... extention, protocol, hardcap, international cap... and the changes does not uniformly apply to all users...

suggest that the definition of the Current FUP to be obtained from TM and stated in 1st post...

This post has been edited by andrew9292: Dec 18 2010, 02:47 AM

Again, i have been ignored.

I've ask, what kind of traffic does TM take into account for their VB? LB? FUP? Local included or International only?

If local included... it's a very big nono.
If i've not mistaken youtube, blogspot and google (all those belong to google) have servers in malaysia.
I believe the Microsoft has a server locally also for their windows update.
If they are going to take into account traffic sent and received locally... this VB is a big no.

If international traffic only, then i think it would be okay.

BUT, my question is, what is the point of this? Are they thinking that those heavy users will be afraid of RM2 per GB, and forego their downloading activities? Thus, reducing network congestion? What if they don't?

Also, remember that UniFi network is expanding, this will work for a while. But by end of next year or so i guarantee you, it will be back to square 1.

I think it's better if TM will show, what will the effect of this VB and FUP bring.
Example,
now the International Gateway is at 90% capacity 100% of the time.
after FUP and VB, the forecasted capacity of the IG will be at 70%capacity 100% of the time... etc...
then at the current rate of expansion of users, it will go back to 90% capacity in... X months time.
after that? users will start to suffer again... then they realise... then?

Increase 1GB to RM21?



This post has been edited by andrew9292: Dec 18 2010, 03:24 PM

Yeap, exactly what i meant. It will be a short term thing, where it will clear up the IGW congestion for the moment. But once more people come in, even if they do not reach their bandwidth quotas, it will be back to square 1.

That was the reason why i'm against online piracy...it kills...

I like it too, if i am the only one using the line.
For a family for 5, having 3 laptops, on a 2mbps line...
An average youtube video is around 20MB...
If every 3 laptop users open 10 youtube vids in 24hrs (3 morning, 3 afernoon, 4 night)...
that will amount to 600MB of usage a day x 30days = 18GB already.

That's only on streaming, what about others like web browsing and so on. Antivirus software update for 3pc, windows update for 3pc, etc
That's why i'm saying, do not take into account those local available content like youtube etc...
They are going on an assumption that 1line=1user. Which is very wrong...

In fact some of the "10%" heavy users, might be in this situation... where 1 line is shared by many... thus the "heavy usage"

which is the best option for now... no idea.

This post has been edited by andrew9292: Dec 18 2010, 03:57 PM

And if they are going to do this VB thing, they have to guarantee the users a maximum latency and minimum bandwidth to work with, and exclude local links...

Otherwise it'll be like what mylinear said, the extra bandwidth they save will be used for new subscribers... and when u get newer subscribers especially the one's on Unifi... it all comes back to square 1... unless TM already has a plan to, lets say... after every 10000 streamyx users sign up, increase capacity by (x)Gbps, after every 1000 Unifi users sign up, increase capacity by (2x)Gbps etc...

Otherwise this MIGHT, be a conjob... solve the current problem but create a bigger long term problem, it will be worse as when we need to pay for more we use, we are still not guaranteed anything, and when they reach their limit again, the VB solution does not solve anything... users will try hard not to cross the limit, but still experiencing slow network...the IG will get congested again. and we will come back to right here right now, discussing a new FUP. - just assuming, we are not TM and we dont have the real data with us...

This post has been edited by andrew9292: Dec 18 2010, 08:35 PM

150gb then throttle gives u 5gb a day for a month... enough to pirate 1 or 2 movies, stream some stuff and browsing... it will not solve anything then. since people still get to pirate and hog the bandwidth. by the time u reach 150, damage is done.

have to remember that not all streamyx line = 1 streamyx user. If u cross the limit, and get throttled it will be bad for those that are sharing 1 account especially families, students etc

I don't think i paying for a whole 50GB one shot is the best. There are people out there who are do not have the capability to spend so much extra. It's just a small inconvinience to go by the GB. Besides, that will encourage more people to use up their extra one shot 50GB... this again will not solve the hogging issue.

I do agree on the national price standardization though... especially for the streamyx 1-4Mbps range, there are so many packages and prices, and if they implement VL/VB on this, it wont be fair to all. Excluding coolunipack of couse, since that is the government's initiative for students...

This post has been edited by andrew9292: Dec 18 2010, 09:34 PM

I know that last year's cable outage on SMW and APCN caused them to lose 20Gb/s+ of bandwidth which was why it was crawling last year or so.

