120M Virgin Media 150Mb Coming 2014 - Page 21

kwikbreaks · 04-12-2013, 23:17

Did they ever actually promise 10% apart from 120/12?

There are no doubt umpteen ways it could be achieved but their latest promises relate only to downstream sfaik and for many they are a year away. Improvements cost money? Do they have it? The last round of price increases were translated into cuts by retentions for those who bothered to call in. The current round - I don't know as I've decided it's time to cut and run given the congestion I see now before the reduced STM and later increased speeds bring my segment to its knees.

Sephiroth · 04-12-2013, 23:32

The bandwidth changes cost nothing to do. Additional fibre is more effort than cost IMO.

craigj2k12 · 05-12-2013, 01:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Additional fibre is more effort than cost IMO.

This is business, effort is cost. With more and more applications hungry for upstream bandwidth, VM will need to pull out something better than 50/2

qasdfdsaq · 05-12-2013, 04:41

Meanwhile we've heard nothing from BT, possibly because their 20Mbps up from two years ago is still enough to beat anything VM have planned for the next few years...

Sephiroth · 05-12-2013, 09:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

Meanwhile we've heard nothing from BT, possibly because their 20Mbps up from two years ago is still enough to beat anything VM have planned for the next few years...

I'd remind that only a proportion of BT Infinity or FTTC customers get the 20 meg upstream. I get less than 10 meg and at least 50% of FTTC customers (my estimate) are situated at or beyond the point where their u[stream is lower than VM's 120/12.

General Maximus · 05-12-2013, 10:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwikbreaks

Did they ever actually promise 10% apart from 120/12?

yup, when 100mbits was initially rolled out (and what I had) it was 100/10. It was only when they started doing the speed doubling program that they doubled the 50s to 100/5 and stopped new customers from buying 100/10 and gave them the cheaper doubled 50mbit tier.

kwikbreaks · 05-12-2013, 11:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

..at least 50% of FTTC customers (my estimate) are situated at or beyond the point where their u[stream is lower than VM's 120/12.

I bet many aren't situated where there upstream is less than the 2.9Mbps I get on my 2nd tier 60Mbps product though. In my case because my local area suffers from congestion even the downstream on FTTC is likely to be higher.

---------- Post added at 10:17 ---------- Previous post was at 10:16 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by General Maximus

yup, when 100mbits was initially rolled out (and what I had) it was 100/10. It was only when they started doing the speed doubling program that they doubled the 50s to 100/5 and stopped new customers from buying 100/10 and gave them the cheaper doubled 50mbit tier.

So where is the promise in that? I had 50/5 until I binned it for 10 because the congestion was so high it wasn't worth the price premium. I've never seen a 10:1 promise in any VM material - just supposition from customers.

Kushan · 05-12-2013, 11:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwikbreaks

I bet many aren't situated where there upstream is less than the 2.9Mbps I get on my 2nd tier 60Mbps product though. In my case because my local area suffers from congestion even the downstream on FTTC is likely to be higher.

---------- Post added at 10:17 ---------- Previous post was at 10:16 ----------

So where is the promise in that? I had 50/5 until I binned it for 10 because the congestion was so high it wasn't worth the price premium. I've never seen a 10:1 promise in any VM material - just supposition from customers.

Well if you remember, it was never always 10:1. I remember when 50meg had 1.75Mbit upload. They had a big campaign when they upgraded everyone to 10:1 ratios, that's when 50/1.75 became 50/5. I don't remember what 100, 20 and 10 had and I don't remember if 30 was available at the time.

kwikbreaks · 05-12-2013, 11:48

Ok enough with what there was and wasn't in the past.

Have they ever announced that 30/n and 60/3 are going to be upgraded to 30/3 and 60/6?

If they did I never saw it. What I have seen is that 30/60/120 will be upgraded to 50/100/150 with no mention of upstream. That also seems to be downgrading the top tier which will become 3x bottom instead of the current 4x.

Kushan · 05-12-2013, 11:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwikbreaks

Ok enough with what there was and wasn't in the past.

Have they ever announced that 30/n and 60/3 are going to be upgraded to 30/3 and 60/6?

