Morning Mr. Ahmad & Ms. Norliza,
Please kindly refer to the attached (forwarded) email below. Seems like your staff didn’t receive my email again.
Anyway, i would like to highlight the latest streamyx slow down issue to you. Please kindly refer to the attached result below. Fyi, i refuse to make further troubleshooting other than collecting information for your reference because issues never ends. We’re just simply too tired to go through the troubleshooting repeatedly and found out to be streamyx issue.
We had setup a server farm locally instead of having the overseas web hosting server farm in US. We took the damages and losses by ourselves due to streamyx ugly services. Please don’t put my patient on test.
Extra information, report # 1-5010683091, has been opened for 13 days. Ticket left opened, issue is currently pending. Emails has been sent, call has been made, for 13 days, not even 1 person get back to me. The worst, session hang again and i have to guide your call center rep to do the work they’re suppose guide and advise me.
Lastly, I’ll hope you’ll response to me personally and explain such matters.
Please be advised also, i’ll post this email on the internet as a reference for other streamyx users.
According to the call center rep, a ticket should be responded or resolved within 2 days. It seems like the call center rep is unsure about the policy.
Now, the report # 1-5010683091 has been unresolved, unattended and no further visible action taken for 13 days. What we can do?
I understand that MCMC is in the middle of drafting new policies. However, i’m hoping MCMC would consider opening a legal channel soon, if not now, which allows the public to file a law suite against such service provider. In my opinion, higher degree of penalty must be in place for repeating issues.
Thanks for your time again.
——————-
Ping statistics for
202.71.97.35:
Packets: Sent = 738, Received = 713, Lost = 25 (3% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 11ms, Maximum = 2622ms, Average = 1399ms
Trace route to streamyx.com.my
————————————————
Tracing route to 202.71.97.35 with TTL of 32:
1 1ms 1ms 1ms 10.0.1.1
2 1195ms 1340ms 1269ms 219.93.218.177
3 1219ms 1387ms 978ms 219.93.216.157
4 1264ms 1573ms 1480ms 202.188.126.156
5 899ms 775ms 1104ms 219.94.9.6
6 1578ms 921ms 1281ms 202.71.96.44
7 * * * Request timed out.
8 * * * Request timed out.
9 1161ms 1254ms 958ms 202.71.97.35
Traceroute complete.
Trace route result to yahoo.com
———————————————–
Tracing route to b1.www.vip.sp1.yahoo.com [209.131.36.159] with TTL of 32:
1 1ms 1ms 1ms 10.0.1.1
2 * * * Request timed out.
3 1939ms * 1457ms 219.93.216.157
4 783ms 690ms 993ms 10.55.32.128
5 * * * Request timed out.
6 * * 1582ms 58.27.101.158
7 1696ms * 1934ms so-3-0-0.pat2.sjc.yahoo.com [216.115.96.46]
8 * * * Request timed out.
9 * * * Request timed out.
10 * * * Request timed out.
11 * 1553ms 1598ms b1.www.vip.sp1.yahoo.com [209.131.36.159]
Traceroute complete.
Trace route to google.com
—————————————
Tracing route to yx-in-f100.google.com [74.125.45.100] with TTL of 32:
1 1ms 1ms 0ms 10.0.1.1
2 1030ms 1351ms 1258ms 219.93.218.177
3 1026ms 1100ms 1025ms 219.93.216.149
4 1193ms 1471ms 1412ms 10.55.32.110
5 1036ms 729ms 949ms 58.27.106.234
6 1051ms 1358ms 1305ms 74.125.50.229
7 988ms 1071ms 845ms 209.85.243.158
8 1387ms 1304ms 1357ms 209.85.254.155
9 726ms 1135ms 1180ms 209.85.255.59
10 1506ms 1562ms 1650ms 216.239.43.212
11 * 1475ms 1502ms 72.14.233.117
12 1218ms 1439ms 1399ms 72.14.239.90
13 1820ms 1618ms 1486ms 72.14.232.215
14 1447ms 1528ms 1546ms 209.85.253.141
15 1453ms 1514ms 1289ms yx-in-f100.google.com [74.125.45.100]
Traceroute complete.
