New Broadband Installations Part Coax?

[Riche90]

Just out of interest as I couldn’t find exact details on this anywhere, I live in a town or area of a town that has never had Virgin Media infrastructure/availability. I noticed recently markings on pavements with VM sprayed next to them etc and lo and behold an email today saying I can now get up to gig internet.

Being my purchase would be in an entirely new area with no previous installation, would it still be fibre to the premises and then coax inside to the box, or are entirely new installations ever truly full fibre? I guess I’m wondering if there is a world where I could get 1000/1000+ and latency rivalling other full fibre services? 

There is a scheme fibre heroes bringing other full fibre infrastructure overhead in the next few months, so I’m trying to understand the technical differences and potential constraints of VM in a new installation.

Any and all insight is appreciated! 

[Adduxi]

If you are in a new XGS-PON area, it's completely fibre to the Hub.  However the TV boxes are still on co-ax cabling inside.  Yes, you can get 1GB up and down but not with VM, and you will need deeper pockets ....

[Riche90]

Well the infrastructure coming in with fibreheroes is cheaper than VM for 1000/1000. If it’s fibre to the hub then, what is the reason for constraints on upload? If it’s full fibre I’d expect at least a symmetrical 1000/1000 package? 

I’m not against VM if anything I would rather be with VM if I have to wait 6-8 months for other providers to offer services here. However if docsis means my ping suffers and I get 100 up instead of 1000, it makes it much less competitive and makes me less likely to tie myself in for 24 months. 

[Client62]

We have an RFoG installation (from 2017) , Latency is about 15ms, Jitter is negligible, Packet loss zero.

[Adduxi]

It's historical for the upload, as the whole infrastructure was designed for TV transmission.  Big download with little upload.  I assume when the co-ax is finally removed and everything is fibre, that will no longer be the case. 

As for latency and jitter, it depends on the area.  Mine would be worse than @Client62 's with latency generally around the ~250 ms, against my Openreach ~30 ms  My VM is an older co-ax cabled area.

[Riche90]

250ms latency?! To where the moon?! I play games a lot and competitively where latency really matters. My latency on VDSL isn’t as good as fibre but it’s not bad, I always thought it was just bandwidth I was missing.. I’d have to change to a full fibre or mostly fibre connection and get higher ping? 

[jpeg1]

Many users have gone for VM's 1Gbps service thinking it means they will get good latency for gaming.

They dont.  Read here:  https://community.virginmedia.com/t5/Gaming-Support/bd-p/gaming

[Riche90]

Yeah I’m under absolutely no misconceptions about the bandwidth helping ping, more an expectation around the technology/infrastructure. Being naturally full fibre connections do have drastically better latency. I guess it’s a combination of the docsis/coax component? By nature of my current connection being a mile of copper, vs fibre/coax. I would absolutely expect better ping, I think understandably. It’s like expecting a super car will accelerate faster than your fiesta. 

[Salt_n_Pepper]

---

@Riche90 wrote:

250ms latency?! To where the moon?! I play games a lot and competitively where latency really matters. My latency on VDSL isn’t as good as fibre but it’s not bad, I always thought it was just bandwidth I was missing.. I’d have to change to a full fibre or mostly fibre connection and get higher ping? 

---

Alas no, there is very little, if any correlation between bandwidth and latency. VM connections can, and often do, have very high bandwidth (well at least for downstream connections), but poor latency. As per the link in the post from 'jpeg1' (below), it's a common misconception.

[jpeg1]

Yes it's all about expections and marketing.

The coax isn't to blame, providing it's properly terminated. It's simply the DOCSIS network that was not designed for gaming.