New STM/Virgin traffic managent confirmed - so that's why it's slow!

[Sput]

I have just come accross this interesting article:-

http://blog.p2pvine.com/to-virgin-me...ther-05042008/

[ceedee]

Originally Posted by the-cable-guy

iv spoken to VM about it in the past & all that they could say was dont download at all then. my connection has been p*ss poor, its taken them just under three years & five modems later to be able to give me a connection thats on 24/7 without cutting off at least four times a day.

I'm absolutely certain that all the Tech Support staff who helpfully offer advice and guidance on CF would be appalled that you'd been offered such a ridiculous suggestion.

All that I can recommend is, should you experience problems with your connection again, that you ask for help here or VM's dedicated newsgroup.

[the-cable-guy]

well iv had alot worse info then that given to me in the past & yeah i will thanks for the advice :o)

[Sput]

I have just carried out a speed test and got:-


"http://homepagentlworld.ccrn/robin.d.h.walker/speedtest.htm1fl209195999152
Sat, 26 Apr 2008 07:46:40 GMT

1st 128K took 304 ms = 431158 Bytes/sec = approx 3587 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 203 ms = 645675 Bytes/sec = approx 5372 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 25 ms = 5242880 Bytes/sec = approx 43621 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 458 ms = 286183 Bytes/sec = approx 2381 kbits/sec

These results appear to be rather fast: maybe this page was in the browser cache."

To be told that the results "..appear to be rather fast" is somewhat annoying when I have a 20 meg service and it is early Saturday morning!

The most annoying factor is that until a week ago I regularly got speeds over 17,000 kbits/sec and despite no changes to my system now I rarely get over 6,000 kbits/sec.

[Sput]

What a difference a day makes! THis mornings speed test produces the best results that I can ever recall:-

"Sun, 27 Apr 2008 08:08:41 GMT
1st 128K took 70 ms = 1872457 Bytes/sec = approx 15579 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 42 ms = 3120762 Bytes/sec = approx 25965 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 62 ins = 2114065 Bytes/sec = approx 17589 kbitslsec
4th 128K took 46 ms = 2849391 Bytes/sec = approx 23707 kbits/sec
These results appear to be rather fast: maybe this page was in the browser cache."

I wonder why such an improvement has occurred?

[nquinnathome1]

"Sun, 27 Apr 2008 08:20:34 GMT

Test 1: 1024K took 6751 ms = 151.7 KB/sec, approx 1250 Kbps, 1.22 Mbps
Test 2: 1024K took 6681 ms = 153.3 KB/sec, approx 1263 Kbps, 1.23 Mbps
Test 3: 1024K took 7679 ms = 133.4 KB/sec, approx 1099 Kbps, 1.07 Mbps
Test 4: 2048K took 18504 ms = 110.7 KB/sec, approx 912 Kbps, 0.89 Mbps

Overall Average Speed = approx 1131 Kbps, 1.1 Mbps"

It's getting considerably worse for me; at least yesterday I had 1.8 Mbps... (I'm on 20 megabit - supposedly).

[ceedee]

Originally Posted by nquinnathome1

Overall Average Speed = approx 1131 Kbps, 1.1 Mbps

It's getting considerably worse for me; at least yesterday I had 1.8 Mbps... (I'm on 20 megabit - supposedly).

Have you tried to get the problem fixed?

I've posted some tips here (ignore the section on STM as it needs revising) if you want to give it a go.

[nquinnathome1]

Originally Posted by ceedee

Have you tried to get the problem fixed?

I've posted some tips here (ignore the section on STM as it needs revising) if you want to give it a go.

Thanks; actually the speed has started going up this morning to above 12000 Kbps - weird huh? You'd think the speed would drop as more people woke up and logged on A very odd problem.

[Sput]

Originally Posted by nquinnathome1

Thanks; actually the speed has started going up this morning to above 12000 Kbps - weird huh? You'd think the speed would drop as more people woke up and logged on A very odd problem.

Virgin reports network maintenance starts this week so PERHAPS there is a connection:-

http://status-cable.virginmedia.com/...?ticket=280408

Regardless, there is hope that the maintenance work will produce some improvements for some people - hopefully you will be one of them?

[Chicken]

Originally Posted by ceedee

You realise that all you'll be doing is reducing the connection speeds for your neighbours and other users on the same UBR?

But according to VM, the whole point of STM is to avoid heavy users affecting others, so why no just thrash your connection to death? Obviously 'most' users are doing so otherwise there would be no need for STM - just get rid of the heavy users.

---------- Post added at 15:45 ---------- Previous post was at 15:44 ----------

Originally Posted by ceedee

I'm absolutely certain that all the Tech Support staff who helpfully offer advice and guidance on CF would be appalled that you'd been offered such a ridiculous suggestion.

All that I can recommend is, should you experience problems with your connection again, that you ask for help here or VM's dedicated newsgroup.

.. but be quick as its likely VM are going to withdraw newsgroup support soon.

[cimt]

Originally Posted by hokkers999

So go get yourself a bit-torrent client, head over to ubuntu.com, find a tracker and get downloading copy after copy after copy of the distro .iso image.

If they want to prat me about, I'm going to suck down every single last byte I possibly can.

It's people like you who cause VM to give download limits, what do you expect VM to do if you mean to go over the limit to **** them off? Offer to upgrade your service as long as you stop being a pain?

Originally Posted by ceedee

If you were in a hurry to get somewhere and chose to pay extra to hire a taxi (rather than wait for a bus) but then both your taxi and the bus got stuck in a traffic jam with no alternative route, what would you do?

You'd probably get a bus, it'd be cheaper. Or, you'd pay the taxi in the traffic jam and walk from there depending on how far away you are from your destination.

Originally Posted by ceedee

Have you tried to get the problem fixed?

I've posted some tips here (ignore the section on STM as it needs revising) if you want to give it a go.

I'll give that a read.

[ceedee]

Originally Posted by cimt

You'd probably get a bus, it'd be cheaper. Or, you'd pay the taxi in the traffic jam and walk from there depending on how far away you are from your destination.

I'm a cheap SOB so I'd avoid both taxi and bus and walk anyway!

I'll give that a read.

All criticism gratefully and gracefully received -- well, let's be honest: the less constructive the criticism, the less gracefully I'll receive it... But it'd be welcome nonetheless.

[Sput]

Speed today is not bad at all:-

Mon, 28 Apr 2008 11:14:37 GMT
1st 128K took 63 ins = 2080508 Bytes/sec = approx 17310 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 60 ins = 2184533 Bytes/sec = approx 18175 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 61 ms = 2148721 Bytes/sec = approx 17877 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 62 ins = 2114065 Bytes/sec = approx 17589 kbits/sec

The fact that it becomes very, very poor later in the day does support the contention that traffic management is being applied judiciously.

[BBKing]

Originally Posted by Mick Fisher

STM has nothing to do with improving the average users experience. It has everything to do with allowing VM to continue overloading the network with new punters and endeavouring to lock them into 12 month contracts without upgrading or with only limited upgrades to the network

If this was true, which it isn't, we'd be reducing the number of new UBRs going into the network each week, wouldn't we? Since we're not, it's not true.

[Sput]

Speed this afternoon is excellent:-

Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:19:04 GMT
1st 128K took 63 ins = 2080508 Bytes/sec = approx 17310 kbits/sec
2nd 128K took 46 ins = 2849391 Bytes/sec = approx 23707 kbits/sec
3rd 128K took 63 ins = 2080508 Bytes/sec = approx 17310 kbits/sec
4th 128K took 47 ins = 2788766 Bytes/sec = approx 23203 kbits/sec