there were a series of questions:
"We have no plans to charge for internet on trains but, just supposing you >could choose between train A costing ?X and train B costing ?Y, which would >you pick?"
with a series of varying (random?) choices like:
Train A: ?90
low bandwidth (email)
high reliability
Train B: ?75
high bandwidth (streaming)
low reliability
including choices like:
Train A: ?60
high bandwidth (streaming)
high reliability
Train B: ?90
medium bandwidth (browsing)
low reliability
It will be interesting to see what people go for...
The new EMR 810s appear to offer WiFi at around 1 Mbit/sec, provided by >Icomera. I?m not sure if this is a deliberate decision to make video use >impractical and to be more equitable in sharing out the available
bandwidth, or just poor quality kit. This was on a lightly loaded service.
In contrast my phone managed at least an order of magnitude more, and >sometimes much more.
In message <10vjope$25uat$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:01:02 on Mon, 1 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
The new EMR 810s appear to offer WiFi at around 1 Mbit/sec, provided by
Icomera. I?m not sure if this is a deliberate decision to make video use
impractical and to be more equitable in sharing out the available
bandwidth, or just poor quality kit. This was on a lightly loaded service. >> In contrast my phone managed at least an order of magnitude more, and
sometimes much more.
I stayed in a rather posh hotel near Abingdon on Wednesday night.
Although not in the main house, but a "Garden Wing" that looked
like it was built for Eastern Europeans during the Cold War.
It had free wifi, and typically delivered 1MBps, according to Ookla.
Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Clive Page <usenet@page2.eu> wrote:
On 31/05/2026 09:11, Graeme Wall wrote:
Of interest to many here:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn8pn4l03r7o>
And the wi-fi on Thameslink, the largest franchise, is the worst with a >>>> great many trains never having had it installed at all.
Rebecca shouldn?t be trying to conduct video calls regardless of the WiFi >>> quality. It?s not something that can be done without disturbing everyone >>> else.
I was on an LNER train recently and someone from Savanta handed me a survey >> on behalf of the DfT (to be completed online, of course).
There were a whole lot of questions about what I use the internet for on
trains (basic emailing, general web browsing, streaming, meetings), how much >> of my journey I'd use it, whether speed or reliability was more important, >> and how much I paid for my ticket (œ75).
Then there were a series of questions:
"We have no plans to charge for internet on trains but, just supposing you >> could choose between train A costing œX and train B costing œY, which would >> you pick?"
with a series of varying (random?) choices like:
Train A: œ90
low bandwidth (email)
high reliability
Train B: œ75
high bandwidth (streaming)
low reliability
including choices like:
Train A: œ60
high bandwidth (streaming)
high reliability
Train B: œ90
medium bandwidth (browsing)
low reliability
It will be interesting to see what people go for...
The new EMR 810s appear to offer WiFi at around 1 Mbit/sec, provided by Icomera. I?m not sure if this is a deliberate decision to make video use impractical and to be more equitable in sharing out the available
bandwidth, or just poor quality kit. This was on a lightly loaded service.
In contrast my phone managed at least an order of magnitude more, and sometimes much more.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10vjope$25uat$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:01:02 on Mon, 1 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
The new EMR 810s appear to offer WiFi at around 1 Mbit/sec, provided by
Icomera. I?m not sure if this is a deliberate decision to make video use >>> impractical and to be more equitable in sharing out the available
bandwidth, or just poor quality kit. This was on a lightly loaded service. >>> In contrast my phone managed at least an order of magnitude more, and
sometimes much more.
I stayed in a rather posh hotel near Abingdon on Wednesday night.
Although not in the main house, but a "Garden Wing" that looked
like it was built for Eastern Europeans during the Cold War.
It had free wifi, and typically delivered 1MBps, according to Ookla.
Did they have a faster tier that either had to be paid for or was available >to members of whatever their membership scheme might be? The latter seems
to be increasingly common.
In message <10vjope$25uat$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:01:02 on Mon, 1 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
The new EMR 810s appear to offer WiFi at around 1 Mbit/sec, provided by
Icomera. I?m not sure if this is a deliberate decision to make video use
impractical and to be more equitable in sharing out the available
bandwidth, or just poor quality kit. This was on a lightly loaded service. >> In contrast my phone managed at least an order of magnitude more, and
sometimes much more.
I stayed in a rather posh hotel near Abingdon on Wednesday night.
Although not in the main house, but a "Garden Wing" that looked
like it was built for Eastern Europeans during the Cold War.
It had free wifi, and typically delivered 1MBps, according to Ookla.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10vjope$25uat$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:01:02 on Mon, 1 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
The new EMR 810s appear to offer WiFi at around 1 Mbit/sec, provided by
Icomera. I?m not sure if this is a deliberate decision to make video use >>> impractical and to be more equitable in sharing out the available
bandwidth, or just poor quality kit. This was on a lightly loaded service. >>> In contrast my phone managed at least an order of magnitude more, and
sometimes much more.
I stayed in a rather posh hotel near Abingdon on Wednesday night.
Although not in the main house, but a "Garden Wing" that looked
like it was built for Eastern Europeans during the Cold War.
It had free wifi, and typically delivered 1MBps, according to Ookla.
So about 10 Mbps?
In message <10vpf8f$3noa3$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:55:11 on Wed, 3 Jun
2026, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10vjope$25uat$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:01:02 on Mon, 1 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
The new EMR 810s appear to offer WiFi at around 1 Mbit/sec, provided by >>>> Icomera. I?m not sure if this is a deliberate decision to make video use >>>> impractical and to be more equitable in sharing out the available
bandwidth, or just poor quality kit. This was on a lightly loaded service. >>>> In contrast my phone managed at least an order of magnitude more, and
sometimes much more.
I stayed in a rather posh hotel near Abingdon on Wednesday night.
Although not in the main house, but a "Garden Wing" that looked
like it was built for Eastern Europeans during the Cold War.
It had free wifi, and typically delivered 1MBps, according to Ookla.
So about 10 Mbps?
1 megabit per second.
At home I'm getting 150 down and 102 up. Ping is a bit rubbish at 19ms.
150 is a lot less than Branson promised. Just say'in.
At home I'm getting 150 down and 102 up. Ping is a bit rubbish at 19ms.
150 is a lot less than Branson promised. Just say'in.
I seem to recall your telling us that your fibre connection was installed
by Openreach?
In message <YjaUR.77$w3f5.30@fx02.ams1>, at 08:04:08 on Thu, 4 Jun 2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
At home I'm getting 150 down and 102 up. Ping is a bit rubbish at 19ms.
150 is a lot less than Branson promised. Just say'in.
I seem to recall your telling us that your fibre connection was installed
by Openreach?
That's at my second home.
In message <10vpf8f$3noa3$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:55:11 on Wed, 3 Jun
2026, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10vjope$25uat$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:01:02 on Mon, 1 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
The new EMR 810s appear to offer WiFi at around 1 Mbit/sec, provided by >>>> Icomera. I?m not sure if this is a deliberate decision to make video use >>>> impractical and to be more equitable in sharing out the available
bandwidth, or just poor quality kit. This was on a lightly loaded service. >>>> In contrast my phone managed at least an order of magnitude more, and
sometimes much more.
I stayed in a rather posh hotel near Abingdon on Wednesday night.
Although not in the main house, but a "Garden Wing" that looked
like it was built for Eastern Europeans during the Cold War.
It had free wifi, and typically delivered 1MBps, according to Ookla.
So about 10 Mbps?
1 megabit per second.
At home I'm getting 150 down and 102 up. Ping is a bit rubbish at 19ms.
150 is a lot less than Branson promised. Just say'in.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <YjaUR.77$w3f5.30@fx02.ams1>, at 08:04:08 on Thu, 4 Jun 2026,
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
At home I'm getting 150 down and 102 up. Ping is a bit rubbish at 19ms. >>>>
150 is a lot less than Branson promised. Just say'in.
I seem to recall your telling us that your fibre connection was installed >>> by Openreach?
That's at my second home.
What is the technology for this service? Cellular, OpenReach FTTP, Altnet >FTTP, VM cable? What is the relevance of Branson?
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <YjaUR.77$w3f5.30@fx02.ams1>, at 08:04:08 on Thu, 4 Jun 2026,
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
At home I'm getting 150 down and 102 up. Ping is a bit rubbish at 19ms. >>>>
150 is a lot less than Branson promised. Just say'in.
I seem to recall your telling us that your fibre connection was installed >>> by Openreach?
That's at my second home.
What is the technology for this service? Cellular, OpenReach FTTP, Altnet FTTP, VM cable? What is the relevance of Branson?
In message <10vreih$8uoe$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:55:45 on Thu, 4 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <YjaUR.77$w3f5.30@fx02.ams1>, at 08:04:08 on Thu, 4 Jun 2026, >>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
At home I'm getting 150 down and 102 up. Ping is a bit rubbish at 19ms. >>>>>
150 is a lot less than Branson promised. Just say'in.
I seem to recall your telling us that your fibre connection was installed >>>> by Openreach?
That's at my second home.
What is the technology for this service? Cellular, OpenReach FTTP, Altnet
FTTP, VM cable? What is the relevance of Branson?
The 150/102 is VM cable, where as I understand it the "V" stands for
Virgin, Mr Branson's worldwide brand. The most recent upgrade was
supposed to be a Gigabit, but it might be throttled by the in-house
wifi.
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <YjaUR.77$w3f5.30@fx02.ams1>, at 08:04:08 on Thu, 4 Jun 2026, >>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
At home I'm getting 150 down and 102 up. Ping is a bit rubbish at 19ms. >>>>>
150 is a lot less than Branson promised. Just say'in.
I seem to recall your telling us that your fibre connection was installed >>>> by Openreach?
That's at my second home.
What is the technology for this service? Cellular, OpenReach FTTP, Altnet
FTTP, VM cable? What is the relevance of Branson?
Branson used to (perhaps still does?) front Virgin Media ads, so this is >likely a VM cable line. In that role, Branson is basically an actor, as he >has nothing to do with running the company and doesn?t own any of it. He >simply collects brand royalties and is presumably available for ads,as part >of the deal.
But remember that Roland has a long-standing hatred for Branson and
anything branded Virgin.
He would never select a Virgin-branded product unless there was no
choice, or it was the cheapest (always the biggest factor for Roland).
So we can safely assume that the ?home? in question is in Girton, not
Ely, and is owned by Lyndsay Williams.
In message <twbUR.30$G_M2.26@fx08.ams1>, at 09:25:45 on Thu, 4 Jun 2026, >Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Branson used to (perhaps still does?) front Virgin Media ads, so this is >>likely a VM cable line. In that role, Branson is basically an actor, as he >>has nothing to do with running the company and doesn?t own any of it. He >>simply collects brand royalties and is presumably available for ads,as part >>of the deal.
But remember that Roland has a long-standing hatred for Branson and >>anything branded Virgin.
Just so you know, what I disapprove of is his brash marketing, not the >products. Plus the way he disrupts markets then pulls out. Remember
In message <twbUR.30$G_M2.26@fx08.ams1>, at 09:25:45 on Thu, 4 Jun 2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <YjaUR.77$w3f5.30@fx02.ams1>, at 08:04:08 on Thu, 4 Jun 2026, >>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
At home I'm getting 150 down and 102 up. Ping is a bit rubbish at 19ms. >>>>>>
150 is a lot less than Branson promised. Just say'in.
I seem to recall your telling us that your fibre connection was installed >>>>> by Openreach?
That's at my second home.
What is the technology for this service? Cellular, OpenReach FTTP, Altnet >>> FTTP, VM cable? What is the relevance of Branson?
Branson used to (perhaps still does?) front Virgin Media ads, so this is
likely a VM cable line. In that role, Branson is basically an actor, as he >> has nothing to do with running the company and doesn?t own any of it. He
simply collects brand royalties and is presumably available for ads,as part >> of the deal.
But remember that Roland has a long-standing hatred for Branson and
anything branded Virgin.
Just so you know, what I disapprove of is his brash marketing, not the products. Plus the way he disrupts markets then pulls out.
Remember
Virgin PCs, or Cola? Just so you know, the PCs in question were made in
Eire by Intel, branded Virgin, but just so you know, Intel had promised they'd never compete with their customers.
He would never select a Virgin-branded product unless there was no
choice, or it was the cheapest (always the biggest factor for Roland).
Piling on the lies, falsehoods and misapprehensions. I flew to Newark
with them in 1988 when Virgin Atlantic had possibly just one plane.
I don't like the way Virgin Internet throttles their users (in particular, for a while, they blocked usenet access). But nowadays they are probably
no worse than any BT reseller.
So we can safely assume that the ?home? in question is in Girton, not
Ely, and is owned by Lyndsay Williams.
Why is that news?
So we can safely assume that the ?home? in question is in Girton, not
Ely, and is owned by Lyndsay Williams.
Why is that news?
You made it sound like your own home had VM cable.
In message <j7dUR.23$F2q5.9@fx03.ams1>, at 11:15:27 on Thu, 4 Jun 2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
So we can safely assume that the ?home? in question is in Girton, not
Ely, and is owned by Lyndsay Williams.
Why is that news?
You made it sound like your own home had VM cable.
It does. Tested it again and 1100 megabits, so earlier result throttled
by house wifi.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <twbUR.30$G_M2.26@fx08.ams1>, at 09:25:45 on Thu, 4 Jun 2026,
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <YjaUR.77$w3f5.30@fx02.ams1>, at 08:04:08 on Thu, 4 Jun 2026, >>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
At home I'm getting 150 down and 102 up. Ping is a bit rubbish at 19ms. >>>>>>>
150 is a lot less than Branson promised. Just say'in.
I seem to recall your telling us that your fibre connection was installed
by Openreach?
That's at my second home.
