Virgin Media to Double Broadband Speed

[qasdfdsaq]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

As in Virgin have technically always required the SuperHub for 100Mbit. Allowing the VMNG300 for it was always an exception (usually by CEOs)

So why would they suddenly allow it as part of the tier change when they don't allow it as part of the normal product?

But looking at the other side of the coin, if exceptions could be made before, what's to say they will stop allowing exceptions now?

---------- Post added at 14:30 ---------- Previous post was at 14:29 ----------

Originally Posted by thenry

old news yet still today clones make it onto the network

I thought you already admitted it WASN'T cloning affecting your connection?

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

But looking at the other side of the coin, if exceptions could be made before, what's to say they will stop allowing exceptions now?

The only reason exceptions were made was due to the lack of an easy way to use your own kit with the SuperHub as modem mode wasn't in it yet. Now the SuperHub does have a modem mode so no exceptions are needed

[thenry]

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

I thought you already admitted it WASN'T cloning affecting your connection?

I support VM and its paying customers as a whole.

[Stephen]

I think with these upgrades VM will be trying to get as many customers as possible on to the superhub. As in you will need to register for the quick start pack to be sent before the speed increase will be applied to you.

[qasdfdsaq]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

The only reason exceptions were made was due to the lack of an easy way to use your own kit with the SuperHub as modem mode wasn't in it yet. Now the SuperHub does have a modem mode so no exceptions are needed

Fair point, but as long as exceptions can be made, there may be other reasons that come up that justify it.

---------- Post added at 14:35 ---------- Previous post was at 14:33 ----------

Originally Posted by Stephen

I think with these upgrades VM will be trying to get as many customers as possible on to the superhub. As in you will need to register for the quick start pack to be sent before the speed increase will be applied to you.

Assuming obviously, they have an accurate record of who has what, can exclude existing Superhub owners, and have ways of dealing with customers who have e.g. two modems or inaccurate records. Chances of VM getting all that right? :P

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

Fair point, but as long as exceptions can be made, there may be other reasons that come up that justify it.

Such as?

[thenry]

Originally Posted by Stephen

I think with these upgrades VM will be trying to get as many customers as possible on to the superhub. As in you will need to register for the quick start pack to be sent before the speed increase will be applied to you.

exactly what should happen, intense PR for an all round happy ending

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

Assuming obviously, they have an accurate record of who has what, can exclude existing Superhub owners, and have ways of dealing with customers who have e.g. two modems or inaccurate records. Chances of VM getting all that right? :P

in hope they should get it done. whats the point in all this if they don't do everything within their power to sort the mess out.

[Kushan]

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

No you didn't, it's impossible. Period.

No, but if it's connected at 300 you can get up to 220. If wireless G was scaled to 300 the protocol still wouldn't allow more than ~120

You keep missing the point I'm making. The difference between advertised (on the box) speeds and actual speeds. Wireless-G is so old and so mature that even the cheapest of Wireless-G equipment is comparable to the mid end stuff. As long as you don't seriously cheapen out, your wireless-G bog-standard dongle will probably be about as good as a Netgear dongle that's twice the price (as an example). Wireless-N, being relatively new doesn't have this effect and so you get a huge variance in quality. Compare a no-name Wireless-N dongle with say a TP-Link dongle, then compare that to say the Intel Advanced Wireless-N you find in some decent laptops and the difference is like night and day between each (with the intel one completely stomping over the pair of them). The Cheap Wireless-N stuff is only marginally better than Wireless-G, but the good Wireless-N stuff is terrific.
However, most people only own cheap equipment, either because they don't care or just seen "wireless-N" and thought it was as good as any other. I mean really, when was the last time you even seen a laptop advertise which flavour of Wireless-N equipment it used?

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

Even £150 Netbooks have 2x2.

Ok, so I'll stand corrected on the antennae arrangement if it keeps you happy, but the point is still there - most consumers have crap equipment with limited range and throughput. Even some 3x3 devices suck compared to decent 2x2 stuff.