This post has been edited by andrew9292: Dec 18 2010, 09:57 PM

since they want rm2 per gb. they should divide by the current pricing, since it's quite expensive, this should be to our advantage somewhat.

RM88/2 = 44gb
rm110/2 = 55gb
rm140/2 = 70gb
rm160/2 = 80gb

and so on

u pay more u get more, u want more u pay even more
but does this solve the congestion, idk

This post has been edited by andrew9292: Dec 19 2010, 12:05 AM

edit

This post has been edited by andrew9292: Dec 20 2010, 02:10 AM

0-50= <10GB ......|18%| total traffic (50% of subs use less than 10GB, 18% traffic)
51-75 = 10-25GB..|36%| total traffic (25% of subs use 10GB to 25GB, 36% traffic)
76-90 = >25GB.....|45%| total traffic (14% of subs use use more than 25GB, 40% traffic)
91-100 = ????.......|xx%|
...........................=99%=

i'm confused? apa ini... math pun tak betul and u wanna manage bandwidth of 1.8million people?

then what about 1% consuming 20% of total bandwidth as per slide below...

where should i put them in the above? apa la... no accurate data how to measure what is needed properly... whaffak

Unless the slide above (1st) means TOTAL TRAFFIC (local and int)
and the 2nd slide only refers to INTERNATIONAL TRAFFIC
... if so... this is a big conjob....
the problem they are facing is at International Gateway (international traffic)
if they show total traffic for the 1st slide... it's just BS and for nuts...just a tactic to confuse you...
nevertheless which one it refers to, it still posses a problem. whether total traffic or international traffic... there is a range of 91-100 which is empty...
any clearer picts of the slide? i cant derive the figures from the chart...

MX510 can ask them to clarify?

Otherwise, they are presenting a case with... Sorry to say, false facts. Which we can immediately dismiss. Ask them to come around again, with the proper and clearer figures. It's not that we're not helping them, they're not helping themselves...

Yes, bandwidth is limited and expensive...understood.
Yes, TM is one of the GLC that has not lose public money like MAS, Perwaja, sime darby... understood.
Yes, TM wants to keep it that way, so that their shareholders (public) will have confidence in this GLC...understood.
Yes, TM wants to strike a balance between their shareholers and consumers which is also public, to have confidence in this GLC... understood.

But come on, better powerpoint slides as a start perhaps?

btw if they have 1.8mil streamyx subs.. and if everyone is to get at least 256kbps contention ratio of international traffic... they would need...
1 800 000 x 256 kbps = 54.9316406 GBps of international traffic...
if we double it up
1 800 000 x 512 kbps = 109.863281 GBps of international traffic...

since they can only offer 256kbps as contention... i guess the allocation for streamyx is only around 100Gbps and below...
they have unifi to take care of...
they have enterprises with leased line to take care of...
they have other leased line customers to take care of...
they have other ISPs in malaysia to supply to...
they have to "cache CDN content" constantly which requires bandwidth too...
so a guestimate would mean they have only around 200gbps of international traffic... which isnt that little actually... but not enough definitely
which is why the caps and panic now...

Last year when APCN and SMW cable had faults, they should have lost about 25Gbps of international bandwidth... which is why the network was crawling - this would reaffirm that they definitely have less than 100Gbps for streamyx - since the loss of about 25Gbps will cause the contention to drop to near 56k speeds, which was what happened last year. - remember the high latency - high packet loss - low bandwidth era?

So now we roughly know the figures.
This is a guesstimation and i did not steal any information from TM. If it's a violation, please contact me and i will remove asap. - Andrew T.

just as a reminded to everyone if assuming they set 25GB per month... and u dont want to pay extra...

25GB/30 days = 0.83GB/day = 850MB/day
850MB per day / 24 Hours = 35 MB per hour

35MB per hour / 60 min = 0.5MB per min
0.5MB per minute / 60 sec = 9kByte/s
9kByte/s = 72kbit/s
(all figures rounded up/down)

so... according to your own usage per day... still want this?
i calculated all the way down to per second, just as a comparison to their contention of 256kb/s... (min 256kbps for everyone, but no maximum guaranteed)

which is better now? heh. bt remember if they contention all the way... i dont think anyone can live with a 256kbps line half the day ( "when congestion hits" )

the best solution is still like what mylinear said... deal with the hoggers. not everyone.
"if cars traveling at 150km/h are causing accidents and stand-still jams... deal with them the speeding ones... dont reduce the speed limit 25.6km/h for all or maximum travel distance of 25km damnit!"


