OFCOM Speed report

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Qtx

For the majority of homes I still think 20Mbits is more than enough. Even busy family homes don't really need faster than 30 or so at this moment in time when you consider that would handle a family of 6 all browsing, gaming and streaming a video each all at the same time.

I use 120 meg because it costs me next to nothing

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Sirius

I use 120 meg because it costs me next to nothing

Can l have some of that.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by denphone

Can l have some of that.

Just get a job with VM

[spiderplant]

Originally Posted by Sirius

Just get a job with VM

and live in a cabled area

[qasdfdsaq]

Originally Posted by Qtx

Interesting to see that Virgin Media are the only ones who have a significant percentage drop in speed in the evenings between 8pm and 10pm. Even the adsl suppliers seem to have an insignificant change from the average 24 hour or maximum speeds. I thought all the upgrade work VM was supposed to be doing was going to do away with evening congestion?

That's been the case for many years now...

I haven't looked at this report in detail yet but the last one did show VM's drops getting less severe over the last few years...

Originally Posted by Hugh

Really?

VM 120 drops to 106, and FTTC 76 drops to 61.

That works out to -
VM drop of 13%
FTTC drop of 20%

VM 120 drops from an average of 113.2-116.7 to 106.1-111.5, a drop of 5-7%

FTTC 76 drops from an average of 61.6-68.0 to 60.8-67.2, a drop of 1.0-1.0%.

Incidentally, it remains, as I pointed out last year, that VM 30Mb is slower than FTTC 38Mb, as is VM60 vs FTTC 76, despite VM having originally positioned and claimed both to be faster. I'm guessing the uplift to 50/100 was to fix that mistake...

Disappointingly, VM 120 is still only averaging around 85-88% of it's provisioned speed, though FTTC seems to be getting worse - or just more variable - my own recent congestion issues on BT FTTC being a great example...

So if FTTC is sold as 76, but only provides 65 on average, that makes it better than something that is sold as 120, but provides 115 on average?

[qasdfdsaq]

I never said anything about marketed speeds, what it's "sold as", or which is "better", nor do I care.

Only from a technical point of view, something that's provisioned at 77.43Mbps vs. something provisioned at 133Mbps. We were talking about the effects of congestion after all, and congestion is a function of the underlying technology, not a function of what marketing choose to call something... You have to look at the underlying sync and payload rates to get any meaningful comparison.

As an example, is a service that runs at 10Mbps and drops to 5Mbps at peak times, averaging 7.5Mbps more congested than one that runs at 20Mbps and drops to 1Mbps, averaging 11Mbps? Is it "better"? What if the first was marketed as Upto 20Mb and the second was marketed as Up to 10Mb? Cause that's what you're asking. And frankly, answering a question like that is a minefield.

Originally Posted by denphone

But wait old bean the doomsayers will be out in force later today one imagines.

No offence Denphone but you constantly make comments like this and I feel they're quite often responsible for the thread ending up the way this one has.

You also are the biggest "doomsayer" in every Sky thread. I think it's time you stopped now and you should grow up! Be positive and others will follow.

---------- Post added at 23:14 ---------- Previous post was at 23:04 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

So if FTTC is sold as 76, but only provides 65 on average, that makes it better than something that is sold as 120, but provides 115 on average?

Does anyone give a poop anymore? 30Mb is enough for 80% of people and the ISP's know it. Virginmedia sell 152mb but if all the customers used the full 152mb between 11am and 11pm the network would crumble.

On the other hand BT/Sky ect sell up to 76mb and a lot only get around 50mb. But the network could handle all customers using their connection between 11am-11pm.

Truth is networks only offer 50mb+ speeds because they can price them higher.

Sky and Talktalk are now about to launch a 1Gb FTTH connection in york, no one needs it. But they will be able to say they have the fastest connection when compared to VM.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by Hugh

So if FTTC is sold as 76, but only provides 65 on average, that makes it better than something that is sold as 120, but provides 115 on average?

I always said I was an above average kind of guy

Mines not to bad on Infinity either.

[Sirius]

Mine does what i want it to which is download via the newsgroups quickly, Was streaming top gear in HD on netflicks whilst i did that test

My Virginmedia connection its supercharged upto 50Mb, its good for downloading but god awful for gaming/Skype/ and the like.

[RobboEdin]

Originally Posted by Bogof

My Virginmedia connection its supercharged upto 50Mb, its good for downloading but god awful for gaming/Skype/ and the like.

Sorry to burst your bubble but your download is pretty poor.

I've been supercharged also and get the full 54Mb, even wirelessly.

http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/i/829992982

Originally Posted by RobboEdin

Sorry to burst your bubble but your download is pretty poor.

I've been supercharged also and get the full 54Mb, even wirelessly.

http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/i/829992982

I agree my virginmedia download speed is quite poor. But scroll up an see my my infinity speedtest. An sorry to burst your bubble but your upload is very poor and your ping is dreadful.

[RobboEdin]

Originally Posted by Bogof

I agree my virginmedia download speed is quite poor. But scroll up an see my my infinity speedtest. An sorry to burst your bubble but your upload is very poor and your ping is dreadful.

Sorry but I was not comparing Virgin Media with BT. Simply saying that your Virgin Media download is short of what it should be.

Reference upload, even 3Mb is too much for me as I rarely do any.