Virgin Media Discussion Thread

chroniclard · 7 Jul 2017 at 15:30

Jitter seems ok.

chroniclard · 7 Jul 2017 at 15:33

Dont think that test is especially comprehensive though.

ChrisD. · 7 Jul 2017 at 16:38

Not in the slightest.

Madeddie · 7 Jul 2017 at 16:55

I don't know if that's strictly true, I've been told that I will be getting FTTP (Fibre to the premise) and this press release backs it up.

http://www.virginmedia.com/corporat...unces-largest-uk-fibre-broadband-rollout.html

Edited - I've researched this a bit further now, I can see what your saying - but was partly right, so existing HFC (Hybrid Fibre Coax) on virgins network is capable of speed delivery between 200-300mb.

FTTP will be deployed to new areas across the country capable of 300MB - 1GB, presuming it will just come standard 300MB to begin with.

Does that mean that everyone who already has HFC can get 300 or will it depend on how far they live from the cab, guessing node contention is also a factor?

Steampunk said:
Nope, it's all coax from the cabinet. All they do for the higher speeds is give you a superhub 3 and bond more channels for you.

G-MAN2004 · 8 Jul 2017 at 18:22

Is this looking alright? I seem to get 4 or 5 of those big spikes a day, strangely at times we're not really using the Internet that much. :confused:

SpitfireTT · 8 Jul 2017 at 22:51

this is my graph using a SHub 3.0

Does this look ok to you? everywhere i ping to i get packet loss

and a cmd -n 100

What results do you get?

Does the above look ok or do you think its worth a call to CS

bremen1874 · 8 Jul 2017 at 23:06

Not getting a response to a ping isn't necessarily packet loss. The equipment you're pinging may just be busy doing something useful, or may be configured to not reply at all.

SpitfireTT · 9 Jul 2017 at 11:18

Thanks - I was concerned about the Packet loss on several hops as well as the ping times suddenly shooting up

Steampunk · 9 Jul 2017 at 11:35

SpitfireTT said:
Thanks - I was concerned about the Packet loss on several hops as well as the ping times suddenly shooting up

Virgin have said for years that they de-prioritise pings over their network when they bandwidth is busy. They don't want their routers slowing down real traffic to service ping testing. However, this does also hide response times and latency, so it helps VM deflect complaints of poor pings because pings are now an unreliable testing tool.

Cromulent · 12 Jul 2017 at 16:49

gareth170 said:
wrong

the 300 package as no traffic management on upload..

i'm on the 300Mb

Oh OK. I rang up Virgin Media today to see how much it would cost to upgrade to the 300Mb package and was pleasantly surprised. I might do that tomorrow then if all goes well although I'm still a bit worried it might not be as good for Twitch streaming at high bit rates seeing as that is the main thing I use my internet for (will also start uploading some YouTube videos as well).

Converge · 14 Jul 2017 at 22:22

Has anyone heard or read anything more about when they're fixing the SH3?

I've only seen the one article that was last updated in June to say that they're carrying out 'testing'... probably just switching it off then on again...!

AssaTM · 15 Jul 2017 at 17:45

Whatever happened to the rollout of FTTH from Virgin anyway? did that stall? is it still progressing and if so is there a good place to keep up to date on it at all please? the pace of broadband expansions/speed increases in the UK is really quite depressing now, it's 2017 and there are many places in Europe relaxing on their 1Gbps line like it's an expectancy and not a privilege to have it

asim18 · 16 Jul 2017 at 23:11

AssaTM said:
Whatever happened to the rollout of FTTH from Virgin anyway? did that stall? is it still progressing and if so is there a good place to keep up to date on it at all please? the pace of broadband expansions/speed increases in the UK is really quite depressing now, it's 2017 and there are many places in Europe relaxing on their 1Gbps line like it's an expectancy and not a privilege to have it

I know you didn't blame Virgin for the poor nationwide speeds but it's all openreach's fault. Virgin just runs a limited HFC CATV network.

Also DOCSIS 3.1 is fine for up to 10Gb because coax is an actual transmission line as opposed to just a bunch of 100 year old twisted wires. And Virgin has ALWAYS been faster than any commonly available xDSL technology.

Openreach just want to milk 100 year old degraded wires with as many iterations of xDSL as they can possibly milk; all while increasing line rental charges for everybody, while lying to people and telling them their 100 year old wires have magically turned into "fibre".

