Bandwidth caps explained, NTC endorsed

A recent draft memorandum by the NTC indicates some sort of service level agreement where ISPs are required to provide a minimum guaranteed speed on subscriptions as well as allow for daily bandwidth capping on subscribers.

The circular requires ISPs to deliver a minimum average of 80% of the subscribed plan for regular broadband/dial-up lines and 99% for leased lines.

The NTC defines this accordingly:

… service reliability is measured over a period of one month and is derived by dividing the number of hours used in a day into the difference between hours used in a day and hours used below minimum connection speed in a day.

On the other hand, the NTC also endorsed recommendations by ISPs to put a daily cap on bandwidth usage. This clarifies the bandwidth caps already being imposed by telcos which we reported earlier.

While many would look at the “bandwidth caps” and cry foul, I’d look at the other provision that requires a minimum guaranteed speed based on the subscribed speed. This means if you subscribe to a 1Mbps plan, your average internet speed over a period of 1 month should not be under 800Kbps. If that’s the case, I’d gladly agree to be capped at 25GB per month (see Globe’s Broadband Internet bandwidth caps here).

I recently talked to a network engineer who’s a supplier of one of the telcos mentioned above and he explained how they arrived on the bandwidth caps imposed by the carriers.

What they do is they look at network traffic and determine how much bandwidth is used on a monthly basis. It turns out that over 99% of the users consume less than 1.5GB of bandwidth on their mobile phones.

Yugatech 728x90 Reno7 Series

The less than 1% who exceed are very few and inconsistent — meaning, they don’t consistently exceed 1.5GB on a month to month basis. Btw, this 1.5GB cap of Smart is for mobile 3G internet only.

In order to avoid regular users from being affected by the heavy users, the heavy users (those who exceed the 1.5GB cap) are isolated and transferred to a different network segment or bucket. The allocation for that small group in the segment is then limited. Hence, only the heavy users will be competing for the limited bandwidth in their bucket while all the regular users remain on the regular, uncongested network.

The rationale behind this policy has been studied and compared with other carriers in other countries worldwide. Of course, there are other factors that come into play.

I personally own several servers and re-sell bandwidth so I have a lot of experiences with system abuses. It’s the same reason why Cabalen imposes a double-the-price penalty to diners who put more food on their plate than they can finish. Same goes with Mang Inasal’s unlimited rice — just go try and ask for 100 cups of rice in one go. Or why the MMDA imposes number coding and restricts which car you can drive on a given day.

Apparently, in the Philippines, regular consumers don’t fully understand the “bucket system” so telcos resorted to time-based servicing. Remember that standard mobile internet used to be priced on a per KB basis back in the days? That did not work out well (the bucket system) so they shifted to the time-based billing system.

However, the time-based system is very prone to abuse (a problem which don’t exist if they imposed the bucket system). The throttling and capping of bandwidth to supplement time-based services allows the service providers to regulate the network and separate the heavy users from the regular users.

I don’t like the idea of putting caps but I’m okay with it as long as it’s a reasonable one. Just give me that 1Mbps speed I actually subscribed to. I hope this draft memorandum gets pushed thru so we can all get that 80% minimum guarantee on subscribed internet speeds.

Addendum: I think the issue here is the use of the word “unlimited” in the subscription plans when in fact it’s actually just a modified form of “bucket plans”. What if the NTC orders all the telcos to shift to “bucket plans” and sell internet connection on a pay per use basis? Say if you consume 15GB a month, you only pay Php500 but if you use 50GB in a month, your bill goes up accordingly (say Php1,500). I think that would have been a more straight-forward approach. Never mind if most of the consumers could not quantify what a gigabyte is. At least it’s not false advertising.

We’re not really that alien to caps. Even the MMDA has capped how many days you can drive your car in a week. We seem to be okay with that since everyone is experiencing how congested EDSA is.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 363 other subscribers
Avatar for Abe Olandres

Abe is the founder and Editor-in-Chief of YugaTech with over 20 years of experience in the technology industry. He is one of the pioneers of blogging in the country and considered by many as the Father of Tech Blogging in the Philippines. He is also a technology consultant, a tech columnist with several national publications, resource speaker and mentor/advisor to several start-up companies.

216 Responses

  1. Avatar for toto toto says:

    A paid agentl working for the two telcos!

  2. Avatar for toto toto says:

    A paid troll working for the two telcos!




    WHAT A FUCK EXPLANATION IS THIS…every Internet connection is already capped.. that’s why every subscriber has an allocated internet bandwidth according to their subscription..what a fuck comparing this internet to an eat all you can..a subscription is not like eat all yo can that you get anything yet just leaving it on the table that’s why you are charge for it..internet speed is not like that ..if you have a 1mb subscription you only can get a maximum of it to that speed but you could never be over to your subscription..that means you could not affect other users on the net work because you maximum consumption is based on your subscription ,,then how can you say that somebody is over getting than others?

  5. Avatar for cvk cvk says:

    Agreeing to such a cap is absurd.

    In return for a 3x improvement in speed you’re willing to give up 21,600x of data?

    Your analytical skills are sorely, sorely, lacking.

  6. Avatar for vince vince says:


    Ideally they should do that but if they do that they can get less subscribers. Less subs = less money

  7. Avatar for Iho Iho says:

    Maybe they should put a cap on the number of customers they can service, enough for their system to handle. Why get more consumers if your system can’t handle them? ISP would advertise unlimited 1mbps plans, which is around 86gb a day with the computer downloading for 24 hours, assuming they are giving us 1mbps consistently, and yet states that their system can’t handle it. Haven’t they computed these already when they went into the business of unlimted internet?

  8. Avatar for foodnotbomb foodnotbomb says:

    i reached my bandwidth cap on my 2nd month of subscription and we have a lock-in period of 1 question is, is there a chance na makalabas from the bucket system? let say after a month of suffering?

  9. Avatar for riribok riribok says:

    @Emman: siguro tama ka, in a way, hindi naman yata siguro lalabas ang capping na yan kung hindi pumasa sa board meeting ng mga individual isp’s natin…

  10. Avatar for riribok riribok says:


    siguro nga tama ka, in a way, kasi nga hindi naman magcacapping ang nga isp’s kung hndi rin approved ng board…

  11. Avatar for Hzone Hzone says:


    Unlimited nga yung plan eh bakit nila lilimitahan.

    Siguro ok yung bucketing ihihiwalay nila yung heavy user ng bandwith sa hindi heavy user. dapat hiwalay bandwidth ng DSL at 3G.

  12. Avatar for Emman Emman says:

    ganito kabobo ang mga engineer ng mga telecomm.. indi sila competitive, tumatakas sa problema pinapasa sa mga subscriber ang problema nila.. tau tuloy ang ngsa-suffer.. nagbabayad tau ng sapat., pero ang service nila di sapat.. kung my bandwidth capping, dapat payment capping din.. kung ang Php999 1Mbps mo ay bumaba ng 800kbps, dapat dapat bumaba din ng 80% ang payment mo at less pa di d2 ang capacity per month mo. tae..

  13. Avatar for kyflo kyflo says:

    Tama na ang reklamo at bangayan..


  14. like my globe wimax getting capped at 15th day the problem is that the .300 kbps speed when capped is not also stable rather at most time speed test ranging form 150 kbps to 250 kbpss only, a month with out download just full facebook and youtube at maximum of
    16 hours usage a day, even doing assignment is difficult at 150 kbps

  15. Avatar for madmaxx madmaxx says:

    ganito ka kapal ang mukha ng mga telcoms

  16. Avatar for 7 7 says:

    Don’t be stupid, capping is bad. 25 Gigs? That’s like 3 Steam games, that doesn’t even include the bandwidth spent on browsing/streaming.

    Plus what’ll happen to webmasters/freelancers, I’m pretty sure that they download/upload huge amounts of files.

    Wait what? You’re saying I/they/we should switch to a higher data plan? LOL PLDT is overpriced as it is I highly doubt that switching is a viable alternative.

    Anyway capping is stupid, people who can barely use the computer shouldn’t be allowed to make decisions regarding the internet.

  17. Avatar for riribok riribok says:

    ain’t the ISP’s the first to have abused its consumers by continued advertising of “unlimited” internet service.

    capping is indeed and in no way reasonable…

  18. Avatar for Unable Unable says:

    * sorry this is OT *
    kung ganyan ka mag-isip makasarili ka .

    Dapat upgrade muna ng mga Telco’s yung system nila before doing this, hinde pa nga nila naayos NGN buong metro manila (PLDT), rampant disconnection on internet while raining or worst no net connection (GLOBE). Sana wag matuloy to .. :(

  19. Avatar for tipzee tipzee says:

    how about patches and updates would it also be included in the capping ?

    have they thought about the scenario of a fresh formatted computer having various apps and games installed..

    what about security updates.. if the capping would be 80mb only? it wouldn’t be sufficient for you to update and patch your apps and games for 1 day, you need to wait.. hmmm…

    I also suggest they should focus more on the “uber long” lock-in period given by our “generous” ISPs :)

  20. Avatar for vince vince says:

    [quote]SmartBro, Smart’s wireless broadband service – through its wholly-owned subsidiary Smart Broadband, Inc. – continued to expand as its wireless broadband subscriber base grew 71% to
    reach 596,000 as at end-March 2009, 183,000 of which were on SmartBro’s prepaid service.
    Wireless broadband revenues grew 40% to P1.3 billion, a significant improvement over the P 919 million recorded in the first quarter of 2008. [/quote]

    [quote]Retail DSL continued its strong performance as broadband subscribers grew by over 38,000 to 471,000 at the end of March 2009 from 433,000 at the end of 2008. PLDT DSL generated P1.6 billion in revenues in the first quarter of 2009, up 27% from P1.3 billion in the same period in 2008, accounting for about 50% of the PLDT Group’s broadband and internet revenues for the year. [/quote]

    nalulugi ang smart bro and pldt dsl?

  21. This is all a result of business being protected by the 40% limit on foreign ownership in the constitution.

    If we allow 100% foreign companies to enter the market, they can provide better service. No need to worry about low caps… because the caps will perhaps be higher. Or there will be hundreds of ISPs to choose from. And we’ll have real DSL, not the false DSL we have here.

    Wonder if the capping is why I’m having terribly intermittent connection in Globe since last week.

