Line too long, cant synch? best router?
The Natural Philosopher
BT speed checker says 400-500K should work. Best bet would be a 512K
fixed service.
WE have ADSL max on the link, but two routers blinked a but, but failed
to make anything of it.
Several questions to ask for any ideas.
(i) there is a much nearer ADSL exchange than the one we are connected
to. Why would BT use the further one?
(ii)Assuming its 'because that's the way the wires run' is there any
hope for sensible money of getting them run another way?
(iii) Is there anything BT can do to e.g. up the transmitter power at
their end? Assuming the downlink is the greatest attenuation as it uses
the higher frequencies.
(iv) BT will be doing a site visit to assess the power next week. If
they purse their lips and suck their teeth, is there any hope that a new
router would work, and, if so, which one?
(v) Is there any other cunning wheeze we might tray before going satellite?
So far we have tried a D-LINK 3604 and a Netgear DG384, IIRC. Both work
very well elsewhere.
For interest, the number is
01603 872738 and the postcode NR9 5QY
If you look that up, you will note it goes to the Reepham exhange. The
Sparham exchange is a LOT closer.
And oddity is that LYNG, which is further from Reepaam than we are..by
half a mile, seems to have broadband..might it be the cables run to Lyng
first, then double back?
Adrian C
> If you look that up, you will note it goes to the Reepham exhange. The
> Sparham exchange is a LOT closer.
>
> And oddity is that LYNG, which is further from Reepaam than we are..by
> half a mile, seems to have broadband..might it be the cables run to Lyng
> first, then double back?
>
Old cables, later added exchanges maybe? I'd hope that BT would see the
logic of connecting you to the closest one.
--
Adrian C
Graham J
"The Natural Philosopher" <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:hhi19g$4q1$1...@news.albasani.net...
> Trying to bring up any broadband on a very long line.
>
> BT speed checker says 400-500K should work. Best bet would be a 512K fixed
> service.
>
> WE have ADSL max on the link, but two routers blinked a but, but failed to
> make anything of it.
>
>
> Several questions to ask for any ideas.
>
> (i) there is a much nearer ADSL exchange than the one we are connected to.
> Why would BT use the further one?
>
> (ii)Assuming its 'because that's the way the wires run' is there any hope
> for sensible money of getting them run another way?
Put simply, no. If you proposed running a large business from those
premises and wanted fibre to provide 100Mbits then a budget of around �100K
should help.
> (iii) Is there anything BT can do to e.g. up the transmitter power at
> their end? Assuming the downlink is the greatest attenuation as it uses
> the higher frequencies.
I doubt it - there will be a maximum that they can put into the line at the
exchange to prevent unacceptable crosstalk on other lines
> (iv) BT will be doing a site visit to assess the power next week. If they
> purse their lips and suck their teeth, is there any hope that a new router
> would work, and, if so, which one?
Have you any idea of the actual cable length and material? If it's less
than 8km and copper then they should be able to get something working. They
may have to replace sections of the the cable and repair all the joints.
You could try a Vigor V2600 with long-line firmware. If you need to borrow
one I can help, and am based near Thetford so not too far away.
> (v) Is there any other cunning wheeze we might tray before going
> satellite?
I take it you have a professional ISP working with you on this (i.e. Andrews
& Arnold, or Zen.) That way at least they will be prepared to get BT out to
look at the problem.
> So far we have tried a D-LINK 3604 and a Netgear DG384, IIRC. Both work
> very well elsewhere.
>
> For interest, the number is
>
> 01603 872738 and the postcode NR9 5QY
>
> If you look that up, you will note it goes to the Reepham exhange. The
> Sparham exchange is a LOT closer.
>
> And oddity is that LYNG, which is further from Reepaam than we are..by
> half a mile, seems to have broadband..might it be the cables run to Lyng
> first, then double back?
Another idea is to find a friend in Lyng where you could set up a wireless
link. You need line-of-sight and some civil engineering capacity to erect
suitable aerial masts. Budget �2,000. I've done this very successfuly in
the area around Holbeach St Matthew - but it is very flat there - even then
we had to trim some trees. Client was a farmer who provided the masts and
erected them.
Finally, get a ***very senior*** BT executive to move in as an immediate
neighbour. Then apply pressure ....
Aternatively ... move to a better location.
--
Graham J
tin...@isbd.co.uk
[snip]
>
> (iv) BT will be doing a site visit to assess the power next week. If
> they purse their lips and suck their teeth, is there any hope that a new
> router would work, and, if so, which one?
>
signal is the 2Wire 2700HGV otherwise known as a BT Business Hub. You
can still find them on Ebay, often un-BTed.
--
Chris Green
Smurf
I have found netgears pretty good, but also strangely the voyager 105 usb
modem will sync when some others wont.
I assume you have tried the test socket behind the master socket? Internal
wiring can make a massive difference.
The Natural Philosopher
> Comments in-line ...
>
> "The Natural Philosopher" <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:hhi19g$4q1$1...@news.albasani.net...
>> Trying to bring up any broadband on a very long line.
>>
>> BT speed checker says 400-500K should work. Best bet would be a 512K fixed
>> service.
>>
>> WE have ADSL max on the link, but two routers blinked a but, but failed to
>> make anything of it.
>>
>>
>> Several questions to ask for any ideas.
>>
>> (i) there is a much nearer ADSL exchange than the one we are connected to.
>> Why would BT use the further one?
>>
>> (ii)Assuming its 'because that's the way the wires run' is there any hope
>> for sensible money of getting them run another way?
>
> Put simply, no. If you proposed running a large business from those
> premises and wanted fibre to provide 100Mbits then a budget of around £100K
> should help.
>
Mmm. not really that budget..
>> (iii) Is there anything BT can do to e.g. up the transmitter power at
>> their end? Assuming the downlink is the greatest attenuation as it uses
>> the higher frequencies.
>
> I doubt it - there will be a maximum that they can put into the line at the
> exchange to prevent unacceptable crosstalk on other lines
>
yes, but one line at +6dB wouldnt hurt THAT much..
>> (iv) BT will be doing a site visit to assess the power next week. If they
>> purse their lips and suck their teeth, is there any hope that a new router
>> would work, and, if so, which one?
>
> Have you any idea of the actual cable length and material? If it's less
> than 8km and copper then they should be able to get something working. They
> may have to replace sections of the the cable and repair all the joints.
>
The checker on Kitz.co.uk reckons 6km more or less.
And suggests fixed 512Kbps would be possible.
> You could try a Vigor V2600 with long-line firmware. If you need to borrow
> one I can help, and am based near Thetford so not too far away.
>
Really? On my way when I visit there then!
>> (v) Is there any other cunning wheeze we might tray before going
>> satellite?
>
> I take it you have a professional ISP working with you on this (i.e. Andrews
> & Arnold, or Zen.) That way at least they will be prepared to get BT out to
> look at the problem.
Oh, its IDNET who have been superb. No argument, and BT are being
scheduled to visit.
I assume they will stuff a meter on the line and say 'aha, 70dB
attenuation. Hmm..'
>
>> So far we have tried a D-LINK 3604 and a Netgear DG384, IIRC. Both work
>> very well elsewhere.
>>
>> For interest, the number is
>>
>> 01603 872738 and the postcode NR9 5QY
>>
>> If you look that up, you will note it goes to the Reepham exhange. The
>> Sparham exchange is a LOT closer.
>>
>> And oddity is that LYNG, which is further from Reepaam than we are..by
>> half a mile, seems to have broadband..might it be the cables run to Lyng
>> first, then double back?
>
> Another idea is to find a friend in Lyng where you could set up a wireless
> link. You need line-of-sight and some civil engineering capacity to erect
> suitable aerial masts. Budget £2,000. I've done this very successfuly in
> the area around Holbeach St Matthew - but it is very flat there - even then
> we had to trim some trees. Client was a farmer who provided the masts and
> erected them.
