Rural broadband speeds

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Peter Scott

unread,
Jan 8, 2009, 4:59:10 AM1/8/09
to
This is not OT. Comms is a DIY matter when, like me, you are trying to
improve lamentable speed by filters, wiring etc. The government has
proposed three levels of improvement to the broadband system. Only one
level would help in rural areas. Up to now I have been resigned to poor
speeds. Now that urban speeds are set to rocket, services will change to
use them and soon rural users will be right out in the cold. Wouldn't be
so bad if I paid a lot less!

I have written to Ofcom and attach the text below. Is anyone else
interested in offering an opinion to Ofcom?

Text of letter...

"I live in the country and have very poor broadband speed, at around 750
kbit/s. Each time I do a speed test I see what speed people get who live
in the towns and cities. I have done all of the recommended things to
improve it, but it is clear that it is simply distance from the exchange
over copper cables that is the problem.

"Doing a speed test today set me thinking about what should be done. The
speed I get is just about acceptable for the uses to which I put the
Internet. I won't be able to use any of the new services, but I am
resigned to that. However what really annoys me is that I pay exactly
the same as people who get 4 Mbit/s or better.

"The government talks about action to improve speeds. I note that of the
three proposals the one that would improve rural speeds is the last
option and, of course, costs the most. The hardened cynic in me knows
that this is put in as a sop, to make it appear that it is being
considered. You and I know there is no intention of this being done.

"So what is to be done? The only way that things change in the business
world is for there to be a threat to income. At the moment there is no
commercial pressure to spend and improve. In fact ISPs and BT benefit
from the situation because their cables have to carry less data but they
get the same money. Creative solutions are needed and money is the
driver of these things.

"I think that anyone who gets regularly poor speeds should get a refund
of subscription in the same way that railway companies have to
compensate lateness. Even better, they should get a much lower rate to
start to start with. You really do have to do something and this is one
simple and effective tactic. If it meant that ISPs refused to accept
rural connections then the situation would be out in the open!"

Peter Scott

TMC

unread,
Jan 8, 2009, 5:10:14 AM1/8/09
to

"Peter Scott" <pe...@peter-scott.org.uk> wrote in message
news:uPGdnU4hooPwU_jU...@brightview.com...

This is one of the consequences of choosing to live in a rural area

I suppose that you would also want the same level of mobile phone coverage,
bus services, and shopping facilities, as urban areas do

Would you give up the lack of congestion, lower crime rates, lower car
insurance premiums, cleaner air and the other benefits of a rural
environment to get your higher broadband speed

You pays your money and you takes your choice

And yes it is off topic and should have been posted as such

Tony


TheOldFellow

unread,
Jan 8, 2009, 5:29:34 AM1/8/09
to
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 10:10:14 -0000
"TMC" <an...@anon.co.uk> wrote:

>
> "Peter Scott" <pe...@peter-scott.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:uPGdnU4hooPwU_jU...@brightview.com...

<snip>


> > "I think that anyone who gets regularly poor speeds should get a refund of
> > subscription in the same way that railway companies have to compensate
> > lateness. Even better, they should get a much lower rate to start to start
> > with. You really do have to do something and this is one simple and
> > effective tactic. If it meant that ISPs refused to accept rural
> > connections then the situation would be out in the open!"
> >
> > Peter Scott
>
> This is one of the consequences of choosing to live in a rural area
>
> I suppose that you would also want the same level of mobile phone coverage,
> bus services, and shopping facilities, as urban areas do
>
> Would you give up the lack of congestion, lower crime rates, lower car
> insurance premiums, cleaner air and the other benefits of a rural
> environment to get your higher broadband speed
>
> You pays your money and you takes your choice
>
> And yes it is off topic and should have been posted as such
>
> Tony
>
>

The point is that even if we wished to pay more to get the same service
as the poor townies, granting that the costs are higher, we can't 'cos
the infrastructure can't support it.

As for Mobile Phones, I for one, am really pleased that they don't work
here. My brother sends me texts, and once a fortnight or so, I get
into a region when I can receive them.

As it happens, I'm in rural Cumbria, and get 4500kps on my broadband
even though I'm 6 Km from the exchange. So I'm happy, but I
sympathise with Peter as until late last year my max was 1700kps -
Buttocks Telecom then improved the lines for unrelated reasons.

And it's not Off Topic, as I do my own telecoms wiring - which is a
major contributor to my fantastic broadband speed!

R.

Peter Scott

unread,
Jan 8, 2009, 5:41:34 AM1/8/09
to

> This is one of the consequences of choosing to live in a rural area

Doesn't have to be


>
> I suppose that you would also want the same level of mobile phone coverage,
> bus services, and shopping facilities, as urban areas do

Certainly not. But I would not expect to be riding in a slow open cart
and still pay the same fare as on a fast heated bus!


>
> Would you give up the lack of congestion, lower crime rates, lower car
> insurance premiums, cleaner air and the other benefits of a rural
> environment to get your higher broadband speed

I'm not complaining about the benefits of living the country, expensive
though it is. My point is that I pay the same for a poor service, that
it is technically possible to provide a higher speed service to rural
areas, but that there is no commercial pressure to do so.

The threads we have had about improving broadband speeds in the home by
filtering and rewiring mean that this is a problem for DIYers. I was
pointing out that there are perhaps other things that we can do as well.

Peter Scott

meow...@care2.com

unread,
Jan 8, 2009, 5:50:54 AM1/8/09
to
Peter Scott wrote:


Have you considered using a server to use your and one or more
neighbour's broadband lines so you both get twice the speed most of
the time?
Do you use a compression service that sends all files compressed, this
can over double the average speed?
Do you use advert blocking on your browser?
Do you use DNS caching?


Its simply a question of economics. You are unfortunately more
expensive to provide for, so you get less per given price. If you want
to invest the time and money in upping it, you can. You can do this by
implementing the few technical options open to you. Perhaps you
already have.

Look at your suggestion from the point of view of basic market
economics: if your ISP had to pay out £25 every 4th month (for failure
to meet targets) they would simply up the price of the service by
£25/4 per month plus the cost of administering such a scheme. And
anywhere they were not confident of succeeding most of the time they
would simply withdraw the service altogether, and you'd be back to
56k.

Writing whining 'its not fair' letters asking others to solve your
problems has little chance of working. Solving your life problems
yourself does. Life is like that.

I think national investment in rural broadband provision would be a
great thing, but you and I thinking that doesnt make any difference,
and saying it makes even less. The think tanks that decide these
things arent paid to spend months sitting around reading letters.


NT

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
Jan 8, 2009, 5:52:15 AM1/8/09
to
Peter Scott wrote:
> This is not OT. Comms is a DIY matter when, like me, you are trying to
> improve lamentable speed by filters, wiring etc. The government has
> proposed three levels of improvement to the broadband system. Only one
> level would help in rural areas. Up to now I have been resigned to poor
> speeds. Now that urban speeds are set to rocket, services will change to
> use them and soon rural users will be right out in the cold. Wouldn't be
> so bad if I paid a lot less!
>
> I have written to Ofcom and attach the text below. Is anyone else
> interested in offering an opinion to Ofcom?
>
> Text of letter...
>
> "I live in the country and have very poor broadband speed, at around 750
> kbit/s. Each time I do a speed test I see what speed people get who live
> in the towns and cities. I have done all of the recommended things to
> improve it, but it is clear that it is simply distance from the exchange
> over copper cables that is the problem.
>
> "Doing a speed test today set me thinking about what should be done. The
> speed I get is just about acceptable for the uses to which I put the
> Internet. I won't be able to use any of the new services, but I am
> resigned to that. However what really annoys me is that I pay exactly
> the same as people who get 4 Mbit/s or better.
>

The kit you are using costs the same..

and multiple tariffs for speed don't really make sense, as what tends to
count for the ISP is the total amount you download, not how fast you get it.


> "The government talks about action to improve speeds. I note that of the
> three proposals the one that would improve rural speeds is the last
> option and, of course, costs the most. The hardened cynic in me knows
> that this is put in as a sop, to make it appear that it is being
> considered. You and I know there is no intention of this being done.
>
> "So what is to be done? The only way that things change in the business
> world is for there to be a threat to income. At the moment there is no
> commercial pressure to spend and improve. In fact ISPs and BT benefit
> from the situation because their cables have to carry less data but they
> get the same money. Creative solutions are needed and money is the
> driver of these things.
>
> "I think that anyone who gets regularly poor speeds should get a refund
> of subscription in the same way that railway companies have to
> compensate lateness. Even better, they should get a much lower rate to
> start to start with. You really do have to do something and this is one
> simple and effective tactic. If it meant that ISPs refused to accept
> rural connections then the situation would be out in the open!"
>
> Peter Scott

Mate, you are lucky to get even that at the sorts of prices you are
talking about. When I started installing internet links, there was only
256kbps of bandwidth into the entire country..

What you need is for BT to out in a whole new exchange nearer to you, or
run fibre or a microwave link to you. They will do that, if you pay. A
lot. If not, put up and shut up, or move.


Why not also complain that you have to drive ten miles to a supermarket?

Message has been deleted

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
Jan 8, 2009, 6:00:25 AM1/8/09
to

There are not.

It's entirely - in the limit - down to the length of wire to the exchange.


make it shorter, make it fibre, or replace with microwave link, and you
can get more speed.


All of those cost more money than you are willing to pay.

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
Jan 8, 2009, 6:03:05 AM1/8/09
to

Very complicated.

> Do you use a compression service that sends all files compressed, this
> can over double the average speed?

No one sends uncompressed data over the internet anyway. Even the
meanest of web pages probably is compressed.


> Do you use advert blocking on your browser?

Irrelevant to real download speeds.

> Do you use DNS caching?
>

Irrelevant to download speeds.

>
> Its simply a question of economics. You are unfortunately more
> expensive to provide for, so you get less per given price. If you want
> to invest the time and money in upping it, you can. You can do this by
> implementing the few technical options open to you. Perhaps you
> already have.
>
> Look at your suggestion from the point of view of basic market
> economics: if your ISP had to pay out £25 every 4th month (for failure
> to meet targets) they would simply up the price of the service by
> £25/4 per month plus the cost of administering such a scheme. And
> anywhere they were not confident of succeeding most of the time they
> would simply withdraw the service altogether, and you'd be back to
> 56k.
>
> Writing whining 'its not fair' letters asking others to solve your
> problems has little chance of working. Solving your life problems
> yourself does. Life is like that.
>
> I think national investment in rural broadband provision would be a
> great thing, but you and I thinking that doesnt make any difference,
> and saying it makes even less. The think tanks that decide these
> things arent paid to spend months sitting around reading letters.
>

And the taxpayers would get pretty pissed if the 0.1% who cant get 1Mbps
are paid for out of public money.

>
> NT

Bob Mannix

unread,
Jan 8, 2009, 6:18:42 AM1/8/09
to
"The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:123141193...@proxy02.news.clara.net...

