My almost full early chronology is here: https://forum.lowyat.net/index.php?showtopi...post&p=98687370

- I decided to apply for Celcom home Fiber. 31st Oct, I went to Celcom center (Menara Atlan) to register my interest. They will check with TM team first becos my case is special (address is sharing between many tenants) They ask me to wait several days for any update.
- Celcom contacted me on 4th Nov and forwarded the email from TM team to me. In the email again mentioning my address already have active account with Unifi. TM asking me to go to TM point to solve the issue.
- Went to TM Point @Menara TM and show them the email.. And of cos after checking with my IC no, TM said NO active account under my name. I called the Celcom CS to speak with TM CS. TM CS ask Celcom to create "dummy address" so they can install fiber on that address.
- Celcom mentioning he is arranging someone from TM to visit to my place. to verifying bla bla... the process will take time.
- Celcom called me today, the TM will not come to my place.. not possible to install Unifi and Celcom at the same address (WTF )
- I went to MenaraTM again, need to explain again to the CS my situation .. I called the Celcom CS and let him to speak to TM CS. after bla .. bla.. Celcom CS said TM is the one need to create the "Dummy Address". When the address is available in the system, only that Celcom can pick that address to do the installation.. WTF.. that day TM said otherwise I said I want to solve my problem today. I also mention I open a report to MCMC as well. She disappear a while to see her boss.
- Come back to me and give me report no

- and well.. need to wait 7-14 days for any update..

This post has been edited by Sabenarian: Nov 6 2020, 04:13 PM

meaning 1 address only can register 1 fiber only?

It seems so. Because TM do not allow 2 services running at the same time on their infra. That's why nowadays cannot run Maxis and Unifi at the same house anymore.

in SG you can register two fiber on same time. Why not in malaysia

Lucky me then. I am running both Maxis and TM concurrently in the same house.

Using 1 modem/ONU for both, or two separate modems/ONUs?

same ONU.

SG Broadband penetration rate is already over 90%, IPS have to find a way to sell more broadband

And actually no point to have same broadband service in a same premises, when it is down time both also down. You can apply 2 different ISP in a same premises in fact.
example Unifi + TIME

Forget about Maxis, because most of the time Maxis are using Unifi infra, unless Maxis do have their own infra in your area.

This post has been edited by pl95077: Nov 7 2020, 02:10 PM

yeah i mean you can get different provider in the same time to enjoy two fiber on the same time.

For majority of the household, it is not possible to have both Unifi and Time. Just look at Time's coverage and you'll understand. And the rest of the ISP mostly riding on TM's infra.

thats new, last year I using my friend house and register maxis, then bridge the LAN 2 via Wireless

Now cannot. If you register for another ISP running on TM infra, and you have current Internet running, they will ask you to switch instead of installing the other service.
Previously you could register for Maxis while Unifi is running and vice versa, then terminate the other ISP once your installation complete. That's how some people end up having both Maxis and Unifi running at the same time.

This post has been edited by YoungMan: Nov 7 2020, 05:47 PM

The decision is quite silly actually then, why in the first place they supply a 4-port fibre modem(ONT) to customers then if their policy is only to restrict 1 ISP per premise.

Even Google Fiber Jack, France SFR, TNB Allo also supply single port mini ONT only to their customers.

4-port fibre modem(ONT) more opportunity to pocket money in tenders?

The reason why Nucleus Connect Singapore provides a 4 port ONT(only 4 ethernet ports with no phone jacks) was because they allowed upto 4 simultaneous ISPs per fibre modem each supplying their own routers.

If you only allow 1 ISP per premise at any time, why you supply a 4 port ONT?
This contradicts the reason between both ways.

Just be frank, they don't want customers to switch easily and they want to monopolize the line prioritizing their own Unifi brand.

The other reason is that Unifi routers will use port 1 of the 4 ports while other competing ISPs use port 2.
Port 1 will be capped higher than your subscribe plan while port 2 which is for other ISPs will always be capped exactly as your subscribed plan giving you a "buffer bloat" effect which results in speeds lower than what you subscribe because of TCP overheads.