  22. Avatar for vince vince says:

    lok at this pic which compares price per 1mbps around the world for major countries

    unfortunately the big version of the pic is down. my dsl gives me 1 mbps (in fairness 1.3mbps) for 1000 pesos or around $23 a month. That puts me off the scale since the scale only goes up to $20 a month per mbps. #1 is japan with $0.27 per 1 mbps

  23. Avatar for vince vince says:

    re: the NTC public hearing

    this is a very very iportant issue which affects filipinos all over the country. This should be televised and phone in, text in and IM in questions should be entertained. If not, then the NTC is treating it as if it were a mere local ordinance. People from other parts of the country would be “disenfranchised” so to speak because they would not be able to air their views

  24. Avatar for shtfcecckmstr shtfcecckmstr says:

    Ka INUTILAN ang mga alam nila. lol

    PAPANSIN sila kabastusan. kaya lalo tayo nalalate when it comes to technology! please naman kahit minsan umangat tayo! sus.

  25. Avatar for lolipown lolipown says:

    @mister kunat
    that’d be an insult to the flintstones. Mas may isip pa ang mga taga-bedrock compared to that sniveling buffoon.

  26. Avatar for mister kunat mister kunat says:

    that made me laugh so hard. too bad i can’t include him to my “flinstones caveman action figures” LOL!

  27. Avatar for Mon Macutay Mon Macutay says:

    Yup. Agree with the bandwidth cap as long as we get the real speed that we’re paying for.

  28. Avatar for lolipown lolipown says:

    @mister kunat
    oh good, I can stuff him up and display him next to my barney collection :)

  29. Avatar for BrownBear BrownBear says:

    ayun, pumasok na pala dito.

  30. Avatar for PDmember PDmember says:

    May magagawa tayo dito about sa
    issue na to mga tol yung mga may
    account sa Social networking like
    Twitter Facebook or even sa mismong
    site ng mga network, batikusin natin
    ang NTC sa mga palpak nilang idea. Ang dapat nilang gawin ay iimprove
    nila mga equiptment and installation
    nila hindi yung mga nanahimik na
    network consumers. Puro kasi
    pangungurakot inaatupag ng mga
    hinayupak na to eh. . Lets go guys!!!

  31. Avatar for BrownBear BrownBear says:

    @isonski e tarantado ka pala eh, wala naman palang laman yang utak mo.

    yang pinagmamalaki mong “totoong internet working-class heroes, sa mga sysads, network admins, developers/programmers, project leads, MIS/IT/ICT personnel and techs” sila ang unang-unang maaapektuhan nang capping na ito.

    hindi mo alam kung pano? eh natural hindi mo malalaman kasi obvious naman na panggap ka lang na “totoong internet working-class”. letche may nalalaman ka pang “totoong internet working-class”, EEEENNNNAAAAMOOOO!!!!

  32. Avatar for lolita lolita says:

    how unfortunate is it to actually live here with this kind of system.

    everyone has stressed enough their point and i couldn’t agree more. bandwidth capping is not the answer to internet speed problems.

    this is just plain bull. an excuse to get more money from consumers.

  33. Avatar for mister kunat mister kunat says:

    isonski is a primitive caveman…beware!

  34. Avatar for mister kunat mister kunat says:

    go play with your dick you dumbass!
    if you don’t care about us people who’s gonna sufer from these caps, blow yourself off…you selfish fool!

  35. Avatar for redkinoko redkinoko says:

    On a purely economic basis, capping makes sense for ISPs even if they lose your subscription. This just means their low performing accounts will move to their competition, which isn’t exactly a bad thing so if people think that stopping subscription will make ISPs change their minds, I doubt it, unless mass action can be achieved.

  36. Avatar for lolipown lolipown says:

    isonski is a prime of example of a dumbass douchebag lmao. Since you seem to have no idea what the cap means to people doing proper things online, stfu and gtfo.

  37. Avatar for manong manong says:

    kung wala kang pakialam sa nangyayari sa bansa natin, mang-rape ka na lang ng aso or mag-masturbate ka na lang sa public toilet! meganon?!

  38. Avatar for manong manong says:

    ano kaya kung i-cap ng government ang pagkain dito sa ‘pinas? pati yung hangin na hinihinga natin? yung tubig? yung kinikita natin?

    ganon lang kas-simple ‘yon…kung may pakialam ka sa nangyayari concerned ka. kung wala, manhid ka!

    ano kaya kung i-cap ng mga magulang mo ang oras na pwede kang gumamit ng pc or mag-masturbate, anong pakiramdam?

    eh kung i-cap ng pharmaceutical store ang gamot na bibilhin mo para sa malala mong sakit?

    cap means limitation…

  39. Avatar for madmaxx madmaxx says:


    kilabutan ka naman sa sinasabi mo, isipin mo nga ang epekto nito sa mga call center agents, medical transcriptionist at Icafe owners. naghahanap buhay din yun mga yun di ba? di mo ba naisip ang magiging epekto nito sa kanila magkataon?

    kaya lalong naghihirap ang pinas kasi may mga tao na katulad mo na walang pakialam sa mga nagyayari sa paligid nya since hindi naman sya gaanung maapektuhan.

    at isa pa, wala kang pakialam sa mga tao nagfafacebook, nag-oonline games, nanunuod sa net, or kung ano-ano pa. buhay nila yung at may karapatan silang gawin anumang gustuhin nila. kung yung favorite passtime mo kya eh lilimitihan ng gobyerno, ano feeling? di ka aangal? wag manhid bro

  40. Avatar for hambog56 hambog56 says:

    ahaha, kulang na lang ay i-cap ng meralco ang kuryente na pwede nating gamitin!!! ‘yon ang mas nakakatakot!!!

  41. Avatar for Dr. Chez Litton Dr. Chez Litton says:

    To NTC: BOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! You’re all a bunch of prats deserving a good drive by shooting. Capping. Instead of screwing around with the paying public, make the service better! Terrestial DSL for instance, the type of broadband internet I use is dedicated bandwidth yet the idiots at the telcos say otherwise. WTF is up with that? I pay on time and now NTC is recommending capping? Unlimited indeed. I pay for a service because of the advertised features. If the telcos follow the recommended caps, a lot of customers like me are going to be pissed. (I already am.) Its like being told to sleep only 5 hours a night for the reason of productivity purposes. Bunch of bollocks!

  42. Avatar for frack frack says:

    i guess bucket system or capping is not based on what will be the throughput, the real issue is what the teleco want, to limit max allowable latency per month. like in an instance if you are subscribed to 1mbps, your max will be 30gb/month. i guess that is what they wanted. But the problem on our side most probably is the download rate like for 1mb we are only getting 60-70% of it. how would they implement capping if they dont give the right service to the end-user and not advertising it correctly? they should let end-user know. let see if how many users will they get xD

  43. Avatar for ron ron says:

    Why do they cap the consumers? We pay thousands of pesos monthly, Then they don’t even provide their services properly. The reason we signed their contracts because of the advertised service. If they promised that your subscription will be up to 384kbps then it should be up to 384kbps, but in reality that’s not happening. In the first place my maximum download speed is 150 ~ 200 kbps, but they cut me down and fixed me to 45 kbps. It was really annoying.

  44. Avatar for richard24 richard24 says:

    The danger with the memo actually is the lack of specifics with regard to the bandwidth cap. If telcos wish to maximize their profits, they can even limit it to as low as 100MB per day.

    If you give the leeway to the telcos to control their own bandwidth cap, we’re not moving in the right direction here. If we propose a policy, it should be for the benefit of everyone, both companies and subscribers.

  45. Avatar for Verbl Kint Verbl Kint says:

    “New players came in to compete for market share. Competitors like Sun offered better deals. Consumers switched to the provider that offers the better deal. Existing providers lost customers and started to compete. We now have boat-loads of bucket plans and unlimited offers again.

    I believe the same will happen with broadband internet service. It will follow the same market trend.”

    The problem with the above is that there was no NTC regulation that capped SMS messages. Bandwidth capping is different. Market forces will not come into play if inherent regulations prevent it from doing so, which is precisely what bandwidth capping will do.

    All business models moving forward will need to adhere to the policy unless it is repealed.

  46. Avatar for isonski isonski says:

    sa nakikita ko at nabasa sa mga sinabi nyo, ang may malaking problema lang dito at talagang apektado ay yung mga taong adik sa online games, facebook and video/audio streaming… sa mga katulad namin na tunay na nagta-trabaho gamit ang internet technology walang gaano epekto ito… pero nadadamay lang kami…

    sa mga totoong internet working-class heroes, sa mga sysads, network admins, developers/programmers, project leads, MIS/IT/ICT personnel and techs, mabuhay tayong lahat…!!!

    sa mga kunyaring nagtatrabaho lang at kunyari busy sa pag-facebook at online games, maghanap kayo ng ibang pagkakaabalahan at mapaglilibangan nyo…!!! mabgbasa kayo ng libro para naman magkalaman ang utak nyo..!!! huwag nyong sayangin ang mga kapakipakinabang na resources sa mga walang kwentang bagay!

  47. Avatar for john john says:

    Dislike.. I’m pretty sure that there’s something going on under the table here.

  48. Avatar for Raypin Raypin says:

    mmm……guys, just work harder this 2011 and earn more money so any price increase the Telcos will impose will be peanuts. Or better yet, cut down on Facebook, Youtube and bit torrent nonensene so you can earn more money. :)

  49. Avatar for Raypin Raypin says:

    mmmm….guys, just work harder this 2011 and earn more money so any increase in your Telco bill will be peanuts. Hindi ninyo mararamdaman. Kayang kaya nyo yan……

  50. Avatar for clinton clinton says:

    We’re missing the point here.

    The telcos are not doing this to improve service or update their network. this is just a way to increase their earnings.

    With caps in place they can sign up more people without actually needing to upgrade their network.

    The main thing that has changed in the past year is the increase of normal communication channels facilitated through the internet: chat, video calling, FB, twitter, etc.

    all these items used to run through the telcos in one form or another: voice calls, texting, etc.

    Now they find that all their income generating services are being run through their ISP service which they had promoted as “unlimited” resulting in loss of revenue for the company.

    instead of using the gains to increase service viability, it will only be used to increase the number of users so that they can generate more income to offset the loss of other channels.

  51. Avatar for richard24 richard24 says:

    Wow. When this thing gets passed, we’ll end up having the same slow speeds, but now with unreasonable caps. Imagine Globe’s 800MB cap, wherein after the cap, they cut you off completely. Imagine if NTC now justifies the cap, they can now cap you 500MB a day or 250MB a day. :( then when you reach the cap, they cut your line. Does the memo even have a minimum cap? I suppose none.