>
Its a bit tricky. I've done this as well once.
> Finally, get a ***very senior*** BT executive to move in as an immediate
> neighbour. Then apply pressure ....
>
> Aternatively ... move to a better location.
>
I did say that to the MD of this company, but its ideal from many other
perspectives.
'I'm going there: You are the IT guru: Make it work!'
To be honest, I can make it work if ANY connectivity is present. We can
do low level synchronisation of the data overnight betwen this rather
remote site and any of tow others that have better connectivity.. at
very slow speed.
But a modem would be fiendishly expensive.
The Natural Philosopher
>
>
> I assume you have tried the test socket behind the master socket? Internal
> wiring can make a massive difference.
>
Oh yes. There IS no internal wiring anyway. Line fresh installed and
hanging in mid air off BT drop cable when I walked in..:-)
Now relocated to a better place. And screwed to a wall. Radical concept, BT.
Oddly enough, the master socket doesn't seem to be a master socket.
Phone wont ring...dials out though. Nasty phone, circa 1965 it looks.
Newer phones will be installed ;-)
>
Graham J
> The checker on Kitz.co.uk reckons 6km more or less.
> And suggests fixed 512Kbps would be possible.
Near Snetterton a client had a reliable 256k on 8km line length with over
80dB attenuation
>> You could try a Vigor V2600 with long-line firmware. If you need to
>> borrow one I can help, and am based near Thetford so not too far away.
>>
>
> Really? On my way when I visit there then!
Let me know a day or two in advance so I can put the correct firmware on it
...
--
Graham J
Ato_Zee
On 31-Dec-2009, tin...@isbd.co.uk wrote:
> > (iv) BT will be doing a site visit to assess the power next week. If
> > they purse their lips and suck their teeth, is there any hope that a new
> > router would work, and, if so, which one?
First thing is to have the router next to the master socket and
a decent filter, initially it is best to test without a filter or any
phones connected.
Houses can generate a lot of HF noise, commutatator motors
in washing machines, vacuum cleaners, energy saving lamps
have two HF switching power transistors, microwaves etc etc.
Also keep about a foot between the router and its PSU.
You can chain two cheap filters for extra filtering without
affecting the phones voice quality, or buy one of the (better?)
more expensive ones, research first.
As you are unlikely on an extreme line to sync above plain
ADSL you could consider a Draytek Vigor 2600 with long
line flash, the long line flash seem to lift the high frequency
gain, to compensate for the long line HF loss. Should be
cheap to find on eBay as few want plain ADSL nowdays, it
doesn't come with wireless.
Can be better than some modern modems which keep
trying to negotiate ADSL+, failing, and the line gets
treated as unstable.
The 2700HGV is also a sound well performing modem,
or go for one of the modems that work with DMTtools
so you can set your own target SNR until you get stable
sync.
Cellphone network dongles are getting popular if one
of the networks has good coverage and bandwidth charges
are falling with competition.
Grant
> Trying to bring up any broadband on a very long line.
My line is fairly long, attenuation is 68.5dB.
Both an ex-BT 2700HGV and a Sky-branded DG834GT will sync. The 2700HGV
squeezes a little more speed out of the line than the Netgear.
HTH.
Jasper
I would have to agree with this. I've got a fairly long (7k +) line
which synched at 1.5-2 Mb with a Vigor 2800 router. Changing to a 2700
2wire hub this increased to 3 - 3.5 Mb. I also fitted an I-plate and
now synch at 6 Mb. Have you tried the I plate solution to see if that
helps ?
Jasper
The Natural Philosopher
> On 31-Dec-2009, tin...@isbd.co.uk wrote:
>
>>> (iv) BT will be doing a site visit to assess the power next week. If
>>> they purse their lips and suck their teeth, is there any hope that a new
>>> router would work, and, if so, which one?
>
> First thing is to have the router next to the master socket and
> a decent filter, initially it is best to test without a filter or any
> phones connected.
Oh FFS. who do you think I am?
WTF did you think was the FIRST THING I DID?
> Houses can generate a lot of HF noise,
Its not a house.
> commutatator motors
> in washing machines, vacuum cleaners, energy saving lamps
> have two HF switching power transistors, microwaves etc etc.
Ther is NOTHING EKSE RUNNING><
Ita a fucking cold empty silent factory building OK? Or it will be when
we have fisnihed. Right bnow its an old COW shed.
> Also keep about a foot between the router and its PSU.
> You can chain two cheap filters for extra filtering without
> affecting the phones voice quality, or buy one of the (better?)
> more expensive ones, research first.
Oh FFS are you really as thick as you pretend? the first thing is router
straight in the test socket, no filters no phone nada. Switch off
everything but the PC configuring it OK?
> As you are unlikely on an extreme line to sync above plain
> ADSL you could consider a Draytek Vigor 2600 with long
> line flash, the long line flash seem to lift the high frequency
> gain, to compensate for the long line HF loss. Should be
> cheap to find on eBay as few want plain ADSL nowdays, it
> doesn't come with wireless.
> Can be better than some modern modems which keep
> trying to negotiate ADSL+, failing, and the line gets
> treated as unstable.
> The 2700HGV is also a sound well performing modem,
> or go for one of the modems that work with DMTtools
> so you can set your own target SNR until you get stable
> sync.
> Cellphone network dongles are getting popular if one
> of the networks has good coverage and bandwidth charges
> are falling with competition.
Do you really think that anywhere at the end of a 6km piece of BT wire
has a cat's chance in hell of even getting any mobile signal? let alone 3G?
What a plonker.
The Natural Philosopher
turned away in disgust.
> HTH.
>
>
The Natural Philosopher
Mate, I went straight in with no filter at all. No synch.
I've messed with all that stuff here at the end of 4km and it makes sod
all difference frankly. The only thing the filters do is make sure its
no WORSE with the PABX plugged in..
But a BT business bullshit is a cheap way to have a crack at more speed
IF we can get ANY ****ING synch at all. ;-)
Look chaps, thanks for (most of) the replies.
We have at least established that even at that distance something should
work, and there is definitely or almost definitely, worse attenuation
than there orta be. How much BT will no doubt tell us in due course.
Also the question of whether BT will re-route to a closer exchange is
'in your dreams' or 'loadsa dosh' which rules that one out..
Two routers come up as good, BT business hub and a thompson. That's nice
to know.
One final question..what is the minimum download speed that will net us
448k upload speed? This is in fact, more desirable than download here.
It's a server, not a client, on the end. If any staff want to surf, they
can do it at home.
Kráftéé
"The Natural Philosopher" <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:hhin6a$c17$1...@news.albasani.net...
Well with your obvious lack of the knowledge (which you profess to have
elsewhere on the group, try looking back a few months if you've forgotten)
any answers have to be basic and from the bottom up. Now if you don't like
it then don't post any questions (and any previous or future advice goes
down the pan anyway)..
Oh by the way, your spellchecker can't keep up with you when you 'loose it'.
As to any of the original questions, you have professed to know everything
and anything so why on earth are you asking such simple basic questions?..
The Natural Philosopher
>
>
> As to any of the original questions, you have professed to know
> everything and anything so why on earth are you asking such simple basic
> questions?..
I thought I had you in my kill file already.
So you think that
'will BT be able or willing to increase power in the DSLAM?' is a basic
question do you?
Did YOU know the answer?
A wise man knows what he doesn't know, and asks. A fool thinks he knows
everything, and stays stoopid forever.
plonk!
Al Bowlly
trombone and blew....
> Kráftéé wrote:
>>
>>
>
>> As to any of the original questions, you have professed to know
>> everything and anything so why on earth are you asking such simple
>> basic questions?..
>
> I thought I had you in my kill file already.