If they were to be like TNB allo all ISPs including its own City Broadband use only 1 single ethernet port, then everyone gets the same treatment and rule without the "buffer bloat" condition which only applies to ethernet port 2.

These are TM's dirty monopolistic tricks to make their own Unifi brand look better than its competitors sharing their network.

For my opinion, before this, speed max only 100Mbps. That's why they can still support to provide 2 different account as the line is still under utilised. Maybe their equipment not supported if all house want to subscribe 800Mbps for both telco. So, they stopped this way.

Pointless. Just subscribe to UNIFI since all home fibre plans in all major telcos (Maxis, Celcom, Digi etc) all rely on TM facilities.

Only TIME Broadband is unique in its own way but then again, TM monopoly means that TIME cannot expand its facilities to wider public.

That is why there are ISPs who are unwilling to join TM's HSBB until today such as TIME to expand their coverage. They have less control over their pricing plans due to TM's wholesale arrangements, depend on TM to provide enough ports for customers and subjected to TM's routing at least for the first 2 hops before reaching their own network.

They rather place their hope on 5G wireless to skip TM's last mile but build their own fibre backhaul directly to base stations. The interests for fixed wireless and 5G is now catching up in many developed countries where fibre infra is already widely deployed like Japan.

Ask why so, many Japanese people say it's hassle free, no need to wait for troublesome installation appointments, wiring and drilling. Just either collect their modems from the customer centers or couriered directly to them. Just turn on the modem and do some minor configuration and already up online.

For those telcos and ISPs unwilling to join the TM HSBB plan, they acted in silos instead of working together to compete against TM infrastructure monopoly.
Imagine if Digi, Maxis, Yes Mobile and the likes (excluding Celcom since it's owned by TM) coming together to form a single private consortium to setup their own fibre bases and backbones similar to TIME.

The 5G coverage is remained to be seen. Also, that can easily span at least a few more years before the 5G execution can take place.

Till then, our best bet is still the fibre broadband with most stable connection.

That is the reason of TNB Allo emergence. TIME weren't keen to do landed as well.
It'll be too costly to build the last mile all for yourself when you're already a major mobile network other than expanding your backhaul networks to fiberised base stations.

Maxis does serve a very limited landed housing areas, such as Sierramas and BU. Also they do wire up commercial buildings and apartments/condos with their own fibre infra just like Time. Just that they need to allocate their investment for upcoming 5G network buildouts.

Celcom has its East Malaysia fibre network buildout called Celcom Timur.

If 5G is coming in just a few years why bother building the last mile overlapping with matured players such as TM, Time or TNB Allo. Instead save it for 5G instead while try to make arrangements with as many wholesale last mile providers outside TM such as TNB Allo, Celcom Timur and SOFIA Sarawak.

Currently I think the home FTTH market in many developed countries such as Japan, Singapore and Europe already saturating. That's why they can afford to look at building 5G but Malaysia's fibre coverage is still not as expansive as them.

Actually 5G and fibre broadband investments don't clash with each other. Both of them cater for different array of consumers.
For example, are we going to use 5G as the corporate office backbone network where thousands are connecting to the same network concurrently?
Are we going to expect 5G to cover the connectivity that needs extremely low latency like the banking network system or online gaming?
5G experiments of data rates varies greatly across different countries.

5G afaik is a much better version of WIFI than current 4G with much wider coverage. And that is all to it. Also, the adoption will mean that new equipment like new phones or devices are needed to connect to 5G network.

The ISP that solely relies on 3/4/5G alone are doomed to saturate themselves with smaller and smaller pie for themselves.

Personally I prefer the fixed-line fibre broadband for stability and always-on connectivity.

Our telcos are already building their fibre networks quietly in preparation for fiberization of 5G/4G LTE-A base stations since late 2018 just that they don't want to complete the stretch to homes and premises.

Maxis for example has been planting fibre all over major cities across Malaysia like this:

https://malaysiafiber.blogspot.com/2019/04/...-broadband.html

https://malaysiafiber.blogspot.com/2019/04/...-broadband.html

Banks and large corporations can subscribe DIA(direct internet leased circuits) if they can afford it.