Why are VMs upload speeds so poor?

frogstamper · 18-03-2008, 16:29

Can anybody explain to me why VM can offer great download speeds but such poor upload.?

I mean on a 20mb package you get what, 750kbps, I would have thought something like 1.5mb would be fairer.

Graham M · 18-03-2008, 17:03

Except that due to the technicalities of cable networks, it is difficult to provide reliable, high upload speeds afaik

the-cable-guy · 18-03-2008, 17:24

most UK ISP upload speeds suck. in some countries they get 10MB.

Richy99 · 18-03-2008, 17:56

different technologies in different countries

the-cable-guy · 18-03-2008, 18:53

yep compared to some countries we're using dated services.

Callumpy · 18-03-2008, 18:54

i get 1.5meg on my Be* BB package, but i suppose thats ADSL and you are cable?

**Hugh** · 18-03-2008, 18:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Callumpy

i get 1.5meg on my Be* BB package, but i suppose thats ADSL and you are cable?

To be fair, you then lose most of it on your overly complicated internal wireless network.............

Callumpy · 18-03-2008, 18:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by foreverwar

To be fair, you then lose most of it on your overly complicated internal wireless network.............

heh, im not

andre321 · 18-03-2008, 22:42

I think it's because they sacrafice loads of upload speed to squeeze as much download speed that they can out of the network

alferret · 18-03-2008, 23:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by frogstamper

Can anybody explain to me why VM can offer great download speeds but such poor upload.?

I mean on a 20mb package you get what, 750kbps, I would have thought something like 1.5mb would be fairer.

One would assume that its something you would have looked at before you took out the package you have.

Isnt it a bit like shutting the stable door after shergar had already gone missing?

flowrebmit · 18-03-2008, 23:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by frogstamper

Can anybody explain to me why VM can offer great download speeds but such poor upload.?

I mean on a 20mb package you get what, 750kbps, I would have thought something like 1.5mb would be fairer.

Cable networks were original designed for cable TV. For a cable TV distribution system, you don't need a lot of bandwidth on the upload, so the design of the hardware for such a system placed a heavy emphasis on the download.

frogstamper · 19-03-2008, 02:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by alferret

One would assume that its something you would have looked at before you took out the package you have.

Isnt it a bit like shutting the stable door after shergar had already gone missing?

If you were to look at my packages on the left of screen alferret, you will notice I do not have the 20mb package, but the 4mb package, and as you imply any person with a modicum of common sense would check these details out before committing to it. I agree wholeheartedly, that's why I started the thread so I could make an informed decision on peoples useful comments, not criticisms.

---------- Post added at 01:25 ---------- Previous post was at 01:19 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by flowrebmit

Cable networks were original designed for cable TV. For a cable TV distribution system, you don't need a lot of bandwidth on the upload, so the design of the hardware for such a system placed a heavy emphasis on the download.

Thanks for the info flowrebmit, its much appreciated.

AbyssUnderground · 19-03-2008, 10:38

I thought the upload capabilities were pretty good on cable? Isn't it 33Mbps downstream and 11Mbps upstream or something like that (on the current configuration)? It gives plenty of space for upgrading the speed, its just that upload bandwidth costs VM a lot more than download bandwidth does. Its the same with any ISP, even datacenter connections cost more to upload than download.