Tete-A-Tech
A walk down the Yellow Brick Road of Malaysia's Corridor of the future
by Bernice Low, Malaysia
Subscribe to this blog
Itsy-bitsy sausage, for the price of a cow--Welcome to TM Net
Feb 28, 2007 21:07I BitTorrent on occasion... um... some occasions when I need to look at material from the US TV shows that either aren't going to be showing on Astro anytime soon (too risqué for example) or unlikely to ever make it to our shores. Lately though, my BitTorrenting efforts have somewhat been curtailed by what appears to be my ISP deciding that I shouldn't be allowed to engage in BitTorrent.
So we've been having a lot of conversations, me and the TM Net customer service. And the conversations usually go along the lines of me attempting to get them to admit they are engaged in traffic-shaping/bandwidth restriction and them doing everything but admit they are doing so. In fact, it probably is on the customer service manual at VADS (the company that provides TM Net's customer service) that if the customer asks about P2P software, the answer is to say "we do not support it".
To which being only a semi-geekette, I would say the answer is "what has support go to do with it?". It seems TM Net is a believer that actions speak louder than words.
In any case, it brings to point an interesting legal issue which is this: Can an ISP legally throttle the bandwidth without, say, breaching its service contract with a consumer or engaging in what could technically be considered fraudulent advertising or behavior?
Let's consider the standpoint of the ISP first. Possible arguments TM Net could make in favor of traffic-shaping/bandwidth restriction/bandwidth throttling--whatever it calls this that the company doesn't want to call it:
a) BitTorrenting is illegal and people use it to download porn and anime so it is perfectly within the ISP's rights to curtail it.
b) Traffic-shaping/bandwidth restriction is necessary to preserve QoS (quality of service) since, most of the time, 80 percent of the bandwidth is being swallowed by only 20 percent of the users. In other words, the majority are being affected by the minority. (See comment by Dr Fadhullah Suhaimi Abdul Malek, general manager of TM Net's corporate and strategy services)
c) Cost savings since TM Net would not need to upgrade its infrastructure to the levels that this would be required to achieve, should it deliver on its promised bandwidth to all users.
Hmm, that's about all the reasons I can think of to justify bandwidth throttling. TM Net also adds that its service is provided on a "best effort" basis, which is again, something that needs to be considered in light of the issue of whether it is being "fraudulent" or misleading in its advertising. And to throw it all into the mix, let's remember the fact that TM Net is the dominant ISP and pretty much the big daddy that Jaring and Maxis and everyone else has to depend on to make things happen.
Broadband is a PRIVILEDGE, not a RIGHT?
IN my HUMBLE OPINION, the issue of illegality is irrelevant as far as TM Net's justifications for bandwidth throttling is concerned. Why? Because if every infrastructure provider or service provider had to take responsibility legally for what people were doing with their networks or infrastructure, they would all be out of business or paying ridiculous insurance premiums.
For example, logically, if someone used drain cleaning fluid as one of the ingredients to make a bomb (a typical formulation for what is known as acetone peroxide), does that mean that drain cleaning fluid manufacturers have to make sure every person who buys drain cleaning fluid is using it only to clean drains? Are they legally responsible should someone use their product to make a bomb and kill people?
Similarly with a telephone or mobile line. If it is used to harass someone (stalkers, heavy breathing, etc.), does that mean the service provider must be held responsible? A skimming of the legal literature indicates that, generally, the provider of a service (remember that recent MySpace ruling?) cannot be held liable for any mischief committed using its service, especially if what is required of the company to prevent mischief is particularly onerous.
TM Net states clearly in its service agreement that its service cannot be used for illegal purposes. That's fine. But does that extend to it monitoring the uses of its service? I don't think so. In short, it's none of TM Net's business what its consumers use their bandwidth and Internet connection for, because TM Net itself will never be made liable for any of those illegal activities.
Downloading porn is illegal in this country technically--is TM Net going to take legal responsibility for every person who is downloading porn out there? What if they download or read seditious materials? Or distribute such materials? If TM Net is prepared to swallow this responsibility, THEN it can throttle bandwidth or restrict the use through software or whatever technological filters it has at its disposal. But if the customer is to be left to deal with any legal implications that arise out of any BitTorrenting or other illegal activity, then why is TM Net bandwidth throttling or monitoring what consumers do with their service?
This doesn't take into account the fact that BitTorrent has legitimate purposes as well such as distribution of game patches or software patches. So in that respect, whether or not BitTorrent is illegal depends on what is being downloaded! So illegality is not a fair and sufficient justification for throttling.
The needs of the many, above those of the few
I can see how this is a legitimate argument that TM Net could make, if only that were genuinely its interest. Given the fact that TM Net has shown no interest in upgrading its facilities beyond the 1MB offered, it suggests a Scrooge approach to its capex expenditure, rather than a genuine wish to provide good service. Furthermore, even when using Streamyx for casual browsing, it's slow. So it is neither satisfying the many, nor the few.
I am not an accounting/mathematical genius, but I do understand one thing about technology when it comes to capex (capacity expenditure). Essentially, capex can either be a total waste of funds (since it is subject to depreciation) or it can be quickly recovered by getting more customers onboard and using up the capacity and generating profit from that excess capacity.
Common sense tells you that at a certain point on the graph, the capacity expenditure flattens out--the so-called critical mass point. At this point, the capex pays for itself and begins to generate a profit. All you have to do is sign on enough customers. Simple, no? Apparently not.
