New Acceptable Usage Policy from VM (discussion)

[kwikbreaks]

Cue umpteen versions of what folks would like to see the new policy to be.

I'll kick off with a model which most will conform to...

Anything I happen to want to do is fine and will be set to top priority on QoS and anything anybody else does that potentially slows down my stuff will be banned/blocked/heavily penalised.

[7031]

Originally Posted by kwikbreaks

Anything I happen to want to do is fine and will be set to top priority on QoS and anything anybody else does that potentially slows down my stuff will be banned/blocked/heavily penalised.

Sounds good to me. Let's be honest here, anyone who needs bandwidth who isn't me should be banned from the network immediately, as their usage would degrade the quality of my service to the point where I will have to cancel, as only getting 50Mbps for 25 pounds per month that's not even dedicated is simply unacceptable.

[Chrysalis]

If it were me the usage cap would depend on the product.

3tb on the bottom tier is almost the same as unlimited, 1tb would also be too high as its the same as caning it 30% of the time. But on the top tier the 100mbit service 1tb would be a more reasonable limit, whilst the bottom tier perhaps 75gig a month.

[7031]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

If it were me the usage cap would depend on the product.

3tb on the bottom tier is almost the same as unlimited, 1tb would also be too high as its the same as caning it 30% of the time. But on the top tier the 100mbit service 1tb would be a more reasonable limit, whilst the bottom tier perhaps 75gig a month.

I'd be happy with a 1TB limit, just make sure that I'm aware of it.

Hmm, what about 3TB? SoftLayer gives me that :P. Saying that, I'm not paying Virgin Media $294 per month, and that's with a discount (Xeon 1270 3.4Ghz quad with 16GB RAM, 500GB HDD, 100Mbps with cPanel/WHM).

They'll need more aggressive shaping or there will be more areas suffering high congestion.

Will they? I don't believe most customers even know this policy currently exists - I'm pretty sure people are downloading pretty much as much as they like anyway. Traffic shaping would work nicely for torrents though, but please don't cripple them :P. I have a friend in Canada who is lucky to exceed 100KB/s on her Roger's Cable 30Mbps connection with torrents.

I have noticed they do traffic manage torrents currently, and I'm fine with it - if it's something I'm torrenting it's not likely that I need it immediately anyway, just don't make it something ridiculous like a cap of 100KB/s.

[kwikbreaks]

Originally Posted by 7031

Will they? I don't believe most customers even know this policy currently exists - I'm pretty sure people are downloading pretty much as much as they like anyway.

I'll guarantee that those whose downloading screws their local network will know about it because they've had a letter already. Lifting the threat without curbing their usage some other way will either cause problems locally or cost VM money to upgrade. I know which of those two possibilities I think would be more likely. What I think is even more likely is a more aggressive traffic management regime. Time will tell.

[Chrysalis]

There is new traffic management coming I think but as usual VM are very slow and have no idea when it might be coming live.

[cook1984]

The only policy I will ever support is adding more capacity. Limiting people is not a solution, it rips off customers and creates new network problems like the massive bandwidth and latency spike bang on 9PM when the STM period ends.

The current limits are also unreasonably low. Less than 1 hour of HD video in the evenings on the better of the two 10 meg tiers? And they call that "unlimited". What a joke. I would upgrade but since there is no chance of getting a proper modem I have to wait for them to fix the Superhub and then attach my router to that.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

There is new traffic management coming I think but as usual VM are very slow and have no idea when it might be coming live.

1st half of 2012.

[AndyCalling]

I think we'll find, what with the change being timed for first half 2012 which is coincidentally the same as the planned launch of Youview, that a more Youview compatible STM policy will be introduced.

Once Youview gets hold what will be deemed reasonable usage will become significantly higher. It has to otherwise most people will end up being STMed which is not the goal of STM. I think STM was aimed at reducing the over-usage of the top 5% of users? Something like that.

Doubtless all the ISPs are having to get some major capacity work done as a massive change in UK usage patterns is about to take place.

[kwikbreaks]

Originally Posted by AndyCalling

I think STM was aimed at reducing the over-usage of the top 5% of users?

I think STM like all traffic management from all ISPs is aimed at saving the ISP money by limiting the bandwidth demands of their customersregardless of what any words published about it may claim.

[Dush]

VM replied to my question about how they're going to tackle 'abusive' users;

dush: I can understand why you're curious about how we'd deal with a situtation relating to massive usage of service but that's beyond the scope of this thread. We've not got any comment to make at the moment about how our policies will evolve in the future but if and when we make any changes we'll talk about them here on the forum.

Cheap, fast, unlimited - pick any two out of three.....

Otherwise, expect to pay more.

[AndyCalling]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Cheap, fast, unlimited - pick any two out of three.....

Otherwise, expect to pay more.

True, but what constitutes reasonable use will have to change as average usage levels change. If most people are getting STMed then VM will have to change the speeds they claim to sell. VM cannot allow this situation whilst BT are upping the bandwidth on their products.

This is an opportunity for VM because I suspect that many ISPs will not be ready in time to offer high speed broadband which many families will want when Youview arrives. BT will be VM's only real competitor until the other ISPs can sell on BT's fiber system.

There will be STM, as I can't see hard capping working, but the levels of what is acceptable use will be rising very sharply over the next two years as Youview beds in. A real spike in bandwidth usage growth patterns as opposed to the smoother pace of change the market here has been used to. VM will certainly be aware of this and will be getting changes in place. Either that or someone important at VM will be laid off quite soon now.

As soon as someone works out that all a Youview box needs is a couple of USB ports on the front for some game controllers and it can function as a channel for the new streamed online gaming services being launched now, there will be a second big boost to this rise in normal bandwidth use. Interesting times ahead.

This is why I've upgraded to the 50meg product when I could probably stick with 30meg if I wanted. I shall be needing the lack of downstream STM for the Youview release. Shame it was delayed a bit, but at least I'm ready.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Cheap, fast, unlimited - pick any two out of three.....

Otherwise, expect to pay more.

How do I only pick the first 2 on a cable product?

[cook1984]

[QUOTE=AndyCalling;35331584]I think we'll find, what with the change being timed for first half 2012 which is coincidentally the same as the planned launch of Youview, that a more Youview compatible STM policy will be introduced.</quote>

Well currently the limit on 10 meg is 1500MB per evening, which is less than 1 hour of HD iPlayer (720p) or YouTube (720p, 1080p).

Virgin has opposed Youview form the start and will need to roll out new STBs (at their own cost) to support it. Evening traffic will rapidly shoot up as people expect to simply access VOD on their living room TV.

If anything STM will just get even worse than it is now as they try to fix Youview for all the customers complaining.