Cable Forum
Page 3 of 4 12 3 4
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)
-   Virgin Media Internet Service (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=12)
-   -   General : STM always enforced? (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33694542)

everyday 18-10-2013 15:06
Re: STM always enforced?
 
My partner buys his phones outright, He's on 3 too and I think he pays something like £6.90 a month as he only uses about 100 mins a month

3 do the one plan sim only for £15, now that's fantastic value

And if you think about it O2 do their refresh service which to be fair is the same as all providers only O2 actually let you swap about more.

So on a £33 one plan you are paying about £18 a month for the phone - over the cost of 2 years that's £432 - which is not bad

Bear in mine that these phones are less when you buy them in 100 pcs (according to the internet) and then if you buy them in the 100.000's they come down to about £125 a shot!

So the unlocked markup is massive! The iphone 4S cost apple £81.87 to build and the 5 was £103 to build.

qasdfdsaq 18-10-2013 17:35
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kushan (Post 35633654)
I've always wondered about that statistic of being on the "wrong" contract. My contract with Three gives me 600mins, unlimited texts and unlimited data - I probably use less than 10mins a month and maybe only about 100 texts as everything is done via the data these days - so would I qualify as being on the "wrong" contract?
Probably. You've not mentioned what tariff you're on or how much you pay so it's hard to tell. They don't seem to offer a comparable tariff anymore on their website but if you only use 10 minutes then unlimited data with that sort of usage starts at around £12 a month. Though you've also not said how much data you use so we don't know if you actually need unlimited data or not.

Quote:
Part of the reason I'm on said contract is the unlimited data and the phone that comes with it (Right now, a shiny new Galaxy Note 3 - hence why I'm particularly interested in the capabilities of CAT-4 LTE/LTE-A). At the Sim-free price of the phone and the equivalent SIM-only tariff, I end up paying nearly the same anyway over the 2 years.
You probably would, subsidies aren't nearly as good as they used to be, but part of the problem is most people who are entitled to a new top-end smartphone aren't actually getting one, yet continuing to pay as if they are.

---------- Post added at 17:16 ---------- Previous post was at 16:57 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis (Post 35633682)
In germany I can get a S4 mini for £100 cheaper than uk.
S3 LTE £150 cheaper.
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/mar...rnational/2.05

Not so much "I found" prices but weighed averages across all major operators in each country. See how "Connection 9" costs £55 a month in the UK but an equivalent package would cost £142 a month in Germany?

Quote:
£36 a month may be the average I take your word for it, but thats a LOT of cash to spend on a phone service. I pay O2 under £14 for 800 mins + unlimited landline calls.
I think £48 a month is a lot to spend on a cable service that you can only use at home but yet, that's Virgin Media's ARPU. I've never paid them more than £25.

Quote:
I suspect your £17 option is a package that is barely useable with minimum minutes and data usage.
Well of course if you use more you can expect to pay more. Though 250 minutes and 500MB data is actually more than I got from Vodafone last year for £36 a month. Tesco Mobile insists 4G only costs £2.50 a month more than their existing non-4G tariffs.

Quote:
Where is the £17 month option, I picked s4 mini on tesco mobile and the lowest is £23 month. which is the cheapest listed on this page.
http://shop.tescomobile.com/4g

As you can see there are two 4G handsets for £17.50 a month, whichi is what I said, not £17.

Quote:
£17 a month for 2 years is £408 for the phone, not cheap.
Yet people not getting a new phone are paying an average of £36 a month so clearly the public's idea of "cheap" seems to differ from yours.

Quote:
Yes people are buying 4G, but remember there is 10s of millions of people who dont have that spending power, some people cant even afford contracts at all and just have payg phones.

Thats why I said the true barrier is the cost of the phone, eventually £100 phones will have 4G and when they do is when we start seeing mainstream adoption of 4G.
Some people can't afford food either, but the average person has no problem paying £36 a month for their phone. Just cause a few people can't afford food, do we consider food as "not mainstream"? As far as I see it if the majority of people can happily afford *twice* the cost of 4G, I don't see price as a barrier.

Quote:
I have noticed lately tho my mobile signal is weak in my area, and some googling shows news stories about mobile networks supposedbly turning down 3g/2g signals to get people to sign up to 4g.
Tinfoil hat time... While that's a whole new kettle of fish, yes there are margin cases where 2G/3G signals will theoretically have to be turned down to accommodate 4G but it is not widespread and it is not a deliberate ploy to get people to sign up. Mostly where there is no space for additional antennas the existing ones will have to handle the additional power load of the new signals as well as the new peak power that arises from resonance effects and so on that can cause arcing and equipment degradation. But that's pretty rare.

For one it's completely counterproductive to reduce 2G/3G signal levels since 4G as deployed in the UK is incapable of handling phone calls. And since all major networks *only* sell 4G with unlimited phone calls 4G relies even more heavily on their 2G/3G networks to provide a satisfactory user experience.

Quote:
But I dont care about 4G adoption, not sure why we debating it either on a STM thread :) The main thing is 4G availability is increasing and competition is increasing which is a good thing, I think thats more the point you want to make.
Derp :p:

---------- Post added at 17:32 ---------- Previous post was at 17:16 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qtx (Post 35633685)
If the average is that high, must mean that people are getting lower tariffs then building the bill up with charges. I got the Three one plan + a 'free' Galaxy S3 a year ago, which gives unlimited data, text and 2.5k minutes or something, all for £29. Still paying that same price a year later and it's only been a couple of 0845 numbers on a couple of occasions that have pushed it over. Find it crazy that £36 is the average bill.
Or just lazy and ignorant and don't care about such trivial amounts of money.

Same way some of us protest every single bank charge and demand they be refunded, while most people pay hundreds of pounds a year don't bat an eyelid. Or some of us religiously pay off our credit card bills in full every month to avoid interest, while others pay thousands of interest a year and just don't care. Meh.

Incidentally the figures are from research done by Oxford university on behalf of the OFCOM accredited Billmonitor.com

Spoiler: 
Analysis of phone bills by academics at Oxford University found that approximately three-quarters of all mobile users were on the wrong contract and that the average consumer could save approximately £195 per year.

The average mobile phone bill in the UK is currently £439 per year, indicating that consumers are paying 44 per cent too much.

Users who were willing to keep their current mobile phone and switch to a new “SIM-only” contract could save an average of £250 per year.

The research also indicated that customers spend £3.5bn on calls, messaging and data services that were outside the contracts they were paying for.

“We found that people consistently over-estimate how many minutes they need by a factor of about four,” he said. If people chose a cheaper tariff that provided still provided a sufficient buffer, significant savings could be made.

