When The 50MB Rollout Is Done - New Tier Thoughts

[Stabhappy]

The problem with STM is that its created another problem, at 9pm people turn on their downloads and then the network gets hit anyway. It would benefit from more intelligent detection rules. Specifically, 9am to 12pm monitor with -reasonable- limits, i.e. 15GB on XL. STM will be rarer but people will still download massive amounts out of hours. This would effectively spread the load over a longer period of the day. Best bit? this can be done on their current kit.

On a wider scale, they could employ 'smart' limiting, for example: every 15 minutes check if in the last 15 minute window the connection was being used over 90% - if so, monitor the next 3 15 minute intervals until the hour is up. If the load is sustained at over 75%, then artificially limit the connection to 60%, effectively reducing that nodes impact on the network. After say, an hour and a half, release the connection back to 100%. If load is still present at 75% or more during the hour and a half wait, then check every 15 minutes until the load drops below this threshhold (as an average), and then for the next 15 minutes check again. if the load is set below 75% for two 15 minute intervals, then release the connection.

They will still punish the massive hoggers (such as myself), but will allow reasonable network usage from us. 25% is too low a value to be considered fair, but I can clearly see the reasoning behind it.

as a note, take the above with a pinch of salt. it was a very brief idea.

[telfordcable]

how often does virgin media updated STM on their site ?

a) every month
b) every 3 months
c) every 6 months
d) every 12 months

I think they will updated next one is June 2009 on the XXL 50Mb

[AbyssUnderground]

Stabhappy,

I like that idea. Didn't comcast or some other US provider decide on this methodology and found it worked well for the majority of people? Although I do remember one part I didn't like, when it was slowed down their bandwidth was put into low priority, which meant online gaming became a problem as the packets were delayed. I guess you could overcome that by not downloading while you play online games though!

[downupload]

I agree, that looks like it's worth a try. I can't believe how many people have voted for monthly caps? Don't they understand what that would mean? I suppose it wouldn't be too bad if there were massive caps but being throttled for the rest of the month? I mean come on you might as well get unlimited ADSL for the speed you would end up with - why pay for 20 when you get 5 most of the time? Totally unreasonable...

[AbyssUnderground]

Because on ADSL the average speed compared to cable is pitiful. You'd still get more on cable. If they had 20Mbps for 300GB then 5Mbps, thats STILL faster than the average ADSL user gets, so overall they'd be able to download more. Remember 5Mbps un-metered is still well capable of over 1000GB a month.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by downupload

I agree, that looks like it's worth a try. I can't believe how many people have voted for monthly caps? Don't they understand what that would mean? I suppose it wouldn't be too bad if there were massive caps but being throttled for the rest of the month? I mean come on you might as well get unlimited ADSL for the speed you would end up with - why pay for 20 when you get 5 most of the time? Totally unreasonable...

Because it would take 99% of customers out of STM altogether and would function as a stronger upsell to higher tiers as opposed to the current scheme which potentially punishes those on XL who may use 10GB a month if they use it at the wrong time while allowing someone on 10Mbit for example to use a TB a month. Unsure what you do with your service but personally I don't get near 250GB so would never see 5GB let alone 'most of the time'.

The whole smart limiting thing is as done by Comcast and as I said before will require some investment in equipment which VM may potentially be reluctant to do, given that their investment tends to be minimal generally.

Comcast it should be noted also have a 250GB/month cap. The fallout has actually been pretty negligible after they introduced it.

[AbyssUnderground]

I was unaware of Comcast's cap. I thought it was an unlimited but "intelligently shaped" service. As you say, its expensive kit and VM probably won't put money into it.

[downupload]

Sorry if I seemed to be flaming, especially since I'm new here. Just I wouldn't want the monthly caps to be too low as I do download a fair bit (nothing illegal - I test things like new Linux distros which are ~700MB a piece). I can't see 250GB/month being a problem though.

[Zhadnost]

I wouldn't want one at all. sounds like a dreadful idea.

[AbyssUnderground]

How about a monthly "on-peak" cap, but un-metered off-peak? Say 100GB/month on-peak cap so you can download at any time until you reach that cap, then you're limited via STM to the lower limit until its off-peak times? Would that work better than an overall cap? I think it would some how since then if you really want something, you can have it, or if you're not fussed you can schedule to download it out of the peak time cap

Then there is the argument over what time is peak time too.

[Stabhappy]

The problem with that is that Virgin would still need to invest in kit, and if you're investing in kit you'd just aswell use it to it's full abilities.

[cook1984]

The only solution even worth considering is upgrading the network to cope instead of trying to slow people down. Unfortunately VM only care about the headline numbers.

It will be interesting to see what happens with 50 meg, now that (as predicted) it's become something of an EPIC FAIL. Not only does it fail to deliver the promised speeds to paying customers, but it's given a free speed boost to all the cloners.

Actually, it looks like VM's plan was to release an update to kill all the cloned modems to make way for 50 meg, but a fix already exists. Apparently VM never learn.

[marx-]

i don't see why download limits should be an issue but if i had to settle i would pay more for none,


allthough the current trial, is relatively good, i generally DL, tv progs from america when i wake up (about 6 am) and i am done by 10 am, it's only 2 gb a day and if i have something biig to DL i do it through the night out of general courtesy to people i share a house with

[broadbandking]

Originally Posted by cook1984

The only solution even worth considering is upgrading the network to cope instead of trying to slow people down. Unfortunately VM only care about the headline numbers.

It will be interesting to see what happens with 50 meg, now that (as predicted) it's become something of an EPIC FAIL. Not only does it fail to deliver the promised speeds to paying customers, but it's given a free speed boost to all the cloners.

Actually, it looks like VM's plan was to release an update to kill all the cloned modems to make way for 50 meg, but a fix already exists. Apparently VM never learn.

My 50Mb speeds are great 45Mb+ actually.

I agree on the cloners part, I am not defending VM but for VM to upgrade the network for everyone to have a unlimited service and still get full speed all the time it would be impossible as there isn't a pipe fat enough yet and there backbone would need to be a backbone of the future as the current ones that are avaliable dont have enough bandwidth.

People who just say VM should upgrade the network don't understand how the network works, whilst if VM was to split the nodes and make sure the areas are upgraded for the amount customer connected they could lacks the STM limit as the limits are way to restictive.

[Ignitionnet]

Loads of very, very interesting posts here.

I am very intrigued to note that at least some people will pay more for a better service. I appreciate that we here don't represent an accurate cross-section of the VM customer base but that some people will pay more for better is interesting.

Thank you all.