>
> So you think that
>
> 'will BT be able or willing to increase power in the DSLAM?' is a basic
> question do you?
>
Put it this way; If they increase the power, what do you think happens to
the crosstalk/noise/snr on adjacent marginals that are currently
struggling to sync? By any chance would it rise proportionally? Perhaps
those dem' der' scientist and graduates that calculate the correct,
optimal figures for 'best case' could learn something from you, eh?
--
Midnight, the stars a n d you.........
Peter Crosland
> elsewhere on the group, try looking back a few months if you've forgotten)
> any answers have to be basic and from the bottom up. Now if you don't
> like it then don't post any questions (and any previous or future advice
> goes down the pan anyway)..
>
> Oh by the way, your spellchecker can't keep up with you when you 'loose
> it'.
>
> As to any of the original questions, you have professed to know everything
> and anything so why on earth are you asking such simple basic questions?..
He is best ignored Kr�ft��. He has a long history of inventing improbable
scenarios and then abuses those who have tried to help him. In short a
rather nasty troll..
Peter Crosland
Grant
>
> One final question..what is the minimum download speed that will net
> us 448k upload speed?
I've been synched at 708/448 for a while when things were bad.
Al Bowlly
and blew....
>> Well with your obvious lack of the knowledge (which you profess to have
>> elsewhere on the group, try looking back a few months if you've
>> forgotten) any answers have to be basic and from the bottom up. Now if
>> you don't like it then don't post any questions (and any previous or
>> future advice goes down the pan anyway)..
>>
>> Oh by the way, your spellchecker can't keep up with you when you 'loose
>> it'.
>>
>> As to any of the original questions, you have professed to know
>> everything and anything so why on earth are you asking such simple
>> basic questions?..
>
> He is best ignored Kráftéé. He has a long history of inventing
> improbable scenarios and then abuses those who have tried to help him.
> In short a rather nasty troll..
>
> Peter Crosland
I rarely agree with you Peter, but in this case +1
Kráftéé
"The Natural Philosopher" <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> Kráftéé wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> As to any of the original questions, you have professed to know
>> everything and anything so why on earth are you asking such simple basic
>> questions?..
>
> I thought I had you in my kill file already.
>
> So you think that
>
> 'will BT be able or willing to increase power in the DSLAM?' is a basic
> question do you?
>
> Did YOU know the answer?
Yes
>
> A wise man knows what he doesn't know, and asks. A fool thinks he knows
> everything, and stays stoopid forever.
You've just described yourself perfectly, typified by the way you have
treated a few responders who were to low tech for you.
>
> plonk!
Funny that asking me a question then plonking me, shows just how your logic.
By the way the answer to your question has already been given to you and the
reasoning has also been given to you. Just because you want to make a
special case for this one line doesn't change the facts or the laws of
physics, but of course you already knew all that hence the plonk. Never
mind the world is better without you.
Kráftéé
"Peter Crosland" <g6...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3-WdnWQDlMkVZKHW...@brightview.co.uk...
I know but it's such a pleasure showing up to be the fool that he is..
Oh by the way hope next year is a good one, old son, and off course to all
those who haven't (or claimed to have) plonked me.
The Natural Philosopher
same SNR for those closest to the exchange, and BETTER SNR on those
further away, where there is less crosstalk anyway (less other
subscribers) and the dominant problem is not crosstalk, but MW RF pickup
on the long lines, and general background trash..and thermal noise..
It may well reduce SNR on the uplink, but that is generally more than
adequate anyway.
Simply upping it by say 6dB on ONE line is only likely to reduce it by a
few dB on those closest to it in the bundle.
But of course, you knew that, didn't you?
The Natural Philosopher
>> Well with your obvious lack of the knowledge (which you profess to have
>> elsewhere on the group, try looking back a few months if you've forgotten)
>> any answers have to be basic and from the bottom up. Now if you don't
>> like it then don't post any questions (and any previous or future advice
>> goes down the pan anyway)..
>>
>> Oh by the way, your spellchecker can't keep up with you when you 'loose
>> it'.
>>
>> As to any of the original questions, you have professed to know everything
>> and anything so why on earth are you asking such simple basic questions?..
>
> rather nasty troll..
>
> Peter Crosland
>
>
PLONK.
The Natural Philosopher
At last someone who actually has real experience sharing it.
Rather than King Kraftee the emperor with no clothes, and his muppet
henchman Crosland.
Al Bowlly
trombone and blew....
Cutting to the chase:
> Simply upping it by say 6dB on ONE line is only likely to reduce it by a
> few dB on those closest to it in the bundle.
Would you like to explain the difference in signal levels for 'a few
dB's'?
It's difficult, but who do we trust here - the experts that set that
calculate these limits, or you...... it's a tough call.....
ianh
we live on a farm in the Brecon Beacons 1100ft up hill, 9km from the
exchange.
we sucessfully had adsl from BT for 2 years running at an average 256k
for 98% of the time and resyncing within a few minuites if it
droped...
then one summer it droped out and nothing Openreach tried worked... so
after many animated conversations with the Indian Subcontinent I wrote
to my Local AM, within a few days i had my own personal openreach
senior engineer....I also set up a second adsl line with Idnet...
Happy 10months with two adsl lines feeding a RV042 to balance load (ho
ho) then again both lines dropped and nothing..
we are just on the edge of HSPDA -- 8ft piece of wood - 10ft usb
extension out of top window 9km LOS to mast. but even that had issues
connecting with any certainty.
So in despiration..
turned to Avonline in Bristol. Tooway service
had a dish fitted next day --OK it cost.....
3.8 down and 800 up, at 800ms --- Perfect it allows voip and VPN back
to a .ac server
helpfull call center --- reasonable monthly plans.
Down sides --- Fair Access Policy --- if you exceed your alowance it
is throttled , Doent work to well in storms, Rain , Snow.. and we do
see quite a few.
But its worth looking into...
Ian
tin...@isbd.co.uk
>
> Oh by the way, your spellchecker can't keep up with you when you 'loose it'.
>
--
Chris Green
Andy Burns
> 800ms --- Perfect it allows voip and VPN
That sort of latency hardly sounds perfect for VoIP or VPN, but I dare
say it's better than a slow and unreliable connection.
ianh
anythings better than no connection ...to be honest you dont notice
the latency --- and we did do VoiP and VPN tests before taking the
plunge.
ian
Al Bowlly
blew....
> 800ms --- Perfect it allows voip
It does? Most of the docs suggest > 300ms = crap.
The Natural Philosopher
Paul Cummins
Natural Philosopher) wrote:
> Simply upping it by say 6dB on ONE line is only likely to reduce it
> by a few dB on those closest to it in the bundle.
6dB whats? dBa? dBw? dBi?
Once we know what your dB are, we can tell how much you know about the
sub^H^H^H how much power increase you mean.
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
Rob Johnson
measure the change given a nominal DSL DSLAM output - perhaps found on
the Dummer Exchange - effect on a customer around 7800m away in
'Beggarwood'.
With all those years of experience, I'm sure this will be trivial for him
and I look forward to seeing the difference a *ratio* increase of 6dB
would make.
The Natural Philosopher
> In article <hhjs3f$gi5$1...@news.albasani.net>, t...@invalid.invalid (The
> Natural Philosopher) wrote:
>
>> Simply upping it by say 6dB on ONE line is only likely to reduce it
>> by a few dB on those closest to it in the bundle.
>
> 6dB whats? dBa? dBw? dBi?
>
> Once we know what your dB are, we can tell how much you know about the
> sub^H^H^H how much power increase you mean.
>
Log of power scale ratio.
The Natural Philosopher
Of course, he would reply that it depends on which way up the page he
can't read, is.
Never mind. It's holidays. Once Kraftee and his chums are back at the
support desk at minusnet, all will once again go quiet.
Paul Cummins
Natural Philosopher) wrote:
> dB has only one meaning.