More than half of people were on a tariff that was “too large”, costing a total of £2.6bn, while 29 per cent were paying punitive rates for services outside their contract allowances (£1.53bn). A further £750m was wasted by people who were getting the right number of minutes for phone calls but were not taking advantage of better rates, for instance on longer contracts.

Prof Holmes also said that a significant proportion of customers could not only cut their annual bills but also get a new mobile handset at the same time. Half of those who wanted an Apple iPhone 4 could typically save a total of £156 per year, for instance.

Approximately half of all users who were on the correct tariff had negotiated a price that was not advertised. As such, they too often had far more minutes than they needed, but a smaller tariff would still be more expensive.


---------- Post added at 17:34 ---------- Previous post was at 17:32 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis (Post 35633688)

One of my sister's upgrades her phone every 2-3 years on contract, but the phone she is getting this time is the iphone4s not the iphone5
Chances are then she's paying over the odds for at least 1 out of every 3 years unless switching tariffs multiple times, which most people don't do.

---------- Post added at 17:35 ---------- Previous post was at 17:34 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by everyday (Post 35633722)
Bear in mine that these phones are less when you buy them in 100 pcs (according to the internet) and then if you buy them in the 100.000's they come down to about £125 a shot!
Ermm not quite.

Quote:
So the unlocked markup is massive! The iphone 4S cost apple £81.87 to build and the 5 was £103 to build.
Also not true. You may be looking at teardowns that consider only the pure component cost.

Those components don't assemble themselves magically on a circuit board just by being thrown in the same box.

everyday 18-10-2013 17:41
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq (Post 35633767)
Probably. You've not mentioned what tariff you're on or how much you pay so it's hard to tell. They don't seem to offer a comparable tariff anymore on their website but if you only use 10 minutes then unlimited data with that sort of usage starts at around £12 a month. Though you've also not said how much data you use so we don't know if you actually need unlimited data or not.


You probably would, subsidies aren't nearly as good as they used to be, but part of the problem is most people who are entitled to a new top-end smartphone aren't actually getting one, yet continuing to pay as if they are.

---------- Post added at 17:16 ---------- Previous post was at 16:57 ----------


http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/mar...rnational/2.05

Not so much "I found" prices but weighed averages across all major operators in each country. See how "Connection 9" costs £55 a month in the UK but an equivalent package would cost £142 a month in Germany?


I think £48 a month is a lot to spend on a cable service that you can only use at home but yet, that's Virgin Media's ARPU. I've never paid them more than £25.


Well of course if you use more you can expect to pay more. Though 250 minutes and 500MB data is actually more than I got from Vodafone last year for £36 a month. Tesco Mobile insists 4G only costs £2.50 a month more than their existing non-4G tariffs.


http://shop.tescomobile.com/4g

As you can see there are two 4G handsets for £17.50 a month, whichi is what I said, not £17.


Yet people not getting a new phone are paying an average of £36 a month so clearly the public's idea of "cheap" seems to differ from yours.


Some people can't afford food either, but the average person has no problem paying £36 a month for their phone. Just cause a few people can't afford food, do we consider food as "not mainstream"? As far as I see it if the majority of people can happily afford *twice* the cost of 4G, I don't see price as a barrier.


Tinfoil hat time... While that's a whole new kettle of fish, yes there are margin cases where 2G/3G signals will theoretically have to be turned down to accommodate 4G but it is not widespread and it is not a deliberate ploy to get people to sign up. Mostly where there is no space for additional antennas the existing ones will have to handle the additional power load of the new signals as well as the new peak power that arises from resonance effects and so on that can cause arcing and equipment degradation. But that's pretty rare.

For one it's completely counterproductive to reduce 2G/3G signal levels since 4G as deployed in the UK is incapable of handling phone calls. And since all major networks *only* sell 4G with unlimited phone calls 4G relies even more heavily on their 2G/3G networks to provide a satisfactory user experience.


Derp :p:

---------- Post added at 17:32 ---------- Previous post was at 17:16 ----------


Or just lazy and ignorant and don't care about such trivial amounts of money.

Same way some of us protest every single bank charge and demand they be refunded, while most people pay hundreds of pounds a year don't bat an eyelid. Or some of us religiously pay off our credit card bills in full every month to avoid interest, while others pay thousands of interest a year and just don't care. Meh.

Incidentally the figures are from research done by Oxford university on behalf of the OFCOM accredited Billmonitor.com

Spoiler: 
Analysis of phone bills by academics at Oxford University found that approximately three-quarters of all mobile users were on the wrong contract and that the average consumer could save approximately £195 per year.

The average mobile phone bill in the UK is currently £439 per year, indicating that consumers are paying 44 per cent too much.

Users who were willing to keep their current mobile phone and switch to a new “SIM-only” contract could save an average of £250 per year.

The research also indicated that customers spend £3.5bn on calls, messaging and data services that were outside the contracts they were paying for.

“We found that people consistently over-estimate how many minutes they need by a factor of about four,” he said. If people chose a cheaper tariff that provided still provided a sufficient buffer, significant savings could be made.

More than half of people were on a tariff that was “too large”, costing a total of £2.6bn, while 29 per cent were paying punitive rates for services outside their contract allowances (£1.53bn). A further £750m was wasted by people who were getting the right number of minutes for phone calls but were not taking advantage of better rates, for instance on longer contracts.

Prof Holmes also said that a significant proportion of customers could not only cut their annual bills but also get a new mobile handset at the same time. Half of those who wanted an Apple iPhone 4 could typically save a total of £156 per year, for instance.

Approximately half of all users who were on the correct tariff had negotiated a price that was not advertised. As such, they too often had far more minutes than they needed, but a smaller tariff would still be more expensive.


---------- Post added at 17:34 ---------- Previous post was at 17:32 ----------


Chances are then she's paying over the odds for at least 1 out of every 3 years unless switching tariffs multiple times, which most people don't do.

---------- Post added at 17:35 ---------- Previous post was at 17:34 ----------


Ermm not quite.


Also not true. You may be looking at teardowns that consider only the pure component cost.

Those components don't assemble themselves magically on a circuit board just by being thrown in the same box.
Not quite? Okay so when you own a mobile network and know how much you pay for such handsets (as my partner does as he owns one in the UK) THEN come back and agrue with me - until that point go away!

I know exactly what each component costs AND the cost to assemble. I know more than you credit me with!

You think you know it all - well you don't buddy!

qasdfdsaq 18-10-2013 18:16
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Trolololol. So your "partner" is "on 3 too and I think he pays something like £6.90 a month as he only uses about 100 mins a month" and also owns a mobile network? I'd be surprised anyone who owns a mobile network actually still feels the inclination to be ripped off by the country's smallest network, let alone actually pay for a mobile service.

