View Full Version : 50Mbit is not enough... discuss
DigitalShadow
22-07-2009, 11:23
I was thinking, I can max out my 50Mbit download, so therefore for me, 50Mbit is not enough, especially with the demands of the household and business on the connection.
Are there any other people who feel that 50Mbit is not enough for their usage?
Raistlin
22-07-2009, 11:25
No connection speed will ever be 'enough'.
Whatever speed Internet connection you have you will always be able to find a way to max it out.
Particularly if you are using a residential service for business purposes...
Ignitionnet
22-07-2009, 12:18
50Mbit downstream is ample for anything, it's the 1.75Mbit upstream that is the issue.
Doing professional web design, hosting, etc, I would have thought that it's that lack of upstream that's going to be the main problem for yourself. That your >300GB of ~100 torrents took 30 hours to download isn't really the major issue, you're never going to be using all that in real time anyways.
If running a home business the VM 50Mbit product isn't really appropriate right now in any event.
Sephiroth
22-07-2009, 12:44
50Mbit downstream is ample for anything....
If running a home business the VM 50Mbit product isn't really appropriate right now in any event.
@BB
If 50Mb is "ample for anything", how does that square with your final paragraph?
And what would be appropriate for a home business in your opinion?
@BB
If 50Mb is "ample for anything", how does that square with your final paragraph?
And what would be appropriate for a home business in your opinion?
A VM Business BB account perhaps? ;)
The real issue is the uploads. You get a good download speed yet a poor upload one. :(
markknell
22-07-2009, 13:05
640K ought to be enough for anybody.
Bill Gates, 1981
50Mbit downstream is ample for anything
In a few years time everyone will be talking about the upgrade to/after 200 Mbps. I agree the upload is an issue to a lot of people but VM are working on the upstream so hopefully we'll be seeing something very soon.
Sephiroth
22-07-2009, 13:08
A VM Business BB account perhaps? ;)
The Business Broadband account is still at 20Mb/s and for £50/month the only benefit I can see is 2 to 4 hour SLA.
I considered this a couple of years back and couldn't justify the price because outages that last 2-4 hours are so rare. Also I didn't see anything in their offer that guaranteed the 20Mb/s which killed the idea.
zing_deleted
22-07-2009, 13:16
50Mbit downstream is ample for anything, it's the 1.75Mbit upstream that is the issue.
Doing professional web design, hosting, etc, I would have thought that it's that lack of upstream that's going to be the main problem for yourself. That your >300GB of ~100 torrents took 30 hours to download isn't really the major issue, you're never going to be using all that in real time anyways.
If running a home business the VM 50Mbit product isn't really appropriate right now in any event.
yeah I couldnt upload and download at the same time ie files uploading newsgroup downloading. The system was just having no bar of it
---------- Post added at 13:16 ---------- Previous post was at 13:14 ----------
640K ought to be enough for anybody.
Bill Gates, 1981
In a few years time everyone will be talking about the upgrade to/after 200 Mbps. I agree the upload is an issue to a lot of people but VM are working on the upstream so hopefully we'll be seeing something very soon.
That referred to ram not internet
he also denies it
640K ought to be enough for anybody.
Often attributed to Gates in 1981. Gates considered the IBM PC's 640kB program memory a significant breakthrough over 8-bit systems that were typically limited to 64kB, but he has denied making this remark. Also see the 1989 and 1993 remarks above.
I've said some stupid things and some wrong things, but not that. No one involved in computers would ever say that a certain amount of memory is enough for all time … I keep bumping into that silly quotation attributed to me that says 640K of memory is enough. There's never a citation; the quotation just floats like a rumor, repeated again and again.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bill_Gates
Ignitionnet
22-07-2009, 13:29
@BB
If 50Mb is "ample for anything", how does that square with your final paragraph?
And what would be appropriate for a home business in your opinion?
I was talking about it from the SLA angle, not from the point of view of bandwidth. No-one who seriously relies on connectivity for their business should even consider a residential service.
---------- Post added at 13:27 ---------- Previous post was at 13:24 ----------
In a few years time everyone will be talking about the upgrade to/after 200 Mbps. I agree the upload is an issue to a lot of people but VM are working on the upstream so hopefully we'll be seeing something very soon.
Indeed - however I have to also point out to a couple of people I said it was ample. This will of course change as time goes on and as the applications support it however the amount of applications, besides hard core Usenet leeching and Torrenting, that 50Mbps can be stressed with are still limited. It's more a matter of impatience that 50Mbps has any uses over 20 there are no applications at all which require it.
---------- Post added at 13:29 ---------- Previous post was at 13:27 ----------
The Business Broadband account is still at 20Mb/s and for £50/month the only benefit I can see is 2 to 4 hour SLA.
I considered this a couple of years back and couldn't justify the price because outages that last 2-4 hours are so rare. Also I didn't see anything in their offer that guaranteed the 20Mb/s which killed the idea.
At 50 quid a month it's not really a surprise you didn't see anything guaranteeing 20Mbps.
Regarding outages, if dependent on the connectivity so heavily you don't want to be taking the chance of not having an outage lasting >2-4 hours. I have had a few as has been documented elsewhere.
The 20 also comes with multiple IP addresses and DHCP reservation, both of which can also be very useful.
DigitalShadow
22-07-2009, 13:52
50Mbit downstream is ample for anything, it's the 1.75Mbit upstream that is the issue.
Agreed, 10Mbit+ upload would be a god send!
Doing professional web design, hosting, etc, I would have thought that it's that lack of upstream that's going to be the main problem for yourself.
That your >300GB of ~100 torrents took 30 hours to download isn't really the major issue...
I was testing the modem to see if it "fail" like others had said, and it didn't
If running a home business the VM 50Mbit product isn't really appropriate right now in any event.
The Business Broadband account is still at 20Mb/s and for £50/month the only benefit I can see is 2 to 4 hour SLA....
50Mbit can be saturated very easily when websites do a ftp backup to my local servers.
Sephiroth
22-07-2009, 13:56
....I was talking about it from the SLA angle, not from the point of view of bandwidth. No-one who seriously relies on connectivity for their business should even consider a residential service
At 50 quid a month it's not really a surprise you didn't see anything guaranteeing 20Mbps.
Regarding outages, if dependent on the connectivity so heavily you don't want to be taking the chance of not having an outage lasting >2-4 hours. I have had a few as has been documented elsewhere....
Sorry to disagree. You were definite in your point that "No-one who seriously relies on connectivity for their business should even consider a residential service".
