![]() |
Re: OFCOM Speed report
Quote:
|
Re: OFCOM Speed report
Quote:
|
Re: OFCOM Speed report
Quote:
|
Re: OFCOM Speed report
Quote:
|
Re: OFCOM Speed report
Quote:
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... Quote:
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... |
Re: OFCOM Speed report
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?
|
Re: OFCOM Speed report
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. |
Re: OFCOM Speed report
Quote:
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 ---------- Quote:
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. |
Re: OFCOM Speed report
Quote:
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/...2014/04/13.png |
Re: OFCOM Speed report
|
Re: OFCOM Speed report
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 :)
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2014/04/5.png |
Re: OFCOM Speed report
My Virginmedia connection its supercharged upto 50Mb, its good for downloading but god awful for gaming/Skype/ and the like.
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2014/04/4.png |
Re: OFCOM Speed report
Quote:
I've been supercharged also and get the full 54Mb, even wirelessly. http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/i/829992982 |
Re: OFCOM Speed report
Quote:
|
Re: OFCOM Speed report
Quote:
Reference upload, even 3Mb is too much for me as I rarely do any. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 10:13. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum