More ISP Blues

Okay, I’m now angry at my ISP, I really am and I could get into trouble with this post. I’ve posted these kind of topics before, but it’s just me trying to let go of some steam that is stored inside my brain that concerns my ISP (TM NET Streamyx). At times, I’d just wish that everything is just fine like it is when it was in 2004. When I first applied for a broadband service. That was when they had the capacity to handle the number of subscribers. Now, with the traffic shaping case and so on, what does it mean from a customer’s point of view? In my mind as an engineer, I’ll be saying: “You have a problem that needs to be solved”. As a consumer: “What a crappy service, I’m going to jump ship and go to another ISP”. And so, I’ve gone back to the roots of a lawsuit. And so, I dug up the MCMC page, and took a look at some of the amendments that has been established since 1998. And I’m sure I’ll be wrong all over the place. So, here goes;

Regulation 3. Universal service provision objectives.

(1) The following are the objectives of the universal service provision:

(a) collective access to basic telephony and Internet access services; and //Yes, internet to everybody. Does collective means a place that houses an organisation, office, or government building?

(b) individual access to basic telephony and Internet access services. //Yes, individual access finally. Cool. *Darn, no wonder it took such a long time to get a phone line back in 1993*

(2) In the event that the objectives specified in subregulation (1) cannot be met simultaneously in a universal service target, the order of priority for the provision of universal service shall be as follows:

(a) collective access shall have priority over individual access; and //okay, more people getting it, the better

(b) access to basic telephony services shall have priority over Internet access services. //wait, what about those in farms and secluded areas?? Could be the last mile problem.

[Subs. P.U.(A) 402/2003]

Regulation 4. Notification of universal service targets.

(1) The Commission, subject to the approval of the Minister, shall identify the universal service targets, and shall, from time to time, publish a notification specifying the identified universal service targets and such other matters as the Commission considers relevant. //isn’t that like asking for information about someone via a third party without a warrant? I don’t know, again, I may be wrong.

[Subs. P.U.(A) 402/2003]

(2) For the purpose of the notification under subregulation (1), the Commission may request any network facilities provider individual licensee, network service provider individual licensee and/or applications service provider class licensee to provide, within a specified time, such information or documents as the Commission may require. //Oh, so that is asking for information from a service provider. So, If I go to a certain hosting service in Malaysia, the MCMC could ask for my information *explains the Bittorrent tracker cases in Malaysia*

[Am. P.U.(A) 143/2005]

(3) Any person who fails to comply with subregulation (2) commits an offence under these Regulations. //So, if the service provider does not comply, they are going against the law. But what about EULA? Or T&Cs that is established between the service provider and the end user/subscriber. And what about asking me directly about my information? *Okay, I understand that I can be withheld for no reasons if I do not comply.*

Regulation 13. Progress report.

The designated universal service provider shall, from time to time or upon request by the Commission, submit a report on the progress of the implementation of the approved universal service plan. //Okay, Minister of MCMC, has TM Group submitted any reports concerning the RM16 billion that was given to them? Because I’m concerned about the progress as a consumer! I’ve got to wait for 10 years for the progress. With that amount of money, I’d say I can do A LOT of stuffs with it! But I’ll just keep those in my own brain.

[Subs. P.U.(A) 402/2003]

Regulation 14. Application for variation of an approved universal service plan.

(1) A designated universal service provider may apply to the Commission to vary the approved universal service plan and shall for this purpose submit to the Commission a draft variation of the plan. //Does that include data packet manipulation? If no, can that be added after the plan has been approved?

(2) The Commission may—

(a) approve the variation plan with or without any amendment; or //If approved, can it be change all of a sudden without letting the MCMC know? I’m not sure how this is decided or if the Minister is actually easily manipulated to agree with an organisation or if they have a bias against some company. Eg. If I said that my bandwidth has been sucked up but this, this, this and this. I want to implement this, this, this and this. Then the Minister asks why. I’ll then say it’s because if this, this, this and this, and the cost *blah blah blah blah blah* and the minister agrees. Wait, if you’re a business organisation, and that one is managing it, shouldn’t one be looking to cut cost and maximise customer experience? If I’ve already sold out my bandwidth, I would get more so that all of my customer is happy. And if something is wrong, I’d find out. If my customer is telling me something is wrong, I’d go find out. That may be an engineer’s mind and not a business person’s mind. Okay, seems to be off track.