Anyhow, you realise mobile networks in the UK don't actually buy handsets direct right? Therefore even *they* don't know how much they cost originally. Only one or two networks have direct relationships with manufacturers and even then only with one or two manufacturers. The vast majority of networks' phones are bought through distributor networks, where the distributor takes care of sourcing the phones from manufacturers, delivering them to stores, and in some cases even fulfilling customer orders. Most networks do not do any of this themselves.

Incidentally you claim the iPhone 5 costs £103 to build yet professional analytic company iSuppli - a dedicated electronics research company - say the cheapest iPhone 5 costs $207, and that's before R&D, distribution costs, packaging, marketing, business, legal and contractual costs, and profit for everyone in the middle:

http://www.isuppli.com/Teardowns/News/Pages/iPhone5-Carries-$199-BOM-Virtual-Teardown-Reveals.aspx

So I suppose you now also own an electronics design research outfit whose primary purpose is to take phones apart to find out how much they cost, and you happen to do it better than the existing market leaders?

I may not know everything but I sure as hell know a professional electronics market intelligence company likely has more of a clue about its business than some randomer on a forum claiming their "partner" "owns a mobile network" and likes getting ripped off on his mobile phone (after all, he pays £6.90 a month £3 of service) (presumably because their own mobile network is too poor to provide the basic service required?). Clearly not the thriftiest of partners then.

Keep the crap coming.

Chrysalis 19-10-2013 11:36
Re: STM always enforced?
 
one doesnt need to work for apple/samsung to know that the prices are inflated.

iphones single handedly turned apple fortunes round, they used to be a company that needed a loan of their main rival to survive and now they are one of the most valuable companies in the world (albeit whilst avoiding paying tax), smartphones make huge profit margins.

Plus as I already mentioned certian models are inflated in price in the uk, so someone is getting rich of that extra margin over here as well.

Does a s3 lte cost more to make than a s4? why was a s3 lte priced higher than a s4? (it may still be).
why is the s3 mini only slightly cheaper than the s3, and like wise for the s4 mini.
a galaxy ace which by todays standards is really obselete is still been sold for almost circa £200 in places on contract.

samsung circa 20billion profit a year.
apple slightly behind at around 18billion.

smartphones are fashionable, thats why they cost what they do, basic supply and demand economics.

eg. the vita has oled, better hardware and costs less than many phones.

Tablets are just as bad. I find them aweful devices to use as well yet they are popular, limitations that make them barely useable, but when we look at the cost of tablets and what you get vs say a laptop, its clear tablets must have a much higher margin than laptops.

Jumping 19-10-2013 11:58
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis (Post 35634030)
Tablets are just as bad. I find them aweful devices to use as well yet they are popular, limitations that make them barely useable, but when we look at the cost of tablets and what you get vs say a laptop, its clear tablets must have a much higher margin than laptops.
Yeah its amazing how many people just buy tablets without thinking of what need/use they actually have for it, I waited a pretty long time before getting my tablet and my main reason was to use it as an e-reader but still have the option to do a bit more on it than just read books.

qasdfdsaq 19-10-2013 12:50
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis (Post 35634030)
one doesnt need to work for apple/samsung to know that the prices are inflated.
We all know the profit margins on the hardware are high, yes, these are leading edge smartphones with some of the most advanced consumer technology in the world in them. R&D costs (which you don't see) are also high.

While I don't disagree they also make a crapton of profits on this stuff, certain companies have done professional analysis of how much the components and manufacturing costs - and as I say, they conclude the iPhone 5 costs over $200 for hardware alone before the cost of distribution and developing iOS are added on top. The S4 costs about $245 in pure components and manufacturing, the iPhone 4s cost between $196 and $254. Simply put, some loony raving "The iphone 4S cost apple £81.87 to build and the 5 was £103 to build." is horseshit.

Incidentally when you see the marketing for these new products a lot of emphasis is put onto the new software features, not the hardware. The only significant hardware change on the iPhone 5s was the fingerprint sensor, and that cost less than $15. Knowing a good few software developers and designers, it does irk me that some people seem to think software and design magically come for free and the only cost of making something is the physical hardware.

everyday 19-10-2013 14:08
Re: STM always enforced?
 
anyway back on topic,

VM have been told (once again) not to make their services are "unlimited" and have "no caps" they said they believed when under STM customers could do things " at or close to their max speed"

What planet are they on.. anyway can't say more than that it's not public yet.

Kabaal 19-10-2013 15:13
Re: STM always enforced?
 
-65% reduction on the upload speed now? No thanks. Haven't used my connection all that much lately so hadn't been keeping track of the STM, went to upload some files this afternoon and was slapped down to 4mbps from 11.7 quick smart.

Over the years my upload has gotten slower and slower when you take STM into consideration so i've just cancelled all VM services. Sick of paying over the odds for an upload speed that isn't even as good as the competition without STM never mind with it.

everyday 19-10-2013 15:18
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Well I think unless they kill off STM it will cause lots more to leave. They certainly are not allowed to say it's unlimited with no caps anymore, however I am sure i've seen them being told before and it still showing as such on the website. As it is now. Also I like the " Proven by Ofcom" claim they make. This report I have says that whilst OFCOM did back VM, their data was also questionable and was also ruled against

I see their latest advertising spew is Offers Must Go! using the OMG! thingy, In my view people who were no doubt starved at oxygen at birth use "omg" in their vocabulary. SO not very encouraging to virgin going the same way.

It's not so much internet speech to me as people who have downs and just haven't been told yet.

Also VM put their speeds from May 2013 here

http://store.virginmedia.com/broadba...ned/ofcom.html

Is it me or is the others they are trying to make look bad actually have the most consistent speed?

qasdfdsaq 19-10-2013 16:06
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kabaal (Post 35634138)
-65% reduction on the upload speed now? No thanks. Haven't used my connection all that much lately so hadn't been keeping track of the STM, went to upload some files this afternoon and was slapped down to 4mbps from 11.7 quick smart.
I keep saying this but people don't realise how lucky they are.

Few years ago it was -75% reduction and you only had 0.75Mbps to begin with on the top tariff.

Jumping 19-10-2013 16:29
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Well I seem to have got STM after using my connection earlier....

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/...2013/10/12.png

Think this has finally made up my mind that once FTTC is here im off VM, my area is not highly utilsed so its ridiculous to be slapped down like this.

everyday 19-10-2013 16:35
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq (Post 35633804)
Trolololol. So your "partner" is "on 3 too and I think he pays something like £6.90 a month as he only uses about 100 mins a month" and also owns a mobile network? I'd be surprised anyone who owns a mobile network actually still feels the inclination to be ripped off by the country's smallest network, let alone actually pay for a mobile service.