ChrisD. · 17 Jul 2017 at 10:15

asim18 said:
Openreach just want to milk 100 year old degraded wires with as many iterations of xDSL as they can possibly milk; all while increasing line rental charges for everybody, while lying to people and telling them their 100 year old wires have magically turned into "fibre".

I presume you know the ins and outs of replacing the old cable with fibre, how much it would cost, the benefit etc? Who is going to fund it all?

Because I'm sure people with access to this knowledge have looked at it, and decided that it's far too expensive for the time being.

scorchedbee · 17 Jul 2017 at 12:14

Well I just upgraded to the vivid 300 package

331mb down and 21mb up now. Happy with that.

Steampunk · 17 Jul 2017 at 13:02

ChrisD. said:
I presume you know the ins and outs of replacing the old cable with fibre, how much it would cost, the benefit etc? Who is going to fund it all?

Because I'm sure people with access to this knowledge have looked at it, and decided that it's far too expensive for the time being.

No, they've looked at it and decided that there is more profit in leaving it as long as they can and milking as much as they can while there is little competition. Why spend money when you can market your old stuff?

ChrisD. · 17 Jul 2017 at 13:34

Steampunk said:
No, they've looked at it and decided that there is more profit in leaving it as long as they can and milking as much as they can while there is little competition. Why spend money when you can market your old stuff?

What's the source of this information? Conjecture?

Steampunk · 17 Jul 2017 at 13:55

ChrisD. said:
What's the source of this information? Conjecture?

Same as the source of yours.

Edit: Actually, that's a pretty unworthy response. I had some discussions a while ago with the network and infrastructure planners at Virgin (Blueyonder as they were then) regarding low speeds and investment in the UK in comparison to places like South Korea and Holland, and it boiled down to money. They had many excuses, but it pretty much came down to investment and profit. It was interesting how expenditure (ie work on improving the network) went down before they sold themselves off to Liberty, because it made the bottom line look better in advance of the sell-off. Now we have the continued oversubscription in many areas, and underinvestment in the backbone, because they are stretching resources to maximise profits.

It's the monolithic telecoms model where you eek out improvements when you have to, cream off profit the rest of the time. There's an old telecoms saying that once you've built the network, "you're making money while you sleep", and you want your lines maximised all the time before you upgrade them.

ChrisD. · 17 Jul 2017 at 14:21

Steampunk said:
Same as the source of yours.

Edit: Actually, that's a pretty unworthy response. I had some discussions a while ago with the network and infrastructure planners at Virgin (Blueyonder as they were then) regarding low speeds and investment in the UK in comparison to places like South Korea and Holland, and it boiled down to money. They had many excuses, but it pretty much came down to investment and profit. It was interesting how expenditure (ie work on improving the network) went down before they sold themselves off to Liberty, because it made the bottom line look better in advance of the sell-off. Now we have the continued oversubscription in many areas, and underinvestment in the backbone, because they are stretching resources to maximise profits.

It's the monolithic telecoms model where you eek out improvements when you have to, cream off profit the rest of the time. There's an old telecoms saying that once you've built the network, "you're making money while you sleep", and you want your lines maximised all the time before you upgrade them.

Didn't VM almost go bust laying out their fibre network about 20 years ago? I know there is profit and corporate greed involved but I don't think the Openreach board had a meeting after investigating rolling out FTTP everywhere or replacing all copper with fibre and went 'LOL let's just milk those poor ******** some more before the government intervene'.

They would have looked at it and decided that it wasn't worth the investments because it may ruin the company or the benefit was not worth the risk or cash investment. It's not like you can openly order 1Gbit in every part of Europe, that's complete nonsense and I don't understand why people believe this.

The thing is, a good majority of consumers don't want or need over 40 mbps, as long as they can go on Facebook, watch YouTube and stream Netflix, they're happy. Why should a company cater for a small percentage of us turbo nerds who ultimately will use the max connection speed of 1Gbit about once per month and even then in most cases it will be for e-peen size on forums.

Silly Goose On The Loose · 17 Jul 2017 at 14:43

The thing that makes me angry is with BDUK the Government really had an opportunity to roll out proper fibre and they completely missed it. Only now are they saying it is needed. So a bit less investment saved the Government for a few years. They're going to have to invest again to keep us competitive. Seems like a waste to me.

Virgin Media Discussion Thread

Mobster