BT Infinity VS VM Cable

[-Xt)2eM3-]

Hey guys. I know this has been discussed before but I want a frank and honest opinion / comparison between the two products.

I have come here to ask you guys because you are experts in this field and I look forward to reading your replies.

I currently have VM's 10MB broadband. I have never had any problems with VM. Speed is always 10MB...sometimes in the evening it feels a little slow but then it's fine again. Pings are excellent. I am currently paying £19 per month (No phoneline)... and I am out of contract too.

BT's new Infinity service will allow me to receive 23.8Mb download speed & 9.0Mb upload speed...for £25 (unlimited* ... *http://tiny.cc/JXALt)

Now VM don't want to budge when it comes to there pricing. Even though I have been a loyal customer for many years (broadband only) they would rather let me leave then give me a good price. I don't want to pay more than £25 for there 20MB service... but the only deal they give me is £25 for 6 months then full price after that. That's too expensive...

BT's service is £25 (may be with customer loyalty bonus it may be cheaper).. it is faster than VM's 20MB service and cheaper..


I don't understand BT's traffic management policy. unlike VM who state the times of day..BT just say BT continuously monitors network performance and reduces the speed available to very heavy users (typically less than 1 per cent of all customers) during a given month to ensure that the service received by other customers is not impacted through extremely heavy usage by a minority of people.

Customers who are classified as very heavy users will experience significantly reduced speed at peak times (typically 5pm-midnight every day but these times may change depending on the demand on the network) for a period of 30 days, or for as long as very heavy use continues. This applies to customers on all Options. BT Infinity Option 2 allow unlimited downloads and uploads within the monthly rental price, so customers on these products will not be charged for over-use. However, this does not preclude BT from reducing your speed if you are a heavy user in order to protect the experience for the rest of our customers.

I download a lot of 'stuff' from various 'sources' ... so how will I know when to download 'large' files? With VM I know that after 9PM and up until 10AM I can do what I like... but with BT where do I stand?

I am a heavy downloader ... never upload (but it's nice to have a fast upload just in case... we have 3 PC's and 3 laptops and numerous phones connected via WIFI... people are streaming from youtube and iplayer on a regular basis as well as gaming (PC & PS3) ....

From a performance point of view / bang-for-the-buck ... which is better?
Can the 2 services even be compared?
So if it were up to you..what would you choose and why?
What's the main difference between the 2.. (I have a vague idea but would like to hear from you)
Can BT have a consistent connection in terms of speed like VM?

BT Infinity (23.8Mb download speed & 9.0Mb upload speed) OR
Virgin Media Cable 20MB (20Mb download speed & 768k upload speed)

[dd11]

Don't forget to include the line rental for BT, so it is £36 p.m.
I too don't really understand BT's traffic policy.

[Ignitionnet]

BT will smack you with the naughty stick if you download as heavily as you imply you do.

Stick with VM, they're too stupid to notice who is actually using heavily and appear to just pick names out of a hat to write to over excess usage with no real pattern, rhyme or reasoning behind it.

Alternatively stick with the current service and simply try purchasing the 'stuff' you download, that way you support the nice people who have made it and can get a warm fuzzy feeling inside along with quality original product.

[pip08456]

You'd also be better off having your phone through VM.

[-Xt)2eM3-]

I currently have a Sky Talk contract. I have heard bad things about the VM phone... one of my friends did not have a phone line for over a month while VM tried to 'fix' it.

Hence I was thinking of switching back to BT as they are undercutting Sky at the moment... but I would consider getting a phone line so I can get 20MB VM at a discounted rate.

Has anyone hear not had a good experience with the VM phone line or is it a good service?

===================================

VM phone service is very expensive compared to our Sky Talk plan. The charges for mobile phones & non-geographic number are ridiculous.
Would not dream of changing to VM for my phone unless I want to pay double what I'm paying now.

Example:-

VM XL phone total cost incl. Talk Mobile = £20.45
Sky unlimited (Discounted Mobile rates included) = £16.00

VM mobile phone calling charge = Virgin Mobile, O2, T-Mobile, Orange, Vodafone 11.58p Morning 8.17 Evening
3Mobile 19.74p Morning 14.99p Evening (not sure if connection charge is included?)

Sky mobile phone calling charge = 9.78p (Any network) 5.87p Evening (Any network) + 9p Connection charge

VM 0845 = 10p Connection Fee + 10p per min (Morning and Evening)

Sky 0845 = Local NTS (0845 numbers) -->> 9p Connection Fee + 6p per min (Morning and Evening)

Not to mention the heavily discounted international calling (20 destinations free)... just can't see any value in switching..(may be calling mobiles works out a little cheaper... may be save some money on broadband but my phone bill would be Sky high.

Just wow !

[broadbandking]

Why don't you have a look at 50Mb

[Sephiroth]

Why don't you have a look at 50Mb

I was going to suggest that but stopped when I remembered BBings' description of the stunted upstream capacity on 50 megs.

[Kymmy]

I don;t think you can currently truely compare. Although BT has the better upload I think this is why VM are running thier upload trials. Give it a year and I think you'll find that VM will trump BT

[dd11]

Give it a year and I think you'll find that VM will trump BT

:shocked: I hope something happens sooner :(

[xxxxxx]

I don;t think you can currently truely compare. Although BT has the better upload I think this is why VM are running thier upload trials. Give it a year and I think you'll find that VM will trump BT

If it does take a year for Virgin to get up to standards of a decent upload, then that's pretty pathetic if you ask me.

[Callumpy]

I was looking at BT infinity a couple of weeks ago, i like the idea of 10meg upload, but i cant get it anyways :(

[Kymmy]

If it does take a year for Virgin to get up to standards of a decent upload, then that's pretty pathetic if you ask me.

Why pathetic??

So you're suggesting that the roll out a higher speed sooner without full testing and the probably needed updates to cope with the roll-out??

:rolleyes:

[Peter_]

If it does take a year for Virgin to get up to standards of a decent upload, then that's pretty pathetic if you ask me.
So you would rather have an untested service now, I think that it is better to wait otherwise the will be multiple threads and posts full of complaints across all broadband forums.

You want a stable upload rather than an untested beta one.

[broadbandking]

I am looking forward to see the ISP war flare up and see the price come down and speeds get better, I am willing to wait for a decent upload, really can wait tho

[Sirius]

If it does take a year for Virgin to get up to standards of a decent upload, then that's pretty pathetic if you ask me.Come on then tell us why and how much you know about VM's network that allows you to make that statement.