Anyhow, you realise mobile networks in the UK don't actually buy handsets direct right? Therefore even *they* don't know how much they cost originally. Only one or two networks have direct relationships with manufacturers and even then only with one or two manufacturers. The vast majority of networks' phones are bought through distributor networks, where the distributor takes care of sourcing the phones from manufacturers, delivering them to stores, and in some cases even fulfilling customer orders. Most networks do not do any of this themselves.

Incidentally you claim the iPhone 5 costs £103 to build yet professional analytic company iSuppli - a dedicated electronics research company - say the cheapest iPhone 5 costs $207, and that's before R&D, distribution costs, packaging, marketing, business, legal and contractual costs, and profit for everyone in the middle:

http://www.isuppli.com/Teardowns/News/Pages/iPhone5-Carries-$199-BOM-Virtual-Teardown-Reveals.aspx

So I suppose you now also own an electronics design research outfit whose primary purpose is to take phones apart to find out how much they cost, and you happen to do it better than the existing market leaders?

I may not know everything but I sure as hell know a professional electronics market intelligence company likely has more of a clue about its business than some randomer on a forum claiming their "partner" "owns a mobile network" and likes getting ripped off on his mobile phone (after all, he pays £6.90 a month £3 of service) (presumably because their own mobile network is too poor to provide the basic service required?). Clearly not the thriftiest of partners then.

Keep the crap coming.
MOD edit - No rep chat in public

It's not uncommon for people who work for or even run networks to have another deal with someone else, or did you not know that?

I don't care what people claim is such for the cost. I know that he CAN and DOES but handsets in wholesale from 2 companys and I also know exactly what he pays

he owns and runs an MNVO in London - what do you do? Pizza boy!

You're crap is much more amusing, so funny that even when you chose your username you must have had a fit.. LOL!

Kushan 19-10-2013 16:41
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by everyday (Post 35634169)

It's not uncommon for people who work for or even run networks to have another deal with someone else, or did you not know that?

I don't care what people claim is such for the cost. I know that he CAN and DOES but handsets in wholesale from 2 companys and I also know exactly what he pays

he owns and runs an MNVO in London - what do you do? Pizza boy!

You're crap is much more amusing, so funny that even when you chose your username you must have had a fit.. LOL!
qasdfdsaq and I have had our differences on this forum, but I have to say I do respect him overall. I don't see why you're taking this so personally and if I'm honest, I'm skeptical of your claims as well. Your attitude isn't really helping, either.

Stephen 19-10-2013 17:08
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Can I remind everyone please that public rep discussion is not allowed.

Also please try to remain civil to each other.

Chrysalis 20-10-2013 10:18
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq (Post 35634059)
We all know the profit margins on the hardware are high, yes, these are leading edge smartphones with some of the most advanced consumer technology in the world in them. R&D costs (which you don't see) are also high.

While I don't disagree they also make a crapton of profits on this stuff, certain companies have done professional analysis of how much the components and manufacturing costs - and as I say, they conclude the iPhone 5 costs over $200 for hardware alone before the cost of distribution and developing iOS are added on top. The S4 costs about $245 in pure components and manufacturing, the iPhone 4s cost between $196 and $254. Simply put, some loony raving "The iphone 4S cost apple £81.87 to build and the 5 was £103 to build." is horseshit.

Incidentally when you see the marketing for these new products a lot of emphasis is put onto the new software features, not the hardware. The only significant hardware change on the iPhone 5s was the fingerprint sensor, and that cost less than $15. Knowing a good few software developers and designers, it does irk me that some people seem to think software and design magically come for free and the only cost of making something is the physical hardware.
for software cost a guideline could be the oem fees for windows.

I think oem's were paying something like £15 per device sold to microsoft and that was profitable to microsoft (so cost was lower). In terms of samsung and other android vendors, google make android, samsung make the touchwiz overlay on top for their own phones and some custom apps. It does cost money, pointless arguing with that but my guess is the software development doesnt amount to billions. Apple software all in house with ios although I think before ios7 the updates were less of an overhaul.

apple have almost 100billion usd sitting in the bank.

Stephen 20-10-2013 13:06
Re: STM always enforced?
 
right, stop they petty insults. Thread back on topic and tidied up.

General Maximus 20-10-2013 22:17
Re: STM always enforced?
 
I haven't read any of this at all and only seen the thread title so I thought I would chip in. It is currently 22:16 on SUnday and I have been uploading flat out for the last 3 hours which is easily over 3gb an hour but stm hasn't kicked in yet. I normally go out of my way to avoid triggering it because I like to play games in the evening but I have been watching a movie tonight so I didn't care. I was surprised to see that everything was still ticking along at full whack when I came back to my pc.

Chrysalis 20-10-2013 23:13
Re: STM always enforced?
 
These rumours of STM been scrapped I have seen on a few news sites now.

Sephiroth 20-10-2013 23:39
Re: STM always enforced?
 
I don't know the schedule, but VM are in the process of moving their TMS servers from the edge (you see them as TMR on Traceroutes) to the regional core (pr whatever they call it). While they are doing this, there will be STM gaps. My understanding is that this hiatus won't last beyond the end of October.

qasdfdsaq 21-10-2013 01:21
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Does this mean there'll be a lot less servers each handling much much higher load?

General Maximus 21-10-2013 08:28
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35634597)
VM are in the process of moving their TMS servers from the edge (you see them as TMR on Traceroutes) to the regional core (pr whatever they call it)
what are the benefits of this?

Sephiroth 21-10-2013 08:44
Re: STM always enforced?
 
The officially sourced info doesn't go into whether it's less or more servers. They were previously located at the network edge, just before hitting the peering links. So, I've put Qasi's question back to VM.

Mon General asks what the benefits are. It depends on your perspective. It'll catch P2P users not currently being caught because they don't leave the VM network.

General Maximus 21-10-2013 08:53
Re: STM always enforced?
 
surely the % of internal p2p traffic vs external must be minimal, certainly not enough to warrant the cost and time of moving the servers. If VM are going to be that anal about trying to catch everyone it is a bad sign regarding their approach and attitude towards traffic management.

Sephiroth 21-10-2013 09:20
Re: STM always enforced?
 
I can only paraphrase what a few of us were told by VM. Cards close to chest as to detail - but I've chased this up in case they wish to say more.

Kushan 21-10-2013 09:26
Re: STM always enforced?
 
An interesting development, then. I've definitely been hit with STM recently and there was a time there when I wasn't getting STM at all, so it does lead that this is temporary.

