Ironically I get a higher throughput from my FTTC than I did via Virgin Media's "100Mb" connection, even though most cable users view DSL as being inferior.
VM should concentrate on fixing their existing network first, before they upgrade people's speed to try and stay ahead of BT.
As soon as BT's FTTP on demand is launched, I'll be having some of that tyvm!
Yeah, VM highly amuses me. They just keep upping that sync rate, which is great for their advertising. It's not like it's difficult; they've had an infrastructure, which if you think about it is the same high level overview as FTTC (with cabs locally and then a short run of co-ax to the property) for years.
No need to worry about signal quality and all that for them, they just keep pushing it faster and faster.
But when it comes to the rate you can actually push the bloody packets through, you could be talking kilobits a second, let alone 100 megabit.
Every single person I have personally known who have used VM have regretted it, including myself. Must be 30 or 40 or so by now.
At least the DSL networks are generally uncontended enough that there is no issue. You may sync slower, but you get what you sync at. (with FTTC)
I wonder what speed BT run their connection to the cabs at? 10gbps would be a no brainer, commonly done and easily achievable. And you'd run two, for redundancy. That's 20gbps per cabinet for how many customers? VM run a shoe string up to a cab and if it's overloaded, they're screwed (this is what happend in my case, kept getting promises they were getting more capacity, friends on a different cab having no issues, kept lying and saying it would be fixed soon and in the end after 9 months of miserable speed 18 hours of the day I moved house).
Wow, that was a rant. Sorry about that.
