*ALL* Speed Upgrade Discussion In Here Please - Page 47

16-02-2005, 21:11

I'm not sure how 'broadcast' traffic can be 'directed to a MAC address'. By definition, it wouldn't then be 'broadcast'.

sheka · 16-02-2005, 21:12

We don't know how usage is counted or how it can be checked - yet this is being rollout out in about a months time.

I would have though that all traffic would be counted using the MAC address as that is the only thing that is constant.

The MAC address of your SACM is the only thing that is unique to me as a customer. IP addresses change through DHCP so can't be relied upon. So if the CISCO Policy-Map is just counting traffic rates then it will count everything directed to your mac address. If a virus or someone pings an entire subnet and then start trying to open connection that may be counted to your totals. As soon as traffic reaches the 30GB magic number then the Cisco router would throttle traffic to that MAC address at 56kbps.

th'engineer · 16-02-2005, 21:14

Just a question have we had a poll to see if people want extra speed.
To be honest it seems a bit daft to do it if people do not want it .

Is there any sensible market reason for it seems daft to change something for the sake of it

Ignition · 16-02-2005, 21:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by sheka

The broadcast traffic is still directed to a MAC address.

Erm, ya FF:FF:FF:FF:FF:FF

Own up which unfortunate bod has that MAC address on their cable modem

(NB under the Cisco policy mapping this wouldn't actually count towards any user's traffic anyway, only unicasts are).

While we're at it who's saying that a policy map is being used on each uBR, and indeed that uBR then not only counts the traffic but then implements the throttling? There are SO many reasons why this would be a bad idea, as well as a PITA to implement if not impossible.

Policy maps exist for static throttling through layer 3/4 means or using NBAR and protocol recognition, not dynamic throttling based on a database of usage and MAC addresses.

16-02-2005, 21:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by th'engineer

Just a question have we had a poll to see if people want extra speed.
To be honest it seems a bit daft to do it if people do not want it .

Is there any sensible market reason for it seems daft to change something for the sake of it

The reason would be a commercial reason. You could ask BT the same question. All companys whoever they are try to sustain a advantage over there competitors. Give me a company that would not attempt to improve on its competitors

Ignition · 16-02-2005, 21:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by th'engineer

Just a question have we had a poll to see if people want extra speed.
To be honest it seems a bit daft to do it if people do not want it .

Is there any sensible market reason for it seems daft to change something for the sake of it

People do want it, Wanadoo increased speeds free while capping and saw massive DSL growth. That poll was/is not representative of the wider public, most do want higher speeds and aren't bothered by capping.

*Waits for the inevitable 'you're wrong because I think you are' despite the fact the figures on growth from Wanadoo are fairly clear evidence, someone's opinion is obviously far more reliable (not directed at anyone in particular just the way forums are!)

sheka · 16-02-2005, 21:28

That was my point. If you disagree with the cap. Then cancel your services and move to another ISP that is offering an unmetered service. When the next round of speed upgrades come round. in a few years that 3Mb/s service may become 6Mb/s.

If all the current 3Mb/s users have left because of the CAP. NTL will find itself with no-one to buy into the next latest and greatest offering.

16-02-2005, 21:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by sheka

If you disagree with the cap. Then cancel your services and move to another ISP that is offering an unmetered service.

I would, but I'm still awaiting an email from AOL

phl_spector · 16-02-2005, 21:36

I'd be happy to pay the price they're going to be charging for 3Mbit capped, and have uncapped 2Mbit.

ntl need to start listening to their customers before it's too late and they don't have any to listen to.

ian@huth · 16-02-2005, 21:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by sheka

I monitored by cable traffic stats using SNMP for 1 day and my usage totalled 135MB in 24Hours. When no one was using the Internet. So that is over 10% of a 30GB allowance before downloading anything. Ever wondered why the lights still flash on the cable modem when your PC is switched off?.

That's odd, I have only used 41.66 Mb (combined upload and download) since midnight last night and I have been using the net.

I think somebody or something is telling porkies. If your estimate of traffic going through your connection is correct then nobody on the 1Mb tier with a 3Gb per month usage allowance would be able to ever switch their PC on.

Mauldor · 16-02-2005, 21:58

Can I ask if Ireland is also been Upgraded in speed? I did search but could not find anything

sheka · 16-02-2005, 22:02

The lowest amount that I have had since Sep 2004 has been 87MB in a 24Hr period.

Nemesis · 16-02-2005, 22:23

Me, I'm happy to wait for my free 2Meg .... 30Gig Download limit .... well ok, not been a problem before .... so why will it now

scrotnig · 16-02-2005, 22:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by phl_spector

I'd be happy to pay the price they're going to be charging for 3Mbit capped, and have uncapped 2Mbit.

ntl need to start listening to their customers before it's too late and they don't have any to listen to.

Listening to which customers precisely? A tiny minority who want to max out their connections every day, just because they can?

I can assure you that the vast majority of broadband customers are not remotely concerned by any of the caps because most of them are set at a ridiculously high level that the average user would never go near.

It needs to be remembered that members of this forum constitute, in blunt terms, an insignificant minority of ntl customers. The company has well over a million broadband customers. How many ntl broadband customers are there on this site?

Those that think half a dozen people on a webforum cancelling their services because they want to exceed 40gb a day is going to worry ntl need to get back down to earth...and quick.

This isn't intended to be rude, it's just the reality of the situation.

If less people ran their pirated CD-burning businesses on their residential broadband connections, the whole cap thing would probably never have been an issue.

phl_spector · 16-02-2005, 22:28

Okay, I'll reword it. They need to ask their customers. Smarty pants.