Comcast shows how to implement fairer STM
 

Is it necessary to punish a user at half past one in the morning, for sins committed during peak-time? Reset-flag Comcast doesn’t think so. I’ve always appreciated that Virgin Media’s STM policy has a significant punitive element, but Comcast’s plans confirm that it can be done much more fairly.

Comcast to Slow Some Web Traffic for Up to 20 Minutes

The top Internet speeds for targeted customers will be reduced for periods lasting 10 minutes to 20 minutes, keeping service to other users flowing, Mitch Bowling, Comcast's senior vice president and general manager of online services, said in an interview yesterday.

Re: Comcast shows how to implement fairer STM
 

I dont see this working really as when they are back on normal speed its gonna happen again and again it will be a 10mb service with bursts of 50mb or whatever the package the customer is on

Re: Comcast shows how to implement fairer STM
 

comcast were forced into this so bear that in mind, if our regulators acted in the same way over here our isps would also be using better methods.

Re: Comcast shows how to implement fairer STM
 

It only kicks in when the network is congested, and doesn't reduce to a set speed but deprioritises traffic so that people managed can soak up the left over bandwidth from non-managed people.

Port capacity, upstream and downstream, is dynamically monitored and when it nears congestion the management kicks in.

Sadly this costs a little money and requires a clue to set up as opposed to the couple of lines of config on a uBR that VM's STM uses.

---------- Post added at 10:43 ---------- Previous post was at 10:42 ----------

They weren't forced into this but they originally managed on an application basis and were told that wasn't acceptable. They could have gone with a fixed STM but decided on this more dynamic approach.

As you can probably tell I'm not a fan of blunt force caps but am a fan of thought out and more flexible approaches. If the capacity is there why not use it rather than treating everyone in the same way whether or not their area is congested?

Re: Comcast shows how to implement fairer STM
 

Totally agree Broadbandings, Comcast has shown (alibet forced to do so) that it can be done better, which highlights the problems in VMs STM policy.

Sucks to be with comcast
 

Comcast cap downloads to battle piracy

Comcast, one of America's biggest internet providers is to cap limits on customer's broadband usage to 250GB a month. However, a spokesperson stated that the cap won't affect most customers as the average customer uses only two to three gigabytes per month.

http://www.maxconsole.net/?mode=news&newsid=31100

Re: Sucks to be with comcast
 

Much fairer than virginmedias STM policy tbh.

250GB/Month is enough for most.

And normal users can get that odd patch/update/demo/stream done without being worried that they'll get capped.

Re: Sucks to be with comcast
 

Better 250GB than getting throttled for daring to download a 500MB / 1.1GB / 3.5GB patch / movie / demo one evening and doing nothing else for the rest of the month.

Re: Sucks to be with comcast
 

But how long would it be, if VM imposed the same cap, that the comments about "this is not the unlimited that was advertised" started. do you think? ;)

btw, on 10Mb/s, if I was continuously throttled, I could still download 720GB per month - so, swings and roundabouts (imho).

Re: Sucks to be with comcast
 

You hit what STM is all about, keeping the unlimited advertising running.

Yes you could download 720GB on 10Mbit, however for those who want to download anything less than 250GB, probably 99.9% of customers, a flat monthly cap is a better and less disruptive option than the present STM.

Re: Sucks to be with comcast
 

Unless, of course, they all decided to download the latest film, sorry, linux distro (cough, cough) at the same time it was available, which would then impact the network.

Re: Sucks to be with comcast
 

Up to the network to either have the capacity or other measures in place to deal with such a thing. Better that than people being throttled whether they are impacting the network or not imho :)

Re: Sucks to be with comcast
 

Sorry, we'll have to disagree there - no commercial network could cope with the possibility of all of it's customers using all of it's bandwidth at once; it would not be commercially realistic to do this (or else they would have to charge the customers unacceptable (to the customer) prices, and VM are trying, in their own way (STM), to have "other measures" in place.

But I understand your viewpoint - just don't agree with it. ;)

Re: Sucks to be with comcast
 

Ah I did use the disclaimer 'other measures' - in an ideal world VM would follow Comcast's approach of only having an STM-type system in place when congestion occurs. Blanket STM is the lazy way.

I would not be opposed to a decent cap along with prioritisation when congestion occurs though. It'd both help to mitigate network congestion, leave occasionally heavy users alone, and rid network of people downloading TB a month to shift in the street.

Re: Sucks to be with comcast
 

I am in total agreement with you there.