120M : Sales/Oversubscription/Customer Service

[sollp]

Originally Posted by pip08456

BT will do something about it.

I offered to help you here but you obviously don't want any.

When you're ready head over to HERE where either I or one of the others will advise.

No help needed thanks. There are the limitations of the service causing the issue, hence my moan about those limitations as they seem acceptable to BT to give such low speeds and do nothing about as they have now lowered the spec to 40Mb. So as you can see not a very good service.

Sadly BT need to invest in there network to bring it antwhere closer to what VM are offering. The excuse of,"Thats the limitation of our service is frankly a rip off". I agree that only very recently they have now made it clearer when ordering the service what you actually get is not what is offered, this can then give an informed choice to the customer wanting to take up the service, but this has obviously come about due to the poor limitations of the BT network and must say is a smart move by BT. Now you have no room for complaint,(convenient).

---------- Post added at 20:24 ---------- Previous post was at 20:16 ----------

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

The speed is where it should be, per the estimate. You aren't entitled to 76Mb and it's made very clear throughout the order process that speeds are subject to distance from cabinet.

You aren't entitled to a discount if your speeds drop below 40Mb, you are entitled, if they can't bring it back into range, to break contract and go elsewhere. This is as regulated by Ofcom, as is the need to provide speed estimates.

If you could show me the equivalent speed guarantee from VM that'd be appreciated. As far as I'm aware there isn't one; VM can sell incredibly congested services with no fear unless customers pursue legal remedies for failing to provide services that are fit for purpose.

VM are indeed upgrading constantly, however if the money is being spent and the work being done so completely why are there any speed issues, let alone ones that take several months and even upwards of a year to resolve? There are areas that have had issues for over two years bar a 3 month period.

It is, frankly, crap that customers get sub-5Mb/s at peak periods, VM take months to do the cheapest capacity upgrade they can, then a few months more to do the same again, and only spend any real money addressing the issues a year down the line.

I am aware there have been issues with deploying new Arris CMTS and downstream ports on Cisco kit, and it's run behind schedule in some cases. So why weren't nodes being split in advance, so that when the ports became available nodes could just be decombined ensuring that the capacity was there to relieve the issue in one hit?

I've read another couple of instances on the VM forum today where VM did nothing with issues for months waiting for ports to become available. They could have been planning and implementing node splits. There should've been no areas waiting an age for extra channels, then having to wait again for a Cat C because there should've been no Cat C required as the node had already been split and recombined.

You can't on the one hand point out that VM can deliver maximum speed to all customers regardless of distance from the cabinet, unlike BT, that they are constantly upgrading their network, then excuse their failure to keep pace with customer demands to the point where areas spend upwards of a year delivering less than 10% of customer's paid-for speeds at peak times.

Sadly you seem to want to ignore that there are valid reasons why your service isn't 76Mb, that the speeds you would get were made very clear to you at sign-up time, and that you are within that range, hence you are getting exactly what you were told you would get.

Virgin Media have one simple reason why they don't deliver full speed to all customers - they choose not to. They do not target full speed for all customers. The upgrades they undertake are not intended to achieve this aim, it's a pleasant bonus when it happens.

I've shown you what I consider to be a better approach, how Comhem advertise services and how they operate. To me this is a more transparent, fair and reasonable way of operating. It makes clear that Comhem do not attempt to provide full speeds all the time, and gives a very clear delineation as to what they consider to be acceptable and the remedies the customer is entitled to.

Per my earlier post, it's interesting that a company spending all this money and running around delivering capacity upgrades has lower peak speeds in September 2015 than in September 2014. Even more interesting that they see fit to do tier uplifts in this environment.

VM need to plough serious cash into capacity, and they need to stop trying to avoid splitting the nodes and simply do it as the very first step in capacity relief, with additional channels only either where needed for a tier uplift or to relieve the congestion somewhat while the split is being planned and executed.

You know, pretty much as the then-recently bankrupt ntl managed to in the early 2000s.

The cash is being spent and there are massive programmes of investment in the network happening over the next few years as VM know the network will not fully support VOC,Docsi3.1 so have to invest to achieve it.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by sollp

The cash is being spent and there are massive programmes of investment in the network happening over the next few years as VM know the network will not fully support VOC,Docsi3.1 so have to invest to achieve it.