(b) refuse to approve the variation plan. //I do not like monopoly. That’s like anti-competitive. Hope that everyone out there understands

(3) The Commission may, before giving its decision in writing for approving or refusing the variation plan under subregulation (2), consult the designated universal service provider. //If it’s to improve, I’ll agree.

(4) If the Commission approves the variation, the varied universal service plan shall become the approved universal service plan from the date as specified by the Commission in the decision.

Regulation 15. Commission may vary an approved universal service plan.

(1) Notwithstanding regulation 14, the Commission may, by giving the designated universal service provider a written notice, require the said provider to vary the approved universal service plan in accordance with the terms set out in the notice by submitting to the Commission a draft variation to the approved universal service plan. //I don’t understand this at all. Does it mean that I can submit a plan to the MCMC and designate TM Group to do something? I think I’m totally wrong.

(2) The Commission may, by notice in writing consult the designated universal service provider before finalising the variation to the approved universal service plan under subregulation (1). //That will be the MCMC talking to a service provider.

(3) The varied universal service plan referred to under subregulation (2) shall be deemed to be the approved universal service plan from the date as set out in the written notice.

Regulation 16. Revocation of designation of designated universal service provider.

(1) The Commission may, revoke the designation of the designated universal service provider in any of the following circumstances:

(a) the designated universal service provider has failed to comply with the approved universal service plan; //does that mean if the standard that one first sets is not met, one complains, and if the MCMC sees that the service has not checked out to the earlier standard that was approved, they can revoke the plan?

(b) a receiver or liquidator has been appointed for the designated universal service provider; //third party?

(c) a petition for the winding up of the designated universal service provider has been presented against the universal service provider in a court of competent jurisdiction or a resolution for its voluntary winding up has been passed; //Okay, sounds like what I like!!

(d) the designated universal service provider ceases to carry on its business; or //Filed for bankruptcy? Or just failed to manage it?

(e) the revocation is in the public interest. //Does that mean if a majority of people in the public is not happy with the service provider, the MCMC can revoke the service?

(2) Before revoking the designation of a designated universal service provider, the Commission shall notify the designated universal service provider in writing of its intention. //Revoke notification (in letter form)

(3) The designated universal service provider shall within thirty days from the date of issuance of the written notice provide a written submission to the Commission stating the reasons why the designation should not be revoked. //Service provider states reason why a mentioned service should not be revoked

(4) The Commission shall consider the submission made by the designated universal service provider before revoking the designation. //MCMC makes the decision *sound like a 12 person jury trying to get unanimous judgement*

(5) The revocation of designation of the designated universal service provider shall take effect on the expiry of fourteen days from the date on which the notice of revocation is served on the designated universal service provider.

(6) If the designation of a designated universal service provider is revoked under subregulation (1)—

(a) the designated universal service provider shall, unless otherwise authorized by the Commission, cease to implement the approved universal service plan from the date the revocation takes effect; and

(b) the revocation shall not prejudice or affect the rights of the Commission to recover any money paid to the designated universal service provider or obtain any remedy arising from or in relation to any non-compliance of the approved universal service plan. //I think both above is about what is going to happen to the service provider.

(7) Upon revocation of the designation of the designated universal service provider under subregulation (1), the Commission may designate another licensee as the new designated universal service provider to complete the approved universal service plan. //An alternative

(8) Notwithstanding subregulation (7), the designated universal service provider revoked under subregulation (1) shall be paid all cost and expenses incurred as set out in the approved universal service plan less any advance payment made up to the date it ceased to be the designated universal service provider. //Take up your bag of responsibility

Regulation 17. Requirement to provide information to new designated universal service provider.

The Commission may, by notice in writing, require the designated universal service provider whose designation has been revoked under subregulation 16(1), to submit to the Commission any information which in the opinion of the Commission is necessary for the implementation of the relevant approved universal service plan by the new designated universal service provider. //Is this lawful? I mean, that’s my information out there.

Regulation 18. Compliance with quality of service standards.

A designated universal service provider shall comply with the quality of service standards as provided in any mandatory standards or consumer codes registered under the Act, which are relevant to the activities of the designated universal service provision. //Okay, a certain quality of service must be met. But does that involve dropping data packets? I’m for net neutrality. In my mind, I paid for the service where it will provide me with a link to the cloud of data that is out there in the millions of networks in the world. I realise that one would do anything in a network to achieve that standard, but what about implementation of new transfer protocols?

Alright, I’d better stop before I get into trouble. This is just me understanding the laws of my beloved homeland of Malaysia.