Maximum rates with daytime + evening STM in force

[darthlinux]

Trax daytime stm is here when are they introducing ALLDAY and night 24/7 stm then?

[Pogo stick]

Originally Posted by darthlinux

Dont get wrong I think they should scrap the daytime as thats stupid and they should invest in the network but as you said b4 and is very well known they simple cnt afford it.

JUst made me think when you said when they get home they are stm, I think congestion is the main problem I wonder how much it would cost them to maintain a unstm'd network

It's not so much a case of "how much it would cost to maintain a unstm'd network" but how much it would cost customer's to buy it. VM can afford it and the network's there now, if people want uncontended un-STMd bandwidth they CAN get it from VM now via their Business division (ntl Telewest Business). The problem is, though, that the managed internet access product costs approx £7k install and then approx £7k per annum rental.

Given that, I don't think £37/ month for 20Mb contended and STM'd with a 30Tb/month download limit is all that bad (know I'll get flamed now...)

[CountZer0]

Originally Posted by Pogo stick

Ignoring contention issues, which will vary from region to region, and time of day (and because the original OP ignores these factors too) these figures mean XL customers would be able to download 1188Gb a day (or 1.18Tb)
i.e. 13.75Mb x 60seconds x 60minutes x 24hours.

Um, I could be wrong but I don't think those figures are right.

13.75Mbps fully utilised for 24 hours isn't 1188GB.

13.75Mbps = 1.68 MB/s (megabytes per sec)
1.68MB/s over 24 hours = 141.75GB (gigabytes)

That's still a crapload of data but not nearly the 1.18TB you aluded to. I hope my maths is right though.

[darthlinux]

30Tb limit I have never heard that even 20Mb running flat 24/7 you couldnt do 30Tb

[Pogo stick]

Originally Posted by CountZer0

Um, I could be wrong but I don't think those figures are right.

13.75Mbps fully utilised for 24 hours isn't 1188GB.

13.75Mbps = 1.68 MB/s (megabytes per sec)
1.68MB/s over 24 hours = 141.75GB (gigabytes)

That's still a crapload of data but not nearly the 1.18TB you aluded to. I hope my maths is right though.

I said Tb (small 'b') so we essentially agree as your big 'B' is a factor of 8 different so multiply your 141.75 GB by 8 (to convert to bits) and we have approximately the same answer, give or take some rounding errors. (not sure why you wanted to convert to bytes in the first place though?)

[Magilla]

Originally Posted by Pogo stick

Don't know about everyone else but those figures sound pretty good to me. How many people are really going to be downloading full whack 24/7 on their BB connection?

But you don't need to be going 24/7 to fall foul of STM, merely use the service for 30 minutes at a time that is most convenient to most people.. i.e before 9pm.

Originally Posted by Pogo stick

Generally users will only use it for a few hours a day at most and if they do it at low traffic periods they will almost definitely get the advertised rate

Unfortunately ofcourse, the "high traffic" periods are exactly when people who have signed up will want to use it.

Originally Posted by Pogo stick

Ignoring contention issues, which will vary from region to region, and time of day (and because the original OP ignores these factors too) these figures mean XL customers would be able to download 1188Gb a day (or 1.18Tb)
i.e. 13.75Mb x 60seconds x 60minutes x 24hours.

Compare that with most other ISPs fixed download limits, now who thinks VM's service is 'limited'?

You've just shown us quite clearly that it *IS* limited.

[Pogo stick]

Originally Posted by darthlinux

30Tb limit I have never heard that even 20Mb running flat 24/7 you couldnt do 30Tb

Merely doing the maths based on the OPs initial post which takes into account STM and non-STM periods.

Please feel free to pick holes in the calculations

---------- Post added at 16:21 ---------- Previous post was at 16:16 ----------

Originally Posted by Magilla

You've just shown us quite clearly that it *IS* limited.

That comment was tongue in cheek, in that, barring any contention issues, the theoretical limit is 30Tb a month. Compare that with other ISPs actual limits, which are far lower, and to all intents and purposes, for any practical comparisons, regardless of the whinging on here over the service being limited - it effectively isn't

[Mad Ad]

Originally Posted by Pogo stick

Don't know about everyone else but those figures sound pretty good to me. How many people are really going to be downloading full whack 24/7 on their BB connection? Generally users will only use it for a few hours a day at most and if they do it at low traffic periods they will almost definitely get the advertised rate

Ignoring contention issues, which will vary from region to region, and time of day (and because the original OP ignores these factors too) these figures mean XL customers would be able to download 1188Gb a day (or 1.18Tb)
i.e. 13.75Mb x 60seconds x 60minutes x 24hours.

Compare that with most other ISPs fixed download limits, now who thinks VM's service is 'limited'?

Its not correct to say we can download 1188Gb a day, the true statement is that we can download AT 1188Gb/day, which is indeed the same as 13.75Mb/s.

But then the problem is that 1188 Gigabits/day doesnt mean anything to the average person and is very easlily confused with file sizes in Gigabytes (which are 8 times smaller).

And whether you expand it to 1188Gb/day or stick to 13.75Mb/second, its still the same thing.

And it is still more limited than the original figure of 20 meg that we used to get.

[Pogo stick]

Originally Posted by Mad Ad

Its not correct to say we can download 1188Gb a day, the true statement is that we can download AT 1188Gb/day, which is indeed the same as 13.75Mb/s.

Sorry to seem picky Mad Ad, but those statements are identical. Downloading AT 1188Gb/day means you will have downloaded 1188Gb in a day if your average download rate is 13.75Mb/s (from your calculations)

[pippincp]

Originally Posted by TraxData

Alot of people i know who were with VM are now happy with Be/Ukonline actually.

