User comments on ISPs
  >> Virgin Media (Cable)


Register (or login) on our website and you will not see this ad.


Pages in this thread: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | (show all)   Print Thread
Standard User arronlowley
(newbie) Sat 28-Jan-17 12:53:04
Print Post

My take on virgin media


[link to this post]
 
This is a warning to all those who are thinking of joining virgin media, virgin media employ absolute morons, neanderthal's is a better described term in fact.

I joined virgin on the 19th of December 2015, thinking that they were gonna be better than bt who we were previously on (reason for leaving was they're cons). We had it setup all nice and easy, speed test showed full speed which was 200/12, spot on. The latency however wasn't up to my standard, not in the 100s, but jumped a lot.

Bt provided us with a full 80/20 for some time, until it dropped to 70Mbps with a realistic speed of 65Mbps. Latency on bt however was absolutely outstanding, around 10-12ms at all time to uk servers and only around 20ms to German servers.

Virgin media routing however made me have 35ms to some uk servers... turns out they were routing the traffic outside of the uk and back in... well played, good logic there.

As I continued on through the year impressed by vms speed, i had an outage for 3 days... which i was peed about, when the engineer came i asked him about 300Mbps, he said "its out now, ring up" so that's what i did, big mistake. The dreaded hub 3 was sent to me from hell, this thing is something i wouldn't wipe my [censored] with,let alone give to customers, my latency got worse, the router had a sluggish web ui so i had to get a separate router, which i did and its the nighthawk r7000, fantastic piece of kit. Still didnt help with the latency but wireless range much better.

Anyway as time went on with the 300/20 i was enjoying it. then came mid December of 2016, from there it has only gotten worse, now during the evening i am losing over 150MBps... sometimes im only getting 80Mbps during the evening, when im paying for 300/20. I've spoken to several customer service members and some of which have lied to me. theyve all told me there is nothing wrong in my area and the worst of all was one fellow who told me it was area upgrades because i threatened to leave.

the members of the forum team confirmed my suspicion, it is over utilisation, but heres the catch. Even though im losing over half of my speed every night, depsite complaining so much, i am told "its reaching 80% usage in the area, but its not hitting our threshold". Come again? so theyre telling me they will do nothing at all to help, so i have cancelled and i warn you, do not go with vm, poor latency, disgusting customer service, costly prices and peak time slow downs, thanks for reading wink

ps- im waiting to be connected with another isp, im not dealing with this rubbish for another year.

Edited by arronlowley (Sat 28-Jan-17 12:56:07)

Standard User broadband66
(fountain of knowledge) Sat 28-Jan-17 15:29:14
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: arronlowley] [link to this post]
 
Unfortunately you're not paying for 300mbps it's up to 300mbps.

"Why do you say 'up to' about speeds?

We use the phrase 'up to' because download speeds are affected by things beyond our control. For example, the website you're on, the number of people online, or your computer's specifications. With Virgin Media, you'll get much closer to the broadband speed you pay for.
"

Even 80 mbps is far faster than most people on fibre get.
Latency has always been worse on VM compared to a BT line.

Was Eclipse Home Option 1, VM 2Mb & O2 Standard
Now Utility Warehouse (up to 16mbps) via Talk Talk
Standard User 23Prince
(experienced) Sat 28-Jan-17 15:39:28
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: arronlowley] [link to this post]
 
Yeah Up to is their way of crapping out the commitment, so if you get 3mbps it's still all good to them.


Register (or login) on our website and you will not see this ad.

Standard User arronlowley
(learned) Sat 28-Jan-17 17:38:45
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: arronlowley] [link to this post]
 
i know its up to.. but if you read what i put, i lose over half during the night, thats not acceptable by any standard, they have to guarantee a min speed, which they do not, every other isp does.
Standard User 23Prince
(experienced) Sat 28-Jan-17 18:18:28
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: arronlowley] [link to this post]
 
Do they? They have never done that for me. And I used to get 3mbps from 4PM until 1AM 7 and most of the weekend. I know what you mean and how bad it can be. You, like me are doing the right thing and leaving
Standard User arronlowley
(learned) Sat 28-Jan-17 18:45:11
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: 23Prince] [link to this post]
 
yeah, an isp by law has to give a minimum speed, virgin dont, therefore if you feel like youre losing too much speed, you can leave without termination fees, as long as you have the proof to back it up.

my next isp has told me, the min speed i should get is 55, if its any less i can leave.

Edited by arronlowley (Sat 28-Jan-17 18:45:37)

Standard User Ignitionnet
(knowledge is power) Sat 28-Jan-17 19:38:18
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: arronlowley] [link to this post]
 
Virgin are regulated in the same way everyone else is. The speed you connect at and the actual performance of the connection can be pretty different things. The rules govern the speed you connect to the cabinet / exchange at, not the end to end performance as far as I'm aware.

Sorry to see your performance loss. Going down from 300Mb to 150Mb at peak times isn't great but isn't awful, dropping below 3 figures is a bit much.
Administrator MrSaffron
(staff) Sat 28-Jan-17 20:55:46
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: arronlowley] [link to this post]
 
What law is it that defines this minimum speed? Asking as I have not heard of it, and somewhat embarrassing if I don't know about a law that guarantees people a minimum speed

The Ofcom Broadband Speed Code of Practice is what your new ISP is using, and the best it will ever do is left you walk from a contract.

The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
Standard User 23Prince
(experienced) Sat 28-Jan-17 20:58:47
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: arronlowley] [link to this post]
 
But then again Virgin either connects at the speed you want or it does not.. So that's probably why they can get around it..
Standard User arronlowley
(learned) Sat 28-Jan-17 21:26:46
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: arronlowley] [link to this post]
 
i dont know the exact law but im sure there is one. when i was with sky and bt, they told me the min line speed i can expect and told me if it drops below it, i can leave without penalty.

the reason for my speed loss is over utilisation, and virgin are telling me its not over the threshold which imho is, you dont lose over half your speed if its not a problem.

edit- i suppose its not a law but something ofcom regulates as you say, why it doesnt apply to virgin i dont know, it should.

virgin was good for me, until a year later, im not sticking by them, id rather less speed and a more reliable connection. also ignition some night i do see double figures, the other night i had 86Mbps.

im probably one of the only people in the area who has 300/20 and i suffer the most and it really isnt fair at all, i should be prioritised, but nope, virgin simply care only about money.

Edited by arronlowley (Sat 28-Jan-17 21:30:47)

Standard User arronlowley
(learned) Sat 28-Jan-17 21:42:15
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: arronlowley] [link to this post]
 
i found the number i was looking for, if an isp fails to give you more than 40% of your speed you can leave without penalty, and in my case, sometimes im only getting 26%, therefore i could have left it it was happening during my contract, im not in one now so it doesnt matter to me.
Standard User AndyHCZ
(committed) Sat 28-Jan-17 23:25:38
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: arronlowley] [link to this post]
 
How are you testing these speeds?
Standard User AndyHCZ
(committed) Sat 28-Jan-17 23:29:57
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: arronlowley] [link to this post]
 
Just for your information if you read the Virgin Media T&C (http://www.virginmedia.com/shop/the-legal-stuff/terms-and-conditions-for-fibre-optic-services.html)

C.2 states:

Due to the nature of the Internet, we cannot guarantee specific levels of performance for Internet access.
Administrator MrSaffron
(staff) Sun 29-Jan-17 09:36:34
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: arronlowley] [link to this post]
 
Where is the number?

The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
Administrator MrSaffron
(staff) Sun 29-Jan-17 09:38:13
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: arronlowley] [link to this post]
 
Min line speed (minimum line speed) is VERY DIFFERENT to your current problem.

With Virgin Media you have a fixed line speed based on the product sold.

NOTE: Not saying what Virgin is doing is right, but simply that there is a reason they can do it, there is no law saying they cannot

The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
Standard User arronlowley
(learned) Sun 29-Jan-17 10:35:12
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: arronlowley] [link to this post]
 
Virgin allow you to leave penalty free if there is a fault reference for area utilisation, I do not have one because they reckon it's not over the threshold, Speedtest at 10am shows 300, Speedtest at 8pm last night showed 130-160.

Have you heard of cisas? People on virgin use them to get out of contract, you show them evidence of your poor speed and it goes from there.

Also I use wireless but before anyone says anything, I'm using a nighthawk r7000 with a 1.3Gbps wireless pcie card.

Speed before December was 300/20 all day every day.
Standard User nemeth782
(committed) Sun 29-Jan-17 11:20:20
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: arronlowley] [link to this post]
 
I'm going to have to be careful here not to breach any forum rules....

You are using wireless, even 3x3 802.11ac, while it might have 1.3Gbps on paper in perfect conditions, in reality is nothing like that.

http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/wireless/wireless-rev...

This is a review of the R7000, which you say you are using.

Average 5 GHz results are a different story, with the R7000 taking top places in both downlink and uplink charts with results of 248 Mbps and 232 Mbps, respectively.


Yes, it's fast, but on average it's slower than the 330Mbit your service is provisioned at. That's average, so I can easily see how it might be slower than that at times, 160Mbit does not seem out of the realms of possibility.

Next, minimum speeds. Virgin have capped your modem to 330mbit. If you have 12 channels, there is ~456Mbit available to it, if you have 16 channels, there is 608 available to it. The 330 is equivalent to your Sync speed on fibre. Other providers offer a guaranteed minimum sync speed. Virgin do too, they give you 330.

Real world throughput no provider offers assurance over. If you want that, you need a leased line, be prepared to spend £1500 a month or so for 300mbit.

You are, like me, paying ~£50 a month for 330/21. At that price it's not always perfect.

The SH3 does have latency issues due to the Intel chipset - this is an Intel bug that Intel are supposedly working on and is not limited to VM. Hopefully this will be resolved soon.

All in all it feels like you're just whining. If you want CCNA qualified network experts on the helpdesk, switch to AAISP. They are excellent, their support is... amazing. They are also expensive, and if you come up with how you want to take them to CISAS over every little issue they will probably sack you as a customer...
Standard User Icaras
(experienced) Sun 29-Jan-17 11:39:13
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: nemeth782] [link to this post]
 
I disagree with this. To be fair most providers on the Openreach network don't suffer these massive slowdowns at peak time.
Standard User AndyHCZ
(committed) Sun 29-Jan-17 11:44:40
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: Icaras] [link to this post]
 
Openreach network? You surely mean the BT Wholesale network?
Standard User 23Prince
(experienced) Sun 29-Jan-17 11:51:01
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: arronlowley] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by arronlowley:
Virgin allow you to leave penalty free if there is a fault reference for area utilisation, I do not have one because they reckon it's not over the threshold, Speedtest at 10am shows 300, Speedtest at 8pm last night showed 130-160.

Have you heard of cisas? People on virgin use them to get out of contract, you show them evidence of your poor speed and it goes from there.

Also I use wireless but before anyone says anything, I'm using a nighthawk r7000 with a 1.3Gbps wireless pcie card.

Speed before December was 300/20 all day every day.


You are already leaving VM right? so who cares.
There is a price rise coming soon so double chance to leave it not already done so. again who cares.
Standard User Mac99
(newbie) Sun 29-Jan-17 12:01:57
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: nemeth782] [link to this post]
 
Real world throughput no provider offers assurance over. If you want that, you need a leased line, be prepared to spend £1500 a month or so for 300mbit.


Not true. Isp's may not put this on their website or in their t&c's, but I know of a number that do or at least quote a minimum.

BT for one I think do, and I also have an email somewhere from another ISP that guarantee throughput.

You may have to specifically ask what it is though.

The figures I have seen are:

15 - assurance rate
40 -
40 - guaranteed 90% of the time

I think it should be routine question to ask of a new provider before signing up.

Regards
Mac

Edited by Mac99 (Sun 29-Jan-17 12:03:22)

Standard User 23Prince
(experienced) Sun 29-Jan-17 12:08:51
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: Mac99] [link to this post]
 
Yes - BT do when you sign up. Mine was 63mbps and I get full speed under 100M from the NGA

Talk Talk Business also do - and they say that if they can not fix it within 15 days you can leave without penalty.

Those are the only 2 I have experience with who do that.

The point Nemeth made about a leased line is valid to me. Cable connects at full speed but this varies in the real world, where as a leased line is connection with 24/7 full speed or nothing

At least that's how I think they work? Never had one.

Edited by 23Prince (Sun 29-Jan-17 12:09:09)

Standard User AndyHCZ
(committed) Sun 29-Jan-17 12:12:48
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: Mac99] [link to this post]
 
No ISP guarantees a minimum throughput for consumer services.

BT Wholesale and Openreach provide prioritisation rates, but that's all - nothing guaranteed.

Edited by AndyHCZ (Sun 29-Jan-17 12:13:47)

Standard User Ignitionnet
(knowledge is power) Sun 29-Jan-17 12:35:14
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: arronlowley] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by arronlowley:
virgin was good for me, until a year later, im not sticking by them, id rather less speed and a more reliable connection. also ignition some night i do see double figures, the other night i had 86Mbps.

im probably one of the only people in the area who has 300/20 and i suffer the most and it really isnt fair at all, i should be prioritised, but nope, virgin simply care only about money.


Yeah that was my point. When a 300Mb contract is dropping to that level there's a really good reason to complain.

I'm afraid there is no viable way to prioritise without running the risk of a single customer seriously affecting performance for everyone else, and there could be a couple of hundred or more of them, sharing the bandwidth.

I suspect you're in an area on 12 downstream channels. VM probably shouldn't have released 300Mb there in the first place.
Standard User Ignitionnet
(knowledge is power) Sun 29-Jan-17 12:54:43
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: MrSaffron] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by MrSaffron:
Min line speed (minimum line speed) is VERY DIFFERENT to your current problem.

With Virgin Media you have a fixed line speed based on the product sold.

NOTE: Not saying what Virgin is doing is right, but simply that there is a reason they can do it, there is no law saying they cannot


As with PON and FTTP cable connects at the full speed available to the modem, or to the cable segment, whichever is lower.

VM varies between 600Mb and 1.2Gb of downstream capacity. Will be at GPON levels downstream in the not too distant.

As I said elsewhere I strongly suspect OP was provisioned on an area using the legacy Cisco or Motorola equipment, limited to 600Mb. My own area's node, bits of which are newly enabled, is on that equipment pending upgrades and 300Mb is not available. I imagine they released as load was relatively low, and were planning upgrades to the newer equipment which have, at least in the case of the hubsite serving here, been delayed.

Those who may remember when BT Wholesale had a bunch of issues with performance a couple of years back, VM are in that situation much of the time when it comes to upgrades to relieve capacity problems, with the added bonus of having to replace equipment out in the field in a bunch of areas as they are running out of bandwidth at the RF level.

When that's done and the DOCSIS 3.1 equipment is in place things will be a ton better, it's just taking a really long time in a large part due to VM's legacy as a bunch of smaller companies.

When I worked for ntl there were some really bizarre sites hosting broadband routers. A converted public toilet and an outhouse near a pub come to mind immediately. Moving equipment around, handling the optics, and upgrading power and cooling in sites used originally for cable TV and now used for linear and on-demand TV, routers and transmission equipment, with a side order of CCAP is painful. VM don't have the luxury of a load of additional space freed up by a migration from analogue telephony to digital switched.

it also brings factors outside of control Upgrading cooling requires planning permission, upgrading power relies on the local power company, running out of space requires extensions to be built or additional property to be acquired.

Worst part for VM is that at some point they'll be moving more and more equipment out of those sites and into cabinets in the field.

I'm not excusing anything that's happened, but just trying to add some colour. Relative to the situation VM are in the capacity planning and upgrade requirements on Openreach, BT Wholesale and individual ISPs are relatively trivial, there's loads more to go wrong and get wrong.
Standard User nemeth782
(committed) Sun 29-Jan-17 12:57:36
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: Ignitionnet] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:
In reply to a post by arronlowley:
virgin was good for me, until a year later, im not sticking by them, id rather less speed and a more reliable connection. also ignition some night i do see double figures, the other night i had 86Mbps.

im probably one of the only people in the area who has 300/20 and i suffer the most and it really isnt fair at all, i should be prioritised, but nope, virgin simply care only about money.


Yeah that was my point. When a 300Mb contract is dropping to that level there's a really good reason to complain.

I'm afraid there is no viable way to prioritise without running the risk of a single customer seriously affecting performance for everyone else, and there could be a couple of hundred or more of them, sharing the bandwidth.

I suspect you're in an area on 12 downstream channels. VM probably shouldn't have released 300Mb there in the first place.


12 channels is about 456mbit. A single customer on 300 should be fine.

The guy is using wireless, albeit 802.11ac, so his speed tests are pretty meaningless anyway.
Standard User nemeth782
(committed) Sun 29-Jan-17 13:00:39
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: Icaras] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by Icaras:
I disagree with this. To be fair most providers on the Openreach network don't suffer these massive slowdowns at peak time.


Most providers don't slow down to 160mbit? You mean most providers don't offer anything like this speed at any time.

Hell, BT provision infinity 4 fttp on 250mbit vlans where you'll often see contention and you will never exceed 250mbit...
Standard User Ignitionnet
(knowledge is power) Sun 29-Jan-17 13:19:39
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: nemeth782] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by nemeth782:
12 channels is about 456mbit. A single customer on 300 should be fine.

The guy is using wireless, albeit 802.11ac, so his speed tests are pretty meaningless anyway.


12 channels is 600Mb. For a single customer on 300 to be fine needs everyone else on the bonded group to not be using more than 300Mb so relies on how many other modems are on the group.

I doubt the guy's wireless is fine all day then suddenly slows down at peak periods, especially given VM have confirmed his area has capacity issues.

A 12 channel node running at 80% has ~120Mb left for a 300Mb customer's burst which is kinda where the OP's service is during some peak periods.
Administrator MrSaffron
(staff) Sun 29-Jan-17 13:20:46
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: AndyHCZ] [link to this post]
 
And if you complain and fall below them they will do like most retail providers, let you leave if its not just a one off

The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
Standard User AndyHCZ
(committed) Sun 29-Jan-17 13:21:38
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: nemeth782] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by nemeth782:
Hell, BT provision infinity 4 fttp on 250mbit vlans where you'll often see contention and you will never exceed 250mbit...


That was a system bug - 330/30 is not provisioned on a 250Mb VLAN.
Administrator MrSaffron
(staff) Sun 29-Jan-17 13:21:48
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: nemeth782] [link to this post]
 
If that is the case the user will NEVER see the 330, and there is a clear fault to report, if provider cannot escalate then am happy to for FTTP users stuck with that scenario

The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
Standard User AndyHCZ
(committed) Sun 29-Jan-17 14:04:48
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: MrSaffron] [link to this post]
 
I don't think any ISPs even pass on the minimum thresholds to end users though.

The SLA for 330/30 GEA-FTTP within the BT Wholesale is set as a 'best efforts' of 40Mbps on standard and 70Mbps on elevated provisioning.

The other factor here is once you get to these higher ultrafast speeds, you are more likely to see congestion in the wider web that is beyond the control of your ISP.
Standard User WWWombat
(knowledge is power) Sun 29-Jan-17 17:32:45
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: Ignitionnet] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:
When I worked for ntl there were some really bizarre sites hosting broadband routers. A converted public toilet and an outhouse near a pub come to mind immediately. Moving equipment around, handling the optics, and upgrading power and cooling in sites used originally for cable TV and now used for linear and on-demand TV, routers and transmission equipment, with a side order of CCAP is painful. VM don't have the luxury of a load of additional space freed up by a migration from analogue telephony to digital switched.

it also brings factors outside of control Upgrading cooling requires planning permission, upgrading power relies on the local power company, running out of space requires extensions to be built or additional property to be acquired.

Worst part for VM is that at some point they'll be moving more and more equipment out of those sites and into cabinets in the field.


It sounds reminiscent of the times around the 70s, where the GPO were planning to install TXE equipment into lots of buildings - with all the problems of space and utilities.

A time typified by waiting lists to get a service, rather than oversubscription.

Followed, a couple of decades later by replacing it with SystemX at reduced sizes. And now moving lots out into street cabinets.

Just a slightly more compressed timescale.
Standard User arronlowley
(learned) Sun 29-Jan-17 20:13:58
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: MrSaffron] [link to this post]
 
guys, please read what i said thoroughly. before december, i was getting 300/20 all day everyday, "on wireless", not just from speedtest, but from actual downloads from steam, origin and other places.

which were 37.5 MB/s - 39 MB/s. i can still achieve this but only during the day between 1am-4pm.

i know for a fact its utilisation, because they told me.

im only on 12 downstream channels and i believe my cab is an older cisco as told by a forum member. dont forget, if the cab has only so much capacity and im using a big chunk, surely il receive the biggest impact.

recently i have spotted atleast 3 new customers in the area from picking up their wifi alone, and thats only within one street.

basically i was doomed and its just going to get worse as time goes on. im waiting for my origin connection date and il be happy once more, although with lower speeds yet more consistent.

this post was a simple warning to those out there.

edit- for all i know those new 3 customers could be on 300/20 too, i know my girlfriend auntie is on 100, so theres 400 right there alone.

i will send a link to a speedtest at around 1am, and you will see.

@ignition, thankyou for understanding, my wireless has always been perfect, virgin told me my area is at 80% at peak times, i know there are atleast 4 more people within 20-30m away from me with virgin, if theyre on the same line as me, then theres the problem, because even if all 4 were on 50Mbps, thats 200 there.

Edited by arronlowley (Sun 29-Jan-17 20:19:54)

Standard User Chrysalis
(legend) Sun 29-Jan-17 21:31:45
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: Ignitionnet] [link to this post]
 
The explanation is always appreciated but you know what will be thrown back at it.

VM are not forced to release higher speed tiers, there is e.g. no competitive pressure from BT that meant VM had to release a 300mbit product, neither 200mbit.
VM continue to signup new customers in congested areas.

From an outside perspective what seems to be happening is network engineers ask the exec's for funding to upgrade capacity, it gets refused unless that work is justified by a new marketable product hence the higher tiers get born.

Sky Fibre Pro BQM - IPv4 BQM - IPv6
Administrator MrSaffron
(staff) Sun 29-Jan-17 22:55:30
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: arronlowley] [link to this post]
 
Never doubted the wireless speeds

The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
Standard User nemeth782
(committed) Mon 30-Jan-17 06:10:35
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: arronlowley] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by arronlowley:
recently i have spotted atleast 3 new customers in the area from picking up their wifi alone, and thats only within one street.


edit- for all i know those new 3 customers could be on 300/20 too, i know my girlfriend auntie is on 100, so theres 400 right there alone.

i will send a link to a speedtest at around 1am, and you will see.

@ignition, thankyou for understanding, my wireless has always been perfect, virgin told me my area is at 80% at peak times, i know there are atleast 4 more people within 20-30m away from me with virgin, if theyre on the same line as me, then theres the problem, because even if all 4 were on 50Mbps, thats 200 there.


So 3 new users in Wifi range of you, presumably with Superhub 3's, so putting out 3x3 802.11ac 5Ghz. That's more wifi congestion.

Yes you can show us a speed test at 1am, but that just as much shows wifi congestion is less of an issue at 1am as it does anything else.

Virgin have told you it's at 80% utilisation at peak time so it still has free capacity then I guess?
Standard User arronlowley
(learned) Mon 30-Jan-17 13:08:04
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: MrSaffron] [link to this post]
 
this is a speedtest done at quarter to 1 today.

http://www.speedtest.net/result/6010025410.png

il post one at 6pm.
Administrator MrSaffron
(staff) Mon 30-Jan-17 15:12:02
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: arronlowley] [link to this post]
 
The way Ookla handles the sampling and picking tester with lowest latency can skew things sometimes, so try http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest the two download tests can convey a lot about a connection too

The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
Standard User Ignitionnet
(knowledge is power) Mon 30-Jan-17 15:39:54
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: Chrysalis] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by Chrysalis:
From an outside perspective what seems to be happening is network engineers ask the exec's for funding to upgrade capacity, it gets refused unless that work is justified by a new marketable product hence the higher tiers get born.


You can't fund planning permission for upgraded HVAC, power feeds or premises.
Standard User Ignitionnet
(knowledge is power) Mon 30-Jan-17 15:52:41
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: nemeth782] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by nemeth782:
So 3 new users in Wifi range of you, presumably with Superhub 3's, so putting out 3x3 802.11ac 5Ghz. That's more wifi congestion.

Yes you can show us a speed test at 1am, but that just as much shows wifi congestion is less of an issue at 1am as it does anything else.

Virgin have told you it's at 80% utilisation at peak time so it still has free capacity then I guess?


The 80% is an average across a 3 or 4 hour peak period, I can't remember which, no doubt with spikes higher and lower than this level.

The last time I heard the threshold for downstream was 90% for a week during this period. At this point the group should be prioritised for upgrade.

If the load has continued to increase I fully imagine the area has been sent to the planning group.

The area is still on a 10k due to issues with either space, power, cooling or transmission capacity at the hubsite. The OP is connected to a temporary solution to deliver 12 channels rather than the 10 the older 10k deployment was restricted to, and as soon as the issues with the above are resolved his node will be connected to an E6k or cBR-8, running between 16 and 24 downstream channels to his area, and the capacity issues will disappear.

There are pockets of congestion where people are connected to limited hubsites sadly. The good side is that as soon as the hub has been upgraded the problems will go away, the down side is that the upgrades are a time consuming PITA.
Standard User arronlowley
(learned) Mon 30-Jan-17 19:15:16
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: Ignitionnet] [link to this post]
 
saffron, the thinkbroadband speedtest is never correct for me, it never shows more than around 160, no matter when i do it, i find dslreports to be the best one.

i know the ping on speedtest is a lie anyway tongue, but anywhere at time moment in time my speed is this http://www.speedtest.net/result/6011027152.png

come 8pm and it will have dropped atleast another 50Mbps.
Standard User Ignitionnet
(knowledge is power) Mon 30-Jan-17 20:28:58
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: arronlowley] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by arronlowley:
come 8pm and it will have dropped atleast another 50Mbps.


Gotta love the way that wireless congestion ramps up and up towards the peak load period between 8pm and 10pm, don't you?

For me a realistic expectation would be that you can always download faster than the tier below, so in VM's case the service would be 200-300Mb. That would be okay and is how cable is sold in another country.
Standard User arronlowley
(learned) Mon 30-Jan-17 20:32:55
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: Ignitionnet] [link to this post]
 
8:30pm and look at this, 170Mbps drop, how very nice

http://www.speedtest.net/result/6011222080.png
Standard User epyon
(fountain of knowledge) Mon 30-Jan-17 20:46:55
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: arronlowley] [link to this post]
 
Test wired or i don't think anyone is going to take you seriously.

If you have already then sorry i must of missed it.

AAISP FTTC - 80/20 *TP-Link W9980*
Three - 4G *Huawei Honor 8*
Standard User arronlowley
(learned) Mon 30-Jan-17 20:49:02
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: epyon] [link to this post]
 
i dont need to test it wired, i have done this many times, wired for me makes 0 difference, dont care what anyone says, my wireless is fine.

as i have said like twice, before december, i had 300/20 all day every day on wireless.
Standard User AndyHCZ
(committed) Mon 30-Jan-17 20:49:19
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: arronlowley] [link to this post]
 
How does the TBB speed test look? FTP speeds? HTTP speeds?
Standard User arronlowley
(learned) Mon 30-Jan-17 20:51:07
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: Ignitionnet] [link to this post]
 
the thinkbroadband speedtest is awful, its never correct

speedtest just showed 230, as kids will be going to bed.

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/results.html...

you guys try the thinkbroadband and then try dslreports.

people need to stop going on about, oh wireless this wireless that.

virgin have told me its peak time usage, its not my wireless...

Edited by arronlowley (Mon 30-Jan-17 20:52:37)

Standard User arronlowley
(learned) Mon 30-Jan-17 20:58:06
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: Ignitionnet] [link to this post]
 
just to clear things up. il do 3 speedtests, one on tbb, speedtest.net (beta) and dsl reports.

dslreports is html5, speedtest beta uses no flash.

speedtest.net result- http://beta.speedtest.net/result/6011277321

dslreports- http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/9754286

tbb- http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/results.html...

do you now understand why i dont use tbb...
Standard User arronlowley
(learned) Mon 30-Jan-17 21:01:10
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: Ignitionnet] [link to this post]
 
and this is steam right now, so tbb speedtest was way off.

https://gyazo.com/cc8681b5e98e3345523f57ccc4d9fa5b

Edited by arronlowley (Mon 30-Jan-17 21:01:31)

Administrator MrSaffron
(staff) Mon 30-Jan-17 22:05:51
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: arronlowley] [link to this post]
 
No I don't....

You may not be aware of this bit dslreports many threads in an attempt to swamp congestion, as does steam and Ookla use a couple more, so will usually give better results.

Feel free to ignore our test that tends to show up congestion issues at an earlier stage.

None of the tests seemed to hit the 300 Mbps mark, suggesting what you are looking at is variations in how they report average speed, e.g. mode, median, mean and report fast/slow samples and number of threads used for the testing.

The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
Administrator MrSaffron
(staff) Mon 30-Jan-17 22:07:28
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: arronlowley] [link to this post]
 
So you are complaining that your virgin media service is slow, and then moaning our test is show too slow a speed, when using a counter example of a tester that is designed to try and not show congestion issues, hence why providers will often send you to the polka test

The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
Standard User arronlowley
(learned) Mon 30-Jan-17 23:30:50
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: MrSaffron] [link to this post]
 
All I'm saying is the tbb Speedtest was miles apart from the other two, it never ever gives me 300Mbps when I do one, not even at 6am in the morning, I don't get how steam can lie about your download speed.
Administrator MrSaffron
(staff) Tue 31-Jan-17 00:18:07
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: arronlowley] [link to this post]
 
And when an isp or bit of local network is having congestion issues that is to be fully expected.

The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
Standard User leexgx
(committed) Tue 31-Jan-17 03:25:01
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: arronlowley] [link to this post]
 
i agree that VM is very bad for ping jitter and at peak times some areas of the network (at street level) are slow

thinkbroadband speed test is more realistic of what your getting (90-100mb/s is Normal for single threaded downloads and 200-300 on multithreaded tends to be limited by that speed your paying for in my case 200mb which is in fact 220mb profile so speed tests manage to report 200-210mb/s)

ignoring others on why using wifi for speed tests is not going to give you correct results overall unless your using a speed test that uses very high conenction rate to force a good speed test result (as i read the other replys you seem to not like it) but if ping is high then your going to have problems (use https://f8lure.mouselike.org and http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping to monitor your connection as Virgin uses a Semi static IP as in it Never changes unless you been offline for more then week i bealve or the MAC address changes witch norm should not happen)

a high jitter VM conenction (annoying for gaming on)
http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/d691424d9db...
diferant area on VM
http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/31c1a23163b...
a normal FTTC connection (no jitter, the sudden Spikes are Normal activity when sending large emails and backups)
http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/c6931e17ada...

on Virgin norm its the Upload congestion that is causing the issues not download (as that is rate controlled at the FTTN node) upload basically gets or tries to get a free slot so it can send data and can result in poor download speeds at times when upstream utilization is past 60-70% (VM upstream is like wifi if to many are using it it falls apart in retry sending data of death and you end up with high ping and packet loss)

half of my street whent back onto BT or SKY (1-4mb) when Stupid india CS people at virgin was increasing pepole packages when they complained that there internet was slow which made the problem worse as they got more upload speed as well witch made the congestion even worse (really wish VIrgin would lower every ones upload speed profile in a area where upload congestion is very high until they add more cards or split the FTTN cab or be more) we have FTTC here at last so i am considering on moving to it (even though i only get 30-40mb and 5mb upload)

Standard User leexgx
(committed) Tue 31-Jan-17 03:48:25
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: arronlowley] [link to this post]
 
but in your case it does look like they have ran out of capacity on the download side

That or your wifi is messing the results up and upload is still 20mb) as your not hitting 250mb-300mb that often and thinkbroadband speed test results you posted look more like local limits due to the curve (most likely due to wifi)

my 200/12mb connection (actual is 220/12 profile as Virgin give you 10% more download capacity, on 300mb you should have 330mb)

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/results.html...
above was done around 3am (around 6PM it is a tad different result)
you see how my 1x is completely flat at 100mb this is normal, you should see the same but your getting a curve on your results probably from the wifi (note virgin norm its around 80-100mb on signal threaded downloads, steam and some download mangers will go up to 10 or whatever the server connection count limit is to get fastest download speeds)

(Note it uses 24 download streams to get this result so no surprised it gets good result)
http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/9776091

i assume it uses high conenction count as well (expected reuslt due to the way it does the test)
http://beta.speedtest.net/result/6011937738

Edited by leexgx (Tue 31-Jan-17 03:49:11)

Standard User AndyHCZ
(committed) Tue 31-Jan-17 08:34:29
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: arronlowley] [link to this post]
 
"its never correct"

What does that even mean? You don't like the result so it's not 'correct'?
Standard User Ignitionnet
(knowledge is power) Tue 31-Jan-17 09:20:17
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: AndyHCZ] [link to this post]
 
Not sure how multiple flows will overcome wireless limitations?

Must be imagining my laptop pulling files from my home server at 50MB+/s wirelessly.
Standard User nemeth782
(committed) Tue 31-Jan-17 11:23:40
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: arronlowley] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by arronlowley:
i dont need to test it wired, i have done this many times, wired for me makes 0 difference, dont care what anyone says, my wireless is fine.

as i have said like twice, before december, i had 300/20 all day every day on wireless.


Strange how your R7000 in tests only achieves 165mbit downlink on 5GHz on average.

http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/tools/charts/router/b...

The MAXIMUM downlink is enough for you to see 300mbit.

http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/tools/charts/router/b...

So I'd expect to see exactly what you are seeing over wireless. At some times you manage to hit 300mbit, at other times you're at 130-160mbit.

Times of maximum utilisation correspond to times of maximum interference and spectrum congestion, so until you do this all wired, you CANNOT be certain what the issue is.

Edited by nemeth782 (Tue 31-Jan-17 11:25:52)

Standard User broadband66
(fountain of knowledge) Tue 31-Jan-17 11:54:30
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: arronlowley] [link to this post]
 
Download a big file and time it with a stopwatch or online stopwatch.

Was Eclipse Home Option 1, VM 2Mb & O2 Standard
Now Utility Warehouse (up to 16mbps) via Talk Talk
Standard User broadband66
(fountain of knowledge) Tue 31-Jan-17 11:58:48
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: arronlowley] [link to this post]
 
Do you need 300 mbps?

Was Eclipse Home Option 1, VM 2Mb & O2 Standard
Now Utility Warehouse (up to 16mbps) via Talk Talk
Standard User Ignitionnet
(knowledge is power) Tue 31-Jan-17 12:05:30
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: nemeth782] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by nemeth782:
So I'd expect to see exactly what you are seeing over wireless. At some times you manage to hit 300mbit, at other times you're at 130-160mbit.

Times of maximum utilisation correspond to times of maximum interference and spectrum congestion, so until you do this all wired, you CANNOT be certain what the issue is.


Other than that VM acknowledged utilisation on the site averages 80% during the peak period of course.

Did you actually read what that average number means?

Description

This chart shows the throughput of 802.11 wireless devices for the frequency band, direction and mode described in the chart title.

The default Average view is calculated from throughput measurements taken at multiple locations.


How often has anyone seen congestion on 5GHz?
Standard User nemeth782
(committed) Tue 31-Jan-17 12:19:44
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: Ignitionnet] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:
In reply to a post by nemeth782:
So I'd expect to see exactly what you are seeing over wireless. At some times you manage to hit 300mbit, at other times you're at 130-160mbit.

Times of maximum utilisation correspond to times of maximum interference and spectrum congestion, so until you do this all wired, you CANNOT be certain what the issue is.


Other than that VM acknowledged utilisation on the site averages 80% during the peak period of course.

Did you actually read what that average number means?

Description

This chart shows the throughput of 802.11 wireless devices for the frequency band, direction and mode described in the chart title.

The default Average view is calculated from throughput measurements taken at multiple locations.


How often has anyone seen congestion on 5GHz?


The MAXIMUM 5ghz downlink shown on his router is only 5mbps faster than his modem is capped.

Given that with 802.11ac he will be using 80mhz channels to hit "1300mbit" speeds on a 3x3 radio, and there are only 4 non overlapping 80mhz channels availible in the UK allocation: http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/images/multithumb_thu...

And he says he sees 3 new SH3's nearby recently (which are AC1300 devices themselves) and AC clients are becoming more and more common (Most modern smartphones) and such 1x1 433mhz radios, where MU-MIMO is not supported, take up 3x as many timeslots for the same data transfer as a 3x3 client.....

I'd say more common than you would think that his wifi would become the limiting factor. It probably takes one neighbour watching netflix on their smartphone, taking up 5mbit of data to their SH3 the other side of his party wall, to knock his speed down by 15-20mbit (due to 1x1 vs 3x3).

It may well be a utilisation issue, let's prove that it is by using ethernet!!
Standard User arronlowley
(learned) Tue 31-Jan-17 12:45:50
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: Ignitionnet] [link to this post]
 
i wish some of you would actually listen.

thinkbroadband speedtest, i repeat does not give me the correct speed at any time during the day, i just did one just now and it only says im getting 160Mbps max.

the other speedtests are reporting 300-314...

nemeth, i have already said like 3 times now, virgin have told me it is utilisation...

its not my wireless, as i have also mentioned i have tried ethernet during the peak times and i get the exact same results.

i am seeing utilisation, there is no ifs or buts about it, it has already been said to me.

proof is right here in this link.

https://gyazo.com/08e354a7a07a5fb6a1fec84377c6c0c6

im not moving my pc downstairs again just to do another ethernet test when i personally know it wont make the slightest bit of difference.

Edited by arronlowley (Tue 31-Jan-17 12:51:05)

Standard User arronlowley
(learned) Tue 31-Jan-17 12:49:55
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: broadband66] [link to this post]
 
also broadband66, i dont need 300, but it is something that helped a lot, makes large games download a lot quicker and id helpful for when more people are using it.

this is why 80/20 will suffice, although i am likely to see around 70 than 80.

the whole topic was that virgin, will do nothing in their power to make your experience with them good, there offshore customer service are the biggest lier's ive come across and should be sacked.
Administrator MrSaffron
(staff) Tue 31-Jan-17 12:58:48
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: arronlowley] [link to this post]
 
What defines the correct speed?

If we were to do things like reject the bottom 20% of samples and top 10% we would probably report something a lot higher than the median in plenty of cases.

Are we wrong, no, are the others wrong no - just reporting the data using different methodologies, and in the case of DSLreports the 24 or 32 threads will override almost all congestion issues, and Ookla with 8 or more threads compared to our six does this to an extent.

NOTE: People are going on about the wireless, since a provider will want you to test using Ethernet as the Wi-Fi environment is very unpredictable, and for some speed tests can mean higher than possible results.

Got the link to the speed test, so can see if there is something wrong with the test?

The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
Standard User nemeth782
(committed) Tue 31-Jan-17 13:26:44
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: MrSaffron] [link to this post]
 
Mine on Speedtest.net:

http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/6012932178

Mine here:

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/button/14858...

As you can see, the TBB graph does indeed show evidence of contention, while speedtest.net shows the full connection speed. This is in a cBR-8 16 channel area.

I'm fine with this though, most of what I do is multithreaded (Steam, Torrents, Newsgroups) and those things that are not (VoIP, Amazon Instant Video) are fine on "only" 80mbit, which is more than I'd get from FTTC here anyway.
Standard User Chrysalis
(legend) Tue 31-Jan-17 13:37:51
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: arronlowley] [link to this post]
 
steam is heavily multithreaded, I wonder if due to pressure from isp's like VM to make it that way to hide contention.

It is not just multithreaded but also very aggressive, some games I have seen over 40 download tcp sessions which is insanity unless you have severe per thread performance problems.

Sky Fibre Pro BQM - IPv4 BQM - IPv6
Administrator MrSaffron
(staff) Tue 31-Jan-17 13:50:48
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: Chrysalis] [link to this post]
 
No pressure from ISP, but a desire to squeeze every ounce of speed for a community that are used to overclocking everything

The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
Administrator MrSaffron
(staff) Tue 31-Jan-17 13:55:40
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: nemeth782] [link to this post]
 
And doing an in the head Ookla algorithm suggests using same method we'd report around 260 Mbps

Also interesting its picked a Norwich server (given your location sort of logical), but we don't know whose network it is on either. But then how much of your data download is from Norwich?

Some of the Virgin Media problems in the past have been not just local contention being visible, but some of the routes out of their network being congested too.

The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
Standard User AndyHCZ
(committed) Tue 31-Jan-17 13:58:22
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: nemeth782] [link to this post]
 
As has been pointed out already, speedtest.net use multiple threads - https://support.ookla.com/hc/en-us/articles/23457582...
Standard User nemeth782
(committed) Tue 31-Jan-17 14:05:00
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: arronlowley] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by arronlowley:
im not moving my pc downstairs again just to do another ethernet test when i personally know it wont make the slightest bit of difference.


Which says you're not in the same room, so I'm quite impressed with your wireless throughput.

I myself have the SH3 in modem mode, using an Asus RT-AC87u, so 802.11ac 4x4 MIMO as the router.

I have an old Netgear 802.11ac 3x3 MIMO router I can put in as a bridge tonight to test. Will be interesting to see if I can get such high speeds (even in the same room!) over wireless.
Standard User AndyHCZ
(committed) Tue 31-Jan-17 14:09:02
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: MrSaffron] [link to this post]
 
On the main page, you can see the 'hosts' of the speed test for each area of the country. For Norwich, it's:

Intouch Systems
Freeclix Ltd
Voicehost Ltd

Edit: Actually looks like Freeclix is in Norwich

Edited by AndyHCZ (Tue 31-Jan-17 14:14:31)

Standard User nemeth782
(committed) Tue 31-Jan-17 14:27:04
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: MrSaffron] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by MrSaffron:
And doing an in the head Ookla algorithm suggests using same method we'd report around 260 Mbps

Also interesting its picked a Norwich server (given your location sort of logical), but we don't know whose network it is on either. But then how much of your data download is from Norwich?

Some of the Virgin Media problems in the past have been not just local contention being visible, but some of the routes out of their network being congested too.


That test was "Voicehost Ltd".

I do get similar speeds to my own server hosted by Redstation, I'm not quite sure where that is, London area I guess.
Standard User arronlowley
(learned) Tue 31-Jan-17 14:52:52
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: AndyHCZ] [link to this post]
 
what makes the tbb speedtest so different? and why is it miles apart in terms of speed from the majority of other speedtests, basically what youre trying to tell me is, my connection has never been 300/20 because tbb says so.

Edited by arronlowley (Tue 31-Jan-17 14:58:40)

Administrator MrSaffron
(staff) Tue 31-Jan-17 15:00:19
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: AndyHCZ] [link to this post]
 
And

Download
"7.The fastest 10% and slowest 30% of the slices are then discarded (see * below for more detail)"
Upload
"5.Chunks are sorted by speed, and the fastest half is averaged to eliminate anomalies and determine the result"

So when we take a median on download for example, we are almost guaranteed to be slower than Ookla

The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
Administrator MrSaffron
(staff) Tue 31-Jan-17 15:06:06
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: arronlowley] [link to this post]
 
It is not 'miles apart in terms of speed from the majority of other speedtests' but it is doing things in a different way that is designed to be more reflective of the user experience (outside apps such as Steam and P2P)

The test itself is perfectly capable of showing your speeds e.g. http://tbb.st/148342930123956785509 and can go a lot faster http://tbb.st/1483303592226028855

What you'll notice on those two tests is how stable the samples are for the httpx6 test, and on a good connection that is what you are looking for, which indicates Ethernet (or good wifi) and no bad contention issues. The first one does have a slow ramp on the single thread, so might be some light contention in that area.

The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
Standard User nemeth782
(committed) Tue 31-Jan-17 15:45:36
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: MrSaffron] [link to this post]
 
The speed does ramp to 300+ quite quick on Speedtest.net - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_qjY11sTkE

As you can see it's over 300 for basically the entire time. I'm doing this over RDC as I'm at work so there is some other traffic happening.
Standard User nemeth782
(committed) Tue 31-Jan-17 15:51:26
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: arronlowley] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by arronlowley:
what makes the tbb speedtest so different? and why is it miles apart in terms of speed from the majority of other speedtests, basically what youre trying to tell me is, my connection has never been 300/20 because tbb says so.


Your connection - and mine - would probably very rarely if ever be able to hit 300mbit with a single connection, e.g a VPN or a single source download. There is a level of contention. So from that perspective, it's never been 300/20.

But, in my case I can hit 80-90 mbit on such a download, which is more than is possible from any other provider as BT estimate ~40mbit on FTTC for me, and many of those other ISPs will slow down at peak times themselves.

AAISP are about the one ISP that will truly give you your line speed on a single connection day or night... but for that I'd pay as much as I pay for 300mbit from VM and only get 80mbit (actually likely to sync at more like 60) with a 1TB cap.

And that leads us back to, you're not happy going down to 160mbit at peak times, but what other ISP can you switch to that will give you more than that, at any time?

VM support suck. Nearly as badly as Plusnet do. Again, you get what you pay for, I think the number of ISPs with "good support" these days could probably be counted on one hand, even if I'd lost a finger or two in an accident.

And all of them are too expensive for me smile
Administrator MrSaffron
(staff) Tue 31-Jan-17 16:06:15
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: nemeth782] [link to this post]
 
As it usually does on our httpx6 test too

What is interesting is that the needle stayed at 316 Mbps at the end of the download test, but the little graph showed things dropping away a lot.

The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
Standard User arronlowley
(learned) Tue 31-Jan-17 16:33:28
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: AndyHCZ] [link to this post]
 
tbh i dont think it matters anymore anyway, im off back to vdsl, virgin sucks.
Standard User Ignitionnet
(knowledge is power) Tue 31-Jan-17 17:49:31
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: nemeth782] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by nemeth782:
Mine on Speedtest.net:

http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/6012932178

Mine here:

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/button/14858...

As you can see, the TBB graph does indeed show evidence of contention, while speedtest.net shows the full connection speed. This is in a cBR-8 16 channel area.

I'm fine with this though, most of what I do is multithreaded (Steam, Torrents, Newsgroups) and those things that are not (VoIP, Amazon Instant Video) are fine on "only" 80mbit, which is more than I'd get from FTTC here anyway.


Contention at 1:23pm on a weekday?

If it is actually congested at that time I would be far from happy. Looks more like packet loss and/or a poor TCP stack.
Standard User Chrysalis
(legend) Tue 31-Jan-17 20:20:29
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: arronlowley] [link to this post]
 
some alternatives if you feel is an issue tbb side

speedof.me - single threaded speedtester
dslreports.net - is multi threaded by default but you can lock it down to 1 thread on the speedtester settings.

Sky Fibre Pro BQM - IPv4 BQM - IPv6
Standard User nemeth782
(committed) Wed 01-Feb-17 07:06:04
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: arronlowley] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by arronlowley:
tbh i dont think it matters anymore anyway, im off back to vdsl, virgin sucks.


So because it slows down to 160mbit you are switching to an 80mbit (maximum) service... Making it even slower.
Standard User 23Prince
(experienced) Wed 01-Feb-17 09:49:37
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: nemeth782] [link to this post]
 
But it's also about quality over quantity - which is why many people make that switch.

But if the speed is not dropping below 160 then yes that's odd
Standard User arronlowley
(learned) Wed 01-Feb-17 15:16:35
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: arronlowley] [link to this post]
 
nemeth, it sometimes drops to double figures, let me ask you something.

would you £60 a month for internet ALONE, for it to drop every night to less than half of what youre paying for?.

because I work from half 7 until 5pm, so i dont get home until around 5:30pm, i dont see the speeds i should be getting when i do get to use the internet that "I" pay for.

i would rather have 80/20 and it actually stay there. if you have ever had both cable and vdsl, you will also know that the latency on vdsl is far superior. I am a gamer, not a downloader.

before i joined vm i actually thought there latency was supposed to be better, i thought wrong.

the 300 helped a lot with game updates and new games i purchased, but i can sacrifice the speed i dont even get anymore.

also i will be saving more than £20 a month by going to origin.
Standard User Chrysalis
(legend) Wed 01-Feb-17 15:23:46
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: Ignitionnet] [link to this post]
 
it can happen, during the worsest parts of my VM era, I would see congestion pretty much from when offices open at 8-9am. It would last all the way until dusk.

I even had signs of congestion at 4am (jitter on pings), but it wasnt bad enough at that time to affect throughput.

Sky Fibre Pro BQM - IPv4 BQM - IPv6
Standard User Ignitionnet
(knowledge is power) Wed 01-Feb-17 18:02:43
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: nemeth782] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by nemeth782:
Strange how your R7000 in tests only achieves 165mbit downlink on 5GHz on average.

http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/tools/charts/router/b...

The MAXIMUM downlink is enough for you to see 300mbit.

http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/tools/charts/router/b...

So I'd expect to see exactly what you are seeing over wireless. At some times you manage to hit 300mbit, at other times you're at 130-160mbit.

Times of maximum utilisation correspond to times of maximum interference and spectrum congestion, so until you do this all wired, you CANNOT be certain what the issue is.


Wonder if you could explain how my RT-AC87U, connecting to an Intel AC8260 2x2 WLAN NIC is managing this in that case?

You were also looking at the wrong section for the capabilities of the R7000 as I said. You were looking at the average across the profiles and then claiming it was the maximum. It isn't - here you go.

http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/tools/charts/router/b...
Standard User Ignitionnet
(knowledge is power) Wed 01-Feb-17 18:10:13
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: Chrysalis] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by Chrysalis:
it can happen, during the worsest parts of my VM era, I would see congestion pretty much from when offices open at 8-9am. It would last all the way until dusk.

I even had signs of congestion at 4am (jitter on pings), but it wasnt bad enough at that time to affect throughput.


My point was more about being fine with visible contention at that time of day.
Standard User arronlowley
(learned) Wed 01-Feb-17 19:19:26
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: arronlowley] [link to this post]
 
my only issue now is origin, who is going to be my next provider are currently not making me happy either...

i rang in monday to be told my connection date was the 7th, she then says "oh its been declined, its a system error dont worry". so i gave it a couple of days and rang back today and they still dont know my true install date, if i dont get one within the next couple of days il be looking at another isp, cant be doing with people messing me about.

maybe zen.
Standard User arronlowley
(learned) Wed 01-Feb-17 20:11:32
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: arronlowley] [link to this post]
 
@chrysalis, where are you from mate? im gonna join sky, they said i can be installed within 5 days, much faster than origin as theyre taking the mick and it takes far too long to even speak to origin.

just asking where youre from because whenever i see someone with less than 10ms, theyre from down south, im in leeds, i usually see around 10-12ms on vdsl.
Standard User Ignitionnet
(knowledge is power) Wed 01-Feb-17 20:40:17
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: arronlowley] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by arronlowley:
@chrysalis, where are you from mate? im gonna join sky, they said i can be installed within 5 days, much faster than origin as theyre taking the mick and it takes far too long to even speak to origin.

just asking where youre from because whenever i see someone with less than 10ms, theyre from down south, im in leeds, i usually see around 10-12ms on vdsl.


Are you in the south of the city?
Standard User arronlowley
(regular) Wed 01-Feb-17 20:58:19
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: Ignitionnet] [link to this post]
 
im in the west part fella, bramley.

Edited by arronlowley (Wed 01-Feb-17 20:58:31)

Standard User arronlowley
(regular) Wed 01-Feb-17 21:02:16
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: arronlowley] [link to this post]
 
also, im a bit confused, sky could not offer me sky fibre max, but instead sky fibre "pro", which is £4 more. isnt it the same though? only difference is my contract is only 12 months, so 6 months less.
Standard User Chrysalis
(legend) Wed 01-Feb-17 21:54:57
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: arronlowley] [link to this post]
 
Leicester, sky have a POP in the city so I have a very good direct route to london.

Sky Fibre Pro BQM - IPv4 BQM - IPv6
Standard User Chrysalis
(legend) Wed 01-Feb-17 21:58:34
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: arronlowley] [link to this post]
 
that is odd, pro is now a end of life product, max is the new product.

sky fibre unlimited is 40/10 FTTC
sky fibre max is 80/20 FTTC
sky fibre pro unlimited is 80/20 FTTC with a static ip.

Sky Fibre Pro BQM - IPv4 BQM - IPv6
Standard User arronlowley
(regular) Wed 01-Feb-17 22:16:44
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: arronlowley] [link to this post]
 
i guess since i will have a static ip i will be able to setup a bqm, atleast i will be able to manage my profile on the pro package also, im just trying to find my bt openreach modem that someone in the house has moved -_-. it was an unlocked huawei one so not cheap, i think i will extract the sky user and password and use my r7000 along with the bt modem.

how do i find out if leeds has a pop?

Edited by arronlowley (Wed 01-Feb-17 22:16:59)

Standard User Ignitionnet
(knowledge is power) Wed 01-Feb-17 23:53:20
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: arronlowley] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by arronlowley:
im in the west part fella, bramley.


Okay. It doesn't matter too much now you're leaving but if you're connected to Leeds South or Seacroft the issues are indeed caused by the hold up of delivery of the new kit at the headend / hubsite.

Held back through possible combination of need for an HVAC upgrade, which need planning permission, followed by needing upgraded electricity supply and some other outside work to allow removal of some equipment in the site to make room for the new kit.

The kit delivers more channels and will probably increase capacity by 2/3rds.

If you give me the first 3 sets of numbers from your IP address I'll find out which of the Leeds sites you're on. If you're connected to Bradford for some reason might be trickier for me to find out.
Standard User paulb100
(regular) Thu 02-Feb-17 02:14:17
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: Ignitionnet] [link to this post]
 
I was with VM for 2 years, I had 100Mbit and it would only congest at weekends, between 40-70Mbps... but I was happy with that because where I lived the fastest FTTC speed I could get was 20Mbps - so before you leave you may want to check how far you FTTC cab is away from your home, also factor in things like what the quality of the phone line is like, if FTTC take up is high in your area (resulting in crosstalk - thus even lower speeds again)

Im in my new house now and VM isnt available so Im on PlusNet 40/2 - I get 37.5Mbs / 2Mbps / 15ms (best manually pinging to BBC in CMD Prompt than relying on any testers as they are usually always out), mine is full speed, and the MAX I can get is a sync of 69MB which would yield about 65Mbps (and 18Mbps up if I went for the 80/20 package), I live about 200 meters away from the cab, a lot of people experience sync speeds dropping over-time, this is usually caused by more customers taking up FTTC in the same street(s), this can cause crosstalk ingress due to the higher frequency's used in VDSL, this causes the sync speed to dip.

So as you can see.. you could jump ship to another ISP and end up with even lower speeds than your "congested 150Mbps", BTwholesale ISPs also share bandwidth, so your not only on a shared pool of bandwidth through your ISP, but your also on a shared pool of bandwidth with MANY ISPs - yes if you go with a reputable ISP chances are you might see solid speeds 24/7 - but not all are like that.

As its been mentioned VM are working on a fix for the SH3 latency issue due to the Intel chipset

maybe find out exactly what your speed estimate would be on VDSL/FTTC before you do anything. smile

-------------------------------------------------------------
Tech & Broadband Chat
Standard User Chrysalis
(legend) Thu 02-Feb-17 11:49:18
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: paulb100] [link to this post]
 
note tho if you on a isp with its own GEA product (LLU) then it doesnt use the shared BT wholesale pool, they have their own backhaul.

Such isps are

Sky
Vodafone
Talktalk

Also resellers of the above include AAISP, origin, and pulse8.

Sky Fibre Pro BQM - IPv4 BQM - IPv6
Administrator MrSaffron
(staff) Thu 02-Feb-17 12:16:36
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: paulb100] [link to this post]
 
"shared pool of bandwidth"

This is not the WhiteHouse so I'll call this statement out, while the BT Wholesale network could be viewed as a big pool, providers do have a good degree of influence in terms of capacity they purchase.

Looking at the quality metrics when Virgin Media as a national ISP is down almost amongst the 4G providers for quality

The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
Standard User arronlowley
(regular) Thu 02-Feb-17 16:59:42
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: arronlowley] [link to this post]
 
ignition i sent you a pm mate, im getting connected with sky in 7 days, cant wait.
Standard User Ignitionnet
(knowledge is power) Thu 02-Feb-17 17:51:41
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: arronlowley] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by arronlowley:
ignition i sent you a pm mate, im getting connected with sky in 7 days, cant wait.


Cheers.

As discussed there you are on Leeds South. It was supposed to be on CCAP and have the new kit by November last year but it was delayed. I'll let you know when it gets done so that, if Sky doesn't work out, you'll know the option is there.
Standard User Ignitionnet
(knowledge is power) Thu 02-Feb-17 19:20:07
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: Ignitionnet] [link to this post]
 
Upgrades should be complete within 2 months, though things will improve considerably before that.
Standard User Chrysalis
(legend) Thu 02-Feb-17 20:37:31
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: Ignitionnet] [link to this post]
 
you confident a 2/3 boost is adequate? doesnt sound like much to me. frown

Sky Fibre Pro BQM - IPv4 BQM - IPv6
Standard User arronlowley
(regular) Thu 02-Feb-17 21:14:14
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: MrSaffron] [link to this post]
 
ignition, but whats considerably less than that? because i dont think i wanna wait for it to be pushed back even further.

Edited by arronlowley (Thu 02-Feb-17 21:14:49)

Standard User Ignitionnet
(knowledge is power) Thu 02-Feb-17 21:42:02
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: Chrysalis] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by Chrysalis:
you confident a 2/3 boost is adequate? doesnt sound like much to me. frown


So the guy goes down to about 80Mb on his 300Mb at peak times - shortage of 220Mb. The migration to CCAP and 20 downstream channels which is pretty much default for upgrade now provides an additional 400Mb, so there's 150Mb of headroom. At 60% incremental growth of sustained usage a year the 520Mb his service group runs at will be fine at 20 channels for at least 3 months. In the interim VM can deploy a further 4 channels.

At 24 channels the service group won't need a split for 6+ months after the CCAP migration, and that's even if they're going for no visible contention.
Standard User Ignitionnet
(knowledge is power) Thu 02-Feb-17 21:42:21
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: arronlowley] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by arronlowley:
ignition, but whats considerably less than that? because i dont think i wanna wait for it to be pushed back even further.


I can't be more specific, sorry.
Standard User Chrysalis
(legend) Thu 02-Feb-17 23:16:20
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: Ignitionnet] [link to this post]
 
yeah but its reasonable to assume there is others in the same boat, so lets say there is 2 others at the same time with a 220mbit shortfall.

Thats 660mbit of bandwidth.

Just reread your post, been enough for 3-6 months doesnt sound great, when it can take them years to add capacity.

Lets hope there is also a couple of node splits as well so if we add the 66% then times it by 4 for the 2 node splits its a bit more reasonable at a 564% increase. Now thats a proper upgrade smile

Sky Fibre Pro BQM - IPv4 BQM - IPv6

Edited by Chrysalis (Thu 02-Feb-17 23:19:51)

Standard User paulb100
(member) Thu 02-Feb-17 23:21:32
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: Chrysalis] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by Chrysalis:
note tho if you on a isp with its own GEA product (LLU) then it doesnt use the shared BT wholesale pool, they have their own backhaul.

Such isps are

Sky
Vodafone
Talktalk

Also resellers of the above include AAISP, origin, and pulse8.


that was me being very lazy and assuming he would already know lol smile

thanks for bringing it up

also Plusnet use BTwholesale..usually all ISPs apart from those that are reporting LLU in Sam-Knows or any other exchange checker (if it has every LLu provider listed)

-------------------------------------------------------------
Tech & Broadband Chat

Edited by paulb100 (Thu 02-Feb-17 23:42:18)

Standard User paulb100
(member) Thu 02-Feb-17 23:40:22
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: MrSaffron] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by MrSaffron:
"shared pool of bandwidth"

This is not the WhiteHouse so I'll call this statement out, while the BT Wholesale network could be viewed as a big pool, providers do have a good degree of influence in terms of capacity they purchase.

Looking at the quality metrics when Virgin Media as a national ISP is down almost amongst the 4G providers for quality


whilst that is true, my past experiences with many old 'IPstream' ISP's was bad...such things as allowing congestion to go on for several months before even addressing it, some even denied it was happening, "lighting another segment" I recall was the term they would use when eventually getting BT wholesale to enable another 144Mbit worth of bandwidth (back in the day of 8Mbit connections just before ADSL2+ starting to roll-out) - that's not too say their weren't good ISP's that would address it.. such ISPs were usually the smaller Entanet Re-Sellers, I went with Falconnet in the end (after AOhell and Tiscali) and they were very quick to respond to congestion, as were IDnet for my dads old connection, I imagine things have improved somewhat but I can only go from my past experiences.. yes I'm with a wholesale ISP now but I knew that PlusNet's reputation was good for connections...dunno about Customer Service though, have heard some bad storys

-------------------------------------------------------------
Tech & Broadband Chat
Standard User Ignitionnet
(knowledge is power) Fri 03-Feb-17 07:26:56
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: Chrysalis] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by Chrysalis:
yeah but its reasonable to assume there is others in the same boat, so lets say there is 2 others at the same time with a 220mbit shortfall.

Thats 660mbit of bandwidth.

Just reread your post, been enough for 3-6 months doesnt sound great, when it can take them years to add capacity.

Lets hope there is also a couple of node splits as well so if we add the 66% then times it by 4 for the 2 node splits its a bit more reasonable at a 564% increase. Now thats a proper upgrade smile


In which case there's very roughly 240Mb available on top of sustained usage and it's actually not as bad as originally thought. Rather than running at 520/600 the segment is running at 360 before these 3 x Homeworks users each take 80.

Splitting twice and adding channels might be a proper upgrade but it's also insane from a commercial perspective, especially when 3.1 isn't that far away. Load is increasing at about 60% a year, why spend on DOCSIS 3.0 capacity that will quite literally never be used?
Standard User Ignitionnet
(knowledge is power) Fri 03-Feb-17 08:54:01
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: Ignitionnet] [link to this post]
 
I should point out that no cable company scales their network on the assumption that 3 top tier users will be maxing out at the same time.

In the example you quoted that would mean VM having the area running at no higher than 25% on the off chance that 3 x 300Mb users all decide to download at the same time to ensure no visible contention.

Even Andrews and Arnold don't run their network close to that level of utilisation.

VM pay per downstream channel. That's an awful lot of money doing nothing.

The industry standard is to take the peak sustained load and add the top tier to it and that's your capacity requirements for the group. This obviously gives two options, to either node split to reduce sustained load or add additional channels to provide headroom for burst.

It doesn't take years to add capacity usually. There have been a bunch of issues, in this case the problem being the area is stuck on a legacy platform that can only do 12 channels without migration to CCAP, and that migration is 4 months behind plan.

If you read the OP you'll note that had the migration proceeded on time, OP would've seen no service impact.

JIT capacity management.

Everyone does it. They have little choice in the UK due to need to price so keenly to gain mass-market adoption.
Administrator MrSaffron
(staff) Fri 03-Feb-17 10:02:37
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: paulb100] [link to this post]
 
This was in the days before 95th percentile billing, where the more traffic BT Wholesale carried the more it got paid, and thus things now with the WBC network can flex much easier and are more scaleable than the days of the old ATM and BT Centrals back in 2003

We are talking the time when an ISP with 1 Mbps customers, would rent 2 Mbps of capacity to carry 100 customers over, and that is NOT a scaling thing am talking absolute numbers.

Past experience is great, but when things are changing retaining the past knowledge is great but be very careful to adapt to the new changing picture.

The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
Standard User paulb100
(member) Fri 03-Feb-17 13:36:14
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: MrSaffron] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by MrSaffron:
This was in the days before 95th percentile billing, where the more traffic BT Wholesale carried the more it got paid, and thus things now with the WBC network can flex much easier and are more scaleable than the days of the old ATM and BT Centrals back in 2003

We are talking the time when an ISP with 1 Mbps customers, would rent 2 Mbps of capacity to carry 100 customers over, and that is NOT a scaling thing am talking absolute numbers.

Past experience is great, but when things are changing retaining the past knowledge is great but be very careful to adapt to the new changing picture.


It was around 2007-2008 when I had my bad experiences, that's how I ended up on broadband forums to find out who were the good ISP's, as I was choosing all the 'popular' (but severely congested) ISPs such as AOL and TISCALI, it was then (through the old DSL-Zone-UK Forum) that I was introduced to Entanet Re-sellers etc and top connection speed was 8Mbit and you had to endure usage limits...but you got an excellent reliable connection.

Anyway back on the subject of VM - I remember reading an article (might have been on here) that 2 out 3 VM subscribers suffered the effects of congestion due to over-subscription...mind this was about 4 years ago, my personal experiences were good, yes the router needed a reboot now & then, when the connection went funny (Im getting that now with PlusNet and their Hub One)...every 2-3 weeks I have to reboot the router to fix whatevers happening to it (throughput dips by 30-50%), jumping up and down on speedtests (LAN or WIFI), but sync remains, reboot and its fine... speaking of speedtests I think TBB speedtester is great, you get to see the response on a single file download and a multi-threaded one... it would sap up my old VM 106Mbit connection no bother.

-------------------------------------------------------------
Tech & Broadband Chat
Standard User Chrysalis
(legend) Fri 03-Feb-17 14:10:40
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: Ignitionnet] [link to this post]
 
I think the issue with VM is that because their work tends to need planning permission and for whatever reason needs "time", they need to "over provision" to have a "no visible contention" service, or at least a service where the visible contention is reasonable for e.g. just at the very peak in evenings and only moderate at worst.

BT with their ability to provide extra capacity on a whim and like wise CP's also able to turn up capacity on a whim (aaisp micro manage their capacity and change it daily/weekly), it is ok for those to sort of run with "just enough" capacity, but when it takes weeks/months/years to add capacity then the only reasonable solution for customers is to over provision.

I also think it would be used at some point,. given the way usage is growing across the populace and how fast VM are ramping up speeds, it is a given that the capacity will get used at some point, its a matter of when not if.

This is where I think the market is broken, if its considered insane for VM to offer a fit for purpose service across their entire footprint then there needs to be changes to marketing guidelines so that VM are forced to reveal this issue to new customers.

Thanks for your posts appreciated as always, it does give answers as to why whenever VM upgraded my area, it was barely noticeable since the upgrades are so small % wise they were never really enough.

How far away do you think 3.1 is from been actually deployed?

Sky Fibre Pro BQM - IPv4 BQM - IPv6
Administrator MrSaffron
(staff) Fri 03-Feb-17 14:15:04
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: Chrysalis] [link to this post]
 
Might be interesting to look at Jan 2017 comparison between adsl, fttc and cable https://twitter.com/thinkbroadband/status/8274998001...

Blog once I get time will add single vs multiple and latency views too.

The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
Standard User Ignitionnet
(knowledge is power) Fri 03-Feb-17 18:51:54
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: Chrysalis] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by Chrysalis:
I also think it would be used at some point,. given the way usage is growing across the populace and how fast VM are ramping up speeds, it is a given that the capacity will get used at some point, its a matter of when not if.


Capacity on cable isn't that simple. The network is a constantly evolving creature and capacity can't necessarily be taken from one iteration to the next apart from bandwidth, and by that I don't mean bits per second but MHz.

If VM were to add a ton of capacity under the existing set up it would be made redundant when they move to CCAP and the E6k / cBR-8.

Later on they will be augmenting the 3.0 capacity with 3.1 channels, likely pushing the top tiers onto 3.1 and removing the need for all the burst on 3.0.

Following on from that come R-PHY, where the edge QAMs and return path receivers are moved out into cabinets, and after that R-CCAP, where there is no longer a CMTS as such, it's just a router and can even be a VM, with cabinets taking digital backhaul and basically becoming the equivalent of an IP DSLAM.

I'm genuinely serious, cloud CMTS are a thing.

At some point after R-PHY comes FDX-DOCSIS - turning the cable network from a traditional frequency division multiplexed network into what is closer to a G.fast network on steroids using coax instead of twisted pair and time division.

R-CCAP makes the previous CMTS models redundant. R-PHY makes edge QAM and receiver capacity redundant. 3.1 augments 3.0 and reduces need for it, FDX augments and will eventually replace 3.1 and 3.0.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:
How far away do you think 3.1 is from been actually deployed?


3.1 will be around sooner rather than later. It's the technology behind the Liberty Global Gigaworld plan. You don't make a swish video like that if you aren't going to have the family good to go soon.

Do I expect a wide deployment immediately? Nope. No point. VM UK aren't a UPC Romania or Cablecom and don't have big gigabit FTTP deployments to compete with.
Standard User arronlowley
(regular) Fri 03-Feb-17 21:24:11
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: paulb100] [link to this post]
 
The thing with virgin is they're so greedy and they don't care about anyone, the amount of people I see on the forum with utilisation problems for over a year is ridiculous, legally when you sign up, isps should have to tell you if your area can handle it, this should be a legal requirement.
Standard User broadband66
(fountain of knowledge) Sat 04-Feb-17 15:57:04
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: arronlowley] [link to this post]
 
On the day you sign up everything could be ok. After a couple of weeks of half a dozen others joining the same node, segment (whatever it's call) then everything could go to pot.

What "legal" stand do you have then? Broadband is a moving feast.

Was Eclipse Home Option 1, VM 2Mb & O2 Standard
Now Utility Warehouse (up to 16mbps) via Talk Talk
Standard User Chrysalis
(legend) Sat 04-Feb-17 20:58:30
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: Ignitionnet] [link to this post]
 
I did read the url you posted but I cannot see how a provider can do JIT properly when they have such long waiting periods for capacity to be deployed, JIT is only viable when extra capacity is able to be brought online at an instant.

JIC is what VM should be doing in their 'current' situation. smile

Now if this new cloud CTMS from cisco allows VM to bring online capacity overnight, then sure JIT is ok.

AAISP dont run at 25% because they dont need to, as they can bring extra capacity online very quickly if needed, they dont need to wait for planning permission, streetworks etc. However revk has explained multiple times on his blog in the cases where it takes time for AAISP to deploy an upgrade they do "over provision" in a JIC fashion and in some cases quite significantly.

Sky Fibre Pro BQM - IPv4 BQM - IPv6
Standard User Ignitionnet
(knowledge is power) Sun 05-Feb-17 17:26:58
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: Chrysalis] [link to this post]
 
I'll pick up on this more later, however VM Consumer and A&A aren't really comparable for a bunch of reasons, pricing being an obvious one.

You may also be a little hard on JIT upgrades as you seem to be thinking they are purely reactive, they are not, they are ideally done based on forecasts, with the upgrades being delivered shortly before they are required.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOAjzKY51-I might be useful, note it refers to JIT network hardware upgrades.

Here's a nice diagram actually. The only times JIT doesn't work are when forecasting fails or delivery is delayed. In the case of this thread it's the second of those two.

EDIT: Here is a really nice one showing possible upgrade steps for such a network, this covers the HFC network only.

These are not the steps VM are taking, however, as they have other options and no ATV or FM. VM's options are a combination of things depending on the local network. Extra data channels, switching from MP2 to MP4 for video, then when the RF network in an area runs out of room overbuilding it straight to 1.2 or 1.7GHz. Nodes are split as required, however FDX DOCSIS will require n+0 networks throughout.

Those are stills from the video I linked above.

Edited by Ignitionnet (Sun 05-Feb-17 17:45:36)

Standard User Ignitionnet
(knowledge is power) Mon 06-Feb-17 22:10:21
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: Ignitionnet] [link to this post]
 
I'll write some more on this on the company's site rather than here. smile

Edited by Ignitionnet (Mon 06-Feb-17 22:13:45)

Standard User arronlowley
(regular) Thu 09-Feb-17 00:12:09
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: Chrysalis] [link to this post]
 
connected with sky, connection date was tomorrow but im having some bad issues...

im getting packet loss and im only getting 7Mbps download, 4 upload with the sr102...

i think i have either congestion or maybe my connection hasnt been fully connected up.

synced at 66/20.
Standard User Chrysalis
(legend) Thu 09-Feb-17 20:12:53
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: arronlowley] [link to this post]
 
post tbb data
test with ethernet

Sky Fibre Pro BQM - IPv4 BQM - IPv6
Standard User WWWombat
(knowledge is power) Wed 15-Feb-17 03:07:04
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: Ignitionnet] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:
I should point out that no cable company scales their network on the assumption that 3 top tier users will be maxing out at the same time.


Ironically, I remember reading some American cable dimensioning data that said *precisely* that: 3 users on the top tier.

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:
In the example you quoted that would mean VM having the area running at no higher than 25% on the off chance that 3 x 300Mb users all decide to download at the same time to ensure no visible contention.


I'm not sure it said that you have to run with sufficient /unused/ capacity to cater for 3 top-tier users, just in case they start up (which sounds like what you say above). I'm sure it just said that the segment has to have that much capacity available in total, include capacity used by the other 2,000 "normal" users.

Essentially, that dimensioning rule tells you that, if you have a segment capable of 450Mbps aggregate, then the top tier should be no more than 150Mbps. If the segment is capable of 1Gbps aggregate, then the top-tier should be no more than 333Mbps.

Now, to be fair, it was something I read a few years ago now - back when the 150Mbps tier was new. And it certainly wasn't given as a VM rule.

Your alternative sounds like a perfectly feasible alternative, though much harder for us consumers to gauge.

I assume that BT will have to start working to similar planning guidelines when it comes to backhaul in the access network - especially G.Fast nodes (at first) and FTTC nodes, as that sustained load builds some more.
Standard User nemeth782
(committed) Wed 15-Feb-17 12:24:27
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: Ignitionnet] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:
I'll write some more on this on the company's site rather than here. smile


What company is this? I want to carry on reading! tongue
Standard User 23Prince
(experienced) Wed 15-Feb-17 13:29:54
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: nemeth782] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by nemeth782:
In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:
I'll write some more on this on the company's site rather than here. smile


What company is this? I want to carry on reading! tongue


Probably the VM community forums?
Standard User Ignitionnet
(knowledge is power) Wed 15-Feb-17 15:51:08
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: WWWombat] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by WWWombat:
In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:
I should point out that no cable company scales their network on the assumption that 3 top tier users will be maxing out at the same time.


Ironically, I remember reading some American cable dimensioning data that said *precisely* that: 3 users on the top tier.


Be interesting to see that scaling information. I sincerely hope there weren't 2000 other modems in the service group though! I don't think that would work, let alone work well.

As I vaguely recall cable operators were not following this way back when, releasing 100-110Mb on 152Mb total capacity was far from uncommon - this in 2012 and later.

Seems a tad arbitrary, takes no account of the size of the service group or the usage patterns.
Standard User Ignitionnet
(knowledge is power) Wed 15-Feb-17 15:52:47
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: nemeth782] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by nemeth782:
What company is this? I want to carry on reading! tongue


Mine. Work in progress.
Standard User Chrysalis
(legend) Sun 19-Feb-17 20:17:11
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: Ignitionnet] [link to this post]
 
what company site?

Sky Fibre Pro BQM - IPv4 BQM - IPv6
Standard User Chrysalis
(legend) Sun 19-Feb-17 20:21:26
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: Ignitionnet] [link to this post]
 
the dsl example is datastream, that had bad performance issues also if I remember correctly. smile

Sky Fibre Pro BQM - IPv4 BQM - IPv6
Standard User bowdon
(committed) Sun 19-Feb-17 20:39:57
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: arronlowley] [link to this post]
 
I just noticed this thread.

I agree with you that it does feel a bit of a let down.

I think we all know the 'up to' wording was because ISP's were advertising a speed that 99% of their users couldnt get.

Now I think its swinging the other way and companies are exploiting the wording. What is to stop a company advertising any speed as long as 1 of their users can get it.

I think there should be a minimum speed requirement.

Isn't there one that stops people ordering fibre if their line isnt capable of sustaining high speeds?

Demon => Freeserve => Pipex => Be => Sky => BT Infinity 2
Standard User Ignitionnet
(knowledge is power) Sun 19-Feb-17 21:01:47
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: bowdon] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by bowdon:
What is to stop a company advertising any speed as long as 1 of their users can get it.

I think there should be a minimum speed requirement.

Isn't there one that stops people ordering fibre if their line isnt capable of sustaining high speeds?


The ASA rules that state at least 10% of an ISP's customers must be able to reach the speed advertised.

I know VM and others are very open to average speeds being the advertising criteria, the resistance is coming mostly from BT.
Standard User Chrysalis
(legend) Mon 20-Feb-17 13:45:08
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: Ignitionnet] [link to this post]
 
Why are the isp's even having a say? regulations are supposed to be for the benefit of consumers not the companies that are regulated, regulation does work odd in this country.

VM will be open as even with average, with it been nationwide this would benefit them nicely. Their average would be same as it is now.

Sky Fibre Pro BQM - IPv4 BQM - IPv6
Standard User Suspishio
(newbie) Mon 20-Feb-17 19:33:20
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media/Up to claims


[re: bowdon] [link to this post]
 
VM's "up to" lets them off the hook for congestion in the Internet. Area congestion (which they eventually fix) is considered by them as a fault when a threshold is reached.

BT's (and the others using the copper last mile) "up to" means something else. It means that your speed depends on how far you are from the street cabinet and whether or not your wires are of aluminium substance rather than copper. These are physical constraints that result in your minimum speed offer. VM does not suffer this constraint.

So the same term "up to" then creeps into discussions, covering the same sentiment to users discussing the two systems, but actually meaning very different situations.

On latency, my BT Infinity 2 latency is worse than my VM 200/12 latency. That's prolly due to the aluminium wires that go to the street cabinet, not to mention that BT at 55/10 can't come close to VM's 200/12. What I really object to with BT Infinity is having to pay the same price as the neighbour with copper wire who gets the 76/20. BT are total sharks sweating the copper/aluminium "asset" and milking the customers in areas where VM don't supply.

Suspishio

VM 120/12
BT Infinity 80/20 (running @ 48 meg)

My advice is at your risk.
Administrator MrSaffron
(staff) Tue 21-Feb-17 12:16:34
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: bowdon] [link to this post]
 
Are you talking minimum connection speed? Or minimum throughput speed?

Parts to the Ofcom speeds code of practice don't apply to cable services due to the fixed connection speed nature.

BT Consumer will provider something not called Infinity to customers with an estimate under 15 Mbps, so you still get service but are not in official speed data.

The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
Standard User Ignitionnet
(knowledge is power) Tue 21-Feb-17 13:13:01
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: Chrysalis] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by Chrysalis:
Why are the isp's even having a say? regulations are supposed to be for the benefit of consumers not the companies that are regulated, regulation does work odd in this country.


All regulators consult with their industries. All industries lobby their regulators. That's the way of the world. Regulation made in a vacuum can and does backfire horribly.
Standard User broadband66
(fountain of knowledge) Tue 21-Feb-17 16:22:09
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media/Up to claims


[re: Suspishio] [link to this post]
 
"BT's (and the others using the copper last mile) "up to" means something else. It means that your speed depends on how far you are from the street cabinet and whether or not your wires are of aluminium substance rather than copper. These are physical constraints that result in your minimum speed offer. VM does not suffer this constraint."

I'm using BT setup and my house doesn't move further from the CAB but in the evenings and weekends it slows down a bit. So your statement is a bit simplistic.

Was Eclipse Home Option 1, VM 2Mb & O2 Standard
Now Utility Warehouse (up to 16mbps) via Talk Talk
Standard User Suspishio
(newbie) Tue 21-Feb-17 17:17:14
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media/Up to claims


[re: broadband66] [link to this post]
 
@broadband66

My post was simply to point out that "up to" at BT includes the built in weakness of their copper/aluminium solution. The only way they "tell" you about that is through the minimum speed offer.

Contention would be a peril common to both systems.

Suspishio

VM 200/12
BT Infinity 80/20 (running @ 48 meg)

My advice is at your risk.
Administrator MrSaffron
(staff) Tue 21-Feb-17 19:17:40
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media/Up to claims


[re: Suspishio] [link to this post]
 
http://blog.thinkbroadband.com/2017/02/speed-test-qu...

Two of the metrics there are effectively measuring contention, not the theory but what people are seeing from actual speed tests.

Oddly the weak copper/aluminium system seems to do rather better than the heavy duty coax network.

The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
Administrator MrSaffron
(staff) Tue 21-Feb-17 19:19:12
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: Ignitionnet] [link to this post]
 
Of course you can get the public on board with well run campaigns, but its never clear if the public understand what they are lobbying over, since for the broadband campaigns run in the last year those who talk about why they are signing whatever are signing for things other than what those running the campaign are aiming for.

The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
Standard User Ignitionnet
(knowledge is power) Wed 22-Feb-17 01:05:14
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media/Up to claims


[re: MrSaffron] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by MrSaffron:
Oddly the weak copper/aluminium system seems to do rather better than the heavy duty coax network.


Indeed. Doesn't reflect too well given HFC is far superior in just about every way apart from where the contention point is. Difference between point to point solutions and broadcast media.
Standard User Chrysalis
(legend) Wed 22-Feb-17 06:48:09
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: Ignitionnet] [link to this post]
 
I am aware of lobbying but not active consultations around the world.

It is akin to asking a criminal permission to put him in jail.

Sky Fibre Pro BQM - IPv4 BQM - IPv6
Standard User Ignitionnet
(knowledge is power) Wed 22-Feb-17 08:43:18
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: Chrysalis] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by Chrysalis:
I am aware of lobbying but not active consultations around the world.

It is akin to asking a criminal permission to put him in jail.


It's akin to a meeting between managers and staff where managers consult staff on a way forward.

As far as consultations go operators have as much right as anyone else to respond to them.

Regulators are there to try and work with operators where possible - enforcement actions are, and always should be, a last resort when the regulated body refuses to work with the regulator on the way forward, or their cooperation is considered inadequate.

Edited by Ignitionnet (Wed 22-Feb-17 08:46:05)

Administrator MrSaffron
(staff) Wed 22-Feb-17 09:04:13
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media/Up to claims


[re: Ignitionnet] [link to this post]
 
Have done some preliminary work on product splits that is automated rather than previous more manual so will be interesting to see how the Virgin averages work out

The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
Standard User Chrysalis
(legend) Wed 22-Feb-17 20:47:30
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: Ignitionnet] [link to this post]
 
except the problem is you end up with regulation which is only agreed upon when it has no affect on their bottom line, e.g. the very soft 10% requirement to advertise a speed.

I am pretty sure the average joe public does not get the same access to ofcom as a executive of a isp does.

What do you class as inadequate, a isp refusing to accept average speed advertising?

The isps wont agree to something that costs them money. If their agreement is required then any regulation is going to be soft. Presumably BT dont like average speeds because it would require some investment ni the copper loop to rectify which they dont want to do.

Do lawmakers consult with the public before making laws? The whole arrangement seems too cosy.

Sky Fibre Pro BQM - IPv4 BQM - IPv6
Standard User ukhardy07
(knowledge is power) Wed 22-Feb-17 21:35:43
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: Chrysalis] [link to this post]
 
I go live with virginmedia tomorrow, after a tonne of issues with BTs pricing (retention's promising deals and bills being different). Mainly moving for the TV, and I do not remember the last time I used a laptop at home (usually tablets or streaming on tvs) so broadband isn't my main concern.

I will report my speedtests at peak hours.

I have been in a very congested VM area in the past, generally speaking they were very good about handling and acknowledging it hence why I am moving back. I found their CS to be very good.
Standard User Ignitionnet
(knowledge is power) Thu 23-Feb-17 13:17:53
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: Chrysalis] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by Chrysalis:
except the problem is you end up with regulation which is only agreed upon when it has no affect on their bottom line, e.g. the very soft 10% requirement to advertise a speed.

I am pretty sure the average joe public does not get the same access to ofcom as a executive of a isp does.

What do you class as inadequate, a isp refusing to accept average speed advertising?

The isps wont agree to something that costs them money. If their agreement is required then any regulation is going to be soft. Presumably BT dont like average speeds because it would require some investment ni the copper loop to rectify which they dont want to do.

Do lawmakers consult with the public before making laws? The whole arrangement seems too cosy.


You don't only end up with agreed upon regulation. See LLU, ever-dropping wholesale charges etc.

Emboldened section: yes.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications?publicati...
Standard User Chrysalis
(legend) Fri 24-Feb-17 15:11:30
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: Ignitionnet] [link to this post]
 
I sort of agree with you that it is reasonable to ask the companies if they can provide constructive reasons why regulation should not be introduced.

However that should be where it ends, so e.g. if BT say well if we have average speed advertising it will hurt our sales, that reason should be considered not important as the regulator should have absolutely no concern over companies sales, they not a shareholder.

BT can always rollout FTTP e.g. to improve average speeds, its not as if they dont have options. So I hope that explains my opinion a bit better.

Sky Fibre Pro BQM - IPv4 BQM - IPv6
Standard User arronlowley
(regular) Sun 26-Feb-17 17:03:34
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media/Up to claims


[re: MrSaffron] [link to this post]
 
well this thread was a hit laugh.
Standard User Eeeps
(learned) Sun 26-Feb-17 18:05:44
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media/Up to claims


[re: Ignitionnet] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:
Indeed. Doesn't reflect too well given HFC is far superior in just about every way apart from where the contention point is. Difference between point to point solutions and broadcast media.


... and that's what worries me about the end user optical solutions using PON.

It's all going to be a big hype about having fibre into the home except that you share the optics at the local level with all your neighbours.

Star Ethernet vs Token Ring? Switch vs Hub?
Standard User Ignitionnet
(knowledge is power) Sun 26-Feb-17 19:03:04
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media/Up to claims


[re: Suspishio] [link to this post]
 
What are your thoughts on advertising / T+Cs like these?

http://www.att.net/speedtiers
https://www.comhem.se/bredband
Standard User WWWombat
(knowledge is power) Mon 27-Feb-17 12:38:40
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: Ignitionnet] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:
In reply to a post by WWWombat:
Ironically, I remember reading some American cable dimensioning data that said *precisely* that: 3 users on the top tier.


Be interesting to see that scaling information. I sincerely hope there weren't 2000 other modems in the service group though! I don't think that would work, let alone work well.


I've found my copies of the 2 documents I read this in; let's hope that they say what I think they say...

Both came from Arris, and seem to describe the same network sizing information. They seem to date to around 2014.

1. "NIELSEN'S LAW VS. NIELSEN TV VIEWERSHIP FOR NETWORK CAPACITY PLANNING"
HTML Link

Quote:
Rule of Thumb Approach for Network Sizing

To date some MSOs have sized their network on a method of multiplying the billboard speed by either doubling (2X) or tripling (3X) the billboard speed to determine the amount of DOCSIS capacity per service group, this is sort of a Rule of Thumb method for DOCSIS Network Sizing.


The document goes on to explain that, as service groups get smaller, that "rule of thumb" might end up allocating too much bandwidth.

This document doesn't give a basis for *why* 2x or 3x is chosen, but does explain a better method for the future.

The next document describes the same future, but has more detail for the past...

2. "IS NIELSEN READY TO RETIRE? LATEST DEVELOPMENTS IN BANDWIDTH CAPACITY PLANNING"
PDF Link

Quote:
Many MSOs transitioned to the (Consumption+Tmax)-­oriented Period roughly around the 2009 time-­frame in conjunction with the MSO transition to DOCSIS 3.0 channel-­bonding. This is where we are today. In this period, The SG Aggregate Average Bandwidth roughly equals the rate of the highest service tier identified by the DOCSIS value: Tmax.

This has allowed traffic engineers to use a very simple rule to estimate the size their High Speed Data (HSD) networks:

Required Service Group Bandwidth Capacity = 2xTmax (1)

The Rule of Thumb can often be used as a quick guideline for estimated capacity needs. However, MSOs have developed tools and optimizations based on volumes of empirical data and traffic analysis that allow them to engineer networks for high quality of experience as key variables change.

This Rule of Thumb has been morphing over time. It was originally 3X and has been shrinking with time (and smaller Service Groups, SG).


I read the first part of this quote to say that Tmax is the speed of the top tier they sell (the "billboard speed" of the previous document). And that, at the current time, it just so happens that average aggregate bandwidth of an SG is about the same value as Tmax. The calculation for the required capacity then comes from Tmax once (as a reflection of the average bandwidth) and from Tmax a second time (as a reflection of one top-tier user running a speedtest).

If the old rule-of-thumb used a 3x factor, it hasn't changed to 2x because usage has lowered. The reduction is because the size of the SG has reduced.

The document then goes on to develop the rule-of-thumb to reflect this by directly including the size of the SG:
Required Service Group Bandwidth Capacity = S*Tavg + Tmax (2)

where S is the number of subscribers within the Service Group, Tavg is Per-Subscriber Average Busy-Hour Bandwidth, and Tmax is the Maximum Sustained Traffic Rate (Billboard Bandwidth) offering to the subscribers.


The document goes into more details of the earlier an later periods, when other calculations were used for network sizing.

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:
Seems a tad arbitrary, takes no account of the size of the service group or the usage patterns.


You are right. It looks like it depended on appropriate scaling of service groups - which very much depends on the investments being made by individual cable companies.

The papers undoubtedly attempt to point at the fact that this was an old "rule-of-thumb" that, while it worked for maybe 5 years, was no longer appropriate.

It isn't at all obvious how well this relates to VM in the UK...

At the time I read it, VM were selling a top tier of 152Mbps with 8 bonded channels (440Mbps); with my limited knowledge, I found the rule applied well.

But I now understand that the service group (of the time) was likely to have 12 channels for the whole service group, from which each modem would bond a subset of 8. The service group bandwidth would then be 660Mbs.

If we believe that VM themselves worked in the (Consumption+Tmax)-­oriented Period, then they would be leaving 500Mbps for average consumption across the service group.

If average busy-hour consumption at the time was 1Mbps per subscriber, then that would need VM to have been working with service groups of around 500 homes.

Does any of that sound appropriate?
Standard User WWWombat
(knowledge is power) Mon 27-Feb-17 12:43:19
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: WWWombat] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by WWWombat:
In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:
Seems a tad arbitrary, takes no account of the size of the service group or the usage patterns.


You are right. It looks like it depended on appropriate scaling of service groups - which very much depends on the investments being made by individual cable companies.


While reading back, it made me rethink about what a "network sizing rule of thumb" might be used for.

Instead of determining what the maximum tier can be, it might actually be used the other way around ... to determine what the size of the SGs need to be in order to deliver the speeds that marketing want to headline.

It then becomes a driver for splitting the groups, and for the network engineering teams to budget those changes.
Standard User Ignitionnet
(knowledge is power) Mon 27-Feb-17 13:01:48
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: WWWombat] [link to this post]
 
Understood.

VM have been using the consumption + Tmax model since they introduced DOCSIS 3.

The Tmax x 2 or Tmax x 3 model was made redundant with DOCSIS 3 as it provided 2 options to MSOs to upgrade networks. They could split nodes to reduce service group size, reducing the m in m x avg or add additional channels to the bonded group, providing more headroom for Tmax.

Your other thoughts are correct. Prior to releasing 20Mb ntl Telewest engaged in a large node splitting programme, especially in ex-Telewest areas.
Standard User bowdon
(committed) Mon 27-Feb-17 13:05:22
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: Ignitionnet] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:
The ASA rules that state at least 10% of an ISP's customers must be able to reach the speed advertised.

I know VM and others are very open to average speeds being the advertising criteria, the resistance is coming mostly from BT.


I can only talk from my view and experience (as a customer). I would sign up to VM but I know it's potluck if I recieve a good connection.

I don't know what kind of speed I'll be getting, no matter what package I pay for.

I don't know if my area is congested.

I don't know how long a fault, or congestion will be fixed.. I'm hearing stories its months and only actually fixed when a certain amount of people complain about it, or VM hope enough users leave so the congestion fixes itself.

Upload traffic management limits are imposed.

As a potential customer how can VM fix these concerns I have?

Demon => Freeserve => Pipex => Be => Sky => BT Infinity 2
Standard User leexgx
(committed) Mon 27-Feb-17 13:35:03
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: Chrysalis] [link to this post]
 
In reply to a post by Chrysalis:
except the problem is you end up with regulation which is only agreed upon when it has no affect on their bottom line, e.g. the very soft 10% requirement to advertise a speed.

I am pretty sure the average joe public does not get the same access to ofcom as a executive of a isp does.

What do you class as inadequate, a isp refusing to accept average speed advertising?

The isps wont agree to something that costs them money. If their agreement is required then any regulation is going to be soft. Presumably BT dont like average speeds because it would require some investment ni the copper loop to rectify which they dont want to do.

Do lawmakers consult with the public before making laws? The whole arrangement seems too cosy.


the problem with VM is you cant use avg speed advertising on cable as your connection is a fixed speed

the problem is areas that have utilisation problems and fail to address it promptly which they fail to do, personally i am Fine with them having a soft speed caps for areas that are under high upload utilisation issues it should affect all customers on the FTTn until they add more capacity to the COXA side of that node as its no good if collectively they are running all peoples internet experience on that street level area as DOCSIS does tend to fall apart when its under high load (above 60%) as its like having wifi on a copper line with lots of channels to much activity it just starts to fall apart and getting packet loss

the last time we had utilisation issues it taken 1 year to fix the last utilisation issue we had in are area with the India CS people was making worse by offering free upgrade on speeds which gave More upload to them and collectively made the problem worse in are area (1-2mb ADSL was the only alternative option but at least you could open a webpage on it between 5pm-11pm, and some on our street left VM erly due to it) most of it likely due to P2P software set to auto start on there PC

the problem is with the Upto thing is for people who don't understand that BT and resellers lines speeds are based on distance (or don't want to know and still complain when changing ISP that there speeds are not faster than last ISP even thought they was told over the phone there expected speed) and VM and FTTP there is no up to speed as its a fixed connection speed you're paying for

VM problem is Local utilisation problems in some streets (and them not correcting it fast enough) , wifi been used and the speed outside there network on the internet,

i am considering to switch back to an FTTC product as latency is an big issue on VM (as my Broadband Quality Monitor is a mess and is noticeable in games, where as the other 2 connections i monitor that are ADSL and VDSL based are Flat apart from spikes from normal activity) its all good having 220 down and 12mb up when the latency jitter is all over the place or even packet loss (waiting to see if VM is going to release a new superhub 3 or release firmware to fix the issue with jitter, my area does not have 3.1 yet)

Standard User WWWombat
(knowledge is power) Mon 27-Feb-17 14:27:39
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: Ignitionnet] [link to this post]
 
Thanks.

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:
The Tmax x 2 or Tmax x 3 model was made redundant with DOCSIS 3


The Arris doc specifically says that these models came in with DOCSIS 3, and seems to say they were a consequence (simplification?) of the "consumption + Tmax" model.

As it says: "This is where we are today" (in 2014).
Standard User Ignitionnet
(knowledge is power) Mon 27-Feb-17 17:53:05
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: WWWombat] [link to this post]
 
Those models are a simplification but a combination of the model I mentioned alongside QoE measures are where we are.

Rules of thumb are just that and certainly aren't used to make serious capacity planning decisions.

VM use both - the sustained usage plus TMax measure and, mostly actually, the QoE measures, with the Samknows monitoring platform they have helping out hugely.

https://www.arris.com/globalassets/resources/white-p...
Standard User Chrysalis
(legend) Tue 28-Feb-17 12:17:16
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: Ignitionnet] [link to this post]
 
From what I understand from wombat's post, these rules are used to determine the "initial" capacity provisioned. It doesnt say anything about rigidly sticking to it and ignoring actual historical demand from customers. So e.g. if an area only performs well with say 5x tmax, then the 5xtmax should be preserved on a upgrade program, not reverted to say 2x tmax or consumption + tmax.

Whatever system, VM is using, the procedures they have in place for upgrades and so forth I see as inadequate, even if that means me saying the industry accepted practice is inadequate, but having read what wombat posted, that seems to just be a guideline for area's where there is no historical data so used as a "starting point".

There is also no mention in terms of usage limits, as a service selling limited usage will inevitably have lower demand put on the capacity.

Sky Fibre Pro BQM - IPv4 BQM - IPv6

Edited by Chrysalis (Tue 28-Feb-17 12:18:36)

Standard User WWWombat
(knowledge is power) Thu 02-Mar-17 01:48:16
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: Ignitionnet] [link to this post]
 
Thanks for that link...

One common author between that doc and the two I had, which is Cloonan, the CTO of Arris.

Ironically, my documents are a year later than that one. Your doc presents Arris' discussion of future QoE methods, while my two appear to have settled on one known as "Network Quality of Experience" (NQoE), by Emmendorfer. They are actively bigging it up.

Anyway, this threadlet started relating to the assertion of MSO's who used a simple multiple ... and it seems clear it did happen. What it means for VM is different though.

For me, paying more attention in the DSL world, these documents throw up some different considerations - relating to the calculations on backhaul needs for PONs and G.Fast.Those, presumably, will operate in a manner similar to very small service groups.

Interesting to see, then, that Arris don't think there is much value in having service groups drop below around 250 premises.
Standard User WWWombat
(knowledge is power) Thu 02-Mar-17 02:03:38
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: Chrysalis] [link to this post]
 
I think you have to look into the details of the documents. Those suggest that the sizing rules have gradually shifted from being based on "historical demand" (or consumption) towards being based just on the tier size.

That suggests that node splits would originally happen when consumption got high enough, whereas the trend is towards node splits when marketing wants to sell a new top tier speed.

The caveat still remains - it is generic US information, so really hard to apply to VM.
Standard User Chrysalis
(legend) Thu 02-Mar-17 16:58:58
Print Post

Re: My take on virgin media


[re: WWWombat] [link to this post]
 
then that is just bad logic. As we know e.g. DSL has long stopped using fixed contention ratio's as its not a viable system, user's bandwidth consumption is a constantly shifting metric.

I have made the assumption VM use this system based on ignition saying VM follow industry standards.

Your comment about node splits been dictated by marketing however does match what my own experience was when a VM customer, in that the only time I know for sure my area had a node split was when VM started their 10:1 products. Up until then VM seemed to just refuse to carry out the work.

My area I think has now had some more re segmentation as I think fibre has been pushed much deeper based on some work I seen during the new year period, but thats just me guessing on whats been done, as I seen them feeding some new cables.

Sky Fibre Pro BQM - IPv4 BQM - IPv6

Edited by Chrysalis (Thu 02-Mar-17 17:01:56)

Pages in this thread: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | (show all)   Print Thread

Jump to