Here's my theory on what TM Net is doing: It is generating profit or trying to do so by being as measly and Scrooge-like as possible with bandwidth, while charging the maximum public-tolerable amount for that same bandwidth. We, the Malaysian broadband-using public, are buying sausage, for the price of a cow. So instead of five customers sustaining, say, the cost of giving each customer 1MB of speed, 25 customers are paying for that 1MB that they SHARE. I take it back--it's like buying a sausage that you have to SHARE, for the price of a cow in entirety!
Again, IMHO, QoS is arguably not the real argument or basis for traffic shaping, but rather a pure reluctance to upgrade its infrastructure and spend money. It seems that in Malaysia, one can engage in an infrastructure business without having to spend any money on capex expenditure. And lest there be some argument that the company is busy building capacity in other areas that don't YET have broadband vs those of us who have some broadband, the endless litany of complaints from individuals who are unable to get TM broadband (Puchong being one trouble spot) should put to DEATH that argument.
In any case, as a customer who PAYS for a certain amount of bandwidth, surely I am entitled to that amount of bandwidth, irrespective of how much or how little I use? Many posters on Lowyat.net and Redesign Malaysia have used the buffet analogy (we Malaysians love food, ya know) and I think this is a good analogy: If you are entitled to 10 plates of food, it does not matter if you don't eat all 10 plates--you're entitled to those 10 plates and there should be enough food for all those 10 plates. What TM Net is saying is - oh well, if you’re a size 24 person, or a glutton, we don’t have to feed you your 10 plates.
Which brings us to the LEGAL issue, which is that if the ISP offers you 1MB at RM88 per month and you accept, and this is on a best effort basis, does that mean you are entitled to 1MB at all times, every time? And how does one define best effort when one customer is a casual surfer/chatter and another is a BitTorrent user? Best effort surely would mean different things to different people? Furthermore, TM Net's service agreement explicitly forbids the downgrading of a service. As has been raised in some of the forums on lowyat.net and redesignmalaysia, why should a customer then pay more for something that they don't get to use?
The customer is essentially not given a choice and not been given full and frank disclosure as to the limitations of the service or the option to change the service to a lower grade if he or she is not satisfied.
It smells like FRAUD to me. Or at least, what lawyers call Misrepresentation.
At some point, TM was apparently toying with charging customers by the amount of bandwidth they used. (See this post on Redesign Malaysia.) Not only is this a complete tossback to a bygone era (who does usage charging anymore?), but is a reflection of a complete lack of business understanding and knowledge as to how broadband functions in a modern society and its provision in a high-tech society. Again, it comes back to the capex argument I raised above.
And lest TM wonder why going down the path of high bandwidth is important, one need look no further than South Korea, where high-speed broadband has changed the face of its society and enabled the people to innovate and branch into new areas of economic growth such as animation and gaming. Is it any wonder that despite starting in the IT race later than us, they have surpassed the MSC by leaps and bounds?
An Rx for TM Net, although I have a feeling this is a prescription that will be launched with futility into the dark depths of crappy Malaysian broadband:
a) Get with the program: Charging less, not charging more, is the way forward. Critical mass is the key! (My cousin in the UK pays 5 quid (RM35) for 5Mbps to her home! Everyone else is paying less than we are! Either Malaysians are stupid or overseas ISPs are losing money. You tell me)
b) Upgrade your capacity first and people will pay: You have to show them you're willing to make the first move.
c) Be honest with your customers: Tell them you are bandwidth throttling. Look what happened to Bill Clinton when he told porkie pies. Don't give us "we did not throttle bandwidth". Your public relations image is already at an all-time super low.
d) Behave responsibly and play nicely with the other children: If you are not prepared to spend the kind of money needed to develop the broadband business or you haven't the business brains needed to figure out how to make money from it, then let other people provide the service and open up competition for the marketplace FAIR and SQUARE.
- Talkback
-
How true of what you have stated. I remember a TM ad a few years back where it shows Telemedicine or listening to music online as some of the things you can do with broadband. Try and see if you can listen to streaming radio today. And where is the Telemedicine? TM is not only lying to us, it has even taken the govt for a ride. That to me is false and misleading advertising.
Mar 02, 2007 18:22
Oh my. So well written! I really agree with what Low said in this entry. We can't do anything with that kind of service! What's next for malaysia's broadband?
Mar 04, 2007 11:31
You have put into words all the thoughts that I have been having for the past six months! Thank you! I couldn't agree more!
The only question left is how do we change the situation?
Please eveyone that agrees digg this article digg.com...
Mar 11, 2007 12:35
Well done, Bernice. I've linked your post and commented on it at : www.redesignmalaysia.com...
Mar 12, 2007 02:45
I should say, you wrote it very well. Regarding this bandwidth restriction from TM Net, I agree with the idea but there a better solution for it. Like restricting usage per day is acceptable to me such as only 100MB per day or what ever amount the use as long as it acceptable to customer. To be honest, I hate those download-freak user. This is like you are driving on the highway where the lane is conquers by heavy vehicle (lorry, truck etc).
Apr 20, 2007 17:28
About Bernice Low
Bernice Low is a screenwriter and pen-for-hire. At age 11 (in the era of BB--Before Blog) Bernice started her own newspaper, the Daily Jelly. It lasted two days before she was stopped from using school newsprint supplies for frivolous activities. She loves Cartoon Network's Bill and Mandy, has a thing for TV doctors House and MacDreamy, and is the proud owner of a 32-inch flat-screen TV. She believes diamonds and iPods are a girl's best friend. Her blog is her latest guilty pleasure.
Recent Comments
Most Discussed
January
