Skip Navigation


UK broadband speeds increase but promise-to-delivery gap widens
Tuesday 27 July 2010 06:19:10 by Sebastien Lahtinen

Ofcom has this morning published its latest research into broadband speeds which shows that over the last year, the average broadband speed has increased from 4.1 to 5.2Mbps, but worryingly also that the gap between actual speeds and promised speeds (the headline 'up to' speed) is widening.

The study conducted on behalf of Ofcom by Samknows shows that the proportion of UK fixed line residential broadband connections advertised as 'up to 10Mbps' has increased from 8% (April 2009) to 24% (May 2010), as more consumers upgrade their ADSL broadband packages from 'up to 8 meg' ADSL to ADSL2+ services which can run at up to 24Mbps. This increase in speeds is therefore not necessarily showing a significant improvement in infrastructure, but more probably consumers willing to upgrade due to lower prices or greater demands.

This increasing gap between the advertised speeds and actual throughput is caused primarily by the fact most people in the UK receive their broadband service through the phone line using ADSL technology, which suffers from interference and signal degradation which gets worse, the further away you live from the telephone exchange. Whilst faster up to 24Mbps services are available, very few will receive these top speeds and most will only see a fractional increase in their broadband speeds.

Those lucky enough to live in areas covered by Virgin Media's cable broadband however have another option—Its services are provided using different technology which does not suffer from the same signal problems related to distance. By using fibre-to-the-cabinet (FTTC) in 50% of the country, it is able to deliver an average speed of 8.7Mbps on its 10Mbps package and 15.7Mbps on its 20Mbps products, representing 87% and 79% of the headline speed respectively, whilst ADSL-based alternatives were delivering a fraction of this.

"Ofcom's broadband speeds report again proves Virgin Media is consistently more than twice as fast as any of our DSL competitors [..] It's clear that our DSL competitors just aren't keeping up with their promises of 20Mb broadband. No DSL customer receives 18Mb, only 2% are receiving more than 14Mb and, on average, DSL providers are delivering just 33% of their advertised 'up to 20Mb' speed. We need to ensure people are not being ripped off and the lack of transparency in broadband advertising risks damaging consumer confidence in superfast broadband. The Advertising Standards Authority has announced a review into the way broadband is advertised and the need for change is now urgent."

Jon James, executive director of broadband, Virgin Media

The comparisons used by Ofcom for ADSL/cable are not exact as the headline speeds used by each vary with ADSL focussing often on '8 meg' and '24 meg' due to technological standards, whilst cable services are advertised as '10 meg', '20 meg' and '50 meg', however whichever measurement is used, ADSL is significantly more variable in performance:

Headline ("advertised") speed Average actual speed Average-to-headline
'up to' 8/10 Mbps ADSL 3.3Mbps 33-41%
'up to' 20/24 Mbps ADSL 6.5Mbps 27-33%
'up to' 10 Mbps cable 8.7Mbps 87%
'up to' 20 Mbps cable 15.7Mbps 79%

"Virgin Media's 'up to' 10Mbit/s and 'up to' 20Mbit/s cable services delivered average download speeds around twice as fast as DSL packages with the same or similar headline speed.

The cable broadband service on average delivered higher download speeds at all times of the day than comparable DSL services, however it showed a greater slowdown during peak periods than some DSL providers."

Ofcom

It is worth noting that obviously ADSL coverage being near double the footprint of  Virgin Media's cable network is a significant factor in these averages being low as it's the only widely used technology available to those outside cable areas. Of course, wireless, mobile and satellite services are also an option, albeit not as common.

ISP Package 24x7
(single thread)
8-10pm weekdays (single thread) 4-6am
(multi-thread)
'Up to' 8/10Mbps packages
AOL Broadband 'up to' 8Mbps* 3.6 - 4.7 3.4 - 4.4 4.0 - 5.2
BT 'up to' 8Mbps 3.8 - 4.5 3.4 - 4.1 4.0 - 4.7
O2/Be 'up to' 8Mbps 4.3 - 5.0 4.2 - 5.0 4.6 - 5.4
Orange 'up to'8Mbps* 3.3 - 4.2 2.6 - 3.4 4.1 - 5.3
PlusNet 'up to' 8Mbps 3.3 - 4.2 3.0 - 3.9 3.4 - 4.4
Sky 'up to' 10Mbps 3.9 - 4.9 3.8 - 4.9 4.1 - 5.2
TalkTalk 'up to' 8Mbps 3.6 - 4.3 3.4 - 4.1 3.8 - 4.7
Virgin Media 'up to' 10Mbps 8.6 - 9.0 7.5 - 8.0 9.1 - 9.5
'Up to' 20/24 - 'up to' 50Mbps packages
BT 'up to' 20Mbps 6.1 - 7.6 5.6 - 7.0 6.4 - 8.1
O2/Be 'up to' 20/24Mbps 8.1 - 9.7 7.9 - 9.4 8.9 - 10.8
Sky 'up to' 20Mbps 7.0 - 8.6 6.9 - 8.5 7.5 - 9.3
TalkTalk 'up to' 24Mbps 6.5 - 8.4 5.9 - 7.6 7.3 - 9.7
Virgin Media 'up to' 20Mbps 15.2 - 16.5 13.4 - 14.9 17.4 - 19
Virgin Media 'up to' 50Mbps 33.4 - 36.7 31.8 - 35.2 45.9 - 47.4

* Caution – Small sample size under 50 testers

The above chart shows the speed variations (min/max of averages provided by Ofcom) for single-threaded tests both within the 24-hour period as a whole as well as within the peak 8-10pm periods. It does not take into consideration multi-threaded tests between 4-6am during which Virgin XXL '50 meg' customers attained speeds of around 46Mbps.

The eight providers covered in the research represent the vast majority of broadband connections and tests were carried out at 1,500 locations in total. We do remain disappointed Ofcom continues to exclude smaller providers from its studies.

Research into broadband speeds is vital to ensure that consumers are making informed decisions. We are also very pleased that the Advertising Standards Authority have finally decided to review how broadband services are advertised, with particular focus on the use of the term 'unlimited'.

You can test your own broadband speed on our speed test on our website or if you have an Android phone, why not try our mobile speed test for Android which we are currently beta testing.

