Cable Forum - View Single Post

Mad Ad · 27-08-2008, 15:28

I prefer to look at it the other way. In the days of 56k we used to get ISPs with horrible contention at peak times. As VMs network was approaching similar capacity problems they couldnt just add another dialup server, instead they thought up this great wheeze called STM allowing them to resell every L and XL users peak time bandwidth to 3 other people (and M users b/w to 1 other person) by only incurring the costs of the cisco software.

This was instead of spending on CMTS upgrades to upgrade hardware to give us what we paid for, which follows from the decreasing revenue they receive from BB accounts.

Since hardware upgrades do happen, they chose to keep STM hidden from as many subscribers as possible and omitted it from all advertising so as to not create a landslide before they could actually upgrade the hardware (docsis 3) providing more headroom on both segments allowing them to remove or relax the STM regime.

Kinda the same thing, just from a different perspective. Doesnt make it right tho, I still think their anti-customer stance and the way its hidden from advertising is more offensive than the need to manage a scarce resource, which is obviously their aim in the end, just theyve gone about it in a very negative way.

I would welcome congestion based measures, infact one of my early arguments against STM was why it was installed on UBRs in areas that had no congestion problems, my own is only 22% utilised the last 2 times I asked, why STM me and my neighbours at all? I could run 20 meg day and night and not cause anyone a problem (based on their insulting propaganda about how everyone downloading over a long period would adversely affect other people). We all know why now, its all for the sake of capacity numbers in some stupid spreadsheet.

27-08-2008, 15:28	#23
Mad Ad Inactive Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 45	Re: Comcast's Approach To Congestion I prefer to look at it the other way. In the days of 56k we used to get ISPs with horrible contention at peak times. As VMs network was approaching similar capacity problems they couldnt just add another dialup server, instead they thought up this great wheeze called STM allowing them to resell every L and XL users peak time bandwidth to 3 other people (and M users b/w to 1 other person) by only incurring the costs of the cisco software. This was instead of spending on CMTS upgrades to upgrade hardware to give us what we paid for, which follows from the decreasing revenue they receive from BB accounts. Since hardware upgrades do happen, they chose to keep STM hidden from as many subscribers as possible and omitted it from all advertising so as to not create a landslide before they could actually upgrade the hardware (docsis 3) providing more headroom on both segments allowing them to remove or relax the STM regime. Kinda the same thing, just from a different perspective. Doesnt make it right tho, I still think their anti-customer stance and the way its hidden from advertising is more offensive than the need to manage a scarce resource, which is obviously their aim in the end, just theyve gone about it in a very negative way. I would welcome congestion based measures, infact one of my early arguments against STM was why it was installed on UBRs in areas that had no congestion problems, my own is only 22% utilised the last 2 times I asked, why STM me and my neighbours at all? I could run 20 meg day and night and not cause anyone a problem (based on their insulting propaganda about how everyone downloading over a long period would adversely affect other people). We all know why now, its all for the sake of capacity numbers in some stupid spreadsheet.