Virgin Media 70, 150 & 200 Mb Upgrades - Page 7

Kushan · 22-08-2015, 12:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

Which shows how silly the EU 5ghz channel range is.

Although more than 8 channels are available, lots of vendors are locking them off as they dont want to implement complex restrictions on the radar channels.

I think you're talking about two different things?

Chrysalis · 22-08-2015, 13:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Given your desperation to save a few quid on Virgin Media services as you happily tolerate crap speeds from Plusnet in return for a big discount it's fair to say you aren't the right person to look to for beta testing of BT's G.fast products.

G.fast is a way from production yet, sadly. Longer term Openreach have bugger all to compete with Virgin Media as they made the wrong bet. They hoped they could spend the bare minimum on FTTC and collect the plaudits for delivering 'fibre optic broadband' and it's looking increasingly like they were wrong. Virgin Media can deliver 600Mb without breaking a sweat, Openreach can't deliver 500Mb to me without further investment in deeper fibre.

yeah.

Of course delivering access speed and throughput are two different things, I have no trust in VM to have the right capacity in my local area.

For me personally FTTC has been overall great, In reality 40mbit+ speeds are fine for my usage, and as such both g.fast and VM's upgrades dont excite me as its a decreasing rate of returns the higher you go. Higher speeds will of course excite those who have torrents going 24/7 for 4k content and as such the demand on backhaul will skyrocket and it will be a test for both BTw and VM if they can cope.

What I value is stable low latency and reliability during peak hours not just been fast at off peak.

roughbeast · 22-08-2015, 16:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

yeah.

Of course delivering access speed and throughput are two different things, I have no trust in VM to have the right capacity in my local area.

For me personally FTTC has been overall great, In reality 40mbit+ speeds are fine for my usage, and as such both g.fast and VM's upgrades dont excite me as its a decreasing rate of returns the higher you go. Higher speeds will of course excite those who have torrents going 24/7 for 4k content and as such the demand on backhaul will skyrocket and it will be a test for both BTw and VM if they can cope.

What I value is stable low latency and reliability during peak hours not just been fast at off peak.

We will have to see if VM's network upgrades will delver that continuity of service geographically and throughout the typical day and week.

Harryn9000 · 22-08-2015, 22:46

if openreach was any good they wouldnt do half a job, only half my road has infinity and no chance of me getting it anytime soon i've no choice but to have vm for internet as bt cant even give me a decent speed

Kushan · 22-08-2015, 22:58

There's a certain sense of Irony in being able to get VM but not BT.

Ignitionnet · 23-08-2015, 10:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

Which shows how silly the EU 5ghz channel range is.

Although more than 8 channels are available, lots of vendors are locking them off as they dont want to implement complex restrictions on the radar channels.

Not sure of the relevance of DOCSIS channels to the 5GHz WiFi band.

Kymmy · 23-08-2015, 10:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kushan

There's a certain sense of Irony in being able to get VM but not BT.

It's been like that for ever here, when VM was 4Mb adsl was 512Kb here, even now I can't get above 16Mb with adsl but have 152Mb constantly with VM

General Maximus · 23-08-2015, 12:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harryn9000

if openreach was any good they wouldnt do half a job, only half my road has infinity and no chance of me getting it anytime soon i've no choice but to have vm for internet as bt cant even give me a decent speed

Same here dude, the most i can get through openreach is 53/16 whereas on VM i pretty much always get 152/12 (recently significantly more)

alanbjames · 23-08-2015, 20:35

Why is it though both BT and Virgin only do part of some roads and not others?.

My friend lives on a street where only the opposite side of the road can get Virgin.

Kushan · 23-08-2015, 20:43

Because at some point, someone calculated what it would cost to cable the other side of the street and deemed it wasn't a good investment. I'm sure there's some reason why the opposite side of the street would have been marginally more expensive - perhaps capacity was hit in that area, or some kind of landmark prevents a straight run. Green boxes can only accommodate so many connections (40 or something?), maybe they hit their limit and it wasn't worth the cost of building another?

Ignitionnet · 23-08-2015, 23:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kushan

Because at some point, someone calculated what it would cost to cable the other side of the street and deemed it wasn't a good investment. I'm sure there's some reason why the opposite side of the street would have been marginally more expensive - perhaps capacity was hit in that area, or some kind of landmark prevents a straight run. Green boxes can only accommodate so many connections (40 or something?), maybe they hit their limit and it wasn't worth the cost of building another?

From what I've seen a common explanation seems to be that the company that originally built the network ran out of cash part way through their build.

1andrew1 · 24-08-2015, 00:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by alanbjames

Why is it though both BT and Virgin only do part of some roads and not others?.

My friend lives on a street where only the opposite side of the road can get Virgin.

Don't think BT does this - it is under a legal obligation to connect all premises, but obviously not all to fibre - this will be an economic assessment.

qasdfdsaq · 24-08-2015, 13:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kushan

Because at some point, someone calculated what it would cost to cable the other side of the street and deemed it wasn't a good investment.

Which is why we need a universal service obligation for next-gen broadband.

---------- Post added at 13:07 ---------- Previous post was at 13:06 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Don't think BT does this - it is under a legal obligation to connect all premises, but obviously not all to fibre - this will be an economic assessment.

There's the added issue of exchange-only lines with BT, which largely depend on when the building/line was put in and not it's location on a street.

Kushan · 24-08-2015, 13:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

Which is why we need a universal service obligation for next-gen broadband.

I don't disagree, but I'm not sure how that could apply to the likes of Virgin in a way that's sustainable without pumping a lot of public money into it.

Like the kind of money they've spent on HS2...

roughbeast · 24-08-2015, 16:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kushan

I don't disagree, but I'm not sure how that could apply to the likes of Virgin in a way that's sustainable without pumping a lot of public money into it.

Like the kind of money they've spent on HS2...

I have always favoured a nationalised network to all premises, but available for ISPs to deliver to the punter.

The kind of money that is being invested in HS2 would be better spent on a national fibre network. Imagine the employment that would be generated, in all parts of the country, by the construction work alone, not to mention the boost it would give to commerce everywhere as high quality broadband becomes available in every corner of the country.