What is the technology for this service? Cellular, OpenReach FTTP, Altnet >>>> FTTP, VM cable? What is the relevance of Branson?
Branson used to (perhaps still does?) front Virgin Media ads, so this is >>> likely a VM cable line. In that role, Branson is basically an actor, as he >>> has nothing to do with running the company and doesn?t own any of it. He >>> simply collects brand royalties and is presumably available for ads,as part >>> of the deal.
But remember that Roland has a long-standing hatred for Branson and
anything branded Virgin.
Just so you know, what I disapprove of is his brash marketing, not the
products. Plus the way he disrupts markets then pulls out.
He?s basically a VC. When he backs new companies, he aims to disrupt complacent markets. The idea is to assess likely success or failure after a year. If failure seems likely, he pulls out.
On Thu, 4 Jun 2026 11:23:22 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> gabbled:
In message <twbUR.30$G_M2.26@fx08.ams1>, at 09:25:45 on Thu, 4 Jun 2026, >>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Branson used to (perhaps still does?) front Virgin Media ads, so this is >>>likely a VM cable line. In that role, Branson is basically an actor, as he >>>has nothing to do with running the company and doesn?t own any of it. He >>>simply collects brand royalties and is presumably available for ads,as part >>>of the deal.
But remember that Roland has a long-standing hatred for Branson and >>>anything branded Virgin.
Just so you know, what I disapprove of is his brash marketing, not the >>products. Plus the way he disrupts markets then pulls out. Remember
The thing that irritates me about Branson other than his tedious self promotion
is his cuddly uncle schtick when he's proven on more than one occasion that when
push comes to shove he's just as ruthless as any other billionaire.
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:Will Branson be putting any of his own money into the Virgin branded
In message <twbUR.30$G_M2.26@fx08.ams1>, at 09:25:45 on Thu, 4 Jun 2026, >>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <YjaUR.77$w3f5.30@fx02.ams1>, at 08:04:08 on Thu, 4 Jun 2026, >>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
At home I'm getting 150 down and 102 up. Ping is a bit rubbish at 19ms.
150 is a lot less than Branson promised. Just say'in.
I seem to recall your telling us that your fibre connection was installed
by Openreach?
That's at my second home.
What is the technology for this service? Cellular, OpenReach FTTP, Altnet >>>>> FTTP, VM cable? What is the relevance of Branson?
Branson used to (perhaps still does?) front Virgin Media ads, so this is >>>> likely a VM cable line. In that role, Branson is basically an actor, as he >>>> has nothing to do with running the company and doesn?t own any of it. He >>>> simply collects brand royalties and is presumably available for ads,as part
of the deal.
But remember that Roland has a long-standing hatred for Branson and
anything branded Virgin.
Just so you know, what I disapprove of is his brash marketing, not the
products. Plus the way he disrupts markets then pulls out.
He?s basically a VC. When he backs new companies, he aims to disrupt
complacent markets. The idea is to assess likely success or failure after a >> year. If failure seems likely, he pulls out.
channel tunnel service, or is he just licensing the name for a fee?
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <j7dUR.23$F2q5.9@fx03.ams1>, at 11:15:27 on Thu, 4 Jun 2026,
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
So we can safely assume that the ?home? in question is in Girton, not >>>>> Ely, and is owned by Lyndsay Williams.
Why is that news?
You made it sound like your own home had VM cable.
It does. Tested it again and 1100 megabits, so earlier result throttled
by house wifi.
So implied negative comments about Branson unwarranted?
In message <10vrq82$c68b$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:14:58 on Thu, 4 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <j7dUR.23$F2q5.9@fx03.ams1>, at 11:15:27 on Thu, 4 Jun 2026,
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
So we can safely assume that the ?home? in question is in Girton, not >>>>>> Ely, and is owned by Lyndsay Williams.
Why is that news?
You made it sound like your own home had VM cable.
It does. Tested it again and 1100 megabits, so earlier result throttled
by house wifi.
So implied negative comments about Branson unwarranted?
Not really. They sent a new hub a couple of months ago, and it should
manage more than 150. And just so you know, all the other stuff still stands.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10vrq82$c68b$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:14:58 on Thu, 4 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <j7dUR.23$F2q5.9@fx03.ams1>, at 11:15:27 on Thu, 4 Jun 2026, >>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
So we can safely assume that the ?home? in question is in Girton, not >>>>>>> Ely, and is owned by Lyndsay Williams.
Why is that news?
You made it sound like your own home had VM cable.
It does. Tested it again and 1100 megabits, so earlier result throttled >>>> by house wifi.
So implied negative comments about Branson unwarranted?
Not really. They sent a new hub a couple of months ago, and it should
manage more than 150. And just so you know, all the other stuff still
stands.
Are you connecting via 2.4 or 5GHz?
I had a colleague complaining about slow speeds on his 1 Gbit/sec CityFibre >service, pretty similar to your speeds, until he sheepishly admitted he was >using 2.4 GHz WiFi.
I don?t think VMO2 would have much of a business if their hubs couldn?t >manage more than 150 Mbit/sec on WiFi.
On Thu, 4 Jun 2026 14:56:47 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10vrq82$c68b$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:14:58 on Thu, 4 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <j7dUR.23$F2q5.9@fx03.ams1>, at 11:15:27 on Thu, 4 Jun 2026, >>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
So we can safely assume that the ?home? in question is in Girton, not >>>>>>>> Ely, and is owned by Lyndsay Williams.
Why is that news?
You made it sound like your own home had VM cable.
It does. Tested it again and 1100 megabits, so earlier result throttled >>>>> by house wifi.
So implied negative comments about Branson unwarranted?
Not really. They sent a new hub a couple of months ago, and it should
manage more than 150. And just so you know, all the other stuff still
stands.
Are you connecting via 2.4 or 5GHz?
I had a colleague complaining about slow speeds on his 1 Gbit/sec CityFibre >> service, pretty similar to your speeds, until he sheepishly admitted he was >> using 2.4 GHz WiFi.
I don?t think VMO2 would have much of a business if their hubs couldn?t
manage more than 150 Mbit/sec on WiFi.
It also depends on the device. I get higher connection speeds from my
iPad than my phone, perhaps because it has a
larger aerial?
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jun 2026 14:56:47 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:Probably down to both hardware and software design. My big iPad and my >smaller iPhone both get similar speeds (70% of my 1 Gbit/sec service) over >wifi. Mind you, speed very quickly drops off with distance. Designing phone >antennas that work over multiple frequencies and squeezing it all into a >phone case is very much a miracle of engineering.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10vrq82$c68b$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:14:58 on Thu, 4 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <j7dUR.23$F2q5.9@fx03.ams1>, at 11:15:27 on Thu, 4 Jun 2026, >>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
So we can safely assume that the ?home? in question is in Girton, not >>>>>>>>> Ely, and is owned by Lyndsay Williams.
Why is that news?
You made it sound like your own home had VM cable.
It does. Tested it again and 1100 megabits, so earlier result throttled >>>>>> by house wifi.
So implied negative comments about Branson unwarranted?
Not really. They sent a new hub a couple of months ago, and it should >>>> manage more than 150. And just so you know, all the other stuff still >>>> stands.
Are you connecting via 2.4 or 5GHz?
I had a colleague complaining about slow speeds on his 1 Gbit/sec CityFibre >>> service, pretty similar to your speeds, until he sheepishly admitted he was >>> using 2.4 GHz WiFi.
I don?t think VMO2 would have much of a business if their hubs couldn?t
manage more than 150 Mbit/sec on WiFi.
It also depends on the device. I get higher connection speeds from my
iPad than my phone, perhaps because it has a
larger aerial?
On Thu, 4 Jun 2026 10:28:33 -0000 (UTC), boltar@caprica.universe wrote:
The thing that irritates me about Branson other than his tedious self >promotion
is his cuddly uncle schtick when he's proven on more than one occasion that >when
push comes to shove he's just as ruthless as any other billionaire.
For sure ? he didn't get rich by being a softie. But he wouldn't be the only >business leader to cultivate a fake image.
For example, Bill Gates always cultivated a cuddly, teddy-bear image when he >led Microsoft, but his development leads
were terrified of their brutal BillG reviews.
On Thu, 4 Jun 2026 15:31:30 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jun 2026 14:56:47 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:Probably down to both hardware and software design. My big iPad and my
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10vrq82$c68b$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:14:58 on Thu, 4 Jun >>>>> 2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <j7dUR.23$F2q5.9@fx03.ams1>, at 11:15:27 on Thu, 4 Jun 2026, >>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
So we can safely assume that the ?home? in question is in Girton, not
Ely, and is owned by Lyndsay Williams.
Why is that news?
You made it sound like your own home had VM cable.
It does. Tested it again and 1100 megabits, so earlier result throttled >>>>>>> by house wifi.
So implied negative comments about Branson unwarranted?
Not really. They sent a new hub a couple of months ago, and it should >>>>> manage more than 150. And just so you know, all the other stuff still >>>>> stands.
Are you connecting via 2.4 or 5GHz?
I had a colleague complaining about slow speeds on his 1 Gbit/sec CityFibre
service, pretty similar to your speeds, until he sheepishly admitted he was
using 2.4 GHz WiFi.
I don?t think VMO2 would have much of a business if their hubs couldn?t >>>> manage more than 150 Mbit/sec on WiFi.
It also depends on the device. I get higher connection speeds from my
iPad than my phone, perhaps because it has a
larger aerial?
smaller iPhone both get similar speeds (70% of my 1 Gbit/sec service) over >> wifi. Mind you, speed very quickly drops off with distance. Designing phone >> antennas that work over multiple frequencies and squeezing it all into a
phone case is very much a miracle of engineering.
What's odd is that if a WiFi signal is very weak, my phone both finds it
and connects more reliably than the iPad Pro.
But if the signal is very strong, the iPad delivers noticeably faster connection speeds. It's almost as if the
(Android) phone has an antenna designed to make the most of a weak
signal, while the iPad is optimised to make the most
of a strong signal.
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jun 2026 15:31:30 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jun 2026 14:56:47 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:Probably down to both hardware and software design. My big iPad and my
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10vrq82$c68b$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:14:58 on Thu, 4 Jun >>>>>> 2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <j7dUR.23$F2q5.9@fx03.ams1>, at 11:15:27 on Thu, 4 Jun 2026,
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
So we can safely assume that the ?home? in question is in Girton, not
Ely, and is owned by Lyndsay Williams.
Why is that news?
You made it sound like your own home had VM cable.
It does. Tested it again and 1100 megabits, so earlier result throttled
by house wifi.
So implied negative comments about Branson unwarranted?
Not really. They sent a new hub a couple of months ago, and it should >>>>>> manage more than 150. And just so you know, all the other stuff still >>>>>> stands.
Are you connecting via 2.4 or 5GHz?
I had a colleague complaining about slow speeds on his 1 Gbit/sec CityFibre
service, pretty similar to your speeds, until he sheepishly admitted he was
using 2.4 GHz WiFi.
I don?t think VMO2 would have much of a business if their hubs couldn?t >>>>> manage more than 150 Mbit/sec on WiFi.
It also depends on the device. I get higher connection speeds from my
iPad than my phone, perhaps because it has a
larger aerial?
smaller iPhone both get similar speeds (70% of my 1 Gbit/sec service) over >>> wifi. Mind you, speed very quickly drops off with distance. Designing phone >>> antennas that work over multiple frequencies and squeezing it all into a >>> phone case is very much a miracle of engineering.
What's odd is that if a WiFi signal is very weak, my phone both finds it
and connects more reliably than the iPad Pro.
But if the signal is very strong, the iPad delivers noticeably faster
connection speeds. It's almost as if the
(Android) phone has an antenna designed to make the most of a weak
signal, while the iPad is optimised to make the most
of a strong signal.
From my observations, and I?m prepared to be corrected, iOS hides weak WiFi access points from the user.
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jun 2026 15:31:30 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jun 2026 14:56:47 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:Probably down to both hardware and software design. My big iPad and my >>>> smaller iPhone both get similar speeds (70% of my 1 Gbit/sec service) over >>>> wifi. Mind you, speed very quickly drops off with distance. Designing phone
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10vrq82$c68b$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:14:58 on Thu, 4 Jun >>>>>>> 2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <j7dUR.23$F2q5.9@fx03.ams1>, at 11:15:27 on Thu, 4 Jun 2026,
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
So we can safely assume that the ?home? in question is in Girton, not
Ely, and is owned by Lyndsay Williams.
Why is that news?
You made it sound like your own home had VM cable.
It does. Tested it again and 1100 megabits, so earlier result throttled
by house wifi.
So implied negative comments about Branson unwarranted?
Not really. They sent a new hub a couple of months ago, and it should >>>>>>> manage more than 150. And just so you know, all the other stuff still >>>>>>> stands.
Are you connecting via 2.4 or 5GHz?
I had a colleague complaining about slow speeds on his 1 Gbit/sec CityFibre
service, pretty similar to your speeds, until he sheepishly admitted he was
using 2.4 GHz WiFi.
I don?t think VMO2 would have much of a business if their hubs couldn?t >>>>>> manage more than 150 Mbit/sec on WiFi.
It also depends on the device. I get higher connection speeds from my >>>>> iPad than my phone, perhaps because it has a
larger aerial?
antennas that work over multiple frequencies and squeezing it all into a >>>> phone case is very much a miracle of engineering.
What's odd is that if a WiFi signal is very weak, my phone both finds it >>> and connects more reliably than the iPad Pro.
But if the signal is very strong, the iPad delivers noticeably faster
connection speeds. It's almost as if the
(Android) phone has an antenna designed to make the most of a weak
signal, while the iPad is optimised to make the most
of a strong signal.
From my observations, and I?m prepared to be corrected, iOS hides weak WiFi >> access points from the user.
Yes, I have the same impression. So, in such circumstances, I have to
resort to connecting my iPad via my phone.