>
> Log of power scale ratio.
Yes, but what power? Watts, Audio, RF (Isotropic)?
a 6dBw increase would quadruple the power...
Paul Cummins
dev...@null.invalid (Rob Johnson) wrote:
> Perhaps Paul would like to enlighten us all with how he would
> propose to measure the change given a nominal DSL DSLAM output -
> perhaps found on the Dummer Exchange - effect on a customer around
> 7800m away in 'Beggarwood'.
I don't know what kit is in the Dummer exchange - as I noted earlier, my
experience is with CATV kit. Ask me another.
> With all those years of experience,
Experience of what? I'm not on Dummer exchange and don't live in
Beggarwood. My ADSL is provided off Basingstoke to my RG24 address by
BeBroadband, and at 4Mb, I don't need to worry.
>I'm sure this will be trivial
> for him and I look forward to seeing the difference a *ratio*
> increase of 6dB would make.
The problem is that without knowhing to what you are applying the ratio,
you can't answer the question.
If I said that I have a treansmitter with 20dB output, you have no way of
knowing wether it's loud, quiet, powerful or even just humming in the
conrner. Once I tell you that it's 20dBw it is a few seconds work to
discover that this means 100W PEP.
Give me a unit that 6dB is a ratio of and I'll see what I can do.
ianh
Sorry actual experiance 800ms ok, pm me and i can skype out you...
The Natural Philosopher
> In article <hhl39b$8d5$1...@news.albasani.net>, t...@invalid.invalid (The
> Natural Philosopher) wrote:
>
>> dB has only one meaning.
>>
>> Log of power scale ratio.
>
> Yes, but what power? Watts, Audio, RF (Isotropic)?
power is power.
>
> a 6dBw increase would quadruple the power...
>
a 6dB increase always quadruples *whatever* power is in question.
But of course, you knew that.
The Natural Philosopher
> In article <4b3e0bab$0$2522$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk>,
> dev...@null.invalid (Rob Johnson) wrote:
>
>> Perhaps Paul would like to enlighten us all with how he would
>> propose to measure the change given a nominal DSL DSLAM output -
>> perhaps found on the Dummer Exchange - effect on a customer around
>> 7800m away in 'Beggarwood'.
>
> I don't know what kit is in the Dummer exchange - as I noted earlier, my
> experience is with CATV kit. Ask me another.
>
>> With all those years of experience,
>
> Experience of what? I'm not on Dummer exchange and don't live in
> Beggarwood. My ADSL is provided off Basingstoke to my RG24 address by
> BeBroadband, and at 4Mb, I don't need to worry.
>
>> I'm sure this will be trivial
>> for him and I look forward to seeing the difference a *ratio*
>> increase of 6dB would make.
>
> The problem is that without knowhing to what you are applying the ratio,
> you can't answer the question.
>
> If I said that I have a treansmitter with 20dB output,
Then you would be making a meaningless statement. Power is not measured
in dB, dB is a log ratio of TWO power levels.
But of coourse, you knew that.
>you have no way of
> knowing wether it's loud, quiet, powerful or even just humming in the
> conrner.
Indeed, Its not even a meanaingful statement. It is in fact complete
nonsense.
> Once I tell you that it's 20dBw it is a few seconds work to
> discover that this means 100W PEP.
>
> Give me a unit that 6dB is a ratio of and I'll see what I can do.
>
Power, twit.
>
Paul Cummins
Natural Philosopher) wrote:
> > Yes, but what power? Watts, Audio, RF (Isotropic)?
>
> power is power.
>
> >
> > a 6dBw increase would quadruple the power...
> >
>
> a 6dB increase always quadruples *whatever* power is in question.
>
> But of course, you knew that.
Yes, but a 10dBa increase is only twice as loud (by perception) even
though it is c.10 times as much power.
But of course you knew this, and were just trying to be clever.
Paul Cummins
Natural Philosopher) wrote:
> > Give me a unit that 6dB is a ratio of and I'll see what I can do.
> >
>
> Power, twit.
See my earlier comment about sound!
The Natural Philosopher
anyone who has spoken via a satellite phone link knows its a bloody
irritation, but usable.
>300ms latency is crap when landlines are in use, because it implies
low bandwidth. That's not true of lines with natural high latency.
Satellites can have massive bandwidth and very low packet loss, but you
can never eliminate the latency.
The Natural Philosopher
> In article <hhl63p$cm0$3...@news.albasani.net>, t...@invalid.invalid (The
> Natural Philosopher) wrote:
>
>>> Give me a unit that 6dB is a ratio of and I'll see what I can do.
>>>
>> Power, twit.
>
> See my earlier comment about sound!
>
Paul Cummins
Natural Philosopher) wrote:
> > See my earlier comment about sound!
> >
> sound is power, too.
And, as all can now see, you are deliberately missing the point.
The Natural Philosopher
> In article <hhl5vb$cm0$2...@news.albasani.net>, t...@invalid.invalid (The
> Natural Philosopher) wrote:
>
>>> Yes, but what power? Watts, Audio, RF (Isotropic)?
>> power is power.
>>
>>> a 6dBw increase would quadruple the power...
>>>
>> a 6dB increase always quadruples *whatever* power is in question.
>>
>> But of course, you knew that.
>
> Yes, but a 10dBa increase is only twice as loud (by perception) even
> though it is c.10 times as much power.
>
> But of course you knew this, and were just trying to be clever.
>
over 10 years in the audio amplification industry.
So what? I am not the one trying to be clever. I *am* clever. According
to my exam results etc etc.
I don't see your point. Subjective audio is one thing, power as defined
in physics, is power. rate of change of energy. Energy being the
fundamental unit of everything in the physicists universe.
E=mC^2
P=d/dt (E)
dB=log10(E/E1)
No audio, or anything, involved there at all. No subjectivity either.
Consider DSL: you have SNR is log10(wanted signal/unwanted signal).
Now what does unwanted signal consist of.?
Its thermal noise, broadly given by the line resistance and temperature.
PLUS F pickup from MW transmitters. again a function of line length
PLUS crosstalk from other subscribers.
And the wanted signal? thats the power in times the attenuation., which
is worse on longer lines as more or less a direct function of line length.
So a +6dB increase in power at the transmission side, improves SNR by
6dB as far as everything BUT the crosstalk goes.
So it at the very least makes things no WORSE if EVERYBODY gets a +6dB
boost. Those dominated by crosstalk noise get the same SNR, (signal
+6dB, noise +6dB) those on long lines dominated by attenuation and
thermal noise and MW pickup, get a +6dB improvement.
Also., consider the fact that as lines get longer, the number of DSL
subscribers per bundle of cable gets less, to the point where your drop
cable is your signal alone.
So for large lengths of cable, your higher power affects very few, and
in the limit at the drop cable, NO other subscriber.
So why not use much higher power anyway, and get more bandwidth for
distant customers?
I don't know. The downsides I can see are that it means more heat in the
DSLAMS, more stress on cabling, and more radiation into the MW band from
general cabling. Plus the chances of overloading the input of subscriber
ADSL modems on short lines.
In general the max data rate down a channel is a direct function of the
bandwidth available, and the SNR on the line. More signal + same noise =
more bandwidth. It really is that simple. At the analytic level.
That's MY knowledge base. My simple question was, knowing that, and
assuming it was common knowledge in this forum, why do BT not up the
power for distant subscribers? or do they?
The responses suggest that it wasn't common knowledge at all. And in
fact most people here haven't a clue about the way DSL works at that level.
Which is fine. OK not everybody took a degree course in communication
theory. But I do take exception to be pissed on by them, when they think
there very little understanding is in fact complete knowledge, and the
fact they haven't actually a clue what I am talking about, necessarily
implies that I don't, either.
