Would You Complain If 100Mb Averaged 85Mb?

[Ignitionnet]

Saw a thread on community forum, a guy saying his 100Mb spends most of its time, that he sees, around the 85Mb mark, some dips to 60Mb, some bursts beyond 90Mb.

Given the pricing of the service, and all the rest of it, how many here would complain about that level of performance?

In addition, would people be prepared to pay more for a more solid performance?

EDIT: The poll is multiple choice - Yes or no to complaining and a vote if you would pay more.

[AaronCooper]

I think when your paying for broadband, especially at those speeds; it's going to be a fast download either way. My main concerns would be ping, jitter, reliablilty, etc.

I'd be happy with avg. 85mb down if everything else was consistantly good.

[macguru32]

I've been on 20MB for nearly 2 years and consistently average around 14MB. That works out about 70% of advertised speed.
85MB on a 100MB BB is 85% of advertised speed.
So YES I would be happy with that and wouldn't complain on the same basis that I understand the 14MB I'm getting is never going to average near to the full 20MB.
All BB services have extremes of performance, it's the long term average that counts.

[roughbeast]

I'm used to getting 50Mb virtually without fail any time of day, so I would expect above 95Mb on a 100Mb connection. Perhaps my area is one of the better ones, network wise, so my chances of getting near the full 100Mb may be better than some.

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2011/04/95.png (http://www.speedtest.net)

BTW I am no longer on a trial connection for 200Mb+.

[TJS]

no, as it depends entirely on the server your downloading from with speeds that high, as alot of servers appart from big websites are only on 100 mb/s connections them self it depends how much their bandwidth is utilised

I could be wrong...?

[jb66]

100meg is too cutting edge, how can you accurately test that speed? Is it so fast that the users computer can start causing the bottleneck?

[Paul]

no, as it depends entirely on the server your downloading from with speeds that high, as alot of servers appart from big websites are only on 100 mb/s connections them self it depends how much their bandwidth is utilised

I could be wrong...?

Nope, you are right - not every connection you have to an end server is going to give you 100M, no matter what your own connection is.

[Nopanic]

I would expect it to be damn close .. in fact I do expect it to be.

I worked on faults for a while and not once would I settle for (that's the best you're going to get) its either, very close to full speed or there is a fault.

In my opinion anyway.

[Ignitionnet]

Then you're going to have a very upsetting time as speeds continue to go up without a commensurate increase in cost and capacity.

No idea what you work in but if you think that VM should be ensuring every 100Mb customer should have 100Mb/s or very close to it available 24x7 you need to speak to the bean counters and ask them how much bandwidth £35 a month pays for.

[Nopanic]

Then you're going to have a very upsetting time as speeds continue to go up without a commensurate increase in cost and capacity.

No idea what you work in but if you think that VM should be ensuring every 100Mb customer should have 100Mb/s or very close to it available 24x7 you need to speak to the bean counters and ask them how much bandwidth £35 a month pays for.

I've worked in many different departments and my view of customer service doesn't change.

There is a difference however between being able to use all of your connection and traffic management.

Fair use applies ..

[craigj2k12]

I think when your paying for broadband, especially at those speeds; it's going to be a fast download either way. My main concerns would be ping, jitter, reliablilty, etc.

I'd be happy with avg. 85mb down if everything else was consistantly good.

VM dont care about quality, they contend the service in a funny way so that everyone gets close to full speed, which gives them good reports from ofcom, however ofcom dont measure ping, jitter etc. so not a full picture being painted

[roughbeast]

100meg is too cutting edge, how can you accurately test that speed? Is it so fast that the users computer can start causing the bottleneck?

I don't disagree with your point about users computers being the cause of poor or inconsistent speed readings. Often their systems cannot handle the processor demands of their virus ware and the speed test at the same time.

However 100Mb is not too cutting edge to be measured. Speedtest.net can now handle 100Mb+. It managed a consistent 165Mb when I was on the 200Mb+ trial. Also my consistent speed measurements are partly due to me upgrading my system to quad core. You will find that, as folk invest in higher spec machines that they will soon be treating 100Mb like we treat 20Mb now. Instead we will be baulking at the idea of 200Mb and 400Mb.

[Jimmy-J]

100Mb installed this morning, the speeds are fluctuating like mad, unlike the 50Mb which was a lot more solid.