I will give you a clue as to what you need to tell us, To be able to make that statement you will have to tell us where the capacity issues are. What equipment they will need to install in the headends and hubsites, How about core issues with the additional strain on that due to all the torrents running 24/7. Will all the modems be capable of increased upload. What about additional costs of traffic on the external routes. Man power to install the additional cpe and to test it.

So go on tell us ?

[oliver1948uk]

I have had NTL/VM phone for 10+ years. Absolutely no problems whatsoever.

These days, I only use it for incoming calls (and calling VM for nothing). Have a Tesco internet phone connected to router (so PC can be off). Various packages available including mobile and international. I pay £2.97 a month for unlimited national calls (01 02 03) and only 2p per minute to family in Australia.

Tesco internet phone is expensive to set up but well worth it.

[Ignitionnet]

TLDR: Virgin ignored the network, rolled out 50M as a cheap rush job and it's coming back to haunt them as they realise how much needs to be done to catch up to BT on upload.

Come on then tell us why and how much you know about VM's network that allows you to make that statement.

I will give you a clue as to what you need to tell us, To be able to make that statement you will have to tell us where the capacity issues are. What equipment they will need to install in the headends and hubsites, How about core issues with the additional strain on that due to all the torrents running 24/7. Will all the modems be capable of increased upload. What about additional costs of traffic on the external routes. Man power to install the additional cpe and to test it.

So go on tell us ?

*Puts hand up*

you will have to tell us where the capacity issues are

Local level, VM are presently splitting 4 x 9Mbps upstreams between 200Mbps of downstream on the DOCSIS 3 network.

What equipment they will need to install in the headends and hubsites

None, BSRs, 10k's and 7246VXRs with MC28 cards are all DOCSIS 2 / ATDMA upstream capable. Some work which is vaguely related but more business as usual has been done in headends already. (http://www.technetix.com/news.asp?pageID=5&RefID=23)

How about core issues with the additional strain on that due to all the torrents running 24/7.

Won't be any, even with the additional upstream loading the network will still be asymmetrically biased downstream.

Will all the modems be capable of increased upload.

Doesn't matter - DOCSIS 2 is backwards compatible just at reduced bit rate. Any modem from the ntl 200 onwards along with the Moto Surfboard 5100 and the SA Webstar 2100 is capable anyways.

What about additional costs of traffic on the external routes.

Won't be any, network will remain downstream asymmetrical and VM are charged based on the highest utilised direction, 95th percentile.

Man power to install the additional cpe and to test it.

No additional CPE required. Code upgrade has already been deployed to the non-DOCSIS 2 compatible STBs to resolve a bug in them relating to crashes when locking to DOCSIS 2 channels.

The work is on the access network, VM never bothered to do any upgrade work on it when they rolled out DOCSIS 3 they only did a noise sweep which is why there's only space for one upstream channel in some areas and that had to be nicked from the legacy network.

Some areas will need a ton of work. Possible full amplifier replacements, if they're lucky just diplex replacements, probably some optical upgrades as the return path lasers couldn't handle the higher power of ATDMA signals, etc.

So for those, especially in ex-Telewest areas as they were by a mile the slackest and worst for access upgrades with ntl looking like the epitomy of diligence next to their bodges and sticky tape solutions, look out for VM engineers doing lots of work on cabinets and potentially cards coming through the door informing of service disrupting work. In some cases it really will take that much.

This can't be done fast, but it should be being done right now. Instead there seems to be some sitting on hands and the budget has already been reduced. Presumably seeing how little they can spend on the network without harming business. Bad idea.

[-Xt)2eM3-]

Good points (Regarding the last few posts) ... just a little off topic from what you guys are discussing...

Can anyone in plain English translate BT's traffic management policy?
E.g. Don't excessively use the connection between 9am - 9pm etc? (Like VM)

Because, as it stands it just says to me "pay £25 for a high speed internet connection, but you can't download a lot of 'stuff' (which is one of the reasons you opted to pay for an unlimited fast connection) during any time period otherwise for 30days we will constantly cap you.

:mad:

[Ignitionnet]

Some people want to download things quickly, watch streaming media, catch up on TV, etc, but pay for their movies and games so don't need more than 100GB. They're the ones who will pay for it and be happy.

[-Xt)2eM3-]

Some people want to download things quickly, watch streaming media, catch up on TV, etc, but pay for their movies and games so don't need more than 100GB. They're the ones who will pay for it and be happy.

When I say 'stuff' I mean updates, Linux distros, games via Steam etc.

I do pay for things. But BT don't have a fair 'fair usage policy'.

Shouldn't they specify time frames? Otherwise how would one know when to download and not to download? Surely it would make it easier for both parties if they knew where they stand (like VM).

I hate that VM have a traffic policy (not 50MB) but at least they are fair and say you can't do this at this time which I respect.

BT on the other hand are thieves. At this rate no one will switch to them.

[Ignitionnet]

Their 5 million customers say otherwise.

[Peter_]

I thought this link was quite apt about the rivalry between Virginmedia and BT Infinity. (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2851682/Virgins-cheeky-jibe-at-rivals-BT.html)

[Ignitionnet]

I have to say that doesn't come across as funny it just comes across as pathetic, tacky and immature.

Most people who think that's amusing will be Sun readers who can't afford 50M and/or want it to leech crap from newsgroups to sell at the car boot anyway.

Seriously, grow up and get your own house in order rather than wasting money painting models' arses, the biggest arse in that picture is the VM PR crew who thought this would be funny. :rolleyes:

[Peter_]

Maybe not funny considering that its the **** really and overly tacky to say the least.

[Ignitionnet]

Maybe not funny considering that its the **** really and overly tacky to say the least.

Name change to Chav Media coming soon.

Wouldn't be so bad apart from that VM are doing sweet FA to catch up with BT on the upstream side of things apart from trialling in a couple of small areas, as announced nearly 6 months ago.

[m419]

BT infinity vs Virgin Media?

Hmmmm thats an easy one, Virgin Media of course!

BT Infinity, covers no where, Virgin 50MB covers a wider area just now.

BT will set usage limits,download restrictions and loads more, you should be used to it by now. Virgin Media will increase there speed to up to 200MB now that BT infinity is on the move. BT won't catch up in time.

Virgin Media are all set for it,BT is splashing out on virtually a network and someones got to pay for that,now I wonder who's going to do that??? I know the customers using it!!!

