Comcast's Approach To Congestion

[eth01]

Originally Posted by haydnwalker

I, personally, don't have a problem with STM as such. Yes, I think the limits could be slightly more generous, but I do think ANY ISPs network needs some sort of traffic shaping on it. ISPs, despite what many users may think, don't have an infinite amount of cash to splash on peering/bandwidth arrangements.

I think though, that VMs pricing structure is slightly skewed... In the way that people on lower tiers are subsidising the higher tiers. My question is WHY? People, if they want faster BB should PAY!

I'm only on 2mb and I pay 18/month right now. So much in my opinion (as opposed to some providers) that I'm considering changing phone/bb to accomodate this. Afterall, I could get 16mb for £10/month (on O2 LLU). I'm not a heavy downloader so I don't worry about STM/Traffic Shaping. Theres no need for the heavy users to moan because they should be paying much more for the service they currently get.

the pricing structure is why STM exists..

[dev]

Originally Posted by haydnwalker

I, personally, don't have a problem with STM as such. Yes, I think the limits could be slightly more generous, but I do think ANY ISPs network needs some sort of traffic shaping on it. ISPs, despite what many users may think, don't have an infinite amount of cash to splash on peering/bandwidth arrangements.

i dont mind STM simply because it treats all traffic the same and doesn't stop you downloading either

[AbyssUnderground]

Originally Posted by dev

i dont mind STM simply because it treats all traffic the same and doesn't stop you downloading either

Agreed. If we must have throttling at all I'd like to know by how much and when. VM provide that info and stand by it in most cases (some cases of STM outside specified hours...)

No STM would be better though, obviously.

[eth01]

Originally Posted by AbyssUnderground

Agreed. If we must have throttling at all I'd like to know by how much and when. VM provide that info and stand by it in most cases (some cases of STM outside specified hours...)

No STM would be better though, obviously.

Must be crippling you, no?

[AbyssUnderground]

Originally Posted by eth01

Must be crippling you, no?

Actually no. My last 2 months usage has been under 75GB each. I often do 3-4 times that.

[LaineY]

I dissaggree with the amount of customers that are phoning up moaning about something and being offered discounts on BBI..

i know someone who is on 20MB BB.. full TV package and Full phone package for 37 quid a month because they threatned to go to Sky

im paying 37 quid a month for 20 MB.. how is that justified?

No wonder their network cant cope with the amount of downloads..

in all honesty.. i work in customer services and sometimes you do have to give customers discounts to keep them.. but i personally think with the storys iv heard and actually saw.. its being done way too often.

If they are wanting or threatening to go to sky...
then yeah you ask why.. and what the problem is...
the answer should then be.. No problem il cancel you're account for u.
Not "oh il give u 20 meg.. .Full TV... Phone .. and a cuddly toy for a 20 quid lol"

meh

[Ignitionnet]

I can't say I'm looking forward to it, usage isn't that high especially considering that I'm on the new WoW expansion beta and have been patching it:

Uptime: 10 days, 10:11:48

Data Transferred (Sent/Received) [GB/GB]: 1.99 / 9.73

But a lot of this is at peak times so quite likely I'll trip STM every so often, even if my usage is less that 30GB/month downstream which is hardly excessive especially for an XL customer.

[Mad Ad]

I prefer to look at it the other way. In the days of 56k we used to get ISPs with horrible contention at peak times. As VMs network was approaching similar capacity problems they couldnt just add another dialup server, instead they thought up this great wheeze called STM allowing them to resell every L and XL users peak time bandwidth to 3 other people (and M users b/w to 1 other person) by only incurring the costs of the cisco software.

This was instead of spending on CMTS upgrades to upgrade hardware to give us what we paid for, which follows from the decreasing revenue they receive from BB accounts.

Since hardware upgrades do happen, they chose to keep STM hidden from as many subscribers as possible and omitted it from all advertising so as to not create a landslide before they could actually upgrade the hardware (docsis 3) providing more headroom on both segments allowing them to remove or relax the STM regime.