Not that bothered with these speedtest.net results, because I'm getting almost a full 100Mbps on the news groups.

Local server
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2011/04/91.png (http://www.speedtest.net)

Not so local server
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2011/04/92.png (http://www.speedtest.net)

Kingston Upon Hull
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2011/04/93.png (http://www.speedtest.net)

[craigj2k12]

those speed tests seem fine, you are mexing out the servers, try the london (namesco) or paris servers, these are good for the 100meg test, you say the speeds are fluctuating, but then you say you get 100meg on newsgroups? am I missing something

the dissapointment with high broadband speeds, with the 'up to' tag, is that the higher the speeds, the more and more the speeds are getting away from the 'up to' figure, with 100 meg, peeps are getting 92-97mb, which seems good, but your missing out on 3-7meg (based on the 92-97 figure I have given) , on my adsl line I was maxing out at 4mb, and if that went down by 3 meg, id be down to 1, making me :mad:

as we get in excess of 100meg and into 200 and 400meg and even to gigabit speeds, ISP's need to develop ways to deliver headline speeds. The closest iv seen to an isp meeting headline speeds is virgin media who offer packages based on the age old 'up to' basis, if there were ISP's offering "500mb", I would go for that over "up to 700mb"

another dissapointing thing about the 100mb from virgin is the upload speeds, the only package which seems to have benefited from the 10:1 upload speeds is 30meg, I have always seen speed tests from people on the 30meg package with 2.9 or 3mb upload speeds, I have never seen people on 50meg with upload speeds of 5mb, the most is 4.7 that I have seen. this doesnt seem bad, but as the speeds are going up, I am seeing the figure get further away from the headline speeds, people are getting 8 or 9mb upload speeds on the 100meg package when the headline speed is 10mb

anyways, rant over! ;)

[pip08456]

The 50Mb package was sold with 1.5 download pre-upgrade but configured for 1.75 to allow for overheads and speed test sites to give a good result. Post-upgrade it was configured fo 5Mb therefore no overhead allowance, hence the 4.7 max reported by those sites.

Data manipulation?

[Jimmy-J]

those speed tests seem fine, you are mexing out the servers, try the london (namesco) or paris servers, these are good for the 100meg test, you say the speeds are fluctuating, but then you say you get 100meg on newsgroups? am I missing something

the dissapointment with high broadband speeds, with the 'up to' tag, is that the higher the speeds, the more and more the speeds are getting away from the 'up to' figure, with 100 meg, peeps are getting 92-97mb, which seems good, but your missing out on 3-7meg (based on the 92-97 figure I have given) , on my adsl line I was maxing out at 4mb, and if that went down by 3 meg, id be down to 1, making me :mad:

as we get in excess of 100meg and into 200 and 400meg and even to gigabit speeds, ISP's need to develop ways to deliver headline speeds. The closest iv seen to an isp meeting headline speeds is virgin media who offer packages based on the age old 'up to' basis, if there were ISP's offering "500mb", I would go for that over "up to 700mb"

another dissapointing thing about the 100mb from virgin is the upload speeds, the only package which seems to have benefited from the 10:1 upload speeds is 30meg, I have always seen speed tests from people on the 30meg package with 2.9 or 3mb upload speeds, I have never seen people on 50meg with upload speeds of 5mb, the most is 4.7 that I have seen. this doesnt seem bad, but as the speeds are going up, I am seeing the figure get further away from the headline speeds, people are getting 8 or 9mb upload speeds on the 100meg package when the headline speed is 10mb

anyways, rant over! ;)
They fluctuate when using the speedtest.net, which I'm not that bothered about, because at present, I get a constant high speed on the news groups / servers.

[Stuart]

I know that from a technical point of view, VM cannot guarantee the speed, so I would consider it quite acceptable to get 85 meg out of a 100 meg connection. However, how many industries would you be happy to accept 4/5ths of what they advertise? If you bought a car that was advertised as being capable of 100mph, and it (speed limits not withstanding) managed 85 most of the time, and 100 rarely, would you accept it? Would you accept a CD player that rejected 1/5th of the CDs you tried to play?

I suppose that's what you get when you pay a low price for something.

