Virgin's New STM Policy

[Metalface Mark]

I am a legal downloader and I am annoyed by it. Each evening? what has each evening got to do with it? Again, had you read the thread you may have seen me already make comments on that.



I'm not trying to belittle you at all, just pointing out that I've already made my stance on that clear.



You didn't try hard enough then IMHO.


Sorry, but in my honest opinion you are way off the mark there.



I don't, this thread is discussing the VM service.

So why did you change your service if you were not happy with the existing traffic management that they had implemented, knowing as you did they would tie you up for another year, and as you say, if getting out of the contract is so easy to do, then why not vote with your feet?

As for being way off the mark, im a fairly typical high end home user, i have two children and a wife who all use the internet extensively, i download patches and games from xbox live and psn, legally, you cant get more than that and im delighted that they have put these measures in place, if a few peoples noses are put out of joint and my service is improved greatly, then thats brilliant, Im pretty sure there are more users that gain than those that lose in this.

 

[Dano]

So why did you change your service if you were not happy with the existing traffic management that they had implemented, knowing as you did they would tie you up for another year, and as you say, if getting out of the contract is so easy to do, then why not vote with your feet?

I was unaware of the new policy at the time, I also do not have a BT line in the house so voting with my feet becomes fairly expensive, besides which, if you read my other responses in this thread (again) you'd understand that I am not convinced it's the right way of going about this.

As for being way off the mark, im a fairly typical high end home user, i have two children and a wife who all use the internet extensively, i download patches and games from xbox live and psn, legally, you cant get more than that and im delighted that they have put these measures in place, if a few peoples noses are put out of joint and my service is improved greatly, then thats brilliant, Im pretty sure there are more users that gain than those that lose in this.

Fairly typical in who's opinion?

I can not use the internet for an entire week, go to download a couple of game demos or patches and get STM'd within thirty minutes, how is that penalising heavy illegal users?

 

[spirity]

What with this, and all the Phorm stuff, I see less and less reason to stay with Virgin media every day. The pro's are simply not outweighing the cons when you shop around.

Gonna switch to Sky + Be when I move to my new place. It doesn't make any sense at all to stay with Virgin, they're simply not offering a competitive service.

 

[Amnesia]

there is also this link to those vm supporters in here http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17880621

im sure you will be happy vm is screwing people over in other ways too

 

[Werewolf]

oddly enough i tend to wait and see the official line and how it's implimented before i get my knickers in a twist.

net neutrality can mean that everyone gets the exact same priority regardless of if the data is time sensative or not (as said in that thread).
For example ""VM could offer content providers deals to upgrade their provisioning if they want to ensure best access to to broadband subscribers.". They did not comment on their earlier statements about putting non-premium content providers on their slower "bus lanes"." (from the statement on the page linked to in that thread).
Could very easily mean that Virgin would offer to put in place a direct connection between service X and their own network - such a terrible idea coming to an arrangement that means that X's traffic connects directly rather than being routed with general traffic from everyone else, via third party (I believe the term is a private peering arrangement, something that has been done for ages between some ISP's and certain companies who are willing to pay for/organise the connection).
That could be argued to be nuetral - the same offer is open to anyone

 

[Metalface Mark]

I was unaware of the new policy at the time, I also do not have a BT line in the house so voting with my feet becomes fairly expensive, besides which, if you read my other responses in this thread (again) you'd understand that I am not convinced it's the right way of going about this.



Fairly typical in who's opinion?

I can not use the internet for an entire week, go to download a couple of game demos or patches and get STM'd within thirty minutes, how is that penalising heavy illegal users?

Its penalising people who want to download at peak times, i can quite see why people could be unhappy about it, but i would think surely you would see the benefits as well, i couldnt download 1.2gb previously at peak time and im sure many others were the same.

The question is, why when there already was traffic management in use, do you only see fit to complain about it now, when its been inforce since you started your new contract?