    That speed throttling is BS, because we know they wont do it, is it even in the NTC Memo? I suppose not.

    The minimum speeds.. 80%? Another BS. We all know they have an excuse for everything, like network congestion, signal, etc etc.

    Sad part is, when they violate the 80% minimum, consumers have no recourse. Lodging an administrative complaint with the NTC is like a big joke. Waste of time and effort. Have we ever seen a telco being fined or penalized? Even with all the hooplah? (like lost load or those text scams?) NONE.

  52. Avatar for Cocoy Cocoy says:

    @yuga re free market

    On that we can both agree on.

  53. Avatar for Abe Olandres Abe Olandres says:

    @cocoy – I strongly believe in Free Market Economy. Competition among numerous players wil drive prices down and benefit the consumers.

    Let’s take for example a parallel service — SMS. It used to be unlimited. Then, the telcos got greedy and used the “congested network” reason to cap SMS deliveries. That did not stop the Philippines from becoming the SMS Capital of the World.

    New players came in to compete for market share. Competitors like Sun offered better deals. Consumers switched to the provider that offers the better deal. Existing providers lost customers and started to compete. We now have boat-loads of bucket plans and unlimited offers again.

    I believe the same will happen with broadband internet service. It will follow the same market trend.

  54. Avatar for cocoy cocoy says:

    I humbly disagree, yugatech.

    1. If you’ve seen the caps imposed in Canada, the US, and elsewhere, they don’t help improve the service. At all.

    2. the M.O. still insists on best effort speed by the Telcos, /while/ raising caps. So there is no guarantee of speed.

    3. there is no mention of minimum speed. They leave it to the telcos to decide what minimum speed is. Likewise the size of the cap.

    4. I’m a free market guy, but this is one of those instances where government must lay down the basic law. Lay down the parameters. the proposed M.O. does not do that.

    5. There are numerous studies conducted for example by the Korean Communication Commission, the world bank that say, Broadband is important to raise productivity and ergo leads to GDP growth. What the NTC and the government at large is saying there is no overall general plan to encourage our telcos to keep reinvesting.

    6. Fundamentally, it is an economic problem, and not a technical problem. Technology exists to make speed and reliability a non-issue. It is the economics of it that we all contend with.

    7. Market study by Yahoo-Nielsen determined that 0 to 5 percent increase in mobile internet use happened because telcos gave very good prices on their mobile offerings.

    8. Yahoo-Nielsen also determined that 69 percent of Internet users in the philippines is in Internet cafes. So the majority of internet users are there.

    9. The broadband cap isn’t fair in that it is only favorable to the telcos. There is nothing in the proposed memorandum order that the consumer can say, ok, we can get a better deal out of it.

    10. The World Bank study by Bocchi determined that the philippines is a low capital investment country. Meaning, industries don’t reinvest as much because they are making money off the status quo. the key is to get them to reinvest.

  55. Avatar for Faust Faust says:

    why not pegged 100 mbps internet connection like what japan is doing?

  56. Avatar for vince vince says:

    isipin ninyo, kung super capped/mahal ang kuryente during the 1950’s noong nag dedevelop pa lang ang bansa, sure ball na madaming mga technological inventions ay di magiging sikat kasi masyado malakas sa kuryente like refrigerator, washing machine, electric iron, microwave, etc etc.

    going back further, noong “capped” ang kotse kasi mahal and kakaunti ang ginagawa, ang kotse treated as toy ng mayaman. Noong dumating ang “uncapped” model T (cheap and madaming supply) pati mga middle class nagkaroon ng kotse and alam nyo kung gaano ka importante ang kotse (kasama jeepney and bus) sa buhay ngayon, hindi na laruan kundi isang necessity

    same thing sa internet. Madaming mga services like VOIP, tele-surgery, tele-teaching, video on demand, youtube, digital downloads, etc ay di na lalago

    in English, suppressing innovation due to limited supply

  57. Avatar for tarbis tarbis says:

    Stupidest comparison I’ve ever read. Iniisip siguro nila na ginagamit lng nakakarami ang net para sa FB. Ang tanga talaga kahit kelan tanga pa ren kahit new year na. -_-

  58. Avatar for Say no to CAP Say no to CAP says:

    Hindi tamang icompare ang internet usage sa unlimited rice ng mang inasal kasi maraming pagkakaiba, una walang taong oorder ng 100 rice, at obviously hindi naman sasapat yun para sa isang pirasong inihaw.

    Nakakahiya naman na umorder ng ganoong karaming kanin. Hindi naman kayang kainin ng isang tao ang 100 cup of rice.

  59. Avatar for Girard Andrew Girard Andrew says:

    hmmmm… remember unlimited SMS before?

    same is happening here… these ISPs are just looking for ways to squeeze money from us now that people are using more internet and less SMS…

    situation before was… people were making less calls and more SMS.

  60. Avatar for batang pinoy batang pinoy says:

    grabe talaga ang kasibaan ng mga telcos dito sa ‘pinas!!!
    nagta-trabaho yung mga tao ng matino, kumikita sila ng matino, nagbabayad sila ng matino tapos ganon lang ang serbisyo ng mga telcos…nakakahiya naman talaga, mga bulok na telcos!

    tignan lang natin kung madadala ng mga telcos na yan yung mga pera nila kapag namatay sila…mga wala silang konsensya, hindi sila marunong magbalik ng “utang na loob” sa mga customer nila na nagbabayad ng matino.

    kinikita namin yung pera namin ng matino para lang maipambayad lang sa serbisyo nyo tapos bulok lang yung ibibigay nyo sa amin?

    ano ba yang mga telcos na yan?
    negosyante o manggagantso?

    2011 na, hindi pa rin nagbabago yung serbisyo (perwisyo) nyo!!!

    mas masahol pa kayo sa mga kriminal dito sa ‘pinas!

  61. Avatar for kups kups says:

    bulok talaga telco at govt sa pinas. ang bagal ng service pati ba naman internet. kaya lumisan na kami sa pinas at sa singapore na lang kami. dto ang internet unlimited & ang minimum bandwidth 8mbps. yung iba naka 1gig pa.

  62. Avatar for Manix Manix says:

    unfortunately, one has to accept the fact that its a 3rd world country infrastracture setting

  63. Avatar for vince vince says:

    please LIKE this facebook no to capping page.

  64. Avatar for lolipown lolipown says:

    @cruz tupaz
    hah nailed it. This is the reason why old people in office should die out really soon. Harsh yes but we need lawmakers who understand technology better than those simply clamoring it’s for your own good.

    Seriously, how can you claim it’s for the people’s good if you have no idea how things work.

  65. Avatar for Vance Vance says:

    Masgusto ko unlimited, selfish na kung selfish, at least i don;t need to count how many gigs i use.. lalo nakung magkakaron ng tivo like service here, imagine mo nalang kung 13 shows pinapanood mo.. tapos high def.. ave 700 mb each, within a month over the cap kana kung 25Gb lang plan mo..

  66. Avatar for Kenneth Kenneth says:

    One more classic case of abuse by telcos, smart in particular.

    If you register for unli surf wether its one day or multiple days. If you browse facebook, you will get slapped an automatic deduction/charge of 20pesos for unlifacebook20. even if you did not register for it, coz you shouldn’t have to having registered/activated unlimited surfing. Double jeopardy for consumers, not so good service na nga you get charged double/extra pa …

    Haayyyy sana NTC thinks doubly hard about their recent ruling in the area of SLAs.

  67. Avatar for kyflo kyflo says:

    Kung totoo ang sinasabi ng mga telcos na ito, ibalik nila ang paggamit ng “PANA : TRUTH IN ADVERTISING” sa mga ads nila para kahit papaano ay magiging kampante ang mga consumers. I know it is not enough. Sa mga TV ads kasi ng mga telcos na ito, sadyang binibilisan ang speed para mapabilib ang mga magsu-subscribe na kumuha ng plan.

    For me kaya nag-exist ang mga on-demand services na IWantTV ng Bayan Comm. at Watchpad ng PLDT para makatipid sila sa pag-uupgrade ng infrastructures. Kumbaga an internet plan with a speed of 384Kbps which is priced at Php 990 is cheaper than the paid price, padagdag ang mga services na ito para gawing TRIPLE-PLAY service.

  68. Avatar for kyflo kyflo says:

    What Cruz Tupaz is saying is correct.
    It may be akin to censorship..

    For me, the other reason of broadband capping is for internet censorship in the Philippines. This can be the first stage then other plans until this reaches the internet blackout. If NTC approves the MO, this will be the stage where Internet connection prices will be like the ones in Myanmar. The Philippines is a DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY, not a Communist country or a country on Military Junta.

    I hope that the people of NTC will be replaced by better and competent people who protects the rights of consumers and they are not in the favor of telcos or broadcasting companies.

  69. Avatar for Razer Razer says:

    The word “abuse” can be abused by the telcos. What I see here are great opportunities for telcos to earn more by using the great “abuse” excuse by consumers.

    How about the “abuse” of the telcos? I always see the adverts of Globe Tattoo’s unlimited SUPERSURF and they use the word “bottomles.” Isn’t that false advertisement?

    Is the NTC or any government regulatory board doing any action about these? Why doesn’t Globe announce that the otherwise unlimited Internet service is really limited to 800mb?

  70. Avatar for cruz tupaz cruz tupaz says:

    reasonable capping? who decides what’s reasonable?

    the telcos are not investing into infrastructure and facilities to upgrade our Internet connections to the levels being enjoyed by our Korean, Singaporean, and Japanese neighbors.

    as long as their service is poor and unreliable, they have no right to cap our use of the Internet. it is akin to censorship.

    the NTC is supposed to protect the citizens, not to play to the telco’s whims.

  71. Avatar for frack frack says:

    it is true that they lack in resources but do you guys know that our country doesn’t really have this so called DSL or Broadband? all telecos are connected to PLDT :) the main source.. And do you also know that PNOY wanted to have it here in our country but these politicians hinder not to because of the previous issue of ZTE deal. I have 2mbps connection here in province and i’m getting 60-70% of bandwidth. the tsr explained that the original bandwidth given is on that range. Most probably i’m getting like 215kbps (static) dl rate on torrents. MBps and mbps is total different and are misleading too. Since i saw it mbps not MBps, i dont complain anymore cause I understand the difference xD

  72. Avatar for uberover uberover says:

    that’s true. some of the areas here in the philippines still experience “dial-up speeds” on their broadband. telcos advertisements are way too misleading to those unfortunate broadband users who only get dial-up speeds.

    shame to those telcos who do not strive in helping those poor areas. all they want is earning big money while spending less. how shameful…

  73. Avatar for fragglerocker fragglerocker says:

    TRUTH in ADVERTISING, yon lang sana, heavy user or not, pinapacommit nila yong subscriber sa kanila (1-2 years) at least naman maging honest sila sa serbisyo nila at kung pwede yong fine print wag masyadong fine na di mo na halos mabasa.

