Seams VM won't be 100 200 300. After all

According to here the new speeds will be 70 150 and 200
http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/135438-virgin-media-...

Kinda disappointed but another 48 upto 200 is still nice

Yeah, kinda disappointed too, but given that I typically get 160 from my 152, I'm guessing it'll actually be more like 210 or even 215. How many 4K video streams is that? (rhetorical.)

Amazing to think though that the free upgrade will actually give me more extra capacity than the total capacity I first signed up with VM for.

No it's more likely to be the top of the 180's as per the speedtest shown.?

Hmm, I wonder if the backing out is due to network performance or capacity figures or whether the cost of rolling out will be a bit too steep to fork out soo soon!

As disappointed as I am, and wanted to see my 50/3 go up to 100/6 or any upload upgrade even, if it means Virgin are going to get networks running right, then thats better news for most.

I'm intrigued by this "silly" VIVID advertising,

It seems to me that it is sort of mis-representing the network as if it had been upgraded...

"Our next generation Optical Fibre" to me suggests they have changed something in the way the deliver the service, but they haven't, there has been no upgrade to DOCSIS 3.1 and simply they have just released updated product range with nothing more than a bandwidth allowance boost.

I'm not saying Virgin shouldn't advertise there new speeds but don't advertise like they have brought something new to the party or even made a huge investment...

Not sure, but this may be a case for the ASA...

agreed, seems VM are chronically ill with misleading ads.

In reply to a post by mlmclaren:

I'm intrigued by this "silly" VIVID advertising,

"Our next generation Optical Fibre"

a.k.a.

"We're just pushing out existing network harder"

When I had VM it was always coaxial cable based, although this was 6 years ago. Definitely not fibre. Has this changed?

Still a FTTN arrangement, though some new build areas may be RFOG i.e. fibre into the home with a converter so that normal cable kit works, but this is rare.

VM copywriters are just coming up with new ways to make things sound special and different.

It's not like the standards from the competition is forcing the pace yet. I wouldn't expect a full on max possible speed the current docsis standard can do until BT bring g.fast and a more nation wide FTTPod product to the market, or sky and talk talk are truley serious about their fibre network.

In reply to a post by binary:

In reply to a post by mlmclaren:

I'm intrigued by this "silly" VIVID advertising,

"Our next generation Optical Fibre"

a.k.a.

"We're just pushing out existing network harder"

I wonder if they have any bets open as too how hard they can push a network before it fails completely.

In reply to a post by mlmclaren:

In reply to a post by binary:

In reply to a post by mlmclaren:

I'm intrigued by this "silly" VIVID advertising,

"Our next generation Optical Fibre"

a.k.a.

"We're just pushing out existing network harder"

I wonder if they have any bets open as too how hard they can push a network before it fails completely.

Is it sad to have a dream that VM did that - went bust, Gigaclear bought them and then we all had 1Gbps FTTP?

If it is then I am :/ lol

Don't forget, you only get the full 200 if there is capacity on the fibre optic cable that runs from the node to the cloud. I have had to phone VM a few times due to speed issues and each time I phone them, they told me a lot of users were downloading at the same time and consuming most of the bandwidth on the fibre optic cable.

That was with the current product. Assuming VM has not increased capacity on their fibre optic cables then it's not really a speed upgrade. If anything, it's a speed downgrade as more people will have access to more bandwidth but the bottleneck will still exist.

I submitted report to ASA yesterday, pretty misleading from VM making it look like they changed their infrastructure.

damn you beat me too it!

In reply to a post by mlmclaren:

damn you beat me too it!

well more than 1 is always welcomed I am sure

So here we are - 50,100 and 200. Which might run at 6mbps in the evenings if lucky and I was still on it. I used to get excited wen VM did a speed boost. Nothing here to excite me. If it was 300 I would consider wetting my pants and coming back. But not for 200.

you can do it also, and it strengthens the case if multiple people submit.

In reply to a post by ZenUserJP:

In reply to a post by mlmclaren:

damn you beat me too it!

well more than 1 is always welcomed I am sure

So here we are - 50,100 and 200. Which might run at 6mbps in the evenings if lucky and I was still on it. I used to get excited wen VM did a speed boost. Nothing here to excite me. If it was 300 I would consider wetting my pants and coming back. But not for 200.

So I'm not going to get a free boost after all then?? :/

UPDATE: I see that actually 50/3 will become 70/5 however when the upgrades will be ready for individual connections remains to be seen and sounds like much confusion at calls centres regarding early upgrades and costs!

Why the hell has Virgin gone along the route off having two sets of speed tiers... this will surely [censored] new customers off and probably cause issues for people who change their packages and contract in near future..

I would be annoyed if I contracted for 12-18 months on 50/3 to find joe bloggs who joined a month before has 70/5 for the same cost!

