how about we start a campaign to let VM know that we DONT LIKE SHAPING

Originally Posted by dontpannic

...I can't take serious advice from someone who spells "nothing" with a K...
...Oh, and its THING with a G, not somthink. No wonder you have bad reps!...

So, before you ask advice from someone, you give them a spelling test first to see if they're worthy do you?
Members who give red reps for spelling mistakes must be very petty minded IMO.

Originally Posted by dontpannic

...There has always been a FUP/AUP in place, just that the people who think this is an outrage have never read their contract, thats all...

You are always making assumptions about other members on these forums. Yes, there has always been a vague clause in the AUP, but as you know full well, no details were mentioned. Are you implying that whatever restrictions VM apply are justified, just because of the vague clause in the AUP?

Originally Posted by dontpannic

...You are never guaranteed to get a constant 2/4/20mpbs link...

...btw, it's Mbps, not mpbs. M=mega, m=milli.

[dontpannic]

Originally Posted by XFS03

So, before you ask advice from someone, you give them a spelling test first to see if they're worthy do you?
Members who give red reps for spelling mistakes must be very petty minded IMO.

I'm not too hot on the reputation points so don't have a go at me about it. I was also talking about the content of the post!!

You are always making assumptions about other members on these forums.

Not always, just that many forum members are complaining about the same thing needlessly.

Yes, there has always been a vague clause in the AUP, but as you know full well, no details were mentioned. Are you implying that whatever restrictions VM apply are justified, just because of the vague clause in the AUP?

Yes, I am. If it is in the AUP it's in the AUP at the end of the day. They obviously didn't give many details as the way to cut down on unsociable bandwidth usage was being researched.

And if there was little detail about murder in law, doesn't mean it's right does it?

...btw, it's Mbps, not mpbs. M=mega, m=milli.

Yes I know, no need to be petty about it!

[dav]

Originally Posted by dontpannic

Yes I know, no need to be petty about it!

Surely, it is 'pedantic'?

[dontpannic]

Originally Posted by dav

Surely, it is 'pedantic'?

AAAAAAAAANNNRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHH!!!

Whatever lol, it means almost the same thing!

O well limited speed but cheap services well looks like I am gonna use my connection mainly in off peak hrs

[Florence]

Originally Posted by dontpannic

If it is in the AUP it's in the AUP at the end of the day. They obviously didn't give many details as the way to cut down on unsociable bandwidth usage was being researched.

The unsociable downloading you are saying isn't totaly true with the present capping system as anyone regardless of what they have downloaded all day, week, month and year is caught. Not just those who constantly abuse the network. I seldom download large files but i build websites for a hobby plus beta test for Microsoft so large files would occsianally be downloaded. I have never used any P2P program wouldn't know where to start using one and have no wish to start now. But if I downloaded a legit software program I will fall foul of this present system. This I feel is where VM have failed the occasional large file downloader, they are not looking at the overall picture for the connection just a 20/40min snapshot. Sadly this is where my complaint comes from and I have always paid full price for my connection, ADSL is now coming cheaper and we seem to be going the other way dearer with restrictions. With ADSL if you have the lower cap you pay less than £25 on ADSL I could have 30GB/300GB £24.99 upto 8MB

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by Paul H

At the risk of sounding sarcastic again. they are reducing the speeds by the throttling thing they're doing. yours and others might not have gone down, but is that because you're not throttled yet, or because you have not hit the limit where you would? everyone will be throttled when they reach the limit.

Or you could think of it more like the variable speed limit section of the M25 near Heathrow.
You could just leave the 70 mph sign up all day and night and have people trying to do 70 in the rush hour and failing and the wonderful ripple effects of brake lights causing traffic to stop and start. OR, you could throttle the speed of the road to a lower limit which means all the traffic flows more evenly, even if some of those with cars capable of 70 or more can't get home as fast as they might like, though with the actual congestion on the road, could never achieve.

[dontpannic]

Originally Posted by SMHarman

Or you could think of it more like the variable speed limit section of the M25 near Heathrow.
You could just leave the 70 mph sign up all day and night and have people trying to do 70 in the rush hour and failing and the wonderful ripple effects of brake lights causing traffic to stop and start. OR, you could throttle the speed of the road to a lower limit which means all the traffic flows more evenly, even if some of those with cars capable of 70 or more can't get home as fast as they might like, though with the actual congestion on the road, could never achieve.

Well said!

[pedrohizzo]

Originally Posted by SMHarman

Or you could think of it more like the variable speed limit section of the M25 near Heathrow.
You could just leave the 70 mph sign up all day and night and have people trying to do 70 in the rush hour and failing and the wonderful ripple effects of brake lights causing traffic to stop and start. OR, you could throttle the speed of the road to a lower limit which means all the traffic flows more evenly, even if some of those with cars capable of 70 or more can't get home as fast as they might like, though with the actual congestion on the road, could never achieve.

this is flawed, how can you suggest you are reducing congestion by reducing everyones speed but at the same time offering all the same people the option to drive even faster than they could before?

