Which one would you prefer
 

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

Re: Which one one would prefer
 

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/At..._Practices.pdf

Re: Which one would you prefer
 

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.

Re: Which one would you prefer
 

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.

Re: Which one would you prefer
 

I'd go with that. as long as "over-use" is 2 terabytes a month.

Re: Which one would you prefer
 

Yeh, OK.

Re: Which one would you prefer
 

And there was me wondering if setting up a 3TB RAID to last me the next couple of years was too much!

Re: Which one would you prefer
 

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.

Re: Which one would you prefer
 

I cant see how people can go over 1TB a month I download prob less than 250Gb these days anyways

Re: Which one would you prefer
 

pay as you go......(i bore myself sometimes )

Re: Which one would you prefer
 

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.

Re: Which one would you prefer
 

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.

Re: Which one would you prefer
 

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.

Re: Which one would you prefer
 

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!

Re: Which one would you prefer
 

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