UK state of the Internet report: Virgin Media 'fast', BT's PlusNet last
- Reference: 1603291544
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/10/21/uk_state_of_the_internet/
- Source link:
The firm collected and analysed data from speed tests run by consumers across the UK to come up with its results.
In terms of speed, Virgin Media established itself as top dog with a speed score of 95.66, and a mean latency of 16ms. BT proved the second-fastest fixed-line provider, with a speed score of 37.96, while Vodafone offered the second-lowest mean latency at 17ms.
Ookla’s proprietary speed score uses a composite of download and upload speeds, weighted at a 9:1 ratio, to generate each ranking. These are sampled from the 10th, 50th, and 90th percentile, in a weighted 1:8:1 ratio which places much of the emphasis on median speeds.
The speed disparity between Virgin and BT is hardly a surprise, thanks to the prevalence of legacy copper connections in the latter's network, which significantly drags down average performance. Virgin’s network is largely based on FTTN (fibre-to-the-node), with last-mile cabling based on Hybrid Fibre Coaxial (HFC) wires.
Modem life is rubbish: RootMetrics 5G stats show EE has widest UK coverage, but Three is the speed demon [2]READ MORE
The slowest major fixed-line provider proved to be PlusNet, with a speed score of 25.72. The BT-owned provider also had the highest mean latency, at 27ms, and the lowest consistency score, with customers receiving at least 25 Mbps down and 3 Mbps up just 53.8 per cent of the time.
In a statement provided to El Reg , a Virgin Media spokesperson said: "We’re committed to providing ultrafast services that will help our customers stay connected to what’s next.”
Ookla’s mobile analysis had few surprises, particularly when it came to availability and speeds, with the results largely [3]re-affirming what we’ve seen elsewhere .
EE’s customers with 5G-capable devices spent at least 10.9 per cent of their time using the latest-and-greatest standard in mobile connectivity. Dead last was O2, with just 3.2 per cent.
EE’s 5G network covers the most ground compared to its rivals — which makes sense given the [4]BT-owned carrier was the first to launch 5G in the UK . O2, however, was the last, switching on its network in October of 2019.
Given the nascent nature of 5G in the UK, there’s plenty of chances for EE’s competitors to overtake. The next seven years will provide opportunity for O2 in particular to catch up, while its rivals, which invested heavily in infrastructure from Huawei, are [5]forced to rip and replace with alternatives, including new RAN hardware .
Don’t believe the hype
Ookla used the release of the report to cast aspersions on the methodologies adopted by its rivals in measuring mobile broadband performance.
In [6]a blog from chief data scientist Brian Connoly , the firm accused OpenSignal, nPerf, and Umlaut of producing reports based on questionable data which have the potential to mislead the public about the performance and availability of 5G in their area.
Connoly argued that by relying on CDN and background tests, Ookla’s fail to measure how a connection works when it’s being tested to its throughput limits, where things like carrier aggregation can enter play.
“Data providers that only pass along a small file do not fully saturate a network connection and often cannot place enough demand on the network to trigger a 5G connection, leaving devices — and speeds — stuck registering 4G,” he wrote.
Connoly also took aim at the small sample size used by nPerf in [7]a February report [PDF] , which used just 36,000 samples, compared to the 15,000 daily tests obtained by Ookla.
"Generally speaking, lower sample counts tend to produce results with much less statistical certainty. This particular report from nPerf showed wildly different results than all others released in the market — unsurprisingly, given their limited sample size. This put Vodafone on the defensive as rivals ran TV ads to debunk nPerf’s claim, which was meant to bolster Vodafone’s network offerings," he said.
An nPerf spokesperson told The Reg : "The first point is totally false concerning nPerf since concerning the servers, we have a policy similar to Ookla with the advantage that we manage ourselves almost half of the servers that we offer (more than 1,100 servers worldwide). We also offer total transparency on the max bandwidth of the servers.