[Ignitionnet]

Virgin Media are all set for it? The amount of congestion reports on the network at the moment, along with that higher upstreams are still in trial phase in a whole two production areas some 6 months after commencement of project says very much otherwise!

Of course customers will pay for the upgrades to the BT network, you think VM just magic capacity up though? They spent a fair amount, though not nearly as much as they should have, on 50Mbps and whatever they might claim aren't even close to ready for 200Mbit as a product. Have you noticed the routers that Virgin are giving out? Yes they have a 100Mbit WAN port, which wouldn't be enough for a 100Mbit service. This shows how close Virgin think 100Mbit is.

So who's going to pay for the network rebuilds, line cards, resegmentation, etc, needed for Virgin to deploy this extra capacity anyway??? I know, the customers using it!!!ONEONEONE (see what I did there? :) )

Anyway that's off topic for this thread given that the poster knows he has both available. I'd stay on the Virgin side as well... until Sky have their 40/10 product ready then I'd drop them like a hot potato.

[Callumpy]

I cant get BT or VM, so they both fail :) But if i could, BT because they have better uploads

[pip08456]

I have to say that doesn't come across as funny it just comes across as pathetic, tacky and immature.

Most people who think that's amusing will be Sun readers who can't afford 50M and/or want it to leech crap from newsgroups to sell at the car boot anyway.

Seriously, grow up and get your own house in order rather than wasting money painting models' arses, the biggest arse in that picture is the VM PR crew who thought this would be funny. :rolleyes:

Sorry BBs but I thought the press release was funny esecially this bit

Executive director of broadband at Virgin Media Jon James said: "This cheeky stunt was simply a humorous way to get across a serious message — that customers should demand what they are being promised from their internet providers."


:D:D:D:D

[Welshchris]

I have to say that doesn't come across as funny it just comes across as pathetic, tacky and immature.

Most people who think that's amusing will be Sun readers who can't afford 50M and/or want it to leech crap from newsgroups to sell at the car boot anyway.

Seriously, grow up and get your own house in order rather than wasting money painting models' arses, the biggest arse in that picture is the VM PR crew who thought this would be funny. :rolleyes:

at last we agree on something lol

[Sephiroth]

I thought this link was quite apt about the rivalry between Virginmedia and BT Infinity. (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2851682/Virgins-cheeky-jibe-at-rivals-BT.html)

The VM forum bleeps out the word "Arse"!

[Sephiroth]

The VM forum bleeps out the word "Arse"!

So I posted the story of the SUN report and the word "Arse" on the VM forum (General Broadband Discussion).

The Mods moved it to the "Forum Suggestions" zone and erased my comment that VM were being hypocritical in banning the word ARSE in the forum but using the word so brashly on the arses of those girls.

What a shameful bunch of hypocrites and freedom of speech spoilers.

[Ignitionnet]

Executive director of broadband at Virgin Media Jon James said: "This cheeky stunt was simply a humorous way to get across a serious message — that customers should demand what they are being promised from their internet providers."


:D:D:D:D

That was the biggest bit of comedy in the whole thing :)

[Welshchris]

im almost certain VM want to loose some customers to BT as this way they will save money having to upgrade the network as the loss of custom may help balance out the areas which are oversubscribed.

[pip08456]

So I posted the story of the SUN report and the word "Arse" on the VM forum (General Broadband Discussion).

The Mods moved it to the "Forum Suggestions" zone and erased my comment that VM were being hypocritical in banning the word ARSE in the forum but using the word so brashly on the arses of those girls.

What a shameful bunch of hypocrites and freedom of speech spoilers.

Got to agree with you Seph. Just read it and posted.

[Sephiroth]

Got to agree with you Seph. Just read it and posted.
So, I openly challenged the Mod and he reinstated the sentence suggesting that VM were being hypocritical but bleeped out the worde "A*SE" (sic).

Anyway, VM are sensitive about BT Infinity - hypocrites or not.

[pip08456]

Got to agree with you Seph. Just read it and posted.

I meant on the VM forum.:p::p::p::p:

[Sephiroth]

I meant on the VM forum.:p::p::p::p:

I know (and thanks). I was just keeping CF informed!:angel:

[AdamD]

I have to say that doesn't come across as funny it just comes across as pathetic, tacky and immature.

Most people who think that's amusing will be Sun readers who can't afford 50M and/or want it to leech crap from newsgroups to sell at the car boot anyway.

Seriously, grow up and get your own house in order rather than wasting money painting models' arses, the biggest arse in that picture is the VM PR crew who thought this would be funny. :rolleyes:

Lol I agree
VM tries to be a "modern" company, but fails rather miserably in my opinion.
The painted rear ends of some models to mock a rival company doesn't surprise me in the slightest
It's funny that you don't see BT doing the same, because BT knows how to be professional.
And VM has no room to mock another company, given their bandwidth throttling and limited upload speeds.

[Ignitionnet]

I know (and thanks). I was just keeping CF informed!:angel:

I have pointed The Register to these particular stories, they being quite amusing, along with some notes on the widespread, and I can say that quite openly which is a shame, widespread congestion problems on VM's shiny new network.

I was in communication with The Register in 2008 expressing my concern about what was going on, how the overlay was being built, etc, and the potential for upstream congestion if proactive works weren't undertaken.

They weren't. A few instances of this goes into the 'excrement happens' folder but the amount of reports along with the disgusting practise of trying to avoid resegmentation by threatening customers in congested areas gets on my nerves.

[Sephiroth]

I have pointed The Register to these particular stories, they being quite amusing, along with some notes on the widespread, and I can say that quite openly which is a shame, widespread congestion problems on VM's shiny new network.

I was in communication with The Register in 2008 expressing my concern about what was going on, how the overlay was being built, etc, and the potential for upstream congestion if proactive works weren't undertaken.

They weren't. A few instances of this goes into the 'excrement happens' folder but the amount of reports along with the disgusting practise of trying to avoid resegmentation by threatening customers in congested areas gets on my nerves.

Well said. I enjoyed my stand up (fight or comedy?) with the VM mods though.

All that said, the Arse thing doesn't get me excited. :hyper: If VM had substance to their claims and remarks, the SUN would be the right place to do it that way.

As it stands, Executive director of broadband at Virgin Media Jon James, must rank with quality director Peter Evans as being flagships for failure.

[pip08456]

That was the biggest bit of comedy in the whole thing :)

I've got another one for you BBs.

Just received my price change guide and I'm sure you'll appreciate this little excerpt.

"Virgin Media fibre optic broadband is in a different league to ADSL broadband suppliers. We've invested heavily in our fibre optic network to bring you a broadband service we are truly proud of. Our security, back-up & storage and photo services are market leading.

