Check Internet quality on house

AdrianC

nekr0mantik said:

Deleted_User said:

This one https://checker.ofcom.org.uk/en-gb/broadband-coverage        is very reliable. We found before our last move that any standard checkers were showing we could get much higher speeds than were actually possible but the Ofcom one seems to be fairly accurate.

That checker is not accurate. I put in my current postcode and it says max 330 but I am on 900.
Also on new apartment postcode it says only Virgin is there but I know people have FTTP from Openreach and Openreach tracker shows FTTP.

Both are FTTP, so it's correct in that fibre is available. The speeds are not the important part of the result.

Standard = copper
Superfast = FTTC
Ultrafast = FTTP

MobileSaver

[Deleted User] said:

If it has it then you will get good, reliable speed. Anything else is pot luck. It might say "up to 67mbps" (slow) but in reality you might not even get that.

I wouldn't listen to technical advice from anyone who thought 67 Mbps was "slow". That speed is very fast and more than sufficient for the vast majority of the residential population.

My girlfriend's mum has only 1.5 Mbps download speeds and it's fine for her uses (2 remote CCTV cameras, internet browsing and video calling via Echo Shows.) I ran an online business with 30 staff over a 2 Mbps line for years (and when I first started up we were using 128 Kbps ISDN...)

AdrianC

MobileSaver said:

I wouldn't listen to technical advice from anyone who thought 67 Mbps was "slow". That speed is very fast and more than sufficient for the vast majority of the residential population.

It does always make me smile when people boast about their 300meg connection... then do all their internet use on their phone over wireless.

csgohan4

[Deleted User] said:

What you really need to know is if it has fibre to the house. Not fake fibre with the last bit copper.

If it has it then you will get good, reliable speed. Anything else is pot luck. It might say "up to 67mbps" (slow) but in reality you might not even get that.

Fake fibre, or FTTC,  I have is 300mbps line using G Fast tech. I honesty think it is overkill for what I need it for. my old 67mbps was good enough. I do not d/l large files every day. 

Although it's nice to d/l  a few gigs in a minute or two, it is probably not worth the price, which is £40 a month. We got it on discount via MSE which only cost about 80p a month than the 67meg version, so was a no brainer.  

AdrianC

csgohan4 said:

Fake fibre, or FTTC

FTTC is not "fake" in any way.

What it IS is simply misunderstood...

Speeds degrade over copper proportionately to distance. Most urban properties are a very short distance to the street cab, so there will be little speed degradation.

csgohan4

AdrianC said:

csgohan4 said:

Fake fibre, or FTTC

FTTC is not "fake" in any way.

What it IS is simply misunderstood...

Speeds degrade over copper proportionately to distance. Most urban properties are a very short distance to the street cab, so there will be little speed degradation.

With the rollout of G fast tech, it means realistically there is no rush for FTTP, plus without the disruption. If you need more than 300meg your probably running some serious data server hardware

AdrianC

G Fast is, of course, an addition to FTTC rather than replace it. It replaces the "last-mile" copper with a very-short-range fast link (not much longer range than normal ethernet).

It's a very, very limited solution.

csgohan4

AdrianC said:

G Fast is, of course, an addition to FTTC rather than replace it. It replaces the "last-mile" copper with a very-short-range fast link (not much longer range than normal ethernet).

It's a very, very limited solution.

I suspect speeds in excess of 100meg will be the norm in the next 5-10 years and the prices will come down. much like how fibre was 10 years ago, expensive and for the select few who could afford it 

67 meg already is relatively affordable with MSE deals pushing it around 18-20 £ which is what broadband costs roughly a few years ago

AdrianC

Is the demand for 100meg+ realistically there?

4K video is about the most demanding mainstream domestic requirement, and can be reliably streamed over 25meg - probably slower. How many simultaneous 4K streams does any household need?

We've already reached the point of diminishing returns - and the realistic bandwidth cap is now not having full ethernet wiring within homes. Get homes fully Cat6d, come back to me with an actual requirement, and we'll talk about multi-hundred-meg being anything more than a willy-wave.

csgohan4

AdrianC said:

Is the demand for 100meg+ realistically there?

4K video is about the most demanding mainstream domestic requirement, and can be reliably streamed over 25meg - probably slower. How many simultaneous 4K streams does any household need?

We've already reached the point of diminishing returns - and the realistic bandwidth cap is now not having full ethernet wiring within homes. Get homes fully Cat6d, come back to me with an actual requirement, and we'll talk about multi-hundred-meg being anything more than a willy-wave.

Agree tbh. thats Why I have been weary of Virgin offering over 100meg services years before the mainstream providers, when real world applications are not that much. I guess would be useful for business, but then they would get business contracts. 

Most modern wifi can throughput around 450+meg, so wires are not always needed unless you have poor signal. 

But coming from 67 meg to 300meg, I seriously haven't noted too much difference in terms of streaming or gaming. Maybe if your pro gamer you need the low latency, but seriously a few milisecs is not going to make much difference once your ping is below 50

Downloading stuff can be useful, but means I have to wait a few mins more under the old speed, No biggie, cup of tea or a trip to the johnny and it's finished.