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:I?ve just tried the WiFi scanner on Apple?s airport utility app. This displays more WiFi access points than those presented in the settings WiFi list. The extra ones are all weak.
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jun 2026 15:31:30 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jun 2026 14:56:47 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:Probably down to both hardware and software design. My big iPad and my >>>>> smaller iPhone both get similar speeds (70% of my 1 Gbit/sec service) over
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10vrq82$c68b$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:14:58 on Thu, 4 Jun >>>>>>>> 2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <j7dUR.23$F2q5.9@fx03.ams1>, at 11:15:27 on Thu, 4 Jun 2026,
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
So we can safely assume that the ?home? in question is in Girton, not
Ely, and is owned by Lyndsay Williams.
Why is that news?
You made it sound like your own home had VM cable.
It does. Tested it again and 1100 megabits, so earlier result throttled
by house wifi.
So implied negative comments about Branson unwarranted?
Not really. They sent a new hub a couple of months ago, and it should >>>>>>>> manage more than 150. And just so you know, all the other stuff still >>>>>>>> stands.
Are you connecting via 2.4 or 5GHz?
I had a colleague complaining about slow speeds on his 1 Gbit/sec CityFibre
service, pretty similar to your speeds, until he sheepishly admitted he was
using 2.4 GHz WiFi.
I don?t think VMO2 would have much of a business if their hubs couldn?t >>>>>>> manage more than 150 Mbit/sec on WiFi.
It also depends on the device. I get higher connection speeds from my >>>>>> iPad than my phone, perhaps because it has a
larger aerial?
wifi. Mind you, speed very quickly drops off with distance. Designing phone
antennas that work over multiple frequencies and squeezing it all into a >>>>> phone case is very much a miracle of engineering.
What's odd is that if a WiFi signal is very weak, my phone both finds it >>>> and connects more reliably than the iPad Pro.
But if the signal is very strong, the iPad delivers noticeably faster
connection speeds. It's almost as if the
(Android) phone has an antenna designed to make the most of a weak
signal, while the iPad is optimised to make the most
of a strong signal.
From my observations, and I?m prepared to be corrected, iOS hides weak WiFi >>> access points from the user.
Yes, I have the same impression. So, in such circumstances, I have to
resort to connecting my iPad via my phone.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10vrq82$c68b$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:14:58 on Thu, 4 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <j7dUR.23$F2q5.9@fx03.ams1>, at 11:15:27 on Thu, 4 Jun 2026, >>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
So we can safely assume that the ?home? in question is in >>>>>>>Girton, not
Ely, and is owned by Lyndsay Williams.
Why is that news?
You made it sound like your own home had VM cable.
It does. Tested it again and 1100 megabits, so earlier result throttled >>>> by house wifi.
So implied negative comments about Branson unwarranted?
Not really. They sent a new hub a couple of months ago, and it should
manage more than 150. And just so you know, all the other stuff still
stands.
Are you connecting via 2.4 or 5GHz?
I had a colleague complaining about slow speeds on his 1 Gbit/sec CityFibre >service, pretty similar to your speeds, until he sheepishly admitted he was >using 2.4 GHz WiFi.
I don?t think VMO2 would have much of a business if their hubs couldn?t >manage more than 150 Mbit/sec on WiFi.
In message <10vs3nf$evva$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:56:47 on Thu, 4 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10vrq82$c68b$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:14:58 on Thu, 4 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <j7dUR.23$F2q5.9@fx03.ams1>, at 11:15:27 on Thu, 4 Jun 2026, >>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
So we can safely assume that the ?home? in question is in
Girton, not
Ely, and is owned by Lyndsay Williams.
Why is that news?
You made it sound like your own home had VM cable.
It does. Tested it again and 1100 megabits, so earlier result throttled >>>>> by house wifi.
So implied negative comments about Branson unwarranted?
Not really. They sent a new hub a couple of months ago, and it should
manage more than 150. And just so you know, all the other stuff still
stands.
Are you connecting via 2.4 or 5GHz?
Windows doesn't want to tell me. Closest I can get is 300Mbps on the
link.
netsh wlan show interfaces
on the command line is your friend.
No, because she will still be speaking, unless she is an entirely passive participant in the call. I had a nice journey on a Swiss train spoiled because their excellent WiFi/mobile reception allowed someone to conduct a business call for around an hour.
Even people using a phone in a train speak more loudly than those having a normal conversation (as a generality normal uk.r exceptions apply). People probably lose awareness of those around them.
On 31/05/2026 10:48, Tweed wrote:
No, because she will still be speaking, unless she is an entirely passive
participant in the call. I had a nice journey on a Swiss train spoiled
because their excellent WiFi/mobile reception allowed someone to conduct a >> business call for around an hour.
I remember, a long time ago, someone described sitting opposite someone doing that and very conspicuously taking notes of everything said.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10vs3nf$evva$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:56:47 on Thu, 4 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10vrq82$c68b$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:14:58 on Thu, 4 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <j7dUR.23$F2q5.9@fx03.ams1>, at 11:15:27 on Thu, 4 Jun 2026, >>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
So we can safely assume that the ?home? in question is in
Girton, not
Ely, and is owned by Lyndsay Williams.
Why is that news?
You made it sound like your own home had VM cable.
It does. Tested it again and 1100 megabits, so earlier result throttled >>>>>> by house wifi.
So implied negative comments about Branson unwarranted?
Not really. They sent a new hub a couple of months ago, and it should
manage more than 150. And just so you know, all the other stuff still
stands.
Are you connecting via 2.4 or 5GHz?
Windows doesn't want to tell me. Closest I can get is 300Mbps on the
link.
netsh wlan show interfaces
on the command line is your friend.
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:I?ve just tried the WiFi scanner on Apple?s airport utility app. This
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jun 2026 15:31:30 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jun 2026 14:56:47 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:Probably down to both hardware and software design. My big iPad and my >>>>>> smaller iPhone both get similar speeds (70% of my 1 Gbit/sec service) over
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10vrq82$c68b$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:14:58 on Thu, 4 Jun >>>>>>>>> 2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <j7dUR.23$F2q5.9@fx03.ams1>, at 11:15:27 on Thu, 4 Jun 2026,
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
So we can safely assume that the ?home? in question is in Girton, not
Ely, and is owned by Lyndsay Williams.
Why is that news?
You made it sound like your own home had VM cable.
It does. Tested it again and 1100 megabits, so earlier result throttled
by house wifi.
So implied negative comments about Branson unwarranted?
Not really. They sent a new hub a couple of months ago, and it should
manage more than 150. And just so you know, all the other stuff still
stands.
Are you connecting via 2.4 or 5GHz?
I had a colleague complaining about slow speeds on his 1 Gbit/sec CityFibre
service, pretty similar to your speeds, until he sheepishly admitted he was
using 2.4 GHz WiFi.
I don?t think VMO2 would have much of a business if their hubs couldn?t
manage more than 150 Mbit/sec on WiFi.
It also depends on the device. I get higher connection speeds from my >>>>>>> iPad than my phone, perhaps because it has a
larger aerial?
wifi. Mind you, speed very quickly drops off with distance. Designing phone
antennas that work over multiple frequencies and squeezing it all into a >>>>>> phone case is very much a miracle of engineering.
What's odd is that if a WiFi signal is very weak, my phone both finds it >>>>> and connects more reliably than the iPad Pro.
But if the signal is very strong, the iPad delivers noticeably faster >>>>> connection speeds. It's almost as if the
(Android) phone has an antenna designed to make the most of a weak
signal, while the iPad is optimised to make the most
of a strong signal.
From my observations, and I?m prepared to be corrected, iOS hides weak WiFi
access points from the user.
Yes, I have the same impression. So, in such circumstances, I have to
resort to connecting my iPad via my phone.
displays more WiFi access points than those presented in the settings WiFi >> list. The extra ones are all weak.
Thanks, that confirms the theory.
Roland Perry wrote:
802.11a (5GHz and AI hallucinates max thoughput 54Mbps).
11a is decidedly last millennium, if that is the true spec of the kit
then AI isn't hallucinating, but I doubt the kit is actually 11a, more likely 11n or 11ac for a "freebie" router from an ISP.
118 down, 104 up, at the moment.
On Thu, 04 Jun 2026 16:56:35 GMT, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
wrote:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:One of my older Android 'phones used to let you toggle weaker access
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:I?ve just tried the WiFi scanner on Apple?s airport utility app. This
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jun 2026 15:31:30 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jun 2026 14:56:47 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:Probably down to both hardware and software design. My big iPad and my >>>>>>> smaller iPhone both get similar speeds (70% of my 1 Gbit/sec service) over
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10vrq82$c68b$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:14:58 on Thu, 4 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <j7dUR.23$F2q5.9@fx03.ams1>, at 11:15:27 on Thu, 4 Jun 2026,
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
So we can safely assume that the ?home? in question is in Girton, not
Ely, and is owned by Lyndsay Williams.
Why is that news?
You made it sound like your own home had VM cable.
It does. Tested it again and 1100 megabits, so earlier result throttled
by house wifi.
So implied negative comments about Branson unwarranted?
Not really. They sent a new hub a couple of months ago, and it should
manage more than 150. And just so you know, all the other stuff still
stands.
Are you connecting via 2.4 or 5GHz?
I had a colleague complaining about slow speeds on his 1 Gbit/sec CityFibre
service, pretty similar to your speeds, until he sheepishly admitted he was
using 2.4 GHz WiFi.
I don?t think VMO2 would have much of a business if their hubs couldn?t
manage more than 150 Mbit/sec on WiFi.
It also depends on the device. I get higher connection speeds from my >>>>>>>> iPad than my phone, perhaps because it has a
larger aerial?
wifi. Mind you, speed very quickly drops off with distance. Designing phone
antennas that work over multiple frequencies and squeezing it all into a
phone case is very much a miracle of engineering.
What's odd is that if a WiFi signal is very weak, my phone both finds it >>>>>> and connects more reliably than the iPad Pro.
But if the signal is very strong, the iPad delivers noticeably faster >>>>>> connection speeds. It's almost as if the
(Android) phone has an antenna designed to make the most of a weak >>>>>> signal, while the iPad is optimised to make the most
of a strong signal.
From my observations, and I?m prepared to be corrected, iOS hides weak WiFi
access points from the user.
Yes, I have the same impression. So, in such circumstances, I have to
resort to connecting my iPad via my phone.
displays more WiFi access points than those presented in the settings WiFi >>> list. The extra ones are all weak.
Thanks, that confirms the theory.
points on/off in the display. Not too relevant if they are sorted by
strength but it gets stuff out of the way if you are looking for
specific ones when listed alphabetically.
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:The client hardware may be the limiting factor, or it?s an ancient cable >modem.
802.11a (5GHz and AI hallucinates max thoughput 54Mbps).
11a is decidedly last millennium, if that is the true spec of the kit
then AI isn't hallucinating, but I doubt the kit is actually 11a, more
likely 11n or 11ac for a "freebie" router from an ISP.
118 down, 104 up, at the moment.
Hub 5: Uses WiFi 6 technology. Over a 5GHz band, it can achieve real-world >wireless speeds between 900Mbps and 1,130Mbps (the maximum limit of
Virgin's Gig1 plan) if you have a compatible WiFi 6 device.
Hub 4: Uses WiFi 5 technology. It can reach speeds of 400Mbps to 600Mbps
over WiFi depending on your proximity to the hub.
Hub 3: Uses WiFi 4 & 5 technology. It is typically capped at ~300Mbps to >400Mbps over WiFi under perfect conditions
In message <10vukim$16f19$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:56:38 on Fri, 5 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:The client hardware may be the limiting factor, or it?s an ancient cable
802.11a (5GHz and AI hallucinates max thoughput 54Mbps).
11a is decidedly last millennium, if that is the true spec of the kit
then AI isn't hallucinating, but I doubt the kit is actually 11a, more
likely 11n or 11ac for a "freebie" router from an ISP.
118 down, 104 up, at the moment.
modem.
Hub 5: Uses WiFi 6 technology. Over a 5GHz band, it can achieve real-world >> wireless speeds between 900Mbps and 1,130Mbps (the maximum limit of
Virgin's Gig1 plan) if you have a compatible WiFi 6 device.
It's a Hub5, as I said earlier was delivered a couple of months ago.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10vukim$16f19$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:56:38 on Fri, 5 JunWould imply perhaps an issue at the client end then.
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:The client hardware may be the limiting factor, or it?s an ancient cable >>> modem.
802.11a (5GHz and AI hallucinates max thoughput 54Mbps).
11a is decidedly last millennium, if that is the true spec of the kit
then AI isn't hallucinating, but I doubt the kit is actually 11a, more >>>> likely 11n or 11ac for a "freebie" router from an ISP.
118 down, 104 up, at the moment.
Hub 5: Uses WiFi 6 technology. Over a 5GHz band, it can achieve real-world >>> wireless speeds between 900Mbps and 1,130Mbps (the maximum limit of
Virgin's Gig1 plan) if you have a compatible WiFi 6 device.
It's a Hub5, as I said earlier was delivered a couple of months ago.
In message <10vvbno$1dir0$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:31:52 on Fri, 5 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10vukim$16f19$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:56:38 on Fri, 5 JunWould imply perhaps an issue at the client end then.
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:The client hardware may be the limiting factor, or it?s an ancient cable >>>> modem.
802.11a (5GHz and AI hallucinates max thoughput 54Mbps).
11a is decidedly last millennium, if that is the true spec of the kit >>>>> then AI isn't hallucinating, but I doubt the kit is actually 11a, more >>>>> likely 11n or 11ac for a "freebie" router from an ISP.
118 down, 104 up, at the moment.