I seriously rely on connectivity for my business which is why I have two diverse services; ADSL and Cable. I don't have to go to £50/month for practically assured connectivity.
I could turn the question round - how can Virgin justify calling theirs a business service if they can't offer a guaranteed speed using QOS policies etc.?
DigitalShadow
22-07-2009, 13:58
I rely on access for one part of my business, however, if the web server or remote business computer can't access my local servers, it is held on a remote web server until it can be downloaded to my local servers.
I do have backup connectivity options should my cable fail, but I've never known it to go down, so I've not really had to go down that route.
Sephiroth
22-07-2009, 14:07
I rely on access for one part of my business, however, if the web server or remote business computer can't access my local servers, it is held on a remote web server until it can be downloaded to my local servers.
I do have backup connectivity options should my cable fail, but I've never known it to go down, so I've not really had to go down that route.
Coming back to your question, I think Rob M had it right.
I should stress that my business doesn't need serious speed - just assured connectivity at decent speed.
DigitalShadow
22-07-2009, 14:15
Perhaps my question should have been, what level of bandwidth do you think would be enough for you?
100Mbit/20Mbit would do for a while.
Anything with a 5:1 ratio would be nice.
200/40 :D
Ignitionnet
22-07-2009, 14:21
Sorry to disagree. You were definite in your point that "No-one who seriously relies on connectivity for their business should even consider a residential service".
I seriously rely on connectivity for my business which is why I have two diverse services; ADSL and Cable. I don't have to go to £50/month for practically assured connectivity.
I could turn the question round - how can Virgin justify calling theirs a business service if they can't offer a guaranteed speed using QOS policies etc.?
Disagreement welcome!
Fairly easily, same way BT et al likewise call their business broadband products business services.
If you seriously rely on connectivity for your business but don't want to spend the relatively small premium for a business service and would rather break the terms of your agreements with your ISPs and leave yourself vulnerable to disconnection that would be your prerogative. In my case while I do work from home it's remote working via VPN, not running a business via home office.
---------- Post added at 14:18 ---------- Previous post was at 14:17 ----------
I rely on access for one part of my business, however, if the web server or remote business computer can't access my local servers, it is held on a remote web server until it can be downloaded to my local servers.
I do have backup connectivity options should my cable fail, but I've never known it to go down, so I've not really had to go down that route.
Just to clarify, you are hosting services on your cable as well as using it to connect to other devices?
---------- Post added at 14:21 ---------- Previous post was at 14:18 ----------
Perhaps my question should have been, what level of bandwidth do you think would be enough for you?
100Mbit/20Mbit would do for a while.
Anything with a 5:1 ratio would be nice.
200/40 :D
Depends on the quality of that bandwidth. 200/40 won't be much use if we'd be having to share it with people who are downloading the entire contents of TPB's trackers while running a datacentre on it.
DigitalShadow
22-07-2009, 14:21
I am not hosting websites from home, I have dedicated servers for that.
Regarding my backup service, clients have no access to the data that is stored locally, I download the backups from one of my dedicated servers to my local data farm to store the backups so there are backups going back a set duration as only the latest backups are stored on the web for the clients to access.
markknell
22-07-2009, 14:23
Sorry my fault, I wasn't making myself clear :dozey:
I know perfectly well it was referring to RAM and not the internet but my point was it was an example of someone (whether they did or not) saying [something] is enough.
yeah I couldnt upload and download at the same time ie files uploading newsgroup downloading. The system was just having no bar of it
---------- Post added at 13:16 ---------- Previous post was at 13:14 ----------
That referred to ram not internet
he also denies it
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bill_Gates
DigitalShadow
22-07-2009, 14:24
Depends on the quality of that bandwidth. 200/40 won't be much use if we'd be having to share it with people who are downloading the entire contents of TPB's trackers while running a datacentre on it.
If that was directed at me, my estimation of you has dropped considerably. I wouldn't touch TPB trackers with a large condom sheathed barge pole thank you.
Furthermore, I've made it clear that I don't host a remotely accessible datacentre from my residential connection, nor do I host any services using my residential connection.
@BB
And what would be appropriate for a home business in your opinion?
The 50 Mb product isn't enough for various reasons.
A business may have many staff (depending on it's size) who need to access the internet simulaneously. The average home will rarely have more than a few people in it, and even fewer will need 'net access at any given time. If a business needs Internet access and that access is lost, then the business will probably lose money. As such, they will require guaranteed response times in the event of failure. No consumer ISP offers these guarantees.
Ignitionnet
22-07-2009, 14:34
If that was directed at me, my estimation of you has dropped considerably. I wouldn't touch TPB trackers with a large condom sheathed barge pole thank you.
Furthermore, I've made it clear that I don't host a remotely accessible datacentre from my residential connection, nor do I host any services using my residential connection.
It was directed at you though I wasn't being literal, I am quite sure you would use private trackers and have a seed box in one of the colo facilities you use to ensure ratio is preserved.
My point also stands - it's pointless having high bandwidth caps if peeps, yes like yourself, are hammering that bandwidth and causing congestion especially over Bittorrent which doesn't play nicely for sharing.
If you were on the Ashford trial and doing your utmost to show that 200Mbit isn't enough you'd also be reducing the bandwidth of everyone else on the trial. There is only 200Mbit available total in that trial, under normal usage it shares well, someone decides to download a few hundred GB it suddenly doesn't share so well.
That's what I mean by the quality of the bandwidth. It has to have some assurance that contention ratio won't be too high, and that any behaviour that might badly skew this will be, err, dealt with ;)
DigitalShadow
22-07-2009, 14:42
No, don't use private trackers or have a seedbox thank you.
Sephiroth
22-07-2009, 14:54
The 50 Mb product isn't enough for various reasons.
A business may have many staff (depending on it's size) who need to access the internet simulaneously. The average home will rarely have more than a few people in it, and even fewer will need 'net access at any given time. If a business needs Internet access and that access is lost, then the business will probably lose money. As such, they will require guaranteed response times in the event of failure. No consumer ISP offers these guarantees.
The problem here is that you have given a generalisation. You are obviously right for many classes of business.
However, as with my case, there will be small business who are quite satisfied with 20Mb/s never mind 50Mb/s (or 5Mb/s in emergency). Other small businesses are of a type that can absorb whatever speed is offered (DigitalShadow might be in that category).
I don't want to be down for an SLA determined period. So I have the ADSL service as backup. Dead cheap for the risk that has been thereby mitigated.