[craigj2k12]

They fluctuate when using the speedtest.net, which I'm not that bothered about, because at present, I get a constant high speed on the news groups / servers.

speed test struggles with 100mb, as i said, use the london and paris servers

[Jimmy-J]

London https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2011/04/89.png (http://www.speedtest.net) Paris https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2011/04/90.png (http://www.speedtest.net)

[craigj2k12]

I know that from a technical point of view, VM cannot guarantee the speed, so I would consider it quite acceptable to get 85 meg out of a 100 meg connection. However, how many industries would you be happy to accept 4/5ths of what they advertise? If you bought a car that was advertised as being capable of 100mph, and it (speed limits not withstanding) managed 85 most of the time, and 100 rarely, would you accept it? Would you accept a CD player that rejected 1/5th of the CDs you tried to play?

I suppose that's what you get when you pay a low price for something.

dont forget, cars are capable of "100mph", virgins 100meg service is capable of "up to 100mb"

if the car was advertised at "up to 100mph" then technically it doesnt have to do 100mph

[Stuart]

dont forget, cars are capable of "100mph", virgins 100meg service is capable of "up to 100mb"

if the car was advertised at "up to 100mph" then technically it doesnt have to do 100mph

Oh, I know that what ISPs do is legal.

[craigj2k12]

London https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2011/04/89.png (http://www.speedtest.net) Paris https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2011/04/90.png (http://www.speedtest.net)

forgot to say, make sure the london server is "london - namesco", if it comes up with "london - TranceFM" you can refresh the page until it gives you namesco. I dont know whats up with the paris one, but the 200mb triallists used it a while ago and it seemed okay :erm:

---------- Post added at 21:08 ---------- Previous post was at 21:07 ----------

Oh, I know that what ISPs do is legal.

it should be illegal though, in VM's case maybe not, as they are close to the advertised speeds, but my adsl line on "up to 24mb" actually acheived 3.5 to 4mb which to me is a scandal

[Chrysalis]

ignition its not all about speeds.

The problem is if the speed is fluctuating due to congestion then things like jitter can also be impacted.

I would probably accept slowdowns to 10-20% below so down to 80mbit at the most, but would consider 60mbit excessive. The accepting of the slowdowns is conditional based on that jitter remains good enough.

Isp's can contend without it been visible.

So your poll is only thinking in black and white, no grey area, the options I would pick would be.

"I would accept minor slowdowns but not as much as 40%"
"If jitter is not impacted".

You gave a choice between it needs to be 100mbit all the time or its not acceptable, I chose the 100mbit all the time because of this as is closer.

[craigj2k12]

cant remember whether it was in this thread, but I think iv posted it in just about every thread on this forum. the way VM contend their service is different than BT's dsl network, which is why everyone gets a lot of jitter, bonded channels are used and shared between users. im sure its technically possible for virgin to use a channel each instead of 4 channels shared between X users, probably not good for the bank balance though

[Chrysalis]

jitter is nothing to do with bonded channels (at least not to the levels we have), mine was actually worse when I had no bonding. Its mainly to do with upstream been highly utilised on a small capacity.

[craigj2k12]

The 50Mb package was sold with 1.5 download pre-upgrade but configured for 1.75 to allow for overheads and speed test sites to give a good result. Post-upgrade it was configured fo 5Mb therefore no overhead allowance, hence the 4.7 max reported by those sites.

Data manipulation?

data throughput theft

---------- Post added at 21:21 ---------- Previous post was at 21:20 ----------

jitter is nothing to do with bonded channels (at least not to the levels we have), mine was actually worse when I had no bonding. Its mainly to do with upstream been highly utilised on a small capacity.

thats what i was trying to say but im not as clever as you :(

[jtaylor06]

As long as the net is on, the download finishes in a decent time, I wouldn't be too fussed if I were to have 100Mb.

[pip08456]

Actually it's not all it's made out to be. 50Mb is more than enough for most power users. 30Mb for average users and gaming. 10Mb for joe public just browsing, email; and social networking.