Hub 5: Uses WiFi 6 technology. Over a 5GHz band, it can achieve real-world >>>> wireless speeds between 900Mbps and 1,130Mbps (the maximum limit of
Virgin's Gig1 plan) if you have a compatible WiFi 6 device.
It's a Hub5, as I said earlier was delivered a couple of months ago.
I don't regard 100+ both up and down as a "problem", for a wifi
connected laptop.
Would imply perhaps an issue at the client end then.The client hardware may be the limiting factor, or it?s an ancient cable >>>>> modem.118 down, 104 up, at the moment.
Hub 5: Uses WiFi 6 technology. Over a 5GHz band, it can achieve real-world
wireless speeds between 900Mbps and 1,130Mbps (the maximum limit of
Virgin's Gig1 plan) if you have a compatible WiFi 6 device.
It's a Hub5, as I said earlier was delivered a couple of months ago.
I don't regard 100+ both up and down as a "problem", for a wifi
connected laptop.
You apparently did with your initial post claiming broken promises by >Branson.
In message <1100s2a$1p781$2@dont-email.me>, at 10:16:42 on Sat, 6 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Would imply perhaps an issue at the client end then.The client hardware may be the limiting factor, or it?s an ancient cable >>>>>> modem.118 down, 104 up, at the moment.
Hub 5: Uses WiFi 6 technology. Over a 5GHz band, it can achieve real-world
wireless speeds between 900Mbps and 1,130Mbps (the maximum limit of >>>>>> Virgin's Gig1 plan) if you have a compatible WiFi 6 device.
It's a Hub5, as I said earlier was delivered a couple of months ago. >>>>>
I don't regard 100+ both up and down as a "problem", for a wifi
connected laptop.
You apparently did with your initial post claiming broken promises by
Branson.
You misunderstood that posting. What I said was that 150 was less than
the ~1100 that Virgin Media promised. Ever since then you've been
jumping to conclusions as to why that might be the case, or whether I
care.
In other news, even *if* we are getting 1100 to the premises, that's
going to be shared between several neighbours, as well as numerous appliances within this house.
It's like a TOC promising a new train with 800 seats, and yet when it arrives is full and standing.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <1100s2a$1p781$2@dont-email.me>, at 10:16:42 on Sat, 6 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Would imply perhaps an issue at the client end then.The client hardware may be the limiting factor, or it?s an >>>>>>>ancient cable118 down, 104 up, at the moment.
modem.
Hub 5: Uses WiFi 6 technology. Over a 5GHz band, it can achieve >>>>>>>real-world
wireless speeds between 900Mbps and 1,130Mbps (the maximum limit of >>>>>>> Virgin's Gig1 plan) if you have a compatible WiFi 6 device.
It's a Hub5, as I said earlier was delivered a couple of months ago. >>>>>>
I don't regard 100+ both up and down as a "problem", for a wifi
connected laptop.
You apparently did with your initial post claiming broken promises by
Branson.
You misunderstood that posting. What I said was that 150 was less than
the ~1100 that Virgin Media promised. Ever since then you've been
jumping to conclusions as to why that might be the case, or whether I
care.
In other news, even *if* we are getting 1100 to the premises, that's
going to be shared between several neighbours, as well as numerous
appliances within this house.
It's like a TOC promising a new train with 800 seats, and yet when it
arrives is full and standing.
If you didn?t care why did you bother posting, and why even take a pot shot >at Branson?
In message <1100u4h$1pon0$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:52:01 on Sat, 6 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <1100s2a$1p781$2@dont-email.me>, at 10:16:42 on Sat, 6 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Would imply perhaps an issue at the client end then.The client hardware may be the limiting factor, or it?s an118 down, 104 up, at the moment.
ancient cable
modem.
Hub 5: Uses WiFi 6 technology. Over a 5GHz band, it can achieve >>>>>>>> real-world
wireless speeds between 900Mbps and 1,130Mbps (the maximum limit of >>>>>>>> Virgin's Gig1 plan) if you have a compatible WiFi 6 device.
It's a Hub5, as I said earlier was delivered a couple of months ago. >>>>>>>
I don't regard 100+ both up and down as a "problem", for a wifi
connected laptop.
You apparently did with your initial post claiming broken promises by
Branson.
You misunderstood that posting. What I said was that 150 was less than
the ~1100 that Virgin Media promised. Ever since then you've been
jumping to conclusions as to why that might be the case, or whether I
care.
In other news, even *if* we are getting 1100 to the premises, that's
going to be shared between several neighbours, as well as numerous
appliances within this house.
It's like a TOC promising a new train with 800 seats, and yet when it
arrives is full and standing.
If you didn?t care why did you bother posting, and why even take a pot shot >> at Branson?
I don't care abut the speed to my laptop, but JUST SO YOU KNOW I do care about the spin emanating from pretty much every smug self-satisfied but under-performing Virgin-branded business.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <1100u4h$1pon0$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:52:01 on Sat, 6 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <1100s2a$1p781$2@dont-email.me>, at 10:16:42 on Sat, 6 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Would imply perhaps an issue at the client end then.The client hardware may be the limiting factor, or it?s an118 down, 104 up, at the moment.
ancient cable
modem.
Hub 5: Uses WiFi 6 technology. Over a 5GHz band, it can achieve >>>>>>>>> real-world
wireless speeds between 900Mbps and 1,130Mbps (the maximum limit of >>>>>>>>> Virgin's Gig1 plan) if you have a compatible WiFi 6 device.
It's a Hub5, as I said earlier was delivered a couple of months ago. >>>>>>>>
I don't regard 100+ both up and down as a "problem", for a wifi
connected laptop.
You apparently did with your initial post claiming broken promises by >>>>> Branson.
You misunderstood that posting. What I said was that 150 was less than >>>> the ~1100 that Virgin Media promised. Ever since then you've been
jumping to conclusions as to why that might be the case, or whether I
care.
In other news, even *if* we are getting 1100 to the premises, that's
going to be shared between several neighbours, as well as numerous
appliances within this house.
It's like a TOC promising a new train with 800 seats, and yet when it
arrives is full and standing.
If you didn?t care why did you bother posting, and why even take a
pot shot
at Branson?
I don't care abut the speed to my laptop, but JUST SO YOU KNOW I do care
about the spin emanating from pretty much every smug self-satisfied but
under-performing Virgin-branded business.
So why mention your laptop WiFi speed if it is of no concern?
In message <1101ipb$1vfe4$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:44:27 on Sat, 6 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <1100u4h$1pon0$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:52:01 on Sat, 6 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <1100s2a$1p781$2@dont-email.me>, at 10:16:42 on Sat, 6 Jun >>>>> 2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Would imply perhaps an issue at the client end then.It's a Hub5, as I said earlier was delivered a couple of months ago. >>>>>>>>>The client hardware may be the limiting factor, or it?s an >>>>>>>>>> ancient cable118 down, 104 up, at the moment.
modem.
Hub 5: Uses WiFi 6 technology. Over a 5GHz band, it can achieve >>>>>>>>>> real-world
wireless speeds between 900Mbps and 1,130Mbps (the maximum limit of >>>>>>>>>> Virgin's Gig1 plan) if you have a compatible WiFi 6 device. >>>>>>>>>
I don't regard 100+ both up and down as a "problem", for a wifi
connected laptop.
You apparently did with your initial post claiming broken promises by >>>>>> Branson.
You misunderstood that posting. What I said was that 150 was less than >>>>> the ~1100 that Virgin Media promised. Ever since then you've been
jumping to conclusions as to why that might be the case, or whether I >>>>> care.
In other news, even *if* we are getting 1100 to the premises, that's >>>>> going to be shared between several neighbours, as well as numerous
appliances within this house.
It's like a TOC promising a new train with 800 seats, and yet when it >>>>> arrives is full and standing.
If you didn?t care why did you bother posting, and why even take a
pot shot
at Branson?
I don't care abut the speed to my laptop, but JUST SO YOU KNOW I do care >>> about the spin emanating from pretty much every smug self-satisfied but
under-performing Virgin-branded business.
So why mention your laptop WiFi speed if it is of no concern?
Because (in case you didn't read it earlier):
I do care about the spin emanating from pretty much every smug self-
satisfied but under-performing Virgin-branded business.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <1101ipb$1vfe4$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:44:27 on Sat, 6 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <1100u4h$1pon0$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:52:01 on Sat, 6 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <1100s2a$1p781$2@dont-email.me>, at 10:16:42 on Sat, 6 Jun >>>>>> 2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Would imply perhaps an issue at the client end then.The client hardware may be the limiting factor, or it?s an >>>>>>>>>>> ancient cable118 down, 104 up, at the moment.
modem.
Hub 5: Uses WiFi 6 technology. Over a 5GHz band, it can >>>>>>>>>>>achieve real-world wireless speeds between 900Mbps and >>>>>>>>>>>1,130Mbps (the maximum limit of Virgin's Gig1 plan) if you >>>>>>>>>>>
It's a Hub5, as I said earlier was delivered a couple of months ago. >>>>>>>>>>
I don't regard 100+ both up and down as a "problem", for a wifi >>>>>>>> connected laptop.
You apparently did with your initial post claiming broken promises by >>>>>>> Branson.
You misunderstood that posting. What I said was that 150 was less than >>>>>> the ~1100 that Virgin Media promised. Ever since then you've been
jumping to conclusions as to why that might be the case, or whether I >>>>>> care.
In other news, even *if* we are getting 1100 to the premises, that's >>>>>> going to be shared between several neighbours, as well as numerous >>>>>> appliances within this house.
It's like a TOC promising a new train with 800 seats, and yet when it >>>>>> arrives is full and standing.
If you didn?t care why did you bother posting, and why even take a
pot shot
at Branson?
I don't care abut the speed to my laptop, but JUST SO YOU KNOW I do care >>>> about the spin emanating from pretty much every smug self-satisfied but >>>> under-performing Virgin-branded business.
So why mention your laptop WiFi speed if it is of no concern?
Because (in case you didn't read it earlier):
I do care about the spin emanating from pretty much every smug self-
satisfied but under-performing Virgin-branded business.
Does your laptop deliver higher speeds with other WiFi networks?
What speeds do other mobile devices, such as an iPad or phone, get with
this VM WiFi network?
In message <dK%UR.3838$wjw4.2925@fx15.ams1>, at 20:50:17 on Sat, 6 Jun
2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <1101ipb$1vfe4$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:44:27 on Sat, 6 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <1100u4h$1pon0$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:52:01 on Sat, 6 Jun >>>>> 2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <1100s2a$1p781$2@dont-email.me>, at 10:16:42 on Sat, 6 Jun >>>>>>> 2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Would imply perhaps an issue at the client end then.The client hardware may be the limiting factor, or it?s an >>>>>>>>>>>> ancient cable118 down, 104 up, at the moment.
modem.
Hub 5: Uses WiFi 6 technology. Over a 5GHz band, it can >>>>>>>>>>>> achieve real-world wireless speeds between 900Mbps and >>>>>>>>>>>> 1,130Mbps (the maximum limit of Virgin's Gig1 plan) if you >>>>>>>>>>>>
It's a Hub5, as I said earlier was delivered a couple of months ago.
I don't regard 100+ both up and down as a "problem", for a wifi >>>>>>>>> connected laptop.
You apparently did with your initial post claiming broken promises by >>>>>>>> Branson.
You misunderstood that posting. What I said was that 150 was less than >>>>>>> the ~1100 that Virgin Media promised. Ever since then you've been >>>>>>> jumping to conclusions as to why that might be the case, or whether I >>>>>>> care.
In other news, even *if* we are getting 1100 to the premises, that's >>>>>>> going to be shared between several neighbours, as well as numerous >>>>>>> appliances within this house.
It's like a TOC promising a new train with 800 seats, and yet when it >>>>>>> arrives is full and standing.
If you didn?t care why did you bother posting, and why even take a >>>>>> pot shot
at Branson?
I don't care abut the speed to my laptop, but JUST SO YOU KNOW I do care >>>>> about the spin emanating from pretty much every smug self-satisfied but >>>>> under-performing Virgin-branded business.
So why mention your laptop WiFi speed if it is of no concern?
Because (in case you didn't read it earlier):
I do care about the spin emanating from pretty much every smug self-
satisfied but under-performing Virgin-branded business.
Does your laptop deliver higher speeds with other WiFi networks?
I got a blistering 1 megabit per second at a hotel I stayed in last
week.
What speeds do other mobile devices, such as an iPad or phone, get with
this VM WiFi network?
I haven't tested those, but I'd expect a desktop connected by wire to
get much closer to the advertised figure (give or take the rarely
mentioned contention I mentioned earlier - the TV still sometimes
buffers streaming media in the early evening). If connected by
Powerline, maybe throttled to around 300 megabits.
What speeds do other mobile devices, such as an iPad or phone, get with
this VM WiFi network?
I haven't tested those, but I'd expect a desktop connected by wire to
get much closer to the advertised figure (give or take the rarely
mentioned contention I mentioned earlier - the TV still sometimes
buffers streaming media in the early evening). If connected by
Powerline, maybe throttled to around 300 megabits.
I gave up on powerline. It?s not the speed that is the issue but the >dropouts. At least in my house, it is very prone to interference caused by >appliances.
In message <1103bs4$2da55$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:58:44 on Sun, 7 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
What speeds do other mobile devices, such as an iPad or phone, get with >>>> this VM WiFi network?
I haven't tested those, but I'd expect a desktop connected by wire to
get much closer to the advertised figure (give or take the rarely
mentioned contention I mentioned earlier - the TV still sometimes
buffers streaming media in the early evening). If connected by
Powerline, maybe throttled to around 300 megabits.
I gave up on powerline. It?s not the speed that is the issue but the
dropouts. At least in my house, it is very prone to interference caused by >> appliances.
Never had a problem with it.
