New STM for 10mb users.

[frogstamper]

I apologize if this has been posted before, if it has I cant find it, anyway just found VMs generous new stm limits for their new 10mb service.



Virgin Media tweaks traffic management again
Monday 31 March 2008 13:54:44 by Andrew Ferguson

Virgin Media has been using traffic management techniques for some time to ensure peak time downloads do not slow to a crawl. In the near future customers on the Broadband L cable package (4Mbps) should be seeing an upgrade to a 10Mbps download service.

Currently people on Broadband L see their speeds cut to 1Mbps download and 128Kbps upload once they exceed 800MB download or 325MB upload. New rules will apply to those who have had the uplift to 10Mbps, the same download limit applies but a little extra upload is allowed at 400MB and the speeds will be cut from 10Mbps to 2.5Mbps with 128Kbps for the upstream.

The full details are published on the Virgin Media website. The help page details the time period that the measurements are based across as 4pm till 9pm, with the management lasting for 5 hours from the time the limits are exceeded. It is possible Virgin Media is experimenting with other time periods, since one user on our forums has noted what appears to be management during the afternoon.

On a 10Mbps connection, hitting 800MB takes around 12 minutes, and is equal to around three 30 minute TV shows on the various catch-up TV services. Though if using one of the peer to peer download services watch the amount of traffic uploaded, since the point of peer to peer services is that everyone who has downloaded material is providing it to others.
[ Topic: Internet Service Providers | 17 comment(s) | link to this item ]

With thanks to "thinkbroadband"

[kpanchev]

Wow, that's a big pile of s... I was hoping that they will increase the upload speed when STM-ed, that puny upload was the reason I got a second account! I'm running VoIP and one reasonable quality channel is taking the whole upload bandwidth! They better come with come new values, otherwise they'll be loosing loads of customers!

[Wicked_and_Crazy]

They better come with come new values, otherwise they'll be loosing loads of customers!


Why? its no worse than it is now and your not being asked to pay more :confused:

[v0id]

I'd have thought the dl/ and u/l limits would have been half of those of the XL, as the STM speeds are

[TraxData]

It's quite ironic really, their STM limits are getting so bad for most people it's cheaper and easier to just go down the ADSL route, especially for people who are only home during peak hours.

[Welshchris]

they have really pushed the boat out on this, i bet they were up allnight thinking this one through!

[dav]

TraxData: It's certainly what I'm starting to think about

[AbyssUnderground]

Well at least 2.5Mbps is reasonable. Think about it, how many people can average 2.5Mbps at all, let alone in peak times, on ADSL?

I too am disappointed about the lack of upload. I'd expect at least 192Kbps or maybe a little more. 256Kbps would be more reasonable.

[Magilla]

So now I'll be capped at 6:15 instead of 6:40.. I suppose I can console myself knowing I'm only capped to 2.5m instead of 1m.

The broadband is now looking seriously bad value for money IMHO.

[dav]

The broadband is now looking seriously bad value for money IMHO.

:tu: Seconded

[TraxData]

Well at least 2.5Mbps is reasonable. Think about it, how many people can average 2.5Mbps at all, let alone in peak times, on ADSL?

I too am disappointed about the lack of upload. I'd expect at least 192Kbps or maybe a little more. 256Kbps would be more reasonable.

Around 85% of people can get around 4mbit on ADSL, it's mainly new housing estates that are too far away from the exchange which suffer from really low speeds...and also very far parts of the countryside.

ADSL is nowhere near as bad as people make it out to be.

[AbyssUnderground]

Around 85% of people can get around 4mbit on ADSL, it's mainly new housing estates that are too far away from the exchange which suffer from really low speeds...and also very far parts of the countryside.

ADSL is nowhere near as bad as people make it out to be.

Yes but how many of them will get it 24/7? I can bet very little. At least with VM you are going to get 2.5Mbps (almost guaranteed, I've only ever suffered less than the actual limit of either 4Mbps or 1Mbps on STM because of a network issue).

They still pretty much beat all other ISP's for speed, even if you do only get it for the first 3GB of the day at peak times...

I for one will be happy with 2.5Mbps. Its better than 1Mbps by far. Again its a shame the upload still suffers.

[TraxData]

Yes but how many of them will get it 24/7? I can bet very little. At least with VM you are going to get 2.5Mbps (almost guaranteed, I've only ever suffered less than the actual limit of either 4Mbps or 1Mbps on STM because of a network issue).

They still pretty much beat all other ISP's for speed, even if you do only get it for the first 3GB of the day at peak times...

I for one will be happy with 2.5Mbps. Its better than 1Mbps by far. Again its a shame the upload still suffers.

