100M : Small Download Speed Upgrade

[Chrysalis]

If you evade a throttle that targets heavy users than its not a throttle that targets heavy users.

eg. you cant evade STM, if you get STM'd you stuck with it until it wears off

Alot of isps target protocols like p2p then call it "targeting heavy users" when its nothing of the sort, its targeting protocols.

[Andrewcrawford23]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

If you evade a throttle that targets heavy users than its not a throttle that targets heavy users.

eg. you cant evade STM, if you get STM'd you stuck with it until it wears off

Alot of isps target protocols like p2p then call it "targeting heavy users" when its nothing of the sort, its targeting protocols.

evading by not going over the stm limits isnt evading in the form that means you dnt get stm even though downloading at full rate im just sticking to vm rules but you never answer my question what method :p

[kwikbreaks]

Originally Posted by Andrewcrawford23

...but you never answer my question what method

Ignition has said it will be a straightforward protocol agnostic byte count but moderated by local network loading. That will catch everything including using VPNs and the like. If it works it will cause moaning for sure.

[Chrysalis]

Yes it will be like the proposal I posted here last year which turns out to be what comcast use and what VM will be using soon.

[Andrewcrawford23]

yeah that cant be evaded it more a less protcol stm without targeting a protocol which is the best way to do it, and it should stop the heavy users and torrent seeders but that is dependent on the rules they apply, i cant remember the system just now beena while sinc ei seen it

but take for a example virgin stm if you download more than 7gb you are throttle now if that limit is to small and a non heavy user say streaming hd video that is 9gb will trigger it and be unfairly throttled but someone who is downloading and uplading constanly knowing the rule might say oh i download 7gb in 5 hours ok i will make sure i download 1.2gb each hour and only upload 200mb and when that time is up ill turn right back to full so that is effectily evading and not working as th heavy user isnt throttle but the light user is so in thoery the rules apply have to be made sure the limits are right from data consumed to the throttle limits i think with the current stm it should be gradly throttling ie over 10gb throttled to 75% over 18gb to 50% over 23gb throttled to 25% all the way down to 5% and the stm keep trigging the time frame to increase

[telfordcable]

Mine had been upgraded:



Nice one VM

Polite request - play nicely, please

[telfordcable]

File size transferred : 500.0 MB (524288000 bytes)
Total time taken : 40.78 seconds (40778 milliseconds)
Throughput : 12857.0 KB/sec [Kilobyte-per-second]
= 12.86 MB/sec [Megabyte-per-second]
= 102856.0 Kbps [Kilobit-per-second]
= 102.86 Mbps [Megabit-per-second]

[craigj2k12]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Polite request - play nicely, please

[qasdfdsaq]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

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

Not quite. Usage often does not go up linearly with max speed - double a user's speed and they may download more but not 100% more.

---------- Post added at 13:02 ---------- Previous post was at 12:59 ----------

Originally Posted by roughbeast

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.

Yes, it's already been said but I'll reiterate - core bandwidth is not the problem, VM has plenty of it; at street level, the theoretical max a coax cable can carry, under perfect conditions and assuming no analogue, digital or OD TV would be slightly less than ~6gbps IIRC. Which isn't bad, but most of it cannot be used most of the time.

---------- Post added at 13:04 ---------- Previous post was at 13:02 ----------

Originally Posted by finaldest

If this is indeed the case would it not be in VM best intrest to upgrade the cable run from the cabinet to FTTH? If this is possible in order to remove the bottleneck.

Ideally, everyone would run FTTH but it is far too expensive, and not really a practical upgrade path right now over the current DOCSIS cable architecture.

Though to be fair, the cable from the cabinet isn't a big problem either as it can carry several gigabits, it's the number of homes and cabinets sharing one bigger cable to the fibre/optical node/CMTS.

---------- Post added at 13:05 ---------- Previous post was at 13:04 ----------

Originally Posted by kwikbreaks

Ignition has said it will be a straightforward protocol agnostic byte count but moderated by local network loading. That will catch everything including using VPNs and the like. If it works it will cause moaning for sure.

I'd moan, as I currently evade all throttles and shaping, but as I said earlier it'd be the most logical, sensible, and fair thing VM has ever done in terms of traffic management. And about as close to the ideal/perfect solution I can think of.

