****** And the new traffic Mangement

but why is it our fault that an isp cannot cope?

they should upgrade, at least vgen in some areas are going optical
 
but why is it our fault that an isp cannot cope?

they should upgrade, at least vgen in some areas are going optical

I think your missing the point !

Its more that your expectations are too high rather than a problem with the ISP's

As Charlie Senator has already suggested, the main problem is that the advertising raises the expectation to an unsustainable level because the customers dont understand the 'industry speak' that these adverts seem to freely use.

Hopefully, the problems will be eased somewhat when the new 50Meg service is rolled out. This uses a new technology and a new bandwidth allocation so as customers migrate to 50Meg then bandwidth should be freed up on the present system for 20Meg and slower customers.

Whether stm will disappear or not I have no idea (I doubt it tbh even though there may be less reason to actually use it) but other problems caused by over-congestion should be reduced.
 
i just don't like people who tell fibs!

a questtion i asked earlier, why is upstream always slower?
 
a questtion i asked earlier, why is upstream always slower?

Thats basically down to the original technology of the network and the way it was thought internet usage would occur.

The cable network was initially designed for TV rather than internet. It had a large forward bandwidth allocation (about 700Mhz) to cope with lots of TV programs and a much smaller back allocation (about 30Mhz) to cope with the return signals from the stb's (ie ordering PPV movies etc).

At some point, it was decided that this system was also suitable for internet usage but that internet usage had to live within the asymetrical context of the original network. Result is relatively high download speeds but slow upload speeds.

In most circumstances this asymetry is acceptable for domestic users as they mostly want to download stuff. Its only recently that upload requirements have started to change and become a problem.

I suppose i'd better mention the other physical problem as well. The capability of a modems transmitter (cost about £10) is vastly inferior to the capability of one of vm's transducers (several 10's of thousands of pounds each). As a result the modems are limited in the modulation type used and therefore the actual speed of transmission.
 
Last edited:
why cant we have networks like korea and japan?

heard some places have 1gb download, is this true?

we invented the computer but we are in the freakin stone age, chrales babbage would turn in his grave :(
 
Last edited:
If I am with BT and I get 8mbps then its the same speed as a cable companies 8mbps.


Thats not entirely true as there are a lot more variables on ADSL that affect your speed (mainly being distance from exchange). At least when you're on cable you will be able to get the speed advertised (even if it is subject to traffic management).
 
If I am getting 8mbps on BT then that will be the same speed as 8mbps from any other ISP - regardless off whether they use DSL or cable.

That's very true, however what makes cable better (IMO) is that the realised speeds = advertised and paid for speeds. This is not the case for most people on ADSL.
 
You have another problem I think - thats not stm !

There are areas that are heavily oversubscribed which reduce in speed to a crawl as the available bandwidth is shared out to all the available customers connected to that node (you are in contention with other users).

This, I agree is unacceptable and should be sorted by vm. They should of stuck with their working contention ratios and upgraded as necessary rather than simply just adding new customers and breaking their own rules.
I had NO issues on 10mb (could download at 1.2mb/s and upload at 70k/s 24/7 if I chose) - it's only since they introduced the new traffic management - so it seems likely to be related - at first it was only a few hours a day and so I stopped traffic during those hours - moving all p2p to between midnight and 8am etc - but it got worse and rapidly became unusable at pretty much all times of day - given the fact that I had a cable net connection on the same ubr for years which worked fine, and the fact it's all gone downhill since they introduced capping - I cant see this being down solely to new subscribers in my area - IMHO the capping system is broken/faulty/not functioning in a correct manner/etc.
 
six and two threes really - possibly the cable ISP didnt expect to get so many people using it like this, and cant maintain the infrastructure to match it.

I think the main problem has been them upgrading the top end speeds but not increasing their bandwidth to cope with the increased speeds. very dodgy really.
 
So if the speed has to capped because now they have too many customers, why doesnt the speed you get reflect in the price ? If they cut me because of their success in gaining new customers then I expect them to cut my bill too.
 
I would also like to know why my TV channels look like they streamed from a 56k internet connection. Quality wasn't exactly brilliant under NTeaHell but under Vermin it's aweful, some channels (Eurosport1 for example) look like a 56k stream, while SKY gets Widescreen HD Eurosport...wtf???
 
virmin should sort it out they shouldn't be allowed to sell something they cant supply ie
you dont see the milkman give people half pints cause he aint got anuff to go round and still charging for a pint

the say 20mb and unlimited so thats what it should be
 
W00t W00t, I've just been upgraded to a blisteringly fast 10Mb connection.

It was sitting at roughly 5Mb this morning, but after unplugging my wireless router & rebooting the whole shebang, it sprung into life.

First impressions - impressed.
Time will tell though, no complaints so far.
 
virmin should sort it out they shouldn't be allowed to sell something they cant supply ie
you dont see the milkman give people half pints cause he aint got anuff to go round and still charging for a pint

the say 20mb and unlimited so thats what it should be

As I said earlier, the ISP's definition of "unlimited" is NOT the standard definition that most of us understand. As far as the internet is concerned the word "unlimited" simply means that it is connected and usable at all times. It does not mean you can expect full speed at all times or you can download continuosly at full speed without penalties !
 
What would the implications be if they opened the floodgates, removed all caps/monitoring equipment etc & gave everyone the maximum bandwidth possible under their current infrastructure?

I know there are different tiers of service & varying costs, but put that aside for the moment.

They can magically increase the speed without installing new hardware in the house or at the UBR.

I would imagine doing this would be easy to set up & maintain?

I think there would be an initial "burst" of activity, but then it would settle down & find it's own level.
 
is there an isp watchdog or ombudsman?

and for those people who say you are downloading too much, i am paying for a service, its non of you business what i choose to do with it
 
is there an isp watchdog or ombudsman?

and for those people who say you are downloading too much, i am paying for a service, its non of you business what i choose to do with it

What speed of service did you sign up for (prior to free upgrades).

I signed up for 512Kb, I'm now on 10Mb for no extra cost.

I also remember forking out roughly £100 per month for a dial-up connection which wasn't unlimited.
 
I am not sure it would settle down.

There would always be people with hooky connections trying to download as much as they can each day on a residential connection.

@daveleeblond - the ISP is concerned with what you download, they dont want to end up in trouble for some peoples possible illegal activities on the Internet.

i use a newsgroup ssl service so they would have a clue what i download
 
Back
Top