If the OP wishes to get back on topic, he needs to get together with the
rest of his community to investigate the price of a cable link for the whole
community, sharing the installation cost. As you say, writing letters won't
make a difference, sharing the cost round 50-100 people might. At the end of
the day it's the same as complaining you aren't on mains gas or sewerage.
The community has to pay for the infrastructure in all cases at the end of
the day.


--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)


Bruce

unread,
Jan 8, 2009, 6:26:36 AM1/8/09
to
The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> wrote:
>
>What you need is for BT to out in a whole new exchange nearer to you, or
>run fibre or a microwave link to you. They will do that, if you pay. A
>lot. If not, put up and shut up, or move.
>
>Why not also complain that you have to drive ten miles to a supermarket?


Or that he has no mains drainage, and needs a septic tank instead.

It seems ridiculous to choose to live in the country "to get away from
it all", then complain bitterly when you find that there is one thing
you would have preferred not to get away from.

Rural living is about the whole package, which comes with many benefits
but some fundamental disbenefits. If you can't live with one or more of
the disbenefits, don't live in the country. Simple as that.

The OP is getting broadband speeds that actually seem very good for a
remote location. I hope OFCOM will tell him politely to stick his
"complaint" where the sun don't shine.

In the meantime, here's a practical alternative:
http://www.avcbroadband.com/

Bruce

unread,
Jan 8, 2009, 6:27:33 AM1/8/09
to
meow...@care2.com wrote:
>
>Writing whining 'its not fair' letters asking others to solve your
>problems has little chance of working. Solving your life problems
>yourself does. Life is like that.


Well said.

Bob Mannix

unread,
Jan 8, 2009, 6:30:43 AM1/8/09
to
"Bruce" <n...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:n1obm456t4q15oo4h...@4ax.com...

I agree with all your points but the last "practical"? - the cost would make
clubbing together to get a fibre laid into the village an alternative. Doing
that together might even be a bit on topic!

TMC

unread,
Jan 8, 2009, 6:39:14 AM1/8/09
to

"Peter Scott" <pe...@peter-scott.org.uk> wrote in message
news:PZmdnbBE1KzARfjU...@brightview.com...

I only live 1/2 a mile from the post office sorting office yet I have to pay
as much as you to get a letter delivered

The white van man who delivers mail order stuff here does dozens of drops in
a few square miles for very little time and fuel cost yet I have to pay as
much as you for delivery

I do not think that it is fair that I should be subsidising your broadband
as well

Think yourself lucky that you have copper wiring rather than the oxidising
aluminium stuff we have round here

And just because I build my own wardrobes does not make it on topic to
comment here on the cost of the clothes in them

If you want a better broadband try this

http://www.broadbandwherever.net/?gcid=S18514x001&keyword=Rural%20Broadband

Tony


robgraham

unread,
Jan 8, 2009, 6:53:09 AM1/8/09
to

Having read through this thread, I have been surprised at the
aggression of the responders. This NG is normally extremely tactful
in its comments to OP's but in this case I found many of the answers
near enough offensive.

My assumption is that this is a demonstration of the disconnect that
is occurring in UK society between those living in urban and rural
environments, with the urbanites all too often classifying anyone
living outside the towns and cities as winging scroungers.

I would suggest that all of you who have contributed to this thread
should do as I have done and re-read all the responses and you will
see the attitude that is coming across.

All I can say is shame on you all.

Rob

Tim S

unread,
Jan 8, 2009, 6:55:52 AM1/8/09
to
The Natural Philosopher coughed up some electrons that declared:

>> Have you considered using a server to use your and one or more
>> neighbour's broadband lines so you both get twice the speed most of
>> the time?
>
> Very complicated.

Not necessarily. It's called link aggregation or bonding and if you use an
ISP that supports it, and (for an easy life, but you could DIY it[1]) buy
their recommended router widget that does link aggregation/bonding then in
principle you could do this:

Fit master sockets with ADSL filters to both lines.

Bring both ADSL outputs into one house, and into the modem-router.

Send a bit of CAT5 back into neighbour's house.

If your usage times tend to randomly be different, then you'll tend to see
double normal speeds most of the time.

Now, both neighbours are already paying for the lines, so no extra cost
there.

http://www.aaisp.co.uk/kb-broadband-bonding.html

If the OP wanted to start a cooperative, the in principle, he could get
perhaps 3 or 4 neighbours together to share a common service, depending on
wire lengths between the houses.

Never tried it with ADSL, but I've done multiple gigabit link bonding on
linux servers and it works well.

Cheers

Tim

[1] If the ISP does it using 802.3ad

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_aggregation

Then a little cheap Linksys WRT54S running OpenWRT could handle the customer
side quite nicely.

Bruce

unread,
Jan 8, 2009, 7:09:34 AM1/8/09
to
"Bob Mannix" <b1o...@mannix.org.uk> wrote:
>I agree with all your points but the last "practical"? - the cost would make
>clubbing together to get a fibre laid into the village an alternative. Doing
>that together might even be a bit on topic!


It's practical because it works, it solves the problem and, in the
context of the overall cost of a household, it is not unaffordable.

Not cheap, I grant you, but the backup service at Ł39 per month hardly
costs a fortune. Compared to the overall cost of owning/renting/running
a household, it is small beer.


Bruce

unread,
Jan 8, 2009, 7:12:55 AM1/8/09
to
robgraham <robkg...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>I would suggest that all of you who have contributed to this thread
>should do as I have done and re-read all the responses and you will
>see the attitude that is coming across.


I think the OP's attitude is utterly selfish and self-indulgent. It has
nothing to do with urban/rural jealousy; city dwellers who moaned about
some negative aspect of city life in the same selfish and self-indulgent
manner would also get short shrift.