---------- Post added at 14:54 ---------- Previous post was at 14:43 ----------
.... If you seriously rely on connectivity for your business but don't want to spend the relatively small premium for a business service and would rather break the terms of your agreements with your ISPs and leave yourself vulnerable to disconnection that would be your prerogative. In my case while I do work from home it's remote working via VPN, not running a business via home office.
What terms of my agreement with VM (which I've just inspected) would I be breaking?
As I said in another reply, I assure my internet connectivity by having two diverse suppliers costing less than the £50/month for business broadband from VM.
DigitalShadow
22-07-2009, 14:57
I think he was accusing me of hosting services, which I don't.
DigitalShadow
22-07-2009, 15:01
We are calm, I was informing Sephiroth that that comment may have been directed towards myself and not him.
Sephiroth
22-07-2009, 15:05
It was directed at you though I wasn't being literal, I am quite sure you would use private trackers and have a seed box in one of the colo facilities you use to ensure ratio is preserved.
My point also stands - it's pointless having high bandwidth caps if peeps, yes like yourself, are hammering that bandwidth and causing congestion especially over Bittorrent which doesn't play nicely for sharing.
So, where would you stand if DigitalShadow had taken a business account from VM (which isn't available at 50Mb/s) - but it is a valid hypothetical question in terms of your argument? Does a business user need to "play nicely for sharing"?
---------- Post added at 15:05 ---------- Previous post was at 15:02 ----------
We are calm, I was informing Sephiroth that that comment may have been directed towards myself and not him.
I'm calm too. I never thought anything was hotting up nor that DigitalShadow had been anything else but calm and purposeful.
Not that anything I think matters!
Discuss was sought and Discuss it certainly is!
A VM Business BB account perhaps? ;)
The highest standard broadband business account is only 20Mb down and 1Mb up (no fixed IP's on it yet which is crucial to most businesses), even 50Mb isn't available. Also for a small business then VM's equiv of a leased line is just totally priced out of range for a business trying to survive in this climate.
If a business needs Internet access and that access is lost, then the business will probably lose money. As such, they will require guaranteed response times in the event of failure. No consumer ISP offers these guarantees.
Neither does NTL/Telewest Standard business broadband which has the same 5 day SLA as VM residential :(
What terms of my agreement with VM (which I've just inspected) would I be breaking?
http://allyours.virginmedia.com/html/legal/oncable/terms.html
D Using the services
1. You are responsible for the way the services are used. You must not use the services to do any of the following acts or allow anyone else to use the services to do such acts:
1. Send a message or communication that is offensive, abusive, defamatory (damages someone's reputation), obscene, menacing or illegal;
<snip>
8. Use any services (including, but not limited to, phone services) for commercial or business purposes;
DigitalShadow
22-07-2009, 15:12
In my opinion 50Mbit internet is a great service, however, for a number of people 50Mbit/1.75Mbit isn't fast enough for some users.
I think 200Mbit/40Mbit would be enough for the next 10 years, for the majority of people. I would love 100Mbit upload, however, I can't see that being offered.
That is a great deal of bandwidth.
---------- Post added at 15:12 ---------- Previous post was at 15:10 ----------
So if someone makes a website for a client and uploads it to their hosting server via their BB connection, they are in breach of the T&C?
If I talked to a client about an issue over the phone, I am in breach?
digitalspace
22-07-2009, 15:14
In my opinion 50Mbit internet is a great service, however, for a number of people 50Mbit/1.75Mbit isn't fast enough for some users.
Isn't that obvious though? Every user will have different requirements. For some, 50mb is OTT where 20mb is perfectly sufficient. For others, like yourself, it's not enough.
I don't really understand the point that you're trying to make.
roughbeast
22-07-2009, 15:15
640K ought to be enough for anybody.
Bill Gates, 1981
In a few years time everyone will be talking about the upgrade to/after 200 Mbps. I agree the upload is an issue to a lot of people but VM are working on the upstream so hopefully we'll be seeing something very soon.
Do you know something we don't? Increasing the upload speed is not something they have to work on is it? All they have to do is make a decision and flick a switch. lol
Returning to the subject, we use up our 50 mb here when the main PC, the media PC and a games system are busy. 200mb? Bring it on.
digitalspace
22-07-2009, 15:18
Returning to the subject, we use up our 50 mb here when the main PC, the media PC and a games system are busy. 200mb? Bring it on.
Is it really an issue though? You can see through what, 15GB+ in an hour? Why do you require faster speeds?
DigitalShadow
22-07-2009, 15:22
Isn't that obvious though? Every user will have different requirements. For some, 50mb is OTT where 20mb is perfectly sufficient. For others, like yourself, it's not enough.
I don't really understand the point that you're trying to make.
Yes it is obvious but it was starting to get a bit silly a few posts back, so i thought the MOTO (http://interloper.org/images/2003/258master_of_the_obvious.jpg) was required...
Neither does NTL/Telewest Standard business broadband which has the same 5 day SLA as VM residential :(
Ouch... Thought it did.. Should obviously check next time.
Sephiroth
22-07-2009, 15:23
http://allyours.virginmedia.com/html/legal/oncable/terms.html
I called VM just now to check what their definition of "business purposes" meant. They said it did not cover a one man band or anything like that.
As I thought. Now what that might mean for DigitalShadow .....?
DigitalShadow
22-07-2009, 15:27
I'm all on my own :)
Through careful expansion I've managed to keep on top of everything without needing anyone else, well apart from my partner, she keeps me smiling when it gets tough.
Raistlin
22-07-2009, 15:31
Yes it is obvious but it was starting to get a bit silly a few posts back, so i thought the MOTO (http://interloper.org/images/2003/258master_of_the_obvious.jpg) was required...
<offtopic>
Actually that's Raistlin Majere, Master of Past & Present, and Master of the Tower of High Sorcery at Palanthas.
Not a great picture of him either.
</offtopic>
DigitalShadow
22-07-2009, 15:36
True that may be, but the text reads
Master of the Obvious
digitalspace
22-07-2009, 15:38
:D
Ignitionnet
22-07-2009, 15:59
<offtopic>
Actually that's Raistlin Majere, Master of Past & Present, and Master of the Tower of High Sorcery at Palanthas.
Not a great picture of him either.
</offtopic>
You certainly had that previous nickname for a good reason Rob :D Those stories rocked hard.