 

[Amnesia]

oddly enough i tend to wait and see the official line and how it's implimented before i get my knickers in a twist.

net neutrality can mean that everyone gets the exact same priority regardless of if the data is time sensative or not (as said in that thread).
For example ""VM could offer content providers deals to upgrade their provisioning if they want to ensure best access to to broadband subscribers.". They did not comment on their earlier statements about putting non-premium content providers on their slower "bus lanes"." (from the statement on the page linked to in that thread).
Could very easily mean that Virgin would offer to put in place a direct connection between service X and their own network - such a terrible idea coming to an arrangement that means that X's traffic connects directly rather than being routed with general traffic from everyone else, via third party (I believe the term is a private peering arrangement, something that has been done for ages between some ISP's and certain companies who are willing to pay for/organise the connection).
That could be argued to be nuetral - the same offer is open to anyone

so what your saying is that vm arent actually the first ones to do this as its being done already and its all propoganda against vm?


*edit*
i could be misreading your post but thats just how its coming across

 

[Dano]

Its penalising people who want to download at peak times, i can quite see why people could be unhappy about it, but i would think surely you would see the benefits as well, i couldnt download 1.2gb previously at peak time and im sure many others were the same.

The question is, why when there already was traffic management in use, do you only see fit to complain about it now, when its been inforce since you started your new contract?

The problem is that VM have extended what they call peak times, and if information on the net is to believed they are going to be extending STM overnight too.

Who says I'm only now complaining about it? I'm discussing it here, that doesn't mean I haven't been in contact with VM about it before now. You really need to stop making assumptions.

 

[Werewolf]

No, what i'm saying is that it's worth seeing what the actual situation is before getting all upset about rumours and snippets of information on what could be a very technical situation.

A private peering arrangement could be argued to be not net neutral as it gives the company/organisation who does it an advantage over people who use general peering, and many companies have for years given some data priority (ICMP I beleive tends to get dropped fairly early if a router is nearing capacity as it's non vital data), and with the increase in high volume data that isn't time vital (torrents), and the increase in data for which timing is absolutely vital (VOIP) even though the actual bandwidth uses is tiny, something may have to be done to keep any ISP's network usable for everyone.

As for traffic shaping to give some types of data (or data from some organisations) preferential treatment.

For example if Virgin (or any ISP) finds a router (or part of the network) reaching capacity for whatever reason (say another one has failed), and they have to start dropping data, what would you prefer?
They drop an equal percentage of all data regardless of how it might affect customers?
They drop some of all data but try to keep the most time vital data running? (VOIP, games).
They drop some of all data but try to keep the most time vital data running, and some content that the content provider has come to an arrangement (paying possibly for specific bandwidth SLA) running?

Option 1 is going to really annoy many, many users when they find they can't use VOIP, play games, use voice comms, or watch Iplayer etc (but people downloading large files will barely notice it) - this is what being net neutral would require (a lot of people unable to use their programmes).
Option 2: Is going to slow some thigns down, but hopefully minimise the problems for gaming/voip etc (people downloading large files might find it takes them an extra minute on the hour though compared to 1).
Option 3: Same as 2, but also helps prevent the situation on 1 and 2 coming into affect in the first place as the ISP has a bit of extra cash to hopefully invest in the network to meet the demands placed on it by the high volume of data from some sites.

Strict "net neutrality" means an ISP wouldn't be able to apply common sense to the problem of the network reaching peak capacity, as if the ISP has to start dropping 5% of total data, it's going to hit VOIP etc disproportionally hard in terms of how badly it'll affect it (and the users), compared with say losing 6% of just bittorrent data (iirc there is a lot more bandwidth being used on many ISP's networks for torrents than other types of data, and it's not a type of transfer where packet loss/delay is going to make it unusable)...
Hence part of the reason I'm not going to get up in arms about net neutrality at the moment.

At the moment Virgin (unlike many of the other ISP's*) is already doing a version of option 3, they've seen the problem that the BBC Iplayer (and similar) could cause on their network and have taken steps to alleviate that problem by working with the content provider to offer an option that takes the data off the general network backbone - something that has worked quite well and is in the interest of the customer.