    @frack: we are whining because we still get dial up experience kahit na ka-DSL subscribe ka na

  74. Avatar for frack frack says:

    i mean Globe is practicing bandwidth distribution… (not telecos, i dont know how things work on other teleco)

  75. Avatar for frack frack says:

    it seemed that telecos here were practicing bandwidth distribution like what other telecos in other countries are doing except that they keep the price affordable as possible. Well, in Europe, they are not allowed to do P2P anymore and torrents. Everytime they download huge files, there’s a limit based on bucket system and they will pay extra if they reached their max. So consumers are afraid to do downloads because of it. My question is… what are you guys whinning?!!! LOL

  76. Avatar for mousetrap mousetrap says:

    Not only for wireless connections but also those areas who suffer from low internet speeds like some provinces

  77. Avatar for JayM JayM says:

    I think medyo hindi to applicable or mahirap i-implement sa wireless broadband since affected ang connection ng other factors like location, walls, buildings, etc. that causes slow connection…tama po ba?

  78. Avatar for agrimensor agrimensor says:

    We should be given the option to terminate our contract if this CAPPING should happen.Bili na lang ako nung “BUCKET meal” every now and then kesa magbayad ng 2k for DSL.

    They playing with fire here.And Im sure it will back fire on their face.

  79. Avatar for jb jb says:

    puro nalang corruption ang naiisip ng gobyerno talaga…. kala ko ba wala ng corruption sa Aquino’s govt. pero ito ay maliwanag na pagnanakaw yan.

  80. Avatar for husky2 husky2 says:

    it seems that the philippines will not see the future of cloud computing anymore with this bandwidth caps…

    these telcos offer their services horribly in some areas and yet they have the guts to make bandwidth caps happen…shame to those telcos!

    “god knows who does not pay.”

  81. Avatar for lolipown lolipown says:

    so it’s alright to sell something don’t have the capacity to provide? Seems like you need something called business 101.

    oh and delusional? look who’s talking. butthurt ba? :)

  82. Avatar for BrownBear BrownBear says:

    @gg: there can be no fairness if they don’t want to expand their bandwidth capacity but instead cram all their subscriber into their measly bandwidth.

    they can monitor our usage, but can we monitor their capacity to provide fair service?

  83. Avatar for BrownBear BrownBear says:

    Simple lang naman kasi ang formula na sinusunod nang mga hinayupak na telcos na yan:


    Ang problema masyadong matagal na silang nalulong sa malaking kita kapalit nang maliit o halos walang puhunan sa pamamagitan nang SMS or text messaging.

    Ngayon na nararamdaman na nila ang pagbaba nang kita nila sa SMS, nakakaisip na sila nang ibang tubong-lugaw na raket.

    Kaya ang solusyon nila? Wag nang bumili pa nang madaming bandwidth at sa halip ay pagkasyahin na lang sa lahat nang subscribers ang kakarampot na bandwidth nila.

    Tanong ko sa NTC: Ano ang mas maganda para sa bansa natin?

    a) maraming Filipino na may access sa maraming information.

    b) kaunting Filipino na may access sa kaunting information.

  84. Avatar for roy roy says:


    please read the post again. If you still don’t get my point, it’s that the 80% Reliability for a 1 Mbps connection according to the NTC memo DOES NOT always equate to what yuga says will be an 800 kbps average connection speed.

    but i dont blame you yugabehonest if you didn’t get it, trolls aren’t really known for their reading comprehension skills. ;)

  85. Avatar for gg gg says:





  86. Avatar for gg gg says:


    what’s unethical is how they present and advertise their services.

    again ang problema d2 e ung misleading na salitang “unlimited”

    bat pa sila nagooffer? kasi business? gus2 mo ba wala ng telco d2 na magoffer d2 ng internet service??



  87. Avatar for gg gg says:

    binasa mo ba ung complete post ko?

    nakalagay sa baba, either upgrade their system, or make the price right..

    ikaw ang moron, impulsive commenter. lumabas ka ng bahay, mas masaya ang totoong buhay kesa buhay sa internet. haha

  88. Avatar for Ethan Ethan says:

    Dammit. I’m out of a job if the cap affects my work on oDesk.

  89. Avatar for Lezuric Lezuric says:

    To think that they earn big billions from this expensive ISPs compare to other countries why not to upgrade their facilities then? I won’t be against capping for agreeable bandwidth cap per month and a well said 80% average connectivity! Very well explained sir Yuga! :)

  90. Avatar for Night Night says:


    I think Roy was just giving a sample computation on how many bandwith you will consume if you use 8 hours a day with the promised 80% speed cap. So what more pag more than 8 hours ka gumamit diba?

  91. Avatar for yugabehonest yugabehonest says:




  92. Avatar for yugabehonest yugabehonest says:


    So you’re saying that it’s OK for you to ONLY use the internet 8hrs per day even if you’re paying for unlimited internet service? YOU FCKNG IMPOSSIBLE DUDE! or YOU’RE JUST PLAIN STUPID!

  93. Avatar for jonai jonai says:

    “””Addendum: I think the issue here is the use of the word “unlimited” in the subscription plans when in fact it’s actually just a modified form of “bucket plans”. What if the NTC orders all the telcos to shift to “bucket plans” and sell internet connection on a pay per use basis? Say if you consume 15GB a month, you only pay Php500 but if you use 50GB in a month, your bill goes up accordingly (say Php1,500). I think that would have been a more straight-forward approach. Never mind if most of the consumers could not quantify what a gigabyte is. At least it’s not false advertising.”””…SIR YUGA, ANG GALING MO TALAGA!!!

  94. Avatar for Lobbyist Lobbyist says:

    just a proof that almost everything that exists around us is for profit of somebody and is for their effin’ gain… NTC is BS if they will decide to agree with the telco’s capping our bandwidth… this is clear money making scheme…

  95. Avatar for sekwet sekwet says:

    another get rich scheme by NTC nice one.. which they get some under the table payouts from telcos..

    online games patches will just kill the 5gig limit

    we move forward not backward..

    remove old officials with young ones who knows there stuff..

  96. Avatar for Roy Roy says:

    Let’s stop it with the Mang Inasal and the unlimited rice example. Let’s all read and understand the NTC draft again and not get mislead. The service reliability (as quoted by Yuga himslef) is computed from the the number of hours in a day where the bandwidth was at the “acceptable” minimum bandwidth level divided by number of hours in a day the connection was used.

    If I am connected or trying to connect through what’s supposed to be my 1 Mbps broadband connection for 8 hours a day, going through some on-line video learning course and downloading instructional material. However, with in those 8 hours, what’s supposed to be a 1 Mbps connection is only able to provide me 512 kbps for 7 hours. And that 1 remaining hour, my connection was completely down.

    If the NTC declares that the “minimum accepatable bandwidth for my 1 Mbps connection is in fact 512 kbps, THEN THE SERVICE RELIABILITY I HAVE EXPERIENCED WITH IN THOSE 8 HOURS IS 87.5% ( 7 out of the 8 hours I was supposed to be connected, with all 7 of those hours I was being “serviced” acceptably by my provider).

    Computing for the average bandwidth provided to me by the telco though:

    ((512 kbps x 7 hours) + ( 0 kbps x 1 hour))/ 8 hours

    = 448 kbps average connection speed over 8 hours, and again according to the NTC, IT’S STILL ACCEPTABLE.

    I just hope people would see what kind of BS these telcos and the NTC are trying to give us.

  97. Avatar for lolipown lolipown says:

    haha spot on analogy :)

    To sum it up, once you reach your BW cap, your download speeds will get shot to oblivion.

  98. Avatar for vince vince says:

    customer: pabili ng isang litrong premium gas. eto ang 51 pesos ko

    gas attendant: sorry ser, madami kaming customer and ayaw namain gumastos para mag hire ng mas madaming tanker trucks and mag tayo ng bagong gas storage tank so sa 51 pesos, mabibigyan ko kayo ng 0.6 liters

    customer : #[email protected][email protected] you!!!

  99. Avatar for vince vince says:

    dapat i cap ang pag kuha ng new subscribers

    no new subscribers if you dont have the infra to handle them

  100. Avatar for Jeric Jeric says:

    Sir yuga, mejo naguluhan lang ako. Am i correct na once i reached my cap, i am moving to a lower speed since i am being transfer to another line? Unlimited but but get lower speeds when i reached my cap similar to what wi-tribe implements? Thanks!

  101. Avatar for husky husky says:

    it seems that the philippines will not see the future of cloud computing anymore with this bandwidth caps…

    these telcos offer their services horribly in some areas and yet they have the guts to make bandwidth caps happen…shame to those telcos!

    “god knows who does not pay.”

  102. Avatar for lolipown lolipown says:


    It’s unethical to sell something you can provide. If they have not the capacity why are they still selling?

  103. Avatar for Jazon Jazon says:

    For an MMORPG player, streaming media user and Linux distro tester, this is most unwelcome. Look at our broadband speeds: they’re already capped and I might say handicapped. It’s slow for the price we pay.

  104. Avatar for gg gg says:





  105. Avatar for gg gg says:

    again be realistic. they cant really provide a virtually unlimited service! they are thinking of how to make the service distribution more effective and fair for all. it is already given that we lack the facilities to cater all the demand, but while on the process of development, they have to balance everything.

    the 1mbps tag is more of speed. it does not represent the bandwidth allocation for the service you subscribed in. at the moment, I dont think it make sense if telco’s would ask customers upon registration kung heavy users sila o hindi. kasi bandwidth is subjective, at depende sa current congestion.

  106. Avatar for Dude Dude says:

    I only have one question.
    Why would any of you give our ISP’s more control?

  107. Avatar for lolipown lolipown says:

    yes it’s hard to expect 99.9% stable, reliable unlimited service but even with caps, it’s harder to put your faith on telcos that oversell already congested lines.

