New Acceptable Usage Policy from VM (discussion)

[kwikbreaks]

Originally Posted by AndyCalling

Once Youview takes hold you can be sure VM and other ISPs will upgrade their networks. They will have no choice..

If none of them do (which is what I expect considering the cost) then it will be Youview that fails. There simply isn't enough capacity to support widespread use of VoD over IP networks.

[jb66]

The solution is 8 downstream channels

[kwikbreaks]

Which requires new modem/routers for the bulk of VM customers as well as infrastructure changes. I really can't see that happening quickly.

[Dush]

If the broadband market is as competitive as consensus tells us it is what could happen is firms increasing market share by competing for VoD. So the marketing team would start talking about how unlike company X with us you can view VoD whenever you want in HD quality.

However if companies want to keep their margins the same they won't increase capacity unless net neutrality is compromised and VoD suppliers pay for extra bandwidth themselves, but the end user ends up paying regardless.

But from the sounds of it it seems VM's local network infrastructure just isn't equipped for it. Does anyone know how FTTC would be any better? I'd assume with them they could easily scale up to a gig circuit going into to a cab which is 5x faster than VMs 200mbit pipe.

[Ignitionnet]

FTTC guarantees 15Mbps per customer, so for each 66 customers they provision a single GigE to the cabinet.

When it reaches the fibre within the FTTC exchange/headend it is then handed over to the ISP on GigE or 10 GigE and the service provider then decides how to contend the service from there.

FTTC doesn't suffer the same skinny pipe issues that cable does, it's guaranteed bandwidth to the cabinet, zero contention, guaranteed to the point where there's never going to be any contention between cabinet and exchange, and fatter core network pipes from that point on.

Doesn't mean there's no contention, depends on the service provider, but it's deeper down the network.

[kwikbreaks]

Sounds like VM need to take on Paul Daniels as a director because they'll need to be pulling some pretty impressive rabbits out of hats when BT roll out the high % coverage they say FTTC will have.

That said there's no contention on ADSL back to the exchange either (obviously) but the huge price BTw put on the leasing of their end of circuit kit means that ISPs ensure there's plenty of contention there.

[Dush]

Where does the number 66 customers come from? Is that the average number of customers on each cab? If so that sounds pretty impressive, so you're guaranteed 15mbit bandwidth even if everyone on your road is hammering their connection.

Re: contention down the network. How does that work with leased lines? Do they ever contend further down?

[Chrysalis]

indeed, FTTC is much superior to cable as a tech, and the tables are turning.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Dush

Where does the number 66 customers come from? Is that the average number of customers on each cab? If so that sounds pretty impressive, so you're guaranteed 15mbit bandwidth even if everyone on your road is hammering their connection.

BT provision at least a Gig for each 66 customers, they are contractually obligated to provide 15Mb.

Originally Posted by Dush

Re: contention down the network. How does that work with leased lines? Do they ever contend further down?

Leased lines should have no contention at any point though of course this isn't necessarily the case.

On FTTC it depends, the operators can purchase as much or as little capacity from Openreach and/or Wholesale as they please. Wholesale do contend, quite heavily, as do BT Retail which is why there's quite aggressive P2P shaping on Infinity, though oddly they don't shape newsgroups.

[Skie]

Could VM move to a system similar to BT's? They have the fibre, decent quality copper and cabs in place. They would need to replace all of the kit in the cabs and CPE which wouldn't be cheap of course.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Skie

Could VM move to a system similar to BT's? They have the fibre, decent quality copper and cabs in place. They would need to replace all of the kit in the cabs and CPE which wouldn't be cheap of course.

Yes but absolutely no point nor business case. There's already way too much investment in the DOCSIS network. The next big upgrade will be fibre to homes, it moves closer all the time.

---------- Post added at 22:48 ---------- Previous post was at 22:47 ----------

Originally Posted by jb66

The solution is 8 downstream channels

Upstream bonding too.

[smallclone]

Can someone please point me to the latest traffic management fair usage policy. My usual link isn't working.

Thanks

Here you go

[jagsman]

VM's throttling of their network is a joke. If their system cannot handle whatever traffic it has at the moment, then they should stop selling broadband, and upgrade their network. For every new or upgrading customer they get, the network is getting squeezed a little bit more. If parts of their network are that tight, they should not be allowed to further dilute the service they provide by adding more customers. What do you think would happen if they began removing all of the HD channels from their TV service, because their system couldnt cope with the amount of TV customers they had.

If they are moving towards a "Monthly Cap", they had better make it fair. Forget these quotes of 75 or 100gb a month for 10mb. It should be at least 5 times that, or make these amounts the "peak" time cap. I mean, who would want a service that only allowed you to download 2.5gb a day, regardless of what time it is downloaded.

If you want that sort of uncontended service, you should be willing to pay for it (that's what businesses do).