I am only surprised that he didn't get a far rougher ride.

Bob Mannix

unread,
Jan 8, 2009, 7:16:49 AM1/8/09
to
"Bruce" <n...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:13rbm4hj6q4eo119d...@4ax.com...

> "Bob Mannix" <b1o...@mannix.org.uk> wrote:
>>I agree with all your points but the last "practical"? - the cost would
>>make
>>clubbing together to get a fibre laid into the village an alternative.
>>Doing
>>that together might even be a bit on topic!
>
>
> It's practical because it works, it solves the problem and, in the
> context of the overall cost of a household, it is not unaffordable.
>
> Not cheap, I grant you, but the backup service at £39 per month hardly

> costs a fortune. Compared to the overall cost of owning/renting/running
> a household, it is small beer.

Backup service isn't "broadband". The £69/month "broadband" gives you dial
up speeds. For 2Mb it costs £369 per month plus £999 for the equipment plus
£275 installation - hardly small beer!

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
Jan 8, 2009, 7:46:51 AM1/8/09
to
Look I live in a rural location, and out here we dont expect to be
pandered, because there ain't no one to pander us. We cut our own trees
down when they fall across the road. We hanlde the inch of ice on the
roads outside that aren'; gritted, We moan about the fact that no matter
how little we use it, a 4WD which is essential, is taxed out of all sense.

We don't moan about the fact that broadband came late, and isn't fast.
Nor te fact that postal deliveries are late, and irregular.
Nor the fact that the nearest supermarket is ten miles away.

Thats why we chose to LIVE here.

Broadband is a commercial entity: Not a government supplied basic human
right.

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

Martin Bonner

unread,
Jan 8, 2009, 8:08:30 AM1/8/09
to
On Jan 8, 11:53 am, robgraham <robkgra...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Having read through this thread, I have been surprised at the
> aggression of the responders. This NG is normally extremely tactful
> in its comments to OP's but in this case I found many of the answers
> near enough offensive.
>
> My assumption is that this is a demonstration of the disconnect that
> is occurring in UK society between those living in urban and rural
> environments, with the urbanites all too often classifying anyone
> living outside the towns and cities as winging scroungers.

I don't think so.

For the last two years I have been an urbanite, but for ten years
before that, I lived in a mud hut in rural Suffolk so I understand
both sides of the trade-off.

The aggression is partly because many people (townies and country-
folk) disagree with the OP, and partly because the post is OT and he
won't admit it. (How to insulate the house is on-topic, campaigning
for the gas company to reduce the price of gas is OT.)

TMC

unread,
Jan 8, 2009, 8:14:32 AM1/8/09
to

"robgraham" <robkg...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:126feeb2-0bd6-48c7...@y1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...

Rob

I have done as you suggest

I stand by all that I have said

It is not a 'city v country' thing its an 'I should be entitled to it
regardless of the cost and my personal choices because others elsewhere have
it' thing

I find it difficult to have any sympathy for the OP who does not even have
the grace in the original post to acknowledge that he is paying no more for
the far more expensive to install and maintain telephone line/exchange that
he complains about than urban users do for theirs

Country dwellers make a reasoned choice to move to or remain in the country,
they know what limitations exist

Is not the principle of the following scenario much the same?

People who live in urban terraced houses should be provided with adequate
parking for several cars as presumably people in the country have this
facility. They should all write to their local council to force this to
happen as they pay their council tax and as much road tax as country
dwellers. Its only a commercial decision after all to knock down some of the
houses to provide the extra parking

Tony

Adrian C

unread,
Jan 8, 2009, 8:30:27 AM1/8/09
to
TMC wrote:
>
> http://www.broadbandwherever.net/?gcid=S18514x001&keyword=Rural%20Broadband
>
> Tony
>

From their description of the Pro-Range service.

"Our Pro-Range is one of the newest Satellite Broadband Products to be
introduced into the UK market, and is fully RoHS Compliant( see FAQ's ).
Using DVB-S standards the Pro-range offers both performance and
reliability to those who can't get broadband via traditional landlines."

Very engaging to start mentioning RoHS in the first sentence!.

"Hell, it's RoHS! - I _must_ get this service!"

;-)

--
Adrian C

meow...@care2.com

unread,
Jan 8, 2009, 9:18:28 AM1/8/09
to

Even a humble win98 box supports this. Just need a second nic
and the cd or 98 files to install the necessary non-default bits.


> > Do you use a compression service that sends all files compressed, this
> > can over double the average speed?
>
> No one sends uncompressed data over the internet anyway. Even the
> meanest of web pages probably is compressed.

Yes, but
a) further compression is often possible
b) lossy compression is possible for images, this can dramatically
speed up webpage loading


> > Do you use advert blocking on your browser?
>
> Irrelevant to real download speeds.

to webpage dl speeds its very relevant. To compressed file dls its not
- but it all makes for higher mean speed.


> > Do you use DNS caching?
> >
> Irrelevant to download speeds.

No pause while it looks up dns info, it removes one instance of
latency


> > I think national investment in rural broadband provision would be a
> > great thing, but you and I thinking that doesnt make any difference,
> > and saying it makes even less. The think tanks that decide these
> > things arent paid to spend months sitting around reading letters.
> >
>
> And the taxpayers would get pretty pissed if the 0.1% who cant get 1Mbps
> are paid for out of public money.

Its infrastructure that makes businesses work. Taxpayers dont mind
lots of other infrastructure with the same goal - and far more
expensive infrastructure at that. Although its not libertarian, it may
well add up financially for the public purse and country as a whole.