Kinda the same thing, just from a different perspective. Doesnt make it right tho, I still think their anti-customer stance and the way its hidden from advertising is more offensive than the need to manage a scarce resource, which is obviously their aim in the end, just theyve gone about it in a very negative way.


I would welcome congestion based measures, infact one of my early arguments against STM was why it was installed on UBRs in areas that had no congestion problems, my own is only 22% utilised the last 2 times I asked, why STM me and my neighbours at all? I could run 20 meg day and night and not cause anyone a problem (based on their insulting propaganda about how everyone downloading over a long period would adversely affect other people). We all know why now, its all for the sake of capacity numbers in some stupid spreadsheet.

[dev]

Originally Posted by Mad Ad

I would welcome congestion based measures, infact one of my early arguments against STM was why it was installed on UBRs in areas that had no congestion problems, my own is only 22% utilised the last 2 times I asked, why STM me and my neighbours at all? I could run 20 meg day and night and not cause anyone a problem (based on their insulting propaganda about how everyone downloading over a long period would adversely affect other people). We all know why now, its all for the sake of capacity numbers in some stupid spreadsheet.

problem with that is, people in the uk like to complain when someone appears to have something better, imagine the nightmare of people phoning and asking why they get STM'd before someone they know?

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by dev

problem with that is, people in the uk like to complain when someone appears to have something better, imagine the nightmare of people phoning and asking why they get STM'd before someone they know?

You think we complain less than the US? Have you ever dealt with customers from the States? The US is much more customer satisfaction focussed than we are and customers are far more willing to complain.

Have a read of these... http://www.dslreports.com/forums/4

[Mad Ad]

Originally Posted by dev

problem with that is, people in the uk like to complain when someone appears to have something better, imagine the nightmare of people phoning and asking why they get STM'd before someone they know?

I see what you are getting at but at least they could (fairly) say its because of local congestion, and to give everyone a fair share STM was temporarily installed until local upgrade work can be carried out.

Anyway we dont complain anyway near enough in this country, we just whinge and do nothing about it and because of that we get kicked about by anyone and everything with bigger boots than our own. American consumers get right up in arms about it- and god forbid if you ever anger the christian right with some product or service youd know about it.

[Matth]

The basic fact, looking at the Virginmedia side, is that they are bumping headline grabbing speeds higher, without adequate capacity to support them, so that super speed broadband can burst speed a bit higher (if the other end and route is good enough, but the overall throughput is just being stretched even more thinly).

I was a 1Mbit opt-out, preferring the old 300k and generous quota to 1Mbit and having to watch your back for usage, as it turned out, they dropped the tight caps and the opt-out as it was no longer relevant.


I can't see the point of STM punishment stretching beyond peak times, if the object is to control bandwidth, then throttling or biased contention when bandwidth needs to be controlled would be more logical.

[akira]

Originally Posted by Mad Ad

I prefer to look at it the other way. In the days of 56k we used to get ISPs with horrible contention at peak times. As VMs network was approaching similar capacity problems they couldnt just add another dialup server, instead they thought up this great wheeze called STM allowing them to resell every L and XL users peak time bandwidth to 3 other people (and M users b/w to 1 other person) by only incurring the costs of the cisco software.

This was instead of spending on CMTS upgrades to upgrade hardware to give us what we paid for, which follows from the decreasing revenue they receive from BB accounts.

Well they are actually giving you more than what you pay for. If your on the 20meg with a 20:1 contention, Then your actually paying for a 1meg connection which is burstable to 20meg when theres spare bandwith. With STM they only drop you to 5meg which is a lot more than a 20th of 20meg.

[Jonathan90]

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/C...ctober-1-97294

[Noob91]

Virgin is probably one of the best ISP's in the world for the amount you can download a month now! 250gb cap, that's around what Sky have here.