STM bull by the techs

[Gary L]

I appear to be incorrectly managed, yet again, at 8:16am

This is a known issue at this time and we are working on the issue.
It has been requested that we do not reset the modem to remove moderation by the networks guys wishing to see the impact of this issue.
If we reset the modem then this will then also reset the counters.
I can only apologise for any inconvenience caused however we have implicit instructions not to remove the moderation.

One day we can remove the STM. another day it's not possible even if they wanted to. the next is we need to leave it alone as it's part of a test to see the impact it's having on the customers.

Someone at Virgin needs to pull their finger out and stop messing about. STM is clearly faulty and they have the means of fixing it with the new code issued by Cisco. just apply the code and stop ripping customers off.
people are paying for a service, not a service that you know is faulty but are delaying fixing it.

It's like Shell's petrol pumps only giving you 0.5 litre for the price of 1 litres you buy. they can apply the fix so you get 1 litre for the price of 1 litre, but they don't want to rush applying the fix because it means them not making extra money while it's broken, so they use the excuse that we need to test it first. we can't just fix these things they take time.

What is the percentage of people being STMd at any one time now? the published figure is 5%. is it now 75%?

[Impz2002]

i can see thier point as if they reset your modem it will most likely solve the issue but they want to be able to have networks look at it to see why it happens. Its obviously a bug in the UBR and i agree they should be proactively addressing this issue with Cisco.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Impz2002

i can see thier point as if they reset your modem it will most likely solve the issue but they want to be able to have networks look at it to see why it happens. Its obviously a bug in the UBR and i agree they should be proactively addressing this issue with Cisco.

They already know why it happens. it's a bug that can be fixed if they apply the fix given to them. and even if they don't know why it happens, why should a customer have to lose all their bandwidth that contradicts the contract terms, just so they can stand back and monitor?

Apply the fix and work from there.

[Fatec]

Originally Posted by Gary L

They already know why it happens. it's a bug that can be fixed if they apply the fix given to them. and even if they don't know why it happens, why should a customer have to lose all their bandwidth that contradicts the contract terms, just so they can stand back and monitor?

The bug was fixed by cisco about 6 months ago, VM have chosen not to roll it out

[brundles]

At the risk of being branded a VM fanboy, I suspect it's not as simple as "we have a fix, let's apply it".

I'm not familiar with the CISCO technology involved, but it's quite likely that VM don't have the option of picking up ONLY that fix - which means more and more software they haven't tested, can't be sure of and that could bring more problems with it. It wouldn't surprise me to find that they'd have to pick up a year of bug fixes which they may or may not need but the load will still have to be verified as safe in their network.

It's entirely possible the "stand back and monitor" approach is being used to try and identify specific trouble spots that they can prioritise the fix to or use as FOA sites for the new load.

Of course the cynic in me also thinks that given the capacity issues we know VM have, a fix that can result in increased capacity usage of their network wouldn't be that high up the priority list - especially if (by standing back and monitoring) they think they can prove it only affects (or is only noticed by) 0.5% of their subscribers.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by brundles

Of course the cynic in me also thinks that given the capacity issues we know VM have, a fix that can result in increased capacity usage of their network wouldn't be that high up the priority list - especially if (by standing back and monitoring) they think they can prove it only affects (or is only noticed by) 0.5% of their subscribers.

The cynic in me thinks that the Xmas freeze is coming and they might as well put it off until that's over and done with. the money saved on bandwidth can pay for all the staff parties.

They could always change the term STM to STMBeta for now.

Originally Posted by Gary L

The cynic in me thinks that the Xmas freeze is coming and they might as well put it off until that's over and done with. the money saved on bandwidth can pay for all the staff parties.

They could always change the term STM to STMBeta for now.

Parties my Jim Royle

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by whydoIneedatech

Parties my Jim Royle

And Uma as the star stripper