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Dave Tan <davetan@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: TM Streamyx Extra Charges
To: TM Customer Care Support <help@tm.net.my>, Syamsul Azlan Ahmad Ramdzan <syamsulazlan@tm.com.my>, Rohana Abdullah <rohanami@tm.com.my>, esther@tm.net.my
Cc: Aduan SKMM <aduanskmm@cmc.gov.my>, Amarjit Singh a/l Karthar Singh <amarjit.singh@cmc.gov.my>, Saiful Azhar Johari <saiful.azhar@cmc.gov.my>, Azizan Mohd Afandi <azizan@cmc.gov.my>, razif@cmc.gov.my, Shaharliza Mohd Saman <shaharliza@cmc.gov.my>
Hi TM Staff,
Please refer to the trace route below, we’re facing turtle speed now. Do you mind to provide explanation on the result obtained below? Please kindly reply my email.
To SKMM
—————
1 1ms 1ms 1ms 10.0.1.1
2 50ms 290ms 141ms 219.93.218.177
3 * * * Request timed out.
4 * * 475ms 58.27.103.118
5 126ms 76ms 48ms 58.27.113.33
6 * * 63ms 58.27.101.102
7 370ms 16ms 11ms 210.187.129.135
To Youtube:
Result 1
————-
1 1ms 1ms 1ms 10.0.1.1
2 12ms 10ms 11ms 219.93.218.177
3 * * * Request timed out.
4 * * * Request timed out.
5 * * * Request timed out.
6 61ms 15ms 13ms 209.85.242.244
7 38ms 37ms 48ms 209.85.242.242
8 92ms 93ms 92ms 209.85.254.155
9 183ms 205ms 185ms 209.85.242.251
10 309ms 182ms 180ms 209.85.250.144
11 184ms 181ms 189ms 64.233.174.101
12 184ms 185ms 186ms 216.239.46.22
13 247ms 188ms 180ms 216.239.46.30
Result 2
————
1 1ms 1ms 1ms 10.0.1.1
2 22ms 40ms 16ms 219.93.218.177
3 21ms 9ms 25ms 219.93.216.149
4 12ms * * 10.55.32.130
5 15ms 36ms 23ms 58.27.105.158
6 16ms 15ms 21ms 209.85.242.244
7 26ms 25ms 41ms 209.85.242.242
8 127ms 104ms 92ms 209.85.254.155
9 262ms 184ms 305ms 209.85.242.251
10 305ms 183ms 179ms 209.85.250.144
11 182ms 247ms 290ms 64.233.174.127
12 221ms 317ms 304ms 216.239.46.18
13 180ms 191ms 189ms 216.239.46.30
To IBM
———–
1 1ms 1ms 1ms 10.0.1.1
2 13ms 29ms 15ms 219.93.218.177
3 * * * Request timed out.
4 * * * Request timed out.
5 203ms * 198ms 58.27.106.230
To Apple Computer
—————————–
Tracing route to
apple.com [17.112.152.57] with TTL of 32:
1 1ms 0ms 1ms 10.0.1.1
2 17ms 31ms 13ms 219.93.218.177
3 * * * Request timed out.
4 * * * Request timed out.
5 216ms 205ms * 219.94.9.178
11 * * * Request timed out.
12 * * * Request timed out.
13 * * * Request timed out.
14 * * * Request timed out.
To Singtel
—————
Tracing route to 165.21.20.180 with TTL of 32:
1 1ms 1ms 1ms 10.0.1.1
2 11ms * 17ms 219.93.218.177
3 * * * Request timed out.
4 * 224ms * 10.55.32.138
5 1012ms 1043ms * 58.27.106.105
6 * * * Request timed out.
7 * 1858ms * 203.208.191.102
8 * 1910ms 1433ms 165.21.12.48
9 334ms 418ms 495ms 165.21.254.246
10 1056ms 1256ms 1657ms 165.21.21.12
11 * * 1833ms 165.21.21.18
12 * * * Request timed out.
13 * 1765ms 1133ms 165.21.21.18
14 1142ms 1288ms 1467ms 165.21.21.12
To DIGI
————
Tracing route to 203.92.129.7 with TTL of 32:
1 1ms 1ms 1ms 10.0.1.1
2 1309ms 1434ms 1260ms 219.93.218.177
3 * * * Request timed out.
4 9ms 8ms 9ms 58.27.105.89
5 270ms 139ms 126ms 58.27.105.89
6 982ms 1526ms 1441ms 219.94.9.114
7 1279ms 1107ms 1080ms 210.48.192.181
8 706ms 620ms 1055ms 203.92.138.90
9 1137ms 1451ms 1190ms 203.92.128.5
10 * * * Request timed out.