[Stuart]

cant remember whether it was in this thread, but I think iv posted it in just about every thread on this forum. the way VM contend their service is different than BT's dsl network, which is why everyone gets a lot of jitter, bonded channels are used and shared between users. im sure its technically possible for virgin to use a channel each instead of 4 channels shared between X users, probably not good for the bank balance though

VM don't "contend" their service differently, as "contention" in this instance is merely a measure of the number of users in an area compared to the bandwidth allocated to that area. So, say VM are offering a 30 Mb service. They have 2,000 users in an area. If every user used 100% of their bandwidth 100% of the time, Virgin would need about 60 Gig of bandwidth. At current prices, there's no way they can afford to do that, so they offer a contended connection. This works on the assumption that the bulk of their customers will rarely, if ever, use all their bandwidth. For a 20:1 contended connection, they assume that 20 users will be able to share the bandwidth that one user would use if he or she maxed out their connection. Contention works the same way for any internet connection.

The difference with ADSL is that Cable is a shared connection, so the contention can be in either the local area, or the network backhaul. With ADSL, the connection between you and the exchange is not shared with anyone, so the contention can be between the exchange and the ISP's network.

[Chrysalis]

which brings me back to my 60mbit point, there is little point in upgrading to 100mbit if it can only achieve 60mbit :) I agree with you in that once someone has 50mbit there is not much of an extra need for 100mbit unless you are a very heavy user or have some specific app where it needs more than 50mbit burst. VM would have been better whacking a £100 month price tag on, let take up be low but they still get the PR boost of having the fastest package available compared to BT.

[pip08456]

I agree Chrys, they could easily have kept 50Mb as the "flagship" sevice and still upped the upload to 10Mb to compete with Infinity. Saved money on the supply on crappyhubs and kept the VMNG300 until a viable replacement was needed.

They could have then concentrated on upgrading the network nationwide including the rundown areas.

From there with a solid reliable network they could then look at faster speeds. Although not necessary now I can see the need for them in the future as technology advances.

[yorkshireborn]

you pay for 100 meg id expect it to be close most of the time would the company accept if you paid upto said £ based on your upto said speed. doubt it.

[Chrysalis]

I agree Chrys, they could easily have kept 50Mb as the "flagship" sevice and still upped the upload to 10Mb to compete with Infinity. Saved money on the supply on crappyhubs and kept the VMNG300 until a viable replacement was needed.

They could have then concentrated on upgrading the network nationwide including the rundown areas.

From there with a solid reliable network they could then look at faster speeds. Although not necessary now I can see the need for them in the future as technology advances.

now that is a good idea, a lot of sense in that. sensible way forward whilst staying ahead of the competition.

[roughbeast]

100Mb installed this morning, the speeds are fluctuating like mad, unlike the 50Mb which was a lot more solid.

Not that bothered with these speedtest.net results, because I'm getting almost a full 100Mbps on the news groups.

Have you tried the LONDON(GB) - NAMESCO server on speedtest net? I have found that server entirely consistent and is up to scratch regarding 100Mb. You can force it to be NAMESCO by selecting your preferred server at the bottom of the main screen. TRANCE FM is the other London server, but it is not consistent.

I am one of those supporting the need for 100Mb because I have seen heavy using households struggling on 50Mb. This is sometimes due to poor upload speeds or inadequate home routers, but it remains a priority for VM to lead at the sharp end with a top download speed well ahead of BT's FTTC product.

[Marcus125]

I don't think I would be to happy with 85Mb as its 15Mb! less than the advertised speed. Lets be honest some people pay £25 just for 15Mb and that would be the amount you're losing.

This is my typical speed. Sometimes I got 102Mb sometimes 95Mb but never lower than that.(if i turn off some of my firewall/antivirus etc my ping would be about 12ms)

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2011/04/88.png (http://www.speedtest.net)

[pabscars]

If I averaged 85Mbps I would be well chuffed, but knowing what I know now, I would probably be a little disappointed if I couldn't hit the 100Mbps mark in the wee small hours.

I would pay more for a performance guarantee, or pay more for a lesser contended line.

If Vm could have a gaming pipe that had super low latency/Jitter but with a very low monthly download limit of say 10Gig I'd pay more for that too.

[Marcus125]

If I averaged 85Mbps I would be well chuffed, but knowing what I know now, I would probably be a little disappointed if I couldn't hit the 100Mbps mark in the wee small hours.

I would pay more for a performance guarantee, or pay more for a lesser contended line.