    I lol’d at yugabehonest tho :)

  108. Avatar for MikeM MikeM says:

    Teka nga–why should the telcos care about how much data I receive per month, if the data comes in at the rate I subscribed to? I pay for 1mbps so my speed is capped. Now they wanna cap how much I use my account, too? No way. This misguided policy is a godsend for congressmen and senators who want to strike a populist stand & I think I’ll write some of them.

  109. Avatar for Pao Pao says:

    theoretically maganda sana, kaso sa experience ng mga tao, paano magtitiwala sa mga telco na mabibigyan nila ng better service yung subscribers nila kung maiimplement itong cap na ito. from the point of view of a subscriber, panay kabig ang nangyayari kasi. kabig ng kabig mga telco, dehado parati mga subscribers who pay good money for crappy service.

  110. Avatar for kyflo kyflo says:

    I oppose this capping MO. As a heavy internet user, how can I watch or download my favorite games,movies and music (either legit or pirated).

    There are alot of YouTube users and a single 15min video in 360p will be like up to 100MB (depends on compression). Imagine if we only have up to 800MB per day or 25GB per month? The MO of having a p2p tracking system would be good but you need to get btguard or similar services for you to enjoy P2P downloading.

    I hope that this will not be implemented and Filipinos will enjoy using the internet that they want. NTC should stick to bigger projects that would help the telecommunications industry.

  111. Avatar for gg gg says:

    open ur eyes guys, sa panahon ngayon, can u really expect a credible unlimited service? kahit sang bansa naman sa buong mundo, lahat ng mga services offered eh may loopholes. lalo na sa mga terms na unlimited. problema kasi sa mga tao they are expecting way more than what they are paying for!

  112. Avatar for gg gg says:

    common sense. ang paggamit nila ng word na unlimited eh sa time base. hindi siya limited ng 20 pesos per 1 hour, like sa mga rine-register na promo. o sa mga shop.. ung unlimited internet, like surf anytime u want at the same price.

    ibang usapin ung sa bandwidth. hindi applicable sa bandwidth ung term ng mga telco na unlimited. so technically, may false advertising issue nga d2.

    but u cant expect regular non-techie people na maintindihan ang bandwidth. so pwede isama nalang sya sa terms and conditions. I dont think effective syang ilagay sa main advertising lines.

    but who know. like wi-tribe, very honest sila sa capping. they even include it sa mga flyers might sound awkward, pero atleast walang pwedeng masumbat sa kanila.

  113. Avatar for yugabehonest yugabehonest says:

    Yuga simple math lng ha.

    1Mbps plan = 100KBps on actual
    so…80% of it is 80KBps

    80KBps * 3600sec[1hr] = 288000KB per hour
    288000KB per hour * 24hr[1day] = 6912000KB per day
    6912000KB per day * 30days[1mo] = 207360000KB per mo

    or 207.36GB per month if unlimited internet ka. that is if 80% lng ang ibibigay ng ISP. GETS? 100GB is not enough man!

  114. Avatar for yugabehonest yugabehonest says:

    Hoi Yuga! try mo sa mga Telcos natin. Para malaman mo gaano ka congested ang servers ng ISP. Binayaran ka ba ng mga ISPs? You can’t fool us fool!

  115. Avatar for yugabehonest yugabehonest says:

    Yuga, man do you know what you are talking about?
    Man this move by the NTC is clearly not for the people’s good. Man! NTC should have pass a bill that will make our ISPs better. Not letting them use their crapping “technology”. If you can still consider it a technology. Come on. Don’t ack like is OK if the ISPs are putting bandwidth cap. Come on, 25GB per month? That’s BULL CRAP! Ask your “network engineer” friend if you can even reach your 15th day of the month if you’re an online gamer or a freelance worker on oDesk.

    To all the Gamers, oDesk workers and Facebook addicts…GOOD LUCK TO US ALL

  116. Avatar for Galit sa NTC Galit sa NTC says:

    TEKA NGA?!

    bakit ang NTC kinakampihan ang mga ISP e samantalang ang ISP dapat ang sumunod sa gobyerno?!

    wala bang mga bayag yang mga taga NTC na parusahan at iupgrade ang pagbutihin ang serbisyo nila?! kapag negosyante ka… dapat inanticipate nila ang demand at supply! inuuto lang nila mga taga NTC!

  117. Avatar for Paul Paul says:

    It has begun…

    Bayan DSL has started implementing a bandwidth cap, it’s 100 GB per month.

  118. Avatar for mike_z22 mike_z22 says:

    This thing makes me sick, I’m a Steam User, How am I suppose to buy games from Steam with this bandwidth cap? Ang papahirapan lang ako magdownload ng legit files? how about skype users na malakas din sa bandwidth? when you reached the cap, everything stops? asan na yun binabayad mo monthly? are we not paying?
    dapat maisip din to ng NTC, Cloud computing is the future of internet, and we aint going back to stone age(or dial-up age)
    I don’t use p2p, because its a waste of time and electricity, and now i would say, it would be also a waste of bandwidth when this thing happened.

  119. Avatar for vince vince says:


    Amid rising consumer complaints, the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) plans to require telecom companies to reveal the minimum speed of their broadband services.

    NTC commissioner Gamaliel Cordoba told reporters that a draft NTC memorandum order (MO) on broadband speed will address the concerns raised by the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) about slow Internet connections contrary to what telecom firms advertise.

    NTC data showed that complaints lodged against telcos reached 622 in the first nine months of the year.

    Of the total number of complaints posted during the period, more than 50 percent pertained to poor Internet connections.

    Other consumer complaints ranged from erroneous billing to poor service, vanishing pre-paid load credits, e-load issues, and misleading promos.

    Cordoba said the MO will require telcos to reveal to the consumers the minimum speed of their broadband services.

    Currently, telecom firms are only disclosing the maximum speed of their broadband Internet connection services.

    NTC data showed that the country’s broadband subscribers stood at 3.6 million last year, up by 102.81 percent from the 1.77 million in 2008.

    The NTC projected broadband subscribers to register a three-digit growth in the next two to three years.

    Cordova said the NTC had sent letters to Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co., (PLDT), Smart Communications Inc., Globe Telecom, Digital Telecommunications Phils Inc., Bayan Telecommunications Inc., and other broadband service providers to submit a position papers.

    Under Memorandum Circular 19-12-04 or the Service Performance Standards for Internet Access Services and Wired Telecommunication Services, the bandwidth throughput for Internet Access is up to 98.5 percent.

    For dial-up access, the telcos are mandated to deliver at least 80 percent of committed information status and 99 percent for leased line access.

    To serve the rising consumer demand for broadband, Cordoba said the NTC was considering to re-allocate other frequency to broadband access networks, amid the regulator’s policy of technology neutrality.

    any guesses as to what happened in between oct and dec sa National Tong Comission??

  120. Avatar for vince vince says:

    sign the online petition against the cap. not sure if this is 100% free though

  121. Avatar for psx0529 psx0529 says:

    They better fix the systems first and improve bandwidth, which should be at par with what we are actually paying (when compared to other countries in S.E. Asia).

    Then, and only then, will I agree to having a cap to the bandwidth, as long as there is indeed a MINIMUM bandwidth as well.

  122. Avatar for gabriel gabriel says:

    @ yuga unlited rice in mang inasal is truely unlimited kung maubusan man sila ng rice u have to wait for a minutes and the unlimited is still there unlike sa globe unlisurf disconect and dnt wait kc stop na ung subcription mo. sorry sir yuga not agree in your logic.dnt used word unlimited if not apply happy new year to all

  123. Avatar for Kenneth Kenneth says:

    Sorry, but I have to disagree with bandwidth caps. Digitel has been doing this for more than a year, if I’m not mistaken but have they improved? “No!”, and that answer was according to majority of their subscribers.

    All we want is a fast and reliable internet. Don’t we? PHP999.00, in which most postpaid plans are rated that much – it’s still hard earned money for most. Subscribers just want to get what they are paying for. Instead of applying bandwidth caps, better have an upgrade on their systems. Just my opinion.

  124. Avatar for bobis bobis says:

    hahaha mauutak tlga mga telcos na yan. kaso anong magagawa natin? kahit naman isumpa natin sila, o magrally tyo o maghunger strike e hindi mababago yan eh…..kung lahat ng telcos dito sa pinas may ganyan, anong choice natin? wag na lang tayo mag-internet para hindi maapektuhan ng capping capping na yan. ayos db?

    hindi naman tayo kawalan sa mga companies na yan. kaso pag wala sila, wala nmn magbibigay sa atin ng serbisyo. so…. wag na nga lang maginternet! haha

  125. Avatar for walang imik walang imik says:

    prrrrtttttt,,,,, relax lang kayo… peace!!!!!

  126. Avatar for bomber6 bomber6 says:

    world wide web exists because its main goal is to become a “pool of information” and that was the reason why tim-berners lee, the inventor of world web, created www.

    then, these telcos are going to stop the real purpose of the world wide web? what the hell?!

    world wide web is for everyone but these telcos want to own them for their own sake?

    bandwidth caps simply defeat the purpose of having the world wide web!

    say “no” to bandwidth caps! say “yes” to information freedom!

    damn, all to those who want to stop us from making the www a better place!

  127. Avatar for Mike Mike says:

    25GB per month is too small its like a sustained 77Kbps line for one month. If the minimum average is 80% per subscribed line a plan of 1Mbps with a 800Kbps average would yield 259GB per month.

    Maybe set the sustained at 20% or 200Kbps or 64GB per month and don’t disconnect but throttle the speed down to again 20% when the monthly cap has been reached.

  128. Avatar for vince vince says:

    look at credit card versus cash prices

    I predict isp’s will use the same loophole to continue using the word unlimited in their ads and to avoid being investigated

    what if they offer a plan : “unlimited @ 512kbps” then in the fine print “with bonus up to 1 mbps for the first 10 gigs”. Then if you get lower than 512kbps 80% of the time they will say, we are not covered by the 80% MO of the NTC since that is not a “capped” plan, its a plan with “bonus speed”

  129. Avatar for domob domob says:

    @sir yuga: Telcos will promise to implement 80% of speed? Promises are meant to be broken! Who would monitor this, NTC? HOW??? Would telcos be penalized? I HIGHLY DOUBT.

    They should not bother what the consumers do with their connections or whatever but rather force these ISPs to upgrade network infrastructures. Congestion resulted from too many subscribers, its their greed and they’re trying to blame it on the PAYING CONSUMERS. Otherwise, they better kiss my ass, dipshits.


  130. Avatar for Manix Manix says:

    agree with the bandwidth cap and speed cap, along with clear pricing terms & conditions.