In message <dK%UR.3838$wjw4.2925@fx15.ams1>, at 20:50:17 on Sat, 6 Jun
2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <1101ipb$1vfe4$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:44:27 on Sat, 6 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <1100u4h$1pon0$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:52:01 on Sat, 6 Jun >>>>> 2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <1100s2a$1p781$2@dont-email.me>, at 10:16:42 on Sat, 6 Jun >>>>>>> 2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Would imply perhaps an issue at the client end then.The client hardware may be the limiting factor, or it?s an >>>>>>>>>>>> ancient cable118 down, 104 up, at the moment.
modem.
Hub 5: Uses WiFi 6 technology. Over a 5GHz band, it can >>>>>>>>>>>> achieve real-world wireless speeds between 900Mbps and >>>>>>>>>>>> 1,130Mbps (the maximum limit of Virgin's Gig1 plan) if you >>>>>>>>>>>>
It's a Hub5, as I said earlier was delivered a couple of months ago.
I don't regard 100+ both up and down as a "problem", for a wifi >>>>>>>>> connected laptop.
You apparently did with your initial post claiming broken promises by >>>>>>>> Branson.
You misunderstood that posting. What I said was that 150 was less than >>>>>>> the ~1100 that Virgin Media promised. Ever since then you've been >>>>>>> jumping to conclusions as to why that might be the case, or whether I >>>>>>> care.
In other news, even *if* we are getting 1100 to the premises, that's >>>>>>> going to be shared between several neighbours, as well as numerous >>>>>>> appliances within this house.
It's like a TOC promising a new train with 800 seats, and yet when it >>>>>>> arrives is full and standing.
If you didn?t care why did you bother posting, and why even take a >>>>>> pot shot
at Branson?
I don't care abut the speed to my laptop, but JUST SO YOU KNOW I do care >>>>> about the spin emanating from pretty much every smug self-satisfied but >>>>> under-performing Virgin-branded business.
So why mention your laptop WiFi speed if it is of no concern?
Because (in case you didn't read it earlier):
I do care about the spin emanating from pretty much every smug self-
satisfied but under-performing Virgin-branded business.
Does your laptop deliver higher speeds with other WiFi networks?
I got a blistering 1 megabit per second at a hotel I stayed in last
week.
What speeds do other mobile devices, such as an iPad or phone, get with
this VM WiFi network?
I haven't tested those, but I'd expect a desktop connected by wire to
get much closer to the advertised figure (give or take the rarely
mentioned contention I mentioned earlier - the TV still sometimes
buffers streaming media in the early evening). If connected by
Powerline, maybe throttled to around 300 megabits.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <dK%UR.3838$wjw4.2925@fx15.ams1>, at 20:50:17 on Sat, 6 Jun
2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <1101ipb$1vfe4$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:44:27 on Sat, 6 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <1100u4h$1pon0$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:52:01 on Sat, 6 Jun >>>>>> 2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <1100s2a$1p781$2@dont-email.me>, at 10:16:42 on Sat, 6 Jun >>>>>>>> 2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Would imply perhaps an issue at the client end then.The client hardware may be the limiting factor, or it?s an >>>>>>>>>>>>> ancient cable118 down, 104 up, at the moment.
modem.
Hub 5: Uses WiFi 6 technology. Over a 5GHz band, it can >>>>>>>>>>>>> achieve real-world wireless speeds between 900Mbps and >>>>>>>>>>>>> 1,130Mbps (the maximum limit of Virgin's Gig1 plan) if you >>>>>>>>>>>>>
It's a Hub5, as I said earlier was delivered a couple of months ago.
I don't regard 100+ both up and down as a "problem", for a wifi >>>>>>>>>> connected laptop.
You apparently did with your initial post claiming broken promises by >>>>>>>>> Branson.
You misunderstood that posting. What I said was that 150 was less than >>>>>>>> the ~1100 that Virgin Media promised. Ever since then you've been >>>>>>>> jumping to conclusions as to why that might be the case, or whether I >>>>>>>> care.
In other news, even *if* we are getting 1100 to the premises, that's >>>>>>>> going to be shared between several neighbours, as well as numerous >>>>>>>> appliances within this house.
It's like a TOC promising a new train with 800 seats, and yet when it >>>>>>>> arrives is full and standing.
If you didn?t care why did you bother posting, and why even take a >>>>>>> pot shot
at Branson?
I don't care abut the speed to my laptop, but JUST SO YOU KNOW I do care >>>>>> about the spin emanating from pretty much every smug self-satisfied but >>>>>> under-performing Virgin-branded business.
So why mention your laptop WiFi speed if it is of no concern?
Because (in case you didn't read it earlier):
I do care about the spin emanating from pretty much every smug self-
satisfied but under-performing Virgin-branded business.
Does your laptop deliver higher speeds with other WiFi networks?
I got a blistering 1 megabit per second at a hotel I stayed in last
week.
What speeds do other mobile devices, such as an iPad or phone, get with
this VM WiFi network?
I haven't tested those, but I'd expect a desktop connected by wire to
get much closer to the advertised figure (give or take the rarely
mentioned contention I mentioned earlier - the TV still sometimes
buffers streaming media in the early evening). If connected by
Powerline, maybe throttled to around 300 megabits.
I gave up on powerline. It?s not the speed that is the issue but the dropouts. At least in my house, it is very prone to interference caused by appliances.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <1103bs4$2da55$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:58:44 on Sun, 7 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
What speeds do other mobile devices, such as an iPad or phone, get with >>>>> this VM WiFi network?
I haven't tested those, but I'd expect a desktop connected by wire to
get much closer to the advertised figure (give or take the rarely
mentioned contention I mentioned earlier - the TV still sometimes
buffers streaming media in the early evening). If connected by
Powerline, maybe throttled to around 300 megabits.
I gave up on powerline. It?s not the speed that is the issue but the
dropouts. At least in my house, it is very prone to interference caused by >>> appliances.
Never had a problem with it.
So how do you know that your TV buffering isn?t due to the power line >adapter?
I got a blistering 1 megabit per second at a hotel I stayed in last
week.
Yrs, but do you ever get higher speeds, for example at home in Ely?
Hotels seldom offer high WiFi speeds.
I used a pair of powerline adaptors in my old flat (c.1910) for many years.
In the new place we moved to (c.1970) they sort of work but not very well
at all. I didn?t manage to diagnose a particular problem, but we?re not >overrun with appliances.
In message <1103jio$2fcqn$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:10:16 on Sun, 7 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <1103bs4$2da55$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:58:44 on Sun, 7 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
What speeds do other mobile devices, such as an iPad or phone, get with >>>>>> this VM WiFi network?
I haven't tested those, but I'd expect a desktop connected by wire to >>>>> get much closer to the advertised figure (give or take the rarely
mentioned contention I mentioned earlier - the TV still sometimes
buffers streaming media in the early evening). If connected by
Powerline, maybe throttled to around 300 megabits.
I gave up on powerline. It?s not the speed that is the issue but the
dropouts. At least in my house, it is very prone to interference caused by >>>> appliances.
Never had a problem with it.
So how do you know that your TV buffering isn?t due to the power line
adapter?
Because I don't think even UHD streaming video would be throttled by a
300 megabit Powerline adapter.
And indeed 99% of the time it isn't. But in early evenings when
anecdotally lots and lots and lots of other people start watching
streaming media, occasionally it does buffer.
Bottleneck is somewhere outside the house.
In message <6AcVR.6695$xwgc.1942@fx17.ams1>, at 11:26:58 on Sun, 7 Jun
2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
I got a blistering 1 megabit per second at a hotel I stayed in last
week.
Yrs, but do you ever get higher speeds, for example at home in Ely?
Oh for heavens sake. What a ridiculous question. I even posted here the other day that I get 100+ megabits.
Hotels seldom offer high WiFi speeds.
I don't recall being in a hotel with such slow wifi in a decade. So slow that it took about a minute to download a Google Map (which it had to do because they only cache locally, somewhere you've been before).
I gave up on powerline. It?s not the speed that is the issue but the >>>>> dropouts. At least in my house, it is very prone to interference caused by
appliances.
Never had a problem with it.
So how do you know that your TV buffering isn?t due to the power line
adapter?
Because I don't think even UHD streaming video would be throttled by a
300 megabit Powerline adapter.
And indeed 99% of the time it isn't. But in early evenings when
anecdotally lots and lots and lots of other people start watching
streaming media, occasionally it does buffer.
Bottleneck is somewhere outside the house.
My point with powerline adaptors is you can have a multi second drop in >transmission due to a burst of interference from an appliance.
In message <1104j7m$2osri$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:10:30 on Sun, 7 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
I gave up on powerline. It?s not the speed that is the issue but the >>>>>> dropouts. At least in my house, it is very prone to interference caused by
appliances.
Never had a problem with it.
So how do you know that your TV buffering isn?t due to the power line
adapter?
Because I don't think even UHD streaming video would be throttled by a
300 megabit Powerline adapter.
And indeed 99% of the time it isn't. But in early evenings when
anecdotally lots and lots and lots of other people start watching
streaming media, occasionally it does buffer.
Bottleneck is somewhere outside the house.
My point with powerline adaptors is you can have a multi second drop in
transmission due to a burst of interference from an appliance.
What kind of appliance did you have in mind? And again I don't think I
have experienced this phenomenon in the field.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <6AcVR.6695$xwgc.1942@fx17.ams1>, at 11:26:58 on Sun, 7 Jun
2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
I got a blistering 1 megabit per second at a hotel I stayed in last
week.
Yrs, but do you ever get higher speeds, for example at home in Ely?
Oh for heavens sake. What a ridiculous question. I even posted here the
other day that I get 100+ megabits.
I thought you were complaining that that was too slow?
Hotels seldom offer high WiFi speeds.
I don't recall being in a hotel with such slow wifi in a decade. So slow
that it took about a minute to download a Google Map (which it had to do
because they only cache locally, somewhere you've been before).
It might have been because of the location of your room?
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <1104j7m$2osri$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:10:30 on Sun, 7 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
I gave up on powerline. It?s not the speed that is the issue >>>>>>>the dropouts. At least in my house, it is very prone to >>>>>>>interference caused by appliances.
Never had a problem with it.
So how do you know that your TV buffering isn?t due to the power line >>>>> adapter?
Because I don't think even UHD streaming video would be throttled by a >>>> 300 megabit Powerline adapter.
And indeed 99% of the time it isn't. But in early evenings when
anecdotally lots and lots and lots of other people start watching
streaming media, occasionally it does buffer.
Bottleneck is somewhere outside the house.
My point with powerline adaptors is you can have a multi second drop in
transmission due to a burst of interference from an appliance.
What kind of appliance did you have in mind? And again I don't think I
have experienced this phenomenon in the field.
I never got to the bottom of the dropouts, but I suspect any appliance with
a motor to be the culprit, fridge, heating pump, freezer, microwave.
Running a continuous ping over the powerline connection to the router might >show if you have any packet loss.
In message <1105n2t$31604$1@dont-email.me>, at 06:22:21 on Mon, 8 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <1104j7m$2osri$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:10:30 on Sun, 7 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
I gave up on powerline. It?s not the speed that is the issue
the dropouts. At least in my house, it is very prone to
interference caused by appliances.
Never had a problem with it.
So how do you know that your TV buffering isn?t due to the power line >>>>>> adapter?
Because I don't think even UHD streaming video would be throttled by a >>>>> 300 megabit Powerline adapter.
And indeed 99% of the time it isn't. But in early evenings when
anecdotally lots and lots and lots of other people start watching
streaming media, occasionally it does buffer.
Bottleneck is somewhere outside the house.
My point with powerline adaptors is you can have a multi second drop in >>>> transmission due to a burst of interference from an appliance.
What kind of appliance did you have in mind? And again I don't think I
have experienced this phenomenon in the field.
I never got to the bottom of the dropouts, but I suspect any appliance with >> a motor to be the culprit, fridge, heating pump, freezer, microwave.
Running a continuous ping over the powerline connection to the router might >> show if you have any packet loss.
Almost all the time it works fine, so why would I bother, especially as
the bottlenecks causing buffering are outside the house.
In message <1103vba$2imko$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:31:06 on Sun, 7 Jun
2026, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
I used a pair of powerline adaptors in my old flat (c.1910) for many years. >> In the new place we moved to (c.1970) they sort of work but not very well
at all. I didn?t manage to diagnose a particular problem, but we?re not
overrun with appliances.
It can be if the two adapters are on different fuses at the consumer circuit, and thus not on the same ring-main. A more modern house is
likely to have more circuits/fuses than an older one.
My last house for example only had one fuse for all downstairs sockets
and another for all upstairs ones.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <1105n2t$31604$1@dont-email.me>, at 06:22:21 on Mon, 8 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <1104j7m$2osri$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:10:30 on Sun, 7 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
I gave up on powerline. It?s not the speed that is the issue >>>>>>>>> the dropouts. At least in my house, it is very prone to
interference caused by appliances.
Never had a problem with it.
So how do you know that your TV buffering isn?t due to the power line >>>>>>> adapter?
Because I don't think even UHD streaming video would be throttled by a >>>>>> 300 megabit Powerline adapter.
And indeed 99% of the time it isn't. But in early evenings when
anecdotally lots and lots and lots of other people start watching
streaming media, occasionally it does buffer.
Bottleneck is somewhere outside the house.
My point with powerline adaptors is you can have a multi second drop in >>>>> transmission due to a burst of interference from an appliance.
What kind of appliance did you have in mind? And again I don't think I >>>> have experienced this phenomenon in the field.
I never got to the bottom of the dropouts, but I suspect any appliance with >>> a motor to be the culprit, fridge, heating pump, freezer, microwave.
Running a continuous ping over the powerline connection to the router might >>> show if you have any packet loss.
Almost all the time it works fine, so why would I bother, especially as
the bottlenecks causing buffering are outside the house.
