Superhub : Playstation 4 partnering with Virgin Media and 200mbit speeds this year?

[qasdfdsaq]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Note - those aren't VM's servers. Those are Google's servers sitting on VM's network, and the issue was problems with the port-channel between the two which ended up being a bug with vendor equipment.

That pretty much proves the "partnership" then... Google hosting servers on VM's network using VM's IPs, for VM customers... I may have been a bit inaccurate with the wording, I wasn't meaning to imply VM owned them, but as above, VM gave Google some of their IPs and a direct connection to their network.

P.S. You wouldn't happen to know if it was a GGC node or something proprietary for VM would you?


---------- Post added at 10:34 ---------- Previous post was at 10:27 ----------

Originally Posted by Kushan

I recall there being a bunch of different "methods" to bypassing the problem, one of which was blocking (if I recall) ntli.com or something, another was blocking Level3's IP's. None of the methods supplied were definitive, with different people reporting different results - including many for whom nothing worked.

Neither of those methods actually "bypass" the problem, which is no surprise they didn't work properly. That was just pure conjecture.

Those who used a provably correct method had a 100% success rate, barring issues that have nothing to do with Youtube such as congestion on a local VM segment.

However, that's not what I'm asking you. I'm asking you to provide a source where VM is claiming to have partnered with Google or Youtube specifically to improve the service. So far, you've only supplied conjecture.

I don't need to answer that because nobody ever claimed it happened - you just made it up on the spot. What I said though was not conjecture in any way when we have hard proof it happened. If you choose not to believe that, that's your problem. Go harass VM if you want a public statement, not me.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

That pretty much proves the "partnership" then... Google hosting servers on VM's network using VM's IPs, for VM customers... I may have been a bit inaccurate with the wording, I wasn't meaning to imply VM owned them, but as above, VM gave Google some of their IPs and a direct connection to their network.

P.S. You wouldn't happen to know if it was a GGC node or something proprietary for VM would you?

GGC as far as I know. Like Akamai nodes GGCs come in different shapes and sizes.

[Kushan]

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

Neither of those methods actually "bypass" the problem, which is no surprise they didn't work properly. That was just pure conjecture.

I can't argue with that one.

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

Those who used a provably correct method had a 100% success rate, barring issues that have nothing to do with Youtube such as congestion on a local VM segment.

And what "provably correct" method was that? The only one I know of that had reasonable success was using a VPN.

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

I don't need to answer that because nobody ever claimed it happened - you just made it up on the spot. What I said though was not conjecture in any way when we have hard proof it happened. If you choose not to believe that, that's your problem. Go harass VM if you want a public statement, not me.

Of course the one thing I actually wanted you to do happens to be the one thing that you apparently don't have to do. You stated that Virgin had a partnership, I asked for proof and you feel you don't need to provide it. There's really nothing more to discuss.

[qasdfdsaq]

Originally Posted by Kushan

And what "provably correct" method was that? The only one I know of that had reasonable success was using a VPN.

Indeed, VPN (and making sure the VPN route wasn't itself subject to secondary congestion) was pretty much the most reliable method of testing. But you still had to manually change DNS as well, in addition to using a VPN. And the VPN endpoint has to be in a suitable location. Not just any VPN would work.

Of course the one thing I actually wanted you to do happens to be the one thing that you apparently don't have to do. You stated that Virgin had a partnership, I asked for proof and you feel you don't need to provide it. There's really nothing more to discuss.

I said they had a partnered with someone. You asked me to quote where they publicly claimed they had a partnership. That's not the same thing.

There are plenty of things VM do that they say nothing about publicly.

Frankly VM don't exactly have a stellar reputation for doing anything they announce publicly in a timely fashion, apart from perhaps price rises.

[Stephen]

Ok back on topic please.

[Qtx]

Originally Posted by Kushan

Yeah but when was that ever a "partnership"?

Mark Wilkin on the VM forum was blaming their CDN Partners for the youtube streaming problems. That was after about four of so months of customers complaining about youtube streaming issues. They only got their backsides in to gear to look at it after TheRegister got involved and the bad publicity got too bad. Streaming issues on VM were legendary and you couldn't have missed all the jokes regarding their adverts about buffering....

Just as an example link of Teflon Mark blaming partners for the youtube streaming fiasco.

So nobody knows anything about this PS4 partnership that was shouted about so long ago? Maybe the thread title should be changed as I don't think anyone is getting 200Mbit this year. Sounds like a usual VM advert to retain customers even though nothing is coming for a couple of years.

[General Maximus]

as I said yesterday in another thread, at the end of the day it is the customer that is suffering. It doesn't matter whether it is the VM network which isn't up to scratch or whether he/they think it is the peering links etc. If there is an issue they need to get a team of peeps together from all areas, identify the cause of the problem and then decide what they are going to do to fix it. Leaving it and leaving it (like shub1) until you get an insane amount of negative publicity ridiculous. Whilst youtube isn't a fundamental service, given the culture we live in these days and social media, I would defo class decent youtube access as a basic service requirement for any bb connection.

[qasdfdsaq]

Originally Posted by General Maximus

as I said yesterday in another thread, at the end of the day it is the customer that is suffering. It doesn't matter whether it is the VM network which isn't up to scratch or whether he/they think it is the peering links etc. If there is an issue they need to get a team of peeps together from all areas, identify the cause of the problem and then decide what they are going to do to fix it. Leaving it and leaving it (like shub1) until you get an insane amount of negative publicity ridiculous. Whilst youtube isn't a fundamental service, given the culture we live in these days and social media, I would defo class decent youtube access as a basic service requirement for any bb connection.

The problem is in the corporate world the various webs of bureaucracy often make it difficult or detrimental to actually get the right people to identify the problem and take responsibility for it/admit fault. Seen it many times myself.

A depends on B to run their service, B depends on A to run their service... A blames B for something not working, B says it's working for other people it must be A's fault. In the end it was a specific interaction between A and B that caused it but both parties were too busy playing corporate politics trying to point the finger to actually locate the underlying problem.

Funny enough while that was me describing a situation at work, it sounds pretty much exactly like what happened with VM's YouTube problems in the end too. I guess it's just that bloody common...

[r94yan]

Still nothing on this????

[Ignitionnet]

Nope.

The whole 200Mb thing was a misunderstanding. VM probably need to complete deployment of the upgrades for 152Mb before they announce 200Mb or a higher tier, those upgrades don't complete until 2015.

[Gtimers]

my contact at vm has stated there will be no 200 in connection with the ps4

[pabscars]

I think the lack of any feedback is a tad embarrassing for virgin media, even if they said it's not going to happen, or we got it wrong folks, but as usual its a case of act dumb and say nowt, which just makes them look unprofessional.

To be honest the whole idea of virgin media using this publicity as a stunt to insinuate that their broadband is any good for gaming compared to other fibre providers is pretty misleading when their jitter is probably the worst in the industry.

[Gtimers]

il be on the case. don't worry...

[r94yan]

So is this just dead in the water? what was the deal anyway? anyone know?

[SnoopZ]

There wasn't a deal i don't think so i would say dead in the water.