Running VoIP needs changes either side of the physical plant rather than directly on it, and possibly some battery backups being installed. DOCSIS 3.1 will require some work.

None of this is any consolation to those suffering or changes the fact that VM couldn't give a crap whether or not their customers can reach their tier's maximum speeds as it's simply not a metric they measure.

The DOCSIS 3.1 upgrades don't, in themselves, add any extra capacity. That still needs nodes to be split and additional channels to be added.

If the cash is being spent why are the average speeds at peak times lower than they were a year ago? I'll answer my own question - because the rebuild budget, the one the DOCSIS 3.1 upgrades come under, is not the same or has anything to do with the capacity budget. Those upgrades are worth nothing in terms of relieving congestion without extra fibre to split nodes, and extra CMTS ports to terminate those nodes on.

VoC/VoIP does nothing, at all, to resolve these capacity issues. The voice services will run on UGS, unsolicited grant, so even when a node's broadband customers can't even manage a megabit voice calls will run perfectly. They need zero additional capacity.

---------- Post added at 21:56 ---------- Previous post was at 21:53 ----------

Originally Posted by sollp

No help needed thanks. There are the limitations of the service causing the issue, hence my moan about those limitations as they seem acceptable to BT to give such low speeds and do nothing about as they have now lowered the spec to 40Mb. So as you can see not a very good service.

Sadly BT need to invest in there network to bring it antwhere closer to what VM are offering. The excuse of,"Thats the limitation of our service is frankly a rip off". I agree that only very recently they have now made it clearer when ordering the service what you actually get is not what is offered, this can then give an informed choice to the customer wanting to take up the service, but this has obviously come about due to the poor limitations of the BT network and must say is a smart move by BT. Now you have no room for complaint,(convenient).

From what I can see BT appear to be doing fine as far as sales go, despite these poor limitations, those such low speeds, and doing nothing about them.

Your comment on the lowering of the spec, given this is a comparison to VM, also doesn't take account of what the 'spec' of VM cable services is. Specifically that there isn't one, and people on 152Mb services can, and do, find themselves getting less than 1/20th of that performance at peak periods.

Is 40Mb really 'such a low speed'? Admittedly it's not much good as a cock replacement when discussing broadband speeds with nerds but it's fine for everything, up to and including a 4k stream and some activity on the side.

As far as investment in the network goes, all things being well BT will be delivering a gigabit to my property next year. Not that it's relevant of course.

VM, and Liberty Global, don't care about their customers' speeds as long as they pass some quality of experience metrics. That is the point I've made over and over again and you've not contradicted it. They try and spend as little as possible doing the bare minimum in capacity upgrades to ensure marketing can release tiers.

The symptoms of this are people spending months in oversubscribed areas, having received two sets of 'upgrades' and needing a third as the first two didn't cut it, and average speeds dropping 5% over the course of a year, just in time for a tier uplift.

[sollp]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Running VoIP needs changes either side of the physical plant rather than directly on it, and possibly some battery backups being installed. DOCSIS 3.1 will require some work.

None of this is any consolation to those suffering or changes the fact that VM couldn't give a crap whether or not their customers can reach their tier's maximum speeds as it's simply not a metric they measure.

The DOCSIS 3.1 upgrades don't, in themselves, add any extra capacity. That still needs nodes to be split and additional channels to be added.

If the cash is being spent why are the average speeds at peak times lower than they were a year ago? I'll answer my own question - because the rebuild budget, the one the DOCSIS 3.1 upgrades come under, is not the same or has anything to do with the capacity budget. Those upgrades are worth nothing in terms of relieving congestion without extra fibre to split nodes, and extra CMTS ports to terminate those nodes on.

VoC/VoIP does nothing, at all, to resolve these capacity issues. The voice services will run on UGS, unsolicited grant, so even when a node's broadband customers can't even manage a megabit voice calls will run perfectly. They need zero additional capacity.