If Vm could have a gaming pipe that had super low latency/Jitter but with a very low monthly download limit of say 10Gig I'd pay more for that too.

I would pay £45 a month for a 20meg dedicated gaming connection with super low ping. Even with a 20-40gig download cap.

[_wtf_]

What a crazy thread, the responses are even crazier!!!

[Stuart]

What's crazy about wanting to get what you pay for?

[jb66]

I'd say 20% less would be acceptable

[_wtf_]

What's crazy about wanting to get what you pay for?
If you read the posts most people are quite happy to not get what they pay for or are willing to pay more for a proper service!!!

Funny how VM have an ad campaign at the whole 'up to' scam yet they are actually doing the same themselves.

How about you actually pay for what speeds you get so if you're only getting 85MB on a 100MB connection you pay 85% of the cost LMAO

[haydnwalker]

I think on a 100mbit connection, dropping down to 70-75mbit is acceptible, as its still a fair chunk quicker than 50mbit.

The price per mbit is VERY low (on a 100mbit connection @ £35/month its £2.85/mbit) so you can't expect miracles :)

[one2escape]

Not sure if it was mentioned I was having a similar problem but it turned out to be my network card after trying the missus laptop. It may not be the connection at all.

Here we go

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/12/33676342-getting-installed-on-saturday.html

[Stuart]

If you read the posts most people are quite happy to not get what they pay for or are willing to pay more for a proper service!!!

Funny how VM have an ad campaign at the whole 'up to' scam yet they are actually doing the same themselves.

How about you actually pay for what speeds you get so if you're only getting 85MB on a 100MB connection you pay 85% of the cost LMAO

The thing is, from a technical point of view, we do get a good deal. Consumer level broadband is *extremely* cheap in this country, but we pay the price with contention.

If you want a truly uncontended connection, you need to look at leased lines, but be prepared to pay over 10 times what you are paying now..

http://www.enta.net/leasedlines/?gclid=COOD0uf4iqgCFUFC4QodaGVLCQ

Personally I think consumer ISPs can sort out the problem by simply advertising each tier using two speeds. One is the headline speed, and one is the average speed attained by their customers.

[Ignitionnet]

I think on a 100mbit connection, dropping down to 70-75mbit is acceptible, as its still a fair chunk quicker than 50mbit.

The price per mbit is VERY low (on a 100mbit connection @ £35/month its £2.85/mbit) so you can't expect miracles :)

35p/Mbit think you did the sums backwards and divided 100 by £35 ;)

---------- Post added at 21:16 ---------- Previous post was at 21:15 ----------

Personally I think consumer ISPs can sort out the problem by simply advertising each tier using two speeds. One is the headline speed, and one is the average speed attained by their customers.

That is indeed the most likely course of events at this time.

---------- Post added at 21:30 ---------- Previous post was at 21:16 ----------

If you read the posts most people are quite happy to not get what they pay for or are willing to pay more for a proper service!!!

Funny how VM have an ad campaign at the whole 'up to' scam yet they are actually doing the same themselves.

How about you actually pay for what speeds you get so if you're only getting 85MB on a 100MB connection you pay 85% of the cost LMAO

No-one on cable of ADSL is paying for a guaranteed 100% performance on their service, some ADSL packages bake in a guaranteed minimum speed, some cable a speed range (http://www.comhem.se/comhem/bredband/abonnemang/bredband-abonnemang/-/6336/17518/-/index.html).

The advertising campaign isn't about use of 'Up to' per se but about how it's used when ADSL companies are quite aware that the overwhelming majority of customers will never see that performance.

Cable is quite different and, to their credit, Virgin do at least give an average performance on their 10, 20, 30 and 50Mb services. (http://shop.virginmedia.com/broadband/about-virgin-broadband/broadband-speeds-explained.html?buspart=Portal_HP_2_1_30)

How accurate it is I don't know but it's there. If you can show me where it is stated customers are paying for 100Mb and are guaranteed to receive that 24x7 it would be good to see.

My order was made via a spotter who took it manually, he made a point of explaining to me that speeds may vary at busy periods. This is entirely reasonable for a shared service, especially one where one is paying 35p/Mbit. Even if you only get 60 - 70Mbit out of it you still have the fastest widely available service in the UK at the cheapest price per Mbit.