NT

Andy Burns

unread,
Jan 8, 2009, 9:23:14 AM1/8/09
to
meow...@care2.com wrote:

> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> meow...@care2.com wrote:
>>
>>> Have you considered using a server to use your and one or more
>>> neighbour's broadband lines so you both get twice the speed most of
>>> the time?
>>
>> Very complicated.
>
> Even a humble win98 box supports this. Just need a second nic
> and the cd or 98 files to install the necessary non-default bits.

Not to do proper load balancing of multiple ADSL lines it doesn't, no
version of Windows does, if you channel bond multiple lines from the
same ISP to a single router it's easier, but lines from different ISPs
is tricky even with Linux, and any one download will tend to use a
single line.


meow...@care2.com

unread,
Jan 8, 2009, 9:33:01 AM1/8/09
to

Businesses have now realised that getting real with potential
customers costs money, and its no longer acceptable. 750k isnt bad at
all for a rural location. If he were getting 56k I'd be more
sympathetic.

Another thing that can be done is to have the local server cache as
much as possible with a big disc, then revisits to pages load real
fast, plus all the reused elements of new pages on the same site.
Browsers already do this of course, but only with limited cache, and
only one a per one user basis.


> In the meantime, here's a practical alternative:
> http://www.avcbroadband.com/

Looks usable for business use. Perhaps slow rural speeds is a blessing
in that it will encourage many businesses to create less bloated
sites. Whatever we have, the bloat will simply expand to fill the
space and more.


NT

dennis@home

unread,
Jan 8, 2009, 9:36:58 AM1/8/09
to

"Peter Scott" <pe...@peter-scott.org.uk> wrote in message

news:uPGdnU4hooPwU_jU...@brightview.com...


> This is not OT. Comms is a DIY matter when, like me, you are trying to
> improve lamentable speed by filters, wiring etc. The government has
> proposed three levels of improvement to the broadband system. Only one
> level would help in rural areas. Up to now I have been resigned to poor
> speeds. Now that urban speeds are set to rocket, services will change to
> use them and soon rural users will be right out in the cold. Wouldn't be
> so bad if I paid a lot less!

It costs more to give you any sort of communications..
think yourself lucky we are subsidising you.
You wouldn't want to pay what it costs.

>
> I have written to Ofcom and attach the text below. Is anyone else
> interested in offering an opinion to Ofcom?
>
> Text of letter...
>
> "I live in the country and have very poor broadband speed, at around 750
> kbit/s. Each time I do a speed test I see what speed people get who live
> in the towns and cities. I have done all of the recommended things to
> improve it, but it is clear that it is simply distance from the exchange
> over copper cables that is the problem.

You can buy a fibre connection or a satellite connection.
There is nothing stopping you and some other locals clubbing together to get
a faster link to share.

>
> "Doing a speed test today set me thinking about what should be done. The
> speed I get is just about acceptable for the uses to which I put the
> Internet. I won't be able to use any of the new services, but I am
> resigned to that. However what really annoys me is that I pay exactly the
> same as people who get 4 Mbit/s or better.

Even though it costs a lot more to give you your connection.
I agree with you you shouldn't get it at the same cost.
I think double or more would be about right.

>
> "The government talks about action to improve speeds. I note that of the
> three proposals the one that would improve rural speeds is the last option
> and, of course, costs the most. The hardened cynic in me knows that this
> is put in as a sop, to make it appear that it is being considered. You and
> I know there is no intention of this being done.
>
> "So what is to be done? The only way that things change in the business
> world is for there to be a threat to income. At the moment there is no
> commercial pressure to spend and improve. In fact ISPs and BT benefit from
> the situation because their cables have to carry less data but they get
> the same money. Creative solutions are needed and money is the driver of
> these things.

Longer cables cost more to maintain, you don't pay any extra.

>
> "I think that anyone who gets regularly poor speeds should get a refund of
> subscription in the same way that railway companies have to compensate
> lateness. Even better, they should get a much lower rate to start to start
> with. You really do have to do something and this is one simple and
> effective tactic. If it meant that ISPs refused to accept rural
> connections then the situation would be out in the open!"

So you want rural dwellers not to have broadband just because you get less
for your money?

>
> Peter Scott

dennis@home

unread,
Jan 8, 2009, 9:42:04 AM1/8/09
to

"Peter Scott" <pe...@peter-scott.org.uk> wrote in message

news:PZmdnbBE1KzARfjU...@brightview.com...


> I'm not complaining about the benefits of living the country, expensive
> though it is. My point is that I pay the same for a poor service, that it
> is technically possible to provide a higher speed service to rural areas,

> but that there is no commercial pressure to do so.

If people were prepared to pay for a better service someone would provide
it.
However I doubt if you are prepared to pay.
If you were you would already have a faster service.

> The threads we have had about improving broadband speeds in the home by
> filtering and rewiring mean that this is a problem for DIYers. I was
> pointing out that there are perhaps other things that we can do as well.

DIY fibre laying down rural roads?

meow...@care2.com

unread,
Jan 8, 2009, 9:52:38 AM1/8/09
to
robgraham wrote:
> On 8 Jan, 09:59, Peter Scott <pe...@peter-scott.org.uk> wrote:

> > I have written to Ofcom and attach the text below. Is anyone else
> > interested in offering an opinion to Ofcom?
> >
> > Text of letter...
> >
> > "I live in the country and have very poor broadband speed, at around 750
> > kbit/s. Each time I do a speed test I see what speed people get who live

snipped


> Having read through this thread, I have been surprised at the
> aggression of the responders. This NG is normally extremely tactful
> in its comments to OP's but in this case I found many of the answers
> near enough offensive.