---------- Post added at 15:55 ---------- Previous post was at 15:54 ----------
I called VM just now to check what their definition of "business purposes" meant. They said it did not cover a one man band or anything like that.
As I thought. Now what that might mean for DigitalShadow .....?
Not much as I imagine it'd depend who you speak to. Some of them say working from home isn't permitted under the T+C.
---------- Post added at 15:57 ---------- Previous post was at 15:55 ----------
Do you know something we don't? Increasing the upload speed is not something they have to work on is it? All they have to do is make a decision and flick a switch. lol
Returning to the subject, we use up our 50 mb here when the main PC, the media PC and a games system are busy. 200mb? Bring it on.
Yes increasing it is something that has to be worked on in some areas. To do the 10Mbit upstream in some areas requires some hardware upgrade else when the switch is flicked some lasers will be failing.
If you're using 50Mbit in full when your main PC and media PC are busy bet the pings on the games system are fantastic at that time :erm:
---------- Post added at 15:59 ---------- Previous post was at 15:57 ----------
Neither does NTL/Telewest Standard business broadband which has the same 5 day SLA as VM residential :(
True but the business techs have more access, are 2nd line or better straight off the bat and can raise tickets for single user business faults directly to the NMCs if required, they can also arrange engineers on priority case. Attempting to raise a single user residential fault to an NMC will have it quickly bounced back.
DigitalShadow
22-07-2009, 16:02
I am starting to see the need for a new thread based on what people can and can't use their connection for....
Sephiroth
22-07-2009, 16:08
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broadbandings
You are seriously bored if you call VM to try and settle a forum discussion
I would say it was more a matter of a person being concerned about the "legality" of their actions.
I note that Broadbandings edited that rather personal comment out.
Who else do you call other than VM to ask about their contract?
Simples.
Ignitionnet
22-07-2009, 16:14
I note that Broadbandings edited that rather personal comment out.
Who else do you call other than VM to ask about their contract?
Simples.
I forgot that you also use your connection for what might be described as business purposes hence the edit, my apologies it wasn't intended as a 'personal' comment beyond a light-hearted one. Of course if it directly affects you it'd be of interest to you.
If you weren't directly affected I would still have described you as extremely bored mind you ;)
The problem for the internet is that to some extent, the speeds (and bandwidth) people demand has always outstripped supply, and, TBH, I don't see a time when it won't.
in 1994,apart from a lucky few who had ISDN or leased lines, we had Modems. They maxed out at 56 K. This was fine until Real Audio came along.. Suddenly, 56K wasn't enough.
Then we had 128K broadband, which was fine, but low-bitrate video came along, so it wasn't enough.
Then we had 256K and 512K broadband and P2P music services appeared. Newsgroups also sprouted the ability to handle binaries, so suddenly 512K was looking a little small.
It's happened pretty much ever since. Even though there haven't been any major new technologies over the last ten years (even the new streaming TV channels are variations on concepts from ten years ago), our increased use of things like online media streaming (both Audio and Video) and the increasing reliance of both Applications and Operating systems on network connections (for updates, use and installation media) means that while we have access to hundreds of times more bandwidth than we did (or needed) in the mid 90s, it still isn't enough.
markknell
22-07-2009, 16:29
Innovation drives (or dictates) the internet.
Sephiroth
22-07-2009, 16:29
I forgot that you also use your connection for what might be described as business purposes hence the edit, my apologies it wasn't intended as a 'personal' comment beyond a light-hearted one. Of course if it directly affects you it'd be of interest to you.
If you weren't directly affected I would still have described you as extremely bored mind you ;)
Tut tut. I think you should stick to the technical stuff (at which you excel) and leave the personal remarks out of your comments.
Ignitionnet
22-07-2009, 16:32
I wasn't aware that we had 128k and 256k in the UK apart from ISDN, we started off at 512kbps with those speeds coming in later as cheaper options if I remember rightly?
56k modems didn't exist in 1994, at that time I think we were still on 28.8kbps.
---------- Post added at 16:32 ---------- Previous post was at 16:32 ----------
Tut tut. I think you should stick to the technical stuff (at which you excel) and leave the personal remarks out of your comments.
I'll post as I see fit, but thank you for the advice it's duly noted.
And I think the personal comments about others should stop immediately, you've all been warned once now this is the final warning
Sephiroth
22-07-2009, 16:33
Innovation drives (or dictates) the internet.
Good point. This is, of course, partially throttled by investment cost and the way that providers eye their competition.
Actually I find VM quite ground breaking. I believe that's because with fibre and the right transmission technology, they can. See BT for details of why they can't do what VM has already done (and which broke the NTL bank).
I hope that their fibre sections have plenty of unlit capacity because, as many have been saying/implying in this thread, skys the limit for demand.
DigitalShadow
22-07-2009, 16:35
I remember our dual ISDN connection with great fondness, then ADSL came along and made it look really rather cack!
Innovation drives (or dictates) the internet.
Don't get me wrong, I actually do think it is a good thing we are coming up with these uses. You are right, development on the Internet is driven by the needs of uses like this.
DigitalShadow
22-07-2009, 16:36
Well, there is plenty of dark fibre all over the globe, as you said, wonder how much VM has.
Ignitionnet
22-07-2009, 16:44
I remember our dual ISDN connection with great fondness, then ADSL came along and made it look really rather cack!
As do I. Paid a truly awful amount for HomeHighway and thought it was the shizzle having 128kbps symmetrical. Yep then came DSL, faster service and no more expensive than HH :(
---------- Post added at 16:38 ---------- Previous post was at 16:37 ----------
Well, there is plenty of dark fibre all over the globe, as you said, wonder how much VM has.
VM have some fibre shortages actually, and it's not the fibre itself that's the issue for VM, it's the access network.
There's not as much dark fibre left as you might think either, not that far away from some more cable laying being required, we're outgrowing what's under the oceans at the moment.
---------- Post added at 16:44 ---------- Previous post was at 16:38 ----------
Good point. This is, of course, partially throttled by investment cost and the way that providers eye their competition.
Actually I find VM quite ground breaking. I believe that's because with fibre and the right transmission technology, they can. See BT for details of why they can't do what VM has already done (and which broke the NTL bank).
I hope that their fibre sections have plenty of unlit capacity because, as many have been saying/implying in this thread, skys the limit for demand.
VM have always done the bare minimum in order to stay ahead of BT which regrettably tends to be easy. You can see providers such as Comcast, UPC and Cablevision as 3 who are considerably ahead of VM, offering as they do 50/10, 120/10 and 101/15 tiers.