Around 80% do, low speeds are usually down to the ISP (tiscali, for example) purposely restricting it rather than distance issues.

Well, yes, for heavy downloaders they do, but for the average user (which apparently VM want to keep) they do not beat other isps at all down to the fact these people are only at home during peak hours, use it for the odd download, bit of gaming, bit of streaming etc and find out they get restricted because of that, which in long run does not make the service worthwhile.

This has been noted with the amount of customer complaints going up and customers either getting a new retention deal or just leaving.

[frogstamper]

With large ISPs offering "unlimited" downloads" in their deals then bringing in stm in peak hours, this in my opinion will become untenable. People who buy a 20mb connection reasonably expect to be able to use the speed they signed up for, especially in peak hours. I feel VM will have no option in the future but to offer a base amount of download per month and then charge per gb after. With higher and higher speeds on the way larger ISPs like VM will have no option.:shrug:

[Berealwith]

It's quite ironic really, their STM limits are getting so bad for most people it's cheaper and easier to just go down the ADSL route, especially for people who are only home during peak hours.

Yep i am nearly there........if there is no improvement in the said ubr upgrade promised in 5 weeks ...........i am of this time no more chances

[ceedee]

Around 85% of people can get around 4mbit on ADSL, it's mainly new housing estates that are too far away from the exchange which suffer from really low speeds...and also very far parts of the countryside.

ADSL is nowhere near as bad as people make it out to be.

Have a read of this recent study (http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/personal_tech/test_bench/article3458568.ece) for the Sunday Times?
The important bit is:
"Thinkbroadband found that at peak times in the evenings, UK consumers using the eight ISPs(1) on test enjoyed an average speed of just 2.3Mbps – less than a third of the target figure.

"Broadband speeds decrease the further you live from a telephone exchange, and the busier the exchange is. But some providers are better than others. Thinkbroadband found that the fastest traditional ISP on test (Zen Internet at 3.1Mbps) was more than twice as fast as the slowest (Tiscali at 1.5Mbps). Virgin Media(2), which uses fibreoptic cables instead of ADSL phone lines, was faster still (3.8Mbps). The fastest service, Be (not tested), uses the latest ADSL2+ technology to give average speeds of 5.5Mbps at peak times, but is available only to users living close to digital exchanges."

The packages in the comparison were: Virgin Media Broadband L and Phone, Waitrose, Zen Internet 8000 Lite, BT Total Broadband Option 1, Sky Broadband See Speak Surf, Talk Talk Broadband, Tiscali Broadband Option 1 and Orange Home Max.


Let's hope VM decide to reject Phorm, sort out the overloaded UBRs and bring in a realistic STM policy -- which doesn't seem likely, judging by the number of complaints and downtime from users forced into the STM trials.

I really don't want to move back to ADSL. Or BT!
:(

[Welshchris]

Have a read of this recent study (http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/personal_tech/test_bench/article3458568.ece) for the Sunday Times?
The important bit is:
"Thinkbroadband found that at peak times in the evenings, UK consumers using the eight ISPs(1) on test enjoyed an average speed of just 2.3Mbps – less than a third of the target figure.

"Broadband speeds decrease the further you live from a telephone exchange, and the busier the exchange is. But some providers are better than others. Thinkbroadband found that the fastest traditional ISP on test (Zen Internet at 3.1Mbps) was more than twice as fast as the slowest (Tiscali at 1.5Mbps). Virgin Media(2), which uses fibreoptic cables instead of ADSL phone lines, was faster still (3.8Mbps). The fastest service, Be (not tested), uses the latest ADSL2+ technology to give average speeds of 5.5Mbps at peak times, but is available only to users living close to digital exchanges."

The packages in the comparison were: Virgin Media Broadband L and Phone, Waitrose, Zen Internet 8000 Lite, BT Total Broadband Option 1, Sky Broadband See Speak Surf, Talk Talk Broadband, Tiscali Broadband Option 1 and Orange Home Max.


Let's hope VM decide to reject Phorm, sort out the overloaded UBRs and bring in a realistic STM policy -- which doesn't seem likely, judging by the number of complaints and downtime from users forced into the STM trials.

I really don't want to move back to ADSL. Or BT!
:(

I have a friend on Tuconsurf who has just been upgraded from their 2mb to upto 8mb package, hes getting on average 6.8mb-7.2mb and lives about 3/4 mile from exchange.

[ceedee]

I have a friend on Tuconsurf who has just been upgraded from their 2mb to upto 8mb package, hes getting on average 6.8mb-7.2mb and lives about 3/4 mile from exchange.

I'm sure some people get such amazing performance but the majority don't seem to.
That survey "used data from 13,500 Computing Which? subscribers who were also broadband users" which has to make it pretty conclusive?