... and some found the op offensive. Personally I just think its an
attitude that pervades our society today and is absolutely the core of
so many problems people face today. And there is only one solution, to
grow up and act to solve one's own problems. If/when people accept
this, they do so much better in life.


> My assumption is that this is a demonstration of the disconnect that
> is occurring in UK society between those living in urban and rural
> environments, with the urbanites all too often classifying anyone
> living outside the towns and cities as winging scroungers.

I'm glad you acknowledge it is just an assumption. FWIW it has nothing
whatever to do with where I'm coming from.


> I would suggest that all of you who have contributed to this thread
> should do as I have done and re-read all the responses and you will
> see the attitude that is coming across.
>
> All I can say is shame on you all.
>
> Rob

Shame on society for fostering this kind of foolishness, and many
people for never getting real and sharing life's solutions with
people. This stuff changes lives. Many people suffer so many problems
from being stuck in the foolish attitude presented. And I mean serious
problems. I shan't apologise for speaking of the real solution, I only
wish people did so more. We still have freedom of speech, and the op
is free to add me to the killfile if they wish.

Part of the solution,


NT

pete

unread,
Jan 8, 2009, 10:17:16 AM1/8/09
to
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 10:41:34 +0000, Peter Scott wrote:
>
>> This is one of the consequences of choosing to live in a rural area
>
> Doesn't have to be
>>
>> I suppose that you would also want the same level of mobile phone coverage,
>> bus services, and shopping facilities, as urban areas do
>
> Certainly not. But I would not expect to be riding in a slow open cart
> and still pay the same fare as on a fast heated bus!
>>
>> Would you give up the lack of congestion, lower crime rates, lower car
>> insurance premiums, cleaner air and the other benefits of a rural
>> environment to get your higher broadband speed
>
> I'm not complaining about the benefits of living the country, expensive
> though it is. My point is that I pay the same for a poor service, that
> it is technically possible to provide a higher speed service to rural
> areas, but that there is no commercial pressure to do so.

The ISPs and infrastructure providers are commercial companies, with a certain,
limited amount of money available for hardware and cabling.
You seem to be suggesting that they spend it on upgrades in your sparsely
populated region - which would benefit a small number of people, rather than
spending it in a highly populated area, where it would benefit a larger number.

I would suspect that what you pay for your speeds are still considerably less
than what *everyone* paid for that speed when it was considered cutting-edge.

I would like to be able to view your situation sympathetically, but I can't
think of a single factor that gives me cause to think you're being hard done by.

Andrew Mawson

unread,
Jan 8, 2009, 10:21:52 AM1/8/09
to

"Peter Scott" <pe...@peter-scott.org.uk> wrote in message
news:uPGdnU4hooPwU_jU...@brightview.com...
> This is not OT. Comms is a DIY matter when, like me, you are trying
to
> improve lamentable speed by filters, wiring etc. The government has
> proposed three levels of improvement to the broadband system. Only
one
> level would help in rural areas. Up to now I have been resigned to
poor
> speeds. Now that urban speeds are set to rocket, services will
change to
> use them and soon rural users will be right out in the cold.
Wouldn't be
> so bad if I paid a lot less!
>
> I have written to Ofcom and attach the text below. Is anyone else
> interested in offering an opinion to Ofcom?
>
> Text of letter...
>
> "I live in the country and have very poor broadband speed, at around
750
> kbit/s. Each time I do a speed test I see what speed people get who
live
> in the towns and cities. I have done all of the recommended things
to
> improve it, but it is clear that it is simply distance from the
exchange
> over copper cables that is the problem.
>
> "Doing a speed test today set me thinking about what should be done.
The
> speed I get is just about acceptable for the uses to which I put the
> Internet. I won't be able to use any of the new services, but I am
> resigned to that. However what really annoys me is that I pay
exactly
> the same as people who get 4 Mbit/s or better.
>
> "The government talks about action to improve speeds. I note that of
the
> three proposals the one that would improve rural speeds is the last
> option and, of course, costs the most. The hardened cynic in me
knows
> that this is put in as a sop, to make it appear that it is being
> considered. You and I know there is no intention of this being done.
>
> "So what is to be done? The only way that things change in the
business
> world is for there to be a threat to income. At the moment there is
no

> commercial pressure to spend and improve. In fact ISPs and BT
benefit
> from the situation because their cables have to carry less data but
they
> get the same money. Creative solutions are needed and money is the
> driver of these things.
>
> "I think that anyone who gets regularly poor speeds should get a
refund
> of subscription in the same way that railway companies have to
> compensate lateness. Even better, they should get a much lower rate
to
> start to start with. You really do have to do something and this is
one
> simple and effective tactic. If it meant that ISPs refused to accept
> rural connections then the situation would be out in the open!"
>
> Peter Scott

Well I moved from the fringes of London, where I got about 2Mb/s to
here where we have no gas and no mains sewage, but my broadband is now
8Mb/s !!!!!!!

AWEM

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
Jan 8, 2009, 10:24:49 AM1/8/09
to
Tim S wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher coughed up some electrons that declared:
>
>>> Have you considered using a server to use your and one or more
>>> neighbour's broadband lines so you both get twice the speed most of
>>> the time?
>> Very complicated.
>
> Not necessarily. It's called link aggregation or bonding and if you use an
> ISP that supports it, and (for an easy life, but you could DIY it[1]) buy
> their recommended router widget that does link aggregation/bonding then in
> principle you could do this:
>
> Fit master sockets with ADSL filters to both lines.
>
> Bring both ADSL outputs into one house, and into the modem-router.
>

That the complicated bit.
Easier to order two phone lines and be done with it.