VM's 50Mbit tier was a pleasant side effect of their deployment of newer equipment to replace/augment the end of life Cisco equipment that was present. It was relatively easy to have this equipment offer DOCSIS 3 services.
The fibre in the network is irrelevant to the speeds they are delivering to us as customers, the bottleneck remains the access network and the only ways to relieve that are to go all fibre, upgrade the coaxial and optical portions of the network to higher bandwidths (at the MHz level), or enhance the equipment either end of the link to bond more channels but that is limited by the access network. Every DOCSIS 3 downstream requires another 8MHz of downstream capacity which in some areas is 2% of the total capacity ignoring the TV. The construction of the network where bandwidth is shared at a very shallow level in the network so cable is prone to congestion is another issue also.
Fibre shortages in the aggregation network can be worked around through DWDM but the access network issues are much more difficult.
I wasn't aware that we had 128k and 256k in the UK apart from ISDN, we started off at 512kbps with those speeds coming in later as cheaper options if I remember rightly?
56k modems didn't exist in 1994, at that time I think we were still on 28.8kbps.[COLOR="Silver"]
Old age.. Memory not quite what it was..
Actually, IIRC, 56K came about in 1995/96.
As for the 128k, I thought C&W offered it for a while then when they launched the 512K service, they offered it as a cheaper option before eventually upgrading all 128K users to 256K.
Ignitionnet
22-07-2009, 16:49
Old age.. Memory not quite what it was..
Actually, IIRC, 56K came about in 1995/96.
As for the 128k, I thought C&W offered it for a while then when they launched the 512K service, they offered it as a cheaper option before eventually upgrading all 128K users to 256K.
Blimey now we're going back a bit. Unsure, but you might be right that the launch of the ntl 128k coincided with when they released HSI on the ex-CWC platform.
Can't remember when 56Flex was conceived, I do remember that the standards were only done in 98/99 but quite possible pre-standard dial racks and modems were around earlier.
DigitalShadow
22-07-2009, 16:51
Regarding dark fibre I meant what was on the ground, not under the ocean, I thought what was under the ocean was already pretty much at full capacity, hence the need for upgrading the equipment to get more data down each "pipe"
I thought the US has quite a bit of dark fibre on the ground, and London had quite a bit i believe, don't know about the general state of the network though.
Ignitionnet
22-07-2009, 16:52
Regarding dark fibre I meant what was on the ground, not under the ocean, I thought what was under the ocean was already pretty much at full capacity, hence the need for upgrading the equipment to get more data down each "pipe"
I thought the US has quite a bit of dark fibre on the ground, and London had quite a bit i believe, don't know about the general state of the network though.
Due to the business rates on lit fibre there's little incentive for companies to light that fibre, much easier and cheaper to use higher order multiplexing on existing stock. Crazy isn't it?
VM have a fair bit of their fibre capacity used already. In quite a few areas they have already needed to pull more.
There's no real shortage of fibre or core IP capacity in the UK, and we have nearly a Petabit of capacity to the US lit at the moment.
DigitalShadow
22-07-2009, 16:56
The conversation here is a great relief from the normal "connection is ****" "VM are ****"
Long may this continue
digitalspace
22-07-2009, 16:59
Indeed, very interesting reading :)
Sephiroth
22-07-2009, 17:15
Regarding dark fibre I meant what was on the ground, not under the ocean, I thought what was under the ocean was already pretty much at full capacity, hence the need for upgrading the equipment to get more data down each "pipe"....
Is it fibre under the ocean? Don't they have to have amplifiers 3 miles down and every 100 miles or so?
Some of the routes I deal with are several thousand miles, across more than one ocean. They're not fibre.
Anyway, the amount of copper you can lay under the ocean is bounded only by investment cost and can, in theory, meet any given capacity.
I thing Broadbandings has it right in considering what happens when stuff emerges somewhere to be directed somewhere else; access networks. Mind you, that's essentially the same class of problem.
-------------------------------------------------------
EDIT: Additional Facts
I just had a look to see where fibre went under the ocean. I found this lovely site:
http://www.ece.umd.edu/~davis/optfib.html
and was pleasantly surprised to see that ocean fibre exists, 12,400KM being one long stretch with 10Gb/s capacity for a fibre pair.
DigitalShadow
22-07-2009, 17:21
I thought the old stuff under the ocean was copper, now it is all fibre and the amplifiers are powered off a voltage supplied down a copper cable in the core.
Ignitionnet
22-07-2009, 17:45
Is it fibre under the ocean? Don't they have to have amplifiers 3 miles down and every 100 miles or so?
Some of the routes I deal with are several thousand miles, across more than one ocean. They're not fibre.
Anyway, the amount of copper you can lay under the ocean is bounded only by investment cost and can, in theory, meet any given capacity.
I thing Broadbandings has it right in considering what happens when stuff emerges somewhere to be directed somewhere else; access networks. Mind you, that's essentially the same class of problem.
-------------------------------------------------------
EDIT: Additional Facts
I just had a look to see where fibre went under the ocean. I found this lovely site:
http://www.ece.umd.edu/~davis/optfib.html
and was pleasantly surprised to see that ocean fibre exists, 12,400KM being one long stretch with 10Gb/s capacity for a fibre pair.
Yes, there's high performance optical equipment and 'ocean fibre' which can deliver 10Gbps per wavelength over extremely long distances. It does need amplification but it does not need regeneration significantly reducing costs of submarine deployment.
You can get some really nice details on a fibre deployment in progress from http://www.pipeinternational.com/
roughbeast
22-07-2009, 18:22
Is it really an issue though? You can see through what, 15GB+ in an hour? Why do you require faster speeds?
It is not always the download requirement that demands 50mb, but the need to share it across a variety of machines within your network. Sometimes there are 5 different machines requiring bandwidth in our house. If one is downloading and another gaming it is soon used up.
Sephiroth
22-07-2009, 18:35
It is not always the download requirement that demands 50mb, but the need to share it across a variety of machines within your network. Sometimes there are 5 different machines requiring bandwidth in our house. If one is downloading and another gaming it is soon used up.
Being king of my house, so to speak, I do at least have the luxury on the rare occasions that it is necessary, of booting one or more others off onto the ADSL circuit (or vice versa being such a reasonable person!).
Ignitionnet
22-07-2009, 18:49
Being king of my house, so to speak, I do at least have the luxury on the rare occasions that it is necessary, of booting one or more others off onto the ADSL circuit (or vice versa being such a reasonable person!).
