Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis
ok what specific work was done in brighton then, I want the same in my area :p….
|
Other than the fact you appear to have the same numerical number of CMTS chassis as Brighton (17), I don't see any other obvious (technical) similarities between Brighton and Leicester?
Unless you specifically know that your City planning/street works/highways have comparable "works" notification process, your HFC topology,age and RF plant is identical, same CMTS/uBR models, linecard types, configuration and up/down stream channel/freq plans, same HPPN, user demographics, churn rate etc etc I confess that with my ever increasing senility I don't otherwise see how you can accurately compare them with any sort of objectivity?
Perhaps you'd be kind enough to elaborate in simple terms for this aging retired network engineer?
Seriously though, there will be far too many variables to reach any objective form of comparison. It's still very much a post code lottery and VM don't elaborate on any useful details!.
Just for the record it would be churlish and naive to deny that local media publicity doesn't have some degree of influence on VM local strategies, however there has over past years been several articles (typically bi-annual) in Brightons Argus/Leader publications. Albeit, merely as a local resident I don't see any evidence that this has increased any more over the last years than places like Bristol or Newcastle?
Ergo I don't think anything "special" has happened but merely as a end result of longterm capacity planning?
Just check this help site for past issues 2+ years ago wrt Brig15 and BN2 area issues.
Perhaps you have specific links/stats to qualify your inferences?.
It is also rather premature to conclude all "over utilisation" issues in Brighton are "fixed" as inferred by your comments. There is evidence that additional bonded downstream channels have been deployed on many nodes over the past several months and that upstream bonding has recently started to rollout over the last week or so. However there also remains other RF (including SNR/FEC) impairments that still remain in some areas along with the potential requirement for VM to still address static and dynamic load balancing to "fine tune" after this years major Cat C re-segmentations where necessary?
In that regard it's entirely possible that VM CEO office refuse to change your upstream for entirely practical reasons. You probably know more details at what stage Leic14 et al CMTS and associated nodes are at in terms of upgrades & Speed doubling but to deploy a specific config for your Hub/CM would no doubt require excluding you from current load balance group and configuring your account/line connection for a specific u/s channel (and assuming this set's a precedent for similar requests) will potentially cause a disproportionate maintenance/admin overhead, particularly when they also eventually start to rollout upstream bonding groups in your area!
I really don't want to devolve this into yet another "you prove it is" or "I prove it isn't" time wasting discussion as those arguments are "Waring" a little thin… if you get my drift?
Neither do I want to antagonise/inflame you considering the real issues you're still encountering but I think we all (myself included) underestimate the complexities involved - and I'm not defending VM's lack of foresight / investment by saying that either!