---------- Post added at 21:56 ---------- Previous post was at 21:53 ----------



So basically, you won't have it that the upgrades to the Access Network,,Headends VOC will happen over the next few years and your still not having it. BT suufer with issues as does VM. You need to realise that this will happen.

The access network will have a massive upgrade with newer amps and fibre nodes as already stated this HAS to happen to get Docsis 3.1 working. Arris E6000 UBR's are already being installed. Massive upgrades to air conditioning in buildings, consolidation of network centres, reducing the number of hub sites ect ect.

Re-segmentation projects have happened and will continue to, maybe not quick enough granted but there is money being invested over the next few years to get the network at the front. VOC will eventually get rid of the exchanges reducing power, introducing more services.


From what I can see BT appear to be doing fine as far as sales go, despite these poor limitations, those such low speeds, and doing nothing about them.

Your comment on the lowering of the spec, given this is a comparison to VM, also doesn't take account of what the 'spec' of VM cable services is. Specifically that there isn't one, and people on 152Mb services can, and do, find themselves getting less than 1/20th of that performance at peak periods.

Is 40Mb really 'such a low speed'? Admittedly it's not much good as a cock replacement when discussing broadband speeds with nerds but it's fine for everything, up to and including a 4k stream and some activity on the side.

Fine really?

As far as investment in the network goes, all things being well BT will be delivering a gigabit to my property next year. Not that it's relevant of course.

VM, and Liberty Global, don't care about their customers' speeds as long as they pass some quality of experience metrics. That is the point I've made over and over again and you've not contradicted it. They try and spend as little as possible doing the bare minimum in capacity upgrades to ensure marketing can release tiers.

The symptoms of this are people spending months in oversubscribed areas, having received two sets of 'upgrades' and needing a third as the first two didn't cut it, and average speeds dropping 5% over the course of a year, just in time for a tier uplift.

Sometimes you can be a victim of your own success, but like i have stated the money IS being spent

[Kushan]

There's obviously money being invested, I don't think anyone can genuinely claim that there isn't, but the questions are really "is enough money being invested?" and "is the money being invested in the right places?"

We all measure quality by different standards. Virgin sadly measures their peak throughput and for many of us, that's not a particularly great metric but it's one that sells.

The only way the situation will change is to vote with your wallet. Sadly Virgin's average peak speeds are higher than what BT can offer me, though it's definitely getting worse in my area. I haven't seen 200mbit yet.

[horseman]

Originally Posted by Kushan

.... Sadly Virgin's average peak speeds are higher than what BT can offer me, though it's definitely getting worse in my area. I haven't seen 200mbit yet.

FWIW Vivid200 appeared on my (already) congested BN3 (brig15 Cisco 10k provisioned)segment on 1October (and another brig18 segment I monitor) but Arris E6k and 16channels didn't appear till the 15October!

No sign of load rebalancing yet either?

Carl's right though that without node splits up-front then even with the later expenditure of D3.1 line amps then there will still be ongoing "congestion" for some considerable time.
Even re-aligning every new amp with diplex D3.1 compliant filters/padding may well generate home visits for legacy 8x4CPE customers that have retained inappropriate D3.0 line conditioning on their CPE hubs?

Despite the investment there must be a limit to the pool of skilled resource which will also help prolong the D3.1 rollout over several years?
Will be interesting to see how the D3.1 channel plans are mapped in each area to mitigate the effects on legacy CPE users in addition to (any) further utilisation relief.

[pip08456]

Oh come on horse, VM don't need to do that anymore, They have MAGIC in their cables surely.

At least that's what their ad says.

[sollp]

Originally Posted by Kushan

There's obviously money being invested, I don't think anyone can genuinely claim that there isn't, but the questions are really "is enough money being invested?" and "is the money being invested in the right places?"

We all measure quality by different standards. Virgin sadly measures their peak throughput and for many of us, that's not a particularly great metric but it's one that sells.

The only way the situation will change is to vote with your wallet. Sadly Virgin's average peak speeds are higher than what BT can offer me, though it's definitely getting worse in my area. I haven't seen 200mbit yet.