He conceded Ookla was correct on the second point, but added: "they forget three points. 1: there is no point in having millions of tests per month to have a representative panel. 2: nPerf operates a drastic filtering aiming to eliminate all the biases of an over-representation of one or more devices. 3: nPerf measures additional QoE KPIs that cause the podium to be different from that established by Ookla."
The firm added: "Finally, we cannot compare the results of Ookla with ours since we do not measure the same thing. Our speed and latency results are weighted by streaming and browsing tests, something Ookla does not do." ®
Get our [8]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.speedtest.net/global-index/united-kingdom#market-analysis
[2] https://www.theregister.com/2020/07/29/rootmetrics_uk_5g_stats/
[3] https://www.theregister.com/2020/07/29/rootmetrics_uk_5g_stats/
[4] https://www.theregister.com/2019/05/22/ee_5g_rollout/
[5] https://www.theregister.com/2020/07/14/huawei_ban_uk/
[6] https://www.speedtest.net/insights/blog/5g-claims-gone-wrong-dangers-bad-data/
[7] https://media.nperf.com/files/publications/GB/2020-02-05_mobile-connections-survey-nPerf-2019.pdf
[8] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Nope. Trafficshaping went away years ago. Or at least, traffic shaping intrusive enough to be noticeable. Tbh, when they were doing shaping and throttling they seemed to me to have a pretty fair approach.
If I hadn't moved to somewhere I can't get fibre, I'd still use VM. I'd got very used to 80mbits for the same price I now pay for <20.
I'm with VM, it would not surprise me to find there's a list of speedtest providers that are not traffic shaped, but then it wouldn't surprise me if they all did that, so maybe there's a "level playing field" there! I have a 200mbps contract, I think, and speedtest.net currently reports it at 91mbps dl + 19mbps ul, but there's a wireless leg in the link and I'm on a conference call sharing that.
On the face of it I'm moderately happy with them - I've not noticed any throttling even throughout lockdown, but I've not been testing for it. Oftimes I've been running a VPN with video conferencing at the same time as SWMBO on a video conference and kids streaming something from Netflix and no-one has complained.
I'm using Virgin on their bottom tariff and we have three people in the household zooming and streaming with no real issues. Downloading big lumps like Visual Studio or Spring Tool Suite (Eclipse plus other bits) is fast. There have been occasional outages of a few hours, but nothing in the last year.
Am on Virgin, but miss being on Gigaclear
Apparently to get on this list, you need to be the source of >3% of the speed tests - but I wonder if that's skewed as perhaps people only check speeds when commissioning and when there's a problem.
Sauce for Source?
BT faster than Zen or A&A? Not in my area of SE London. It would be good to see the real rather than cherry picked figures if we are to have confidence in these statistics. A link to the source would be good Reg.
How "fair" is this to ISPs?
I'm with Plusnet, and the only "restriction" on the speed of my 80/20 connection is that due to the BT infrastructure (i.e. the copper aluminium cable to the cabinet and the ever increasing levels of cross-talk).
Would be more useful to see what percentage of sync speeds users get rather than complaining that ISP 'X' gives low speeds when that's not down to them.
Re: How "fair" is this to ISPs?
I'm on Plusnet too, and close to the cabinet with newish (<10 year old) copper wiring.
The restriction is on the internal networking, i.e. I'll get 72+ up on a wired connection from a fast laptop, I'll get a lot less than that on a slow device over WiFi at the far end of the house (or did until I put a repeater in).
For the sake of argument as Plusnet are a budget provider do they have a greater number of people with older slower kit connected?
help our customers stay connected to what’s next
so what is next?
Interesting. I'm with PN on the cheapy upto 40Mbps tariff (though I think I get ~32Mbps or so), seems OK to me. No real complaints and I don't think I do enough zippy network-based gaming to notice latency etc. Now makes me wonder what's happening to have them at the bottom of the barrel behind types such as Talk Talk!
But I'm a lot more dubious about VM. Maybe some of our commenters who use them could enlighten me. I had heard stories about them using various means to make sure that such speed tests are unhindered as much as possible, meanwhile other traffic is shaped to oblivion. Is that still the case in your opinion?