Comments

Posted by AndrueC over 6 years ago
"No DSL customer receives 18Mb" Eh? What's that supposed to mean? Be has several customers that sync in excess of 18Mb/s.

Although I applaud the idea and effort behind these figures I don't actually think they help. They are for the most part stating the bleedin' obvious.

The whole 'up to' debate is becoming farcical. Of /course/ as ADSL2+ becomes standard the gap widens. It's called the laws of physics.
Posted by AndrueC over 6 years ago
And as for VM - well I might only get a 14Mb/s sync (and that's on the outskirts of a town) but at least I could run it 24/7/365 without my ISP complaining. Assuming I could find that much information to download in the first place.

I think they should be concentrating on connection speed v. throughput. /That's/ where ISP's service standards matter.
Posted by AndrueC over 6 years ago
I'll be interested to see what the ASA and Ofcom conclude about advertising. I really don't see how else you can advertise an xDSL connection without using the phrase 'up to'. It would be good to get rid of 'unlimited' though since in most cases it's a joke.
Posted by Pendlemac over 6 years ago
Oops! is all I can say about VMs claim on 18Mb/s.

I'm syncing at 18.1 and that's with Annex M taking some downstream to boost my upstream!

I assume these figure are sync speeds rather than true throughput speeds as MS etc certainly don't send data out at more than about 3Mb/s ( I get 300KB/s from them. )
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
To say that Virgin don't suffer the same distance issues as ADSL does 15.7Mbps on a 20Mbps package sound good? We all know ADSL suffers line length/quality issues but what is the excuse for Virgin? I really don't see how any ADSL provider can accurately label their product speed to be honest. It really is a case of how long is a piece of string but in this case... copper.
Posted by chrysalis over 6 years ago
AndrueC they may adopt the american model, where if a customer gets less then a certian % of the up to speed the isp has to make available a cheaper lower speed alternative. Such as up to 4mbit. Reason I am thinking this is when I spoke to ofcom about my VM speed issues I was asked if VM offered me a cheaper price for the speed I was receiving.
As for VM their averages look quite good but they certianly do have some heavily congested areas so are not innocent in this.
Posted by nadger over 6 years ago
My Plusnet 8Mbps account is helping push up the average as it's well above 5Mbps and I'm part of the trial. Tests are run every hour and I can view my stats on Samknows site. It means having a Cisco Linksys WRT160NL plugged into ones own router for a couple of years. Overall it uses about 2Gb of bandwidth a month.
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
"the gap between actual speeds and promised speeds (the headline 'up to' speed) is widening"

This worrys me...

The speed is marketed as 'up to', ie, in a best case scenario.

It is not a promised speed by any means.

Also, 31.8Mb on a 50Mb package... yeah its quick, but ffs thats a fair cut. Especially when the service IS capable of these speeds, DOCSIS3.0 can do 600 or so Mb without too much hassle... that is a pretty hefty amount of traffic shaping and restrcited backhaul.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Actually thinking about why don't they just do away with speed references at all for ADSL as they can't accurately predict them anyway, why not just relabel them low/medium/heavy usage with download limits/caps associated with each (should they wish to enforce them) and in the description state they'll get anything from 512k up to 24Mb (depending on their area).
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
..cont

It doesn't cost the provider any extra to provide a 512k or 24Mb connection, ok I know its differnet DSLAM's bear with me, but I mean in terms of providing a connection leaving 2+ aside its no real difference to the ISP they just supply the user with a connection and it does what it does. Why bother getting the customers hopes up in the first place. If its not got up to 8/16/24mb in the title there is less to moan about.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
I didn't even notice the 33Mb of a 50mb service Tark, that is shambolic especially as there isn't supposed to be any STM on that product line.
Posted by AndrueC over 6 years ago
@pendlemac:Downloading what? On the occasions when I've tried their HD Showcase I usually get over a megabyte a second. Not tested it recently though.
Posted by timmay over 6 years ago
Please don't call Virgin Media FTTC! It is confusing people that'll think BT's version of FTTC will not be affected by distance when in fact it is. Please refer to VM's network as Hybrid fibre-coaxial (HFC) or DOCSIS.
Posted by herdwick over 6 years ago
VM's position is as usual a complete con. Their service is not "up to" anything it is a fixed speed so the percentage throughputs you see on their packages represent the congestion on the service.

The ADSL numbers are a combination of sync speed % of the limit and congestion, which simply isn't the same thing. To get a good comparison with a 10M Virgin service look at the 8128 sync customers only on ADSL.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"VM's position is as usual a complete con. Their service is not "up to" anything it is a fixed speed"

No it isnt read their web site
Virgin cable clearly out performs BT.... Oh and for the people moaning about a Virgin 50Mb service only getting 30 odd Mb........
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
If thats so bad why are you lot defending BT FTTC i can happily point to the forums and numerous people getting nowhere near the UPTO 40Mb that promises. The figures are in Virgin beats ADSL and their 50Mb service speeds on average PROBABLY beat BT FTTC also.... You BT fans cant defend the shocking speed ADSL gives and the speed drops on BT FTTC anymore. The evidence is in BT loses the speed race... The End!
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
In the UPTO 10Mb speed race the only people that did worse than BT were AOHelL... That says more than enough.
Posted by AndrueC over 6 years ago
@CB:Although you could argue (hope perhaps) that BT have disproportionately more people on hard to serve exchanges where LLUOs fear to tread. After all the way Ofcom have pushed things means that BT are increasingly becoming specialists in providing connectivity to have-nots while the LLUOs pick off the cream of the crop.

I doubt that accounts for it though. BT are just slow in upgrading even FTTC is too little too late really. Would be better to use that out in the sticks then FTTP in urban areas.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
One query though, why wasnt Tiscali tested? That result would had given us all a chuckle, or were they tested but didnt register enough speed to make any chart?
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
But as discussed if the forums it hasn't been proven what the cause of the FTTC speed drops are, I'm sure its backhaul related which is down to the ISP not buying enough of it. Virgin cable don't have the limitations like ADSL does, why aren't all of their users getting full speed?

