I did read the url you posted but I cannot see how a provider can do JIT properly when they have such long waiting periods for capacity to be deployed, JIT is only viable when extra capacity is able to be brought online at an instant.

JIC is what VM should be doing in their 'current' situation.

Now if this new cloud CTMS from cisco allows VM to bring online capacity overnight, then sure JIT is ok.

AAISP dont run at 25% because they dont need to, as they can bring extra capacity online very quickly if needed, they dont need to wait for planning permission, streetworks etc. However revk has explained multiple times on his blog in the cases where it takes time for AAISP to deploy an upgrade they do "over provision" in a JIC fashion and in some cases quite significantly.

I'll pick up on this more later, however VM Consumer and A&A aren't really comparable for a bunch of reasons, pricing being an obvious one.

You may also be a little hard on JIT upgrades as you seem to be thinking they are purely reactive, they are not, they are ideally done based on forecasts, with the upgrades being delivered shortly before they are required.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOAjzKY51-I might be useful, note it refers to JIT network hardware upgrades.

Here's a nice diagram actually. The only times JIT doesn't work are when forecasting fails or delivery is delayed. In the case of this thread it's the second of those two.

EDIT: Here is a really nice one showing possible upgrade steps for such a network, this covers the HFC network only.

These are not the steps VM are taking, however, as they have other options and no ATV or FM. VM's options are a combination of things depending on the local network. Extra data channels, switching from MP2 to MP4 for video, then when the RF network in an area runs out of room overbuilding it straight to 1.2 or 1.7GHz. Nodes are split as required, however FDX DOCSIS will require n+0 networks throughout.

Those are stills from the video I linked above.

Edited by deleted (Sun 05-Feb-17 17:45:36)

I'll write some more on this on the company's site rather than here.

Edited by deleted (Mon 06-Feb-17 22:13:45)

connected with sky, connection date was tomorrow but im having some bad issues...

im getting packet loss and im only getting 7Mbps download, 4 upload with the sr102...

i think i have either congestion or maybe my connection hasnt been fully connected up.

synced at 66/20.

post tbb data
test with ethernet

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

I should point out that no cable company scales their network on the assumption that 3 top tier users will be maxing out at the same time.

Ironically, I remember reading some American cable dimensioning data that said *precisely* that: 3 users on the top tier.

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

In the example you quoted that would mean VM having the area running at no higher than 25% on the off chance that 3 x 300Mb users all decide to download at the same time to ensure no visible contention.

I'm not sure it said that you have to run with sufficient /unused/ capacity to cater for 3 top-tier users, just in case they start up (which sounds like what you say above). I'm sure it just said that the segment has to have that much capacity available in total, include capacity used by the other 2,000 "normal" users.

Essentially, that dimensioning rule tells you that, if you have a segment capable of 450Mbps aggregate, then the top tier should be no more than 150Mbps. If the segment is capable of 1Gbps aggregate, then the top-tier should be no more than 333Mbps.

Now, to be fair, it was something I read a few years ago now - back when the 150Mbps tier was new. And it certainly wasn't given as a VM rule.

Your alternative sounds like a perfectly feasible alternative, though much harder for us consumers to gauge.

I assume that BT will have to start working to similar planning guidelines when it comes to backhaul in the access network - especially G.Fast nodes (at first) and FTTC nodes, as that sustained load builds some more.

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

I'll write some more on this on the company's site rather than here.

What company is this? I want to carry on reading!

In reply to a post by nemeth782:

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

I'll write some more on this on the company's site rather than here.

What company is this? I want to carry on reading!

Probably the VM community forums?

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

I should point out that no cable company scales their network on the assumption that 3 top tier users will be maxing out at the same time.

Ironically, I remember reading some American cable dimensioning data that said *precisely* that: 3 users on the top tier.

Be interesting to see that scaling information. I sincerely hope there weren't 2000 other modems in the service group though! I don't think that would work, let alone work well.

As I vaguely recall cable operators were not following this way back when, releasing 100-110Mb on 152Mb total capacity was far from uncommon - this in 2012 and later.

Seems a tad arbitrary, takes no account of the size of the service group or the usage patterns.

In reply to a post by nemeth782:

What company is this? I want to carry on reading!

Mine. Work in progress.