Kitz Forum
Broadband Related => Broadband Technology => Topic started by: Bowdon on August 11, 2016, 07:37:48 PM
-
Ok so this is kind of a mystic meg post lol.
Imagine in 2017, OR has laid down G.fast.. but we're unlucky and it's not available yet.
Do you;
1. Wait for G.fast or FTTP to arrive?
2. Change to Cable - i.e. VM etc?
3. Stay on your current connection?
-
3 then 1. like to see some results first of how it will perform in the real world before changing. Personally I would like to see g.inp on eci working first lol..
-
We don't have VM, so I would like to say option one, only other viable option currently is to use V Fast wireless. I don't even think G.fast would be viable for us, certainly not from the cabinet, so in reality it would most likely have to be option 3
-
Another vote for option 3 followed by 1. Option 2 is out as Virgin isn't available here.
At 500 odd meters from the cabinet we won't benefit from the first wave of g.fast - and even if we were I would need to see the price premium charged.
At the moment, 55/10 suits me fine (as did 40/10 tbh) and my line is only capable of 60/65MB atm anyway without vectoring etc
-
How about - I am not bothered as my speed of about 44Mb/s does everything I want
-
Yep, put me down for that option too.
-
G.fast then FTTPoD2 if the cost isn't ridiculous.
I would even roll with 2 load balanced G.Fast lines if FTTPoD costs an insane amount.
-
Likely option 2 (they are rolling out in neighbouring town/village, so chance they may come here), then option 1 but only if it is FTTP... G.fast is going to be too limited in scope in my opinion, and HFC (Hybrid Fibre Coaxial) has much more potential, just today they showed off a new reference chip design that could in the end give 10Gbps symmetrical connections.
-
VM is not available(now or during the rollout) where I live so the options will be BT or BT. On that basis I'll stick with VDSL, unless there is no significant price premium for G.fast(not sure why there wouldn't be). Hard to imagine FTTP arriving in my town but I live on a busy road that is a "spine" running through residential areas so it might well be an obvious place to run fibre.
One thing I do wonder about is if we are going to see far shorter broadband contract options for FTTC in 2017? Now TV, which is Sky's broadband/streaming service, offers 1 month contracts for FTTC - ISPs can ignore minnows like Pulse8 but Sky has the power to influence the market.
-
How about - I am not bothered as my speed of about 44Mb/s does everything I want
Yep, put me down for that option too.
ADSL2+ at 17·5Mb/s enough for me.
-
Yup same here really..
I doubt I'll be in the first G.fast wave... and I'm on an eci cabinet too.. so not sure if that means I'll get a bigger delay even if it comes out around the area.
VM is available here but I'm always reluctant to go to cable because of all the fair usage policy's. I'm not a big downloader these days but I don't like to feel like I'd be data watching.
At the moment my line is running good so I'll have to hang on in there too.. option 3 then hopefully 1.
I'm hoping when G.fast comes out to the pods that other companies might try and take advantage too.
-
number 3 a no brainer. As much as I would like to justify it, but there is absolutely no technical reason I need g.fast or something else faster than what I got, it would just be for ego.
VM have high headline speeds, but their actual performance in the real world is dismal in bad areas, the VM forums dont make happy reading either as it seems they have covertly started using some kind of QoS to manage handling their new higher tiered products. What is interesting this time round with VM tho is that even in previous good areas where people have been happy for several years, they suddenly started seeing performance issues when those new vivid products launched.
https://community.virginmedia.com/t5/Speed/Very-poor-HTTP-download-speed/td-p/3026879/page/17
To me, the performance should be consistent. A 70mbit speed that I have 24/7 is better than something that runs at 200mbit at 4am, but runs at 2mbit at 9pm.
I can perfectly understand those with syncs under 20mbit and/or unstable lines that need interleaving etc. waiting for g.fast as they will be hoping for a way out of the dodgy service they have, sort of like how people with crappy adsl lines had xmas arrive with fTTC but those with 20mbit syncs on adsl were not so bothered.
-
Unquestionably 3. Same basic reasons as @Chrys
VM are an option today, but unchoosable until they achieve decent consistency and a reputation of responding rapidly when congestion takes hold. It'll take years to gain my trust.
G.Fast might offer some intellectual interest, but I don't expect it to attract price-wise. And I don't expect to hit our current 80/20 limit for years
-
And yet another "no. 3", from me.
Five years ago, approximately 4.6/0.8 Mbps DS/US.
Today, approximately 4.6/0.8 Mbps DS/US.
Next year, I expect approximately 4.6/0.8 Mbps DS/US.
I see no obvious reason to change something that just works and provides all that I need! :D
-
I'm also a number 3. In truth my present connection is a lot faster than I really need. ADSL2+ would be fast enough for me, but the stability of my FTTC connection is definitely worth having.