And when we say we're fast, we mean it. And we can prove it."

[Spectato]

Just from the perspective of having to deal with British Telecom, I'd say steer well clear of them.

I made the mistake of ordering BT broadband when I moved into a rented property, assuming that the landlord wouldn't let me have cable installed (he would and did - if only I'd checked first).
First I had to wait for weeks to get the phone line released from the previous occupant, then they tell me that I'll get about 512k (down) if I'm lucky, and after cancelling the installation they continued to charge me for an 'Internet Phone' service which I never had and couldn't possibly have used.
I thought the nightmare with their absurd customer services would never end, until fortunately, my twelve month contract expired and I cancelled my service, with them still not having returned the money they stole from me (circa £100).

I'd stay with Virgin if I were you.
They're pretty crap, but notably less surreal than British Telecom.
Never has the expression: "Better the devil you know" been more pertinent.

[Ignitionnet]

It should be remembered though that there will be bad experiences with Virgin Media as well. Can't simply recommend that people steer clear of a company due to a single bad personal experience, obviously the majority are reasonably happy and the bad experiences aren't the norm.

[Sirius]

Well as long as VM continue to give me the speeds they say i should get i am happy. Upload speed is not a issue with me as i don't torrent and never will. Even at full wack on the newsgroups i can still continue to surf. As for BT well as some on here know i had 3 months of hell from that company and would never allow there so called engineers to cross my door ever again.

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2010/02/15.png

[Ignitionnet]

You should still see those good browsing speeds while leeching the newsgroups for the foreseeable future given that you won't be able to get 50Mbit on them at very least during peak times for too much longer ;)

Some people do, of course, use their connections differently, everyone's mileage varies.

I'm ok whatever Virgin do, I have a backup connection and am finding less and less need for 50M.

[mj62mj62]

I'm on BT and having loads of hassle at the moment.

My speeds have dropped to 0.5Mbps... Each time BT tries something to fix it, I have to leave it connected for 72 hours and measure the difference. Are we living in the dark ages or something??? 72 hours???


It's very sad that we only have two choices:
BT (regardless of who re-sells it) and Virgin.

I should not have to spend my evenings messing about trying things to get it working.

Is Virgin better for this sort of thing?

BT is trying to blame something in my house (but nothing has changed and they keep banding/restricting my line, preventing me from experimenting with different appliances turned off, etc).


Not sure if I should upgrade with BT from adsl to Fibre (infinity) or switch to VM...

Two devils??? lesser of two evils???

[ruddock08]

When I can get BT Infinity - i will be going on. BT phone is a lot better than Virgin, free 0845/0870 calls - cheaper mobile calls, broadband will be top notch and BT Vision is the t**s! :)

[pip08456]

When I can get BT Infinity - i will be going on. broadband will be top notch and BT Vision is the t**s! :)

Yeh Right :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

[jb66]

Bt vision it pants

[Toto]

I'll say this, if BT Infinity turns out to be bellow par, and doesn't look like it will deliver on its expectations, especially over the next few years, it will impact on Cable improvement significantly.

Why should the cable industry invest in faster speed infrastructures when they are expensive, and are not required to keep the competition at bay?

So far its one of the only reasons why VM are improving their cable offering, but if the competition weren't there, or are proving to be little in the way of competition, don't expect improvement in speed to continue past 100Mb/s.

[SideWeaver]

To be honest I look at the technology side. Cable Vs Standard Copper cable. To me cable wins over copper. More stable and at least you know when it works you get the proper speed. That is me at least.

[mj62mj62]

I agree. Each time you have an adsl problem you have to wait 72 hours until you can be certain if a given change has or has not worked.

Perhaps someday the cable market will also open up to smaller ISPs the same way that adsl did? That would be nice. I'd rather be able to switch to good ISPs that treat you really well (Zen, Idnet, etc.)

[pip08456]

To be honest I look at the technology side. Cable Vs Standard Copper cable. To me cable wins over copper. More stable and at least you know when it works you get the proper speed. That is me at least.

Not really a valid argument as BT Infinity will be FTTC, exactly the same as VM.

[jb66]

Not really a valid argument as BT Infinity will be FTTC, exactly the same as VM.

Bt will still use the copper cable vs coax cable from the cab, so virgin will always have edge until something changes again

[Ignitionnet]

Depends (http://www.alcatel-lucent.com/wps/portal/!ut/p/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLd4x3tXDUL8h2VAQAUR h_Yw!!?LMSG_CABINET=Docs_and_Resource_Ctr&LMSG_CONTENT_FILE=News_Releases_2010/News_Article_002043.xml).

DSL is unicast while cable is broadcast. Whatever the capacity of the technology it's about what customers see as their experience.

[abigail]

I used to be with BT (not Infinity) and their service was hopeless, went to Talk talk for three years and then transferred to VM cable service 2 months ago for a faster service. VM has been good but deteriorated over past 2 weeks . This weekend I had no service at all in peak hours...rang their Customer Service as one does lol. Overseas call centre who after normal inane questions said 'there is a problem in your area' but couldn't tell me what the problem was or when it would be fixed. My niece lives 5 mins drive from me...no probs with her connection but tv reception has been daggy all week. So...would I recommend VM over BT? As far as I can see, they are all as bad as one and other. Once you have signed up with them, you may as well sing for information when you have a problem.

[SideWeaver]

Not really a valid argument as BT Infinity will be FTTC, exactly the same as VM.

Ok I was slightly out there with what I said, however VM have been doing Cable a lot longer than BT on a residential scale. So they are going to have a lot of work to do.

[Chrysalis]

Bt infinity in itself is a poor product (in my view). Low usage limits and traffic shaping.

The advantage it has is higher upload speed. People using infinity have even started to report congestion issues now.

However FTTC the technology should see better competition for VM as a whole especially when the best isps take it up. AAISP probably the only decent one at the moment but they are not mass market.

[SideWeaver]

Bt infinity in itself is a poor product (in my view). Low usage limits and traffic shaping.

The advantage it has is higher upload speed. People using infinity have even started to report congestion issues now.

However FTTC the technology should see better competition for VM as a whole especially when the best isps take it up. AAISP probably the only decent one at the moment but they are not mass market.

If BT were brave enough to invest in FTTH like houses in the US gets then I may consider them in the future. However I think I am going to stay with VM. It might not be Fibre coming down my garden, however the fact that I do not have to worry that the connection is gonna destabilize is enough for me.