It a FTTC can get great speeds at sometimes but not other's that points to congestion not sync rate.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
@AndrueC I deliberately Left LLU out of the equation, for the reasons you mention, its ADSL/2+ but not as widespread so even i admit it would perform better and to an extent can skew the figures. Also agree if Virgins system at certain time hits around 46Mb on the 50Mb service FTTC is too late. BT should had gone with FTTP ive yet to see anyone on FTTC which actually gets the full 40Mb so flogging a 60Mb, 100Mb or whatever FTTC product wouldnt help them when it comes to actual usage speed compares, they would still lose to that 46Mb Virgin figure. Evidence to hush BT supporters?
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
Carpetburn, the issue with VM is that the network/delivery system is more than capable of providing a 50Mb connection continually without any problems.

If they are seeing an average speed of 30Mb that means that there is continually/regularly traffic shaping taking place which is so heavy it is removing 2/5ths of your bandwidth.

Copper ADSL is limited primarily due to distance, Virgin DOCSIS is limited due to over selling and a crappy backhaul.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quoute"But as discussed if the forums it hasn't been proven what the cause of the FTTC speed drops are,"

Has it been proven what causes speed drops on Virgin 50Mb? NO, both systems have copper, both will lose some speed, both will be over subbed to in some areas or have capacity issues... There is no wriggling FTTC is inferior in the top end speed department as it stands, thats all there is to it. Lost before its even fully rolled out, quite funny really!
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
@ TaRkADaHl Thats a nonsense excuse whether it be BT or Virgin. Areas will be over subbed, FTTC is also meant to be able to do more than 40Mb, but i havent seen anyone with top whack thruput on that either yet. Theres no difference in the sense you are talking between BT FTTC and Virgin Fibre/Coax Hybrid, both will suffer speed drops to a degree.... At certain times though Virgin can still do 46Mb according to this story so FTTC, loses in the max speed depart END! Virgin beats ADSL and FTTC fair and square, take it on the chin BT fans.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
I can't FTTC in the figures above?
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
Carpetburn... I'm purely commenting on how VM's service only provides 30Mb during times when you use it and how seriously over subscribed and shaped it is.

Loosing 2/5ths of your bandwidth for 80% of the day is pretty shocking when the service is capable of sustaining full speeds without any trouble.

Can you also please highlight where I mentioned BT in this?
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Also what is there to "take on the chin" if you and this report are trying to tell me Virgin cable speeds are faster than any ADSL/ADSL2+ providers services well... its not really news to me :)
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
@GMAN99 - you won't, they only went live a short while ago, this Samknows report has been collecting data and doing continual tests for ages (I think its a year but can't remember at the min...)
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Oh I know FTTC won't be on there, that's my point ;)
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
@GMAN99 You dont need BT FTTC figures in the above.....
FTTC from BT = 40Mb max.
Top speed measured on Virgin = 46Mb max.
Grab a calculator, you can work it out who wins top download speed award in the Virgin 50Mb Vs BT FTTC catagory..... BT LOSE!
Id assumed you could work that simple maths out, i assumed wrong i appologise!
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Of course if we want to do our own overall compare we can also make a forum thread and ask people to run a speed test on their BT FTTC to see how much slower overall it is also if you wish, im all for rubbing salt into wounds.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Oh god CB, if your gonna start talking like this its where I end my discussion with you, we've been through this before, can't you just talk normally with out all this "you lose sucker/ownage etc?"

VM 50Mbps - 24/7 33.4 - 36.7
BT(or any other ISP using FTTC) - 40Mbps 24/7 (Unknown)

Its entirely possible that even though the headline speed of FTTC is lower than the VM 50Mbps package when surveyed it might actually outperform VM's package or be the same, we don't and won't know for ages until its rolled out and tracked.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"Carpetburn... I'm purely commenting on how VM's service only provides 30Mb during times when you use it and how seriously over subscribed and shaped it is.
Loosing 2/5ths of your bandwidth for 80% of the day is pretty shocking when the service is capable of sustaining full speeds without any trouble.
Can you also please highlight where I mentioned BT in this? "
You dont and thats the issue, try reading the forums and you will see speed drops on BT FTTC are just as bad (One post has someone at times going as slow as 5Mb on BT FTTC)
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Lets create a forum threada then GMAN and get our own sample of speeds from people on BT FTTC and then compare them to Virgins 50Mb charts and graphs above..... How about that? Confident, ill even go make the forum thread if you wish.
If BT lose you promise to never defend their services again, if BT win ill never slate them again.... Want to put your money where your mouth is?
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
"One post has someone at times going as slow as 5Mb on BT FTTC"

To save me time can you post a link to that I would be interested to hear what time it drops to 5Mb that sounds like congestion or traffic management me, as with ADSL packages FTTC/FTTP are subject to fair use, go over that and your speeds will be capped at peak times
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
I'm shaking my head Carpetburn, I won't put any faith in results from a forum thread, I'd rather rely on something better like Samknows... besides what would you do with the rest of your life if your had to give up slating BT?
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Here you go...
http://forums.thinkbroadband.com/general/t/3881664-help-with-my-new-fttc-line-please.html

quote"There seems no pattern to why some tests come back with 35Mbps and some as little as 5Mbps. I am approximately 168 yards from the cabinet."

Opps..... Want me to make that forum thread? LOL
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Awww not confident, go on it could be legit, people using the speedtest here and speedtest.net and others you can think of, then they post the links to their speedtest and we compare it to Virgins 50Mb service.... Make it totally fair ask for different times of day and everything..... Whats the matter not confident in BT services?
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
@Carpetburn -

"You dont and thats the issue, try reading the forums and you will see speed drops on BT FTTC are just as bad (One post has someone at times going as slow as 5Mb on BT FTTC)"

I'd rather look at an impartial survey done by a trusted company and industry regulator than listen to people who write things like:

"OMGZ LIKEZ TOTALSYEES SLOOOOOW KAZAA ON FFTTTCCC!!!!".
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
Do you have any evidence that the 5Mb speed wasn't caused by a fault? Or by the remote server being overloaded, or even that the EU wasn't running P2P at full tilt at the same time when they did this? Maybe their parter was looking at pron becuase they weren't being satisfied when this test was run?
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Talk is cheap fanboys...... The results will speak louder than any of us........

http://forums.thinkbroadband.com/general/t/3882056-how-fast-is-your-bt-based-fttc.html
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
OH god im going to enjoy rubbing the salt into silly little fanboys wounds.
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
I just love how you can compare a single users forum post to a a year long scientific study done over thousands and thousands of users.