But even so its only double the speed.

Man at B&Q

unread,
Jan 8, 2009, 10:25:42 AM1/8/09
to
On Jan 8, 9:59 am, Peter Scott <pe...@peter-scott.org.uk> wrote:
> "I live in the country and have very poor broadband speed, at around 750
> kbit/s.

I don't consider my location particularly rural and i only get 1Mbit/
s. it's more than enough for any normal use.

MBQ

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
Jan 8, 2009, 10:30:47 AM1/8/09
to

And waht will that achieve? you need a second phone line.

>
>>> Do you use a compression service that sends all files compressed, this
>>> can over double the average speed?
>> No one sends uncompressed data over the internet anyway. Even the
>> meanest of web pages probably is compressed.
>
> Yes, but
> a) further compression is often possible
> b) lossy compression is possible for images, this can dramatically
> speed up webpage loading
>
>

Sorry mate, but we tried this way back in the 90's on international
links. we got about 10% improvement, at the expense of a doubling in
latency.

About the only ting that isn't compressed to the hilt these days is
usenet and text emails.


>>> Do you use advert blocking on your browser?
>> Irrelevant to real download speeds.
>
> to webpage dl speeds its very relevant. To compressed file dls its not
> - but it all makes for higher mean speed.
>
>
>>> Do you use DNS caching?
>>>
>> Irrelevant to download speeds.
>
> No pause while it looks up dns info, it removes one instance of
> latency
>

DNS lookup are trivial in the context of even a 9.6 kbps link.

>
>>> I think national investment in rural broadband provision would be a
>>> great thing, but you and I thinking that doesnt make any difference,
>>> and saying it makes even less. The think tanks that decide these
>>> things arent paid to spend months sitting around reading letters.
>>>
>> And the taxpayers would get pretty pissed if the 0.1% who cant get 1Mbps
>> are paid for out of public money.
>
> Its infrastructure that makes businesses work. Taxpayers dont mind
> lots of other infrastructure with the same goal - and far more
> expensive infrastructure at that. Although its not libertarian, it may
> well add up financially for the public purse and country as a whole.
>
>

Get real. This is infrastructure for one person,. or at beast 20-30
people in his location.


> NT

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
Jan 8, 2009, 10:34:00 AM1/8/09
to

You need to run BGP on the router, and unless you are technically
competent no ISP will let you. Well you can run it, but they wont
propagate it. or listen to it.

and any one download will tend to use a
> single line.
>

Not if you do the routing properly.

With equal weighting and a choice of two routes, most routers will round
robin on a packet by packet basis.

>

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
Jan 8, 2009, 10:48:45 AM1/8/09
to
meow...@care2.com wrote:
> Bruce wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> wrote:
>
>>> What you need is for BT to out in a whole new exchange nearer to you, or
>>> run fibre or a microwave link to you. They will do that, if you pay. A
>>> lot. If not, put up and shut up, or move.
>>>
>>> Why not also complain that you have to drive ten miles to a supermarket?
>>
>> Or that he has no mains drainage, and needs a septic tank instead.
>>
>> It seems ridiculous to choose to live in the country "to get away from
>> it all", then complain bitterly when you find that there is one thing
>> you would have preferred not to get away from.
>>
>> Rural living is about the whole package, which comes with many benefits
>> but some fundamental disbenefits. If you can't live with one or more of
>> the disbenefits, don't live in the country. Simple as that.
>>
>> The OP is getting broadband speeds that actually seem very good for a
>> remote location. I hope OFCOM will tell him politely to stick his
>> "complaint" where the sun don't shine.
>
> Businesses have now realised that getting real with potential
> customers costs money, and its no longer acceptable. 750k isnt bad at
> all for a rural location. If he were getting 56k I'd be more
> sympathetic.
>

Its brilliant. I only changed from 512k last year. That was in fact more
than adequate for most of what I wanted.

> Another thing that can be done is to have the local server cache as
> much as possible with a big disc, then revisits to pages load real
> fast, plus all the reused elements of new pages on the same site.
> Browsers already do this of course, but only with limited cache, and
> only one a per one user basis.
>
>
>> In the meantime, here's a practical alternative:
>> http://www.avcbroadband.com/
>
> Looks usable for business use. Perhaps slow rural speeds is a blessing
> in that it will encourage many businesses to create less bloated
> sites. Whatever we have, the bloat will simply expand to fill the
> space and more.
>

Well I am designing a web site that has to work on the need of s
broadband line: so its only able to deliver at best about 700kbps upload
to the net.

So I compressed it, and shrunk a 60k page to 16k..hahah.


>
> NT

Peter Scott

unread,
Jan 8, 2009, 11:24:13 AM1/8/09
to
Now this really is getting off-topic but I want to answer some of the
points raised. The county where I live subsidises cities. I am not
making that up, it is a fact. I pay the same taxes as anyone else but
the amount of tax-payers money spent per head in the cities is much
higher than in the country. That's why, though I pay very similar
council tax rates, I get much poorer services like roads, policing and
education spending. Central government support is much lower.

Lets take a parallel example - television reception. It is thought
proper that the whole country should get a television signal. Some areas
like hilly and coastal regions couldn't do so without local relays
serving a small number of people. Do we complain about the extra cost?
Does the relay user pay a higher licence fee? No, we accept the premise
that it is an essential service. Do we object that electricity users in
the country have to be provided with long lines at extra cost? No of
course not.

Happily I ignore the ad hominem attacks. If you can't win the argument,
then attack the person. Such tactics have always been looked down on.
Similarly the PC word 'offensive' should be struck from the dictionary.