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

If it's written on the box, the equipment can handle it. Whether it can handle it well and reliably is another matter. What's your point? N is slower than G? Rubbish.

Whether it can handle it well and reliably is exactly what I'm talking about, but as I said you keep missing the point. I don't know where you get that I said N was worse/slower than G, please quote me on that one. All I said was that the difference in advertised speeds versus actual speeds was greater, due to the above point.

[Peter_]

Once your VMNG300 fails it will be replaced by a Superhub because the is nothing else to replace it with, so all this talk of what the VMNG300 is capable does not really matter one iota because once yours is dead then tough it cannot be replaced like for like.

[Andrewcrawford23]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

I can see many 50mbit people downgrading to be honest.

They can downgrade to 30 and still get a speedbump to 60.

VM never seem to learn on these free speed bumps. If I want more speed I just need to wait a year and VM will upgrade me free on a annual basis.

depends the reason i went o 50mb was because of stm i dnt liek employing stm off my own to the conenction so i dnt get stmed full stop, i prefer the non restrictiong only restriction being usenet/p2p and uplaod speed which ic an live with i want to downlaod full speed without the worry of being slowed for doign so and if that why peopel are on 50mb i doubt they will downgrade even with a improve usage for 60mb you will stillge tstmed

[virginruinedntl]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

I can see many 50mbit people downgrading to be honest.

They can downgrade to 30 and still get a speedbump to 60.

VM never seem to learn on these free speed bumps. If I want more speed I just need to wait a year and VM will upgrade me free on a annual basis.

A LOT of their customers won't even realise their speed has been upgraded and many won't be bothered to phone up to change. Also bt infinity is taking off so virgin need to counter that threat as you can get their 40mb which is around 37mb on average for £18 with 40gb cap, £25 without cap. that will be 80mb later this year. Virgin charge £18.50 for 30mb.

Virgin HAD to significantly increase their speeds otherwise users would switch to BT as 80mb with no cap and no speed drop to 5mb after a few gig for £25 is truly amazing.

Once netflix and lovefilm streaming really take off i'll bet we'll see alot of virgin customers complaining about the speed drop to 5mb. netflix does 720p and has one with a rather high bitrate, they recommend you have a 4mb connection, so if you share your internet you may experience problems with netflix hd and i'm sure lovefilm will add hd support this year.

I'll be dropping from XL 20Mb to L 20mb once i've been upgraded to 60mb to reduce my bills but i'll still be throttled to 5mb after watching netflix hd i'm sure which really sucks. Virgin need to increase the limit on the new 20mb package to stop that from happening imo. The other packages have a decent limit until the speed drop is triggered.

Wonder if virgin will be adding 802.11ac to their modem/routers later this year, it would help alot for wireless users trying to get maximum speed.

[Kushan]

Don't forget that even though a lot of existing customers will probably drop down a tier to save money, most probably won't and it'll mean that Virgin's SLOWEST package (S doesn't count) will be nearly twice as fast as what people like Sky can currently offer. BT Infinity is still relatively hard to come by and not many others apart from BT sell it, so I think Virgin is aiming to rake in new customers (and sell them TV+Phone while they're at it) with this.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by buckleb

Will it be 120Mb + a bit for overhead or 120Mb including overhead?

I'm not that fussed about the slight increase myself (on 110Mb currently) but for users as a whole it seems to be good news.

It has to be 120Mb + fluff for overheads, so probably 132Mb going by the 10% VM have adopted.

[virginruinedntl]

yeah, sky will lose a lot of customer to virgin's 20mb broadband and they'll gain extra tv/phone packages from them. Sky will only have their tv to compete with virgin until sky start selling bt infinity which they will be doing but it will be 2015 by the time 2/3rds of britain will have access to bt infinity or atleast their exchange will have been upgraded, not sure if bt have clarifed whether they are 2/3rds will have exchange done or exchange+cabinets.

Sky might have to start giving broadband for less than the £7.50 that they currently charge with their tv packages.

All competition is good for us

[Skie]

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

Sooner or later someone will find somebody in the company they can sleep with to get what the service they want.

You mean retentions?