11 * * * Request timed out.
12 * * * Request timed out.
13 * * * Request timed out.
To Streamyx.com
————————–
Tracing route to 202.71.97.35 with TTL of 32:
1 1ms 1ms 4ms 10.0.1.1
2 92ms * 24ms 219.93.218.177
3 9ms 9ms 9ms 219.93.216.157
4 11ms 12ms 11ms 210.187.129.156
5 15ms 12ms 13ms 219.94.9.6
6 23ms 39ms 44ms 202.71.96.44
7 * * * Request timed out.
8 * * * Request timed out.
9 88ms 25ms 20ms 202.71.97.35
———- Forwarded message ———-
From:
Dave Tan <davetan@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 12:21 PM
Subject: TM Streamyx Extra Charges
To: TM Customer Care Support <
help@tm.net.my>, Syamsul Azlan Ahmad Ramdzan <
syamsulazlan@tm.com.my>, Rohana Abdullah <
rohanami@tm.com.my>,
esther@tm.net.my
Cc: Aduan SKMM <
aduanskmm@cmc.gov.my>, Amarjit Singh a/l Karthar Singh <
amarjit.singh@cmc.gov.my>, Saiful Azhar Johari <
saiful.azhar@cmc.gov.my>, Azizan Mohd Afandi <
azizan@cmc.gov.my>,
razif@cmc.gov.my, Shaharliza Mohd Saman <
shaharliza@cmc.gov.my>
Hi Syamsul & All TM Staff,
It seems TM implementing a new charges on your customers under the circumstances listed below (provided by your call center representative – 119-Rosni) saying:
- If a tech is onsite and found out the issues are not lies within TM, it’s chargeable to the customers.
- It will reflect in the following bill statement.
- When being asked whether is this a written new policies, no answer was given.
To be honest, i welcome this arrangement provided the mechanism works on TM’s tech support SOP. On the other hand, in my opinion, users should be able to have their rebates/compensation shall TM failed to comply with the QoS. The QoS needs to be re-define shall the mentioned arrangement needs to be implemented.
It is a fair game to charge a user accordingly when TM’s tech is onsite and found out the issues aren’t lies within TM’s service AND TM should provide rebates/compensation procedure for users who experience issues which interrupt their operation/ usage. Without the so called rebate/compensation arrangement, IT IS NOT A FAIR DEAL.
Furthermore, base on my and my customers’ previous experiences, the technician only shows up after the issue has been resolved, most of the time. In this context, since without solid trace of the issues, is TM going to consider it as a false alarm and charge a user again?
TM has never changed, not that i can notice. Every time, you guys implementing something new,
1. From the separated billing of land line and broadband to a combined bill,
2. From a lousy call center performance to machine-like call center representative that following standard troubleshooting procedures without even listening to a user’s issues,
3. From not playing the “payment reminder” on your call center voice server to keep on playing the reminder whenever customer call in and last a while. And etc….
Whatever changes you guys have implemented, why it can’t be the QoS improvement?!
Digi Broadband charge me RM 88 / month with a promise of best effort written on the package as 786kbps max speed and 10GB of data transfer monthly.
The result, i’m getting CONSISTENTLY 1mbps +/- and reaching 25GB and still maintaining the similar speed. This is what i call quality service. Digi over did 30% from what they promised.
Comparing to Streamyx service, you guys hardly reach the 50%. What we get extra from Streamyx are tonnes of excuses and new implementation of everything except solid, visible and sustainable improvement of QoS. Yet, still implementing or taking whatever possible chances to charge your customers?
To MCMC,
Hope you guys are doing good.
I’ve read about the new MCMC’s policies given by a member in the forum. I have a mixed feelings. I’m glad MCMC is taking tighter measures though i think there’re areas can be fine tuned. I didn’t see the windows’s native “trace route” command matter.
As mentioned during our meeting, “trace route” is important tool for user to collect helpful technical information especially during the event of issues. I hope MCMC would consider to instruct “issue-rich” ISP to enable the native windows “trace route”. The trace route will help those users who do not have much IT knowledge to at least troubleshoot their issue (whether or not under a technician guidance) before calling Streamyx call center.
As per the matter mentioned above (on-site charge), I strongly feels that MCMC should look into it.
Thanks for time again.
–
Best regards,
Dave
–
Best regards,
Dave