    Better see the real picture than being told of “unlimited”.

  131. Avatar for simplynice93 simplynice93 says:

    I agree with all of you. It’s the telco’s fault that they put the word “UNLIMITED” on their ads. NTC should advice the public what are the telco’s cap is.

  132. Avatar for petken petken says:

    I think ang kailangan gawin ng NTC is iforce ang mga TelCos to provide more bandwidth to accommodate all the users. Ooffer offer sila ng Unlimited at tanggap lang sila ng tanggap ng mga subscriber kahit na alam nila na may congestion na kasalanan nila yan. Sila ang dapat magadjust. Kahit ano pang sabihin nila UNLIMITED IS UNLIMITED. Kung may cap DAPAT ILAGAY NILA SA ADS NILA LIMITED INTERNET CONNECTION para matapos na lahat ng to. NO TO FALSE ADVERTISING!!! Kung hindi kaya iprovide ang unlimited wag ioffer tapos.

  133. Avatar for Night Night says:

    Pero kung may choice sa unlimited pa din ako. Pero kung wala talagang choice lalagyan ng cap at least make the cap 15-20GB per day. Kasi example kung ung 5GB na usually na DL mo ng 10 hours eh 24 hours lang per day so more or less 13-15gb lng ma DL mo per day. unlike kung bumilis ung DSL (i doubt bibilis) magiging 5 hours lang DL time mo, better diba? pero in the end lahat tayo gusto talaga unlimited dahil humans by nature ayaw nakakulong or na lilimitahan.

  134. Avatar for Paul Paul says:

    Same with Night, as long as the cap is very high.

    Take for example PLDT watchpad streaming: on my MBP it went through 2 GB of bandwidth in 3 hours. That doesn’t take into account the 1 GB spent on uploading since PLDT watchpad is a P2P client. If the monthly bandwidth cap is 25 GB I’d blow through it in less than two weeks just from PLDT watchpad alone.


    Oh, shucks, didn’t know that. Do they also advertise Globe DSL as unlimited? I checked their website and it doesn’t say.

  135. Avatar for Night Night says:

    Yup pero alisin na nila yung word na unlimited sa plans nila dahil hindi na siya unlimited. 500gb per month or around 16gb per day seems fair. kahit mag DL ako sa torrent ng series eh 4 na season per day ang ma DL ko. hindi ko pa din maramdaman na di sya unlimited. pero kung 50gb per month no thanks.

  136. Avatar for Abe Olandres Abe Olandres says:

    @night – so you are okay with bandwidth cap as long as 500GB or higher sya? Pareho tayo.

  137. Avatar for Night Night says:

    I agree with Paul on the Mang Inasal logic. Hindi mo naman sabay sabay kakainin ung 30 cups eh. Just like hindi mo sabay sabay gagamitin yung 30GB of bandwith. Pero pag nasa 30th rice ka na bibigyan ka pa din ng rice unlike kung may cap pag nasa 30th GB ka na ng bandwith, wala ka ng internet so hindi sya unlimited. Papayag lang ako sa “reasonable cap” kung 500GB ang cap.

  138. Avatar for Abe Olandres Abe Olandres says:

    @peeyaj – not sure if you read my statement that “I don’t personally like bandwidth capping”. I also mentioned that I am a “bandwidth service provider” myself (a business I run for 7 years) so I know the limitations of bandwidth resources and have maintained this stand even before I was a blogger.

  139. Avatar for peeyaj peeyaj says:


    I am really disappointed with you, sir yuga. You have now danced with the devil. Google did such thing, when they teamed up with Verizon, in opposing net neutrality in the U.S. The telco companies will only benefit in this capping, consumers will lose.

    I admire you for standing with the common ‘consumer’, in these previous years, but seeing that you agree with your own advertisers, made my mind change about you. I’m saddened by it.

  140. Avatar for lolipown lolipown says:

    Globe’s wired plans have bandwidth caps listed in the user agreement for new customers. Check out a copy of Globe’s new Terms of Services for DSL users

  141. Avatar for Abe Olandres Abe Olandres says:

    @paul – the very same draft MO of NTC also guarantees customers 80% of the promised speed. So if we are promised to be given 1 cup of rice every 15 minutes, the threshold is 18 minutes (20% speed delay) and not 28 minutes later (80% speed delay).

    And if a certain customer orders 30 cups of rice in one go, expect the Store Manager of Mang Inasal to investigate them.

  142. Avatar for Paul Paul says:


    That’s more of a speed cap than a bandwidth cap. And we already have speed caps.

    The Mang Inasal analogy for bandwidth cap is not how someone asks 100 cups in one go, but rather when you get to 30 cups they suddenly stop serving you any more rice until the next day despite the promotion being ‘unlimited’. That is what we need to watch for with our internet.

  143. Avatar for Abe Olandres Abe Olandres says:

    @PhilFail – that’s the point actually. Let’s say Mang Inasal can only accommodate 1 or 2 cups of rice for each of the customers every 15 minutes, a customer who asks for 100 cups in one go will be “put on hold” since the kitchen will have to cook more rice to serve that customer.

    In that same note, if Mang Inasal puts a cap of 30 cups of rice on their “unlimited” rice promo, would you still complain that it’s not really unlimited? That’s where my position is — put a cap but make sure the cap is reasonable. I think 30 cups of rice is a reasonable cap for unlimited rice.

  144. Avatar for Andrew Andrew says:

    Capping internet usage is truly a backwards decision. I do understand that the NTC considered alternatives in view of fairness, but they also need to put in perspective the development of our country especially in todays age of information. This is not a good proposition.

  145. Avatar for PhilFail PhilFail says:

    Using your Mang Inasal’s analogy, of course I wouldn’t order 100 cups of rice but I sure expect to be given all the rice I can eat in one sitting. If another customer pays the same but consumes less of the “unlimited” rice, why the #@^% do I have to be penalized? So that it will be fair for the other customer (so called regular users)? What about me? Am I not a customer?

  146. Avatar for RGay RGay says:

    THIS IS BULL CRAP! 25GB per month is not enough! People working online will suffer. Online Gamers, Facebook addicts. Good luck. NTC should ask the ISPs to upgrade the FUCKd up system they have. Not allowing ’em to put caps. I thought NTC and the gov’t is for the people. Why are they allowing the ISP to abuse and milk us?

  147. Avatar for ICesteam ICesteam says:

    if ever ntc allows cap then ,in that draft you should also point that telcos mandatory to increase their cap accordingly.

  148. Avatar for agentorenz agentorenz says:

    @mark…nice thinking

    puro profit lang nasa utak ng corporate world. Wala man lang ‘customer delight’ approach. Hindi porke necessity ang mga products and services niyo, puro peso sign ang mata niyo.

    Instead of calling them TOP 10 COMPANIES,
    call them 10 MOST SELFISH companies.

    i agree, dapat kumikilos tayo sa pag-lobby sa mga government agencies. But then again, im sure corporate world, government and MEDIA will label me as “militant”.

  149. Avatar for DK DK says:

    Filipinos now a days are into the digital way of life. They go online almost 24/7. They watch YOUTUBE in HD/HQ as always replacing their TV’s. People working on office listen to online radios and watch videos online during their break time and a single company has a LOT of employees connecting to a single internet connecion. Most people BUY and DOWNLOAD MOVIES and SOFTWARES ONLINE and a high quality movie has a file size of nearly 4-10Gb. Many people do VIDEO CHAT for more than 3Hours. People listen to ONLINE RADIOS while they sleep. Many gamers play ONLINE GAMES which consumes 100% of their Internet Connection. Lots of people do FACEBOOK waching HIGH RESOLUTION photos. (All of those activities mentioned eats a lot of bandwith) And imagine, a family with 6 members with their own laptops and phones connected on a single wifi connection would do all of that everyday? That’s a NO NO for us! Better fix ur promised “HIGHSPEED INTERNET ACCESS” and GIVE US FASTER INTERNET PLANS!

  150. Avatar for ICesteam ICesteam says:

    Yup but usually once a law pases on philippines its very hard to regulate it usually big companies or people with huge amount of money can get away with it. i subscribed to globe speak and surf before.. the first 2 months was ok .. then next months was disaster, i couldnt surf , i cant do out going calls, , then i keep calling globe, but they couldnt do a thing. the thing is im in their lock in i have to complete my subscription. at my 6th month i return the item.. and i demanded i wont pay for the service, i should even get a refund for the 4 months of lousy service, instead they charge me a pretermination fee, and blacklist from globe… errr. wtf.. i walkout of the shop and didn,t even bother with globe.. see how big company get away with it ? could i sue them ? i dont think so.. then few weeks later i just walkby and saw a lot of people lined up with angry speak n surf subscribers .. wasted my time and credibility

  151. Avatar for Paul Paul says:


    Here is their Fair Use Policy:

    They detail how they put a cap of 800MB on their so-called unlimited Super Surf plan.

    How do they get away with it? Well, they don’t define their mobile internet as broadband but rather as ‘nomadic broadband’.

    > To fully enjoy Globe nomadic broadband services such as Super Surf,
    > make a quick assessment of your usage. If it is more than average, or
    > the plan you subscribed for, it would be best to upgrade your plan
    > or subscribe to a broadband service for your home to suit your usage
    > requirement and lifestyle.

    Now this is all an assumption, but I guess the difference between broadband and nomadic broadband is that the latter is prepaid while the former is postpaid, as shown here:

    > If a customer exceeds the peak capacity, the following may be experienced:
    > * For WiMax Prepaid: service will be temporarily unavailable until end of day and will resume the following day.
    > * For WiMax Postpaid: slow browsing speed within the month.

    For Globe it shows that while they do cap even their postpaid WiMax service, they don’t cut it off but rather put you into a lower bandwidth tier. It’s not too different from the bucket system yuga is describing. Also you may notice that DSL is *not* covered by their bandwidth cap.

  152. Avatar for Manuel Manuel says:

    False advertising. PERIOD. Somebody should bring this to court.

  153. Avatar for Hebron Hebron says:

    To all telcos: Dont take in more than what you can handle.

  154. Avatar for Abe Olandres Abe Olandres says:

    @ICesteam – that’s why caps should constantly updated based on average consumer use. 5 years from now, caps might be in the 1 terabyte level.