I can only assume this is Virgin's defence when customers go apes*** about the lack of upgrades at which they where mislead by the press to be getting.

I look forward to watching my BQM's for two connections go too [censored] over the coming weeks/months.. I'm sure the node at top of the road will burst into flames once Virign start dishing the free upgrades out to the unsatisfied and over-utilised connection locally...

"laughs ass off" meheheee!

Edited by mlmclaren (Thu 01-Oct-15 15:08:04)

Will do it before leaving office at 5 if I've the time.

I think you'll find that Virgin are not misleading anyone.

The general consumer, and not visitors here to the forums (who have a higher knowledge), aer getting more and more competent when dealing with technology now and understand things a lot better than they did 2 to 3 years ago.

They are just, in my eyes making a bigger emphasis on their network being different to Sky/BT by using coaxial cable instead of twisted copper.

Also the network in the South East of England works fine, never get any speed drops unless I hit the throttling threshold when I turn my Xbox on and download a shed load of updates.

then they should call it vivid coax.

This rebrand of their product gives the impression they have changed the technology new in 2015.

Ordered 3 x FTTC 74/19 = 222/57 - now, that's even FASTER than virgin media!

Got a new job started a week ago. Earned £547 per week salary!

Edited by adslmax (Thu 01-Oct-15 19:30:49)

Not much in the scheme of things!

In reply to a post by Bryer:

I think you'll find that Virgin are not misleading anyone.

The general consumer, and not visitors here to the forums (who have a higher knowledge), aer getting more and more competent when dealing with technology now and understand things a lot better than they did 2 to 3 years ago.

They are just, in my eyes making a bigger emphasis on their network being different to Sky/BT by using coaxial cable instead of twisted copper.

Also the network in the South East of England works fine, never get any speed drops unless I hit the throttling threshold when I turn my Xbox on and download a shed load of updates.

You r point has no meaning to our complaint... they are implying they have new Fibre Optic Technology" where as they do not...

An Ex Area Manager from the South East of England seems to have a different opinion on the reliability and capacity of the network in the South East, may I ask where about's in the South East you are located? or better what network of Virgin's are you connected via?

PS. Downloading "a shed load" of updates for xbox shouldn't trigger any throttling thresholds as they do not exist on Virgin's service... (or at least not legitimately anyway)...

In reply to a post by adslmax:

Ordered 3 x FTTC 74/19 = 222/57 - now, that's even FASTER than virgin media!

Got a new job started a week ago. Earned £547 per week salary!

If you really have done that then your being a little silly IMO... also what equipment are you using to bond these connections as the last I heard it takes pretty advanced equipment to bond upstream so theoretically you could end up with 222/18 and there might be some headroom required so maybe knocks you 222 down to below 200meg

In reply to a post by Bryer:

Also the network in the South East of England works fine, never get any speed drops unless I hit the throttling threshold when I turn my Xbox on and download a shed load of updates.

The throttling threshold that does not exist anymore? VM don't throttle ANY download and haven't for over a year - so either you are hitting the upload limit due to all the download you are doing (as per how a connection works) OR there is problems and you are seeing congestion - and it's not working as fine as you think.

In reply to a post by adslmax:

Ordered 3 x FTTC 74/19 = 222/57 - now, that's even FASTER than virgin media!

Got a new job started a week ago. Earned £547 per week salary!

Well I could get VM 200 also and bond it with my current FTTC and EoFTTC lines but I see no need. Having 148/34 is more than enough for me. 348/46 seems like too much overkill. (I have a 50mbps VM line installed as part of my house purchase free for 3 years - and the SH has been disconnected and put in the cupboard. I won't use it even if it's free as this area is [censored] network wise.

That must be an awesome job. I work 10 hours a week and earn twice that. (the term work is very loose here - I haven't worked in years - it's more like a hobby to me) In fact my EoFTTC line is purely there for tax purposes. I don't even use it!

But I would rather have something there I could use it I wanted to than just give it to the tax man. It's not chump change either!

Edited by deleted (Fri 02-Oct-15 00:00:17)

dam - now you beat me to it :/

Some things never change, Pete.

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

Some things never change, Pete.

I am sure they dont and its nice to put a name to a sort of online face. Hi Pete

Well finally been able to get access to my online account, apparently the upgrade will be done by end of November... I suppose an extra 20/2 isn't something to be grumbled at.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

you can do it also, and it strengthens the case if multiple people submit.

Just submitted the complaint to ASA, I also noticed that they are not classing 50Mb/s as VIVID and is just as misleading as the headline..

In reference to store.virginmedia.com/broadband.html:

Your broadband experience
starts here
Whether you like to pootle around or zip about,
choose from our up to 50Mbps Superfast Fibre
broadband or VIVID, our next generation optical
fibre, up to 100Mbps and up to 200Mbps.

SuperFibre 50 starts from...

See what the ASA say I suppose.

So you actually expect the ASA to rule against VM advertising Fibre + Coax as a Fibre Network but allow BT et all to continue to advertise Fibre + Ancient Copper Pair as just Fibre. Or perhaps you've submitted a complaint against them too?

Also interesting that people here seem to think there is nothing new, I thought there was a recent report of an extra £3,000,000,000 of investment in improving the network, but I guess you guys have inside knowledge that it isn't really happening.

My complaint isn't about them claiming to have a fibre optic network, which as you rightly put is a Hybrid Fibre solution using Coax.... the complaint is that they are claiming it to be a next generation Fibre Optic network all of a sudden and also only on two higher tier products which to me and many others is mis-selling and implying they have a new fibre solution.

If BT where mis-selling anything I and others would report them too so lets not make this a mines better argument because they're both a joke IMO, though they are a joke we must laugh along too as nearly all will rely upon them to provide "something"!

Also project Lightning which is a £3b investment to expand the coverage of Virgin Media and not necessarily upgrade the network for all its customers... that is there job with or without £3b investments...

No that sounds good and if you call up I am sure you can get it earlier. When people called up because next door could get 152 it was a simple profile bump from retentions.

Post deleted by MrSaffron

Self censoring means you know you would a triggered the auto-censor, so say what you want without the swearing and it will remain if post is within the other rules.

EDIT: Oh I see...

Naughty corner for me then I guess [rolls eyes]

Edited by mlmclaren (Fri 02-Oct-15 15:43:43)

In reply to a post by mlmclaren:

If you really have done that then your being a little silly IMO... also what equipment are you using to bond these connections as the last I heard it takes pretty advanced equipment to bond upstream so theoretically you could end up with 222/18 and there might be some headroom required so maybe knocks you 222 down to below 200meg

I am only joking. Still happy with FTTC 74/19 as it more than enough. No need to go faster than that and save my money for retirement.

I ordered my upgrade from 54 Mbps / 3.1 Mbps yesterday, and it was available at 09:00 this morning.

Now getting 73.5 Mbps / 5.2 Mbps, according to SamKnows.

Fantastic! Now I can download all the Windows Updates 40% more rapidly!

Result!

Hope Microsoft can cope

I like that they have given a nice little boost on the upload... 7Mb/s would of been better but those days of 10% are WAY gone...

In reply to a post by John_Gray:

I ordered my upgrade from 54 Mbps / 3.1 Mbps yesterday, and it was available at 09:00 this morning.

Now getting 73.5 Mbps / 5.2 Mbps, according to SamKnows.

Fantastic! Now I can download all the Windows Updates 40% more rapidly!

Shame that Virgin Media couldn't get 75/19 to beat FTTC 74/19. Virgin Media 73/5 is rather poor indeed (the upload is very poor)

In reply to a post by adslmax:

Virgin Media 73/5 is rather poor indeed (the upload is very poor)

I disagree, I think Virgin having an entry level package with 5mb/s is rather good and is superior to Openreach's entry level 40/2 that TalkTalk and Plusnet like selling...

The only speeds that Virgin Media should of matched is their top package too 200/20... and the mid tier is on target with 150/10...

The packages are very good, and for once their looking after the existing customers by giving them exclusive access to higher speeds while they progress their rollout.

Virgin Media will not getting 200/20. They say they are going to be 50/5, 100/6 and 200/12. They never say 200/20.

Edited by adslmax (Sat 03-Oct-15 15:38:38)

mixture of right and wrongs there!

I did say that virgin NEEDS to put its top tier to 200/20...

FYI currently Virgin are offering (to existing customers) 70/5, 150/10 & 200/12

new customers will get 50/3, 100/6, 200/12, this will be until the network is ready for the headline speeds we all expected...

Edited by mlmclaren (Sat 03-Oct-15 16:47:40)

In reply to a post by Reado:

Don't forget, you only get the full 200 if there is capacity on the fibre optic cable that runs from the node to the cloud. I have had to phone VM a few times due to speed issues and each time I phone them, they told me a lot of users were downloading at the same time and consuming most of the bandwidth on the fibre optic cable.

That was with the current product. Assuming VM has not increased capacity on their fibre optic cables then it's not really a speed upgrade. If anything, it's a speed downgrade as more people will have access to more bandwidth but the bottleneck will still exist.

As far as I understood it the problems have always been congestion on the coax part of the network, rather than the fibre bit.

In reply to a post by mlmclaren:

In reply to a post by adslmax:

Virgin Media 73/5 is rather poor indeed (the upload is very poor)

I disagree, I think Virgin having an entry level package with 5mb/s is rather good and is superior to Openreach's entry level 40/2 that TalkTalk and Plusnet like selling...

The only speeds that Virgin Media should of matched is their top package too 200/20... and the mid tier is on target with 150/10...

The packages are very good, and for once their looking after the existing customers by giving them exclusive access to higher speeds while they progress their rollout.

For once? Done before. 120 a year and a half before anyone else ring a bell?

I meant existing customers can get 70/5, 150/10 and 200/12... new customers won't be as lucky with their restrictions being 50/3, 100/6 and 200/12..

120/12 was out then but only for new customers.... existing had to ask for upgrade and in most cases was told no as there was a lot of confusion amongst what equipment was capable...

By equipment I mean the beloved VMNG300 modems, which mainly came with Gigabit Ethernet ports but Virgin had a batch of them they had manufactured with only 100Meg Fast Ethernets which maxed out a 92-94Mb/s and on top of that the restriction to only 4 downstream channels was also a concern for Virgin.

On an ADSL 14mbps it takes a few minutes to download updates. It's the installation that takes ages so in the scheme of things not a lot of time saved!!!!!!

In reply to a post by mlmclaren:

I meant existing customers can get 70/5, 150/10 and 200/12... new customers won't be as lucky with their restrictions being 50/3, 100/6 and 200/12..

120/12 was out then but only for new customers.... existing had to ask for upgrade and in most cases was told no as there was a lot of confusion amongst what equipment was capable...

By equipment I mean the beloved VMNG300 modems, which mainly came with Gigabit Ethernet ports but Virgin had a batch of them they had manufactured with only 100Meg Fast Ethernets which maxed out a 92-94Mb/s and on top of that the restriction to only 4 downstream channels was also a concern for Virgin.

And yet someone I know can't get an upgrade to 200 unless he takes a more expensive full on TV bundle. No option for a standalone upgrade and when he called he was told it's not going to be in his area for over a year and the checker was talking rubbish.

So I believe he is staying on 100 end of until the next price hike and then bailing for FTTC, which I recommended be his smartest move in ages!

Usual Virgin rep talking rubbishy or not being informed correctly of the procedures... Though upgrading TV is not related so rubbish it is!

for my area a good rule of thumb is to perhaps drop the speed 90% on VM and thats the "real" speed, due to congestion.

So e.g. VM 200/12 is actually 20/12.

For this reason I dont consider VM marketing speeds to be meaningful.

I would e.g. take a 40/2 xDSL product over VM 200/12 any day of the week.

I need consistent performance 24/7 not fast at 4am and broken at 6pm.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

for my area a good rule of thumb is to perhaps drop the speed 90% on VM and thats the "real" speed, due to congestion.

So e.g. VM 200/12 is actually 20/12.

For this reason I dont consider VM marketing speeds to be meaningful.

I would e.g. take a 40/2 xDSL product over VM 200/12 any day of the week.

I need consistent performance 24/7 not fast at 4am and broken at 6pm.

Agreed It's why I have not jumped back onto the VM wagon. Stability is key and FTTC is solid 24/7 not like you said off peak only

besides people seem to be photoshopping their speedtests. Either that or something is magical about the VM forum software.

http://community.virginmedia.com/t5/Speed/Speed-incr...

See what I mean?

Well, he is sticking to FTTC and his area (Glos) is preforming [censored] and true to form.

I agree, when I was with Virgin here (Crawley) 160/12 became 2/12 of an evening or afternoon even...

It better now but only a little better... neighbours report around around a minimum of 8-12Mb/s downstream depending on network segment allocations... I can't say I follow it that closely anymore but do here bits now and then.

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

Seems to be what we are seeing from 200/12 users,
http://blog.thinkbroadband.com/2015/07/another-look-... shows the sort of overall drop we are seeing at peak time, and even the Ofcom testing showed the old 152 Mbps dropping to around 100 Mbps at peak times.

There are some posting above the expected connection speed (and outside the previous trial areas where the 300 Mbps is still seen now and then) which might be some of those users posting higher speeds

In reply to a post by mlmclaren:

I agree, when I was with Virgin here (Crawley) 160/12 became 2/12 of an evening or afternoon even...

It better now but only a little better... neighbours report around around a minimum of 8-12Mb/s downstream depending on network segment allocations... I can't say I follow it that closely anymore but do here bits now and then.

I concur. Moved to Zen for FTTC.. never looked back.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

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

Seems to be what we are seeing from 200/12 users,
http://blog.thinkbroadband.com/2015/07/another-look-... shows the sort of overall drop we are seeing at peak time, and even the Ofcom testing showed the old 152 Mbps dropping to around 100 Mbps at peak times.

There are some posting above the expected connection speed (and outside the previous trial areas where the 300 Mbps is still seen now and then) which might be some of those users posting higher speeds

That makes sense. But the same speedtest quoted and different to the original was what made my suspicions arise.

In reply to a post by ZenUserJP:

In reply to a post by mlmclaren:

I agree, when I was with Virgin here (Crawley) 160/12 became 2/12 of an evening or afternoon even...

It better now but only a little better... neighbours report around around a minimum of 8-12Mb/s downstream depending on network segment allocations... I can't say I follow it that closely anymore but do here bits now and then.

I concur. Moved to Zen for FTTC.. never looked back.

Well to clean it up just in case anyone moans, I moved to FTTC and never looked back... Even Plusnet with its issues was better than Virgin round here though Plusnet did still make themselves look foolish to Virgin's congestion issues when they could keep a 128kb/s radio stream going...

At least Virgin could keep that going even with 2Mb/s and my whole local network trying to suck what it needed from that.

also for the record, in another area Virgin would be considered an option for me, this discussion would be based on a trial to check utilisation and also depending on lengths of cables to DSLAM's...

As soon as Virgin does release 300/20 Openreach will need to be getting faster speeds rolled out (at least uploads) to stay in the competition...

on docsis1 all throughput would just stall for several seconds at a time as if ack's couldnt get through at all, thats how bad my area was, docsis3 was better but still struggled to reliably stream a SD quality F1 sunday mornings from sky go.

If I was BT I would make sure no exchanges are in amber/red and then start a marketing campaign with the phrase "performance when you need it". Highlighting the consistency with peak vs off peak compared to the competition.

Edited by Chrysalis (Sun 04-Oct-15 19:03:46)

I have to agree with you. I might only get 74 but I get that 24/7 and I've left my upload going for a week backing up and it's stil been full whack. I recall the days on VM where after less than an Hour I was throttled down until 4am just for uploading lots as it tok 4 hours from midnight to come off due to me uploading from say 5pm-6am.

Something FTTC has no issue with

I waited for 4 months when I moved in for FTTC to come - and I was glad when that day rolled around.

I was about to say "and I am glad they don't keep jacking up the price" when I saw that actually Sky are about to again according to ISPr

Edited by deleted (Sun 04-Oct-15 19:17:05)

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

If I was BT I would make sure no exchanges are in amber/red and then start a marketing campaign with the phrase "performance when you need it". Highlighting the consistency with peak vs off peak compared to the competition.

I think there might be some sort of Advertising rues that stop BT from doing that, though I would love to see this myself.

I think the true competition between Virgin & Openreach's networks will come once Virgin puts out faster uploads and Openreach releasing a Broadband only product (SOGEA)

Faster uploads could attract BT customers and Single Order GEA could attract Virgin customers.

yeah VM will claim the ad's are misleading and then BT would have to prove it.

Its not wrong if true.

still struggled to reliably stream a SD quality F1 sunday mornings from sky go

As a user of Sky's other streamer, Now TV, to get F1 coverage to fill in the BBC's gaps I know what you mean about the poor early morning streams but I very much doubt that is anything to do with VM, most likely a problem with Sky's network. Last time I had this I tried streaming Full HD from Netflix and YouTube at the same time and they worked flawlessly, Sky's stream didn't alter one bit, it stayed poor and kept dropping, regardless of what else I was doing on my connection.

Post deleted by MrSaffron

Post was deleted due to inappropriate language, rather than any opinions expressed by the poster.

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

Not too bad for 43 quid a mnth

The VM haters just love these threads lol it gives them a little min to vent

Not bad I agree

Could be a bit more stable though :/

Would you mind giving us an update around 5-7PM?

EDIT: PS, I hope I wasn't being marked a VM hater, I still rely on them for two connections and quiet honestly have equal reason to love them as well as dislike them

Edited by mlmclaren (Mon 05-Oct-15 15:30:46)

The VM haters just love these threads lol it gives them a little min to vent

Fortunately VM tend to give people a lot of truly excellent and valid reasons to hate them.

Yes np i will do that for you

And i was using the word 'haters' very lightly lol i mean how could someone become that emotional that they actually hate a company that provides broadband.it's a bit silly really lol

In reply to a post by djfunkdup:

how could someone become that emotional that they actually hate a company that provides broadband.it's a bit silly really lol

Not really, depends on the trouble said broadband company puts the end user/s through really...

Yes that is true ..

Edited by djfunkdup (Mon 05-Oct-15 17:20:32)

In reply to a post by mlmclaren:

Not bad I agree

Could be a bit more stable though :/

Would you mind giving us an update around 5-7PM?

A couple of results for you ..

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

http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/1556451

http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/4720320563 (Local Server)

http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/4720328643 (Holland)
.
.
.

Edited by djfunkdup (Mon 05-Oct-15 18:38:53)

it was to do with VM, obviously when these issues occurred I did diagnosis to see who to blame.

On sunday mornings after about 9-10am the connection was pretty unusable until about 11pm-midnight.

VM performance is a complete lottery depending on what node you on, are you trying to suggest people with horrific performance should put up with it?

Would you like an isp who had circa 10% of marketed speeds at peak and couldnt even stream SD content reliably?

Wait till Openreach will roll out G.Fast pretty soon I believe it will start earlier roll out next Spring 2016 lastly through until Summer 2024 (to beat target 10 years roll out)

I expecting G.Fast will be 300/50

Edited by adslmax (Mon 05-Oct-15 18:21:00)

Is Vm Your ISP ?

In reply to a post by djfunkdup:

The VM haters just love these threads lol it gives them a little min to vent

So are you saying if you were getting 3mbps in the evenings then you would still be a VM lover? I was and I left - does not make me a hater I just need more than they can give me. I would (and did) take reliability and performance consistency over sheer speed any day of the week (and I do get it 24/7 not 2/7 like I used to with VM

In reply to a post by djfunkdup:

Yes np i will do that for you

And i was using the word 'haters' very lightly lol i mean how could someone become that emotional that they actually hate a company that provides broadband.it's a bit silly really lol

Not emotional, just peeved. Paying £38 a month for 152 which was 3 in the evenings and all day Sunday - as well as being limited on upload after an hour - I pay £46 now and I get 74/18 24/7 and I can pack away 11TB a month no problem. When everyone is doing that on your node see how things are then.

Fair enough.

Edited by deleted (Mon 05-Oct-15 22:37:19)

In reply to a post by adslmax:

Wait till Openreach will roll out G.Fast pretty soon I believe it will start earlier roll out next Spring 2016 lastly through until Summer 2024 (to beat target 10 years roll out)

I expecting G.Fast will be 300/50

If I have to wait until 2024 I expect it to be 10Gbps not a poxy 300mbps!

We can create robot dogs that can sneak up and kill you in 2015 yet we can't get a really good net speed? in 9 years time we will have flying self driving cars and still be stuck on 300mbps!?

I really hope your prediction is wrong.

no thankfully I left them when FTTC went live.

But I still keep an eye on friends connections in my area.

Good stuff

Glad you got something decent sorted if your VM area was over subscribed .That means you can get on with other things and leave your previous hastles in the past ..

No you silly man/woman/cyborg/alien of course not if you are not happy with the ISP you have then you give them a chance to sort out any issues and if they can't do that then you leave and go somewhere else .Just like you did and now you have FTTC

You need to move on and stick the stick you bash VM with somewhere else. stick it somewhere safe and leave the past in the past

Edited by djfunkdup (Mon 05-Oct-15 23:27:28)

Nothing they could do for me. They were too interested in putting more and more people on a crowded circuit.

I don't bash VM. Not at all. I have no gripe with them now I am not with them.

And thanks for assuming I am a man

Sorry about that. i corrected it

In reply to a post by djfunkdup:

In reply to a post by mlmclaren:

Not bad I agree

Could be a bit more stable though :/

Would you mind giving us an update around 5-7PM?

A couple of results for you ..

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

Cheers for the update,

Looks like it was struggling a bit ....hope that don't spiral out of control like it I've seen it do many many times before.

Yea the multi thread test does look a bit jittery on the test on this site.

but its not showing like that on the dsl test and thats multi thread testing as well.just the same as its not showing any jitter on my networx bandwith monitor ..its kinda weird and yes i will be keeping an eye on it . when i was on the 152 product i was not getting that

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

the multi thread test was usually always the same as the single thread test.its only since i got the vivid 200 upgrade that the multi thread test has been showing inconsistent results on the tbb test.

i was getting inconsistent results on tbb/dsl and speedtest for the first couple of days after the upgrade but a factory reset seamed to make it more stable regarding speedtest results except for the multithread test here on tbb.. So tbh i am not actually sure what is causing it. but i dont notice any difference in connection performance

LOL @ Cyborg/Alien

nano Nanooo!

fair enough, I misread the test TBH... hope it stays like that

Hmmm another bit of bad press coming out locally about Virgin's "lack of" performance.

https://www.cable.co.uk/news/my-virgin-broadband-con...

In reply to a post by mlmclaren:

Hmmm another bit of bad press coming out locally about Virgin's "lack of" performance.

https://www.cable.co.uk/news/my-virgin-broadband-con...

Really? Now you DO surprise me there! </sarcasm>

The only bit that gets my chuff with these reports is this bit

"Mr Polhill, 29, who has a nine-year-old daughter with partner Victoria Wright, 30, who is a care worker, "

Does any of this - including his colour of socks at the time of writing have ANY bearing on the story? No. It's just the usual journalistic waffle.

If his house had burnt down then yes it would have been - but not just because his broadband connection (which he probably has a massive discount on anyway) plays up.

When you consider that all we see is

Speed Upgrade> Price rise> retentions calls >discount
Price rise> retentions calls >discount
End of contract > retentions calls >discount
Price rise> retentions calls >discount

HOW can people expect to get a top notch service whilst the company is haemorrhaging money JUST to keep them as customers? All they are doing is perpetuating the cycle.

The sooner VM do a "1 price for all - like it or jog on" attitude the better for everyone on their network I think.

Put it this way.. it works for many many other companys with many many smaller amounts of resources. For LG/VM/UPC or whoever runs them now - it should be a doddle!

Many customers over the years have said they would prefer this.

So how about making the 50 tier 50/decent upload and charge a decent price for it - and then people would get a better service. VM are upgrading (in an attempt to keep them) existing customers to 70 and claim it will a "FTTC killer"!?

Dream ON! FTTC is a million miles better in consistency, quality and reliability. who wants 70mbps if it's going to go down 159 times a day!? The only time my FTTC goes down is it I force it to.

Sorry for my rant - but all I see is complain about price, then complain about service then complain about upload speeds. When the only people who have the power to make changes to better them are the very same!

Edited by deleted (Tue 06-Oct-15 11:37:49)

IMO, they super selling of Virgin's services may be a number building exercise to aid a potential sale... this of course isn't fact but I heard few whispers a while back and seen a couple of stories that suggest a potential sale or merger ahead... and a sale will be more lucrative if they have XXXXXXX amount of customers with XXXXXXXX amount in contracts, and also looks good if someone is on an offer for 200meg as it will be seen as the offer ending and that person then paying the retail value.

So one day it could be a new thread here discussing how Virgin's retentions team has been shrunk and that Virgin are being stingy with lack of offers... I already noticed last year before moving out of Birmingham that Virgin's Loyalty Discounts didn't run for 2 years anymore and are actually much shorter.

As far as the tiers go, the 70/5 is a very good entry level service, however its an exclusive and probably not going to be easy to keep hold of it... I think the 50/3 that is currently available to new customers is a bit of a let down, I currently have this on two connections and currently trying to transfer something from the Virgin End to my end...

(only 90GB... been going since last night 11PM, just 3-4 days left )

Virgin should do something similar to the following,

50/5
100/10
200/20
with potential for 300/30

This would be something they could use against FTTC because the packages would match as following...

Plusnet Fibre 40/2 = Virgin 50/5
BT Infinity 1 40/10 = Virgin 100/10
BT Infinity 2 80/20 = Virgin 200/20
FTTPoD could be Virgin's 300/30 and would be the broadband market equivalent of a nuke.

For years BT has had the dominance. Why VM aren't going to bring out 330/30 and take it away from them is behind me. They have the coverage to do so.

But they don't have the Bandwidth...

If you think about the fact that BT can only offer FTTP to a tiny percentage of the UK and that FTTPoD isn't exactly hugely popular either (never mind currently on hold) that means that the capacity BT would need to provide the tiny amount of FTTP is significantly different to amount Virgin would need to provide its customer base covering over 50% of the UK.

and this is forgetting the issues Virgin has on its localised infrastructure as it is.

In the Thurrock area of South East England.

Although some people class this as East England, I class it as SE due to the location on the Thames.

Network congestion slowing my connection down from 160 to 100 is FULLY acceptable to myself as it's still faster than any "fibre optic" service offered by BT/Sky and Talk Talk in my area.

However I will think you'll find that the throttling still take effect on the network at peak times, if you download over 50GB in a hour. Restrictions seem to stay in place for 4 hours, and then remove again. I can evidence this by hitting 159-162 at around 6pm in the evening, download at 40GB game, the connection slows to 100, at around 11pm shoots back to 159-160. I can get full speeds all the time if I do not download a game, so pretty sure there is still some throttling some where, maybe there is an old profile lurking somewhere on the my account.

In answer to your question, wasn't the original speed upgrade to 152mb due to finish/complete in September 2015? Surely Virgin Media updating their final cabinets to DOCSIS 3.0 could technically be what they are referring too?

Sorry but if your connection is affected by congestion then how can you be sure there is throttling on your connection and also DOCSIS 3.0 was rolled out across the whole network when 50MB was released many years back and is what the whole network relies upon!

DOCSIS 3.0 is the only reason Virgin can offer speeds faster than 20Mb/s!

In reply to a post by Bryer:

However I will think you'll find that the throttling still take effect on the network at peak times, if you download over 50GB in a hour. Restrictions seem to stay in place for 4 hours, and then remove again. I can evidence this by hitting 159-162 at around 6pm in the evening, download at 40GB game, the connection slows to 100, at around 11pm shoots back to 159-160. I can get full speeds all the time if I do not download a game, so pretty sure there is still some throttling some where, maybe there is an old profile lurking somewhere on the my account.

I think you'll find you have just described congestion to a tee.. When they DID used to throttle it worked better for some - because it went from 120 to a solid 70-80 and stayed there for however many hours was needed.

Edited by deleted (Tue 06-Oct-15 19:42:34)

Do the majority of VM users go to bed at exactly 11pm?

I don't know. I do know that even after 11PM when the STM was on (because people used to hit the STM and carry on downloading) then it would often stay on until 12,1 and even 2am before it was removed.

There are many posts about it on the VM forum from the past few years if you wish to view them yourself.

While on the topic of Virgin's BB, I Skyped someone today for around an hour, they where using a Virgin connection that I monitor....

Quiet appalled at what became of their graph!

In reply to a post by ZenUserJP:

In reply to a post by Bryer:

However I will think you'll find that the throttling still take effect on the network at peak times, if you download over 50GB in a hour. Restrictions seem to stay in place for 4 hours, and then remove again. I can evidence this by hitting 159-162 at around 6pm in the evening, download at 40GB game, the connection slows to 100, at around 11pm shoots back to 159-160. I can get full speeds all the time if I do not download a game, so pretty sure there is still some throttling some where, maybe there is an old profile lurking somewhere on the my account.

I think you'll find you have just described congestion to a tee.. When they DID used to throttle it worked better for some - because it went from 120 to a solid 70-80 and stayed there for however many hours was needed.

No really sure you've read the explanation.

If I do not download between 6-11pm speed stay FULL at 159 to 160.

If I download data in the region of 40 to 50GB between 6-11pm, then the speed drops and stays at a solid 100 for 4 hours. At 4 hours and 1 minute, I'm back to full speed.

That doesn't sound like congestion to me, but STM.

And do you find this is with all downloads or just certain downloads?

Can be anything, if my connection is used to download bulk data, it will slow down for 4 hours and then shoot back to full speed.

In reply to a post by Bryer:

Can be anything, if my connection is used to download bulk data, it will slow down for 4 hours and then shoot back to full speed.

No that's congestion! Virgin scrapped ANY and ALL download throttling well over a year ago

You seem to have trouble grasping that concept.

Have you tried downloading at a later time to test the congestion theory?

In reply to a post by ZenUserJP:

In reply to a post by Bryer:

Can be anything, if my connection is used to download bulk data, it will slow down for 4 hours and then shoot back to full speed.

No that's congestion! Virgin scrapped ANY and ALL download throttling well over a year ago

You seem to have trouble grasping that concept.

No I grasp the congestion issue, but you clearly do not seem to be grasping the fact that if I do not download, speed stays at the full advertised speed

In relation to the other comment if I tried to download at a later time, yes I have downloaded some Linux distros after midnight and the speeds remain at full speed throughout the night. Which fits in with the old STM.

I also tried the same during the day on Wednesday, same issue happened, hit 50gb in a short space of time and the connection slowed down to around 95 and remained in place for 4 hours, then shot back up to 155, like clockwork.

So maybe I don't grasp the concept like ZenUserJP would like me to, however going from previous experience, this looks like traffic management on my node/cabinet/profile on the VM network.

He/she has spouted his/her mouth off several times that Virgin are saying one thing and doing another, could the STM still be in place for the seriously heavy users and they are hiding it?

Edited by Bryer (Fri 09-Oct-15 10:18:15)

could you confirm how you are testing your speed when not downloading please?

A numerous number of different ways.

I'll run a Speedtest.net test, a speed test on here and also use test files from other sites.

speedtest.net isn't that reliable at showing congestion, try the following test around 5-7PM

http://labs.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/?site=omega...

Will do but use that one on a regular basis..

Congestion or contention?

Edited by Bryer (Fri 09-Oct-15 15:10:01)

In reply to a post by Bryer:

He/she has spouted his/her mouth off several times that Virgin are saying one thing and doing another, could the STM still be in place for the seriously heavy users and they are hiding it?

He.

It could, it's not impossible, however it'd be risky given the changes to regulations now. Telewest used to have STM running unannounced in selective, busy areas well before the merger with ntl.

Certainly no-one bar a member of VM staff could say 100% they aren't, but you're the only person to have mentioned it.

EDIT: A screenshot showing DUMeter or similar as the apparent throttling kicks in would be really, really good. Congestion will tend to show as inconsistent speeds and a tail-off, throttling a steady speed, with a cliff face drop as it kicks in.

Edited by deleted (Fri 09-Oct-15 15:46:45)

OK, DUmonitor is something new to me. Does it have a Mac equivalent?

The site parameter means that the test while looking familiar actually runs a different test method and one that is more sensitive to congestion. i.e. a single download stream rather than the six of the main tester.

It is also possible for tests to give roughly the right numbers, but the graph of the test happening show it wandering up and down more than usual.

Did you do any tests?

In reply to a post by Bryer:

Will do but use that one on a regular basis..

Congestion or contention?

As Andrew has confirm above, the tester that I linked is a different "single thread" test that will identify issues...

In reply to a post by Bryer:

He/she has spouted his/her mouth off several times that Virgin are saying one thing and doing another

Yes mate - based on over 20 years of being a customer. If you find this wrongful they have done things that would make your [censored] turn green.