The thing that strikes me as interesting is that I never experienced any degradation when I was STM free, I was able to get full speed during peak times without a hitch.

Chrysalis 21-10-2013 12:20
Re: STM always enforced?
 
reducing servers has the benefit of less maintenance and complexity. I can see why VM would want to do that.

qasdfdsaq 21-10-2013 13:24
Re: STM always enforced?
 
It also means you need faster servers to cope with the higher load, since overloaded shaping equipment has been known to cause congestion issues in the past.

As for maintenance, any enterprise/carrier network administrator worth his salt has everything automated anyway, so economies of scale mean additional units cost zero maintenance. The only issues that wouldn't scale that way would be hardware issues, which would normally be dealt with by the vendor support contract anyway (unless VM like acting macho and taking them on in-house)

I'm a bit confused though as to whether we're talking about equipment at the internal edge, i.e. customer-facing end or at the external edge, i.e. border-gateways. I'm also confused what these TMS servers do. STM as far as I know is implemented on the UBR and nowhere near the peering links, P2P shaping on the other hand, has nothing to do with STM.

Sephiroth 21-10-2013 14:21
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis (Post 35634716)
reducing servers has the benefit of less maintenance and complexity. I can see why VM would want to do that.
VM got back to me with the answer "same or more servers....".

qasdfdsaq 21-10-2013 14:23
Re: STM always enforced?
 
First piece of good news I've heard all minute.

telfordcable 22-10-2013 18:01
Re: STM always enforced?
 
I got hit by STM for the first time :(

The PIT 23-10-2013 21:17
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by telfordcable (Post 35635343)
I got hit by STM for the first time :(
Just downloaded osx maverick on two macs and got stm. That and other updates came to about 14 gig.

Martin_D 24-10-2013 18:34
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Traffic Management Policy Update

http://community.virginmedia.com/t5/...p/2033926#M163

General Maximus 24-10-2013 18:43
Re: STM always enforced?
 
excellent news but for all the difference 16% is going to make they had might as well get rid of it altogether. It is a step in the right direction though and hopefully they'll look at getting rid of it after xmas. Everyone should note though that it is downstream only. Upstream is still capped to 50%.

qasdfdsaq 24-10-2013 18:51
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Hmpf. What the hell?

Kushan 24-10-2013 19:14
Re: STM always enforced?
 
That's amazing news, us 120Meg users should never dip below 100Meg now. That makes me happy. As GenMon has said, it's a step in the right direction and hopefully a sign of things to come.

Shame the upload thresholds are still as bad as ever, though. Hopefully that's next.

Qtx 24-10-2013 19:37
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Knowing VM they will add a couple of hours to the STM monitored times :D

With all the other truly unlimited providers now, VM must be heading towards that direction, so not sure of the point of moving all this equipment around. They must still want to traffic shape for the foreseeable future.

General Maximus 24-10-2013 19:55
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qtx (Post 35636338)
Knowing VM they will add a couple of hours to the STM monitored times :D
I thought that as well, I was expecting day time stm to be brought back

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qtx (Post 35636338)
not sure of the point of moving all this equipment around
ditto, for the miniscule difference stm is going to make now (unless they plan to keep upstream in place for torrents) I can't understand the cost/benefit analysis for moving the traffic management servers.

Kushan 24-10-2013 21:09
Re: STM always enforced?
 
It's not like Virgin only has so much bandwidth per day, it's the peak bandwidth they need to manage. Perhaps all the recent upgrades have indeed been worth it. When we all had our recent spat of zero-STM, most of us found that we were still getting full speed - there were a few that weren't, of course, but I think the majority were happy. That says to me that in many parts of the network, there is indeed bandwidth to spare.

Perhaps this change in STM is just testing the waters a bit, a way of seeing if almost no STM is feasible. It's clear that the next step is to remove it all together (or start concentrating on the upload speed STM, who knows) but time will tell.

Whatever happens, this is a good thing. Unless you're in a congested area, but I was never convinced that STM had much of an impact there anyway.

neilt0 24-10-2013 21:29
Re: STM always enforced?
 
That 16% reduction is interesting, as it may mean they can claim they have the fastest (generally available) broadband service at 84mbps 24/7 vs BT's fibre's 76mbps.

Also, 16% off 120mbps is 100mbps.

ETA: I just started a download at 21:30, the download was very much throttled at about 4,500KB/sec. I rebooted my router and I resumed the download. This time, it's coming down at 12,000KB/sec. Nice.

Kushan 24-10-2013 21:31
Re: STM always enforced?
 
If I had to guess, I'd say the fact that 120Mbit going to almost exactly 100Mbit is partly where that 16% figure came from.

telfordcable 24-10-2013 21:49
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Great news! 100 Meg is always will be but it a big blow to upload thought. Hopefully they going to get rid of traffic management soon after xmas.

everyday 24-10-2013 22:10
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by neilt0 (Post 35636386)
TI rebooted my router and I resumed the download. This time, it's coming down at 12,000KB/sec. Nice.
Same here! Everytime I boot the SH I go from 70mbps to full speed even if STM has only been on 5 mins.

Edit and again! 8GB down STM came back on after about 2 mins to 70mbps reboot and getting full speed again LOL

---------- Post added at 22:10 ---------- Previous post was at 22:01 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by telfordcable (Post 35636397)
Great news! 100 Meg is always will be but it a big blow to upload thought. Hopefully they going to get rid of traffic management soon after xmas.
Maybe it's not actually on right if I can reboot and lose it. ;)

neilt0 24-10-2013 22:14
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Yeah, I'm back to being STM'd again. I think the Virgin article said it'd be rolled out within a couple of weeks.

Qtx 24-10-2013 22:24
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by neilt0 (Post 35636386)

ETA: I just started a download at 21:30, the download was very much throttled at about 4,500KB/sec. I rebooted my router and I resumed the download. This time, it's coming down at 12,000KB/sec. Nice.
Does your IP address change each time you reboot? Wondering if the leases have been set up properly on the DHCP servers and if the STM is done by IP.

broadbandking 24-10-2013 22:28
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Well lets just hope this means VM will remove STM but I am not going to get to happy as VM will do something else to ruin this like introduce usage caps lol.

telfordcable 24-10-2013 22:54
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by broadbandking (Post 35636425)
Well lets just hope this means VM will remove STM but I am not going to get to happy as VM will do something else to ruin this like introduce usage caps lol.
They might do but if they say 500GB per month. That's fine. But, if it was 100GB per month, no way!

neilt0 24-10-2013 22:57
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qtx (Post 35636424)
Does your IP address change each time you reboot? Wondering if the leases have been set up properly on the DHCP servers and if the STM is done by IP.
Dunno. I'll let someone else try that. And there's no way they can introduce caps, as that would not be unlimited at all.

telfordcable 24-10-2013 23:12
Re: STM always enforced?
 