I will be load balancing 2 circuits once I have upgraded my router to the file server and BT have put an MSAN in the cabinet just outside my close. Will be interesting to see how it goes.
I originally planned on having 2 circuits purely for WFH purposes but a fair way from the exchange and no current line in place.
Yes, there's high performance optical equipment and 'ocean fibre' which can deliver 10Gbps per wavelength over extremely long distances. It does need amplification but it does not need regeneration significantly reducing costs of submarine deployment.
You can get some really nice details on a fibre deployment in progress from http://www.pipeinternational.com/
The issue of fibre vs. copper is one close to my heart as I deal with this every day.
You guys have identified a lot of the detail, but I will try to fill in some more info. (without getting too techie)
All fibre is not alike! The VM network has slightly older fibre types that have worse performance. Having said that, the use of amplifiers and other optical equipment generally overcomes issues on short distances. Longer fibre distances introduce things like high dispersion which requires dispersion compensation. A real fibre network also has losses to consider which are worsened if you have a lot of splices (joining fibres together) and connectors. There are a lot of splices in the VM network, especially in the ex-cable areas where standards are not uniform or consistent (very diplomatic there...).
Fibre business rates are an incredible cost on lit fibre which can add up for VM as they have thousands of km of the stuff. The rates are worked out in thresholds by the Valuation Office Agency but it works out at 21p per metre on average dropping to 17p per metre with large amounts of lit fibre.
Subsea fibre does use repeaters on the longer links but as Broadbandings pointed out, these are amplifiers. Every amp adds noise and increases the noise on a link until the signal becomes unrecognisable. Regenerators are put in every now and then to bring the signal back to its original form. The fibre used here is again different as it needs to be less succeptable to loss. On certain routes there is a mix of fibre types too to counter ill effects and ensure a readable signal at the other end.
As far as FTTH/P is concerned, VM and BT can do this in their existing infrastructure but only if the ducts are suitable. Most ducts in these areas are not "carrier class" and are not regularly maintained or repaired. It is also not easy to draw a fibre cable through some of these ducts with the existing coax and copper in place.
Generally, the main issue with cost of FTTx deployments is in the infrastructure constraints out there. No one wants to dig up the roads to do this as this is where the cost will be astronomical.
Broadband will evolve into FTTx for some, FTTC/VDSL2 and DOCSIS 3.0 cable broadband for most, mobile broadband for others and WiFi, WiMAX and Satellite for the rest.
Too much to tell so ask me anything and I will answer if I can.
Pantsu-san
22-07-2009, 19:21
Thank you, posters, for this thread. Very interesting reading.
DigitalShadow
22-07-2009, 21:21
I seem to have started a useful thread, perhaps I should start more :)
Ignitionnet
22-07-2009, 22:04
I seem to have started a useful thread, perhaps I should start more :)
I've seriously enjoyed this thread and my thanks to the more recently active members for helping keep me honest, I probably got a bit complacent in the past and good to be kept on my toes and called out when I'm being a bit of an ass ;)
DigitalShadow
22-07-2009, 22:29
In the end it makes us all better friends... lol :)
oojimmyflip
23-07-2009, 02:10
BT have plans to reach there 60Meg limit soon in a internet speed race with V/M but apparently V/M have the capeability to go to 75Meg which should be interesting.
---------- Post added at 02:10 ---------- Previous post was at 01:49 ----------
I wouldn't touch TPB trackers with a large condom sheathed barge pole thank you
just where can you buy condoms that big then,,,please telll?
The problem for the internet is that to some extent, the speeds (and bandwidth) people demand has always outstripped supply, and, TBH, I don't see a time when it won't.
in 1994,apart from a lucky few who had ISDN or leased lines, we had Modems. They maxed out at 56 K. This was fine until Real Audio came along.. Suddenly, 56K wasn't enough.
Then we had 128K broadband, which was fine, but low-bitrate video came along, so it wasn't enough.
Then we had 256K and 512K broadband and P2P music services appeared. Newsgroups also sprouted the ability to handle binaries, so suddenly 512K was looking a little small.
It's happened pretty much ever since. Even though there haven't been any major new technologies over the last ten years (even the new streaming TV channels are variations on concepts from ten years ago), our increased use of things like online media streaming (both Audio and Video) and the increasing reliance of both Applications and Operating systems on network connections (for updates, use and installation media) means that while we have access to hundreds of times more bandwidth than we did (or needed) in the mid 90s, it still isn't enough.
A little off topic but it just reminded me of when i fhad my internet at 56K and to give myself some extra speed i would connect my mobile phone upto my pc and use that for an extra 12K (ish) speed boost :D
DigitalShadow
23-07-2009, 08:15
BT have plans to reach there 60Meg limit soon in a internet speed race with V/M but apparently V/M have the capeability to go to 75Meg which should be interesting.
---------- Post added at 02:10 ---------- Previous post was at 01:49 ----------
just where can you buy condoms that big then,,,please telll?
don't know but my girlfriend found me some... :erm: :LOL:
Ignitionnet
23-07-2009, 08:24
BT have plans to reach there 60Meg limit soon in a internet speed race with V/M but apparently V/M have the capeability to go to 75Meg which should be interesting.
Careful - that blog post of mine wasn't confirming that either would happen it just stated the possibilities. No plans from BT at this time to go to 60Mbit they just mentioned it as a possibility in the future.
---------- Post added at 08:24 ---------- Previous post was at 08:23 ----------
don't know but my girlfriend found me some... :erm: :LOL:
She wouldn't even touch you with a bargepole unless it had a sheath on it? Blimey...
DigitalShadow
23-07-2009, 08:28
She wouldn't even touch you with a bargepole unless it had a sheath on it? Blimey...
Touché
Ignitionnet
23-07-2009, 08:42
Touché
*Bows* ;)
Sephiroth
23-07-2009, 09:21
BT have plans to reach there 60Meg limit soon in a internet speed race with V/M but apparently V/M have the capeability to go to 75Meg which should be interesting.
---------- Post added at 02:10 ---------- Previous post was at 01:49 ----------
BT's plans and BT's ability to deliver must be two separate considerations. They need billions to fibre out their town estates. The guvmin is talking about taxing us £6/year to fund this. And BT have just laid off around 20,000 people or are in the process of doing this. Don't hold your breath for BT.
VM, on the other hand, aren't as near to everywhere as BT. So it's some you win, some you lose. A postcode lottery, so to speak.