Yes a point but they will and have to invest in all of the Access network, all of the network amps will have to be replaced for the Upstream and downstream for Docsis 3.1 otherwise they will not be able to progress. They have constantly been investing maybe not in the correct areas but i believe that maybe down to the fact that the Access network needs massive investment as it has vast areas of the original amps that have been in place since day 1 and these will not be able to provide the Downstream or upstream needed for Docsis 3.1 and the future

---------- Post added at 19:29 ---------- Previous post was at 19:17 ----------

Originally Posted by horseman

FWIW Vivid200 appeared on my (already) congested BN3 (brig15 Cisco 10k provisioned)segment on 1October (and another brig18 segment I monitor) but Arris E6k and 16channels didn't appear till the 15October!

No sign of load rebalancing yet either?

Carl's right though that without node splits up-front then even with the later expenditure of D3.1 line amps then there will still be ongoing "congestion" for some considerable time.
Even re-aligning every new amp with diplex D3.1 compliant filters/padding may well generate home visits for legacy 8x4CPE customers that have retained inappropriate D3.0 line conditioning on their CPE hubs?

Despite the investment there must be a limit to the pool of skilled resource which will also help prolong the D3.1 rollout over several years?
Will be interesting to see how the D3.1 channel plans are mapped in each area to mitigate the effects on legacy CPE users in addition to (any) further utilisation relief.

Once the new amps are installed by the contractor they are handed over to the Access Engineers as they always have done. I'm sure there will be many contractors cashing in on the work over the foreseeable future

Docsis 3.0 and 3.1 are be able to work side by side in fact 3.1 can work with 3.0 so really is down to the few Docsis 1.0-2.0 to be replaced.

As for congestion i think there are many legacy factors,(and cash at present) holding this up, there are lots of reasons why they do not happen or are cancelled.

[pip08456]

I'll let Igni repy to 3.0 and 3.1 can work together, he knows much more than me.

[sollp]

Originally Posted by pip08456

I'll let Igni repy to 3.0 and 3.1 can work together, he knows much more than me.

Listen to these guys THEY will answer your doubt:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgxYoEnCUDY from 24mins

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by sollp

Yes a point but they will and have to invest in all of the Access network, all of the network amps will have to be replaced for the Upstream and downstream for Docsis 3.1 otherwise they will not be able to progress. They have constantly been investing maybe not in the correct areas but i believe that maybe down to the fact that the Access network needs massive investment as it has vast areas of the original amps that have been in place since day 1 and these will not be able to provide the Downstream or upstream needed for Docsis 3.1 and the future.

In what way does this prevent splitting of nodes or force VM to try using extra downstream channels in lieu of splitting nodes, though?

As for congestion i think there are many legacy factors,(and cash at present) holding this up, there are lots of reasons why they do not happen or are cancelled.

I thought there was massive investment going on?

I see on the forums another case of congestion going on for a year. 6 months to add new channels and, surprise surprise, having taken that long to do it it not being adequate so, apparently reluctantly, going on to splitting the node.

So it seems from what you've said that it's not about VM not having the money, more about them not being bothered enough about congestion on their network to prioritise resources towards relieving it.

Good to know.

---------- Post added at 22:16 ---------- Previous post was at 22:15 ----------

Originally Posted by pip08456

I'll let Igni repy to 3.0 and 3.1 can work together, he knows much more than me.

All 3.1 CPE can use 3.0 channels in addition to 3.1 channels. They contain both 3.0 and 3.1 modem chipsets.

3.0 CPE cannot use 3.1 channels for obvious reasons.

[sollp]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

In what way does this prevent splitting of nodes or force VM to try using extra downstream channels in lieu of splitting nodes, though?



I thought there was massive investment going on?

I see on the forums another case of congestion going on for a year. 6 months to add new channels and, surprise surprise, having taken that long to do it it not being adequate so, apparently reluctantly, going on to splitting the node.

So it seems from what you've said that it's not about VM not having the money, more about them not being bothered enough about congestion on their network to prioritise resources towards relieving it.

Good to know.

---------- Post added at 22:16 ---------- Previous post was at 22:15 ----------



All 3.1 CPE can use 3.0 channels in addition to 3.1 channels. They contain both 3.0 and 3.1 modem chipsets.