My point is you don?t know that the buffering isn?t due to line drops by
the powerline kit.
You need an awful lot of contention to cause buffering on a relatively
low bitrate TV stream.
In message <1105smf$32l94$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:58:07 on Mon, 8 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <1105n2t$31604$1@dont-email.me>, at 06:22:21 on Mon, 8 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <1104j7m$2osri$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:10:30 on Sun, 7 Jun >>>>> 2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
I gave up on powerline. It?s not the speed that is the issue >>>>>>>>>> the dropouts. At least in my house, it is very prone to
interference caused by appliances.
Never had a problem with it.
So how do you know that your TV buffering isn?t due to the power line >>>>>>>> adapter?
Because I don't think even UHD streaming video would be throttled by a >>>>>>> 300 megabit Powerline adapter.
And indeed 99% of the time it isn't. But in early evenings when
anecdotally lots and lots and lots of other people start watching >>>>>>> streaming media, occasionally it does buffer.
Bottleneck is somewhere outside the house.
My point with powerline adaptors is you can have a multi second drop in >>>>>> transmission due to a burst of interference from an appliance.
What kind of appliance did you have in mind? And again I don't think I >>>>> have experienced this phenomenon in the field.
I never got to the bottom of the dropouts, but I suspect any appliance with
a motor to be the culprit, fridge, heating pump, freezer, microwave.
Running a continuous ping over the powerline connection to the router might
show if you have any packet loss.
Almost all the time it works fine, so why would I bother, especially as
the bottlenecks causing buffering are outside the house.
My point is you don?t know that the buffering isn?t due to line drops by
the powerline kit.
Why would the Powerline kit drop the line at the exact same time it's
well know there's the most contention on the wider Internet?
You need an awful lot of contention to cause buffering on a relatively
low bitrate TV stream.
Let's say ten houses all sharing one 1000megabit connection upstream.
Even though they'd misled every house into thinking it has its own
dedicated 1000megabits. Each appliance in each house could be consuming 40megabits on 4K streaming, so that's twenty-five appliances in those
ten houses, which isn't outrageous.
Or of course it may be the case that several clusters of houses (or even
an entire housing estate) are all sharing a different 1000megabit
connection from the street cabinets to the next upstream node.
Much more plausible than a hiccup on any one household's internal
Powerline.
In message <ZMkVR.153$P5Hb.71@fx05.ams1>, at 20:46:49 on Sun, 7 Jun
2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <6AcVR.6695$xwgc.1942@fx17.ams1>, at 11:26:58 on Sun, 7 Jun
2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
I got a blistering 1 megabit per second at a hotel I stayed in last
week.
Yrs, but do you ever get higher speeds, for example at home in Ely?
Oh for heavens sake. What a ridiculous question. I even posted here the
other day that I get 100+ megabits.
I thought you were complaining that that was too slow?
I was observing that the speed at a random device in the home was
nowhere near the headline figure used by Virgin (and to be fair BT's) marketing material.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <1105smf$32l94$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:58:07 on Mon, 8 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <1105n2t$31604$1@dont-email.me>, at 06:22:21 on Mon, 8 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <1104j7m$2osri$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:10:30 on Sun, 7 Jun >>>>>> 2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
I gave up on powerline. It?s not the speed that is the issue >>>>>>>>>>> the dropouts. At least in my house, it is very prone to >>>>>>>>>>> interference caused by appliances.
Never had a problem with it.
So how do you know that your TV buffering isn?t due to the >>>>>>>>>power line
adapter?
Because I don't think even UHD streaming video would be throttled by a >>>>>>>> 300 megabit Powerline adapter.
And indeed 99% of the time it isn't. But in early evenings when >>>>>>>> anecdotally lots and lots and lots of other people start watching >>>>>>>> streaming media, occasionally it does buffer.
Bottleneck is somewhere outside the house.
My point with powerline adaptors is you can have a multi second drop in >>>>>>> transmission due to a burst of interference from an appliance.
What kind of appliance did you have in mind? And again I don't think I >>>>>> have experienced this phenomenon in the field.
I never got to the bottom of the dropouts, but I suspect any >>>>>appliance with
a motor to be the culprit, fridge, heating pump, freezer, microwave. >>>>> Running a continuous ping over the powerline connection to the >>>>>router might
show if you have any packet loss.
Almost all the time it works fine, so why would I bother, especially as >>>> the bottlenecks causing buffering are outside the house.
My point is you don?t know that the buffering isn?t due to line drops by >>> the powerline kit.
Why would the Powerline kit drop the line at the exact same time it's
well know there's the most contention on the wider Internet?
You need an awful lot of contention to cause buffering on a relatively
low bitrate TV stream.
Let's say ten houses all sharing one 1000megabit connection upstream.
Even though they'd misled every house into thinking it has its own
dedicated 1000megabits. Each appliance in each house could be consuming
40megabits on 4K streaming, so that's twenty-five appliances in those
ten houses, which isn't outrageous.
Or of course it may be the case that several clusters of houses (or even
an entire housing estate) are all sharing a different 1000megabit
connection from the street cabinets to the next upstream node.
Much more plausible than a hiccup on any one household's internal
Powerline.
Why the reluctance to test your powerline connection?
As you say, it may not be the issue. But if your raw speed to the cable >modem at peak times is as heavily contended as you assert (something
else you could test),
then a small dropout on the powerline link could be the final straw.
I have noticed that powerline has gone out of fashion in the home
networking world.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <ZMkVR.153$P5Hb.71@fx05.ams1>, at 20:46:49 on Sun, 7 Jun
2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <6AcVR.6695$xwgc.1942@fx17.ams1>, at 11:26:58 on Sun, 7 Jun >>>> 2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
I got a blistering 1 megabit per second at a hotel I stayed in last >>>>>> week.
Yrs, but do you ever get higher speeds, for example at home in Ely?
Oh for heavens sake. What a ridiculous question. I even posted here the >>>> other day that I get 100+ megabits.
I thought you were complaining that that was too slow?
I was observing that the speed at a random device in the home was
nowhere near the headline figure used by Virgin (and to be fair BT's)
marketing material.
It?s several times higher than VM?s guaranteed WiFi speeds, and I strongly >suspect you?d get much higher WiFi speeds with, say, an iPad. The weak link >is probably your laptop. The wired connection speeds also seem to be in
line with VM?s claims. So it seems you have nothing to complain about.
But I?m curious about what you say Branson promised that the company he >actually has nothing to do with would deliver. I don?t see any TV or
YouTube ads, so it?s a long time since I noticed a VM ad that promised >particular speeds, or any VM ads featuring Branson. Do you have an example?
When did he last feature in such an ad, and what did he claim?
In message <TnyVR.5291$ARB1.2986@fx10.ams1>, at 12:15:47 on Mon, 8 Jun
2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <ZMkVR.153$P5Hb.71@fx05.ams1>, at 20:46:49 on Sun, 7 Jun
2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <6AcVR.6695$xwgc.1942@fx17.ams1>, at 11:26:58 on Sun, 7 Jun >>>>> 2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Oh for heavens sake. What a ridiculous question. I even posted here the >>>>> other day that I get 100+ megabits.I got a blistering 1 megabit per second at a hotel I stayed in last >>>>>>> week.
Yrs, but do you ever get higher speeds, for example at home in Ely? >>>>>
I thought you were complaining that that was too slow?
I was observing that the speed at a random device in the home was
nowhere near the headline figure used by Virgin (and to be fair BT's)
marketing material.
It?s several times higher than VM?s guaranteed WiFi speeds, and I strongly >> suspect you?d get much higher WiFi speeds with, say, an iPad. The weak link >> is probably your laptop. The wired connection speeds also seem to be in
line with VM?s claims. So it seems you have nothing to complain about.
But I?m curious about what you say Branson promised that the company he
actually has nothing to do with would deliver. I don?t see any TV or
YouTube ads, so it?s a long time since I noticed a VM ad that promised
particular speeds, or any VM ads featuring Branson. Do you have an example? >> When did he last feature in such an ad, and what did he claim?
Reminder: because of your deliberate obtuseness, I'm not going to answer
any of those points.
Reminder: because of your deliberate obtuseness, I'm not going to answer
any of those points.
Fine, we?ll all know to just ignore your next complaint, particularly if
it?s about a Virgin-branded company, as we know it?ll be just as unfounded
as this one.
In message <11069a7$36eov$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:33:27 on Mon, 8 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <1105smf$32l94$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:58:07 on Mon, 8 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <1105n2t$31604$1@dont-email.me>, at 06:22:21 on Mon, 8 Jun >>>>> 2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <1104j7m$2osri$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:10:30 on Sun, 7 Jun >>>>>>> 2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
I gave up on powerline. It?s not the speed that is the issue >>>>>>>>>>>> the dropouts. At least in my house, it is very prone to >>>>>>>>>>>> interference caused by appliances.
Never had a problem with it.
So how do you know that your TV buffering isn?t due to the >>>>>>>>>> power line
adapter?
Because I don't think even UHD streaming video would be throttled by a
300 megabit Powerline adapter.
And indeed 99% of the time it isn't. But in early evenings when >>>>>>>>> anecdotally lots and lots and lots of other people start watching >>>>>>>>> streaming media, occasionally it does buffer.
Bottleneck is somewhere outside the house.
My point with powerline adaptors is you can have a multi second drop in
transmission due to a burst of interference from an appliance.
What kind of appliance did you have in mind? And again I don't think I >>>>>>> have experienced this phenomenon in the field.
I never got to the bottom of the dropouts, but I suspect any
appliance with
a motor to be the culprit, fridge, heating pump, freezer, microwave. >>>>>> Running a continuous ping over the powerline connection to the
router might
show if you have any packet loss.
Almost all the time it works fine, so why would I bother, especially as >>>>> the bottlenecks causing buffering are outside the house.
My point is you don?t know that the buffering isn?t due to line drops by >>>> the powerline kit.
Why would the Powerline kit drop the line at the exact same time it's
well know there's the most contention on the wider Internet?
You need an awful lot of contention to cause buffering on a relatively >>>> low bitrate TV stream.
Let's say ten houses all sharing one 1000megabit connection upstream.
Even though they'd misled every house into thinking it has its own
dedicated 1000megabits. Each appliance in each house could be consuming
40megabits on 4K streaming, so that's twenty-five appliances in those
ten houses, which isn't outrageous.
Or of course it may be the case that several clusters of houses (or even >>> an entire housing estate) are all sharing a different 1000megabit
connection from the street cabinets to the next upstream node.
Much more plausible than a hiccup on any one household's internal
Powerline.
Why the reluctance to test your powerline connection?
I already told you that, at least twice, maybe three times. Why are so
deaf?
As you say, it may not be the issue. But if your raw speed to the cable
modem at peak times is as heavily contended as you assert (something
else you could test),
I'm not aware of any test which I could easily deploy to check the contention ratio.
You can run a Speedtest at various times of the day to support yourWhy the reluctance to test your powerline connection?
I already told you that, at least twice, maybe three times. Why are so
deaf?
As you say, it may not be the issue. But if your raw speed to the cable
modem at peak times is as heavily contended as you assert (something
else you could test),
I'm not aware of any test which I could easily deploy to check the
contention ratio.
assertion that your WAN connection becomes congested. There?s even tools
that will do this automatically.
In message <fdzVR.3440$uw7.399@fx16.ams1>, at 13:12:43 on Mon, 8 Jun
2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Reminder: because of your deliberate obtuseness, I'm not going to answer >>> any of those points.
Fine, we?ll all know to just ignore your next complaint, particularly if >>it?s about a Virgin-branded company, as we know it?ll be just as unfounded >>as this one.
Reminder: because of your deliberate obtuseness, I'm not going to answer
any of those points.
In message <1106gnb$38nqe$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:39:55 on Mon, 8 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
You can run a Speedtest at various times of the day to support yourWhy the reluctance to test your powerline connection?
I already told you that, at least twice, maybe three times. Why are so
deaf?
As you say, it may not be the issue. But if your raw speed to the cable >>>> modem at peak times is as heavily contended as you assert (something
else you could test),
I'm not aware of any test which I could easily deploy to check the
contention ratio.
assertion that your WAN connection becomes congested. There?s even tools
that will do this automatically.
What makes you suppose a Speedtest result correlates with the
instantaneous contention ratio?
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <1106gnb$38nqe$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:39:55 on Mon, 8 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
You can run a Speedtest at various times of the day to support yourWhy the reluctance to test your powerline connection?
I already told you that, at least twice, maybe three times. Why are so >>>> deaf?
As you say, it may not be the issue. But if your raw speed to the cable >>>>> modem at peak times is as heavily contended as you assert (something >>>>> else you could test),
I'm not aware of any test which I could easily deploy to check the
contention ratio.
assertion that your WAN connection becomes congested. There?s even tools >>> that will do this automatically.
What makes you suppose a Speedtest result correlates with the
instantaneous contention ratio?
Because in your scenario of every house in the street pulling a 4k TV
stream the dip in performance would be prolonged. In a more realistic >scenario, the raw cable bandwidth is higher but shared over many more
houses, so the averaging would be more consistent.
On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 14:56:33 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <1106gnb$38nqe$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:39:55 on Mon, 8 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
You can run a Speedtest at various times of the day to support yourWhy the reluctance to test your powerline connection?
I already told you that, at least twice, maybe three times. Why are so >>>>> deaf?
As you say, it may not be the issue. But if your raw speed to the cable >>>>>> modem at peak times is as heavily contended as you assert (something >>>>>> else you could test),
I'm not aware of any test which I could easily deploy to check the
contention ratio.
assertion that your WAN connection becomes congested. There?s even tools >>>> that will do this automatically.
What makes you suppose a Speedtest result correlates with the
instantaneous contention ratio?