ASA would slap VM in their face if they brought in caps!

qasdfdsaq 25-10-2013 02:00
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kushan (Post 35636388)
If I had to guess, I'd say the fact that 120Mbit going to almost exactly 100Mbit is partly where that 16% figure came from.
I'm curious exactly what rate will be applied though. As you know the 120Mbit service is actually rate limited at 133Mbit pre-STM

---------- Post added at 01:58 ---------- Previous post was at 01:54 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qtx (Post 35636424)
Does your IP address change each time you reboot? Wondering if the leases have been set up properly on the DHCP servers and if the STM is done by IP.
Nobody's actually clarified whether it's the STM equipment or the shaping equipment which is supposedly being moved from the edge network to the core but if it is the STM kit then it would have to be IP based, since (well, MPLS aside) that's all the core network runs on. Core equipment will have no direct access to data about subscriber identity or MAC.

---------- Post added at 02:00 ---------- Previous post was at 01:58 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by neilt0 (Post 35636442)
Dunno. I'll let someone else try that. And there's no way they can introduce caps, as that would not be unlimited at all.
Hah, let's not start that again...

---------- Post added at 02:00 ---------- Previous post was at 02:00 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by telfordcable (Post 35636453)
ASA would slap VM in their face if they brought in caps!
ASAP already slap VM in the face on an almost weekly basis

everyday 25-10-2013 07:02
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by neilt0 (Post 35636442)
Dunno. I'll let someone else try that. And there's no way they can introduce caps, as that would not be unlimited at all.
When I did it I checked and my IP didn't change. But it came back on about about 5 mins after even with no traffic.

Will see what it's like when it actually kicks in.

Kushan 25-10-2013 09:20
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq (Post 35636495)
I'm curious exactly what rate will be applied though. As you know the 120Mbit service is actually rate limited at 133Mbit pre-STM
Indeed, I was wondering this myself. I'd guess it would be exactly 100.8Mbps or whatever the figure was, rather than any overprovisioning. That's what it seems to be with the current STM.

Quote:
Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq (Post 35636495)
ASAP already slap VM in the face on an almost weekly basis
In fairness, they have it in for BT as well. Virgin is probably worse, but BT aren't much better (And I think Talktalk is prone to ASA complaints as well).

Quote:
Originally Posted by broadbandking (Post 35636425)
Well lets just hope this means VM will remove STM but I am not going to get to happy as VM will do something else to ruin this like introduce usage caps lol.
Usage caps would be commercial suicide, even at something like 500GB a month. Plus I don't think they actually help with congestion much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by telfordcable (Post 35636397)
Great news! 100 Meg is always will be but it a big blow to upload thought. Hopefully they going to get rid of traffic management soon after xmas.
How has upload taken a blow? Have they reduced the upload thresholds or something? (I don't remember the old figures).

Kabaal 25-10-2013 10:26
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kushan (Post 35636537)


How has upload taken a blow? Have they reduced the upload thresholds or something? (I don't remember the old figures).
Recently the upload reduction was -50% whether peak weekday or weekend times, now its -65%, i know it has been -75% at some point in the past but -50 to -65% is a recent change. That really is a blow considering upload isn't very fast on virgin in the first place.

Funny that they've changed the download STM to only -16% after customer feedback when the majority that i've read here and on the VM forum didn't mind the download STM too much as it was still fast, but they did mind the upload reduction.

Kushan 25-10-2013 10:35
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kabaal (Post 35636560)
Recently the upload reduction was -50% whether peak weekday or weekend times, now its -65%, i know it has been -75% at some point in the past but -50 to -65% is a recent change. That really is a blow considering upload isn't very fast on virgin in the first place.

Funny that they've changed the download STM to only -16% after customer feedback when the majority that i've read here and on the VM forum didn't mind the download STM too much as it was still fast, but they did mind the upload reduction.
Are you definitely sure about that? I remember it being greater than 50%.
In fact, here's an article from last June: http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php...icy-again.html

Quote:
The changes we’ve been trialling for the last few weeks are focused on allowing you do more with some applications that need a significant amount of upstream bandwidth. So we’ve dialled back the reductions to upload speeds from 60% and 75% on our one and two hour thresholds to 50% and 65% respectively.

Kabaal 25-10-2013 10:40
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kushan (Post 35636562)
Are you definitely sure about that? I remember it being greater than 50%.
In fact, here's an article from last June: http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php...icy-again.html
Sorry i forget that there were differing perspectives with STM over the summer. On 120mb the upload reduction was -50% from when they rolled out the stm trial at the start of the summer until very recently, at the same time those still on 100mb had the -65%. The numbers listed on the site were not what was being applied, at least to those of us who were posting int he STM trial thread on the VM forum.

So for all intents and purposes those of us on 120mb went from the old STM with the 10gb(?) threshold or whatever it was to the new low thresholds and -50% then in the past couple of weeks to -65%.

BenMcr 25-10-2013 10:59
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kabaal (Post 35636564)
Sorry i forget that there were differing perspectives with STM over the summer. On 120mb the upload reduction was -50% from when they rolled out the stm trial at the start of the summer until very recently, at the same time those still on 100mb had the -65%. The numbers listed on the site were not what was being applied, at least to those of us who were posting int he STM trial thread on the VM forum.

So for all intents and purposes those of us on 120mb went from the old STM with the 10gb(?) threshold or whatever it was to the new low thresholds and -50% then in the past couple of weeks to -65%.
The policy last year was 75% upload management on 100Mbit http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/5...-products.html

When the new traffic management was launched in April, the upload managment on 100 and 120Mbit was 60% / 75% http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/broadban...agement-policy

So 50% / 65% is a reduction in upload management.

telfordcable 25-10-2013 11:10
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Upload shouldn't be reduced. I will complaint to ASA but I don't mind if it was 10% reduced.

Kabaal 25-10-2013 11:21
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenMcr (Post 35636570)


When the new traffic management was launched in April, the upload managment on 100 and 120Mbit was 60% / 75% http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/broadban...agement-policy

So 50% / 65% is a reduction in upload management.
It was supposed to be but it wasn't. A few of us tested it extensively over the summer and 120mb was only getting 50% reduction. 100mb was getting the listed values applied but we weren't, we only went from 50% to 65% recently.

Not that it matters as -65% on an already low upload speed is still draconic.

BenMcr 25-10-2013 11:26
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kabaal (Post 35636580)
It was supposed to be but it wasn't. A few of us tested it extensively over the summer and 120mb was only getting 50% reduction. 100mb was getting the listed values applied but we weren't, we only went from 50% to 65% recently.

