Currently I have the best part of 6Tb backed up. 90% photos & video stuff. I find it a little odd that somebody makes the assumption that because they operate in a certain way it's good enough for everyone else too?
Internet in the UK - getting worse (relative to EU + world)
- Thread starter FoxEye
- Start date
Currently I have the best part of 6Tb backed up. 90% photos & video stuff. I find it a little odd that somebody makes the assumption that because they operate in a certain way it's good enough for everyone else too?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 38,367
Then why do we have a ridiculous imbalance? of 350MB Download and only 10 or 20 MB upload?
it doesn't need to be 50/50. but 90/10 would be good. a 350MB download should have at least 35MB upload.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 2,021
- Location
- London
You're definitely an exception, in that I don't know anybody that would do that. Why do expect a standardised service to cater for exceptional requirements?
I find it a little odd you think uploading 6TB of data is normal.
That would cost you £80 a month with google, is that something most people do, or is that exceptional pricing for exceptional requirements?
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2003
- Posts
- 3,525
i think BT stagnate things. we need people to move away from them and shop around, give them some competition.
unfortunately when you go to another provider they are never quite as good. no doubt BT have something to do with this
i just have it in for them because they are great when you are with them as a new customer , then after your deal runs out they charge an absolute fortune.
unfortunately when you go to another provider they are never quite as good. no doubt BT have something to do with this
i just have it in for them because they are great when you are with them as a new customer , then after your deal runs out they charge an absolute fortune.
I agree entirely, as i said, mostly guesswork.
I'm on 30 down, 8 up, if I was 3 houses over, i could get 350 or whatever Virgin top speed is but cul-de-sac.
Costs be about 70 quid a year via Backblaze....and I know loads of photography geeks/video people who do exactly this.
Last edited:
I think the answer to the question of why the upload speeds arent higher is down to the technology used.
I'm not sure if the current version of technology virgin media use (docsis 3.0) is capable of having an equal download and upload speed. But they already have the next version lined up ready which is capable (docsis 3.1). But they aren't deploying it until there is better competition from the full fibre companies. Docsis 3.1 as been around since 2013 yet its not been deployed because there hasn't been any reason for them to bring it in, even though I think its easy to move from 3.0 to 3.1.
On backing up data. I can see the upload speed being an issue as more and more people and companies back up to the cloud, which essentially means upload it to another server across the internet. UK deserves a fast future-proof network for the future. If we had a full fibre network now the maintenance level would drop as there isn't the interference part to deal with. Also no more calling up your isp complaining your speeds dropped and saying there is a fault on the line and the ISP saying no its fine. On full fibre if there is a fault your whole line stops, so the ISP as to deal with it.
I'm not sure if the current version of technology virgin media use (docsis 3.0) is capable of having an equal download and upload speed. But they already have the next version lined up ready which is capable (docsis 3.1). But they aren't deploying it until there is better competition from the full fibre companies. Docsis 3.1 as been around since 2013 yet its not been deployed because there hasn't been any reason for them to bring it in, even though I think its easy to move from 3.0 to 3.1.
On backing up data. I can see the upload speed being an issue as more and more people and companies back up to the cloud, which essentially means upload it to another server across the internet. UK deserves a fast future-proof network for the future. If we had a full fibre network now the maintenance level would drop as there isn't the interference part to deal with. Also no more calling up your isp complaining your speeds dropped and saying there is a fault on the line and the ISP saying no its fine. On full fibre if there is a fault your whole line stops, so the ISP as to deal with it.
Two exceptions in this very thread. Ironic. If someone's paying £80 a month they're doing it wrong. Google do effectively unlimited for £5/month/user and as the other chap said, BlackBlaze, SpiderOak, pCloud et al. will also be in the same ballpark. As I said earlier, but you completely failed to address, the usage isn't there for most because the opportunity isn't there.
You didn't need 50Mbit+ for >4k streaming, because with predominantly slow internet speeds 4k wasn't a 'thing'. That is, until people had downloads fast enough... then lo and behold, the things available made use of the technology (eg YouTube added 4k). Are you seriously telling us that because something is outside of your use-case, that your mind can't envision that anyone else would want to do/use something? If symmetric gigabit, 10Gb or similar was available here widely, trust me people would make use of it. It isn't, so they don't - which isn't the same thing as 'nobody does this so they don't need it'. If that was the case you'd still have a 100MHz processor, 64KB RAM and a 1MB hard drive - because what you were able to do at the time didn't 'need' more.
As a quick side-note, I use Acronis on some of my machines - that's constantly bothering me to use their cloud backup service. I've considered it, however I can't imagine how effective it would be with a 'normal' connection? They must be relying on people having decent upload speed?
Dunno.
Dunno.
Yes, they should be funding fibre instead
Throughout the whole country.It would be one of the best infrastructure projects in terms of reward for money spent.
And it would come in at a fraction of the cost of HS2...
What about data limits tho?
Tethering especially tends to be something minuscule like 5GB /month or whatever.
Haven't heard much about fixed wireless. Hmm a quick Google suggests 5G fixed wireless will deliver about 80-100Mb. Better than a kick in the teeth, I guess. No info about upload speeds.
e: https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.p...do-100mbps-broadband-replace-fixed-lines.html
Looks like a poor substitute for FTTP to be honest. Hugely variable speeds, congestion a real problem (read: "Fair Use" policy will demand you basically not use it at all).
I have visited 100s of home users can confirm 85% 120gb hdd is fine, 10% 250, 3% 500gb 2% over that..
Data can trickle up to the cloud, most people don't generate many gb of stuff on a monthly basis