Because in your scenario of every house in the street pulling a 4k TV
stream the dip in performance would be prolonged. In a more realistic
scenario, the raw cable bandwidth is higher but shared over many more
houses, so the averaging would be more consistent.
I believe that there's much less contention with fibre networks than with
the old copper ones, so there's not likely to
be a significant speed drop with a wired connection. I certainly never
notice much fluctuation. WiFi, of course, is much
more variable.
On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 14:18:17 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <fdzVR.3440$uw7.399@fx16.ams1>, at 13:12:43 on Mon, 8 Jun
2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Reminder: because of your deliberate obtuseness, I'm not going to answer >>>> any of those points.
Fine, we?ll all know to just ignore your next complaint, particularly if >>>it?s about a Virgin-branded company, as we know it?ll be just as >>>unfounded
as this one.
Reminder: because of your deliberate obtuseness, I'm not going to answer >>any of those points.
Thank you ? we now know your replacement expression for 'Keep
digging', meaning you admit you've lost another really pointless
argument. Very useful.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <1106gnb$38nqe$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:39:55 on Mon, 8 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
You can run a Speedtest at various times of the day to support yourWhy the reluctance to test your powerline connection?
I already told you that, at least twice, maybe three times. Why are so >>>> deaf?
As you say, it may not be the issue. But if your raw speed to the cable >>>>> modem at peak times is as heavily contended as you assert (something >>>>> else you could test),
I'm not aware of any test which I could easily deploy to check the
contention ratio.
assertion that your WAN connection becomes congested. There?s even tools >>> that will do this automatically.
What makes you suppose a Speedtest result correlates with the
instantaneous contention ratio?
Because in your scenario of every house in the street pulling a 4k TV
stream the dip in performance would be prolonged. In a more realistic >scenario, the raw cable bandwidth is higher but shared over many more
houses, so the averaging would be more consistent.
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 14:56:33 -0000 (UTC), TweedModern fibre networks have much more capacity mainly because they are, um, >modern. Although FTTP shares your connection between 32 and 64 of your >neighbours, what is being shared is a larger cake in the first place.
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <1106gnb$38nqe$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:39:55 on Mon, 8 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
You can run a Speedtest at various times of the day to support yourWhy the reluctance to test your powerline connection?
I already told you that, at least twice, maybe three times. Why are so >>>>>> deaf?
As you say, it may not be the issue. But if your raw speed to the cable >>>>>>> modem at peak times is as heavily contended as you assert (something >>>>>>> else you could test),
I'm not aware of any test which I could easily deploy to check the >>>>>> contention ratio.
assertion that your WAN connection becomes congested. There?s even tools >>>>> that will do this automatically.
What makes you suppose a Speedtest result correlates with the
instantaneous contention ratio?
Because in your scenario of every house in the street pulling a 4k TV
stream the dip in performance would be prolonged. In a more realistic
scenario, the raw cable bandwidth is higher but shared over many more
houses, so the averaging would be more consistent.
I believe that there's much less contention with fibre networks than with
the old copper ones, so there's not likely to
be a significant speed drop with a wired connection. I certainly never
notice much fluctuation. WiFi, of course, is much
more variable.
Virgin Media cable suffers from two things, firstly it is an old technology >(DOCIS) and secondly there isn?t a uniform architecture across the country. >As it?s an amalgamation of bankrupt smaller cable companies, some areas
have awful basic architecture and some very good. VM has a programme of >replacing its cable system with the same fibre system used by Open Reach
and the other Altnets. VM had a compelling product when the only
alternative was DSL down your BT phone line. But PON FTTP fibre changes all >of that.
In message <1106l71$3a63r$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:56:33 on Mon, 8 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <1106gnb$38nqe$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:39:55 on Mon, 8 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
You can run a Speedtest at various times of the day to support yourWhy the reluctance to test your powerline connection?
I already told you that, at least twice, maybe three times. Why are so >>>>> deaf?
As you say, it may not be the issue. But if your raw speed to the cable >>>>>> modem at peak times is as heavily contended as you assert (something >>>>>> else you could test),
I'm not aware of any test which I could easily deploy to check the
contention ratio.
assertion that your WAN connection becomes congested. There?s even tools >>>> that will do this automatically.
What makes you suppose a Speedtest result correlates with the
instantaneous contention ratio?
Because in your scenario of every house in the street pulling a 4k TV
stream the dip in performance would be prolonged. In a more realistic
scenario, the raw cable bandwidth is higher but shared over many more
houses, so the averaging would be more consistent.
As you clearly don't have a clue about the technology involved, there's
no point in me banging my head on this brick wall any more.
In message <1106ph7$3bm30$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:10:15 on Mon, 8 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 14:56:33 -0000 (UTC), TweedModern fibre networks have much more capacity mainly because they are, um, >>modern. Although FTTP shares your connection between 32 and 64 of your >>neighbours, what is being shared is a larger cake in the first place.
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <1106gnb$38nqe$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:39:55 on Mon, 8 Jun >>>>> 2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
You can run a Speedtest at various times of the day to support your >>>>>> assertion that your WAN connection becomes congested. There?s even tools >>>>>> that will do this automatically.Why the reluctance to test your powerline connection?
I already told you that, at least twice, maybe three times. Why are so >>>>>>> deaf?
As you say, it may not be the issue. But if your raw speed to the cable
modem at peak times is as heavily contended as you assert (something >>>>>>>> else you could test),
I'm not aware of any test which I could easily deploy to check the >>>>>>> contention ratio.
What makes you suppose a Speedtest result correlates with the
instantaneous contention ratio?
Because in your scenario of every house in the street pulling a 4k TV
stream the dip in performance would be prolonged. In a more realistic
scenario, the raw cable bandwidth is higher but shared over many more
houses, so the averaging would be more consistent.
I believe that there's much less contention with fibre networks than with >>> the old copper ones, so there's not likely to
be a significant speed drop with a wired connection. I certainly never
notice much fluctuation. WiFi, of course, is much
more variable.
Its still only 1000megabits.
In message <1106ph7$3bm30$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:10:15 on Mon, 8 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 14:56:33 -0000 (UTC), TweedModern fibre networks have much more capacity mainly because they are, um, >> modern. Although FTTP shares your connection between 32 and 64 of your
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <1106gnb$38nqe$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:39:55 on Mon, 8 Jun >>>>> 2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
You can run a Speedtest at various times of the day to support your >>>>>> assertion that your WAN connection becomes congested. There?s even tools >>>>>> that will do this automatically.Why the reluctance to test your powerline connection?
I already told you that, at least twice, maybe three times. Why are so >>>>>>> deaf?
As you say, it may not be the issue. But if your raw speed to the cable
modem at peak times is as heavily contended as you assert (something >>>>>>>> else you could test),
I'm not aware of any test which I could easily deploy to check the >>>>>>> contention ratio.
What makes you suppose a Speedtest result correlates with the
instantaneous contention ratio?
Because in your scenario of every house in the street pulling a 4k TV
stream the dip in performance would be prolonged. In a more realistic
scenario, the raw cable bandwidth is higher but shared over many more
houses, so the averaging would be more consistent.
I believe that there's much less contention with fibre networks than with >>> the old copper ones, so there's not likely to
be a significant speed drop with a wired connection. I certainly never
notice much fluctuation. WiFi, of course, is much
more variable.
neighbours, what is being shared is a larger cake in the first place.
Its still only 1000megabits.
Modern fibre networks have much more capacity mainly because they are, um, >>>modern. Although FTTP shares your connection between 32 and 64 of your >>>neighbours, what is being shared is a larger cake in the first place.
Its still only 1000megabits.
How do you know what capacity is being shared? It's probably much more than 1Gbps.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <1106l71$3a63r$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:56:33 on Mon, 8 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <1106gnb$38nqe$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:39:55 on Mon, 8 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
You can run a Speedtest at various times of the day to support yourWhy the reluctance to test your powerline connection?
I already told you that, at least twice, maybe three times. Why are so >>>>>> deaf?
As you say, it may not be the issue. But if your raw speed to the cable >>>>>>> modem at peak times is as heavily contended as you assert (something >>>>>>> else you could test),
I'm not aware of any test which I could easily deploy to check the >>>>>> contention ratio.
assertion that your WAN connection becomes congested. There?s even tools >>>>> that will do this automatically.
What makes you suppose a Speedtest result correlates with the
instantaneous contention ratio?
Because in your scenario of every house in the street pulling a 4k TV
stream the dip in performance would be prolonged. In a more realistic
scenario, the raw cable bandwidth is higher but shared over many more
houses, so the averaging would be more consistent.
As you clearly don't have a clue about the technology involved, there's
no point in me banging my head on this brick wall any more.
Go on, educate me on DOCSIS technology and VM?s cable architecture?..
In message <1106qcs$3bupq$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:25:00 on Mon, 8 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <1106l71$3a63r$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:56:33 on Mon, 8 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <1106gnb$38nqe$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:39:55 on Mon, 8 Jun >>>>> 2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
You can run a Speedtest at various times of the day to support your >>>>>> assertion that your WAN connection becomes congested. There?s even tools >>>>>> that will do this automatically.Why the reluctance to test your powerline connection?
I already told you that, at least twice, maybe three times. Why are so >>>>>>> deaf?
As you say, it may not be the issue. But if your raw speed to the cable
modem at peak times is as heavily contended as you assert (something >>>>>>>> else you could test),
I'm not aware of any test which I could easily deploy to check the >>>>>>> contention ratio.
What makes you suppose a Speedtest result correlates with the
instantaneous contention ratio?
Because in your scenario of every house in the street pulling a 4k TV
stream the dip in performance would be prolonged. In a more realistic
scenario, the raw cable bandwidth is higher but shared over many more
houses, so the averaging would be more consistent.
As you clearly don't have a clue about the technology involved, there's
no point in me banging my head on this brick wall any more.
Go on, educate me on DOCSIS technology and VM?s cable architecture?..
My daily rate is œ1200.
In message <sbsd2ld2ngtl8cotaghaksljr2j4knem3t@4ax.com>, at 17:46:02 on
Mon, 8 Jun 2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Modern fibre networks have much more capacity mainly because they are, um, >>>>modern. Although FTTP shares your connection between 32 and 64 of your >>>>neighbours, what is being shared is a larger cake in the first place.
Its still only 1000megabits.
How do you know what capacity is being shared? It's probably much more than 1Gbps.
Sorry, your recent behaviour means I decline to answer.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <1106qcs$3bupq$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:25:00 on Mon, 8 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <1106l71$3a63r$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:56:33 on Mon, 8 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <1106gnb$38nqe$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:39:55 on Mon, 8 Jun >>>>>> 2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
You can run a Speedtest at various times of the day to support your >>>>>>> assertion that your WAN connection becomes congested. There?s even toolsWhy the reluctance to test your powerline connection?
I already told you that, at least twice, maybe three times. Why are so >>>>>>>> deaf?
As you say, it may not be the issue. But if your raw speed to the cable
modem at peak times is as heavily contended as you assert (something >>>>>>>>> else you could test),
I'm not aware of any test which I could easily deploy to check the >>>>>>>> contention ratio.
that will do this automatically.
What makes you suppose a Speedtest result correlates with the
instantaneous contention ratio?
Because in your scenario of every house in the street pulling a 4k TV >>>>> stream the dip in performance would be prolonged. In a more realistic >>>>> scenario, the raw cable bandwidth is higher but shared over many more >>>>> houses, so the averaging would be more consistent.
As you clearly don't have a clue about the technology involved, there's >>>> no point in me banging my head on this brick wall any more.
Go on, educate me on DOCSIS technology and VM?s cable architecture?..
My daily rate is œ1200.
I?m not falling for that one. I?m unconvinced that you know how DOCSIS
works.
In message <50ld2l504kdamepb1m7ak7kttbf1j9rv2a@4ax.com>, at 15:40:27 on
Mon, 8 Jun 2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 14:18:17 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <fdzVR.3440$uw7.399@fx16.ams1>, at 13:12:43 on Mon, 8 Jun >>>2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Reminder: because of your deliberate obtuseness, I'm not going to answer >>>>> any of those points.
Fine, we?ll all know to just ignore your next complaint, particularly if >>>>it?s about a Virgin-branded company, as we know it?ll be just as >>>>unfounded
as this one.
Reminder: because of your deliberate obtuseness, I'm not going to answer >>>any of those points.
Thank you ? we now know your replacement expression for 'Keep
digging', meaning you admit you've lost another really pointless
argument. Very useful.
I've won the argument, but you are too stupid to realise it.
Alternatively you are deliberately trolling, which is something
anonymous cowards do quite a lot.
But remember:
Because of your deliberate obtuseness, I'm not going to answer
any further specific points.
In message <1104j7m$2osri$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:10:30 on Sun, 7 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
I gave up on powerline. It?s not the speed that is the issue but the >>>>>> dropouts. At least in my house, it is very prone to interference
caused by
appliances.
Never had a problem with it.
So how do you know that your TV buffering isn?t due to the power line
adapter?
Because I don't think even UHD streaming video would be throttled by a
300 megabit Powerline adapter...
And indeed 99% of the time it isn't. But in early evenings when
anecdotally lots and lots and lots of other people start watching
streaming media, occasionally it does buffer.
Bottleneck is somewhere outside the house.
My point with powerline adaptors is you can have a multi second drop in
transmission due to a burst of interference from an appliance.
What kind of appliance did you have in mind? And again I don't think I
have experienced this phenomenon in the field.
Of interest to many here:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn8pn4l03r7o>
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10vpf8f$3noa3$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:55:11 on Wed, 3 Jun
2026, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10vjope$25uat$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:01:02 on Mon, 1 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
The new EMR 810s appear to offer WiFi at around 1 Mbit/sec, provided by >>>>> Icomera. I?m not sure if this is a deliberate decision to make video use >>>>> impractical and to be more equitable in sharing out the available
bandwidth, or just poor quality kit. This was on a lightly loaded service.
