I don't know, I recon your latency could be a couple lower, I'm in wolverhamptom and get 10-11ms when interleving is off.
Damn, it's something when an idle VM connection is poorer than a FTTC connection which has it's upload saturated. The average is over twice as much on VM.
Code:
ping.exe -n 20 bbc.co.uk
Pinging bbc.co.uk [212.58.241.131] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=241
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=39ms TTL=241
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=241
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=241
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=45ms TTL=241
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=37ms TTL=241
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=241
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=45ms TTL=241
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=241
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=241
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=241
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=241
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=241
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=43ms TTL=241
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=241
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=241
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=241
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=241
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=241
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=241
Ping statistics for 212.58.241.131:
Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 18ms, Maximum = 45ms, Average = 33ms
Compared to idle
Code:
ping.exe -n 20 bbc.co.uk
Pinging bbc.co.uk [212.58.241.131] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=241
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=241
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=241
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=241
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=241
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=241
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=241
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=241
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=241
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=241
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=241
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=241
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=241
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=241
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=241
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=241
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=241
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=241
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=241
Reply from 212.58.241.131: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=241
Ping statistics for 212.58.241.131:
Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 18ms, Maximum = 19ms, Average = 18ms
Whatever VM's reasons for the prolonged poor performance it's not really acceptable and I feel for those not yet covered by FTTC.