The unlimited fiber usage at this moment is consuming most of their bandwidth at this moment.

Admit it. They can't implement the volume cap with their Unifi users at this moment because it would be a 2nd blow to them as well people would steer away from subscribing Unifi fending off many potential subscribers.

Here's a 3rd solution:

Make your HSBB network neutral and allow other isps to come in.

maybe the bandwidth limit should follow the HDD size like 120gb, 320gb, 500gb.

dont really think they will leave this FUP out for good regardless what we say, when I signed my contract in 2004, dont even have this FUP crap in it, TM just change as they like.

I vote for limited bandwidth as like it or not FUP probably here to stay, as well ask TM to give a a real bandwidth number so we could manage our downloads with condition that no more throttle p2p or certain sites, no specific ip priority(like mine 60.xx nicest ping, 115cap, 118 uncap, 124 local cant even load sometimes). However the bandwidth must be a realistic value, not like 1 TB a month which beat the purpose of bandwidth limit which most probably TM will reject anyway, or only <60gB as we are already paying premium for such low speed.

100% no to contention ratio like what is happening now, everyone slowed to 256/384 indiscriminately. Even though my speedtest shows that I'm getting 1.5mbps for my 1mbps package, using monitoring software can see that the download speed varies also (like triangle shape, go to max rate then drop back 50KB, then back up)

allow MAXIS already ma...

i like the way before the experiment started. now every thing is turning into a mess.

agree about? btw, i'm on 512 line.

i think 512kbps should be the baseline if they intended to capped, and not anything lower than 512kbps.

if TM insist on aplying volume cap this is what i want or most of us want

512Kbps -> 50-80GB per month
1Mbps -> 80-150GB per month
2Mbps -> 150 -250GB per month
4Mbps -> 250 -350GB per month

screw those who download 1TB per month, Just because u download 1TB for yourself.. all of us have to suffer 
i see that volume cap is pretty reasonable for me.. as i only download a max 150Gb per month. 
user may different

Before I cast my vote, does revising FUP mean it's a good thing or a bad thing?

Sure enough, it was already said before...  normally after this sort of meeting with some users, something like this will happen, and it has.

It really seems that TM is using these user group meetings to do their dirty work for them. They let some users go and spread the news and get feedback. Seriously, a large company like TM can't do this sort of survey or pass on news by themselves??

Yes, and let me also say this. Say for example the result is everyone agrees to a data transfer limit. Then the next survey will be focused on that. And they give you a choice of 5Gb, 15GB or 20GB . Then what? You will say, ok let's just take the highest one since they all seem low anyway and so vote for 20GB. Example only.

IWO, they can dictate how the outcome is going to be according to what the outcome they would like to have. Mainly because there is no further info, no way to get answers, no way to debate anything.

Look at the survy options again. Take for example:
Limited Bandwidth like UniFi VIP packages ( 60GB per month )

Was it just MX510 who put 60GB to show as an example of how it is for Unifi?

Or is it really 60GB? For which package? 1Mb? 2Mb? 4Mb? Or for everyone irrespective of package?

How can you agree to data transfer limits when you are not told what they would be?

How can you agree to contention ratio when you do not know what the ratio will be and even if you do, how exactly will the contention be resolved and bandwidth distributed?

There is not enough info or answers. You must have that to make an informed decision.

I signed up for an unlimited service. I did not sign up for some BS fair usage policy to be tacked on at a later date.

So I guess that is a "hell, no!" for me then.

So, what I can see so far is:

A. We give more $
B. They provide less
C. Why exactly is TS providing VPN / "downloading" service?

Great meeting indeed.

---

Added on December 18, 2010, 10:11 am

I really have no idea who started this cockamie theory.

Unifi is eating all the bandwidth so Streamyx got non left.

It's the type of simplistic conspiracy theory that simple minds will buy.

/rant

from the slide they are planning to apply VB of RM2 perGB on streamyx user as well.. If compared 20Mbps speed it bang for the buck

wtf their management is thinking ??????? 512Kbps exceed VB have to pay RM2 per GB..ridiculous indeed