Like I said, moving away from a BT line to underground cable was the best move I made personally.

[Ignitionnet]

Bt infinity in itself is a poor product (in my view). Low usage limits and traffic shaping.

The advantage it has is higher upload speed. People using infinity have even started to report congestion issues now.

However FTTC the technology should see better competition for VM as a whole especially when the best isps take it up. AAISP probably the only decent one at the moment but they are not mass market.

300GB/month is a low usage limit?

Where did you see the congestion issues, would be good to know? I know that I've seen a VDSL line performing badly however this was an AAISP line.

Wouldn't surprise though if there were some performance issues here and there, it's still the same BT Wholesale network and as speeds rise so will variances between peak and off-peak speeds, nature of the beast.

---------- Post added at 13:06 ---------- Previous post was at 13:04 ----------

If BT were brave enough to invest in FTTH like houses in the US gets then I may consider them in the future.

It's not about bravery. Verizon got to keep their network all to themselves and remove the copper line altogether when they installed fibre to homes, BT can do neither.

[SideWeaver]

300GB/month is a low usage limit?

Where did you see the congestion issues, would be good to know? I know that I've seen a VDSL line performing badly however this was an AAISP line.

Wouldn't surprise though if there were some performance issues here and there, it's still the same BT Wholesale network and as speeds rise so will variances between peak and off-peak speeds, nature of the beast.

---------- Post added at 13:06 ---------- Previous post was at 13:04 ----------



It's not about bravery. Verizon got to keep their network all to themselves and remove the copper line altogether when they installed fibre to homes, BT can do neither.

Well then that just shows BT were not opportune enough, they could have worked with what was then telewest back when they were rolling it out. I was still in school in them days so I may not know the full details, however it could have worked out for them.

I wish BT the best of luck, I really do. However I just cannot see BT catching up to what VM offer at the moment in terms of speed in the very near future.

[Ignitionnet]

Well then that just shows BT were not opportune enough, they could have worked with what was then telewest back when they were rolling it out. I was still in school in them days so I may not know the full details, however it could have worked out for them.

I wish BT the best of luck, I really do. However I just cannot see BT catching up to what VM offer at the moment in terms of speed in the very near future.

No they couldn't have worked with Telewest / ntl at that time. BT were specifically prevented from offering TV to ensure that Telewest / ntl and the other cable companies could get a foothold, and they have never been able to replace copper with fibre one for one.

So really it shows precisely nothing. BT did offer to deploy fibre to homes in return for a broadcast license and were told by the government of the time to go forth and multiply.

BT will be releasing 60/15 FTTC at some point in the not too distant future - faster than VM offer. In addition 25% of their next generation deployment is on paper to be a fibre to home build capable of faster than anything VM offer and presently in testing at 100/20.

BT consciously chose not to compete with Virgin on speed.

[pip08456]

That is the story of BT from privatisation, hamstrung by successive governments. They were involved in the R&D of fibre optics before Telewest/NTL were even heard of and could easily have been the industry leader in this country but for being held back.

By all means have competition but not at the expense of stifling innovation by hog tying the leader in the field.

It also happened with mobile phones.

"1978 AT&T and the British Post Office announce 10 year plans to develop transatlantic fibre
cable; it is successfully launched in 1988."

"The early development of the fibre-optics
industry owed much to BT, which pioneered the development of
modern “singlemode” fibre optics in the 1970s, and R&D support
programmes from the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) nurtured
the industry’s growth."

source

http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/corporate/migratedd/publications/f/file26390.pdf

Just found this

"Early 1967: British Post Office allocates an extra 12 million pounds to research; some goes to fiber optics."
a pity it doesn't state how much to fibre but a huge sum for the time. (from the spelling you can see it is a US document).

"August 1968: Dick Dyott of British Post Office picks up suggestion for pulling clad optical fibers from molten glass in a double crucible."

"1981: British Telecom transmits 140 million bits per second through 49 kilometers of single-mode fiber at 1.3 micrometers, starts shifting to single-mode."

"1982: British Telecom performs field trial of single-mode fiber, changes plans abandoning graded-index in favor of single-mode."

"1984: British Telecom lays first submarine fiber to carry regular traffic, to the Isle of Wight."


For those who don't know. The British Post Office (G.P.O.) was in the days before BT.

Kind of lays to rest the argument of who knows more about fibre optics. VM or BT although they do both use different technologies as Igni has stated.

If you want the full chronology of fibre read here

http://www.sff.net/people/Jeff.Hecht/chron.html

[SideWeaver]

That is the story of BT from privatisation, hamstrung by successive governments. They were involved in the R&D of fibre optics before Telewest/NTL were even heard of and could easily have been the industry leader in this country but for being held back.

By all means have competition but not at the expense of stifling innovation by hog tying the leader in the field.

It also happened with mobile phones.

"1978 AT&T and the British Post Office announce 10 year plans to develop transatlantic fibre
cable; it is successfully launched in 1988."

"The early development of the fibre-optics
industry owed much to BT, which pioneered the development of
modern “singlemode” fibre optics in the 1970s, and R&D support
programmes from the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) nurtured
the industry’s growth."

source

http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/corporate/migratedd/publications/f/file26390.pdf

Just found this

"Early 1967: British Post Office allocates an extra 12 million pounds to research; some goes to fiber optics."
a pity it doesn't state how much to fibre but a huge sum for the time. (from the spelling you can see it is a US document).

"August 1968: Dick Dyott of British Post Office picks up suggestion for pulling clad optical fibers from molten glass in a double crucible."

"1981: British Telecom transmits 140 million bits per second through 49 kilometers of single-mode fiber at 1.3 micrometers, starts shifting to single-mode."

"1982: British Telecom performs field trial of single-mode fiber, changes plans abandoning graded-index in favor of single-mode."

"1984: British Telecom lays first submarine fiber to carry regular traffic, to the Isle of Wight."


For those who don't know. The British Post Office (G.P.O.) was in the days before BT.

Kind of lays to rest the argument of who knows more about fibre optics. VM or BT although they do both use different technologies as Igni has stated.

If you want the full chronology of fibre read here

http://www.sff.net/people/Jeff.Hecht/chron.html

Makes for pretty interesting reading and it lays out a big picture about it. It is just a shame that Telewest/NTL at the time to take advantage of what they were doing in advance of today. However at least now they are getting into it. Hopefully it will set off and work out for them.