I'm not saying BT are better than VM, I've not said that once, I'm just saying, on the evidence provided, the VM product clearly shows as being heavily limited beyond what I (and sensible others) would count as acceptable.
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
Undoubtedly, at this price point, FTTC will show similar results, but until samknows or someone gets a chance to get out a few thouasand white boxes to plug in and run the same amount of testing over the same time period, there really is no concrete evidence to base anything on.

Forum posts by randoms just dont cut it.
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
Large sample size over all big players in the industry, same tests ran on everyone for the same time frame otherwise it is just speculation.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"I just love how you can compare a single users forum post to a a year long scientific study done over thousands and thousands of users.

Wheres it say there were thousands?? Infact some tests in those results were under 50 users.
Maybe you missed that in your rush to defend..... Like i said the testing will speak louder than your defending.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Even if it were thousands i could argue a smaller test will yeild better results for BT, just as it did for LLU companies.... In short your defending fails again
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
Its not defending, its called looking at facts,

Should try it some day rather than calling everyone BT defenders that dont agree with you...
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
LOL the facts are you didnt read the results, see those with a * by their names....... See where it says "* Caution – Small sample size under 50 testers"...... Those are the facts. Orange as an example may had done better or worse with more tests, but as it is Ofcom whos opinion is higher regarded than yours, included the results, just as i will included BT FTTC results.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
I dont even really need to do the testing the charts as they are show all BT services are tripe, they came as good as last in the UPTO 8Mb tests, came last in the ADSL2+ testing, and they will come last when we have our FTTC results. Face it there services are inferior to what others offer.... You cant argue with figures no matter how brown your nose is from them.
Posted by camieabz over 6 years ago
It's about time wholesalers were forced by standards to have a minimum of 2MB sync speed. Up to 'x' is useless if there's no useful minimum.

Can of Coke - Up to 330ml
Top Speed of the car - Up to 120 mph

I'm sure all but the most pedantic would accept 320ml or 115mph, but less than 82ml or less than 30mph?

Shocking when you take thing in that context. The punters of this country get stiffed for yet another product.

How about people get charged based on their max speed? Basic package of 'x' with £1 per Meg of speed above the basic. Then you would see reasonable use of bandwidth.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
An idea, but as the DSL technology determines the speed and it costs the same for the modem, line etc whatever the distance, may not work.
Posted by timmay over 6 years ago
Interesting idea camieabz.

The problem is BT would then sell you a 160k connection at £20 and charge £1 for each BRAS profile step. That would make 8Mbps (7.1Mbps TCP/IP) cost £40 and at full 24Mbps connection would cost £54.

Still sound reasonable?
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
So you spend all your time comparing VM and BT, then when you run out of arguments other than calling everyone a BT defender you say that the stats don't matter cos Orange had only a small sample size? Really? Get a grip.

Even so, 50 users getting 4 lots of 20 tests everyday for a year still carries far more weight than 1 guy on a forum who complains.

Get over it.
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
Also, you cannot presume that FTTC will be crap, it may well be, it may be worse, it may be better. A companies currentm product portfolio can give you an idea what it will be like, but it is not as you beleive an absolute guarantee of the future.

Remember, people don't come onto forums to complain that services are working well, they come on to complaint that they aren't. Forum posts don't count for anything, they just don't.

In regards to ALL BT services being tripe, every tried a BT Net leased line? MPLS? Radianz? SIP? Hosted VoIP? I'm guessing not...
Posted by AndrueC over 6 years ago
@cambieabz:Interesting but as others have said it's the technology (and I'll add) the laws of physics that limit connection speed.

The other problem with getting ISPs to guarantee connection speed is that none of them except Virgin own the telephone line and most of them don't own the equipment in the exchange either.

How can they guarantee anything?
Posted by AndrueC over 6 years ago
That's something perhaps overlooked in the debate over connection speed. It's a lot like trying to sell cars when you've never met the customer, live potentially hundreds of miles away in potentially very different areas.

Worse still although you know the original design specifications for the car you're selling you are aware that the production quality is highly variable and some cars come off the production line unable to even turn over /but you have no way of monitoring the quality of the car you are selling/.
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
@AndrueC - when FTTP is rolled out this idea would work... but until then, we are as you say pretty gubbed and have to just get on with it.
Posted by AndrueC over 6 years ago
Now with a car you can offer to refund or exchange and try another. With xDSL you don't really have that option.

Connection speed is line limited and changing ISP is unlikely to have any impact.

So - what guarantee do you offer?
Posted by AndrueC over 6 years ago
@TaR:Yah, it sucks..but there's not much we can currently do.

Where we can do something though is usage caps and contention. /Those/ are under the control of the ISP. Interestingly, VM doesn't look quite so good there as I noted earlier :)
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
Big problem with them is costs, bandwidth is expensive in the backhaul and you can get what you want/need from BT. (can order a 10Gb BT Net line for personal use quite easily).

Problem is, ISP's want to keep costs down and the userbase high, doing so they never really have enough bandwidth to go around (as can be seen in VM's case) so you get a lot of shaping and contention.

Only way to avoid it is start paying a high amount of cash.... and unlike what many others say, having FTTP or anything similar will not change this at all.
Posted by chrysalis over 6 years ago
to herdwick it doesnt matter broadband is broadband, up to is right to use with VM as otherwise they be garuantueeing the speed.
Also the final 3rd is a poor excuse, I am in a major city and my line struggles to be stable at 4mbit. Yet my patrents in a small seaside town get 8mbit on adsl.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"Also, you cannot presume that FTTC will be crap..."

Is that some kind of quantum puzzle? You do know what presumption is, dont you?
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
Its where you make an ass of yourself.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"Even so, 50 users getting 4 lots of 20 tests everyday for a year still carries far more weight than 1 guy on a forum who complains."

Where does the story mention any of those figures?... It says Under 50 users, and the rest of the figure i think you just purely dreamed.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"Its where you make an ass of yourself."

Is that you presuming things, again? I dont even have big ears like a donkey.
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
you can get the list of all tests from samknows site...

