Same with my service.

Edited by epyon (Fri 17-Jan-20 18:40:58)

In reply to a post by jabuzzard:

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Hyperoptic is NOT PON based. They are dedicated circuits to the building and then fibre to the floor and Gigabit Ethernet into each apartment (or GigE from basement if distances are short enough).

Don't forget the GPON split, some UK GPON firms use 32 some go all the way to 128.

I thought that Hyperoptic had made a big fuss about FTTC being called fibre. In which case using some Cat6a (assuming they are future proofing themselves for 10Gb and are not cheaping out on Cat5e) is rank hypocrisy.

That was Cityfibre I think you'll find, and the high court dismissed their case ISTR

Edited by Davey_H (Sat 18-Jan-20 07:49:59)

In reply to a post by CarlTSpeak:

In reply to a post by jabuzzard:

Wrong again, domestic internet access has at times been asymmetric but in general internet access has always been symmetric.

End user, whether residential, SME or large enterprise, usage of the Internet is generally asymmetrical. It's obviously balanced by data centres serving the content outbound but access networks human beings connect to the Internet through see asymmetrical trends.

The access network technologies serving us all reflect this. xDSL, cable and nearly all PONs are configured asymmetrically.

As far as proportions go the trend is towards broadband and away from leased lines for many enterprises. Access becoming more asymmetrical but it not being a problem - for the cost of 100 Mb/s of MPLS an enterprise can potentially purchase 20 Mb/s of MPLS, 45 Mb/s of G.fast upload, 35 Mb/s of cable upload, 50 Mb/s of FTTP upload, 19 Mb/s of FTTC upload, combinations of the above and end up with similar uptimes to the 100 Mb/s MPLS and higher performance but asymmetry.

I'd point to the network you work on as an example of this - its ratio is largely inbound, not balanced, even though the connections JISC have to the Internet at large are symmetrical.

I imagine that is what the poster was referring to in their definition of 'Internet access'.

Said more adroitly, but essentially what I said as the first reply on Thursday.

https://forums.thinkbroadband.com/fibre/t/4634527-re...

I totally agree, in most cases that is the case, 300:50 is fine for us here, but I wouldn't mind some more upload speed, sure 500:500 is a bit too much and the price wouldn't be worth it for us here, but 300:200 or 300:300 might.

Hell even 300:100 would make a huge difference and it would take 3h, 42m, 40s to upload a total of 167GB of RAW media content like 3D Video cut scenes to be processed on a remote server render farm.

But at the moment 300:50 is fine for our general usage.

But I will wait to see what the final price will end up assuming BT actually start selling that package / product.

It might even be cheaper to just get a second 300:50 line and split the data over the two connections.

Paul

In reply to a post by PaulKirby:

I totally agree, in most cases that is the case, 300:50 is fine for us here, but I wouldn't mind some more upload speed, sure 500:500 is a bit too much and the price wouldn't be worth it for us here, but 300:200 or 300:300 might.

Personally I would take 160/80 over 330/50 any day. By pricing it as they do, I think they are trying to make the more sophisticated users who need more upload speed pay for a higher download speed than they will use (or to take a leased line).

It's not like there is a shortage of capacity in the upload direction. At the PON level it's 2:1, and everywhere else in their network it is 1:1. It's purely for marketing reasons.

The only existing products that come near to a reasonable ratio are 500/165 (very expensive), followed by the basic 80/20. If they kept that 4:1 ratio for higher bands then we'd have a 330/80 product which would be very attractive - to the point that it would significantly dampen demand for the new 550/75 and 1000/115 products shortly to be launched.

At wholesale, 550/75 is only £3.00 per month more expensive than 330/50. Maybe some enterprising ISP could create a 330/75 service by using BRAS rate limiting? But it's probably not worth it for the small addressable market.

I would imagine they will try match virgins up and coming DOCSIS 4.0 speeds which you would imagine to be at least 100mbps.

Edited by epyon (Sun 19-Jan-20 10:06:54)

In reply to a post by epyon:

I would imagine they will try match virgins up and coming DOCSIS 4.0 speeds which you would imagine to be at least 100mbps.

Dont you mean 3.1?

yeah.

In reply to a post by epyon:

I would imagine they will try match virgins up and coming DOCSIS 4.0 speeds which you would imagine to be at least 100mbps.

3.1 is being slowly rolled out now. However 4.0 (just launched, renamed from "3.1 Full Duplex") will be quite costly as it seems to be a major rebuild. It is probably the future, but might take a while to get there.
https://www.cablelabs.com/technologies/docsis-4-0-te...

In reply to a post by CarlTSpeak:

I'd point to the network you work on as an example of this - its ratio is largely inbound, not balanced, even though the connections JISC have to the Internet at large are symmetrical.

Happened to be on my routers making some changes today so I took a peek at what the traffic is like from my "facility" aka the supercomputer at my university. We have downloaded 11.5TB, and uploaded 217TB, on a pair of symmetrical 10Gbps links. Yeah that's asymmetric but not the way you where thinking...

The excess download on Janet is down to undergraduates. Once they all disappear in the holidays the traffic gets much more even if not the other way around

However the point I was making is that historically internet connections at the physical layer have largely been symmetric not asymmetric.