*Some of whom are complaining bitterly about the demands it's putting on their networks, but not doing anything to allieviate the problem.

 

[Metalface Mark]

The problem is that VM have extended what they call peak times, and if information on the net is to believed they are going to be extending STM overnight too.

Who says I'm only now complaining about it? I'm discussing it here, that doesn't mean I haven't been in contact with VM about it before now. You really need to stop making assumptions.

As do you.

Im sorry, but your figures dont add up - 15gb a month, managed on the odd occasion, yet the most outspoken on the thread about it.

If you only download 15gb a month or less, be happy while on two or three days you might get traffic managed, for the rest of the time the service will be quicker and smoother.

Unfortunately always a few bad apples that spoil the bunch for everyone else, but like anything else, the odd person might lose out here or there. For 95% of customers, they will not only not realise this is in place, they wont even care, and will enjoy the benefits, i dont know about you, but in my business, if i have a chance to improve the service for 95% of my customers, and lessen the service for 5% of the customers who are taking more than their fair share, its a no brainer.

Of course if Virgin was 100% perfect before, then they wouldnt need to do this, however speed and latency is a well known problem with the ISP, it needed fixing, they have gone a long way in doing that by implementing stricter measures.

 

[Amnesia]

yeah thanks for the detailed reply...i see exactly what your saying now.

i was with vm/ntl for about 10 years and i used to game a lot online but when lag became a regular problem and i called up and spoke to the tech guys they simply said in the end 'we are over subscribed' .

it just seems to me this bandwidth throttling seems a way of making up for their over subscribed to service as their own tech guys put it.
dealing with vm's customer support i wouldnt be suprised to see these rumours to be true about vm...especially when their staff are told to lie to customers

 

[Dano]

As do you.

Im sorry, but your figures dont add up - 15gb a month, managed on the odd occasion, yet the most outspoken on the thread about it.

If you only download 15gb a month or less, be happy while on two or three days you might get traffic managed, for the rest of the time the service will be quicker and smoother.

There was the word 'probably' attached to that figure, be happy about being managed, why should I be happy about my service being degraded even if it is only once a month and what has it got to do with my participation level in this thread?

Unfortunately always a few bad apples that spoil the bunch for everyone else, but like anything else, the odd person might lose out here or there. For 95% of customers, they will not only not realise this is in place, they wont even care, and will enjoy the benefits, i dont know about you, but in my business, if i have a chance to improve the service for 95% of my customers, and lessen the service for 5% of the customers who are taking more than their fair share, its a no brainer.

Again, that's not the point is it, if it was penalising just those offenders I would have no issue with it but as has been pointed out numerous times in this thread already it affects anybody regardless of their browsing habits the moment they need a large-ish file.

Of course if Virgin was 100% perfect before, then they wouldnt need to do this, however speed and latency is a well known problem with the ISP, it needed fixing, they have gone a long way in doing that by implementing stricter measures.

Nerver had much of an issue with speed or latency before STM, nor has anybody I know of in the area, whatever their prior record it still does not excuse this poorly thought out STM that they have brought in.

 

[Dave85]

just been on the phone to the absolute farce that is virgin customer services. She said basically in her words. "customers expectations are to high and we cant support it" I said hmm amazing how it all started when you rebranded and now your a joke. when there is completly untrafic shaped unlimited adsl services for £10 quid.

buch of useless gits the lot of them, good job im still not paying for the bband as im on an offer.

 

[Werewolf]

when there is completly untrafic shaped unlimited adsl services for £10 quid.
r.

Because that service will be offered without it making a profit, usually in fact at a loss (IIRC BT charge that wholesale), and subsidised by either hundreds of customers who don't use their connection for anything other than email, or by the parent company sinking money into it to build up a customer base (either until the parent company goes bust, gets fed up of the money pit, or to make another product look better).

That attitude is why expectations of ISP's are unrealistically high - people cannot or will not differentiate between the ISP's that are running a loss, and those that actually have a business plan beyond praying that they can manage the losses until they've got enough market share for whatever it is they want.