---------- Post added at 13:06 ---------- Previous post was at 13:05 ----------

Originally Posted by Andrewcrawford23

the 200 and 400mb trails are being done in the same areas that have the same upgrade as what getting done and if virgin didnt future proof it then there dum because they need ot pay mroe money out, i think yoru right about 1.5gb as it ina one area trial and using a different configuration

Those areas have further upgrades in excess of the 100mb upgrades to enable the trials.

The initial 100mb rollout only included 4 downstream channels and 1 unbonded upstream. That is neither capable of 200 or 400mb service.

---------- Post added at 13:07 ---------- Previous post was at 13:06 ----------

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

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

Ah yes, the beauty of statistical contention. Not just on broadband networks either; pretty much all shared networks involve it to some extent.

[Chrysalis]

qasdfdsaq usage goes up with max speed, the problem is isp's have a nack of underestimating it on a regular basis. However I am not reffering here to total monthly usage but rather burst speed demands on the network. A 200mbit user can and will do in most cases double the burst rate demand on the network.

So a 200mbit user downloading the same as a 100mbit user will still double the load on the port whilst downloading.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

........Ideally, everyone would run FTTH but it is far too expensive, and not really a practical upgrade path right now over the current DOCSIS cable architecture.

Though to be fair, the cable from the cabinet isn't a big problem either as it can carry several gigabits, it's the number of homes and cabinets sharing one bigger cable to the fibre/optical node/CMTS.......

Fibre or coax. It's all the same in capacity terms. The limiting factor is the number of downstream channels deployed (which is theoretically limited by the number of 8 MHz slots that divid into the downstream spectrum).

As you know, this capacity is squeezed by contention which is a function of two things: (1) the number of downstream channels deployed to an optical node; (2) the sharing strategy of VM in alloting downstream channels to locality cabinets.

There are barely 100 downstream channels available in the full downstream spectrum. A large chunk of this spectrum is currently used for TV which squeezes down further the broadband available sepctrum. I'm not sure what that is - maybe 300 MHz so about 40 DS channels available to a local hub (e.g. RDNG, HAYE). Igni knows this stuff better than I do but you see where I'm heading.

The only way of making serious inroads into top end speeds is to mimprove the infrastructure quality so that it can run at a higher QAM rating. IMO that is almost a survival matter for VM.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

The only way of making serious inroads into top end speeds is to mimprove the infrastructure quality so that it can run at a higher QAM rating. IMO that is almost a survival matter for VM.

Not so much, past 256QAM you get into increasingly diminishing returns.

256QAM -> 1024QAM = 25% increase

The SNR including coding gain to make this happen is 37dB - 6dB above that for 256QAM.

2048QAM = 10% increase over 1024QAM but increases SNR requirement by 3dB - now up to 40dB.

4096QAM = 9% increase over 2048QAM and you're now in need of 43dB SNR.

So in return for an increase from 50Mb/s per channel to 75Mb/s per channel you've increased downstream SNR requirements by 12dB.

Increasing the number of downstream channels is, on the whole, a better way to go. VM can get RF bandwidth back by shifting TV channels from 64QAM to 256QAM and using the freed up multiplexes for additional downstreams.

My own area has tons of room free now having a 1GHz network, even 750MHz networks have 300MHz+ free thanks to analogue switch off - each analogue channel consumed 8MHz, enough for 4 HD channels.

[craigj2k12]

50mbit will be a free upgrade to 100mbit

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Fibre or coax. It's all the same in capacity terms.

Not so much, an HFC network is limited by the capacity of the RF amplifiers in the field and the fibre optic nodes, an FTTP network has a far, far greater RF bandwidth. With an HFC you're talking hundreds of MHz, with FTTP 10s of GHz.

10Gb PON is available with 2.5Gb upstream and can even be run alongside standard 2.4Gb down, 1.2Gb up PON for legacy CPE that don't do 10G-PON.

EDIT: Just to add to the cheek a 10G-PON network not only could run alongside a GPON network, an operator could also put a full spectrum of RFOG QAM multiplexes down the piece of string for TV if they had legacy CATV CPE, an entire HFC network of RF running alongside a 10Gb/2.5Gb and a 2.4Gb/1.2Gb broadband IP link to each node.