Paul Cummins
Natural Philosopher) wrote:
You are still missing the point. dB on its own, without specifying the
units, is meaningless.
So, do you mean a 6dB increase in the RF on the line from the DSLAM, or a
6dB increase in total signal on the line, including the Audio side? IS it
possible, maybe, that a quadrupling in power of the RF signal would
imp[act, not only on other ADSL users, but also cause interference for
granny and her phone line connected to an old CT1 cordless, which happens
to use MF for the signal?
I hate it when people who think they know it all, because they have
qualifications to prove it, try to show their superiority by talking down
to people who have been doing the job for years! You remind me of MCSE
holders.
The Natural Philosopher
> In article <hhl6a7$cm0$5...@news.albasani.net>, t...@invalid.invalid (The
> Natural Philosopher) wrote:
>
>>> See my earlier comment about sound!
>>>
>> sound is power, too.
>
> And, as all can now see, you are deliberately missing the point.
>
You are missing it. You simply do not seem to understand. And whilst I
am happy to educate, it is not possible in the case of people who
(erroneously) think they already are.
Anyway, the definitive answer I wanted seems to be here.
http://www.commsdesign.com/main/9812/9812feat1.htm
In short, the *specification* limits maximum power to about +20dbm and
its routine to reduce that on shorter links.
I just had hoped that one of the so called 'experts' would have known
the answer.
Without hurling abuse at me for asking it.
Paul Cummins
Natural Philosopher) wrote:
>
> I just had hoped that one of the so called 'experts' would have
> known the answer.
Ah, but you have the MA... so you _are_ the expert, shirley!
Woody
> If I said that I have a treansmitter with 20dB output, you have
> no way of
> knowing wether it's loud, quiet, powerful or even just humming
> in the
> conrner. Once I tell you that it's 20dBw it is a few seconds
> work to
> discover that this means 100W PEP.
Oh dear, looks like a bit of (non) amateur radio slipping in
here?
20dBW is 20dB above a 1W reference, or 100W. Where the heck did
PEP come into it?
--
Woody
harrogate three at ntlworld dot com
Paul Cummins
harro...@ntlworld.spam.com (Woody) wrote:
> 20dBW is 20dB above a 1W reference, or 100W. Where the heck did
> PEP come into it?
Yep, my bad. PEP is irrelevant.
Ian Cummings
<t...@invalid.invalid> writes
>Do you really think that anywhere at the end of a 6km piece of BT wire
>has a cat's chance in hell of even getting any mobile signal? let alone
>3G?
Since when has mobile reception been dependant on proximity to a BT
exchange ?
--
Ian
The Natural Philosopher
> In article <hhl7p0$for$1...@news.albasani.net>, t...@invalid.invalid (The
> Natural Philosopher) wrote:
>
>> But I do take exception to be pissed on by them, when they think
>> there very little understanding is in fact complete knowledge, and
>> the fact they haven't actually a clue what I am talking about,
>> necessarily implies that I don't, either.
>
> You are still missing the point. dB on its own, without specifying the
> units, is meaningless.
>
> So, do you mean a 6dB increase in the RF on the line from the DSLAM, or a
> 6dB increase in total signal on the line, including the Audio side? IS it
> possible, maybe, that a quadrupling in power of the RF signal would
> imp[act, not only on other ADSL users, but also cause interference for
> granny and her phone line connected to an old CT1 cordless, which happens
> to use MF for the signal?
>
are you really clueless, or is it a stupendous imitation?
DSLAMS dont send audio.
>
> I hate it when people who think they know it all, because they have
> qualifications to prove it, try to show their superiority by talking down
> to people who have been doing the job for years! You remind me of MCSE
> holders.
>
I bet you vote Labour, as well.
The Natural Philosopher
> In article <hhl8nh$hba$1...@news.albasani.net>, t...@invalid.invalid (The
> Natural Philosopher) wrote:
>
>> I just had hoped that one of the so called 'experts' would have
>> known the answer.
>
> Ah, but you have the MA... so you _are_ the expert, shirley!
>
doesn't know, and is wise enough to ask.
An idiot is someone who thinks they know, when they don't, and is stupid
enough to offer advice on that basis.
And not back down gracefully.
The Natural Philosopher
> [snip]
>> If I said that I have a treansmitter with 20dB output, you have
>> no way of
>> knowing wether it's loud, quiet, powerful or even just humming
>> in the
>> conrner. Once I tell you that it's 20dBw it is a few seconds
>> work to
>> discover that this means 100W PEP.
>
>
> Oh dear, looks like a bit of (non) amateur radio slipping in
> here?
>
> 20dBW is 20dB above a 1W reference, or 100W. Where the heck did
> PEP come into it?
>
>
accidentally right answer in a multiple choice question means the
subject is understood?
With today's education, everyone's a bloody expert in being a prat.
>
The Natural Philosopher
Since cost benefit analysis ruled deployment of mobile transmitters and
roll out of 3G services.
But perhaps the subtlety of that is beyond you.
Denis McMahon
> In article <hhjs3f$gi5$1...@news.albasani.net>, t...@invalid.invalid (The
> Natural Philosopher) wrote:
>
>> Simply upping it by say 6dB on ONE line is only likely to reduce it
>> by a few dB on those closest to it in the bundle.
>
> 6dB whats? dBa? dBw? dBi?
>
> Once we know what your dB are, we can tell how much you know about the
> sub^H^H^H how much power increase you mean.
6dB means a 4:1 ratio.
Increasing something by 6dB means multiplying it by 4.
Well, actually it mean multiplying it by 10 ^ 0.6 or 3.981071706, but we
(techy type people) usually mean a factor of 4 when we say 6dB.
Rgds
Denis McMahon
Al Bowlly
blew....
> On 1 Jan, 12:17, Al Bowlly <j...@none.ntd> wrote:
>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 02:28:41 -0800, ianh struck up his trombone and
>> blew....
>>
>> > 800ms --- Perfect it allows voip
>>
>> It does? Most of the docs suggest > 300ms = crap.
>>
>> --
>> Midnight, the stars a n d you.........
>
> Sorry actual experiance 800ms ok, pm me and i can skype out you...
Ah, Skype is not VoIP per se.- it's a proprietary messaging toy. If you
take something serious, like Asterisk, the 300ms figure is used in print
as where things go downhill. At 1 second things are said to be so bad
normal conversation suffers.
I don't dispute you have it working but I think our ideas of quality and
usability may be different.
Al Bowlly
trombone and blew....
> Paul Cummins wrote:
What is sad, NP, is you were actually doing a reasonable job of fighting
your corner until you turned to abuse - which is really sad because for a
very small part of life you were technically right.
The perception of the dB given by Paul Cummins refer to the effect on the
ear. I don't recall an ear being used to receive dsl DMT bands.
If we were to say the exchange outputs 10dBm and this is increased 6dB,
would that help people to do the math and stop the bitching?
Paul Cummins
Bowlly) wrote:
> The perception of the dB given by Paul Cummins refer to the effect
> on the ear. I don't recall an ear being used to receive dsl DMT
> bands.
But the phone system is primarily designed for signal to be resolved by
the ear - ADSL is the minority.
> If we were to say the exchange outputs 10dBm and this is increased
> 6dB, would that help people to do the math and stop the bitching?
Yes, thanks. But it makes no odds, since BT ADSL is already outside DMT
specifications.
Paul Cummins
Natural Philosopher) wrote:
> And not back down gracefully.
pot-kettle inversion error, methinks.
Paul Cummins
Natural Philosopher) wrote:
> With today's education, everyone's a bloody expert in being a prat.
You're clearly a product thereof, since you don't know how to admit it
when you fuck up.
The Natural Philosopher
Anyway it appears that long lines are up to 12dB more power than short
ones.
Its in the specs of the way the DSLAM works.
Which is a bugger, cos that wont be the solution..
