View Single Post
Old 20-12-2011, 08:35   #113
Chrysalis
cf.mega poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 12,048
Chrysalis is cast in bronzeChrysalis is cast in bronzeChrysalis is cast in bronzeChrysalis is cast in bronze
Chrysalis is cast in bronze
Re: Small Download Speed Upgrade

Quote:
Originally Posted by kwikbreaks View Post
I suspect that they will be putting their faith in Traffic Management Mk II though as trailed by the man with inside info. If that does indeed sort out the highly overutilised areas it will seriously miff the users causing the problem and they may well end up moving on giving the effect of the old "detrimental use" letters but still allowing the holy grail of VM marketing - "unlimited" to be used in their adverts.
I agree, I think they banking on that 90% at least as its the cheapest thing to do.

Interesting thoughts on it been used to purposely severely throttle to the point to make the users "want" to leave, it will be interesting to see if VM deliberatly throttle heavily for that purpose. Will we start seeing 0.1mbit speedtests from users who have downloaded a few TB?

---------- Post added at 09:35 ---------- Previous post was at 09:31 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by roughbeast View Post

Meanwhile, I do not understand why, if on the Coventry trial we had a 10Gb pipe in reserve, more capacity cannot be put in from the centre. Here I reveal the fact that I need to do some reading. I do know that Coventry was chosen for the trials because it had spare slots at street level. Is that the point then? It is the limited capacity at street level that is the problem and that architectural decisions made historically have limited that capacity, though in some locations more than others. You can only do so much by upgrading kit, such as network cards.

Edit.............................The above was written whilst Kwikbreaks was responding
I agree with kwikbreaks on this in that the reason it probably hasnt been done is I expect its more expensive than traffic management and possible node splits, as the superhubs for a start are only capable of 8 downstream channels, so new modems would need to be issued for 16. So the truth is most likely cost. So instead of abandoning the idea VM just going ahead anyway and probably hoping the new traffic management does enough and that hardly anyone signs up and uses it. As the primary gain of 200mbit is marketing boasting rights, they probably will still make more profit of lower tier lower usage customers. Also bear in mind with the fluff the config will probably be 220mbit not 200mbit.
Chrysalis is offline   Reply With Quote