MCMC NEXUS collects more data, but users still need real fixes

MCMC NEXUS may be a useful tool, but the real issue in Malaysia’s mobile market is not a lack of data. The industry has already collected huge amounts of network information for years through customer complaints, internal monitoring systems, drive tests, coverage maps and performance analytics. Mobile operators already know many of the places where users face weak indoor coverage, dropped connections and slow speeds. The bigger question is not where the problem is. The bigger question is how quickly the problem is fixed, and whether anyone is making sure that it is fixed properly.

This is why the launch message around MCMC NEXUS feels incomplete. The Deputy Minister said the app had collected 168 million data points and more than 51,000 downloads since February 2025. She also said the data would help identify weak coverage and service quality issues more accurately. But there was no clear update on what measurable progress had already come from that data, and no assurance that users suffering from slow speeds or poor coverage would actually see faster resolution. Collecting more data is one thing. Acting on it in a visible and timely manner is another.

There is also a wider issue of monitoring and enforcement. If the regulator is serious about quality of service, the public should be told not only that data is being collected, but also what improvements have been delivered, how long fixes take, and which operators are falling short. Without that, the platform risks becoming another measurement tool without enough accountability. Consumers do not only want dashboards and statistics. They want their service problems solved. That means better monitoring, firmer follow-through, and clearer public reporting on results.

The concern becomes sharper when looked at against past industry developments. In 2023, CelcomDigi said it planned to decommission about 7,000 network sites over three years as part of its post-merger integration, while also building around 2,000 new sites by end-2025. At the time, this raised obvious questions about the impact on coverage, capacity and customer experience in affected areas. Yet there was no strong public sign that MCMC stepped in to reassure users on service quality safeguards or explain how such a major network rationalisation would be monitored from the consumer side.

Complaint handling is another weak point. I made a complaint through MCMC Aduan about zero Maxis coverage at my home, yet the case is still ongoing around a year later. The latest update (from MCMC Selangor State Office) asked me to perform a speed test, even though there is no usable 4G or 5G signal to test in the first place. That kind of response suggests a process problem. It gives the impression that complaint management can become procedural instead of practical. For users, the issue is simple. If there is no signal, there is no meaningful speed test to run. The complaint should move straight to technical verification and resolution, not circle back to generic requests.

More importantly, there still appears to be no independent third-party audit showing how well MCMC’s consumer complaint system resolves cases involving coverage gaps and slow speeds. Until such evidence is published, it is hard to judge whether the current system is delivering real outcomes for the public. MCMC NEXUS may help gather fresh field data, but the real test is whether complaints are closed faster, weak coverage areas are improved sooner, and operators are held to account when service remains poor. In the end, consumers do not need another reminder that bad coverage exists. They need proof that somebody is fixing it.