  155. Avatar for ICesteam ICesteam says:

    @ sir abe.. i think capping is bad.. i know that you dont usually reach the maximum bandwidth but consider this , in the future there will be more internet based gadgets, Google Tv, Mobile, netflix, TVU, UStream,Online Video Chat our kababayan now use this now(there might even be 1080P Video Chat in the near future ), Internet Radio, hi-def video uploaded to youtube,12mb pictures from DSLR,heck every pc driver also increase bytes , there’s even ONLIVE a BACK SERVER option for gamers they may reach philippines shores that hogs internet data, thats why people are buying 2tb hardisk now because data increase in bytes, i think we should be future proof, now if they allow capped how will you use all this gadgets .. in the future i know they might increase the cap but consider this, how much internet data that an average family of 5 consume.. i dont think 10gb or 30 is enough. just the volume of online video chat with higher resolution of picture and video will eat most of the bandwidth. isn it capping will sort of limit our gadgets too right.. ?

  156. Avatar for Abe Olandres Abe Olandres says:

    @Mark – not really. maybe you’d get a rebate or don’t pay at all.

  157. Avatar for Benben Benben says:

    youl probably consume another 500mb for your *upload*

  158. Avatar for Mark Mark says:

    Does that mean if I get bandwidth below 80% my subscribed speed I could sue them? Hmmm… interesting… hehehehehe

  159. Avatar for Benben Benben says:


    oh that was quick. if thats the case, it means no torrent/p2p. Because these applications eat both downstream and upstream bandwidth..
    Say you download 700mb movie.. youl probably consume another 500mb for your download (assuming you stop seeding soon after you finished your download)

    So thats 1.2G per movie?


  160. Avatar for zeeguy zeeguy says:

    Take a look at this webpage for Globe’s Supersurf:

    It clearly says UNLIMITED surfing, without any reference whatsoever to any capping. No link to their fair user policy.

    With regards to the guaranteed speeds, doesn’t faster speeds mean you’d just reach the cap faster?

  161. Avatar for Robin Robin says:

    “to use an LRT analogy. Long lines and crowded trains.

    Correct solution : get more coaches and establish more lines

    solution after bribing the gov’t : bawal sumakay ng more than twice a day”

    Apparently everybody in the country is subsidizing LRT use, whether they use it or not. Getting more coaches means having to subsidize it more.

    The correct solution is to charge the correct rate.

  162. Avatar for Abe Olandres Abe Olandres says:

    @benben – didn’t completely read the fine print in the DSL contract but my guess is that it’s cumulative of downstream and upstream bandwidth.

  163. Avatar for Benben Benben says:


    It is still not clear.

    “1.5GB cap is for mobile 3G internet on your mobile phone. For residential DSL lines, the cap is between 15GB to 35GB ”

    will this only include downstream? what about your upload? Remember internet is not one way communication? Have they considered this on their “calculation” for capping? Because Ive read somewhere that cap limit is download + upload consumption.

  164. Avatar for Richard Benedict Richard Benedict says:

    We are the talking about capping and consumption of our ISP’s, but how high can you get for a Month.

    Here’s I have a almost 20GB limit per month on my PLDT DSL

  165. Avatar for Robin Robin says:

    I am okay with the caps, especially if they actually deliver on the minimum guaranteed speed. For heavy users, they should just have plans with higher caps.

  166. Avatar for link link says:

    Paano na
    yung mga gamers,
    nakikinig ng online radio,
    video watchers.
    Information hungry individuals…..
    This is STUPIDITY!
    Hindi tayo mag-evolve nyan! Paurong tayo hindi pasulong…
    Somebody save us!

  167. Avatar for lolipown lolipown says:

    problem is, even with caps, there’s no guarantee service will improve. Telcos are prone to overselling lines.

  168. Avatar for vince vince says:

    to use an LRT analogy. Long lines and crowded trains.

    Correct solution : get more coaches and establish more lines

    solution after bribing the gov’t : bawal sumakay ng more than twice a day

  169. Avatar for vince vince says:

    I predict speeds will not increase, mabagal pa rin.
    worst of both worlds. first world caps with 3rd world speeds. All will be capped, but if you complain that the speed is slow “sir we will forward this to our technical section, please call back in one month”

    this is just like gasoline prices. When prices go up, they go up instantly. When they go down, there are a lot of T.R.O’s, delaying tactics, excuses and pa installment pa ang baba.

    how will the cap solve slow speed due to congestion if at the start of the month, everyone is not capped yet and can download?

  170. Avatar for Mr.A Mr.A says:

    I’m not opposed to the draft. What is important is that NTC or the ISP can provide a tool for us to monitor our bandwidth, serve as a reference over our usage. That way, they can’t reason us out if we go over our limit.

    This draft memo is beneficial to consumers who don’t stress the bandwidth of network, and further give them options to have a much cheaper plans because of it. If we can provide cheaper plans, like 500 for 10GB/month at 1Mb/s is quite a feat. In the end, it doesn’t prevent freedom of information, it makes it more accessible to many.

    What should be done is to have a bucket and Unlimited plan. Offer the bucket for casual users at cheaper price and offer the Unlimited plan for premium for heavy users. Business plan are exempted on this or should be given 100GB or more cap. Corporate plans and lease lines are, of course, exempted.

    I think were going to where Canada is right now. I think residential wired DSL should have a minimum cap of 100GB per month, not 30GB. But then again, that’s just me and my vast collection of HD anime. But in the end of the day, everybody will receive fast and reliable internet. I’m good with that.

  171. Avatar for Abiel Abiel says:

    I’d be happy to see if telcos will implement a pay per use basis, yeah.. it’s better if there is a plan that you will only pay for the connection that you used. Since “Unlimited” is not really unlimited!!!

  172. Avatar for Bri Bri says:

    Patay na! pati si Smart naki join na sa CAPPING scheme. lagot na kawawa naman pinas hindi pa nga nakakatikim ng more than 10 Mbps yung mga average users capped na agad. Ahahayz

  173. Avatar for neil neil says:

    unlimited internet with bandwidth caps???!!!

    unlimited is unlimited and capping your access is limiting your usage of the network…

    remember ninu ang promo nila na P5 for 15 minutes, P25 for 3days… eh diba time based browsing ang gamit nila ngaun, mabagal pa rin eh…

    i think this bucket system is only applicable to PLDT since they have actual lines and cables to isolate and transfer… ang mga PLDT subscribers ang dapat maging aware sa bandwidth capping issue na ito…

    sa cellphone??? ano ang i-iisolate nila??? ang isang area na marami ang gumagamitng kanilang 3g???

    kaya pala mabagal ang 3g brokeband ko…

  174. Avatar for Jon Jon says:

    CApping. Hmm. There is more to this. First, these ISPs should be VERY transparent with their FUPs, capping etc. Also, there must be an accurate or reliable way for users to track their bandwidth consumption. Also, the term “unlimited” should not be used as well.

    In a worst case scenario, ISPs could cap or throttle all they want, but what about the quality of service they provide? I mean, I am sure everyone here has experienced not getting the speed they are paying for, right? And what happens when we don’t get it? Report it to their CSRs? Sadly, mostly nothing happens when we complain to these ISPs. Consumer rights??

  175. Avatar for Paul Paul says:

    @Everyone throwing a racket about the telcos using the term ‘UNLIMITED’ to describe their bandwidth plans:

    I checked their promotions and websites tonight, and I found out that only PLDT and Smart do that. Globe, Bayantel and Sky do not.

    Smart does not even use the word ‘unlimited’ to describe the bandwidth, but rather the amount of time you can use the internet in their unlimited plan.

    So it all comes down to PLDT, and they use ‘unlimited’ on pretty much all their plans.

    On another note, I tried that PLDT Watchpad thing and installed it on my MBP (they have a beta for Mac now, hooray). Guess what, it regularly went past the speed limit of my subscribed plan. I suppose this means PLDT isn’t running out of bandwidth to necessitate capping anytime soon.

  176. Avatar for Naru Naru says:

    btw AT&T is in US, which has a much better network structure that can cater to more users. Of course they could charge lower. Here in the Philippines only PLDT controls the flow of data, and the others are just re-sellers.

    Think before you compare.

  177. Avatar for Naru Naru says:

    As long as they give the proper speeds I subscribed for, then cap ahead. I doubt I can consume a 40-50GB bandwidth cap on a residential DSL/Cable plan on 3Mbps, unless I’m a pirate ARRRRRR.

    GO PIRATES ARRRR. Cry some more, pirates.

  178. Avatar for ricardo isip ricardo isip says:

    it all boils down to one thing… stop false advertising… so we, the consumers can choose which plan is best for us and which ISP provides more value for our money….

  179. Avatar for emross emross says:

    Data cap is not right, telco companies will benefit thru this scheme they can charge additional items on our bills. and limiting our right for information. I personally subscribe to smart unlimited dataplan for 2000 only to find out it has capped of 1.5gb a month? It says unlimited? and when the bill arrived I was charge for push emails? This is clearly false advertising and way of the telco company to abuse users. NTC should tell the companies to improve their service rather customers who pays suffer. Let Foreign companies enter the country to give us a decent internet service.

    I used to Work for AT&T DSL their DSL plans are cheaper than our DSL Plans and they have higher speed fiber optics and encourage to used the bandwidth a lot. they range as high as 32mbps or higher.

  180. Avatar for Lantin Lantin says:

    “I don’t like the idea of putting caps but I’m okay with it as long as it’s a reasonable one.” – Yuga.

    Personally I don’t think there’s such a thing as reasonable capping when it comes to internet connectivity. Especially now that net connection is slowly becoming a communication necessity.

    Think about it, if your cable tv subscription is capped just because your neighbor watched TV more than you do.

    I find it funny that NTC would claim the memorandum as only a ‘draft’ and that they are open to suggestions. THIS is why consumers should always be vigilant with their government. If no one reacts, this so called draft would become the law.

    I understand that this site might be or in the future be beholden to advertisers in the telco industry. But come one now, if this site can’t side with the consumers on this issue, at least hold off making shallow biases toward the telcos.

    Again, no to capping AND no to ‘reasonable capping’.

  181. Avatar for down with Globe wimax down with Globe wimax says:

    “30-day money back guarantee”

  182. Avatar for emross emross says:

    No to capping, tech support ako sa at&t dsl wala naman capping dun, tska mas mura ang plans nila pagconvert sa peso. telco companies are abusing consumers letting them pay extra for the bandwidth. Dapat focus ng NTC is to obligate ang mga telco companies to improve their servers. Di tulad sa US fiber optics na sila meron sila 30mbps speeds sa dsl.