Not that it matters as -65% on an already low upload speed is still draconic.
Fair enough, but the published figures are what VM intended to happen, anything else was an error.

qasdfdsaq 25-10-2013 11:50
Re: STM always enforced?
 
We all know not to base our expectations on what VM intend to happen. I'm sure VM intended for the 50/100/upload upgrades to not be 1.5 years late...

kwikbreaks 25-10-2013 12:12
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq (Post 35636495)
Nobody's actually clarified whether it's the STM equipment or the shaping equipment which is supposedly being moved from the edge network to the core....
I was always under the impression that STM functionality was built into the CMTS. Certainly it's been mentioned in this thread that the rules are so I'm guessing that the actual throughput monitoring and speed reduction mechanism are too.

qasdfdsaq 25-10-2013 13:54
Re: STM always enforced?
 
That's what I also thought, but Seph said VM said there will be "breaks in STM" while the equipment is being moved, which doesn't make sense if the equipment for STM isn't being moved.

everyday 25-10-2013 15:26
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Am I right in thinking that all that have not had STM have been using modem mode? Dosen't an AP give you a different IP address?

Just wondering.

Kushan 25-10-2013 15:32
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by everyday (Post 35636703)
Am I right in thinking that all that have not had STM have been using modem mode? Dosen't an AP give you a different IP address?

Just wondering.
I don't think Modem mode vs. non-modem-mode makes a difference. You'll get a different IP from switching but as far as the CMTS is concerned, nothing has changed on its end.

everyday 25-10-2013 15:46
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Which rules out my theory but thanks for the clarification :)

kwikbreaks 25-10-2013 22:39
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq (Post 35636668)
...Seph said VM said...
Did he mention if it sounded muffled at all? I suspect if the spokesman was seated at the time it may well have been.

qasdfdsaq 26-10-2013 01:26
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Hahahaha. Took me a while to get it, I'm a bit slow at this time of day :-\

Chrysalis 26-10-2013 05:12
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by General Maximus (Post 35636312)
excellent news but for all the difference 16% is going to make they had might as well get rid of it altogether. It is a step in the right direction though and hopefully they'll look at getting rid of it after xmas. Everyone should note though that it is downstream only. Upstream is still capped to 50%.
my thoughts also, 16% is pretty low its as good as off, and probably have negligible impact on DS utilisation.

Given the nature of VMs network if US is turned off I expect it wont be pain free.

I also wonder how my area works with these changes as my area had DS utilisation issues many times.

---------- Post added at 05:12 ---------- Previous post was at 05:12 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq (Post 35636595)
We all know not to base our expectations on what VM intend to happen. I'm sure VM intended for the 50/100/upload upgrades to not be 1.5 years late...
what about the lack of 10:1 ratio on 30/60 tiers?

broadbandking 26-10-2013 10:23
Re: STM always enforced?
 
I have seen a config alittle while ago with 60/6 so I am guessing it has started.

everyday 26-10-2013 11:16
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by broadbandking (Post 35637022)
I have seen a config alittle while ago with 60/6 so I am guessing it has started.
It says it will take a while to get around, in cardiff it's still on the old one.

neilt0 26-10-2013 12:23
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by broadbandking (Post 35637022)
I have seen a config alittle while ago with 60/6 so I am guessing it has started.
Yes, I was downloading last night from 9pm for about 3 hours at full whack. I'm doing the same again this morning, post-midday!

kwikbreaks 26-10-2013 13:31
Re: STM always enforced?
 
The 60/6 config refers to the delay providing an upstream at 10% of downstream - nothing to do with STM.

craigj2k12 27-10-2013 16:37
Re: STM always enforced?
 
I saw a 60/6 config posted on the VM forum a couple of months back, nothing since though

Kushan 27-10-2013 18:15
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Wasn't it "in trialling" or something?

Mick Fisher 27-10-2013 18:18
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by broadbandking (Post 35636425)
Well lets just hope this means VM will remove STM but I am not going to get to happy as VM will do something else to ruin this like introduce usage caps lol.
Well that seems to be the trend among Cable Co's in the States so it would not be very surprising.

kwikbreaks 27-10-2013 19:55
Re: STM always enforced?
 
I think that by reducing STM to the pretty pointless 10% / 16% to satisfy the latest (as yet unpublished) ASA ruling so that they can continue advertising unlimited VM must have pretty much ruled out caps.

There is very little point in having 120Mbps download speed other than to download large data files. Put caps on it and VM may as well shut shop unless they are very generous indeed.

jb66 27-10-2013 20:03
Re: STM always enforced?
 
I think the removal of isohunt has helped

neilt0 27-10-2013 20:06
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jb66 (Post 35637711)
I think the removal of isohunt has helped
Helped what?

General Maximus 27-10-2013 20:11
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jb66 (Post 35637711)
I think the removal of isohunt has helped
removed from what? I can still get to it.

Kushan 27-10-2013 20:12
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by General Maximus (Post 35637715)
removed from what? I can still get to it.
How? It shut down a few days ago.

General Maximus 27-10-2013 20:24
Re: STM always enforced?
 
I personally don't use the site but I just went on it to see what jb was talking about. I'll pm you and you can try it for yourself otherwise I risk getting my bottom smacked by the mods.

Sephiroth 27-10-2013 20:42
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwikbreaks (Post 35637709)
I think that by reducing STM to the pretty pointless 10% / 16% to satisfy the latest (as yet unpublished) ASA ruling so that they can continue advertising unlimited VM must have pretty much ruled out caps.

There is very little point in having 120Mbps download speed other than to download large data files. Put caps on it and VM may as well shut shop unless they are very generous indeed.
You're right, of course.

The problem for VM customers is that a free-for-all (except P2P which remains controlled), as in "VM will never slow you down", can hit them quite quickly, particularly if there are twice as many customers per VM optical node than in a large FTTC cabinet.

Of course FTTC can hit customers in a different way; it's distance dependent from the cabinet made worse by aluminium cable.

Interesting times ahead as VM struggles with its dilemma.

Jumping 27-10-2013 21:00
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Removal of one site is not really gonna matter there is always more than one way to find and get the stuff you want if you really want it.

kwikbreaks 27-10-2013 22:16
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35637728)
Of course FTTC can hit customers in a different way; it's distance dependent from the cabinet made worse by aluminium cable.
In the sort of areas where VM are competing with FTTC I suspect that the distance from subscriber to cab isn't going to be all that great. For instance I'm ~ 300m from my FTTC cabinet and have a 60Mbps estimate. I'm actually nearer than that to the next cabinet along though. I have seen mention of someone being about a mile (iirc) from their cab but I'd lay odds that there is no cable service there.

everyday 27-10-2013 22:16
Re: STM always enforced?
 
ive reported 3 to FACT via crimestoppers in the past week. Sory but I hate P2P and copyright theft in general.

kwikbreaks 27-10-2013 22:23
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Only 3 - if you are that keen to block P2P surely you could do much better than that a quick google should bring up thousands.