---------- Post added at 00:43 ---------- Previous post was at 00:40 ----------



BT will be releasing 60/15 FTTC at some point in the not too distant future - faster than VM offer. In addition 25% of their next generation deployment is on paper to be a fibre to home build capable of faster than anything VM offer and presently in testing at 100/20.

Where did you source this information from?

[virginruinedntl]

i wonder if all new houses built have fibre laid as a legal requirement? All houses must have electricity, water, gas i believe, i wonder if the same applies to fibre being laid.

[jb66]

i wonder if all new houses built have fibre laid as a legal requirement? All houses must have electricity, water, gas i believe, i wonder if the same applies to fibre being laid.

No, Fibre would only go to the street cabinet

[Peter_]

i wonder if all new houses built have fibre laid as a legal requirement? All houses must have electricity, water, gas i believe, i wonder if the same applies to fibre being laid.
No one in this country lays fibre to the door all they use is a very heavily shielded coax from the cabinet as fibre to the property would be horrendously expensive.

[virginruinedntl]

seems as though 100m is around £104 here: http://www.cableuniverse.co.uk/lindy-100m-fibre-optic-cable-sc-to-sc-50/125um-om2.html

not that expensive as you wouldn't need a plastic pipe or to dig up the road, you'd put it in the plastic pipe that the phone line goes in and the road would already be dug up. Would be a very cheap way of getting fibre to the door by requiring all new homes to include it. Belgium has this requirement.

[Ignitionnet]

No one in this country lays fibre to the door all they use is a very heavily shielded coax from the cabinet as fibre to the property would be horrendously expensive.

http://www.fibrecity.eu/
http://www.velocity1.co.uk/residential/wembley/

There are others too, those were just the first two that came to mind. VM themselves are also trialling fibre to homes. It's actually cheaper than HFC now as it requires no active network equipment until it reaches homes so no power supplies or amplifiers.

BT are also to stop laying copper to new homes and lay fibre instead.

[virginruinedntl]

do you have any links about virgin trialing fibre to home and bt to lay fibre instead of copper?

[Ignitionnet]

Yes to BT - just Google BT Greenfield Fibre

Yes to Virgin - Google Virgin Media Woolhampton - this is delivered over fibre to the home, see this (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/23/virgin_media_subsidies/).

[Chrysalis]

No they couldn't have worked with Telewest / ntl at that time. BT were specifically prevented from offering TV to ensure that Telewest / ntl and the other cable companies could get a foothold, and they have never been able to replace copper with fibre one for one.

So really it shows precisely nothing. BT did offer to deploy fibre to homes in return for a broadcast license and were told by the government of the time to go forth and multiply.

BT will be releasing 60/15 FTTC at some point in the not too distant future - faster than VM offer. In addition 25% of their next generation deployment is on paper to be a fibre to home build capable of faster than anything VM offer and presently in testing at 100/20.

BT consciously chose not to compete with Virgin on speed.

That isnt good tho is it when compared to other country rollout's why isnt FTTP a full duplex product? eg. 20/20 or 100/100.

I agree the congestion issues I have seen reported may be BTw and not BTr related but they do exist, for a product only just launched that to me is worrying. is this 300gig limit you said without penalty? ie. same shaping applied on 290 usage as 1 gig usage?

VM and BT both have their own problems but I see BT's rollout on this product is primed at affluent areas and also avoiding certian areas where is high concentration of businesses vs residental users.

[Ignitionnet]

The FTTP isn't symmetrical as there is some inherent asymmetry in the method of deployment and there is not enough demand from operators for it. Openreach release what their customers ask for.

The 300GB is without penalty, same shaping profiles throughout up until that 300GB.

The rollout is most certainly not confined to affluent areas. A number of the first exchanges are total excrement-holes. The guys who built the cabinets probably needed armed guards and certainly never travelled alone.

[Boabyboy]

The FTTP isn't symmetrical as there is some inherent asymmetry in the method of deployment and there is not enough demand from operators for it. Openreach release what their customers ask for.

The 300GB is without penalty, same shaping profiles throughout up until that 300GB.

The rollout is most certainly not confined to affluent areas. A number of the first exchanges are total excrement-holes. The guys who built the cabinets probably needed armed guards and certainly never travelled alone.

So, which exchanges are excrement holes?

[Chrysalis]

The FTTP isn't symmetrical as there is some inherent asymmetry in the method of deployment and there is not enough demand from operators for it. Openreach release what their customers ask for.

The 300GB is without penalty, same shaping profiles throughout up until that 300GB.

The rollout is most certainly not confined to affluent areas. A number of the first exchanges are total excrement-holes. The guys who built the cabinets probably needed armed guards and certainly never travelled alone.

I didnt say every exchange was but there is a pattern, did you read what that guy in scotland had researched on the deployment, he had noticed that the exchanges picked were all low populated but all had one thing in common, affluency.

I then noticed the same pattern in my immediate error. Since some inner cities tend to be ghettos it also may go some way into explaining why some inner cities have been skipped.

The theory about them skipping areas which are primarily business customers I have not researched but I think it probably does mean something, as its a product they dont want to be selling to business customers who would otherwise be taking more lucrative products.

[Ignitionnet]

I didnt say every exchange was but there is a pattern, did you read what that guy in scotland had researched on the deployment, he had noticed that the exchanges picked were all low populated but all had one thing in common, affluency.

Woolwich, Thamesmead, Enfield? Are you joking?

Having lived in Woolwich and noting that the only 'affluent' part of it isn't enabled for FTTC I can quite confidently assure you this is not the case.

Regarding 'low populated' Woolwich and Basingstoke are two of the most heavily populated exchanges in the country.

Serves (approx): 34,079 residential premises
1,123 non-residential premises.

Serves (approx): 39,990 residential premises
2,082 non-residential premises.

If affluence is the measure I must be missing the prioritising of the super-rich areas of Central London.

There will, of course, be some element of where will give the best commercial return however the trials were done to assess costs, and the commercial rollout is now spreading from those trial areas. It will inevitably cover a number of more populated areas because there are more potential customers there, likewise it'll concentrate on areas of high broadband penetration because that's what BT's customers want from the rollout and that's who Openreach are beholden to, their customers.

[jb66]

Main Entry: af·flu·ence
Pronunciation: \ˈa-(ˌ)flü-ən(t)s also a-ˈflü- or ə-\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 a : an abundant flow or supply : profusion b : abundance of property : wealth
2 : a flowing to or toward a point : influx

Learned something new today

[Ignitionnet]

If you want to learn something else as well 'affluency' isn't a word, it's 'affluence' - an area has 'affluence' if the people within it are 'affluent'.

