Quote:
Originally Posted by ferretuk
I'd disagree with that one line... The VM HFC network provides a technically better connection as it's not reliant on increasingly complicated methods of piggy-backing high frequency carriers on a twisted pair originally installed for carrying audio.
There's also the issue of the network being maintained by a different entity (BT Openreach) than your chosen ISP which leads to lack of accountability for fault repair to the affected customer.
However, if you have a well connected line and are close to the cabinet, then my experience agrees with others that FTTC offers a superior experience.
Of course, if VM continue to invest in network upgrades and address contention (especially upstream) then the balance may tip in their favour again...
|
the cable network round here wasnt designed for broadband, it was designed for tv. Indeed ignition has generously explained in the past in various posts the type of work that had to be done to enable areas such as mine to work for broadband. Even with the workdone to allow broadband to work on it, its not a great infrastructure for two way traffic, VM struggling to provide 10:1 on anything apart from top tier. So II find your point moot in tregards to original purpose of cables as both BT and ntl cables were not originally designed for broadband.
I could only dream of this jitter on VM.
Everything is snappy on my FTTC connections now, streamings never/rarely buffer, peering is great so downloads are good from everywhere not just selected good VM peering points, command line ssh is good to use due to lack of jitter, uploading is 10x faster than my old VM so now I can remote mount iso's over the internet when installing servers, the upload on FTTC is effectively uncontended as well. No tricks needed by openreach to avoid congestion as it naturally has the capacity for 1:1 contention.
In the future things will get interesting eg. with vectoring and bonding something like 200/60 is a reasonable expectation.