They perform 17 tests:

http://www.samknows.com/broadband/ofcom_and_samknows#faq-2

And if you go through the ofcom report you can see the frequency of these tests.
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
When your entitre argument that FTTC is going to be crap is based on a single forum post rather than a full set of results provided by the industry regulator, then you are presuming that it will be crap. You have no tangible evidence to prove your point.
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
Also, when you continually back up your points by calling everyone BT fanboys, and brown nosers it just proves you have no evidence and believe you can win an argument by just 'being louder'.
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
If you can provide genuine proof that BT's FTTC service is operating badly, then show us.

But I will not accept forum posts as evidence.

As the testing conditions cannot be compared on a level playing field to the tests ran by sam knows. You cannot guarantee what was going on in these premises, be it a fault or others using the service at the same time.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"They perform 17 tests"

So not 20 like you blurted out..... As i said you dreamed the other lot of figures.
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
You believe that 1 forum post carries as much weight as thousands and thousands of scientific tests?

I said how many tests were ran from memory, and I was only a total of 15% out... oh dear.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Infact where does that even mention "4 lots of 20 tests everyday for a year" Link to your odcom report please.

quote"When your entitre argument that FTTC is going to be crap is based on a single forum post"

It isnt based on a single post, GMAN asked for a link to the person getting 5Mb and thats what i gave, pay attetion.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"If you can provide genuine proof that BT's FTTC service is operating badly, then show us.

But I will not accept forum posts as evidence.

As the testing conditions cannot be compared on a level playing field to the tests ran by sam knows. You cannot guarantee what was going on in these premises, be it a fault or others using the service at the same time."

LMAO using your criteria then you can not proof its a good service either then can you?
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago

So the only question left...... Remind us again why you are defending it?

I imagine if in my forum thread everyone got the full 40Mb you would soon enough accept it as evidence, shame though as predicted they are not.
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
"Also, you cannot presume that FTTC will be crap, it may well be, it may be worse, it may be better. A companies currentm product portfolio can give you an idea what it will be like, but it is not as you beleive an absolute guarantee of the future."

I am not defending it.
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
"LMAO using your criteria then you can not proof its a good service either then can you?"

Scientific method...

Wiki for ease:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Experiments

"This technique uses the contrast between multiple samples (or observations) under differing conditions, to see what varies or what remains the same. We vary the conditions for each measurement, to help isolate what has changed."
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
Posts in a forum just cannot count under scientific method, which is what samknows are using.

Same tests, same equipment, only thing that varies is the ISP.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
What evidence does anyone need to provide to a you to show the service is good or bad??????.... People testing their connection at half of what the upto 40Mb figure is, obviously isnt good enough for you, so what would be?
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago

Large or small sample sizes doesnt matter, Ofcom used figures from less than 50 users for some ISPs, amount of tests doesnt matter, unless you are calling every user that says their speed is 50% of the 40Mb 24/7 liars. I on the other hand tend to believe them and the links to tests they post.

Next year when Ofcom or similar start FTTC tests and it performs poor you will be back here prattling on about it not being a fair test still....... Its what fanboys do!
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"Wiki for ease:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Experiments

"This technique uses the contrast between multiple samples (or observations) under differing conditions, to see what varies or what remains the same. We vary the conditions for each measurement, to help isolate what has changed."

Yep that would cover multiple people posting multiple results in a forum. That would be multiple samples wouldnt it? Under differing conditions? So your point is what?
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Same tests = Thinkbroadband and speedtest.net CHECK
same equipment = Its BT provided for FTTC CHECk

only thing that varies is the ISP. CHECK same for forum users.
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
Again, I am not a fanboy, and I have said it might be crap, but as it stands there is no good evidence to prove it.

Samknows have done tests following scientific testing, ensuring that tests are only run when the connection is free and doing a large variety of tests which are identical in everyway.

This is comppletely different to someone who just runs a speed tests then puts a post in a forum.

Can you guanatee that there were no back ground processes running at the same time? Or that the idiot wasn't using P2P?

Simple fact is, you can't.
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
Samknows running 17 tests, forum people running 1 test.

Samknows running them continually throughout the day over 365 days. Forum people running them once or twice when they have finished work for the day.
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
I certainly hope you do not do any form of product testing or anythign that compares things. As you seem like the sort that would go into a pub and here your mate 'dave' say that x is better than y and then count it is scientific proof that everyone must agree with.
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
Also, speedtest.net counts the throughput speed between the PC and the end source over a single test, the samknows blackbox counts throughput bewteen the router and the end source over a variety of tests multiple times everyday over a large amount of users.
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
It's amazing that you can actually believe that these are comparible?
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
^^^ Loads of waffle, what would be acceptable to you to prove FTTC is good or bad?

Not that it matters we already know Virgin out performs it with 46Mb.... Unless you are going to claim we need to test a 40Mb FTTC product to prove it cant reach 46Mb.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago

FTTC loses, reported speeds so far it loses, i can point to speedtest.net virgin results to make it more of a fair compare it you wish that their 50Mb product outperforms BT FTTC.

I could have the world leading experts in fibre line up and test both products, you still wouldnt accept BT FTTC is INFERIOR to Virgins 50Mb.... Its fanboyism theres no other way to describe it.
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
You really don't get it do you?

You are blind to facts and figures and scientific proof.

You are such a BT hater you cannot accept anything other than what you believe and insist on calling anyone that challenges you a BT fanboy.
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
I'm not a fanboy or a hater, I read the facts and base my decision on them, when there aren't the facts to back up that a certain product is crap, I won't spout off like you that it is crap, I also won't say that it is brilliant. I will say that there isn't the evidence to back up either.

You need to grow up, learn to read and be a little more open to other peoples views, otherwise you will liekly end up alone in a dark room like the classic troll.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"You are blind to facts and figures and scientific proof."

Nope you are the one that is blind Virgin is faster unless you claim current BT FTTC can do 46Mb........ You lose, defend as much as you wish the figures have spoken
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Even if every BT user in the land gets 40Mb speeds at specific periods of the day or night you still lose. Virgin is faster, you just cant accept it though. Me saying ANYONE is a BT fanboy and you having to resort to using words like "troll, crap, hater" and so much more verbal leakage in retort shows it, if it wasnt true you would have such an issue with the term.... Now run along and sign up to FTTC that only delivers 50% of its UPTO figure if you are lucky..... Thems the facts and figures FANBOY! And you cant eliminate that claim with any of your so called "scientific" claims.
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
Yet further proving your status as a troll, as requested already, where have I stated that fttc is faster than VMs 50Mb service?