The Natural Philosopher
> In article <4b3e3941$0$2527$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk>, j...@none.ntd (Al
> Bowlly) wrote:
>
>> The perception of the dB given by Paul Cummins refer to the effect
>> on the ear. I don't recall an ear being used to receive dsl DMT
>> bands.
>
> But the phone system is primarily designed for signal to be resolved by
> the ear - ADSL is the minority.
>
Golly, and here was me thinking this was uk.telecom.broadband
Noy uk.telecom.pots...
>> If we were to say the exchange outputs 10dBm and this is increased
>> 6dB, would that help people to do the math and stop the bitching?
>
> Yes, thanks. But it makes no odds, since BT ADSL is already outside DMT
> specifications.
>
proof?
The Natural Philosopher
> In article <hhlctd$ndq$4...@news.albasani.net>, t...@invalid.invalid (The
> Natural Philosopher) wrote:
>
>> With today's education, everyone's a bloody expert in being a prat.
>
> You're clearly a product thereof, since you don't know how to admit it
> when you fuck up.
>
Denis McMahon
> I hate it when people who think they know it all, because they have
> qualifications to prove it, try to show their superiority by talking down
> to people who have been doing the job for years! You remind me of MCSE
> holders.
Yes, but he has a MA in Eng.
Rgds
Denis McMahon
(doesn't think engineering is an arts degree either)
The Natural Philosopher
Is at Cambridge.
Al Bowlly
and blew....
> In article <4b3e3941$0$2527$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk>, j...@none.ntd (Al
> Bowlly) wrote:
>
>> The perception of the dB given by Paul Cummins refer to the effect on
>> the ear. I don't recall an ear being used to receive dsl DMT bands.
>
> But the phone system is primarily designed for signal to be resolved by
> the ear - ADSL is the minority.
But as the whole subject revolves around aDSL and a gain increase you are
trying to say what? That you are wrong? That you failed to understand the
conversation? That you had a little bit too much to drink up there in
Beggarwood last night?
>
>> If we were to say the exchange outputs 10dBm and this is increased 6dB,
>> would that help people to do the math and stop the bitching?
>
> Yes, thanks. But it makes no odds, since BT ADSL is already outside DMT
> specifications.
It is? I see - so we use entirely different frequency bins then? Perhaps
you would like to elaborate on how any minor differences would be
relevant to the increase in gain that NP spoke of.
Paul Cummins
denis.m....@gmail.com (Denis McMahon) wrote:
> Yes, but he has a MA in Eng.
>
> Rgds
>
> (doesn't think engineering is an arts degree either)
I wasn't going to harp on that point. It does explain his confusion...
Paul Cummins
Bowlly) wrote:
> That you had a little bit too much to drink up there in
> Beggarwood last night?
I don't live in Beggarwood. And I've had nothing to drink since 27
December - and won;t drink again till 25th December.
Al Bowlly
and blew....
> In article <4b3e547a$0$2526$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk>, j...@none.ntd (Al
> Bowlly) wrote:
>
>> That you had a little bit too much to drink up there in Beggarwood last
>> night?
>
> I don't live in Beggarwood. And I've had nothing to drink since 27
> December - and won;t drink again till 25th December.
You seem to selectively be skipping over the errors you have posted. I'll
take that as you acknowledging you were wrong. Nice to see you were a man
about it ;-)
Paul Cummins
Bowlly) wrote:
> > I don't live in Beggarwood. And I've had nothing to drink since 27
> > December - and won;t drink again till 25th December.
>
> You seem to selectively be skipping over the errors you have
> posted. I'll take that as you acknowledging you were wrong.
You seem to also be missing the point.
If you can;t even get something this simple correct, why should I bother
dealing with the rest of your post.
If you want to try to show your superiority by (mis)quoting information
about my ADSL service sometime in the last 12 years, then at least admit
that the info you have is more than 5 years old, and concede that it's
probably inaccurate.
But then you knew that.
Al Bowlly
and blew....
> In article <4b3e5863$0$2485$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk>, j...@none.ntd (Al
Paul, I'm happy to answer your points - but you seem to be unwilling to
answer others.
I apologise if you are now living in Chineham in a Caravan called 'Colin'
and not the West of Basingstoke. If where you live is at all relevant to
the conversation I apologise for suggesting you live in the west of
Basingstoke.
However, you clearly don't want to acknowledge you've made a total
assclown of yourself with your 'what kind of dB' argument, lack of aDSL
understanding and assuming the workings of a modem to be the same as a
human ear. This is not characteristic of your style, hence I asked if you
had been drinking.
On closer inspection - with a cursory look around google - it would
appear you belong to that odd, deluded 'ham radio' weirdo bunch - which
entirely explains why you were at the limit of your knowledge and clearly
trumped by the Natural Philosopher.
Now, I would *never* jump to his defence as we are *not* friends, but he
is right - you are wrong. It's really that simple. Or to put it another
way - your response came in 4th place.:
The RIGHT answer.
A probable answer.
A barely possible answer.
A stupid answer.
If you would like to go on arguing please go ahead - but it won't make
you write, your answer will still be wrong and stupid.
Al Bowlly
Al Bowlly
http://s916.photobucket.com/albums/ad2/albowlly/?
action=view¤t=pcham1.jpg&newest=1
Here we have Paul's group of Radio 'hams' surrounding a young boy. It
just looks soooooo wrong.
Graham.
"Al Bowlly" <j...@none.ntd> wrote in message news:4b3e37f1$0$2527$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
Actually Skype, whilst arguably being proprietary messaging toy, is as much
VoIP as SIP and IAX.
VoIP is a generic term which does what it says on the tin:
Voice Over IP, it does not define a protocol itself.
Asterisk is not a protocol as you imply, it's a platform that has
it's own protocol IAX, but ironically is perhaps more often using SIP which it
also supports natively.
--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%
Ian Cummings
>Ian Cummings wrote:
>> In message <hhin6a$c17$1...@news.albasani.net>, The Natural Philosopher
<t...@invalid.invalid> writes
>>> Do you really think that anywhere at the end of a 6km piece of BT
>>>wire has a cat's chance in hell of even getting any mobile signal?
>>>let alone 3G?
>> Since when has mobile reception been dependant on proximity to a BT
>>exchange ?
>Since cost benefit analysis ruled deployment of mobile transmitters and
>roll out of 3G services.
I don't dispute that there are cost considerations in siting
transmitters, but while it may be true that _you_ can't get a mobile
signal on the end of 6km of BT local loop, that's not universally the
case.
>But perhaps the subtlety of that is beyond you.
Subtle you ain't.
--
Ian
Al Bowlly
blew....
Fair points - but >300ms still = shit :-)
Paul Cummins
Bowlly) wrote:
>
> I apologise if you are now living in Chineham in a Caravan called
> 'Colin' and not the West of Basingstoke. If where you live is at
> all relevant to the conversation I apologise for suggesting you
> live in the west of Basingstoke.
Still wrong. I never owned Colin, and don't live in Chineham either. But
closer...
> However, you clearly don't want to acknowledge you've made a total
> assclown of yourself with your 'what kind of dB' argument, lack of
> aDSL understanding and assuming the workings of a modem to be the
> same as a human ear. This is not characteristic of your style,
> hence I asked if you had been drinking.
I knew that xDSL "modems" don't work like ears. I was merely maknig the
point that without defining where he wanted the 6dB gain, his question
was pointless.
Anyway, the reason 6dB of gain on one line and not another won't work is
not because of cross-talk problems in the xDSL spectrum - why does the UK
not have xDSL over ISDN, like most civilised contries? Find out that and
you find your answer.
As to the cow-shed, find an ADSL servable point and wireless-link it.
Paul Cummins
Bowlly) wrote:
> Here we have Paul's group of Radio 'hams' surrounding a young boy.
> It just looks soooooo wrong.