This is what happens as speeds go up, contention becomes more visible. South Korea, Japan, Sweden, etc, all experienced the same thing as they shifted from 10Mbit to 100Mbit fibre to the home and even more so as they move to 1Gbit.

[_wtf_]

I'm not too bothered with speed what I want is a line with low latency/jitter so I can play online games. At the moment I don't think VM are providing that.

I've ordered BT phone and broadband services this week to give that a try. I don't know if they'll have better latency/jitter, does anyone know if they do/don't or of a forum similar to this for BT?

[Hans Gruber]

Virgin only call it 100mbit to grab the headlines so they're as much at fault as the people complaining. Selling something as "Average speed 85mbit but you may get 100mbit when everyone is in bed" doesn't sound as exciting.

It doesn't matter how "cheap" something is if it doesn't work as advertised. If the service being sold can't realistically be offered at the price it's sold at then only Virgin can be blamed for that.

[roughbeast]

Virgin only call it 100mbit to grab the headlines so they're as much at fault as the people complaining. Selling something as "Average speed 85mbit but you may get 100mbit when everyone is in bed" doesn't sound as exciting.

It doesn't matter how "cheap" something is if it doesn't work as advertised. If the service being sold can't realistically be offered at the price it's sold at then only Virgin can be blamed for that.

What firm evidence have we that this will only be an 85Mb service? We have had moans from people who may possibly have substandard computers and use below par speed test servers, but we have also heard from folk getting the full 100Mb consistently. VM's record is good for its other cable products, eg I always get 50Mb, so why so pessimistic for the 100Mb product?

[Peter_]

Virgin only call it 100mbit to grab the headlines so they're as much at fault as the people complaining. Selling something as "Average speed 85mbit but you may get 100mbit when everyone is in bed" doesn't sound as exciting.

It doesn't matter how "cheap" something is if it doesn't work as advertised. If the service being sold can't realistically be offered at the price it's sold at then only Virgin can be blamed for that.
AS you state it is advertised as up to 100Mb which it clearly says HERE (http://shop.virginmedia.com/broadband/up-to-100mb.html) plus even on this page which has the OFCOM results (http://shop.virginmedia.com/broadband/about-virgin-broadband/broadband-speeds-explained.html) it shows the average speed of 20Mb as being between 17.4Mb and 18.6Mb which if you compare to SKY's up to 20Mb service which comes in at 7.4Mb to 8.8Mb then who do you blame for for that false promise.

Get real as all ISP's like to say their speeds are that much quicker.


(http://shop.virginmedia.com/broadband/about-virgin-broadband/broadband-speeds-explained.html)

[Hans Gruber]

Get real as all ISP's like to say their speeds are that much quicker.


(http://shop.virginmedia.com/broadband/about-virgin-broadband/broadband-speeds-explained.html)


Which puts them all equally to shame :p:

edit: I've never had a problem with speeds from VM, however the OP posed the question would you be happy with an average speed of 85mbit on a 100mbit service. That's what I was anwering, not how the speeds compared to sky etc.

[Peter_]

Which puts them all equally to shame :p:

edit: I've never had a problem with speeds from VM, however the OP posed the question would you be happy with an average speed of 85mbit on a 100mbit service. That's what I was anwering, not how the speeds compared to sky etc.
My post is aimed at everyone who reads it hence the links.;)

[roughbeast]

Which puts them all equally to shame :p:

edit: I've never had a problem with speeds from VM, however the OP posed the question would you be happy with an average speed of 85mbit on a 100mbit service. That's what I was anwering, not how the speeds compared to sky etc.

Your comments didn't sound very hypothetical to me.

Fact is VM can afford to be a little smug and are not as guilty as other ISPs. They just make much of their relative performance and feel entitled to use honesty as a positive element in their marketing spin. Based upon their 20Mb record folk can expect an average 90Mb from 100Mb. Based upon their 50Mb record you can expect an average of 91Mb. They have not hidden their record in the small print.

[Peter_]

Your comments didn't sound very hypothetical to me.