If you would actually read what is said, you will see I have not once claimed this, I have said that there is concrete evidence that VMs service only gets 30 odd Mb most the time, and that there is no evidence to support your claims that fttc is worse.
Posted by ElBobbo over 6 years ago
Virgin 50Mbit (Unlimited == unlimited):
50Mbit max = 15,820GB/month
33.4Mbit = 10,568GB/month

BT Infinity 2 ("Unlimited" == 100GB cap)
40Mbit max = 100GB.
100GB for one month? 3.3GB a day. 0.14GB an hour. 0.00003858GB a second. That's 0.0049Mbits. VM makes BT's FTTC look like a joke.
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
@ElBobbo

Not saying you are wrong about BT Infinity Option 2 and 100GB cap, but where does this come from?


BT.Com lists the monthly allowance for INfinity Option 2 as "unlimited, subject to network management".

It says "BT Total Broadband Option 3 and BT Infinity Option 2 allow unlimited downloads and uploads within the monthly rental price, so customers on these products will not be charged for over-use. However, this does not preclude BT from reducing your speed if you are a heavy user in order to protect the experience for the rest of our customers."
Posted by ElBobbo over 6 years ago
Are you asking whether the 100GB cap on these products is true? BT Retail haven't - as far as I've seen - verified it, but it's been fairly widely reported among users of their products that they've been capped and when they rang up BT Retail they were told that they went over 100GB.

However, if you consider AAISP who are widely held in high regard (as they should be), their FTTC product will give you 10GB/month daytime usage and 100GB/month all other times. 110GB for the whole month on a 40Mbit connection? That's 0.005Mbit a second sustained. 0.005Mbit.
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
Fair enough, thanks.
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
Anyone interested in the FTTC small print can read it above- go up 5 posts.

To be pedantic, it suggests traffic management rather than a cap, so lower performance if traffic goes much over the threshold, which ElBobbo suggests is 100GB/month. BT.Com indicates HD movie = 4GB, so 100GB = 25 movies per month.
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
Out of interest, does the business product have a higher usage "cap"? I know you can get higehr upstream speeds etc, wondered if cap was higher too?
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Business packages are subject to the same terms (Which do not indicate traffic management, they already do that and admit traffic managment by default)......

Business pacakage also do not have faster uprates.......
http://business.bt.com/broadband-and-internet/internet-access/fibre-broadband/

You really know nothing.
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
@CB
The business FTTC product, Fibre broadband plus offers up to 10Mbps upload speeds, vs. 2Mbps for the standard product.

You will also see that the business FTTC products include a "business prioritised service that gives 12Mb throughput speed, giving you a dedicated broadband 'fast lane' that puts business user traffic first at times of contention."

So there are different upstream speeds available as well as different features vs. the consumer varient.

Not a problem if you don't know the answer to the question I posted earlier, someone else may be better informed.
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
As asked a half dozen times already, where have I, once, stated that FTTC will be quicker than VM's 50Mb service?

You sit here and argue continually that I have stated this, so why is it so difficult to copy and paste the text where I have claimed this?

Also, cos you are calling me dumb, where have I stated that VM 10Mb customers use DOCSIS3?
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
@TaRkADaHl
I could see the apparent comments of yours, think you made some very balanced points about testing etc without indicating any personal preference.

The same cannot be said of our friend unfortunately, who does not appear to want the facts to get in the way of his personal opinion and bias.
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
Suggest people take note of the rules for posts on Think Broadband. Extract as follows.

Inappropriate or Offensive Language

thinkbroadband is a friendly environment and to this end we do not accept foul language. We employ an automatic filter to cut out some bad language but this does not stop users from trying to get around the filters. Doing so will result in action against the user(s). It is not our goal to vet every link or post and

contd
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
it is not acceptable to make excuses such as "if a moderator feels this is inappropriate, please remove" and these will simply be treated as posters knowingly breaking rules.

Although we do not claim the forums to be child-safe we do not want to get a reputation for foul language, etc. As such we do not want to have links to adult material. Obviously we do not accept racist comments. There is a fine line with what one person considers offensive and another considers everyday language so discretion is advised.
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
Defamatory or Libellous Remarks

thinkbroadband does not wish to discourage negative comments about particular service providers or other companies, but it is not acceptable to make defamatory or libellous statements. Anyone who believes they are the subject of such remarks should e-mail team@thinkbroadband.com
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
One user in particular should read the above carefully and consider the style of his(?) posts.
Posted by ElBobbo over 6 years ago
Why don't you leave the moderation to the moderators, hmm?

I'd like to point out that VM has been shown here to consistently deliver at least 75% of their 10 and 20Mbit products. Not up to, but at least. I don't agree with their traffic management policies (which don't affect their 50Mbit product) but it strikes me that they're a better bet for overall results than ADSL/ADSL2+ with any of the ISPs listed here.
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
Good to see that FTTC is now available to around 1.5m properties, with another 100k being added per week. Will bring the choice of high speed broadband to an increasing % of the UK.
Posted by cyberdoyle over 6 years ago
We need to salvage and recycle all the copper. Replace with fibre. Keep traffic local and don't go to the internet for everything. With fat pipes there won't be the bottlenecks. Prices will drop. Everyone will have an NGA connection whether they use it for 'internet' or not. The TV will be the phone too. No need for satellites. No need for newspapers. Digital revolution. TV on demand. No wonder the dinosaurs are quaking. Speed tests won't matter.
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
@ElBobbo
Good point re moderators, now sorted.
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
@cyberdoyle - replacing copper with fibre will only increase sync speeds, it ownt help throughput speeds.

At current pricing plans, ISP's aren't willing to pay for enough of the bandwidth available in the backhaul, so prices will need to increase so they have enough bandwidth in the infrastructure for people to actually use these fast connections.

If pricing stays at the same levels, there will be shocking caps and traffic shaping everywhere.

Simply rolling out fibre will not fix all problems overnight.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"@CB
The business FTTC product, Fibre broadband plus offers up to 10Mbps upload speeds, vs. 2Mbps for the standard product."

Nonsense and you really are clueless Option 2 for home users gives 10Mb uprates also
http://www.productsandservices.bt.com/consumerProducts/displayTopic.do?topicId=29017
Just go away and atleast learn what you are dribbling on about.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"Why don't you leave the moderation to the moderators, hmm?"