I'm not a grammatical Nazi just thought I'd mention it given your post ;)

[Sephiroth]

......

I'm not a grammatical Nazi just thought I'd mention it given your post ;)


You are now. LOL.

[Chrysalis]

Woolwich, Thamesmead, Enfield? Are you joking?

Having lived in Woolwich and noting that the only 'affluent' part of it isn't enabled for FTTC I can quite confidently assure you this is not the case.

Regarding 'low populated' Woolwich and Basingstoke are two of the most heavily populated exchanges in the country.

Serves (approx): 34,079 residential premises
1,123 non-residential premises.

Serves (approx): 39,990 residential premises
2,082 non-residential premises.

If affluence is the measure I must be missing the prioritising of the super-rich areas of Central London.

There will, of course, be some element of where will give the best commercial return however the trials were done to assess costs, and the commercial rollout is now spreading from those trial areas. It will inevitably cover a number of more populated areas because there are more potential customers there, likewise it'll concentrate on areas of high broadband penetration because that's what BT's customers want from the rollout and that's who Openreach are beholden to, their customers.

what about the exchanges with sub 5k that have been enabled? in the middle of nowhere in terms of infrastructure but do have well of residents?

How do you know what BT's customers want?

if you right it also lacks some logic, I would rollout where I had low penetration for maximum growth potential.

---------- Post added at 04:55 ---------- Previous post was at 04:54 ----------

You are now. LOL.

:)

[Ignitionnet]

what about the exchanges with sub 5k that have been enabled? in the middle of nowhere in terms of infrastructure but do have well of residents?

Trials are trials, covering a variety of demographics is required. The other issue is that areas of high service takeup are likely to be more commercially viable. Deploying to hell holes where no-one can afford broadband as they are spending the money on heroin doesn't really pay the bills.

There are also political issues - note Ed Vaizey's constituency being early in the deployment for example.

As an aside how do you know they are in the middle of nowhere in terms of infrastructure? Is it not quite possible that they have high takeup of BT Wholesale services, are fibre rich, and have terrain and clustering of population that makes them very viable for FTTC?

Then there's other things - Kingston is a BT Wholesale IP POP, there are 20CN and 21CN supercore nodes there, yet it's not having delivery of FTTC expedited. Why? Because what BT Wholesale have is not relevant to those deploying FTTC, BT Openreach.

How do you know what BT's customers want?

I read the minutes of the meetings between Openreach and their customers, BT Wholesale and the OLOs.

if you right it also lacks some logic, I would rollout where I had low penetration for maximum growth potential.

The market is virtually saturated, pretty much everyone who wants the services has them or has a pressing reason why they can't have them. It makes absolutely no sense to deploy a new infrastructure, which will cost more to end subscribers, and expect people who previously had no interest in paying for broadband services to suddenly decide they want it because a more expensive service has gone live.

I won't pretend to fully understand the methodology but I'm quite sure you are oversimplifying. If it were about who has money this Borough, one of the most affluent areas in the UK and with a cable network that's pretty dilapidated, wouldn't be in mid-table obscurity in phase 5b.

I think you're making a mistake that a lot of people make with BT, that they have an interest in competing with cable in terms of speeds. They don't have any interest in this at all, they are doing what they must and nothing more :)

[Sephiroth]

I agree with Igni. Here in Winnersh, BT have put in as many FTTC cabinets as VM have optical nodes. Unless BT deliberately want high contention, there isn't sufficient capacity to both get ADSL customers off their slow speeds (we're some way from the exchange) and take on an already well served bunch of VM customers.

But on the other side of the coin, BT Infinity incursion should keep VM on its toes and I think we're seeing this.

[Toto]

I agree with Igni. Here in Winnersh, BT have put in as many FTTC cabinets as VM have optical nodes. Unless BT deliberately want high contention, there isn't sufficient capacity to both get ADSL customers off their slow speeds (we're some way from the exchange) and take on an already well served bunch of VM customers.

But on the other side of the coin, BT Infinity incursion should keep VM on its toes and I think we're seeing this.

Yes, exactly, which should give us customers some considerable choice when those networks compete for customers.

For me its not really price, its quality of service, it may be some time if at all before I consider a move to BT infinity, and whilst I wait I expect VM to get faster and more competitive.

[Ignitionnet]

I agree with Igni. Here in Winnersh, BT have put in as many FTTC cabinets as VM have optical nodes. Unless BT deliberately want high contention, there isn't sufficient capacity to both get ADSL customers off their slow speeds (we're some way from the exchange) and take on an already well served bunch of VM customers.

But on the other side of the coin, BT Infinity incursion should keep VM on its toes and I think we're seeing this.

FTTC can't contend inordinately - at the moment there is a maximum of 288 homes that can be connected to each fibre cabinet and each cabinet will have as many 1Gbps backhauls provisioned as needed to guarantee at least 15Mbps per subscriber back to the exchange. BT OR are presently running it uncontended for now.

If BT were to begin to run out of ports due to high uptake they'd either have to install a new cabinet or install additional port capacity in the current ones if there's room.

The average PCP, the legacy copper cabinets BT have built the 288 line capacity fibre cabinets next to, carries around 250 lines. Where there are PCPs with significantly more lines than this BT have installed two fibre cabinets with capacity for 576 lines in total.

The FTTC product is built as a bitstream solution offering a high quality of service back from cabinet to exchange to ensure that operators can apply contention as they see fit rather than having it forced upon them through insufficient backhaul capacity within the BT Openreach network. It's built this way in no small part because Openreach are in the business of selling capacity and there is no direct LLU option so this ensures operators can use varying levels of contention to differentiate their services.

I am certainly looking forward to shopping for a 40/15Mbit or 60/15Mbit operator in March 2011.

---------- Post added at 12:26 ---------- Previous post was at 12:25 ----------

Yes, exactly, which should give us customers some considerable choice when those networks compete for customers.

For me its not really price, its quality of service, it may be some time if at all before I consider a move to BT infinity, and whilst I wait I expect VM to get faster and more competitive.

The sensible and non-nerdy person couldn't care who/what/where/why. The right service at the right price is all that matters regardless of where it comes from or how it's delivered.

[Chrysalis]

I agree with Igni. Here in Winnersh, BT have put in as many FTTC cabinets as VM have optical nodes. Unless BT deliberately want high contention, there isn't sufficient capacity to both get ADSL customers off their slow speeds (we're some way from the exchange) and take on an already well served bunch of VM customers.

