'Fastest ever' broadband passes speed test
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
Then they should move out of rural England. BT, etc, aren't stupid. If people in rural England could pay enough to offset the cost of running cable or fiber out to rural England, then BT would build that infrastructure. But that's clearly not the case.
We're not talking about small villages nestled in the Welsh hillsides hundres of miles from the nearest city. We're talking about towns of tens of thousands of people, close to major cities, close to major rail and road networks.
It'd be really nice if the UK had strategic plans to increase the amount of fibre in the ground. People building new housing estates or roads or etc should be strongly encouraged to install fibre optic cabling, and more than is needed.
That was the result of an ISP's own blocking system.
And there is no government censorship, please stop saying that - customers are given the option to opt-out of content filters -- it's not mandatory. This has always been the case, the only difference now is that ISPs must ask subscribers.
Here's the blog of one such small ISP, which is well worth reading: http://revk.www.me.uk/search/label/CENSORSHIP
Someone did their math wrong.
One second of 4:2:2 720p@24fps video is about 353.89Mb
A feature film is about 110 minutes, which works out to 2.3 Tbit; this can't even send one HD video per second.
Multicast support would cure the majority of the streaming and torrent issues if the ISP's enabled it.
Subs eh thy hook up their hipster mac book air to a airport hub and suddenly they are a CCIE level guru.
It looks like hardware department is not doing its homework instead. Hard drives, and cpus are the limitations most of the time for me.
For most of us the internet speed is the biggest problem. My home internet speed has some very big issued on peak hours.
It's not unusual for the connection to be unusable for an hour.
Luckily peak time is usually when everybody is home from work and i don't really need to use it at that time.
But still, with bad infrastructure, you will not gain any more speed with 1tb internet connection either. Im guessing your provider tells you that they are providing 10mbit connection to you, which is a lie according to what you explained, right?
BT is outright shocking (probably infinite is ok, however this is in response to Virgin deploying fiber- and they're directly competing- thus! in area's with fiber coverage you get a choice of BT or Virgin, in the other areas.. well, sucks to be you!)
I get, on average 150KB/s with around 1s latency at all times (when it goes lower than 1s I celebrate)[0].
I live in the tech part of london, seriously confused as to how this is acceptable, but a leased line to bring me up to your speeds would cost me more than I earn in a month (I checked).
London and "average 150KB/s" ??
You should be getting better connection than that with 4g on your mobile then?
(and 4g for 3UK hasn't been rolled out yet)
The perception in residential is that customers don't understand what they want and can't go somewhere else, so you slap the biggest speed number on it that won't get you sued and then provide them crap service.
Why would anyone want that? Well would could all move to ipv6, use modern web browsers with webrtc and p2p stream iplayer like a torrent stream. That must substantially reduce the BBC IT costs therefore its licencing requirements.
All my consoles/players are hooked up via cable.
I do wonder how many complaints they get from people complaining they only get 50Mb and not the advertised 76Mb.
I know I'm from the North, but last I checked Ipswich was practically next door to London. Did they route it via Manchester or something.
See http://indico.uknof.org.uk/getFile.py/access?contribId=2&res...
my mother lives 100 miles to the north (coventry) and gets 5MB/s for free, and it actually -IS- 5MB/s
(free because of tv/phone package, and it's with Virgin)