Because he/she (maybe its blonde and thats the excuse) likes to post random nonsense in threads and in general knows nothing about the subject matters in hand. Got IT quoting forum rules now, too funny.
Posted by ElBobbo over 6 years ago
TaRkADaHl, replacing copper with fibre will increase sync speeds which will stop all the current ISPs from being able to hide behind the poor last-mile connections and force them to invest in decent backhaul.
When people have 40Mbit connections instead of 4Mbit connections it's going to be difficult for ISPs to justify only having the backhaul for 4Mbit.
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
No investment is required in the backhaul, none whatsoever. The backhaul is more than capable of doing what we need now and long into the future.

I can go out now and get a connecion with guaranteed 10Gbps almost anywhere in the country, proving that the bandwidth can cope with what is needed.

The issue is that providers are not willing to pay enough to use all the backhaul that is available, as if they were to do this the pricing points would go up, and they would loose many low usage customers.
Posted by ElBobbo over 6 years ago
Since we both know ISPs lease all of their backhaul, you appear to be purposefully misunderstanding my point. ISPs will have to increase their backhaul provision ("invest") as sync speeds go up and existing backhaul is shown to be totally unsuitable. People are starting to wake up and seeing that surfing the web and sending mail is not the be-all and end-all of the internet.
Posted by TaRkADaHl over 6 years ago
Sorry, thought you were thinking it needed upgraded :) Guess I read it too quickly...

It all comes down to money in the end, the bandwidth is there if you/the ISP is willing to pay for it.

But to have more backhaul, ISP's will raise the prices for customers. Most operate on very thin profit margins as is from ADSL, so can't afford to just turn the dial to 11 without charging...
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
Please note - cyberdoyle does not respond with detailed explanations for her statements. She writes the words 'keep traffic local' but cannot explain what that actually means.
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
Re earlier post, CB was quite right that I was too hasty in the use of words, was thinking of guaranteed throughput not upstream speed.

You'll note that the business FTTC product has a throughput guarantee (underwriteen by SLA I believe), which gives business users a much more useful performance guarantee than simply referring to the headline speed.

Anyone know what is offered on throughput by others, eg VM?
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
@CB
Clearly the moderators took a rather different view of whether everyone was keeping to the spirit of their guidelines, and have deleted a number of the worst posts.

In my opinion it should be possible to have a civilised debate on these matters without the need for any posts to contain profane, blasphemous, libellous or just plain offensive language.
Posted by cyberdoyle over 6 years ago
soz Somerset, by "local' I mean a fibre connection to everyone means that comms that are mostly local don't need internet transit, so that keeps the cost down. We are currently working on a project that does that, but as you know I am not the technical expert, I am the community rep. I don't think anyone here actually is an 'expert'? We come here to vent our frustrations?
Posted by AndrueC over 6 years ago
Even if ISPs do increase backhaul provision - it'll only be relative. It's not like they are suddenly all going to lay on enough bandwidth to eliminate congestion. They'll do what they are doing now - find a balancing point between customer whining and profit.

The only hope (as Seb noted in a BBC article) is that it will move useable throughput above where it's needed. Unfortunately I have my doubts about that. Customers whine because they can't do what they want to do.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"You will also see that the business FTTC products include a "business prioritised service that gives 12Mb throughput speed, giving you a dedicated broadband 'fast lane' that puts business user traffic first at times of contention."
I should hope so when they "CLAIM" the minimum connection speed is 15Mb, that so called guarantee is worthless, they have other guarantees SIMILAR to that on their ADSL which are not always met.
Its 12Mb of thruput (thats the key word) it doesnt men you will always be downloading at 12Mb or higher.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"@CB
Clearly the moderators took a rather different view of whether everyone was keeping to the spirit of their guidelines, and have deleted a number of the worst posts."

LOL indeed they have, including your post infact more of your posts than mine LOL
Posted by Dixinormous over 6 years ago
CD - Per my previous comments on this rubbish about keeping things local the only way that can happen is if everyone uses the same ISP.

So, great so long as we hand total monopoly control over every layer of the network to someone.

No, it doesn't work outside of a tiny deployment of a few fibres and a switch, it's not scalable. Your 'expert' who made the points you keep repeating about this had no comments to make when I pointed this out oddly.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
What does keeping things local actually mean, you want to move the services that currently exist on the Internet all around the world into your Village? With fat pipes there won't be bottleneck, yeah they will as people will shove more down and up them and who will pay for the fat pipes?
Posted by Dixinormous over 6 years ago
It means either everyone in an area on one ISP or every ISP having full routing capability in every area.

Clearly that won't increase cost of deployment a ton... sheesh even Amsterdam Citynet operators take the fibre feeds off to a centralised location and then off to AmsIX for the IP peering.

The core networks are *not* the issue, it's the access and transport networks. Linking the transport networks won't help, having full IP level peering at the access level is incredibly expensive and *not* scalable.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Everyone on one ISP sharing what though, what does everyone in one area have in common to share and communicate? I don't think that reflects real life does it? (This isn't at you Dixi) The model doesn't work, what would all of this local traffic be? The internet is what it is because of how its made up and over such an vast area, making little clusters won't help anything.
Posted by cyberdoyle over 6 years ago
I think making clusters will help. Local school traffic can stay local. It doesn't have to go via google HQ ;)
Local hospital monitoring of patients can stay local.
Many things can be hosted and access through local clouds whereas to skype my friend down the road we often go through computers in brazil and all over the world. There is no need to do that if we could keep it local. The greater internet would still be there, and the local clouds would be part of it. It would just keep traffic down.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Even if that traffic justified doing it (I can't see that it does) how would you convince everyone in one area to use the same ISP when people want choice/price/different options? Not just in rural areas but cities as well.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote".......when people want choice/price/different options?"

I think cyberdoyles idea is a superb one, many dont have choice now anyway its BT services or nothing, cyberdoyles idea would atleast benefit local communities.
Cut out the fat and give areas far greater control for thereself.
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
Quote "...many dont have choice now anyway its BT services or nothing..."

Er, what about 3G, satellite, the many service providers using Openreach, the few remaining community wi-fi projects, other infrastructure providers, developers .....?
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
"I think cyberdoyles idea is a superb one" - Two wrongs...

And why is it BT services or nothing are you saying the only ISP in town for cyberdoyle is BT? Because that is what she is talking about ISPs, keeping local traffic local.
Posted by Dixinormous over 6 years ago
You still didn't mention anything about my points above CD, you just gave more applications.

The applications aren't the point and are indeed irrelevant to my post.

Making 'clusters' is irrelevant. Regardless of how you 'cluster' the applications they still have to follow the network, at IP layer and in turn the physical fibre itself.

If you are just parroting someone else it shows they either have no idea what they're talking about or are too zealous to think it through properly.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
cd has heard this elsewhere and it has been shown to be invalid, note she does not reply to her statements with more technical detail.

There is zero benefit in routing 'local traffic' locally, the volumes are tiny.

Note she has picked on remote patient montoring, something that needs small amounts of bandwidth and certainly not fibre.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
re community broadband projects:

http://lingenbroadband.blogspot.com/

A community owned and run business providing wireless internet broadband

We've all noticed a tendency in the system to wobble: sometimes its very wobbly, and makes a connection impossible.

Rob, our engineer, is in Sri Lanka - and when he comes back in August he'll take a close look at what's wrong...
Posted by Dixinormous over 6 years ago
Posted by cyberdoyle 1 day ago
soz Somerset, by "local' I mean a fibre connection to everyone means that comms that are mostly local don't need internet transit, so that keeps the cost down.

No it doesn't. A fibre connection to everyone using only a single ISP and all terminated locally at the same switch keeps traffic local.

As would a cable or DSL connection, if using the same ISP and an IP DSLAM / MSAN.

Next please.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"Quote "...many dont have choice now anyway its BT services or nothing..."

Er, what about 3G, satellite, the many service providers using Openreach, the few remaining community wi-fi projects, other infrastructure providers, developers .....? "

3G doesnt exist in some areas and can be poor reception wise even in good areas, so not an alternative. Satelite like wise isnt an alternative to modern speeds... Openreach is part of BT thus its a BT based service
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
Infact 3G is old now its all about 4G, i wouldnt want a out of date service which 3G will soon be.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"And why is it BT services or nothing are you saying the only ISP in town for cyberdoyle is BT? Because that is what she is talking about ISPs, keeping local traffic local."

The key bit there being isp'S as in more than one. Different areas would all have their own control rather than being ruled and dictated by the BT fist.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
If you have more than one ISP you loose this local routing your talking about. Lack of knowledge on your part
Posted by New_Londoner over 6 years ago
Quote "The key bit there being isp'S as in more than one. Different areas would all have their own control rather than being ruled and dictated by the BT fist."

Would prefer not to see local monopolies imposed - anyone understanding the economics of interconnect between SPs would realise that this could be a recipe for significant additional cost in the unlikely event htat it were to happen.

Personally, I think competition at the infrastructure, wholesale and retail level as per today is the best solution and is driving innovation. Let's not go backwards.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"If you have more than one ISP you loose this local routing your talking about. Lack of knowledge on your part"

You need to re-read what CD said.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
And you need to re-red my replies
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
What is cd saying that makes any sense? How much is this 'local traffic'? And what kit is needed to send an email to the local school? Can someone put some detail into this.

A local network needs 24x7 support. See example of issues above.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"And you need to re-red my replies"

I dont have a red marker :S
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Well.... any highlighter is fine :D
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
cb - 'Different areas would all have their own control '

Please explain in more detail. Including how the existing ISPs fit in.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
I dont see what needs explaining, as it is Virgin control their service in the areas thats available, BT control where theres is available. Remove them from the equation and make it more area based and the specific area/authority has control..... The internet in the US survives just fine with all its different cable ISPs in different areas.
Posted by Somerset over 6 years ago
So how, exactly, do you 'remove' VM and BT and what advantage would there be in eg. Kentelecom?

If the experience of the cable companies is anything to go by after a while they amalgamate into one large company.

The US is huge compared with the UK so works with sepaarate cable companies.

AS FTTC rolls out there is less incentive for any change in those areas, just leaves the 'final 1/3'.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Lol, I think CB & CD are in cahoots, two internet warriors without an ounce of sense between them.
Posted by Dixinormous over 6 years ago
There's a few mom and pop cable companies in the US, renowned for having indifferent packages available.

There's also the largest cable company in the world, Comcast, who pass over 50 million homes, Time Warner Cable, who pass 27.6 million, Cox Communications at over 10 million homes passed, Cablevision over 5 million homes passed.

The US love their cable, uptake is over 60% next to less than 40% here, they have some small crappy mom + pop companies supplying the bare minimum, a couple of really good smaller companies, and a couple of absolute giants that make Virgin look small.
Posted by btodd over 6 years ago
GMAN99 i think you just harrass CD and CB. Im new and have not read a single post yet where you do not feel the need to force your opinion on to CD or can withstrain yourself from arguing with CB who out-words you every opportunity.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
I like your new name bud it suits you better than Carpetburn, as you are at odds with BT. I like what you've done there.
Posted by btodd over 6 years ago
I have never been to this website before today. I do not understand GMAN99. I am not at odds with bt. My last name is Todd and my first name is Brian. Why do you question this again? Do i need to give the website personal details before commenting? Please advise thxs.
Posted by MarkHampshire over 6 years ago
@New_Londoner - it's the infrastructure which is the issue, and it's an area which has no competition - which is the main problem. There are two broadband players in the country from an infra perspective - BT and VM (leaving aside 3G for the moment, though it compares very well with ADSL when you get a few km from the exchange, these aren't future speeds e.g. 2 to 3Mbps) and VM is only in half the country so competition only exists in about half the country with BT's ancient "network" having the monopoly in the other half. That, very specifically, is why broadband is so poor in the UK.
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
Well to be fair the only "ancient" bit of the BT network is the last mile the rest (core) has been and is serving the business and industries WAN needs for decades. But yes to the end broadband customer its poor.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
quote"I like your new name bud it suits you better than Carpetburn, as you are at odds with BT. I like what you've done there."

Im not that creative, but thanks for the credit
Posted by GMAN99 over 6 years ago
He's back, just a temp ban then, I was tired of your guise within minutes.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 6 years ago
I wasnt banned from the comments just the forum, and we all know why that was. I dont need other "guises" to make you look stupid.
You must be logged in to post comments. Click here to login.