100 meg
- Thread starter PapaLazaru
- Start date
poor poor internet
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 4,128
- Location
- Fife
^ just five years ago that would have been a willy wavin connection in the UK
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 May 2004
- Posts
- 3,270
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Sep 2003
- Posts
- 23,180
- Location
- Was 150 yds from OCUK - now 0.5 mile; they moved
100mb is coming to virgin this year..... I'm getting it upon release. Currently on the 50mb tier!
For a lot of the UK, we won't see anything near 10Mb for a while.
At least with that ping and upload you could game online ok
my is pants
Associate
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 61
I have no complaints with my UK internet :
Cheers,
PC.
Cheers,
PC.
She thought 1MB loaded the page nice and quickly, leave her with that and give the ftth to someone who will appreciate it!
Her PC is slow as well, you can see it can't keep up with the connection. My connetion loads pages almost that fast, and it's slow (see below)
Fastest broadband in britain and it's only ~60Mbps. Brilliant :/
At least with that ping and upload you could game online ok
my is pants
Huh?
Last edited:
Wow, that's completely wasted on her. She thought 1MB loaded the page nice and quickly, leave her with that and give the ftth to someone who will appreciate it!
Her PC is crap as well, you can see it can't keep up with the connection
Fastest broadband in britain and it's only ~60Mbps. Brilliant :/
Huh?
my is so out of balance to a lot of peoples uploads, why is my upload and ping so bad
Caporegime
- Joined
- 28 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 52,812
- Location
- Tamworth, UK
well was just a rainstorm I had, lol
Very good response for sewer.
Associate
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 61
Nice upload speed!!!
Faster in actual usage. Speedtest ain't maxing it out properly
.Although for people that use torrents, this is throttled. Good thing I don't, but files to my online workspace go at over 1MB/s
lol at this thread.
Because England is the only country where people live in houses. Hahaha, this thread is hilarious, houses aren't even that popular here, their all attached duplex to each other mostly. Why does the US and Canada have such good internet? They actually have what you would call a house there.
Because England is the only country where people live in houses. Hahaha, this thread is hilarious, houses aren't even that popular here, their all attached duplex to each other mostly. Why does the US and Canada have such good internet? They actually have what you would call a house there.
Internet speeds in the US aren't any better than they are here. According to speedtest.net, the UK is the 31st fastest country in terms of average speed and the US is 32nd.
America's situation is pretty similar to ours - fast cable and fibre in major urban areas, patchy speeds and even dial-up in the sticks. The difference between 'fast' and 'slow' areas is more extreme there, because the population is more concentrated in built-up areas. Quite a lot of Americans can't get broadband at all.
The countries with good average broadband speeds are both densely populated (unlike the US) and have modern telecoms infrastructure (unlike the UK). That's why the top 20 is full of small Asian countries and ex-Soviet states.
Last edited:
Actually the consumer internet connections for the vast majority of the USA and Canada is relatively poor.
Part of the trouble is that in the UK broadband got sucked into being free/cheap as chips as a play by the telcos to tie you into multiplans with Voice lines in a desperate attempt to retain customers by in effect making tricky for you to change.
Once that happened the chance of any significant investment in the infrastructure evaporated as broadband itself makes almost no money at all barely breaking even at best for a lot of providers and making a loss at others.
NTL/Telewest (now Virgin Media) went bankrupt at least once trying to run fibre around the UK and had to give up, it's not a surprise that we have traffic shaping now, BB just doesn't make money and there's no profits or incentive to invest in the infrastructure for "standard" tariffs. They are 100s of millions in debt. Whilst there are some that regard high speed internet access as a "right" they forget it's provided by private company's whose sole responsibility is to make a profit and dividends for it's shareholders.
VM is trying to get round it by charging a "premium rate" for the new high speed connections and BT see profit at that end of the market as well hence Inifinty at a premium. There's only a couple of years that people will pay a premium for those speeds though before they become mainstream and are expected to come free or for next to nothing with the film channels or phone.
It's not helped by a small but impactive chunk of users that want to download porn/films/software and lets be honest, other dodgy "stuff" (yes, yes, linux distros, 15 people in the same house watching iPlayer HD, blah blah blah) 24x7 and then complain that they should get a full 10/20/50mb 24x7 or whatever for the comparative pittance they pay a month. Whilst in an ideal world that's right, and it should be no business of the ISP what you download and how much of it, it's just not practical to sustain a network to meet those needs at the prices the market will pay.
Unfortunately we get the internet connection we pay for and as the vast majority of the population pays "bugger all" guess what we get?
Which brings us back to the beginning. There's almost no profit in broadband in the UK so no one is going to spend the billions to give us all unlimited fibre to the house, 400mb constant 24x7 for £30 which is all the vast majority of people will want to pay now the expectations of "free broadband with your phone" has been set.
Universally available free or nominal fee basic flat rate 2mb broadband enabling websurfing and email access topped up by any faster speeds at pay per Gb might well be coming and the answer - it supports net neutrality (ISPs don't care what it is you download any more), the more you download the more you pay and the users that have the most impact on the network pay the most to enable it to be upgraded to cope.
Unlimted/free/cheap just isn't sustainable if you want the network to move much beyond where it is now. Virgin Media can do a max of 400mb on the current network. Sure that's a lot now but then 512k 10 years ago was a lot. Without a major update the current fibre networks are going to be hard pushed to cope with demand in 10 years time .