Ignitionnet
23-07-2009, 09:50
BT already have 1.5bn allocated for 40% coverage of the UK with FTTN technology. This comes from reducing dividend and the tail-off of CapEx on the 21CN project.
That is not related to the 'Carter Tax' but commercially driven deployment. The Carter Tax is present to extend 'Next Generation' services from an expected 60% of the UK covered to 90% by 2018 and these funds will be available for all operators to submit plans on.
Sephiroth
23-07-2009, 10:37
BT already have 1.5bn allocated for 40% coverage of the UK with FTTN technology. This comes from reducing dividend and the tail-off of CapEx on the 21CN project.
That is not related to the 'Carter Tax' but commercially driven deployment. The Carter Tax is present to extend 'Next Generation' services from an expected 60% of the UK covered to 90% by 2018 and these funds will be available for all operators to submit plans on.
I note the oxymoron implicit in the name British Telecom and their plan for 40% UK coverage.
The guvmin wants 100% broadband coverage and hence the £6 tax plan. So between us we're right.
DigitalShadow
23-07-2009, 10:56
We would all have fibre to the cab if Thatcher hadn't blocked the investment years ago. I believe she was worried that to recoup the costs bt would have had to hold a monopoly on the fibre for such a long time and see thought that was a bad thing, now we are going to be taxed so they can do what they wanted to do years back..
Sephiroth
23-07-2009, 11:00
We would all have fibre to the cab if Thatcher hadn't blocked the investment years ago. I believe she was worried that to recoup the costs bt would have had to hold a monopoly on the fibre for such a long time and see thought that was a bad thing, now we are going to be taxed so they can do what they wanted to do years back..
Spot on. I worked for BT for a number of years and this was so frustrating. I believe that the regulatory stranglehold has come off now because the competition is established - but it certainly has held the UK back for the sake of the holy competition cow (no offence meant to Mrs. T).
DigitalShadow
23-07-2009, 11:13
It seems very few people (outside the industry) know what happened. Just imagine, we would have been able to have 100Mbit speeds before sweden et al
Typical really of the way this country is run, everything is always done too damn late.
It seems very few people (outside the industry) know what happened. Just imagine, we would have been able to have 100Mbit speeds before sweden et al
Typical really of the way this country is run, everything is always done too damn late.
Kinda like the jet engine situation where Brits design it but others use it and take the credit!
---------- Post added at 22:08 ---------- Previous post was at 22:02 ----------
BT already have 1.5bn allocated for 40% coverage of the UK with FTTN technology. This comes from reducing dividend and the tail-off of CapEx on the 21CN project.
That is not related to the 'Carter Tax' but commercially driven deployment. The Carter Tax is present to extend 'Next Generation' services from an expected 60% of the UK covered to 90% by 2018 and these funds will be available for all operators to submit plans on.
Yup the rural areas and "not spots" - areas with slow or no broadband at all are what the Carter Tax is aimed at paying for. The government feels that BT and VM will cover the rest of us.
In practice, it would be interesting to see where this money goes and who gets to provide these end users with service. I vote for up BT's jacksie!
Some would call that outcome illegal state aid of an incumbent that will do nothing to help end users or competition.
The other thing is the likelihood of NGB speeds for these locations that remove the "digital divide" is pie in the sky. You need triple the proposed tax to even get close!
Another consideration is the price point - these rural areas and not spots are not generally densely populated areas with levels of income that can sustain a business model. EU funding will be required to support a sustainable business bringing broadband to these areas for what is essentially a charity as they will be hard pressed to make any money from it. Under these circumstances, who will this funding be most useful too? BT! More on their bottom line and a heavy reliance on VM to offer competition for speeds and price.
End of rant
Sephiroth
23-07-2009, 22:29
Another consideration is the price point - these rural areas and not spots are not generally densely populated areas with levels of income that can sustain a business model. EU funding will be required to support a sustainable business bringing broadband to these areas for what is essentially a charity as they will be hard pressed to make any money from it. Under these circumstances, who will this funding be most useful too? BT! More on their bottom line and a heavy reliance on VM to offer competition for speeds and price.
End of rant
Don't laugh but perhaps the guvmin are being really canny.
When Essex and Lincolnshire (to name but 2) go under the North Sea, plus London, in 50 years time, these rural areas will be the new towns. They gotta have broadband or whatever's the standard to be.
Nah!
I've seriously enjoyed reading this thread cheers all
Ignitionnet
24-07-2009, 10:24
Yup the rural areas and "not spots" - areas with slow or no broadband at all are what the Carter Tax is aimed at paying for. The government feels that BT and VM will cover the rest of us.
It's to provide next-generation services to an additional 30% of the UK over the 60% that will likely be covered by market lead deployment. It is in no way to provide universal access, the money for that will come from existing funds including left over cash from the digital switchover.
In addition it is not there in itself to pay for anything but to subsidise commercial deployment, government paying some of the costs then the private company keeps the network. Pretty stupid really.
---------- Post added at 10:24 ---------- Previous post was at 10:08 ----------
It seems very few people (outside the industry) know what happened. Just imagine, we would have been able to have 100Mbit speeds before sweden et al
Typical really of the way this country is run, everything is always done too damn late.
Given the apparently impossible task of converting the T-PON and A-PON networks for broadband delivery instead electing to overlay them with copper who knows what would have happened. BT would still have been left with the task of upgrading OLTs, ONTs, and they would have neglected the duct maintenance that has made an FTTP deployment expensive now.
Even if they had built a PON network chances are that they would be needing to upgrade it to PtP fibre and that would likely have been cheaper than en mass upgrade from A-PON to GE-PON.
Only network that would have been future proof and painlessly upgradeable would have been a PtP network and that was off the radar at that time. B-PON would have been a required and short lived upgrade, then G-PON / GE-PON, then next on the list WDM-PON.
On the upside there would have been no copper network to maintain reducing costs, however with BT able to bury the cable companies before they had gotten going one has to ask what services they would be offering with a total monopoly and where would the incentive have been for BT to upgrade their networks knowing that there was no competition.
Sephiroth
24-07-2009, 10:54
PON Passive Optical Network.