  183. Avatar for down with Globe wimax down with Globe wimax says:

    I hope the NTC and Telcos are reading this and do something about it unless they are contented with the billions of revenues from substandard service they give to customers.

    Buti nga yung iba may CAP pa na tinatawag, my Globe wimax is dead for 3 weeks now, CSR sent somebody to do CPR but still not able to revive it. He admitted that this is due to network problems.Then i I asked CSR to discontinue my service under the “30 money back guaranty” as advertised…. but he said that there is no such thing…. HUwaaaaaatttttt!!!????? don’t you read your flyers and website?????!!! kaka high blood talaga mga kawatan

  184. Avatar for NineSwordz NineSwordz says:

    If Smart Bro do this bullsh*t, I’m not gonna extend my subscription to them.

  185. Avatar for icefox icefox says:

    damn all these bandwidth “craps” nowadays!

  186. Avatar for No Name No Name says:

    I don’t experience any capping in my Postpaid SuperSurf via iPhone internet tethering. Most of my download source is Hotfile premium. I still get the advertise speed up to 3Mbps. My average download in a day is about 15GB.

  187. Avatar for Jonathan Jonathan says:

    @ Yuga – ah, okay, I thought you were spreading the bandwidth over four ISPs. My mistake.

    If anything, isn’t there an anomaly with this ‘plan’? The combination of a ‘guaranteed’ speed with bandwidth caps means users will be more likely to exceed the caps. In short, added profit.

    Call me a pessimist, I expect the ISPs and telcos to use this as an excuse to screw over the Philippine consumer, who ALREADY suffers with the pathetic excuses for ‘broadband’ they offer.

  188. Avatar for kyle kyle says:

    This is totally bad for power users like me

  189. Avatar for petken petken says:

    International rights lawyer Romel Bagares warned that the National Telecommunications Commission’s (NTC’s) proposal to allow data volume caps goes against consumers’ basic right to information.

  190. Avatar for Abe Olandres Abe Olandres says:

    @Jonathan – I think you got me wrong. I meant that I have not bumped into the cap, even when I only had 1 internet connection years ago. My multiple connections is more for redundancy (in case one fails).

  191. Avatar for Jonathan Jonathan says:

    @ yuga Re: 16

    Sir Yuga, with all due respect, you’re in an usual circumstance. You can afford, and have access to, multiple ISPs. Most of us do not.

    This is not good for consumers, and will only be used to overcharge for our already expensive Internet access. BOOO.

  192. Avatar for petken petken says:

    Dapat ang nakalagay sa ads ng mga Telcos

    “Subscribe now to Plan A for Only P999.00 a month with a MINIMUM SPEED OF AS LOW AS 512KBPS CAPPED @ 800MB PER DAY.” Dapat yung pinakamalaking font size possible ang ilagay nila katulad nung mga nilalagay nila sa “Unlimited at Up To” Ads nila.

  193. Avatar for Criticko Criticko says:

    One more thing.. How the telcos would know if I am downloading from legit sources like for games from Steam etc some games which is huge in size (more than 10gb) which would take me days before it is downloaded?… Ililipat din nila ako sa “bucket”? And capping the internet data is like telling me by these telcos na “hep limit ka na bukas na lang…”

    And 80% guaranteed speed? Hello!!! Ang dami kaya dsl or mobile internet users hindi nakukuha ang subscribed speed then meron pang capped… BOO!!!

  194. Avatar for zeeguy zeeguy says:

    Yes, I agree that the telcos should not use the word UNLIMITED to sell their service and when the service is cut because of so-called ABUSE, they tell the consumer to read the FINE PRINT! UNLIMITED means NO LIMIT, LIMITLESS, NO BOUNDS!! If there is a cap, they should print/show it in BIG, BOLD LETTERS!

  195. Avatar for LA LA says:

    ang problema hindi alam ng masang pilipino gaano ang mga bagay tungkol dito. mahihirapan tayong ipaglaban ito.

  196. Avatar for petken petken says:

    Ang pinakaissue talaga dito eh yang word na “UNLIMITED.” Kasi kahit anong gawin natin pagbalibaligtarin man natin ang word na “UNLIMITED” eh hindi magbabago ang meaning nito kahit pa dugtungan niyo na mga technical explanations. Ang Isang Service na may capping eh hinding hindi maituturing na “UNLIMITED” pano naging unlimited ang isang service na may limit sa speed? limit sa data? Edi LIMITED na ang tawag dun…

    Para walang problema tanggaling ng mga TelCos ang UNLIMITED sa lahat ng ads nila tska mga brochures…

  197. Avatar for Criticko Criticko says:


    Eh di tanggalin na nila ang Unlimited Internet! Wala naman ganun sa SG eh… 1Gbps nga nila mas mura you can do all you want except accessing p2p… Because of that detection technology na meron sila, Ok sana kung yun ang ginawang MO ni NTC… Unfortunately, capping more than 30M+ internet subs nationwide is a backward decision…

    Although draft MO, Bago minarket ng mga telcos sa consumers ang internet plans, nag-implement na ang NTC nito…

    Sorry too late na kayo NTC…

  198. Avatar for Azer Azer says:

    The provision of assurance of 80 percent average speed is but a mere cloak to hide the real intent of this bill. And that is a cap! The moneyed lobbyists read telcos has obviously gained the upper hand in media including this website. Capping your bandwidth is and will never be good for the consumer period. Don’t fall into the PR trap by the telcos and NTC. Frankly I expected more from this site to champion the cause of the consumer. There is no ‘reasonable’ excuse to cap you Internet connection speed. I would encourage everyone to voice opposition to this bill no matter how seemingly good the attached provisions are.

  199. Avatar for rommel rommel says:

    no to capping…

  200. Avatar for Abe Olandres Abe Olandres says:

    @Criticko – I think the contention here is the use of the word “unlimited”. What if the local telcos follow the way Singapore does it? Sell internet in buckets? Like Php500 for 15GB and Php1,000 for 30GB. Would that sound better?

  201. Avatar for Calvin Calvin says:

    paano na yung mga nagdodownload ng legit software online? andami nang ganun. or legit ipad games.

  202. Avatar for petken petken says:

    I think they should not be using the word “UNLIMITED” because it only complicates things. It is still false advertising and tricking people. They should have used “800MB per day” or “1.5GB per month” words in a LARGE FONT SIZE and get rid of the “UNLIMITED” thing in their ads. Abuse? Why would there be any abuse when you are paying for an unlimited connection? In the first place the TelCos should have not offered Unlimited Plans if they can’t provide decent service. It’s their problem to increase their bandwidth and satisfy their customer’s needs. If they cannot do that then DO NOT USE THE WORD UNLIMITED. If in their ads says that there is capping they SHOULD HAVE IT IN LARGE FONT SIZES so that everyone would know. They should also be conservative in publishing their speed rates and not overstate everything in favor of them.

  203. Avatar for LA LA says:

    hay nako. anong nangyayari satin? gumagaya na tayo sa mga western people. so ung unlimited internet limited na. parang ganun lang un eh. para san pa ung pagkuha ng mabibilis na dsl plans kung capped rin ung connection. nakakalungkot naman to. 25gb per month lang. 2 days lang na download ko un eh. :(

  204. Avatar for Operation Super Operation Super says:

    Oh crap, I’m still hungover. Ignore me.

  205. Avatar for Criticko Criticko says:


    Believe me, kahit may capped, you can’t dictate to your subscriber how much I am using to my internet since binabayaran naman nila ang service..

    Good news na sana narinig ko kung inutusan ng NTC ang mga telcos to suppress piracy over p2p to implement detection system similarly in Singapore… Capping is long way behind already…

  206. Avatar for Operation Super Operation Super says:

    Wow 80%. So the guaranteed “60% and up” speed I had heard from Globe numerous times whenever I called was even more bull.

    My “guaranteed speed gun” is now cocked and ready to fire, I just Globe would not give me a reason to fire it.

  207. Avatar for weward weward says:

    no more torrents and lesser youtube and online games… :(

  208. Avatar for froi froi says:

    this memo is well suited to our mobile users… but come to think of it, how many users are really using mobile net??? does an average pinoy has an high speed ready mobile phones???dont think so…

  209. Avatar for Abe Olandres Abe Olandres says:

    @Criticko – the 1.5GB cap is for mobile 3G internet on your mobile phone. For residential DSL lines, the cap is between 15GB to 35GB per month depending on which plan you are on (for Globe Broadband users).

  210. Avatar for weward weward says:

    i hate it. no freedom at all. the providers should fix themselves and not make a reason out of the problem that they themselves provide. they should not make reason out of the unlevelled usage of the subscriber.LAME! Why did the NTC bend into the providers?! ok i’ll have my near to the advertised speed. and that will make my consumption even faster thus making me meet the cap faster. so will i be happy with that?! HELL NO..the telcos should fix themselves so that they can provide what they had advertised and not bend on stupid solutions.

  211. Avatar for Criticko Criticko says:

    Speaking of network segment or “bucket” how did they know if the user is playing online games which doubles their usage per day for playing MMORPG… Sa ngayon kasi and believe me, several online shops nationwide are using personal plans for their internet shops at kadalasan sobra pa sa 1.5GB ang gamit nila sa download per day…

    Same also applies to users na madalas mag FB, kapag 8 oras ka na sa FB mo because of apps like Farmville, Cityville, Mafia Wars etc… Itong mga games na ito bago mag-load kinokunsumo nila is 100% download bandwith mo bago mag-open tapos may iba jan buong araw naka-online para lang maglaro nito…

    This idea is good sana kung ang inimplement ng NTC prior to the boost of internet usage…

    Believe me, Watchpad, Iwantv will be history kapag capped na ang data usage… Eh may iba jan more than 8 hours nanonood lang… Telcos should look first how to quadruple their network before implementing this… Kasalanan din nila yan in promoting cheap plans tapos may mobile internet pa…

  212. Avatar for Anonymous Anonymous says:

    Re: “I really agree with this one. Just as long as the maximum bandwidth per month is reasonable.”

    What makes you think that the limits will be reasonable? I fully expect the limits to be ridiculously low.

  213. Avatar for Abe Olandres Abe Olandres says:

    @Emmanuel Logarta – i think it’s for all types of internet connections.

  214. Avatar for kjalcordo kjalcordo says:

    I really agree with this one. Just as long as the maximum bandwidth per month is reasonable.

  215. Avatar for Emmanuel Logarta Emmanuel Logarta says:

    Will these include wired DSL or is it only for mobile internet?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *