Does VM still have a FUP?

I'm deciding on which way to go when I move away from ADSL2+ technology. VM looks good. But I keep seeing the dreaded "fair usage policy" abbreviation appearing on the pages when mentioning the VM broadband packages.

So whats the deal with FUP? is it still being applied to VM?

NO Virgin don't have a FUP policy but they do have a Traffic Management system that decreases allowed upload speeds if you exceed a certain limit in a certain time gap of a day, More info at link below

http://my.virginmedia.com/traffic-management/traffic...

Different tiers have different allowances.....

My recommendation to you is, If you can get FTTC at a decent speed at your household then go for it.

But thats me really...... What do you use your broadband primarily for?

Edited by deleted (Sat 29-Mar-14 12:38:48)

I mainly use it for games and some IRC chatting. I'm not much in to the torrenting places.. but yea.. I'm not a fan of being restricted.

I would have thought cable would have had a higher capacity than BT's fibre/copper network, so wouldnt need to do the traffic management.

Looks like I'll end up with BT eventually, after Sky finish changing my line from the dying Be.. why can't these companies stay in business! lol

Edited by deleted (Sun 30-Mar-14 00:35:33)

" FTTC is brand new and there is no sharing from cab to exchange on FTTC "

Think you're wrong!

Edited by deleted (Sun 30-Mar-14 18:34:43)

In reply to a post by broadband66:

" FTTC is brand new and there is no sharing from cab to exchange on FTTC "

Wrong! 100% wrong.

What's the evidence to say that this is wrong and adslmax no he is not "100% wrong"

I don't really see how he is wrong.

AFIAK BT use 10gigE symmetrical to the cab. Which has 288 users tops. So that works out 34.7mbit/sec each (up/down).

So the upstream is totally uncontented.

The downstream could be contended. This is incredibly unlikely. Considering not everyone will either be able to get 80mbit/sec (due to line length issues) or they may well subscribe to a package that is only 40mbit/sec, it would take nearly 100% of the cab to be downloading at full pelt all at the same time. It is is pretty much as close as 1:1 contention as you can get. Not to mention that it is unlikely for the cab to be 100% full all the time.

Virgin's DOCSIS network on the other hand maybe has 1gigbit down and at best 100mbit/sec upload to share between 400-500 users. The contention is probably 20x worse on the downstream and 50-100x on the upstream than BT FTTC.

This doesn't even address the fact that BT could easily add another 10gig/sec to the cab with a cheap hardware investment at either ends, vs the extremely expensive road digging than Virgin needs to do to add another UBR.

Edited by mr_mojo (Mon 31-Mar-14 06:18:53)

Very rusty, since a port was a physical port on a line card and only one line can be plugged into it.

VDSL2 - FTTC

Dedicated copper line to the cab - cable the coax is shared
GigE or more backhaul from cabinet to the fibre exchange.
This link has an assured rate of 15 Mbps or 30 Mbps (40 and 80 products respectively)
So yes contention can appear on this link of the fibre
At the exchange fibre connected to either BT Wholesale, Sky, TalkTalk or Zen hardware and then backhaul network
At this point what happens is down to each provider

The reason you generally get less issues than on DOCSIS is that the speeds are lower in comparison to the amount of shared bandwidth available

Normally 1 GigE, never seen anything to say 10GigE is used, multiple GigE maybe.

Are you sure? That seems pretty short-sighted. 10gigE fiber cards only cost a few £100 more than gigabit ones.

Might have the links set to 1gigE and add more virtual links at 1gigE? Seems bonkers to be adding multiple cards when 10gigE is so cheap now.

Edited by deleted (Mon 31-Mar-14 12:46:00)

GigE is what I believe is used and http://www.coolwebhome.co.uk/fibre-cornwall/images/f... shows you an optic plugged into the DSLAM

So upgradeable. Spending a few £100 more might be seen as wasting public money and when you are installed 1000's of cabinets a few hundred makes a difference.

"Which has 288 users tops"

So it is shared?

AFAIK fibre cable can handle hundreds of simultaneous transmissions.

Edited by broadband66 (Mon 31-Mar-14 13:37:44)

They dont have a fair usage policy no.....