What group - I'm not a member of any 'ham' group.
Al Bowlly
and blew....
..
> 6dB gain, his question was pointless.
with us what you *think* it may have applied to? I don't believe you are
really that stupid - but clearly as this has unravelled you ain't that
bright sunny.
> What group - I'm not a member of any 'ham' group.
Have you left that little group of Basingstoke 'hams' G7FUJ?
Just looking through some of the letters in Inside Times too. Very
interesting. There was a nice bit on Chemical castration of sex
offenders. Any views on that at all - appreciate it's off topic?
The icing on the cake, on a personal scale, was: gst-group.co.uk. You
still in the spam business?
Paul Cummins
Bowlly) wrote:
> Have you left that little group of Basingstoke 'hams' G7FUJ?
Over two years ago, due to various personal differences with an emeritus
president.
> Just looking through some of the letters in Inside Times too. Very
> interesting. There was a nice bit on Chemical castration of sex
> offenders. Any views on that at all - appreciate it's off topic?
Yes, I'm aware of that letter - not me, I was in hospital at the time
following several suicide attempts.
> The icing on the cake, on a personal scale, was: gst-group.co.uk.
> You still in the spam business?
gst-group.co.uk is also long-since dead, as you;d know had you tried the
site, not merely the archives.
So, since it wasn;t me who started the pissing contest on my history,
what relevance did it have, exactly?
The Natural Philosopher
>
>
> Anyway, the reason 6dB of gain on one line and not another won't work i
How quaint. When the spec clearly shows that long lines are run at up to
8dB more than short ones.
The Natural Philosopher
> In article <4b3e6348$0$2485$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk>, j...@none.ntd (Al
> Bowlly) wrote:
>
>> Here we have Paul's group of Radio 'hams' surrounding a young boy.
>> It just looks soooooo wrong.
>
> What group - I'm not a member of any 'ham' group.
>
Paul Cummins
Natural Philosopher) wrote:
Gosh, you really did only do the "art" side of the degree, didn't you.
And didn't you say it was from Cambridge, so it's only a BA (hons) really.
I bet I can guess the level of Honours too!
Didn't you just find out that BT run 12dBm more on long lines? So add
amother 6dBm to that, and work it out yourself. And maybe a clue will be
that Virgin now use 10dBm forward path attenuators on short cablemodem
runs.
Also, what would be the length of a half-wave at 1.1 MHz?
I would have been more than happy to help you with your problem - as Rob
pointed out, I do have some limited experience of getting working ADSL at
long (24,000 ft) line length, albeit 8 years ago. Most of it involves RF
trickery.
But no, you pointed the revolver down, then fired...
The Natural Philosopher
> In article <hhm2rv$raq$1...@news.albasani.net>, t...@invalid.invalid (The
> Natural Philosopher) wrote:
>
>>> Anyway, the reason 6dB of gain on one line and not another won't
>> work i
>>
>> How quaint. When the spec clearly shows that long lines are run at
>> up to 8dB more than short ones.
>
> Gosh, you really did only do the "art" side of the degree, didn't you.
> And didn't you say it was from Cambridge, so it's only a BA (hons) really.
Id like to see you survive a single term.
> I bet I can guess the level of Honours too!
>
I bet you cant.
> Didn't you just find out that BT run 12dBm more on long lines?
No, 8dB actually.
Which proves the point above.
BT do and every body does add signal to longer lines that doesn't get
added to shorter ones.
And it patently does work.
So totally idiocy apart, what's your excuse?
Graham.
"Al Bowlly" <j...@none.ntd> wrote in message news:4b3e65ef$0$2522$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
Yes indeed, at that latency there is a tendency to interrupt each other,
although professional operators will largely avoid doing so.
--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%
Paul Cummins
Natural Philosopher) wrote:
> > Gosh, you really did only do the "art" side of the degree, didn't
> you.
> > And didn't you say it was from Cambridge, so it's only a BA
> > (hons) really.
>
> Id like to see you survive a single term.
You're not here for the hunting, are you.
Now do consider Arkell v Pressdram 1971.
The Natural Philosopher
> In article <hhm3mv$sq4$1...@news.albasani.net>, t...@invalid.invalid (The
> Natural Philosopher) wrote:
>
>>> Gosh, you really did only do the "art" side of the degree, didn't
>> you.
>>> And didn't you say it was from Cambridge, so it's only a BA
>>> (hons) really.
>> Id like to see you survive a single term.
>
> You're not here for the hunting, are you.
>
> Now do consider Arkell v Pressdram 1971.
>
Plonk!
Al Bowlly
trombone and blew....
> Paul Cummins wrote:
Unlike HMP :-)
Al Bowlly
and blew....
> In article <4b3e6b9a$0$2522$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk>, j...@none.ntd (Al
> Bowlly) wrote:
>
>> Have you left that little group of Basingstoke 'hams' G7FUJ?
>
> Over two years ago, due to various personal differences with an emeritus
> president.
So in other words, you insult people of greater intellect than you? This
would explain why you are so mouthy. You need to deal with your feelings
of inferiority.
>
>> Just looking through some of the letters in Inside Times too. Very
>> interesting. There was a nice bit on Chemical castration of sex
>> offenders. Any views on that at all - appreciate it's off topic?
>
> Yes, I'm aware of that letter - not me, I was in hospital at the time
> following several suicide attempts.
I would go as far as to say you are talking out of your arse once more.
From the archives your defence and knowledge of the UK Penal system
supports first hand experience of it. Here from just a few days ago:
http://groups.google.com/group/uk.legal/browse_thread/thread/
f6303a81dca184f8/ecc2360128ea8268?lnk=raot
Your posting pattern has been interesting too, suggesting you were doing
it whilst out on ROTL. It's also noteworthy that you are aware of that
letter in a newspaper distributed inside prisons for prisoners.
The drama queen 'I was in hospital at the time following several suicide
attempts' would suggest that if it were true, you can't even manage to do
that right. I suspect if there is any truth in it at all, it was probably
an attempt to get yourself moved from the VP section of the facility you
were housed in.
>
>> The icing on the cake, on a personal scale, was: gst-group.co.uk. You
>> still in the spam business?
>
> gst-group.co.uk is also long-since dead, as you;d know had you tried the
> site, not merely the archives.
I was interested to see you renewed it in 2008. Interesting for a site
'long dead'.
>
> So, since it wasn;t me who started the pissing contest on my history,
> what relevance did it have, exactly?
I don't like you - it's really *that* simple. You are a mouthy,
narcissistic nonce - and technically incompetent with it. The issue
centres around you, and your long history of abusing people on USENET
Paul. In fact, you've made *many* enemies in most of your daily dealings
with people and some of your 'ham' friends have plenty to say about you -
which I suspect has a strong basis in fact.
We can continue this if you like Paul, or you can do something that you
appear to find impossible to do - walk away. As you always like to try
and get in that snappy 'last word' I imagine that your full details, the
offence details, your address, photograph et al will need to come out
before you withdraw.
For the benefit of those who have not read the masterpiece from Paul -
here it is:
MAY 2008 - Inside Times - Mailbag Page 9:
http://www.insidetime.org/backissues/May%202008.pdf
PAUL CUMMINS - HMP WINCHESTER
Church of offender management
From the moment you arrive you are cut off from your family, friends and
normal influences. You have very limited access to phones and post, and
encouraged to break off contact with those who are considered to be
encouraging offending behaviour.
The isolation strips you of your normal support systems, and increases
feelings of powerlessness and a need for group acceptance within your
establishment. It removes the sounding boards you use to evaluate
situations, and confidence in personal judgements deteriorates; making
independent action almost impossible.
Your environment is controlled, diet, rest, work, play, money and outside
contact. You can do nothing without the approval of your 'keepers'; the
only support being what they offer in the form of behaviour programmes.