If they did I never saw it. What I have seen is that 30/60/120 will be upgraded to 50/100/150 with no mention of upstream. That also seems to be downgrading the top tier which will become 3x bottom instead of the current 4x.

http://community.virginmedia.com/t5/...1109671/page/2

Mark Wilkin's post further down states it, but that was august last year and still no announcement. BenMcr has also stated that it's planned, but you're right in that it's never been part of any official literature. They have stated in the past that they are aiming for 10:1. Given that people are still waiting for 120meg, presumably upload speed upgrades have been pushed back. It's impossible to know, though, they haven't announced one way or the other. It'll have to come eventually.

kwikbreaks · 05-12-2013, 12:05

Looks like they have quietly forgotten it to me. VM sell based on headline downstream speeds. It's all they have that they can show to be better than FTTC and then only for the higher tiers until the next round of downstream increases. Most of the buyers probably don't consider upstream so VM don't need to bust a gut.

New customer price point for 60 + phone is pretty much equal to 76/19 FTTC + phone

Kushan · 05-12-2013, 12:57

That's exactly it. They haven't forgot it, they've just put it on a much lower priority because its marketing value isn't the same as headline download speeds.

kwikbreaks · 05-12-2013, 13:47

It could also be a means of protecting downstream as someone mentiond the other day. I don't use torrents but as I understand it how fast you get stuff depends on how fast you upload too plus there is some sort of code that requires upload volumes to be the same or greater than download. OK so they are supposed to apply shaping but just how effective is it? I imagine using a VPN would defeat it but there may be simpler options that work too.

There is already just about the capacity for 10:1 - 8x50down and 2x18up seems to be normal. I know there is a third upstream in use locally because my son is on it and he's on the same CMTS as me but a different optical node - he has only 6 down with the 2 up so > 10% capacity. Maybe that's too simplistic but I think there must be some other reason for not increasing the upload - after all insufficient downstream has never stopped them selling upgrades or making new sales.

Kabaal · 05-12-2013, 13:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwikbreaks

It could also be a means of protecting downstream as someone mentiond the other day. I don't use torrents but as I understand it how fast you get stuff depends on how fast you upload too plus there is some sort of code that requires upload volumes to be the same or greater than download. OK so they are supposed to apply shaping but just how effective is it? I imagine using a VPN would defeat it but there may be simpler options that work too.

Not the case, you can set your upload speed to 0KB/s on your torrent client and still get the full 126mb/s download. A lot of trackers have rules that you must seed back to a 1:1 ratio but the speed you do it at doesn't matter, it could take an hour or a year to seed back as long as it hits 1:1. Obviously it's easier to do at a fast speed but upload speed isn't a technical requirement or a rule.

craigj2k12 · 05-12-2013, 17:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I'd remind that only a proportion of BT Infinity or FTTC customers get the 20 meg upstream. I get less than 10 meg and at least 50% of FTTC customers (my estimate) are situated at or beyond the point where their u[stream is lower than VM's 120/12.

Less is lost on the upstream on FTTC, i.e. more people are likely to get 20mbit upstream than 80mbit downstream

---------- Post added at 16:25 ---------- Previous post was at 16:19 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwikbreaks

I've never seen a 10:1 promise in any VM material - just supposition from customers.

The original announcement from mark wilkin on the VM forum said "upload speeds will be 10% of download speeds"

also, the latest I can find regarding 3 and 6mbit upload speeds are in these to messages from mark wilkin

http://community.virginmedia.com/t5/...ht/true#M25129

---------- Post added at 16:28 ---------- Previous post was at 16:25 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwikbreaks

Looks like they have quietly forgotten it to me. VM sell based on headline downstream speeds. It's all they have that they can show to be better than FTTC and then only for the higher tiers until the next round of downstream increases. Most of the buyers probably don't consider upstream so VM don't need to bust a gut.

New customer price point for 60 + phone is pretty much equal to 76/19 FTTC + phone

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kushan

That's exactly it. They haven't forgot it, they've just put it on a much lower priority because its marketing value isn't the same as headline download speeds.

Id say this ^

Looks like they still have plans to return to a 10:1 ratio, but the downstream upgrades are taking priority. Although having seen quite a few posts about QAM64 upstreams, it does look like they are working hard at the upstream (allbeit very hush hush)

---------- Post added at 16:29 ---------- Previous post was at 16:28 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kabaal

Not the case, you can set your upload speed to 0KB/s on your torrent client and still get the full 126mb/s download. A lot of trackers have rules that you must seed back to a 1:1 ratio but the speed you do it at doesn't matter, it could take an hour or a year to seed back as long as it hits 1:1. Obviously it's easier to do at a fast speed but upload speed isn't a technical requirement or a rule.

Most trackers use the tit-for-tat alogirthm to stop you doing that