Virgin Media launches 152Mb broadband, 50Mb entry-level

forgotmyname

150MB+ download speeds but capped at 10GB.

You can download flat out for approx 7 minutes and thats it for the rest of the month.

littleboo

kwikbreaks wrote: »

I'm glad that the two previous posters are getting what they pay for. I was on 60Mbps and in my own area it was dire. You'll find completely contrasting experiences with cable because one street can be fine and the next terrible. VM do fix these issues but take their own sweet time doing so. I gave up and moved to FTTC instead - no problems with that for me.

Same experience with a relation of mine, 60Mb service but typically getting between 2Mb and 4Mb speeds. It's been like this since the service was provisioned in September, VM say there is a fault but consistently fail to meet the fix dates that they quote. Exec Level complaints are ineffective, they are unable to explain why the fix dates keep being missed and have no idea if the next fix date is any more likely to be met. They are totally reactive, relying on the customer to chase them and this situation appears to be not unusual They seem to be unable to monitor and maintain their own network appropriately. As you say, dire. So while VM focus on headline grabbing speeds at the expense of routine maintenance, this customer will be moving to FTTC when it becomes available in a few months.

thor

kwikbreaks wrote: »

It's not bizarre at all. DOCSIS has low capacity local pipes (typically 400Mbps down shared between several hundred houses at the moment). That means you can get high speeds but not constant high speeds for everybody - there simply isn't the capacity to allow that. If everybody is just browsing then they'll all get the headline speed but if you have a couple or more users doing sizeable downloads at the same time there won't be enough local capacity left for the rest of the people on that segment. Of course the only reason anybody needs high speeds is for big downloads.

I did a speedtest earlier this evening and my 30Mbps vm line scored 34Mbps AND there are lots of heavy downloaders living on my street. To tell you the truth I have had internet connection from vm since the early cabletel days in the mid 90s and whether dial up or broadband they have hardly ever been slower than the rated speed. In my opinion their broadband service is by far their biggest strength(with tv being their weakest).
As for the coming min of 50Gbps - Though I am a huge downloader I can't see that I need it. The current 30GBps is more than enough for my purposes. I would prefer that they reduced their prices instead(that is unless it does not cost VM much to up the speed)

kwikbreaks

All I can say is that there must be heavier and more persistent downloaders on my street! As I said VM performance is very granular - most areas are fine but that doesn't help if you live in one that isn't as I do.

I run the SamKnows monotoring and the difference between cable and FTTC is very striking. Average overall daily speeds on cable were all over the place. On FTTC it's rock solid.

Cycrow

I dont tend to download a huge amount, but when i do, it would be nice if its done quickly, so i can see some benefit in faster speeds.

most of my downloading is via steam, so can be 5-10gb at a time.

so being able to pick any game from my list and have it downloaded and ready to play quickly would be a bonus

anotheruser

kingrulzuk wrote: »

Do we really like it??

Is it is it wicked?


The problem I have is why not stop at the 100Mb and get over 90% of the country up to that standard instead of the ever widening gap between cities and villages.

VM should use their profits, which I am sure the company would rush to say "we use them for investment" to actually invest --> dig up roads - lay new cable and the like.

donfanatico

anotheruser wrote: »

Is it is it wicked?


The problem I have is why not stop at the 100Mb and get over 90% of the country up to that standard instead of the ever widening gap between cities and villages.

VM should use their profits, which I am sure the company would rush to say "we use them for investment" to actually invest --> dig up roads - lay new cable and the like.

it's not as easy as that, they cant just dig up roads willy nilly, it takes a long time to plan this stuff and do it properly.
The 152Mb BB runs on exactly the same infrastructure as the previous 120Mb one, it's all just marketing, these are all just software settings that they set at switch/server level, they dont actually upgrade anything physically

kwikbreaks

anotheruser wrote: »

VM should use their profits, which I am sure the company would rush to say "we use them for investment" to actually invest --> dig up roads - lay new cable and the like.

VM are carrying something like £6Bn of debt which was incurred by the various cable companies that they bought out as they went to the wall doing just that.

You won't see any significant expansion in VMs coverage area any time soon.

Quiet_Spark

forgotmyname wrote: »

150MB+ download speeds but capped at 10GB.

You can download flat out for approx 7 minutes and thats it for the rest of the month.

That may be the case with some ISP's, but not with VM.


http://my.virginmedia.com/traffic-management/traffic-management-policy-30Mb-or-higher.html

Nilrem

Quiet_Spark wrote: »

That may be the case with some ISP's, but not with VM.


http://my.virginmedia.com/traffic-management/traffic-management-policy-30Mb-or-higher.html

Aye, one of the reasons I stick with VM (other than them both being more reliable and far faster in my area than ADSL), is because they don't limit our downloads/usage

I don't think I've ever even really been hit by traffic management, despite hitting 100gb+ in a day in the past (reinstalling a new machine and setting up steam...).