3.0 CPE cannot use 3.1 channels for obvious reasons.

Thats what i said, your just repeating what i have already said regarding the Docsis 3.0/3.1.

Well not playing ping pong with you if in a few years time it dosent happen,(no doubt you be scouring around for examples).Then please re-ignite the thread.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by sollp

Thats what i said, your just repeating what i have already said regarding the Docsis 3.0/3.1.

Well not playing ping pong with you if in a few years time it dosent happen,(no doubt you be scouring around for examples).Then please re-ignite the thread.

You have largely skirted around what I have said, choosing instead to talk about DOCSIS 3.1 overbuilds. I haven't in any way remarked on these beyond to point or that they don't help people with issues right now in any way, shape or form.

I haven't argued that overbuild and hub upgrades have been going on. I have explicitly mentioned both here and on VM's forum.

As far as the E6k goes these have been in for a while in many areas. The BSRs are an I-CMTS architecture and only capable of 12 downstreams. 'Upcoming' products VM want to install with 16 available, and I-CMTS are no good as VM are moving to a CCAP architecture.

The VoC project is behind a bit due to issues with Packetcable.

Writing in red doesn't change that without splitting nodes and adding extra channels all the work in the hubs does nothing to relieve congestion.

Go and tell someone who had been waiting over a year for a split that all this investment is being done.

The power and aircon upgrades had to be done as, without them, VM had Arris kit sitting there switched off. This isn't a good thing, someone missed that those were out of capacity and it put the E6k project a quarter and more behind.

No E6k, no capacity increases. Trouble is, these went in, took an she to get them turned up, then in some cases areas were migrated to them and still had no capacity as they were just that, migrated, with no node split.

Horseman has been moved to one but even with the advantage he had over others with test CPE he still sees congestion.

Right now I would far rather see splitting nodes twice and recombining them than the plant upgrades for D3.1 and higher channel count 3.0.

Ideally both at the same time while nodes are being swapped out and customers on downtime. 4 fibre in, 4 trunk out nodes are always cool.

---------- Post added at 00:54 ---------- Previous post was at 00:51 ----------

TL;DR a cock up was made, VM haven't caught up but released uplifts anyway, VM try to exhaust all cheaper options before splitting nodes despite usage projections indicating that will be inadequate, and VM still have a very relaxed attitude towards customer speeds at peak times.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Go and tell someone who had been waiting over a year for a split that all this investment is being done

Igni is spot on here. We have had a over utilised segment for 3 years and counting. Over utilised in this context is where the evening/weekend speeds can drop to 20% of the headline speed. Certainly not the worse example of over utilisation but wrong all the same.

I blame Ofcom here: they are not mandating any quality of service from VM. They should make VM reduce the service costs *automatically*, on a sliding scale, when baseline speed tests are not met over a rolling sample period. The pathetic advice "ring in and claim a rebate each month" is a joke. The rebate should be applied automatically until the associated fault ticket is resolved. That might give them some incentive to pull their finger out!

VM are also disingenuous is their remedial estimates given to users. They deliberately lie to customers in assigning fault resolution dates. The dates they set are strategic: not too soon to get your hopes up and not too late to make you leave. The dates are in no way linked to the actual engineering works needs to fix the over utilisation. This information is deliberately hidden from the end user and in fact, hidden from VM support in the cases I have had.

It is clear that with VM, the end user experience is not a priority. Their strategy is market led, not quality led.

[sollp]

Once more then, what you are saying is what will be happening as i have already stated, your repeating what i have been saying about investment, sure i haven't been so specific but it is happening and will continue to.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by sollp

Once more then, what you are saying is what will be happening as i have already stated, your repeating what i have been saying about investment, sure i haven't been so specific but it is happening and will continue to.

I'm sure the guy I saw post today on a fully ED 3.1 enabled area, 16 downstreams, high sub-split upstreams, enjoying sub-5Mb speeds at peak due to congestion, will be delighted to hear that.

I'll repeat what I have all along. The people who are experiencing congested services couldn't care less about upgrades for future services. Weirdly enough they just want their broadband to work decently at peak times and platitudes about massive investment are wasted on them.

I'm not sure which department in VM you work for but have you considered a move to PR?