Fact is VM can afford to be a little smug and are not as guilty as other ISPs. They just make much of their relative performance and feel entitled to use honesty as a positive element in their marketing spin. Based upon their 20Mb record folk can expect an average 90Mb from 100Mb. Based upon their 50Mb record you can expect an average of 91Mb. They have not hidden this in the small print.
Are you sure we can get 91Mb on a 50Mb connection, I am calling to upgrade now.:D

[roughbeast]

Are you sure we can get 91Mb on a 50Mb connection, I am calling to upgrade now.:D

You are being deliberately obtuse. :rolleyes:

You know what I meant! :p: An average of 91Mb on a 100Mb connection.

[Peter_]

You are being deliberately obtuse. :rolleyes:

You know what I meant! :p: An average of 91Mb on a 100Mb connection.
No I was making a joke nothing more.:p:

[roughbeast]

No I was making a joke nothing more.:p:

:Peaceman:

[Pedro1]

What's crazy about wanting to get what you pay for?

You are right, nothing is wrong with that.. Broadband company's are capable
of giving you what you pay for they just hold back on it...

I seen it on watchdog. :D:D:banghead:

[nick2xuk]

As has been mentioned on this thread already, consumer broadband connections are not leased lines.

You are not paying £30 (or whatever) per month for a dedicated 50Mb connection to your house, you are paying for a connection that is capable of those speeds but is also shared between x other connections and due to the way that the majority of people use broadband (i.e. bursty) you will find that you should get around the advertised speed most of the time.

[jb66]

do virgin garuntee wifi speeds? Had a superhub that wouldn't go faster than 30 wifi with dongle on 2.4ghz mode. 5ghz did but his other devices wouldn't connect to it. He wasn't happy but nothing I could do

[Turkey Machine]

Saw a thread on community forum, a guy saying his 100Mb spends most of its time, that he sees, around the 85Mb mark, some dips to 60Mb, some bursts beyond 90Mb.

Given the pricing of the service, and all the rest of it, how many here would complain about that level of performance?

In addition, would people be prepared to pay more for a more solid performance?

EDIT: The poll is multiple choice - Yes or no to complaining and a vote if you would pay more.

For a network that mixes home and business users contended on the same bearer, has no QoS (and no plans for QoS), and is oversold markedly in some areas, I think anybody complaining from the 50Mb tiers upwards needs to look at exactly how much they are paying (pittance compared to Openreach FTTC products and the 10/20/30Mb tiers) and asking where the investment is going into the network.

[Pedro1]

You won't get the same speed wireless as you would wired with your hub...

[jb66]

http://community.virginmedia.com/t5/Up-to-100Mb-broadband/Upgraded-to-100Mb-inconsistent/m-p/439227#M1112

[Jayster]

I would be quite happy with a 85 average it would just depend how low it dipped. Although surely 100 speeds will get more consistent over time with network upgrades?

[Stuart]

I would be quite happy with a 85 average it would just depend how low it dipped. Although surely 100 speeds will get more consistent over time with network upgrades?

Depends on how many customers VM sign up in the area. After all, they are going to pay for the upgrades somehow.

[Chrysalis]

the really sad thing about all this is it may well affect all tiers using docsis3. As 100mbit users are likely pushing a port to 100% if they slowing down due to congestion and at that point anyone on the same port will also be hitting congestion.

[roughbeast]

the really sad thing about all this is it may well affect all tiers using docsis3. As 100mbit users are likely pushing a port to 100% if they slowing down due to congestion and at that point anyone on the same port will also be hitting congestion.

Please define port.

[Ignitionnet]

the really sad thing about all this is it may well affect all tiers using docsis3. As 100mbit users are likely pushing a port to 100% if they slowing down due to congestion and at that point anyone on the same port will also be hitting congestion.

Not really, 50Mb won't see impact unless 100Mb customers can't reach >50Mbps, 30Mb will be fine unless less than 30Mb is available.

Being on 100Mb/s means you can draw up to 100Mbps, if there's 70Mbps available it'll either be enough to satisfy a 50Mbps user in full or will give a 100Mbps customer 70Mbps.

Bandwidth is shared pretty fairly on a per-flow basis with everyone getting the same priority to have their bites of the bandwidth cherry, just 100Mbps gets more bites if there's cherry left.

[_wtf_]

What I don't understand is why Virgin keep pushing the numbers up when their network clearly can't handle the speeds hence the traffic management.

[Ignitionnet]

What I don't understand is why Virgin keep pushing the numbers up when their network clearly can't handle the speeds hence the traffic management.