But i rang up to speak to someone about 3 weeks ago about a problem and the bloke on the phone kind of insinuated i was a heavy user and stated that for the past 3 months my average downloads have been around 110GB a month.

Well there would not be 288 individual fibres back to the exchange for each person connected to the DSLAM would there, or is that what people expect?

Fibre Optic can do terra bits per second with the right optics at either end.

The 288 is down to the number physical line card ports that the DSLAM in the cabinet can support

http://www.coolwebhome.co.uk/fibre-cornwall/images/f... and
http://www.coolwebhome.co.uk/fibre-cornwall/images/f...

OK so FTTC is shared but each cabinet has a fibre to the exchange where as FTTN has around 4-7 street cabs with up to 90+ properties connected each sharing coaxial back to the node.....

And unlike Virgin's FTTN it is very easy to add a lot more bandwidth to the NGA's....

I love the idea of sharing 1/10GBps up and down with my Street on FTTC...

But not the idea of sharing less with my local area on network that has not been updated for sometime.

This document says it is 'multiple gigE links'. https://www.openreach.co.uk/orpg/home/products/super...

Yeap it is possible, but usually start with one and only add more as needed. Look at all the spare fibres in the cabinet picture I posted.

The handover link that the provider buys at the exchange is GigE too

The most i have ever downloaded in a month was 460GB and that was on 50mb and the only reason why i did so much in that month is because i had a hard disk failure and thankfully a lot of the stuff was backed up online.

I know people who download terrabytes every month and nothing is said to them.

You always install spare fibre in case one breaks or was broke during install.

So dark fibre is what some call these, others import more mystical powers as in dark fibre is the solution to Internet access around the world.

The optics that do the conversion are pretty small
https://www.google.co.uk/shopping/product/6513312052...

and 10G is same size just more costly
http://www.gbics.com/10g-xfp-lr/?gclid=CLW9xpWVvb0CF...

As with other electronics some are better than others, so buying cheapest can be a false economy when five 9's 24/7 operation is crucial.

In reply to a post by pcoventry76:

In reply to a post by broadband66:

" FTTC is brand new and there is no sharing from cab to exchange on FTTC "

Think you're wrong!

Okay then I apologise. Igni and others are also wrong as they say there is no contention from the cab back to the exchange per user.Or so I believe I read that on CF?

Think I said there were no indications of congestion. There is still contention, it's not 1:1 bandwidth but Openreach attempt to ensure each 40Mb subscriber has at least 15Mb available at all times and each 80Mb subscriber 30.

In reply to a post by mr_mojo:

Are you sure? That seems pretty short-sighted. 10gigE fiber cards only cost a few £100 more than gigabit ones.

GPON backhaul; that way you can use the same OLT for FTTC and FTTP.

No need for a shedload of cards, a single 4 port GPON interface board is perfectly adequate for 288 FTTC subscribers.

Edited by deleted (Tue 01-Apr-14 00:01:14)

Exactly. But others seemed to think otherwise.

Where does the Dark Matter come in to this???????????

Not prior to my original post but it doesn't matter. I was pointing out a small error that may have confused others. No biggy!

When will Virgin Media start to expanding upstream network to get more upstream?

They are but under a docsis systems there won't be much point from my point of view as it will always be shared.... And as uploading becomes more popular by the day the bandwidth applied will just be used up as it's increased so we won't see much improvement at our end.

Just less congestion maybe....

Edited by deleted (Wed 02-Apr-14 15:35:56)

Yeah the bandwidth is there but any improvements they make won't be anything amazing, just getting customer on 50, 100 and 152 up to speed and then a bit more to keep everybody's connection running strong and stable, we won't see anything like 50mb and time soon or even next 5 years say.

Openreach will definitely beat them to that.... Though Virgin could surprise us.... We hope!

And I don't mean to moan about VM all the time as i do like there broadband but it isn't built for the future.... But I won't say FTTC is either as it hasn't been around long enough to prove itself yet.... Though it's giving itself a good name at the moment...

Maybe if virgin fibre all it's street cabs they will come out on top laughing....maybe...

Yh 3am is normally my work time too lol.

In reply to a post by mlmclaren:

They are but under a docsis systems there won't be much point from my point of view as it will always be shared.... And as uploading becomes more popular by the day the bandwidth applied will just be used up as it's increased so we won't see much improvement at our end.

Just less congestion maybe....

Hmm.

Standard DOCSIS 3.

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

Hmm.

Standard DOCSIS 3.

if it can do 500/50 surely VM can do it.

500mb down that's great but 50mb up, that's not very good compared to 500mb

Now 200mb with 50mb sounds decent

Obviously symmetrical would be better and that's the target, faster downloads are greats but what's the point really 200mb for residential connections is the most any household would ever need.

Also swedes network is probably a lot better the the UK's, but that isn't really virgins fault though they could do more.

I also assume that com hem are using docsis 3.1 or at least more downstream channels as virgin as virgin only have 8 channels active and that's only around 400mb down.

In reply to a post by mlmclaren:

500mb down that's great but 50mb up, that's not very good compared to 500mb

It's the fairly standard 10:1 ratio, though obviously the 250Mb/50Mb pack is better for those not interested in the extra downstream speed.

In reply to a post by mlmclaren:

Also swedes network is probably a lot better the the UK's, but that isn't really virgins fault though they could do more.

Clarify please?

In reply to a post by mlmclaren:

I also assume that com hem are using docsis 3.1 or at least more downstream channels as virgin as virgin only have 8 channels active and that's only around 400mb down.

There is no DOCSIS 3.1 equipment running on production ISP networks. It says next to the product the CPE used, one of these.

Are you more productive with faster downloads? Even with four users in a household, surely 100mbps would be more than enough?

Edited by broadband66 (Thu 03-Apr-14 11:43:20)

The reason I say that the Swedish cable network is probably better than ours is because of the poor job done installing a lot of the network when originally installed in the UK and not much has been done to it since apart from when an issue risen....

I've seen some very bad installs at homes and also in the street when they have had to be dug up....

FTTC upstream is effectively uncontended.
FTTC downstream whilst contended, its contended at a very low level, FTTC isp's contend far higher so we are unlikely to ever see congestion on FTTC cabinet backhauls unless openreach change their policy.

I am talking about FTTC to exchange tho, not backhaul after the exchange onwards.

But you yourself stated that 2 or 3 users could clog up the local network. If every one was guaranteed a speed of "insert reasonable figure here" then there would be more capacity for more users concurrently!

Therefore there should be fewer issues.

I might be being too simplistic but this need for VM and BT to win the war on speed seems to be causing some issues.

In reply to a post by mlmclaren:

The reason I say that the Swedish cable network is probably better than ours is because of the poor job done installing a lot of the network when originally installed in the UK and not much has been done to it since apart from when an issue risen....

I've seen some very bad installs at homes and also in the street when they have had to be dug up....

Quite a lot has been done to it since. It was built for cable TV and in some cases a little bit of interactive and is managing 400Mb/s downstream and 108Mb upstream per node on DOCSIS 3 ignoring all the rest on the same cable/fibre.

Edited by deleted (Fri 04-Apr-14 23:54:49)

On VM.... My thought is that this proposed clarity of available speeds http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/6403-neelie-kroes... might mean that they actually put some effort into getting on top of the upload issues.

Personally I have no real issues with the 10% asymmetry of the overall system if it would stay at 10% but of course it does not. it can be <4.4% already and with the 150 download speed it is even worse at 3.5%

I suggest that VM have realised that they don't need to have a download cap as the upload cap is effective in limiting the speed of all handshaking protocols if tere is concurrent uploading taking place

I live too close to the BT exchange so no cabinet for me else I would have jumped months ago

I am a heavy user who is looking forward to truthful advertising about speeds. I would propose that this be done with a 24 hour graph for both weekdays and weekends and for light and heavy use. If such were the case then I guess BT would win everything.

In reply to a post by OldChapXS:

I suggest that VM have realised that they don't need to have a download cap as the upload cap is effective in limiting the speed of all handshaking protocols if tere is concurrent uploading taking place

I am a heavy user who is looking forward to truthful advertising about speeds. I would propose that this be done with a 24 hour graph for both weekdays and weekends and for light and heavy use. If such were the case then I guess BT would win everything.

I would suggest that concurrent use of upload affects 'handshaking' protocols on every ISP, just the level of concurrent upload that's the issue.

Advertising download speeds based on simultaneously saturating upstream through torrents, backups, whatever is absurd and impractical.

I would propose that if you want guaranteed speeds the best option is to pay the appropriate premiums, rather than relying on a best effort heavily contended residential service allocating no more than a couple of megabits to each customer, tops, and relying on intermittent usage.

Edited by deleted (Mon 07-Apr-14 14:41:57)

In reply to a post by pcoventry76:

The thing is that even the business products are the same, unless you start to fork out for a dedicated line. I know they are cheap but why can't VM do a line a few hundred a month symetrical? Even if it's 10mbps both ways it's a good start

The £55 a month business package is what I was looking at,

::I edited because I thought the only package was BB + Phone but I see there is a 50mbps stand along product so I stand corrected

The business cable is contended in the same way.

There are a number of dedicated, symmetrical 10Mb services for a 'few hundred a month', depending on location. Here's Virgin Media's.

Unfortunately products can't be advertised based on their performance running shedloads of MJ-12 clients through them. Giving varying speeds depending on time of day is also a little complicated.

Perhaps a simpler solution would be to advertise in a similar manner to Comhem, something I've been a fan of for a while, and advertise a speed range.

Dos VM business network run on the residential aswell?

Doesnt state what the upload rate is tho.

The thing is...I would never have gotten interested in MJ if VM had not bandied about that "Unlimited" thing for so long.

Perhaps I should have said that part of the quotation that one should get relating to expected speeds at a given location should be related to your connection if you actually USE it.

Those folks that want to use cloud services for backing up their data would be interested in such info I'm sure.

Simple Math shows that quoted throughput multiplied by time is a maximum capability of a connection measured in TB/month. Personally I expect to use about a quarter of that capability from time to time, sometimes a little more usually less but not great volumes at peak times. Sure, I could move this to a data center for 3 x price and 10 x Data but then the hobby is not so hands on and less interesting.

The bottom line is that folks need to know that because of the limitations obscured by small print or the recent lack of information relating to upload speed it is going to take longer than they might think to back up that single 1TB drive and that such an endeavour will have an impact on normal browsing at certain times of day . I do not think it unreasonable that such information is required to be quoted before folks join and I do feel that folks with such intentions will be better served by the likes of BT where I expect such use to have less of an impact.

Edited by deleted (Tue 08-Apr-14 21:41:05)

something we agree on then, I have thought for a while isp's need to advertise in 'some way' the min expected speeds on their service (barring faults of course).

Looking at Comhem it looks great the way they show the speed ranges.

In reply to a post by OldChapXS:

Perhaps I should have said that part of the quotation that one should get relating to expected speeds at a given location should be related to your connection if you actually USE it.

Simple Math shows that quoted throughput multiplied by time is a maximum capability of a connection measured in TB/month. Personally I expect to use about a quarter of that capability from time to time, sometimes a little more usually less but not great volumes at peak times. Sure, I could move this to a data center for 3 x price and 10 x Data but then the hobby is not so hands on and less interesting.

The bottom line is that folks need to know that because of the limitations obscured by small print or the recent lack of information relating to upload speed it is going to take longer than they might think to back up that single 1TB drive and that such an endeavour will have an impact on normal browsing at certain times of day.

Confused as to how people are to know their throughput at any period without actually using the thing. Downstream throughput should not be affected by upstream STM. No operator can tailor a quote to specific usage cases.

Not sure how running someone else's code to index web pages and serve search results is hands on but to each their own.

Triggering upstream STM should not slow browsing. Or are you referring to uploading at the same time as downloading?

I am not a fan of VM's policies but I am not sure what your issues are or how you reasonably expect a mass-market ISP to comply with them.

In reply to a post by francisuk25:

Dos VM business network run on the residential aswell?

The cable does, and they use the same core network. Some bits in between business and core are unique to business.