Once you are completely brainwashed you will be encouraged or 'coerced'
to fit in and depend on a different form of ideology. A logic created by
the system, advocated by the system to benefit the system, not you. No
criticism is allowed; complaints are ignored or held against you.
You are encouraged to consider the people in your life that you have
hurt, disappointed or rejected; made to feel worthless; and then you are
brought back from the brink of emotional despair with a lifebelt as long
as you are prepared to change to fit the system.
Finally you are allowed to leave, but having been remoulded, you are
unable to cope with the real world; unable to think or act for
yourself ... so you think of ways to return to the system. Sound familiar?
You may think this is a description of prison life, and it could be. In
fact it is taken from a letter written to a rescued member of a cult.
Prison is no longer looked on as a deterrent or punishment, it has become
the Church of Offender Management; with a current membership of 81.000
commited members. Will prison ever reform? Unlikely. Too much is invested
in the cult!
Paul Cummins
Natural Philosopher) wrote:
Oh dear. Premature Extrapolation.
Ah well, he did go to Cambridge after all.
Al Bowlly
and blew....
> In article <hhmeeh$adn$1...@news.albasani.net>, t...@invalid.invalid (The
> Natural Philosopher) wrote:
>
>> > Now do consider Arkell v Pressdram 1971.
>> >
>> Oh very droll.
>>
>> Plonk!
>
> Oh dear. Premature Extrapolation.
>
> Ah well, he did go to Cambridge after all.
Remind us where it was you went 'Dr Paul Cummins' RE:
Dr Paul Cummins - Internet Engineer
Tel: 07050 605150 Fax: 07092 105150
Email: paul(at)gst-group.co.uk
http://www.gst-group.co.uk
I always had you down as Dove House.
http://groups.google.com/group/uk.local.hampshire/browse_thread/thread/
b1656db71449decc/e288c76c0911e9b5?lnk=gst&q=%22paul+cummins%
22#e288c76c0911e9b5
You've got some serious issues going on weirdo.
Paul Cummins
Bowlly) wrote:
> I always had you down as Dove House.
As I only moved to Basingstoke when I was 28, that would be difficult.
Al Bowlly
and blew....
> In article <4b3f446b$0$2521$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk>, j...@none.ntd (Al
> Bowlly) wrote:
>
>> I always had you down as Dove House.
>
> As I only moved to Basingstoke when I was 28, that would be difficult.
Not at all, it specialises in schooling deluded, mental people with
issues, like you.
Paul Cummins
Natural Philosopher) wrote:
My earlier comments about projectiles and feet may have been unfair.
> Several questions to ask for any ideas.
>
> (i) there is a much nearer ADSL exchange than the one we are
> connected to. Why would BT use the further one?
That's the way it was set up - they may do a "lift and shift" at some
point in the future, but don't hold your breath. However, I think that's
unlikely looking at the geography.
> (ii)Assuming its 'because that's the way the wires run' is there
> any hope for sensible money of getting them run another way?
Only if there is a cab within easy reach, and nearer than the current
one.
> (iii) Is there anything BT can do to e.g. up the transmitter power
> at their end? Assuming the downlink is the greatest attenuation as
> it uses the higher frequencies.
No.
> (iv) BT will be doing a site visit to assess the power next week.
> If they purse their lips and suck their teeth, is there any hope
> that a new router would work, and, if so, which one?
Yes. I'll look into some.
> (v) Is there any other cunning wheeze we might tray before going
> satellite?
Check the age/quality of your cabling on site. When I moved to Chineham
in 2006, phone was fine, ADSL was dead despite 3Mb estimates. The line
had a dry joint. Also, have BT check that the line is not a split pair -
A side on one pair, B side on another.
By using an AM radio detuned, it might be possible to drive along the
road and find a cab that has ADSL in spades, and ask if you can be
reconnected to that point. It'll cost real money.
Otherwise, find a friend in the local area who has ADSL, and set up a
wireless point to point. I have some successful ham-related designs that
use commercially available parts for under �50 each end. Compared to the
cost of a high quality router or a re-wire, that's cheap.
Finally, complain to OFCOM loud enough and BT might find a way of
connecting you. That's what happened in Dummer!
Email address works if you want some more help.
Al Bowlly
and blew....
>
>
NP, I think this amounts to an apology old chap. Be careful, this one is
a nonce.
The Natural Philosopher
> In article <hhi19g$4q1$1...@news.albasani.net>, t...@invalid.invalid (The
> Natural Philosopher) wrote:
>
> My earlier comments about projectiles and feet may have been unfair.
>
>> Several questions to ask for any ideas.
>>
>> (i) there is a much nearer ADSL exchange than the one we are
>> connected to. Why would BT use the further one?
>
> That's the way it was set up - they may do a "lift and shift" at some
> point in the future, but don't hold your breath. However, I think that's
> unlikely looking at the geography.
Why? If you have actually looked closely, there is a direct ROAD to
Sparham: There is no direct ROAD to Reepham, except VIA Sparham.
What I suspect may be the case, is a boundary issue. Sparham is on a
completely different dial code (Dereham) to Lyng and Reepham (Norwich).
It may well be the cables run into Lyng, and then back out to where we are.
If a lift and shift nets them 50+ new customers, it has to be worth it
surely?
>
>> (ii)Assuming its 'because that's the way the wires run' is there
>> any hope for sensible money of getting them run another way?
>
> Only if there is a cab within easy reach, and nearer than the current
> one.
>
>> (iii) Is there anything BT can do to e.g. up the transmitter power
>> at their end? Assuming the downlink is the greatest attenuation as
>> it uses the higher frequencies.
>
> No.
yeah, I discovered that. +20dbM is the spec. reduced on shorter links.
>
>> (iv) BT will be doing a site visit to assess the power next week.
>> If they purse their lips and suck their teeth, is there any hope
>> that a new router would work, and, if so, which one?
>
> Yes. I'll look into some.
>
>> (v) Is there any other cunning wheeze we might tray before going
>> satellite?
>
> Check the age/quality of your cabling on site. When I moved to Chineham
> in 2006, phone was fine, ADSL was dead despite 3Mb estimates. The line
> had a dry joint. Also, have BT check that the line is not a split pair -
> A side on one pair, B side on another.
>
Brand new install, so nothing awry on site.
I assume its bad cable upstream.
>
> By using an AM radio detuned, it might be possible to drive along the
> road and find a cab that has ADSL in spades, and ask if you can be
> reconnected to that point. It'll cost real money.
>
Neat trick. Are you saying they can put repeaters in cabinets? I noted
on a web search that Strowger make such, and cheap. Put one halfway
along a long line, and suddenly bandwidth is there.
Given that the land around is 100% owned by the landlord, there is also
the possibility of laying all manner of bits of wet string..if BT would
connect em.
> Otherwise, find a friend in the local area who has ADSL, and set up a
> wireless point to point. I have some successful ham-related designs that
> use commercially available parts for under £50 each end. Compared to the
> cost of a high quality router or a re-wire, that's cheap.
>
No friends there at all. Its a new install for a business.
I spose we could cosy up to the vicar at Sparham church, but we are all
atheists..
> Finally, complain to OFCOM loud enough and BT might find a way of
> connecting you. That's what happened in Dummer!
>
Mmm. That is possible.
Paul Cummins
Natural Philosopher) wrote:
> > Check the age/quality of your cabling on site. When I moved to
> Chineham
> > in 2006, phone was fine, ADSL was dead despite 3Mb estimates. The
> > line
> > had a dry joint. Also, have BT check that the line is not a split
> > pair -
> > A side on one pair, B side on another.
> >
>
> Brand new install, so nothing awry on site.
>
> I assume its bad cable upstream.
Did you tell BT on install that this was specifically for ADSL use? If so,
you have a nice bug hammer to hit them over the corporate head with.