-
If I actually got 80/20 then that would be fast enough, but with an upload that's down to 4.4 Mbps it could soon start becoming a problem if it drops much more, although if I sacrifice some downstream speed and switch to the HG612 I would regain some upload.
-
Like many I have no particular desire for faster speeds.
But like it or not, the way we do things are changing. Ten years (or was it 20) ago if you wanted to rent a film, you got it from Blockbusters. Nowadays, you get it from the likes of Netflix, and you'll need a fast connection to see it at its best. So, just to maintain the ablity to do what we did many years before, we 'need' VDSL as a minimum.
Time was, if I wanted to install a new OS on my computer I'd buy or be given the physical installation media. Much more common now is the assumption you can download several gigabits of data and either install directly or burn your own media. That can be painfully slow over a slow connection. Again, just to do what I used to do, I now 'need' fast internet.
Many more examples, I am sure. And no doubt, the trend will continue, so I have no doubt we will always find that we have a 'need' for faster and faster speeds as the evolution continues.
Ps: in answer to the question, I'd be 3 as its my only option.
-
According to my Samknows results Netflix pulls a steady 15.6Mb/s which I assume is their highest bandwidth
-
According to my Samknows results Netflix pulls a steady 15.6Mb/s which I assume is their highest bandwidth
Which is why I 'need' VDSL, I only got about 3-4 Mbps on ADSL. :)
Netflix actually claim 5 Mbps is adequate for high def., though I am Sceptical, I think much more.
https://help.netflix.com/en/node/306
They claim 25 Mbps for ultra high def which I haven't yet put to the test by subscribing to UHD as there is nothing that I want to watch available, though there's a few 4k demonstrations on YouTube that play fine over my just under 30-ish VDSL. And by golly 4k looks amazing, something I shall definitely 'need' if/when desireable content becomes available! :blush:
-
Which is why I 'need' VDSL, I only got about 3-4 Mbps on ADSL. :)
Netflix actually claim 5 Mbps is adequate for high def., though I am Sceptical, I think much more.
https://help.netflix.com/en/node/306
They claim 25 Mbps for ultra high def which I haven't yet put to the test by subscribing to UHD as there is nothing that I want to watch available, though there's a few 4k demonstrations on YouTube that play fine over my just under 30-ish VDSL. And by golly 4k looks amazing, something I shall definitely 'need' if/when desireable content becomes available! :blush:
Seen as I'm the OP... i've never used netflix or any other video streaming service. Don't they use buffering technology? I remember when I have watched videos over youtube many years ago (could have been on dialup.. or adsl).. I would let the video buffer download before I started watching it.. if it buffered to 20 or 30% before I started watching I knew as I was watching that 20-30% allows for the slow continued downloading of the video.
If these companies don't use buffering then I'd imagine that its something to do with them not wanting the video stored anywhere on the end users platform.
On the topic..
I think the better connections need to improve pings. That would be the final line improvements for me. Also routing needs to improve as well. But that's probably outside of one ISP's control.
-
Yes they do use buffering, but who wants to wait for 20 to 30% of a film to download before watching. Some devices will even download content that they think you may want to watch, a sort of predictictive downloading.
-
> Netflix actually claim 5 Mbps is adequate for high def., though I am Sceptical, I think much more.
I can confirm that that's about right for Netflix. I can access a high quality stream with my ~6.3 Mbps d/s pipe (made up out of three ADSL2 modems). I was using their iOS client app. I never ever have any quality problems at that speed. Mind you, if my wife were to start doing something greedy at the same time, then that would be another matter. Need more modems to cater for that case. Might even be able to get away with five or six.
-
Back when I was a teenager I used to open 20 tabs and fully buffer dailymotion videos because I only had 3mbit/s and they used to turn the router off at like 10pm.
Now I watch 4K Netflix whenever I want, well when i'm not at work :(
-
Likely option 2 (they are rolling out in neighbouring town/village, so chance they may come here), then option 1 but only if it is FTTP... G.fast is going to be too limited in scope in my opinion, and HFC (Hybrid Fibre Coaxial) has much more potential, just today they showed off a new reference chip design that could in the end give 10Gbps symmetrical connections.
Unless you are a business with high-demands on your connection ....... you may as well have a Ferrari on your drive, but with the keys to a Fiat Punto ........... there is no call for residential speeds of this ilk, even 1Meg symmetrical is vast over-kill.
As always ...... there will be a price to pay for this ridiculous amount of bandwidth ........ and so just for reference purposes, I'm a No.3 !! ;) ;D
-
For me it option 3 whilst praying for the fttp part of option 1. Not for the large speeds it offers as 20 down 20 up would suffice. But for the stability, no DLM, no more looking at es levels in the hope of staying on fast path only to see on the weather a thunderstorm is due. Jitter and packet loss down to minimum. Also no more blaming my connection when I play badly!
