Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis
The reality is severe oversubscribed areas break trading standards legislation, regardless of what you think about that.
|
Show me where VM have been successfully nailed by Trading Standards for oversubscription please.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis
The reality is VM can solve it via various methods quite easily, they are not stukck in a diffilcult position, the reality is they have made a concsious decision to leave people with horrible performance.
|
This applies to any ISP anywhere, it's always a question of money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis
VM are getting away with this due to lax regulation, with a decent regulator the unlimited farce would be gone long ago and noone would be uploading 24/7 as a result.
|
The UK's regulation isn't lax by any stretch. Excessive interventionism has a lot to answer for within the UK's market. If you want lax regulation see Canada.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis
AAISP do sell to a niche, but that niche is mainly for things like their uk localised technical enhanced support, line monitoring, large ip ranges, managed services, SLA's, prirority fault resolution. The fact they happen to also treat congestion seriously is more a bonus for their business customers although they probably wouldnt tolerate severe congestion that disrupts whatever they doing I suspect as long as their emails work etc. they mostly wont be aware of any congestion that may creep up occasionaly on aaisp's services.
|
You need to tell AAISP this as they make a selling point of their congestion management.
http://aaisp.net.uk/broadband-speed.html
http://clueless.aaisp.net.uk/congestion.cgi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis
lets forget about the financials of it for now we both disagree on this. Even tho you have made no comment in regards to VM selling something they cant supply and if they should stop unlimited.
|
No let's not, it's completely about the financials. You can't just say 'Let's forget about x as you haven't discussed y' and expect me to immediately drop x and defend my position on y.
I have made many comments in the past about unlimited services which I'm not going to go back over. It should be quite well known that while I would prefer a service that's more expensive and of a higher quality I entirely appreciate why VM feel the need to advertise and offer the pricing they do. Their services necessarily appeal to the lowest common denominator.
As far as the costs go blame the regulator you describe as lax for regulating ISPs into a race to the bottom in terms of prices and quality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis
My question is what do you think is happening in these so called not oversubscribed but over utilised areas? given that nntp and p2p are throttled down now plus a bunch of other unidentified protocols at any given time. Is someone who isnt using p2p or nntp and staying within STM limits doing something unusual?
|
Given that the congestion is nearly always upstream and I'm not overly convinced of the upstream throttling's effectiveness I suspect you're quite aware of what's happening.
There is, simply, virtually no legitimate reason for a home user to upload extremely large amounts of data for any length of time. Perhaps a single use cloud backup but extremely large amounts of data remain the province of P2P for now. There's the very odd Slingbox user but these are a tiny minority of the whole. VM need to make the upstream shaping more granular ideally but, as already noted, this is just the early attempt at protocol management and more will no doubt follow.