Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerCanSandwich
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.
|
it could be lower if my routing was direct to london, many people dont understand latency is dependent on distance and assume every location has a direct path to london, not the case.
BT's WBC has no node in my city I either go via peterborough (my shortest route) or via birmingham. Both require going north before south.
However 2ms latency isnt going to be a big deal, whats most important is jitter and if latency is not insanely high, I would be unhappy with 30ms but not unhappy with 13ms.
---------- Post added at 02:29 ---------- Previous post was at 02:20 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerCanSandwich
Whatever VM's reasons for the prolonged poor performance it's not really acceptable and I feel for those not yet covered by FTTC.
|
When you put it like this it shows how bad VM is.
Basically it took BT 11 months to rollout FTTC in my area after the decision made to enable the area, whilst it takes VM longer then that just to upgrade existing services. The former would have required far more physical work.
I have a dedicated 20mbit/sec upstream path on my vdsl2 connection up to the backhaul level at the exchange, my VM connection is shared with 100s of users on its 18mbit upstream path.
I would hazard a guess my area requires the level of work that was required to fix brighton, but there is not the level of fuss been created by media and users on VM's own forums that brighton had so it probably wont get done. Even then in brighton it took them years to fix due to the sheer size of the task having not done proper upgrades for so long.