But on the other side of the coin, BT Infinity incursion should keep VM on its toes and I think we're seeing this.

regarding your last line I have at least benefited from that I agree.

As it stands tho VM's cable coverage is higher then BT's FTTC coverage.

[Ignitionnet]

regarding your last line I have at least benefited from that I agree.

As it stands tho VM's cable coverage is higher then BT's FTTC coverage.

Will exceed VM by next year all being well - 40% population coverage by March.

[Chrysalis]

There are also political issues - note Ed Vaizey's constituency being early in the deployment for example.


I think thats the answer. In terms of the infrastructure, these are areas where some have no 21CN (was deemed too expensive to run the fibre) and has no POP's or cities in close proximity. If cost was low I would be amazed to see how.

There is defenitly room for growth in long line areas and especially areas that are BT wholesale only, whats hard for you to understand (since you have good line speed) is people with poor performing adsl will pay a premium for decent performance. Someone paying £20 a month for 1 meg adsl that drops 10 times a day would snap someones hand off to pay £50 for FTTC.

[Ignitionnet]

I think thats the answer. In terms of the infrastructure, these are areas where some have no 21CN (was deemed too expensive to run the fibre) and has no POP's or cities in close proximity. If cost was low I would be amazed to see how.

There is defenitly room for growth in long line areas and especially areas that are BT wholesale only, whats hard for you to understand (since you have good line speed) is people with poor performing adsl will pay a premium for decent performance. Someone paying £20 a month for 1 meg adsl that drops 10 times a day would snap someones hand off to pay £50 for FTTC.

That's for ISPs to point Openreach towards, Openreach get paid either way.

Where are these areas with no 21CN nor any POP or city in close proximity, beyond perhaps the very first phase trial exchanges? The major cost in any event is the MSANs and the fibre to them. Areas which have ducting in place nice and empty and easy cabinet coverage are cheap. Some heavily urban areas that require additional civils and/or have many homes long distances from cabinets or few homes per cabinet will be painful.

Areas that are BT Wholesale only are evidently that way for a reason - they are not viable to LLU operators.

What's hard for you to understand is that BT Openreach know their network far better than you or I do. They are doing the areas they consider most commercially viable and one has to assume they've good reason for considering them viable given they are very aware of the state of their network - they were auditing it for years before they started FTTC for the precise reason of assessing the costs of FTTC/P accurately.

EDIT: Swift reminder 21CN is a BT Wholesale project and they make decisions on which exchanges they enable. This is nothing to do with the fibre Openreach may or may not have to each exchange. In no small part it's down to far more dull things such as room, power and aircon availability within exchanges for 21CN MSANs and transport network.

[Nedkelly]

Would be nice to find out what kit they are putting in the street a bit geeky i know :D

[Chrysalis]

That's for ISPs to point Openreach towards, Openreach get paid either way.

Where are these areas with no 21CN nor any POP or city in close proximity, beyond perhaps the very first phase trial exchanges? The major cost in any event is the MSANs and the fibre to them. Areas which have ducting in place nice and empty and easy cabinet coverage are cheap. Some heavily urban areas that require additional civils and/or have many homes long distances from cabinets or few homes per cabinet will be painful.

Areas that are BT Wholesale only are evidently that way for a reason - they are not viable to LLU operators.

What's hard for you to understand is that BT Openreach know their network far better than you or I do. They are doing the areas they consider most commercially viable and one has to assume they've good reason for considering them viable given they are very aware of the state of their network - they were auditing it for years before they started FTTC for the precise reason of assessing the costs of FTTC/P accurately.

EDIT: Swift reminder 21CN is a BT Wholesale project and they make decisions on which exchanges they enable. This is nothing to do with the fibre Openreach may or may not have to each exchange. In no small part it's down to far more dull things such as room, power and aircon availability within exchanges for 21CN MSANs and transport network.

Sadly yes the truth hurts :(

The criteria is defenitly very different to past rollouts tho 21CN and original adsl they obviously used different criterias to consider commercial viability.

[Ignitionnet]

Sadly yes the truth hurts :(

The criteria is defenitly very different to past rollouts tho 21CN and original adsl they obviously used different criterias to consider commercial viability.

That would be in no small part because it was a different business unit of BT doing those rollouts.

EDIT: Not to mention that neither was an access network upgrade and 21CN is a cost saving exercise not a network upgrade.

[Chrysalis]

ignition i just checked the latest rollout news.

they picked a low populated exchange in an area where footballers live (affluent).

the other exchange also out of the city on the outskirts before hit the country side.

the pattern I am seeing (outside m25) is areas that are high % residental not many office and avoiding council estates etc.

17 in surrey? (affluent?)

all 4 leicestershire exchanges announced here. all outside of city and all affluent, 2 are very affluent.

http://www.samknows.com/broadband/exchange/EMASHBB - market 2 5k residents no VM
http://www.samknows.com/broadband/exchange/EMKRBYM - 6k residents market 2 no VM
http://www.samknows.com/broadband/exchange/EMQURRN - 4.5k residents market 2 no VM
http://www.samknows.com/broadband/exchange/EMLUTTE - 5k residents market 2 no VM

9 market 3 exchanges with over 16k connections skipped.

similiar pattern for derby and nottingham.

[weesteev]

The same is true in Scotland. All the Infinty upgardes are onyl happening where there is either no Virgin Media service (Dunfermline) or very low network penetration (Edinburgh Craiglockhart or Livingston Station for example).

[Ignitionnet]

The same is true in Scotland. All the Infinty upgardes are onyl happening where there is either no Virgin Media service (Dunfermline) or very low network penetration (Edinburgh Craiglockhart or Livingston Station for example).

How about the bits of Glasgow that have already been done?

[weesteev]

How about the bits of Glasgow that have already been done?

Again much lower penetration than areas that have wider cable availability like Renfrew, North Glasgow, East Kilbride etc

[Ignitionnet]

Again much lower penetration than areas that have wider cable availability like Renfrew, North Glasgow, East Kilbride etc

Makes perfect sense given that these trials are being based around where they think they can make money, hence this being a 'market lead' rollout.

[SideWeaver]

Well I am happy enough now considering my connection is now officially 50Mbit D/L 5Mbit U/L. Pretty much keeps me happy, at least for now.

[Jabbs]

I wouldn't move from VM 50m had it for 14 months now and i get 50mb 24/7 and best part paying 20mb prices for it( had some issues for first month of getting it so they reduced it) can average 500gig a month why would i move to BT and there restrictions.