---------- Post added at 18:00 ---------- Previous post was at 17:56 ----------

Originally Posted by dontpannic

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO.

You are never guaranteed to get a constant 2/4/20mpbs link. There are too many factors in that - servers you download from, network noise, traffic, etc etc, need I go on? And can you tell me what that has to do with Throttling? Up To advertising does not mean that they can throttle your speed intentionally, they need to throttle to stop people like you from maxing out your line and ruining everyone else on your UBR's broadband link. Yes, VM do have the technology to offer 20mb broadband, but the network will fail if all the 20mb users were maxing out thier line all the time.

As an example, everyone has a kettle right? If everyone in the country turned their kettle on at the same time there would be a surge at the power stations and the national grid probably wouldn't be able to cope. I think, rather than you telling the literate public to "GET UR FACTS STRIGHT" I think you should go and reconsider everything you've said. I can't take serious advice from someone who spells "nothing" with a K.

The only viable reason I can see that you want your broadband connection seperate from the STM implementation is that you can go and leech more porn and illegal downloads than anyone else. Grow up.

Oh, and its THING with a G, not somthink. No wonder you have bad reps!

---------- Post added at 09:59 ---------- Previous post was at 09:58 ----------



How exactly? There has always been a FUP/AUP in place, just that the people who think this is an outrage have never read their contract, thats all...

i've read my contract, always known about the aup, how can you even consider that using your connection for 20 minutes is unacceptable and deserves the punishment of getting your connection cut in half for 4 hours?

Edit: i can also throw that argument around, the only reason i can see people defending traffic shaping is because they dont care and can still download tons of porn and more illegal downloads than anyone else.

[supercyber]

Originally Posted by dontpannic

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO.

You are never guaranteed to get a constant 2/4/20mpbs link. There are too many factors in that - servers you download from, network noise, traffic, etc etc, need I go on? And can you tell me what that has to do with Throttling? Up To advertising does not mean that they can throttle your speed intentionally, they need to throttle to stop people like you from maxing out your line and ruining everyone else on your UBR's broadband link. Yes, VM do have the technology to offer 20mb broadband, but the network will fail if all the 20mb users were maxing out thier line all the time.

As an example, everyone has a kettle right? If everyone in the country turned their kettle on at the same time there would be a surge at the power stations and the national grid probably wouldn't be able to cope. I think, rather than you telling the literate public to "GET UR FACTS STRIGHT" I think you should go and reconsider everything you've said. I can't take serious advice from someone who spells "nothing" with a K.

The only viable reason I can see that you want your broadband connection seperate from the STM implementation is that you can go and leech more porn and illegal downloads than anyone else. Grow up.

Oh, and its THING with a G, not somthink. No wonder you have bad reps!

---------- Post added at 09:59 ---------- Previous post was at 09:58 ----------



How exactly? There has always been a FUP/AUP in place, just that the people who think this is an outrage have never read their contract, thats all...

exactly what i said, they uses the up to Term to justisy all the above reason u gave, thats u our speeds are never constant,

but VM cant use the UPTO term to justify the spped throttle, it doesnt work like that,

[pedrohizzo]

maybe someone can answer this, back when ntl:telewest had their 256k,512k,756k package did they have the aup because i'm sure i remember people not wanting to upgrade then because of the changes to the contract.

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by pedrohizzo

this is flawed, how can you suggest you are reducing congestion by reducing everyones speed but at the same time offering all the same people the option to drive even faster than they could before?

Possibly, but the point is you are using a shared resource. Increasing the maximum speed enables people to use that resource faster when there is less congestion (keeping to a road analagy, a bit like the German Autobahns), but also reflecting and understanding that at times you cannot drive flat out (and as such about 30% of the autobahn network has speed limits on it).

[Magilla]

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

Traffic shaping = best possible chance for all to get a good stable connection

If your provider isn't able to provide the bandwidth that they've sold.

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

no traffic shaping = contention issues for loads of us which in turn = poor speeds and lag at peak time whic to me = worse than being shapied

If your provider isn't able to provide the bandwidth that they've sold.

[pedrohizzo]

i can understand that its a shared resource and it is limited but wasn't traffic shaping brought in to reduce peak time congestion not increase off peak speed?

edit: and by introducing 20mb they have in effect cancelled out the traffic shaping in an attempt to offer higher speeds.

[Magilla]

Originally Posted by Paul H

Exactly. the 5% is flawed. there is no 5% as anyone who downloads to their limit is hit by this. this is where people are losing trust with Virgin because they say one thing and do another.

Yes, I doubt the 5% figure is anywhere near accuate, but it's difficult to target since the users effected will be constantly shifting.... maybe it's 5% at any one time, but it's clear the actual percentage of users who will be effected is considerably more than 5%. I'd say considering the level of the cap for the various packages, most users will be subject to shaping *at some point*.

If not, you have to ask why they've got a BB package that vastly outweights their usage requirements?

It would be interesting to know both how the 5% figure is arrived at and the percentage of users effected in total, though I suspect that may raise a few eyebrows in government.