100M : Small Download Speed Upgrade

[morley04]

So what will happen to the customers who cannot take advantage of the new channel bonding as the VMNG is only capable of 4 downstream and the upstream im not sure about.

[craigj2k12]

the VMNG300 can handle 4 upstreams

[morley04]

Oh right so will we have to either upgrade or will they swap the old modems ( Free ) so we can make use of the 8 Channels or will it cost us the £70 odd for the Hub

[craigj2k12]

they will give them out for free, ill probably be keeping the VMNG for lower ping times, hopefully the upstream bonding will help this further

[morley04]

And is this 100% confirmed on the free super hub or just what we would like?

[craigj2k12]

they give them out at the drop of a hat anyway, youll have no problem getting one for free

[morley04]

Really lol might see what they have to say if lets say my modem becomes sick for a few days then pulls through if the hub is rubbish

[craigj2k12]

wouldnt try it, youll never get teh modem activated again, i had to go to the CEO to get mine back

[morley04]

Iv'e heard of people being able to keep both MAC on there account so they were able to swap between them.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by roughbeast

Good questions Chrysalis. Ignit's answers will be useful.

My >300Mb trial modem had two bonded channels up and 8 down. I don't understand, yet, the significance of the bonded bit.

Due to excess complaining and either colouring threads due to or directly turning them to the capacity problems in his own area I as a general rule don't see his posts let alone respond to them, sorry!

Significance of bonding relates to statistical contention - the more members of a certain group that need to saturate their capacity to fill a pipe the less likely it is to happen.

100 x 10Mb users on a 100Mb pipe are far less likely to have 10% of them using capacity at the same time and maxing the pipe out than 10 x 10Mb users on a 10Mb pipe.

Now the contention ratio is the same, 10:1, however you need 10 people in the group of 100 to simultaneously max their capacity versus 1 person. The first situation is unlikely, the second one inevitable.

Even without upgrades bonding improves the equation, it's harder for say 150 customer to use 36Mb of upstream capacity than it is for 75 to use 18Mb.

For more on statistical contention Google is your friend, it's a well explained phenomenon both mathematically and practically in broadband networks.

The key part about the bonding was that to preserve the 10:1 ratio between downstream and upstream VM will need to bond 2 upstream channels as their current use of 16QAM only gives 18Mb of capacity. It's not about how good or otherwise it'll be, it literally has to be done and works fine so long as the network is managed properly in terms of number of customers on each segment and appropriate traffic management.

The key components of Virgin's problems right now are the number of customers per segment (too many) and the traffic management on 100Mb specifically (none).

[craigj2k12]

i had that, the CEO office doesnt de-activate the superhub, leaving it activated but not assigned to an account, then activates the modem, when I upgraded to 100mb i lost the superhub, and when I asked for both to be put back they said it wasnt possible

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by morley04

Iv'e heard of people being able to keep both MAC on there account so they were able to swap between them.

Not standard, and not likely to happen just because a customer wants a choice of CPE. Requires manual messing around with the account and may be reset by automated systems. Modem mode Superhub works just fine.

[morley04]

Thanks for the info ill see what they say about sending me one out for free

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Due to excess complaining and either colouring threads due to or directly turning them to the capacity problems in his own area I as a general rule don't see his posts let alone respond to them, sorry!

Significance of bonding relates to statistical contention - the more members of a certain group that need to saturate their capacity to fill a pipe the less likely it is to happen.

100 x 10Mb users on a 100Mb pipe are far less likely to have 10% of them using capacity at the same time and maxing the pipe out than 10 x 10Mb users on a 10Mb pipe.

Now the contention ratio is the same, 10:1, however you need 10 people in the group of 100 to simultaneously max their capacity versus 1 person. The first situation is unlikely, the second one inevitable.

Even without upgrades bonding improves the equation, it's harder for say 150 customer to use 36Mb of upstream capacity than it is for 75 to use 18Mb.

For more on statistical contention Google is your friend, it's a well explained phenomenon both mathematically and practically in broadband networks.

The key part about the bonding was that to preserve the 10:1 ratio between downstream and upstream VM will need to bond 2 upstream channels as their current use of 16QAM only gives 18Mb of capacity. It's not about how good or otherwise it'll be, it literally has to be done and works fine so long as the network is managed properly in terms of number of customers on each segment and appropriate traffic management.

The key components of Virgin's problems right now are the number of customers per segment (too many) and the traffic management on 100Mb specifically (none).

Ignition I am not mentioning my area in recent posts, but will remain to criticise VM. It seems you have took offense to the criticism heading VMs way.

Now another question which I hope roughbeast will repeat again so you will answer it.

You have just said statistical contention is important, this I agree with.

With that in mind and that there will be 200mbit user's on a 400mbit pipe like there is 100mbit user's on a 200mbit pipe, why do you think that will work when you just said having 10mbit users on a 10mbit pipe is poor. Yes its not quite the same 1 user 100% of capacity but 1 user 50% of capaicty isnt a whole lot better.

Also in regards to the bonding the top tier end user's speed are been doubled so the statistical contention remains the same.

So the question is

Example

You say smaller node sizes is better.

Yet you also say more users on same contention ratio sharing bigger pipe is better which contradicts the above.

So why dont VM merge say 4 segments into one large segment with 32 channels and 8 upstreams instead?

Having 200mbit users with 32 channels even tho the contention ratio is the same would be much better, in addition segments filled with students could be mixed with OAP segments to balance things out.

[roughbeast]

Now that's a question I always wanted the answer to Chrysalis. I wonder if Ignition has the answer.

Did I do good?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

However I think I understand Ignition's response better than your follow-up question. To me a key point is that it is inevitable that 1 out of 10 people on a 10Mb pipe will at some point use up 10% (1mb) of the capacity. It must happen all the time! To use up 10% (10Mb) of a 100Mb pipe with a 100 users in it is more difficult. It requires 10 of those 100 users to be simultaneously using 1Mb of capacity. That will probably happen quite often, but not inevitably. For the other 90 users to be using the other 90Mb simultaneously is very unlikely, much less likely than the other 9 users using the remaining 9mb of a 10Mb pipe.

You asserted that Ignition said that smaller nodes were better. I didn't catch him saying that in this context so I don't know if he is being contradictory.

Your question about merging 4 segments so more customers have more space sounds sensible. 10 users within 8x18Mb channels sounds less advantageous than 40 using 32x18Mb channels.

I bet there is an engineering obstacle to this. I can't believe it hasn't occurred to VM.

BTW the 10 or so 200Mb trialists in Coventry were on a 1Gb pipe. A 10Gb pipe was held in reserve, but was never needed.