Soon as daytime STM was complete i know personally of 22 people that cancelled!

I've tried ADSL+2...i got 19Mbit and i'm 1.5KM from exchange...

no 95% do not, 95% dont even know about STM because VM hide it and they get blamed thinking its their PC's etc.

Just look at the reaction on VM's on ngs about the daytime STM, yea sure...people who are on retention deals are staying, loyal customers have given up.

I walked to Be and couldn't be happier. Should've done it sooner. Far better service and at a lower cost per month including BT line rental!

NO STM!!!

[Mad Ad]

Originally Posted by Pogo stick

It's not so much a case of "how much it would cost to maintain a unstm'd network" but how much it would cost customer's to buy it. VM can afford it and the network's there now, if people want uncontended un-STMd bandwidth they CAN get it from VM now via their Business division (ntl Telewest Business). The problem is, though, that the managed internet access product costs approx £7k install and then approx £7k per annum rental.

Given that, I don't think £37/ month for 20Mb contended and STM'd with a 30Tb/month download limit is all that bad (know I'll get flamed now...)

Now you are getting into the real debate.

If VM wanted to charge me 37 a month and gave me a 13.75 meg line that didnt go up and down like a whores draws at different times of the day id say ok, where do I re-sign for a year and id stop complaining tomorrow.


However for the sake of BS marketing and some local capacity factors (remember Alex Brown is recently on record saying there are no national capacity problems whatsoever) we have to put up with a massive burst speed when we least need it, but then STMed down incredibly harshly if we use more than 1.33 meg average over the evening 5 hours on XL.

Talk about boom and bust.

But Alex doesnt seem to care, he would rather alienate huge chunks of their target customers for the sake of some BS marketing.


The fact is, most people dont know about STM (yet, but awareness is growing), however if they quietly introduced a non STMed product at say, 10 meg, most people wouldnt know about that either.

The customers taking it up would be mainly the customers that VM are now losing to people like BE, yet 10 meg unSTMed is even less than the 13.75 meg we currently get with both STMs in force now.

So they would save another 3.75 meg a day per heavy use customer, AND keep everyone happy that has problems with STM. Thats Win Win isnt it?


But for some stupid reason, Alex Brown has embarked upon an anti customer strategy of take take take, and provides no alternative product - so in small amounts or large they are now losing customers** to their competitors when they simply didnt have to. All for the sake of a little forward thinking.

Thats what happens when you leave geeks in charge of a network, normal business practice goes out the window and marketing has to play catchup and fight the fires when we could all have got what we wanted, without all the negative energy being wasted in threads like this.


(**high tech internet aware customers at that, ones that were best placed to sing the praises of an ISP to the average non tech person in the steet).

[pippincp]

I agree 100% with you Mad Ad as a person who has a server (in the States so doesn't use any of VM bandwidth) I need to be able to connect and sort problems out remotely and at a reasonable speed, but due to STM I would've been better using dial-up!

I used to sing the praises of NTL but not any more.

[Pogo stick]

Originally Posted by Mad Ad

The fact is, most people dont know about STM (yet, but awareness is growing), however if they quietly introduced a non STMed product at say, 10 meg, most people wouldnt know about that either.

The customers taking it up would be mainly the customers that VM are now losing to people like BE, yet 10 meg unSTMed is even less than the 13.75 meg we currently get with both STMs in force now.

So they would save another 3.75 meg a day per heavy use customer, AND keep everyone happy that has problems with STM. Thats Win Win isnt it?


But for some stupid reason, Alex Brown has embarked upon an anti customer strategy of take take take, and provides no alternative product - so in small amounts or large they are now losing customers** to their competitors when they simply didnt have to. All for the sake of a little forward thinking.

Thats what happens when you leave geeks in charge of a network, normal business practice goes out the window and marketing has to play catchup and fight the fires when we could all have got what we wanted, without all the negative energy being wasted in threads like this.


(**high tech internet aware customers at that, ones that were best placed to sing the praises of an ISP to the average non tech person in the steet).

Good point and if you think about it, a docsis 3.0 50Mb connection STM-d to, let's say, 10Mb is exactly that, with the added advantage of the occasional burst to 50Mb.

So depending on how you view it, the new product you mention is, in fact, coming soon: late 2008/early 2009, though will be more than £37/month I expect but I assume the 10Mb non-STMd product you mention above would also have had a premium price

[Mad Ad]

Originally Posted by Pogo stick

Sorry to seem picky Mad Ad, but those statements are identical. Downloading AT 1188Gb/day means you will have downloaded 1188Gb in a day if your average download rate is 13.75Mb/s (from your calculations)

No its not the same, when we say downloading AT X we acknowledge there is a time factor involved. When we say we have downloaded X, thats an absolute amount.

[pippincp]

Originally Posted by Pogo stick

Good point and if you think about it, a docsis 3.0 50Mb connection STM-d to, let's say, 10Mb is exactly that, with the added advantage of the occasional burst to 50Mb.

So depending on how you view it, the new product you mention is, in fact, coming soon: late 2008/early 2009, though will be more than £37/month I expect but I assume the 10Mb non-STMd product you mention above would also have had a premium price

Correct me if I am wrong here but wasn't the 20Mb connection sold as a Premium product at a Premium price? Then they decided to upgrade others to the 20Mb connection then had to bring in STM because it was oversubscribed?

No doubt the "New" 50 Mb product will be sold as a premium one although it would only have "the advantage of the occasional burst" to that speed.

I'm glad I'm no longer with VM!!!!