View Full Version : Which one would you prefer
xspeedyx
29-09-2008, 15:43
As we all know VM aint getting rid of STM, so my question is would you rather it was deplyed in a different ways
i.e Like comcast when the area gets near capcity stm kicks in for 20Mins or so
Ignitionnet
29-09-2008, 15:49
Comcast style. Monitor network ports for congestion then take heaviest users and deprioritise them until either they calm down their usage below a certain threshold or the potential for congestion subsides.
Avoids unnecessary throttling and maximises use of available bandwidth. Also doesn't discriminate between protocols.
Downside: requires some new hardware and a bit of time and expertise setting the hardware up, though that's not our as customers' problem.
http://downloads.comcast.net/docs/Attachment_B_Future_Practices.pdf
while the comcast idea is good (for the reasons broadbandings pointed out), i'd rather have a limit that had a specific value. That way i know if i'm going to hit it or not, the way comcast will have it, is that the throttling "limit" is unknown.
I think it should only be deployed based on continual "over-use", not for the casual customer that wants to downloading something big once-in-a-while,while normally keeping well under the current STM criteria.
I think it should only be deployed based on continual "over-use", not for the casual customer that wants to downloading something big once-in-a-while,while normally keeping well under the current STM criteria.
I'd go with that. as long as "over-use" is 2 terabytes a month.
I'd go with that. as long as "over-use" is 2 terabytes a month.
Yeh, OK.
brundles
29-09-2008, 17:49
I'd go with that. as long as "over-use" is 2 terabytes a month.
And there was me wondering if setting up a 3TB RAID to last me the next couple of years was too much!
From what friends in American have told me the Comcast style is unreliable so i'd rather stick with VM's way because at least then I can downloaded however much I want.
xspeedyx
29-09-2008, 19:46
I cant see how people can go over 1TB a month I download prob less than 250Gb these days anyways
pay as you go......(i bore myself sometimes )
I think it should only be deployed based on continual "over-use", not for the casual customer that wants to downloading something big once-in-a-while,while normally keeping well under the current STM criteria.
Exactly. This is what stinks about VMs STM.
I'm in no way a heavy user, and normally would be under the limits, so why on the odd occasion I decide to download something should I be penalised?
Particular as during the week the only time I'll be using the connection is during Evening Peak time.
chickendippers
30-09-2008, 22:59
An STM policy that kicks in when an area is at capacity presents issues in itself as customers in an oversubscribed area (which we know exist) may find themselves constantly throttled.
Personally I feel STM is a better attempt at managing the problem than a hard download limit that other providers impose, so I'm willing to give VM some leeway.
Stabhappy
01-10-2008, 01:36
I already find it annoying to be capped during peak hours in a non-overscribed area (even though it's a student town), and when I'm not STM'd I get complete rock solid 2400kb/s to NNTP servers - so why should I be imposed on more?
The answer isn't more restrictions, its VM actually paying for new hardware which can support users to the amount they can sign them up. Surely if some areas are oversubscribed, the answer is to FIX the problem - not pack more users into already congested routes.
smeagoly1
01-10-2008, 08:10
Firstly I agree, they should stop or curtail for now new subscribers in heavy oversubscribed areas. At least until they eventually install new hardware.
Anyone constanntly maxing out their conenction 24/7 should get a week then a months STM, like most ADSL users get hit with, if they go over 5gig!
If ISP's were forced to dump all forms of capping/STM then quite simply we'd all still be on 4Mb lines and paying the same amount we pay for our 10/20Mb for them...
If you wanted a 10/20Mb line then you'd be paying business prices for them
xspeedyx
01-10-2008, 08:48
I kind of see your point kymmy but I also understand you should get what you pay for
tweetypie/8
01-10-2008, 08:50
I think it should only be deployed based on continual "over-use", not for the casual customer that wants to downloading something big once-in-a-while,while normally keeping well under the current STM criteria.
have to agree.
I kind of see your point kymmy but I also understand you should get what you pay for
Yep and everyone gets UPTO thier speed.
The FUP and upto maximum clauses I think have been in the contract for quite a bit now and as such everyone is bound by them..
I'm not saying it's right or wrong but it is simply what it is... Poeple had a chance to jump ship when they changed the contracts to include them...
xspeedyx
01-10-2008, 10:18
Yeah I understand the upto statement however before the merger both Telewest and NTL didnt offer upto speeds they offered the speed and that was it why should Virgin change this
smeagoly1
01-10-2008, 11:33
Targeting constant high bandwidth users, would be an adavatage. As most say, they will just leave their connection on downloading 24/7.
As VM keep saying it's the top 5% of users. The low users once in a while may hit it, maybe a 24 hour throttle for them. Constant abusers I think an increasing scale of speed restrictions, over time.
xspeedyx
01-10-2008, 11:48
I dont see VM doing that as they advertise you can download loads and 24hr restriction would mean the ASA would get involved and slap vm wrist for saying unlimited
I kind of see your point kymmy but I also understand you should get what you pay for
you of all people should know you do *not* pay for 20mb, no residentail isp in their right mind would guarantee a minimum speed.
Sorry, cut my post short last night, had more to say but the battery was nearly gone on the laptop & I couldn't be bothered to get the charger out!!!
Anyway...
I've mentioned this before, what smeagoly1 brings up:
From http://allyours.virginmedia.com/html/internet/traffic.html
"moderate the speeds for the top 5% of customers who are downloading and/or uploading an unusually large amount"
Just because on one day a month for example, I download a couple of large files, or large updates, does not put me into the top 5% of downloaders.
Most of the time my connection is used just for browsing & email, the odd Youtube moment, the occasional music track from legal sources but that's about it.
I don't download tv shows or films, nor any Linux distros.
My connection is not on 24/7 dowloading torrents or anything.
It's not used for online-gaming.
Probably puts me nearer the bottom 5% of users to be honest!
And as soon as I go over a limit in a 5 hour time-frame my connection gets cut in half (I'm on 2Mb) for 5 hours.
Why not just target those top 5% and leave the rest of us alone to use our connections?
...Constant abusers I think an increasing scale of speed restrictions, over time.
Now I like the sound of that.
I do think it should be monthly limits, not a couple of 5 hour slots every day.
And how about throttling heavy users connections on a scale depending on how much the went over the limit?
A little bit over, only slow it a little for a day or so.
5GB over the limit then slow it right down for weeks!
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.