This post has been edited by andrew9292: Dec 20 2010, 04:21 AM

Wrong. Zoom out to the bigger picture. It's Barisan National that wanted to increase the broadband penetration again and again and again. TM is just following orders I guess...
"it's not a choice, it's a lack of options"

TM's profit, Shareholders satisfaction, and End user satisfaction, government's satisfaction - someone has to got to give in order for another to benefit. We all know this. And this is what happens when u try to strike a balance for all... just be lucky that TM is involving us in part of a decision that will affect us all. It's the right thing to do. They could have just included a new policy "terms subjected to change without prior notice" in our agreements...

anyways, lets get back to topic and start crunching numbers. hopefully MX510 can update on their flawed slides, and whether our suggestion are being forwarded to TM

This post has been edited by andrew9292: Dec 20 2010, 03:58 AM

^



Agreed with this, which was why i was tryin to analyze their slides and numbers, the missing part is the most important part for this solution.
Once we have the numbers and estimates, there could be better suggestions on how to deal with these users, then on whether it is possible or not (some might say it's taking their rights away and so on)

but i think this has to be an ongoing solution - because when there are new subscribers, eventually TM has to face the fact that they need more bandwidth, on how long is another matter.

there is another long term solution that has to be ongoing also, to push for CDN on bandwidth heavy content. but this will not work against hoggers which their content is actually not available even if there is CDN. Thank god Google and it's sisters are already available locally - i cannot imagine how TM will survive if youtube has to be relayed anywhere out of this country... lol

the ultimate way to stop hoggers - law and enforcement - and it has to be really precise - which means up to the level that a few providers in LYN will run out of business...

another long term solution is to have a cable linking to the states or elsewhere, where it belongs majorly to TM. Then Malaysia could be the network hub for the souther part of south east asia. but this requires alot of planning and so on - which is out of our reach - and shoudnt have to be our reach - we shouldnt have to decide if a cable carrying light rays should be more important than a 100 story building if u get what i mean

This post has been edited by andrew9292: Dec 20 2010, 04:23 AM

another way to throttle is progressively...

for example for a 2mb line, once reached
15GB... 90% of international speed
25GB... 80% of international speed
35GB... 70% of international speed.
45GB... 60% of international speed.
55GB-100GB... 40% of international speed.
>100GB... RM5 per GB (still 40%)

anything less than 40% of international speed would be too low for a house that uses a 2mb line for a whole family...
so this is where the RM2 per GB should come in... or... just keep it at 40%... until they cross a high mark (unlikely) of 100GB... then start the RMx per GB

then for a 1mb line, throttling the international speeds too much will cause the line to be unusable for household more than 1 user... hence for this package,
15GB... 95% of international speed
25GB... 90% of international speed
35GB.... 80% of international speed
45GB.... 70% of international speed
55GB.... RM 2 per GB (still 70%)

55GB of international is quite alot for 1Mbps (i think, for my usage)... it's about 1.8GB a day... is about 75MB per hour... but i doublt people will online 24 hours, if you are, for the reason of pirating something, then, well, u'll suffer, which is the point

... so if you make it 12 hrs... it will be 150MB of international traffic per hour for 12hours of online time a day... for 30 days in a month. If you make it 6 hour online a day in a month... u will get 300MB per hour before you start payin...

... do note that this is international and excluding local CDN stuff like youtube...

somethin like that...
it also follows "u pay more u get more" ideology..
and also...the more u troll the bandwidth...the more we'll take it away from you...
and yes, *we pay for unlimited*
it's just advertising terms. if petrol company says "unleash the full power of your engine", it doesnt mean if your engine is capable of producing 150hp will produce 150hp when using that petrol... same for TM i guess... they have defined "unlimited" as unlimited time.

Same goes to all that Shampoo products that reduce dandruff, that can actually rebond (straighten your hair) as shown in their ads on TV... if it does for you, great. If it doesnt, well...

anyways TM will do this one way or another i guess...

this way, TM gets to save bandwidth w/o affecting average users much
moderately heavy users will be slightly affected
heavy users will be affected
hoggers will suffer

This post has been edited by andrew9292: Dec 22 2010, 02:22 AM

Alot GLC also runtuh what for the past decade or so... TM only GLC that hasn't gone down the drain and doing quite well...
effective cost management? but at the cost of end users...

Anyways it's a good thing they finally let lose, admit it and consult end users... Otherwise it would be same old...

Cable fault
Circuit fault
Cable fault
Circuit fault
NGN Upgrades
IPCORE Upgrades
Cable fault
Cable fault
Circuit fault
X100