Quote:
Originally Posted by broadbandbug
But you do understand and agree that no ISP is financially able to build its infrastructure to manage 100% of the peak demand don't you? i.e. If a port is congested between 1600-2100, but is only 40% utilised outside of this time why would you upgrade it?
Therefore during the peak traffic there is either congestion (which by its nature will slow down everyone) or there is artificial means put in place to 'control' the demand to keep it within the capability of the network.
Which would you prefer?
If you are going to control demand, there are many ways to do so..
Would you prefer that VM 'strangle' NNTP & non commercial P2P (not Kontiki) Applications or slow down the speed of those that have downloaded the most over the previous 'time slot'?
I think we are all aware of the issues, but what are the sensible and financially viable solutions?
|
If other european ISP's can do it, so can VM.
When living in france i was on 100mbit symetrical for around £50/month which was truely unlimited (as far as it goes anyway...)
When in japan i was on 1gbit/100 truely unlimited.
While those places may have had alot of money put into the infrastructure the point is still the same, if VM had bothered to upgrade like they should have instead of just shoving more people on an already overloaded network...then give big fat bonuses to people high up then we would not even be having this discussion.
Hell, even comcast over in the crapola of the US has finally started doing this, upgraded everyone to docsis2 and actually provide good enough upload speeds on top of it..and getting ready to roll out symetrical connections later on next year...and comcasts network was alot poorer than VMS.
So, really, what excuse do VM have? they just waste money and give themself's bonuses.