 

[Metalface Mark]

There was the word 'probably' attached to that figure, be happy about being managed, why should I be happy about my service being degraded even if it is only once a month and what has it got to do with my participation level in this thread?



Again, that's not the point is it, if it was penalising just those offenders I would have no issue with it but as has been pointed out numerous times in this thread already it affects anybody regardless of their browsing habits the moment they need a large-ish file.





Nerver had much of an issue with speed or latency before STM, nor has anybody I know of in the area, whatever their prior record it still does not excuse this poorly thought out STM that they have brought in.

As I said, your figures dont add up.

I am in the same boat as you, i will no doubt now and again have my download slowed, but it simply dosent bother me, which is something you seem to struggle to realise, not everyone is unhappy about it, and if you are unhappy about it, £30 will buy you a BT line and you can cancel virgin, problem solved.

For some reason you seem to want to brow beat me into accepting your point of view, when i dont i am met with vague insults and roll eye smileys, sometimes you have to just accept that people do have differing opinions, im quite sure if i downloaded more and was getting superb speeds already, i would not be happy with the traffic management, but its different strokes for different folks.

 

[Dano]

As I said, your figures dont add up.

How so, please show me.

I am in the same boat as you, i will no doubt now and again have my download slowed, but it simply dosent bother me, which is something you seem to struggle to realise, not everyone is unhappy about it, and if you are unhappy about it, £30 will buy you a BT line and you can cancel virgin, problem solved.

I have no issue understanding that it doesn't bother you, you are the one who seems unable to accept that it does bother me. Again, moving to BT is not the point as I have stated several times now.

For some reason you seem to want to brow beat me into accepting your point of view, when i dont i am met with vague insults and roll eye smileys, sometimes you have to just accept that people do have differing opinions, im quite sure if i downloaded more and was getting superb speeds already, i would not be happy with the traffic management, but its different strokes for different folks.

I'm not trying to brow beat you into anything other than to accept that other people have differing opinions, you seem to like to attempt to twist my comments into things they are not, that is the only reason I have continued with this discussion, either way it appears that we both feel the other is doing the exact same thing so we can only really agree to disagree.

 

[tolien]

I tried, however unless you recieve something stupid like under 200kbps they say this is within limits, in the end i reduced my package from 8mb to 2mb as i primarily wanted to game, and the 8mb service was unusable for me due to poor pings.

Sounds like you're on their ADSL (and using my super duper Don powers, that's what you're posting from), so STM has nothing to do with it. VM's ADSL is garbage, but it's got no relationship with their cable.

 

[Metalface Mark]

How so, please show me.



I have no issue understanding that it doesn't bother you, you are the one who seems unable to accept that it does bother me. Again, moving to BT is not the point as I have stated several times now.



I'm not trying to brow beat you into anything other than to accept that other people have differing opinions, you seem to like to attempt to twist my comments into things they are not, that is the only reason I have continued with this discussion, either way it appears that we both feel the other is doing the exact same thing so we can only really agree to disagree.

I can fully accept that it bothers you, what i struggle with is why anyone downloading 15gb a month would get so up in arms about a 10% limit of his monthly bandwith usage each night, it dosent add up.

Anyway, ive said my piece, i wont respond to any more baiting.

 

[fan_83]

i disagree with the stm policy..
i liken it to like someone selling you a car that is supposed to go to say 200km/h and then you find out later that even though the dials all show that, they have cut down on the horsepower as they believe that the public user does not need to reach 200 and only needs 100kmh

so is that fair when they are basically doing false advertising.

what does a person do online should not be policed by their service provider... i should be able to dl as much as i want according to the advertisement that say unlimited whether it is legal or not should not be a matter with virgin..

 

[Gavin]

just wondered what all the commotion was as i thought it was the 4-9pm thing and just looked at the link on the first page..

blimey thats a bit over board considering im paying nearly a ton a month to them for tv phone and net