It's not that the network can't handle it, it's that people refuse to pay the price it would cost for the service without the management.

Many expect broadband services to cost less than a pint of beer a week, begrudgingly for 'premium' services paying for a pint and a pack of crisps a week.

Some people happily sit there hoovering up Blu Rays without paying for them but complain about how expensive their service (which costs about the same as 2 moderately cheap Blu Rays a month) is.

[Chrysalis]

Not really, 50Mb won't see impact unless 100Mb customers can't reach >50Mbps, 30Mb will be fine unless less than 30Mb is available.

Being on 100Mb/s means you can draw up to 100Mbps, if there's 70Mbps available it'll either be enough to satisfy a 50Mbps user in full or will give a 100Mbps customer 70Mbps.

Bandwidth is shared pretty fairly on a per-flow basis with everyone getting the same priority to have their bites of the bandwidth cherry, just 100Mbps gets more bites if there's cherry left.

so if at 100% the 50mbit user would not see impact on latency/jitter?

[Ignitionnet]

Probably not to be honest, if they do a marginal one. Downstream congestion is a quite different animal from upstream and handled far more gracefully, as normal serialisation, so a fairly high level of oversubscription needed before anything above a marginal impact on base latency and jitter is noted.

[Chrysalis]

It's not that the network can't handle it, it's that people refuse to pay the price it would cost for the service without the management.

Many expect broadband services to cost less than a pint of beer a week, begrudgingly for 'premium' services paying for a pint and a pack of crisps a week.

Some people happily sit there hoovering up Blu Rays without paying for them but complain about how expensive their service (which costs about the same as 2 moderately cheap Blu Rays a month) is.

I am still of the view if VM cannot (or any isp for that matter) upgrade the network at the pricepoint they sell at then why do they sell it? Why not just say there will be no 100mbit because you wont pay what its worth or there will be 100mbit but you pay this price take it or leave it.

[Ignitionnet]

I am still of the view if VM cannot (or any isp for that matter) upgrade the network at the pricepoint they sell at then why do they sell it? Why not just say there will be no 100mbit because you wont pay what its worth or there will be 100mbit but you pay this price take it or leave it.

Which is why you aren't a director of broadband strategy at a major, or minor, ISP.

[Chrysalis]

Which is why you aren't a director of broadband strategy at a major, or minor, ISP.

I am not a director as I dont know the right people to get such a job :p

but yes I would probably be sacked as I would refuse to sell a poor product.

[Ignitionnet]

To ensure that level of service would require so much bandwidth per customer it would make the services unfeasibly expensive to all bar a niche.

Like Andrews and Arnold prove, there's a market for such things but it's a small one, way too small for a cable operator to consider it viable as their main product line.

[roughbeast]

I am still of the view if VM cannot (or any isp for that matter) upgrade the network at the pricepoint they sell at then why do they sell it? Why not just say there will be no 100mbit because you wont pay what its worth or there will be 100mbit but you pay this price take it or leave it.

The point is that most people will get very close to 100Mb most of the time. I could have 1Gb now if I was prepared to pay, but since I am not a corporate body, I don't need it. If you want it, go ahead.

In the recent 200Mb+ trial VM used a single 1Gb pipe at the head end to serve all the trailists. None of us got less than what our modems were configured for, once we had sorted out the config and spec of our own systems. They had a 10Gb pipe in reserve but didn't have to use it. Even though we were caning our connections for all they were worth 1Gb was enough. This is because it is actually hard to max out a 400Mb, 200Mb or 100Mb connection.

Folk on 100Mb don't need 100Mb most of the time. They will only need it if a whole household are streaming HD, gaming and downloading s**t loads all at the same time. At 100Mb/10Mb down/up they wouldn't notice a bit of traffic management. VM know that folk will be using their bandwidth, above all, for streaming and games. You would surely get a reasonable peak-time limit for that. If users have the sense to time their torrents for the wee small hours they probably wouldn't get managed anyway.

[Turkey Machine]

To ensure that level of service would require so much bandwidth per customer it would make the services unfeasibly expensive to all bar a niche.

Like Andrews and Arnold prove, there's a market for such things but it's a small one, way too small for a cable operator to consider it viable as their main product line.

Correct.