-
The downside to all that super-technology ...... no more forums like Kitz ........... what a boring world it would be. ;) :)
-
Too true BS. I must admit I have a secret addiction to learning about broadband faults and technology.
-
Meaning no offence to forums, especially Kitz and similar (I obviously enjoy them too) I do sometimes long for the old days, without all this 'stuff' to distract me.
Today has been frittered away completely, iPad in my hand browsing Kitz and other forums, news, other things that interest me, just jumping from topic to random topic as ideas occur, becoming an armchair expert in things I'll never need and will have forgotten by tomorrow.
And it's a lovely late summer sunny day, might not be much of summer left, what a waste. :(
Maybe we need another option... ' just Get rid of my Internet connection' :D
-
When I was testing QoS on my router, one of the tests was to start a netflix movie, the test was at 3mbit/sec not 5, but the experience was painful to say the least. I would say based on what I see in dumeter when using netflix, that 15mbit is the ideal minimum for HD. But 8-10mbit would be workable albeit with 15+sec delay at start.
-
^^^^^^ Yup, I concur 7LM ............ if you are able-bodied and spend all your waking hours glued to internet-based technologies, then that is a life wasted IMHO.
It has its place, that's for sure .......... but as with all things ......... in moderation. Go for a walk, sup a few beers, chat with real people, sup a few more ....... then when nothing left to do, get the i-Pad out. ;) ;D ;D
-
In my working days I tried, and usually succeeded, in having a good work/life balance.
Now, with more spare time and more technology, the tech/life balance is harder, I find, to achieve - but I still succeed, most of the time.
Cheers! :drink:
-
For me it's option "no choice" for the foreseeable future. No option for an upgrade to a modern FTTP link that is >four miles long as I don't have that kind of cash at the moment.
I might well follow Black Sheep's advice if I were fit. (Haven't been downstairs this week, I'm afraid.)
-
Google fiber... :fingers:
-
Regrettably unless Virgin Media come to the rescue I will have precisely zero options beyond either 1.3Mb if I'm lucky ADSL2+ or 60Mb FTTC, so no real choice to be made unless I want to find alternative employment as 1.3Mb is inadequate to work from home.
At some point I'm sure Openreach will see fit to spend the, at most, 400 quid to get fibre in the duct to this property, but in the interim it is what it is and such expenses are reserved for where politically expedient.
-
I'm still gonna stick with BT in 2017
-
ignition how is 60mbit holding you back?
-
I wonder if there will be a time when an ISP's will be able to offer us full fibre for a lump sum up front and a reasonable monthly charge?
-
I'm not sure that AA for instance charges any more for FTTP than for VDSL2+copper, iirc - would need to have another dig to recheck.
All AA generally seems to really care about, in the main, is the traffic charges that they themselves get and which they need to pass on to the customer. (Although they now do have an unlimited deal for some business users.) Although there are exceptions.
-
I don't think ISPs have to pay per MB transferred. But they do have to pay for the total amount of bandwidth (WBC and IPsC separately) which will be available to be shared between all their customers. And that costs over £40 per 1 Mb/s per month.
-
@ejs Would it be better if I were to say that an ISP has to pay BT or whoever according to its estimate / forecast of total bandwidth requirement?
-
Yes, I suppose so. The trouble is there seems to be a total disconnect between those costs and the prices us end users pay. Most people expect to be able to get their full line speed at any time, but if an ISP had to buy that much bandwidth for every end user, they would make a massive loss. So the whole system only works because most people aren't using much bandwidth most of the time, and it's always been like that.
-
I've always (perhaps naively) assumed that's exactly what Andrews and Arnold do do, because of their published packet loss and congestion reports, their we are not the bottleneck commitment, the fact that they charge plenty for usage and don't offer all-you-can-eat infinite free deals like many, many ISPs do. They presumably don't make a loss because they charge the customers more and they charge them for what they are actually doing. AA now get bulk purchase deals from TalkTalk Wholesale so they can do their various 1 TB and 10 TB pre-booked per month deals. RevK the boss has talked quite a bit on occasions about costs of purchasing bandwidth or traffic.
I've never ever seen the network slow down, not even for example during the Wimbledon men's final which I watched live streaming because I felt too ill to go downstairs and watch it on TV (via Sky dish). And even then it didn't wilt. I know that they buy extra bandwidth from BT et al every year before Wimbledon is going to be on.
-
[Btw: That wasn't meant to be yet another a sales plug, just an exploration of a hopefully different model, if I have not been misled. :-[ ???]