I would imagine 5g would be great in London, but round here I can't even get h+ or whatever it is called.
Internet in the UK - getting worse (relative to EU + world)
- Thread starter FoxEye
- Start date
I would imagine 5g would be great in London, but round here I can't even get h+ or whatever it is called.
@Em3bbs Thread is only 6 and a bit pages long. Come one, dude
It wasn't just DW a couple people said that already.
Associate
- Joined
- 25 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 72
Ive just downgraded from 200mbit to 60
Fine for streaming netflix, only stuff I download are games (sometimes) and image files for virtual systems (lab use). Have to wait a bit longer for the big stuff but so what.
Glad we are not back on dialup though, i was thrilled when I got 512k and didn't even have to disconnect when mum wanted to use the phone.
I don't think the question should be do people really need gigabit connections, as obviously at this point they are a luxary.
But the fibre network builders have to be building the gigabit fibre networks for the next technology advancement.
The file size increases from year 2000 to 2019 as jumped massively. They will only get bigger. As well as multiple devices using the same connection.
It's like when I bought some Xbox one x game the other week, the actual dvd I think only had some code on as most of the game downloaded online, which for some strange reason took a long time to download. So as we've seen that as games specifically advance the more information needs to be both downloaded and uploaded to servers fast.
There is also this terminal idea were the computer of tomorrow will be a 'dumb' keyboard and monitor and all the processing power is down far away online. But that technology hasn't taken off because of the quality of peoples internet connections.
Of course, if you don't game (the gaming industry is now bigger than the music and movie industry combined) then you'd be happy with a dialup ADSL2+ (upto 24Mbps) connection.
But the fibre network builders have to be building the gigabit fibre networks for the next technology advancement.
The file size increases from year 2000 to 2019 as jumped massively. They will only get bigger. As well as multiple devices using the same connection.
It's like when I bought some Xbox one x game the other week, the actual dvd I think only had some code on as most of the game downloaded online, which for some strange reason took a long time to download. So as we've seen that as games specifically advance the more information needs to be both downloaded and uploaded to servers fast.
There is also this terminal idea were the computer of tomorrow will be a 'dumb' keyboard and monitor and all the processing power is down far away online. But that technology hasn't taken off because of the quality of peoples internet connections.
Of course, if you don't game (the gaming industry is now bigger than the music and movie industry combined) then you'd be happy with a dialup ADSL2+ (upto 24Mbps) connection.
It's the lack of upload speed that I'm bothered about the most.
This is standard landline broadband, I can get FTTC but I doubt it would be much better as it still has to come down the rubbish copper lines on the last leg to my house. I can't get Virgin Media has they don't have any cable in my county never mind street.
This shift to where all games have to be downloaded, even if you buy it on disc... what happens in say 10 years time will there be a market for second hand games, will the game still be available to be downloaded when inserting the disc into a console?
If you don't...
* game
* work from home
* upload to YouTube
* video chat
* use OneDrive/DropBox/Google Drive
(etc)
Then you might be happy with ADSL+.
The upload (<0.5 Mb average) kills it for most.
Probably not. As we've seen in a couple of threads in the past that if someone acts the fool in a beta then the company acts to remove access to all their games.
It seems the way things are going. I just bought PUBG on PS4. It downloads the game and the test server. Game is 37.3GB and the test server is 36.8GB
I remember when games fit on a cassette tape, or a 1.44MB disk, or the CD at 700MB, then the DVD at 4.7GB (Double sided can hold 9.4GB), and finally the Blu-ray holding 25GB (Double sided can hold 50GB).
- Joined
- 14 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 17,521
- Location
- Newcastle U/T
It's the lack of upload speed that I'm bothered about the most.
This is standard landline broadband, I can get FTTC but I doubt it would be much better as it still has to come down the rubbish copper lines on the last leg to my house. I can't get Virgin Media has they don't have any cable in my county never mind street.
Can you post your router stats?
If yer getting 12mbps on adsl then I'd expect you to get a chunk higher than 0.3 up. On fttx
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2003
- Posts
- 10,151
- Location
- Europe
It's places like Estonia and the other Baltic countries that used to have lightening fast connections compared to ours, and didn't just prioritise downloads. It's probably evened out a bit now.
While it might say 445 Kbps up on the stats I can confirm that the actual up is still currently poor as the speedtest result above.
- Joined
- 14 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 17,521
- Location
- Newcastle U/T
I'd be contacting ee and telling them yer leaving after being offered fibre. I think sky are currently charging 29.99.
They should be able to match that easy and you'll deffo end up with a better upload, download to boot I would imagine as well
They should be able to match that easy and you'll deffo end up with a better upload, download to boot I would imagine as well
In the process of switching to Plusnet, go live date is 1st March. £18.99 a month plus £50 Quidco cashback. Currently paying EE £30.50 a month for that shoddy service.
You don't miss what you never had, I suppose? What's your upload? I'm 'lucky' (by UK-wide standards) to have 20Mbps up. This week I switched backup server suppliers (2TB) and had to move data between the two. Since my previous supplier is relatively useless and doesn't offer user control (rsync, ssh, whatever) I had to literally download my data and re-upload it to the new provider.
20Mbps upload = 2.5MB/sec = 2000000MB/2.5MB/sec = ~222 hours or >9 days.
1Gbps upload = 125MB/sec = 2000000MB/125MB/sec = ~4 hours.
10Gbps upload = 1250MB/sec = 2000000MB/1250MB/sec = ~40 minutes.
Tell me again how the internet is hella fast enough in the UK? The capacity for real-time collaboration, content creation, offsite backups, streaming, sharing and so forth is exponential with a 'proper' connection. Getting 50/5 or 100/10 or whatever is fine for a bit of YouTube, but let's not pretend it's a truly decent connection as is experienced by our Nordic and Asian friends, especially. The fact they happen to pay less for symmetric unmetered 10Gbps than we do for DSL just rubs salt into the wound.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,367
4k needs like 20MB so 8K will need 50MB max
i have 350MB currently and it is overkill. most people in the UK need 50-100MB max. Anyone who needs more is doing something illegal most likely or should be using a business broadband provider.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,367
upload is lacking in the UK - i don't know why it's so far behind download.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2013
- Posts
- 2,589
In Cardiff I was on the Virgin 200 package and would consistently get around 216 - 220Mbps. Now in Gloucestershire I am lucky to get 7Mbps with Talktalk.
Games take forever to download!
Games take forever to download!
Permabanned
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 2,021
- Location
- London
I use a server with a 1gbps connection so I know what fast is. It's the difference between wanting something and getting it immediately, or queuing it, making a cup of tea and then having it. I really don't mind having the time to make a cup of tea.
As for uploading 2TB of data from home. I've never had to do that, much like 99% of the population. What on earth is it you're saving that you can't just redownload if you need it?
I always, regardless of cost had the fastest internet connection until it hit 100mb, at that point I realised it wasn't that much better than 50mb, everything is quick enough.
I would assume it's because increased upload bandwidth reduces the download bandwidth but that's just a guess. A 90MB down/10MB up line that becomes 50MB upload would then have 50MB download...does it work like that?
As almost every mainstream package I see seems to be marketed on the maximum available download speed, it would eat into sales if they increased the upload at the detriment of download speed.