A-PON PON using ATM (Asynchronous Transfer Mode) - the initial PON spec
T-PON PON for telephone/teleconferencing
G-PON Gigabit PON (being trialled by BT for FTTP)
GE-PON Gigabit Ethernet PON (1Gb/s across c. 12 mile span)
WDM-PON Wavelength Division Multiplexing PON (to increase bandwidth use of fibre)
OLT Optical Line Terminal (a central PON node)
ONT Or ONU: Optical Network Unit (a user node)
FTTP or FTTH: Fibre to the premises/home
Broadbandings is absolutely right.
oojimmyflip
24-07-2009, 10:59
don't know but my girlfriend found me some... :erm: :LOL:
and I thought I was boasting.....lol:monkey:
---------- Post added at 10:59 ---------- Previous post was at 10:58 ----------
it always about infrastructure in the UK isnt it.
DigitalShadow
24-07-2009, 15:36
...however with BT able to bury the cable companies before they had gotten going one has to ask what services they would be offering with a total monopoly and where would the incentive have been for BT to upgrade their networks knowing that there was no competition.
Valid point, but there would have had to been some following of trend with other countries or at least trying to show we had the best, not being some old relic of a nation. There is a chance that with the infrastructure in place the government would have pressured BT to keep speeds above the curve so Britain would stay towards the top of international league tables regarding access speeds. As it stands the government is now pushing for them to deploy all the technologies just so we can play catch up.
Ignitionnet
24-07-2009, 15:48
Valid point, but there would have had to been some following of trend with other countries or at least trying to show we had the best, not being some old relic of a nation. There is a chance that with the infrastructure in place the government would have pressured BT to keep speeds above the curve so Britain would stay towards the top of international league tables regarding access speeds. As it stands the government is now pushing for them to deploy all the technologies just so we can play catch up.
The government isn't pushing BT to do anything. BT only started their next generation deployment when they received several regulatory concessions, 3 that immediately come to mind are:
1) No price controls on the FTTN product.
2) No requirement to use the same sub-loop unbundling product that is sold to other operators - it's not possible for any other company to install an MSAN in street furniture on the same basis as Openreach making it impossible for other operators to compete on an infrastructure basis.
3) Allowing Openreach to deploy active infrastructure.
There would probably have been a similar but worse scenario had there not been Virgin Media to push BT along competitively. BT do not care at all about the UK's broadband ranking in the world and the government can't make them care, they care about their shareholders as would be expected of a PLC.
DigitalShadow
24-07-2009, 15:52
Very true point there... It just seems that it would be in the best interest of the government to make the UK look like an attractive place for blue chip and internet dependant workers to want to live considering we have sod all manufacturing anymore, we need something to make our trade balance a little less negative.
Sephiroth
24-07-2009, 16:46
Broadbandings has it right again. Both Virgin & BT want the same thing - profits.
BT does have to watch Virgin's penetration because evry customer taken away is a hot on their bottom line. BT also have to sell capacity at wholesale prices to the myriad of internet providing and unbundled telephony companies.
My guess is that BT will borrow to invest in order to halt the gradual erosion of its hitherto dominant position. Virgin will want to stay step ahead by using the latest technology, but BT is doing that too in its trials.
So IMHO, the UK's broadband fortunes hang on the ability of the two big operators to invest.
Incidentally, unless people are paying for their downloads, going above 20Mb, 50Mb and onwards is not going to be a paying proposition for the infrastructure providers.
oojimmyflip
24-07-2009, 20:23
[QUOTE=Broadbandings;34839336]Careful - that blog post of mine wasn't confirming that either would happen it just stated the possibilities. No plans from BT at this time to go to 60Mbit they just mentioned it as a possibility in the future.[COLOR="Silver"]
I wasn't reading your post but someone elses.
Ignitionnet
24-07-2009, 21:30
I wasn't reading your post but someone elses.
OK Sorry, but no plans confirmed as to how/when BT might do 60Mbit. They inform the technology is 'capable' but gave no timeline at all.
oojimmyflip
24-07-2009, 22:35
iv'e got to stick with V/m anyway afterall it cost me quite a lot of money to have the cable trunking laid a meter below ground in the driveway 120 feet in length after seeing BT efforts at broardband and how it keeps disconnecting when someone in the house picks up the phone to make or take a call I'm glad I made the decision to pay for the trunking in the driveway.
roughbeast
25-07-2009, 10:58
Well this may be an antidote to all our 50mb ramblings. I'm not sure this particular link is completely apt for this forum, though I do get the hots for Broadbandings sometimes. lol
Hitler gets ****ed off at the forum. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEXwuXblvIU)
Ignitionnet
13-01-2010, 20:47
I found this topic by doing a search. Great topic, good to be reminded of it and very much relevant still.
With 5 months gone since this post was made and a 50Mbit price reduction completed, lots more people on 50Mbit, etc, how are people feeling now?
Going past 400mbit download rate to say a gigabit would be useless for me as my drives are 5200 rpm and max out at 30 to 40 MB/s. The only time I would need a gigabit or over would be if I were using my memory as a ram disk and max it out.
As for SSD drives they are too new for me. I'll wait till they mature and become cheaper/bigger and longer lasting.
Increased upload is the way to go. I don't mind paying for an extra tier just for faster upload say an extra £5 on 50mbit for 10mbit upload rate. That would be a fair price.
Any news on when they are rolling out the faster upload rate? Last I heard was mid december and it was all about the trials. Any new news?
Ignitionnet
13-01-2010, 22:01
No, the project is progressing but slowly and with no areas released yet still a single trial area.
philwhite100
15-01-2010, 18:10
I got connected to 50meg today and it is working well so far.
Going to download some files later so i will see what sort of file transfer rate i will be getting.
Download wise, 50Mbit is sufficient for me, any faster is always a bonus
What matters to me is the upload speed, which is rubbish on all VM's product offerings, imo.
If it were 10mb or higher, then that'd be perfect.
Or perhaps i'll just move to Sweden and get 100mb up and down, for less than what I'm paying for 50mb from Virgin, heh.
roughbeast
19-01-2010, 00:05
Not sure what is going on here but for the last few days I have been getting something similar to this reading.
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2010/01/55.png (http://www.speedtest.net)
Should my up speed be of this order? I have not been told that I am on a speed trial.
Ignitionnet
19-01-2010, 08:24
Not sure what is going on here but for the last few days I have been getting something similar to this reading.
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2010/01/55.png (http://www.speedtest.net)
Should my up speed be of this order? I have not been told that I am on a speed trial.
You won't be, and Coventry was as mentioned a while ago the next trial area. Check your modem:
http://192.168.100.1/CmOpConfig.asp
http://192.168.100.1/CmUpstream.asp
and enjoy. :)
EDIT: Remember this post beast? http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/34910080-post4.html
There you are!
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.