View Single Post
Old 30-08-2008, 22:02   #14
Ignitionnet
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Leeds, West Yorkshire
Age: 47
Posts: 13,995
Ignitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny stars
Ignitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny stars
Re: Sucks to be with comcast

Quote:
Originally Posted by foreverwar View Post
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.
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.
Ignitionnet is offline   Reply With Quote