Kushan 27-10-2013 22:26
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by everyday (Post 35637769)
ive reported 3 to FACT via crimestoppers in the past week. Sory but I hate P2P and copyright theft in general.
Those are mutually exclusive things.

qasdfdsaq 27-10-2013 22:49
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwikbreaks (Post 35637770)
Only 3 - if you are that keen to block P2P surely you could do much better than that a quick google should bring up thousands.
tbh he seems to be a fan of reporting everybody just about everyday for everything.

Not sure what crime he's imagining this time (apparently Kushan having below "adverage" intelligence was worthy of a police report last week)...

---------- Post added at 22:49 ---------- Previous post was at 22:44 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by kwikbreaks (Post 35637768)
In the sort of areas where VM are competing with FTTC I suspect that the distance from subscriber to cab isn't going to be all that great. For instance I'm ~ 300m from my FTTC cabinet and have a 60Mbps estimate. I'm actually nearer than that to the next cabinet along though. I have seen mention of someone being about a mile (iirc) from their cab but I'd lay odds that there is no cable service there.
According to Thinkbroadband the average line length across the UK is around 480m from cabinet, with 60% of lines being 500m or less.

everyday 27-10-2013 23:54
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq (Post 35637775)
tbh he seems to be a fan of reporting everybody just about everyday for everything
Well imature rep comments yes - don't like it don't send them!

AND why does everyone refer to me as "he" I've got women's bits!

Anyway.. I can only assume this 10/16% is so that they can see if it can cope and regain control.

---------- Post added at 23:54 ---------- Previous post was at 22:53 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kushan (Post 35637771)
Those are mutually exclusive things.
Also illegal under several different acts.

qasdfdsaq 27-10-2013 23:55
Re: STM always enforced?
 
P2P is not illegal under any act.

Copyright "theft" via P2P is usually a civil matter, not criminal.

Chrysalis 28-10-2013 02:51
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq (Post 35637797)
P2P is not illegal under any act.

Copyright "theft" via P2P is usually a civil matter, not criminal.
I think you mean copyright infringement ;)

Theft of copyright would be actually stealing the rights.

The media industry deliberatly using wrong words seems to have rubbed off on people.

craigj2k12 28-10-2013 02:58
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kushan (Post 35637771)
Those are mutually exclusive things.
No they arent, they can, and do happen. They are, however, independent

---------- Post added at 02:58 ---------- Previous post was at 02:56 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by everyday (Post 35637778)
Also illegal under several different acts.
What, sharing files you own the rights to via P2P is illegal? News to me

Kushan 28-10-2013 08:31
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by everyday (Post 35637778)
Also illegal under several different acts.
P2P is illegal, is it? You'd best get reporting, then. Last I checked, Skype uses P2P technology. As does Spotify (for its desktop player). Many games uses P2P for updates (World of Warcraft being a prime example). Hell, even twitter uses P2P in their server infrastructure. Best get FACT on the case, they're obviously unaware of all these infringements!

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go download the rights to Disney so I can build my own theme park.

---------- Post added at 08:31 ---------- Previous post was at 08:25 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by craigj2k12 (Post 35637811)
No they arent, they can, and do happen. They are, however, independent
Ah yes, sorry you're correct on that one. What I meant to say was that P2P is not synonymous with copyright infringement.

General Maximus 28-10-2013 08:38
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kushan (Post 35637836)
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go download the rights to Disney so I can build my own theme park
talking about that, I read a an article a couple of weeks ago that Disney are doing a massive expansion over the next 4 years to add an Avatar world to the theme park, it looks amazing.

http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2013/1...w-avatar-land/

Take a look at pic 4, if you want to try and built it first please do, I can't wait.

kwikbreaks 28-10-2013 08:51
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq (Post 35637775)
According to Thinkbroadband the average line length across the UK is around 480m from cabinet, with 60% of lines being 500m or less.
Probably so but my point is that VM do not operate UK wide they operate in areas of high population density and I suspect that in those areas the average subscriber to cabinet distance is going to be less than the nationwide average.

Kushan 28-10-2013 09:19
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by General Maximus (Post 35637844)
talking about that, I read a an article a couple of weeks ago that Disney are doing a massive expansion over the next 4 years to add an Avatar world to the theme park, it looks amazing.

http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2013/1...w-avatar-land/

Take a look at pic 4, if you want to try and built it first please do, I can't wait.
That does look pretty good! I think I'll wait until they're finished with it, then download it for myself :D

kwikbreaks 28-10-2013 09:31
Re: STM always enforced?
 
You'll need a pretty big 3D printer :)

That'll be the next big copyright infringement area I reckon.

everyday 28-10-2013 12:45
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kushan (Post 35637836)
P2P is illegal, is it? You'd best get reporting, then. Last I checked, Skype uses P2P technology. As does Spotify (for its desktop player). Many games uses P2P for updates (World of Warcraft being a prime example). Hell, even twitter uses P2P in their server infrastructure. Best get FACT on the case, they're obviously unaware of all these infringements!

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go download the rights to Disney so I can build my own theme park.

---------- Post added at 08:31 ---------- Previous post was at 08:25 ----------



Ah yes, sorry you're correct on that one. What I meant to say was that P2P is not synonymous with copyright infringement.
No I meant copyright theft via P2P and you dam well knew that.

kwikbreaks 28-10-2013 12:55
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Theft?

I think you meant copyright infringement as has already been pointed out.

Anyway reporting sites that list trackers and the like is a waste of time. As I said way back they are 10 a penny and a google search will reveal thousands. Do you really think you are the only person who found these sites? I'd be mildly interested to find out how and why you did.

I rather think though that you didn't and your main reason for posting was to produce exactly what has followed. Please go trolling elsewhere.

Kushan 28-10-2013 12:58
Re: STM always enforced?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by everyday (Post 35637949)
No I meant copyright theft via P2P and you dam well knew that.
I didn't, actually, because what you said directly implied that P2P was just as bad as "copyright theft". Otherwise, why on earth would you hate it so?

As someone has already pointed out, Copyright theft has nothing to do with P2P anyway, perhaps you mean copyright infringement, which is a completely different thing.

In any case, I suggest you get off your high-horse.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 22:50.
Page 3 of 4 12 3 4
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum