if the cable option was uncongested I would take it to be fair

so

Or the cable company, 80 quid a month for 105Mb down, 20Mb up, 600GB/month cap. uncongested no STM no protocol shaping.

Or VM 30mb down 2mb up no official usage cap but extremely low peak time limits which throttle speeds and all time peak protocol shaping, plus varying levels of congestion that last for years at a time.

Value for money isnt always base price.

Of course if the .us service has VM levels of congestion then its no better.

Edited by Chrysalis (Fri 28-Jun-13 07:30:47)

There are several UPC offerings in different countries. Netherlands, Poland, Switzerland, Ireland, Slovakia, etc.

Bonding connections together if you really want them fully bonded is done by using a Firebrick or similar to tunnel both connections to a data centre then access the Internet from there, or if load balancing is satisfactory something like this is fine.

Obviously the tunneling option means a single IP address is seen at the remote end while the load balancing option means 2 IP addresses are seen which can be an 'issue' with NNTP hosts. You can, of course, also mitigate this through use of a VPN.

Bonding 2 VM connections is probably a bad idea though.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

if the cable option was uncongested I would take it to be fair

Fair enough; but if you've no issues paying that kind of money how come you use residential BT Infinity, with no fixed line back up, for your business?

As I'm sure you're aware Comcast have congestion management in place to try and avoid pipes maxing out.

Edited by deleted (Fri 28-Jun-13 12:00:20)

I don't recall ever being STMed, (Is that a verb?), or not that I noticed. I do avoid torrenting in peak times, so our evening usage is pretty typical, streaming with XBMC from Livedrive; Lovefilm, a variety of on line games via PS3 or Wii and automated Livedrive backups. I get 104Mb/9.80Mb pretty well 24/7 every week of the year.

Yet I hear some folk claiming they get hit at a drop of a hat. Maybe it's because I'm not particularly looking to see if I have been limited. That would apply to most users. After all, even if I have occasionally been dropped to 5Mb or 3.6Mb for an hour or two, it hasn't prevented me doing what I want my connection to. Most folk wouldn't even notice. I would still be getting a better up stream than most ADSL down streams.

I'm getting my free upgrade to 120Mb/12Mb next month, so I'm even less likely to notice any service degradation.

BT infinity is good enough overall, the main issue for me is a static ip, and I have been waiting for zen to release prices on their new products. Before deciding.

However if I was in a position of a congested VM service for VM's cost or that £80 product (assuming uncongested) I would choose the latter, thats more what I meant.

Bear in mind I dont host anything from home and my work doesnt require high bandwidth, for my work stability and latency/packet loss is most important, higher upload does help also as I can mount iso's remotely from home over KVM but its not a neccessity. But because I dont just use my connection for work, I also want higher bandwidth for my other activities as well.

For this reason 3G is a good enough backup, working is harder over it, but it is good enough to keep me going during outages or when I am not at home. this is assuming outages are infrequent tho.

Edited by deleted (Fri 28-Jun-13 14:42:23)

Edited by deleted (Fri 28-Jun-13 15:20:38)