Virgin Media to Double Broadband Speed

[Blackened]

Would anyone know (or like to speculate) about pricing for those on 20mb and 30mb. In so much as; won't people be inclined to downgrade to a presumably cheaper 20mb to get the same speed (60mb) as those paying for 30mb?
Or perhaps the difference between 20mb and 30mb users getting the upgrade would be like those now on the different 10mb & 20mb (M & L) who have different STM limits and upload speeds?

I hope that made sense

[BenMcr]

XL 20 and XL 30 cost exactly the same. If anything XL 30 is slightly cheaper for some customers than the XL 20 they are currently on

---------- Post added at 13:50 ---------- Previous post was at 13:49 ----------

Originally Posted by telfordcable

Why is upload is really bad on top tied 120Mb ? Should be 40Mb upload but why 12Mb ??

Because the uploads all have a 10:1 ratio of the download

[thenry]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

What security?

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/12...ed-modems.html

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Sirius

Excellent news

As has been said above Q the following

The "I am going to cancel and move to Sky" threats if it is not completed YESTERDAY.

The why has that area been done before mine.

I want a reduction to my cost now because i don't have the new speed and they do.

I am already on 100 meg so a speed increase of 20 meg is something i will not be losing sleep over as far as time scales are concerned. The reduction is cost for 100 meg users is more of a benefit to me

Easy to be cavalier about timescales, you aren't still waiting for the upstream uplift.

As it was I'm so fed up of waiting and seeing constant delays I've ordered VDSL. Well played VM, continuous incompetence, indifference and repeatedly ****ing me about has certainly borne fruit.

In other news this is obviously very, very good news for all customers, there are few reasons for complaint beyond that the blessed areas will start getting these increases in March while some will be waiting until the middle of next year and 15 months for upgrades on a cable network passing 12 million homes is laughable.

[Blackened]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

XL 20 and XL 30 cost exactly the same. If anything XL 30 is slightly cheaper for some customers than the XL 20 they are currently on

Ah, I see. Isn't that a bit weird? A lower tier being the same price I mean?

[Kushan]

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

Wireless G isn't capable of more than 25mbps at any distance. The technology simply does not allow it. You won't get 30 or 45 at any distance.

This isn't true, I've hit 30+ on a wireless G system, myself (it was good equipment and I was right next to the modem). And by Wireless-G I mean G, not G+ or any of those other ones rated above 54Mbps.

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

Wrong. Wireless-N is far better in terms of advertised speeds vs real speeds. G will achieve 25 out of 54 at best. N will achieve 60 out of 72. 65/72 is the default, standard, basic rate of N. Speeds above 72/144 have to be disabled by default on most wifi certified devices.

I said advertised speeds, I'm talking about what's written on the front of the box, not what Windows is telling you that you're idling at. You see plenty of stuff advertising as "Wireless-N, up to 300Mbit!" but it'll never hit that. It might say it's connected at that and report it to windows as 300mbit, but it won't get that kind of throughput.

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

No.

Umm...yes? I mean "No" isn't exactly much of an argument. But the point is that most people, I'm talking about 90% of Virgin's 4million BBI customers, will buy cheap stuff because it's cheap. Why pay £700 for a laptop when PC world has one on sale for £250? Bargain! And that's where the cheapnesss creeps in - wireless is nearly always one of the first things to get cut down because it'll still be rated as Wireless-N on the box no matter what.

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

Completely wrong. Most laptops have 2x2, and 2x2 is 300mbit. 3x3 is 450, not 300. Wireless-N doesn't have any single speed rating (up to 600 is easily possible), just because 300 is the most common rating so far doesn't mean wireless-N is only 300.

Read what I said above, the problem is what's written on the box doesn't necessarily meet what the equipment can actually handle - you only have to look at the Superhub itself to see that.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by thenry

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/12...ed-modems.html

Yes, but that's not dependent on the SuperHub. The Hub and older modems can also do the modem security

[Sirius]

Dont forget for those on 100 Mbit who want to see the full 120 Mbit check your network cards are 1 gig cards and not 10/100

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Blackened

Ah, I see. Isn't that a bit weird? A lower tier being the same price I mean?

At the time it was done so that there wasn't a forced upgrade for 20Mbit customers i.e you could opt in for £30 an no monthly cost increase

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

Yes, but that's not dependent on the SuperHub. The Hub and older modems can also do the modem security

Correct. That is all old news now with the latest security on the network and is just not an impact any more. Just a case of scare mongering to highlight an agenda if you ask me.

[telfordcable]

Originally Posted by Sirius

Dont forget for those on 100 Mbit who want to see the full 120 Mbit check your network cards are 1 gig cards and not 10/100

Yes and not suitable for any N wi fi wireless laptop will failed to get 100 Meg!

[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.

[thenry]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

Yes, but that's not dependent on the SuperHub. The Hub and older modems can also do the modem security

Originally Posted by Sirius

Correct. That is all old news now with the latest security on the network and is just not an impact any more. Just a case of scare mongering to highlight an agenda if you ask me.

old news yet still today clones make it onto the network

agenda: to kill off vermin.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by thenry

old news yet still today clones make it onto the network

agenda: to kill off vermin.

I may have got this wrong but I thought the security got switched on as part of the upload increases in each area, so as soon as the final area gets the upload increase then there will be no way to do it

[telfordcable]

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.

Will be 124Mb (including overhead) 100Mb is 104Mb so 120Mb become 124Mb.