Part of the trouble is that in the UK broadband got sucked into being free/cheap as chips as a play by the telcos to tie you into multiplans with Voice lines in a desperate attempt to retain customers by in effect making tricky for you to change.
Once that happened the chance of any significant investment in the infrastructure evaporated as broadband itself makes almost no money at all barely breaking even at best for a lot of providers and making a loss at others.
NTL/Telewest (now Virgin Media) went bankrupt at least once trying to run fibre around the UK and had to give up, it's not a surprise that we have traffic shaping now, BB just doesn't make money and there's no profits or incentive to invest in the infrastructure for "standard" tariffs. They are 100s of millions in debt. Whilst there are some that regard high speed internet access as a "right" they forget it's provided by private company's whose sole responsibility is to make a profit and dividends for it's shareholders.
VM is trying to get round it by charging a "premium rate" for the new high speed connections and BT see profit at that end of the market as well hence Inifinty at a premium. There's only a couple of years that people will pay a premium for those speeds though before they become mainstream and are expected to come free or for next to nothing with the film channels or phone.
It's not helped by a small but impactive chunk of users that want to download porn/films/software and lets be honest, other dodgy "stuff" (yes, yes, linux distros, 15 people in the same house watching iPlayer HD, blah blah blah) 24x7 and then complain that they should get a full 10/20/50mb 24x7 or whatever for the comparative pittance they pay a month. Whilst in an ideal world that's right, and it should be no business of the ISP what you download and how much of it, it's just not practical to sustain a network to meet those needs at the prices the market will pay.
Unfortunately we get the internet connection we pay for and as the vast majority of the population pays "bugger all" guess what we get?
Which brings us back to the beginning. There's almost no profit in broadband in the UK so no one is going to spend the billions to give us all unlimited fibre to the house, 400mb constant 24x7 for £30 which is all the vast majority of people will want to pay now the expectations of "free broadband with your phone" has been set.
Universally available free or nominal fee basic flat rate 2mb broadband enabling websurfing and email access topped up by any faster speeds at pay per Gb might well be coming and the answer - it supports net neutrality (ISPs don't care what it is you download any more), the more you download the more you pay and the users that have the most impact on the network pay the most to enable it to be upgraded to cope.
Unlimted/free/cheap just isn't sustainable if you want the network to move much beyond where it is now. Virgin Media can do a max of 400mb on the current network. Sure that's a lot now but then 512k 10 years ago was a lot. Without a major update the current fibre networks are going to be hard pushed to cope with demand in 10 years time .
Last edited:
-Sewers: Being trialled in Bournemouth IIRC.
-USA/Canada: Very bad example when trying to disprove the idea about housing and internet connections, as theirs is nothing special these days (10+ years ago, maybe).
Anyway one of the main issues we face is that broadband is not a product that can be easily targeted at individuals - it's not like, say, sports cars where you just need to produce and sell the good. It needs significant infrastructure investment and the only way that is viable is if you have a large number of customers in a given area.
What this means is that due to these barriers to entry you cannot meet all the customer demands. For example I would happily pay £50+/month (maybe even £1000/year) for a genuinely top notch internet connection (<5ms latency, 10mbit full duplex with no shaping etc). But nobody can offer me that where I live, because there aren't enough like-minded individuals concentrated in the same area.
-USA/Canada: Very bad example when trying to disprove the idea about housing and internet connections, as theirs is nothing special these days (10+ years ago, maybe).
Anyway one of the main issues we face is that broadband is not a product that can be easily targeted at individuals - it's not like, say, sports cars where you just need to produce and sell the good. It needs significant infrastructure investment and the only way that is viable is if you have a large number of customers in a given area.
What this means is that due to these barriers to entry you cannot meet all the customer demands. For example I would happily pay £50+/month (maybe even £1000/year) for a genuinely top notch internet connection (<5ms latency, 10mbit full duplex with no shaping etc). But nobody can offer me that where I live, because there aren't enough like-minded individuals concentrated in the same area.
Although, saying that we don't even bother to do that in the UK. All of the new build high-rise in London just has copper to the flat - not even co-ax for VM let alone fibre!
I currently get 5.5Mbit ADSL - living directly over the road from Telehouse, GS1 and even LINX, with one of the main fibre ducts towards Canary Wharf running within 10m of the front door of my building.
Yeah its a shame companies like BT or VM haven't put fibre down in new housing estates, even if they weren't used right away.
Not sure what your point is there. If you lived next to the motorway, you wouldn't have each drive way connected to it. Those are purely backbone links.
I'm Product Manager (Data) at a UK Telco, and have to echo a number of the statements here. Whilst the efforts of what is now Virgin Media were commendable, the practicality of deployment at that scale is simply not sustainable with our current populace and mentality. Undoubtedly, the pricing of Ethernet services is dropping, and services such as EFM are increasing in both reliability and availability, but we are still a way off 100mb to the home for the general populace.
The options in my mind exist for some niche players within the market as a whole however, particularly in the gaming sector where latency can play a major part. How many would pay a premium with a network provider offering a more direct connection to game servers, and services such as steam for example?
The options in my mind exist for some niche players within the market as a whole however, particularly in the gaming sector where latency can play a major part. How many would pay a premium with a network provider offering a more direct connection to game servers, and services such as steam for example?