In contrast my phone managed at least an order of magnitude more, and >>>>> sometimes much more.
I stayed in a rather posh hotel near Abingdon on Wednesday night.
Although not in the main house, but a "Garden Wing" that looked
like it was built for Eastern Europeans during the Cold War.
It had free wifi, and typically delivered 1MBps, according to Ookla.
So about 10 Mbps?
1 megabit per second.
OK. For us networking types the difference between B and b is significant, though not quite an order of magnitude.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <1106qcs$3bupq$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:25:00 on Mon, 8 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <1106l71$3a63r$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:56:33 on Mon, 8 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <1106gnb$38nqe$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:39:55 on Mon, 8 Jun >>>>>> 2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
You can run a Speedtest at various times of the day to support your >>>>>>> assertion that your WAN connection becomes congested. There?s >>>>>>>even toolsWhy the reluctance to test your powerline connection?
I already told you that, at least twice, maybe three times. Why are so >>>>>>>> deaf?
As you say, it may not be the issue. But if your raw speed to >>>>>>>>>the cable
modem at peak times is as heavily contended as you assert (something >>>>>>>>> else you could test),
I'm not aware of any test which I could easily deploy to check the >>>>>>>> contention ratio.
that will do this automatically.
What makes you suppose a Speedtest result correlates with the
instantaneous contention ratio?
Because in your scenario of every house in the street pulling a 4k TV >>>>> stream the dip in performance would be prolonged. In a more realistic >>>>> scenario, the raw cable bandwidth is higher but shared over many more >>>>> houses, so the averaging would be more consistent.
As you clearly don't have a clue about the technology involved, there's >>>> no point in me banging my head on this brick wall any more.
Go on, educate me on DOCSIS technology and VM?s cable architecture?..
My daily rate is œ1200.
I?m not falling for that one. I?m unconvinced that you know how DOCSIS
works.
On 08/06/2026 06:57, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <1104j7m$2osri$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:10:30 on Sun, 7 Jun >>2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
I gave up on powerline. It?s not the speed that is the issue but the >>>>>>> dropouts. At least in my house, it is very prone to interference >>>>>>>caused by
appliances.
Never had a problem with it.
So how do you know that your TV buffering isn?t due to the power line >>>>> adapter?
Because I don't think even UHD streaming video would be throttled by a >>>> 300 megabit Powerline adapter...
And indeed 99% of the time it isn't. But in early evenings when
anecdotally lots and lots and lots of other people start watching
streaming media, occasionally it does buffer.
Bottleneck is somewhere outside the house.
My point with powerline adaptors is you can have a multi second drop in
transmission due to a burst of interference from an appliance.
What kind of appliance did you have in mind? And again I don't think
I have experienced this phenomenon in the field.
Diesel heaters or boilers often produce large amounts of interference
as they start.
Some washing machines and tumble driers produce produce astonishing
mains surges
so much so that we had to replace circuit breakers with fuses in a
nearby building.
On Mon, 8 Jun 2026 18:07:06 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <sbsd2ld2ngtl8cotaghaksljr2j4knem3t@4ax.com>, at 17:46:02 on >>Mon, 8 Jun 2026, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Modern fibre networks have much more capacity mainly because they are, um, >>>>>modern. Although FTTP shares your connection between 32 and 64 of your >>>>>neighbours, what is being shared is a larger cake in the first place.
Its still only 1000megabits.
How do you know what capacity is being shared? It's probably much
more than 1Gbps.
Sorry, your recent behaviour means I decline to answer.
Translation from Roland-speak into Human: You don't know.
In message <1106t86$3cup9$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:13:42 on Mon, 8 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <1106qcs$3bupq$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:25:00 on Mon, 8 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <1106l71$3a63r$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:56:33 on Mon, 8 Jun >>>>> 2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <1106gnb$38nqe$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:39:55 on Mon, 8 Jun >>>>>>> 2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
You can run a Speedtest at various times of the day to support your >>>>>>>> assertion that your WAN connection becomes congested. There?s >>>>>>>> even toolsWhy the reluctance to test your powerline connection?
I already told you that, at least twice, maybe three times. Why are so
deaf?
As you say, it may not be the issue. But if your raw speed to >>>>>>>>>> the cable
modem at peak times is as heavily contended as you assert (something >>>>>>>>>> else you could test),
I'm not aware of any test which I could easily deploy to check the >>>>>>>>> contention ratio.
that will do this automatically.
What makes you suppose a Speedtest result correlates with the
instantaneous contention ratio?
Because in your scenario of every house in the street pulling a 4k TV >>>>>> stream the dip in performance would be prolonged. In a more realistic >>>>>> scenario, the raw cable bandwidth is higher but shared over many more >>>>>> houses, so the averaging would be more consistent.
As you clearly don't have a clue about the technology involved, there's >>>>> no point in me banging my head on this brick wall any more.
Go on, educate me on DOCSIS technology and VM?s cable architecture?..
My daily rate is œ1200.
I?m not falling for that one. I?m unconvinced that you know how DOCSIS
works.
There's nothing I can say that will convince you, even if I reveal I
used to be a technical director of an ISP, sat on a national committee
which set broadband standards, etc etc.
Sadly, I don't think you've ever revealed your experience, academic qualifications and so on. Why would that be?
My daily rate is œ1200.
I?m not falling for that one. I?m unconvinced that you know how DOCSIS >>works.
Yes, that's one of his standard ways of admitting ignorance.
Reminder: because of your deliberate obtuseness, I'm not going to answer >>>>any of those points.
Thank you ? we now know your replacement expression for 'Keep
digging', meaning you admit you've lost another really pointless >>>argument. Very useful.
I've won the argument, but you are too stupid to realise it.
Alternatively you are deliberately trolling, which is something
anonymous cowards do quite a lot.
But remember:
Because of your deliberate obtuseness, I'm not going to answer
any further specific points.
I think you should thank Lyndsay for that expression, but politely ask
her for a different way of admitting you've lost yet another Really >Pointless argument, using words you actually understand.
On 04/06/2026 12:14, Sam Wilson wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10vpf8f$3noa3$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:55:11 on Wed, 3 Jun
2026, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10vjope$25uat$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:01:02 on Mon, 1 Jun >>>>> 2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
The new EMR 810s appear to offer WiFi at around 1 Mbit/sec, provided by >>>>>> Icomera. I?m not sure if this is a deliberate decision to make video use >>>>>> impractical and to be more equitable in sharing out the available
bandwidth, or just poor quality kit. This was on a lightly loaded service.
In contrast my phone managed at least an order of magnitude more, and >>>>>> sometimes much more.
I stayed in a rather posh hotel near Abingdon on Wednesday night.
Although not in the main house, but a "Garden Wing" that looked
like it was built for Eastern Europeans during the Cold War.
It had free wifi, and typically delivered 1MBps, according to Ookla.
So about 10 Mbps?
1 megabit per second.
OK. For us networking types the difference between B and b is significant, >> though not quite an order of magnitude.
For those of us old enough to always include a stop-bit and parity in
our mental models, it's exactly an order of magnitude ;-).
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <1106t86$3cup9$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:13:42 on Mon, 8 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <1106qcs$3bupq$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:25:00 on Mon, 8 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:My daily rate is œ1200.
In message <1106l71$3a63r$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:56:33 on Mon, 8 Jun >>>>>> 2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <1106gnb$38nqe$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:39:55 on Mon, 8 Jun >>>>>>>> 2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
You can run a Speedtest at various times of the day to support your >>>>>>>>> assertion that your WAN connection becomes congested. There?s >>>>>>>>> even toolsWhy the reluctance to test your powerline connection?
I already told you that, at least twice, maybe three times. >>>>>>>>>>Why are so
deaf?
As you say, it may not be the issue. But if your raw speed to >>>>>>>>>>> the cable
modem at peak times is as heavily contended as you assert (something
else you could test),
I'm not aware of any test which I could easily deploy to check the >>>>>>>>>> contention ratio.
that will do this automatically.
What makes you suppose a Speedtest result correlates with the
instantaneous contention ratio?
Because in your scenario of every house in the street pulling a 4k TV >>>>>>> stream the dip in performance would be prolonged. In a more realistic >>>>>>> scenario, the raw cable bandwidth is higher but shared over many more >>>>>>> houses, so the averaging would be more consistent.
As you clearly don't have a clue about the technology involved, there's >>>>>> no point in me banging my head on this brick wall any more.
Go on, educate me on DOCSIS technology and VM?s cable architecture?.. >>>>
I?m not falling for that one. I?m unconvinced that you know how DOCSIS
works.
There's nothing I can say that will convince you, even if I reveal I
used to be a technical director of an ISP, sat on a national committee
which set broadband standards, etc etc.
Sadly, I don't think you've ever revealed your experience, academic
qualifications and so on. Why would that be?
Because I don?t need a call to authority to make my points.
You engage in a call to authority but refuse to answer the actual point
at issue.
In message <11090vq$fpp$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:29:46 on Tue, 9 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <1106t86$3cup9$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:13:42 on Mon, 8 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <1106qcs$3bupq$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:25:00 on Mon, 8 Jun >>>>> 2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:My daily rate is œ1200.
In message <1106l71$3a63r$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:56:33 on Mon, 8 Jun >>>>>>> 2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <1106gnb$38nqe$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:39:55 on Mon, 8 Jun >>>>>>>>> 2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
You can run a Speedtest at various times of the day to support your >>>>>>>>>> assertion that your WAN connection becomes congested. There?s >>>>>>>>>> even toolsWhy the reluctance to test your powerline connection?
I already told you that, at least twice, maybe three times. >>>>>>>>>>> Why are so
deaf?
As you say, it may not be the issue. But if your raw speed to >>>>>>>>>>>> the cable
modem at peak times is as heavily contended as you assert (something
else you could test),
I'm not aware of any test which I could easily deploy to check the >>>>>>>>>>> contention ratio.
that will do this automatically.
What makes you suppose a Speedtest result correlates with the >>>>>>>>> instantaneous contention ratio?
Because in your scenario of every house in the street pulling a 4k TV >>>>>>>> stream the dip in performance would be prolonged. In a more realistic >>>>>>>> scenario, the raw cable bandwidth is higher but shared over many more >>>>>>>> houses, so the averaging would be more consistent.
As you clearly don't have a clue about the technology involved, there's >>>>>>> no point in me banging my head on this brick wall any more.
Go on, educate me on DOCSIS technology and VM?s cable architecture?.. >>>>>
I?m not falling for that one. I?m unconvinced that you know how DOCSIS >>>> works.
There's nothing I can say that will convince you, even if I reveal I
used to be a technical director of an ISP, sat on a national committee
which set broadband standards, etc etc.
Sadly, I don't think you've ever revealed your experience, academic
qualifications and so on. Why would that be?
Because I don?t need a call to authority to make my points.
In other words, you rely on assertion, without any supporting evidence.
You engage in a call to authority but refuse to answer the actual point
at issue.
I didn't refuse to answer, I merely quoted my daily rate for producing
the answer in a form that you wouldn't immediately dismiss.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <11090vq$fpp$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:29:46 on Tue, 9 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <1106t86$3cup9$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:13:42 on Mon, 8 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <1106qcs$3bupq$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:25:00 on Mon, 8 Jun >>>>>> 2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <1106l71$3a63r$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:56:33 on Mon, 8 Jun >>>>>>>> 2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <1106gnb$38nqe$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:39:55 on Mon, 8 Jun
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
You can run a Speedtest at various times of the day to support your >>>>>>>>>>> assertion that your WAN connection becomes congested. There?s >>>>>>>>>>> even toolsWhy the reluctance to test your powerline connection? >>>>>>>>>>>>I already told you that, at least twice, maybe three times. >>>>>>>>>>>> Why are so
deaf?
As you say, it may not be the issue. But if your raw speed to >>>>>>>>>>>>> the cable
modem at peak times is as heavily contended as you assert >>>>>>>>>>>>>
else you could test),
I'm not aware of any test which I could easily deploy to check the >>>>>>>>>>>> contention ratio.
that will do this automatically.
What makes you suppose a Speedtest result correlates with the >>>>>>>>>> instantaneous contention ratio?
Because in your scenario of every house in the street pulling a 4k TV >>>>>>>>> stream the dip in performance would be prolonged. In a more realistic >>>>>>>>> scenario, the raw cable bandwidth is higher but shared over many more >>>>>>>>> houses, so the averaging would be more consistent.
As you clearly don't have a clue about the technology involved, there's
no point in me banging my head on this brick wall any more.
Go on, educate me on DOCSIS technology and VM?s cable >>>>>>>architecture?..
My daily rate is œ1200.
I?m not falling for that one. I?m unconvinced that you know how DOCSIS >>>>> works.
There's nothing I can say that will convince you, even if I reveal I
used to be a technical director of an ISP, sat on a national committee >>>> which set broadband standards, etc etc.
Sadly, I don't think you've ever revealed your experience, academic
qualifications and so on. Why would that be?
Because I don?t need a call to authority to make my points.
In other words, you rely on assertion, without any supporting evidence.
You engage in a call to authority but refuse to answer the actual point
at issue.
I didn't refuse to answer, I merely quoted my daily rate for producing
the answer in a form that you wouldn't immediately dismiss.
I have no intention of paying someone who doesn?t even know the raw bearer >speed on FTTP.
In the course of my career I?ve encountered many consultants who
claim a lot of knowledge but are threadbare on closer examination.
The last one was someone claiming that VHDL was just another computer >language, which rather misses the point.
| Sysop: | Jacob Catayoc |
|---|---|
| Location: | Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines |
| Users: | 4 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 494926:54:50 |
| Calls: | 162 |
| Files: | 568 |
| D/L today: |
14 files (349K bytes) |
| Messages: | 74,906 |