[TraxData]

Have a read of this recent study (http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/personal_tech/test_bench/article3458568.ece) for the Sunday Times?
The important bit is:
"Thinkbroadband found that at peak times in the evenings, UK consumers using the eight ISPs(1) on test enjoyed an average speed of just 2.3Mbps – less than a third of the target figure.

"Broadband speeds decrease the further you live from a telephone exchange, and the busier the exchange is. But some providers are better than others. Thinkbroadband found that the fastest traditional ISP on test (Zen Internet at 3.1Mbps) was more than twice as fast as the slowest (Tiscali at 1.5Mbps). Virgin Media(2), which uses fibreoptic cables instead of ADSL phone lines, was faster still (3.8Mbps). The fastest service, Be (not tested), uses the latest ADSL2+ technology to give average speeds of 5.5Mbps at peak times, but is available only to users living close to digital exchanges."

The packages in the comparison were: Virgin Media Broadband L and Phone, Waitrose, Zen Internet 8000 Lite, BT Total Broadband Option 1, Sky Broadband See Speak Surf, Talk Talk Broadband, Tiscali Broadband Option 1 and Orange Home Max.


Let's hope VM decide to reject Phorm, sort out the overloaded UBRs and bring in a realistic STM policy -- which doesn't seem likely, judging by the number of complaints and downtime from users forced into the STM trials.

I really don't want to move back to ADSL. Or BT!
:(

When you look at just how many ADSL customers there is, it's impossible to really do any sort of tests to see what speeds people get, also alot of the time with ADSL you'll find its people using bad filters/poor plugs and crap extention leads, amount of people i've seen with problems related to that is unbelievable. Im personally just over 900metres away (straight line distance, around 1.5k normal) and can pull in 22mbit down and 2.5mbit up (Be) and got around 6mbit back when i used BT.

I may just be lucky but i rarely see anyone with bad speeds who has a good setup and knows what they are doing.

Hell, even on a new housing estate near here being nearly 3Km away people are managing 3-5mbit, i think that's quite good.

STM limits will not be changing anytime soon, STM is even on the 50mbit package (or was near the end of the trials) problem is VM refuse to admit that there is a huge amount of cloners on the ubrs uploading 24/7 quite literally maxing a card out. A few of these so called "oversubscribed areas" actually have that problem and nothing more.

[ceedee]

I may just be lucky but i rarely see anyone with bad speeds who has a good setup and knows what they are doing.

Maybe it's just me feeling pessimistic because I feel I'm being forced into dumping VM...

ISTM limits will not be changing anytime soon, STM is even on the 50mbit package (or was near the end of the trials) problem is VM refuse to admit that there is a huge amount of cloners on the ubrs uploading 24/7 quite literally maxing a card out. A few of these so called "oversubscribed areas" actually have that problem and nothing more.

I guess asking why it's difficult to track the clones down would be verbotten.
I'm clueless and disinterested in clones. Sounds like it would save VM a helluva lot of time and poor PR if they removed them so I presume it's complicated.

:shrug:

[TraxData]

Maybe it's just me feeling pessimistic because I feel I'm being forced into dumping VM...



I guess asking why it's difficult to track the clones down would be verbotten.
I'm clueless and disinterested in clones. Sounds like it would save VM a helluva lot of time and poor PR if they removed them so I presume it's complicated.

:shrug:

The main reason is because if you go cut them off, some local tech goes and wires them back up for £10...if you kill the modem, they just make up new ways to get past it, so its a waste of money in VMs view...of course, they could cut the cable far enough that it would be possible to reconnect, but then if any new occupents move in and want VM it costs VM even more money to rewire everything back up, lose lose situation really...of course if VM had invested in its infrastructure from the beginning instead of giving large bonus's out to managers then it wouldnt even have this problem

[ceedee]

The main reason is because if you go cut them off, some local tech goes and wires them back up for £10...if you kill the modem, they just make up new ways to get past it, so its a waste of money in VMs view...of course, they could cut the cable far enough that it would be possible to reconnect, but then if any new occupents move in and want VM it costs VM even more money to rewire everything back up, lose lose situation really...of course if VM had invested in its infrastructure from the beginning instead of giving large bonus's out to managers then it wouldnt even have this problem

Thanks for that explanation.

Am I correct in assuming that the corrupt VM tech's use some innocent customer's MAC in the illegal modem?
Isn't there a way of spotting two modem's connecting with the same MAC?

I realise it would cost VM money but wouldn't it be worth forcing the prosecution of a couple of the clones (and sending the techs to Guantanamo) with lots and lots of publicity?

I'm showing my cable n00b-ness, ain't I?
;)