Originally Posted by General Maximus (Post 35790851)

what does the shub config say?

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq (Post 35790889)

No, it's an incorrect reading.

Originally Posted by Kushan (Post 35790892)

Blizzard wouldn't release buggy software, would they? WOULD THEY?!?!?

Originally Posted by Chrysalis (Post 35791884)

what have liberty global fixed?

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35792000)

Virgin and Liberty have not dissimilar capacity planning thresholds.

Liberty have prompted Virgin to spend £3 billion over 5 years on new build, and CapEx on current build is going up and up as Virgin rebuild it.

Regardless the length of time taken to resolve some of these issues has been really, really bad.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35792000)

Virgin and Liberty have not dissimilar capacity planning thresholds.

Liberty have prompted Virgin to spend £3 billion over 5 years on new build, and CapEx on current build is going up and up as Virgin rebuild it.

Regardless the length of time taken to resolve some of these issues has been really, really bad.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis (Post 35792060)

yeah I agree they definitely upping the game in terms of new build, VM was dormant for so many years.

Also to be fair when I looked at the VM forums the amount of speed complaints does seem noticeably lower than say 4 years ago. Just is a shame is still some issues and really they not done enough to nip the problem in the bud.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35792000)

Virgin and Liberty have not dissimilar capacity planning thresholds.

Liberty have prompted Virgin to spend £3 billion over 5 years on new build, and CapEx on current build is going up and up as Virgin rebuild it.

Regardless the length of time taken to resolve some of these issues has been really, really bad.

Originally Posted by japitts (Post 35792063)

Although, the speed and utilisation complaints that are on there - do seem to be long-standing ones where the review dates get pushed back 3,4,5 times before final fix.

I'm speaking from experience too. Our BB went through a nasty patch a few years back and was fine until late last year. It almost feels like every little tweak and fix-attempt that VM have done since then, makes it a little bit better but isn't quite fixing it properly.



It all sounds good, I'd just like to hope that fixing existing problem areas also has a reasonable budget too. Or to rephrase, that not too many fixes get held up by lack of budget.

Originally Posted by Kushan (Post 35792070)

given the recent investments, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and suggest the delays are likely more than just cost

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq (Post 35792129)

So delays being due to competence is better?

Originally Posted by Kushan (Post 35792218)

Red tape and general planning, more like. Some areas are not just oversubscribed, but there's literally no room for additional infrastructure - sometimes even at the headend. It takes time to plan out adding capacity like that.

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq (Post 35792264)

In other words, they failed to see it coming and plan ahead.