Peter Scott

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
Jan 8, 2009, 11:54:25 AM1/8/09
to
Peter Scott wrote:
> Now this really is getting off-topic but I want to answer some of the
> points raised. The county where I live subsidises cities. I am not
> making that up, it is a fact. I pay the same taxes as anyone else but
> the amount of tax-payers money spent per head in the cities is much
> higher than in the country. That's why, though I pay very similar
> council tax rates, I get much poorer services like roads, policing and
> education spending. Central government support is much lower.
>
Well if you want to go that route, as a single non married childless
person for years, I subsidised the rest of the population.

So what?

Cities alos benefit you, by making the countryside a nicer place to live in.


> Lets take a parallel example - television reception.

Not the same at all.

For a start the BBC is a subsidised operation, with a mandate to achieve
ncoverage. BT aint. Once a tranmitter exists, its trivial to add
commercial stations to it.

You should be complaining that the licence fee subsidises commercial
stations..

It is thought
> proper that the whole country should get a television signal.

Not by me it aint.

> Some areas
> like hilly and coastal regions couldn't do so without local relays
> serving a small number of people. Do we complain about the extra cost?
> Does the relay user pay a higher licence fee? No, we accept the premise
> that it is an essential service.

I dont.

> Do we object that electricity users in
> the country have to be provided with long lines at extra cost? No of
> course not.

well actually they do end up with a worse service as a result. Cheap
overhead lines prone to lightning damage and trees falling..


>
> Happily I ignore the ad hominem attacks. If you can't win the argument,
> then attack the person. Such tactics have always been looked down on.
> Similarly the PC word 'offensive' should be struck from the dictionary.
>

Te argument is whether or not fast broadband shuld be considered a basic
citizens right, and subsidised to make it so.

So far, Bt has managed to resist being re-nationalised, and we have
believe it or not, a better service than we ever had when it was.

If you want a monopoly state supplier of indifferent broadband,
throttled back so that we all only get 512k,nbecauseits fair that way,
say so.


> Peter Scott
>

Peter Scott

unread,
Jan 8, 2009, 12:07:04 PM1/8/09
to
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> Peter Scott wrote:
>> Now this really is getting off-topic but I want to answer some of the
>> points raised. The county where I live subsidises cities. I am not
>> making that up, it is a fact. I pay the same taxes as anyone else but
>> the amount of tax-payers money spent per head in the cities is much
>> higher than in the country. That's why, though I pay very similar
>> council tax rates, I get much poorer services like roads, policing and
>> education spending. Central government support is much lower.
>>
> Well if you want to go that route, as a single non married childless
> person for years, I subsidised the rest of the population.
>
> So what?
>
> Cities alos benefit you, by making the countryside a nicer place to live
> in.

Don't quite follow the last point. I don't see how I benefit from
cities. Did you mean by not having lots of houses?

I entirely agree about subsidies however. There are all kinds of them,
including, I hope, one for the cost of providing better broadband in the
country. I was attempting to point out that rural areas subsidise the
cities, and would like a bit back.

To pick up the child point, without people willing to devote time and
money to bringing up children there would not be the future earners to
pay for the care of older people. Even if an older person is entirely
self-sufficient on investments, there has to be a thriving economy to
keep up the value of those investments, and this relies on young
generations.

Peter

GMM

unread,
Jan 8, 2009, 12:07:21 PM1/8/09
to
I live in the middle of the city and my broadband speed is barely 1MBS
(because the BT lines are rubbish and I can't have cable) while my TV
reception is also rubbish (and I can't have satellite). Can I have a
subsidy to have a more rural lifestyle to compensate for this?

chunkyoldcortina

unread,
Jan 8, 2009, 12:22:17 PM1/8/09
to
TMC wrote:

> This is one of the consequences of choosing to live in a rural area
>

Depends on your definition of rural. I've seen many rural village residents
get excellent broadband speeds, as nowhere is within more than a mile or so
at most from the village's exchange....

Alan Braggins

unread,
Jan 8, 2009, 12:44:49 PM1/8/09
to
In article <123142883...@proxy01.news.clara.net>, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>meow...@care2.com wrote:
>>>> Have you considered using a server to use your and one or more
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>>>> neighbour's broadband lines so you both get twice the speed most of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>>>> the time?
>>> Very complicated.
>>
>> Even a humble win98 box supports this. Just need a second nic
>> and the cd or 98 files to install the necessary non-default bits.
>
>And waht will that achieve? you need a second phone line.

As he was already suggesting.

nightjar

unread,
Jan 8, 2009, 1:10:04 PM1/8/09
to

"Peter Scott" <pe...@peter-scott.org.uk> wrote in message
news:uPGdnU4hooPwU_jU...@brightview.com...
> This is not OT. Comms is a DIY matter when, like me, you are trying to
> improve lamentable speed by filters, wiring etc. ....

> "I live in the country and have very poor broadband speed, at around 750

> kbit/s....

Better than I do at my business. However, I found that paying for a 5:1
contention ratio made a great improvement to the service.

Colin Bignell


Dave Liquorice

unread,
Jan 8, 2009, 12:33:18 PM1/8/09
to
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 09:59:10 +0000, Peter Scott wrote:

> However what really annoys me is that I pay exactly the same as people
> who get 4 Mbit/s or better.

I don't like the way ADSL is marketed with the "up to" in a 6pt font or in
a footnote against the 8Mbps or 24Mbps in 144pt. Neither does OFCOM and is
attempting to do something about it.

> If it meant that ISPs refused to accept rural connections then the
> situation would be out in the open!"

And there would be no rural broadband at all, just like there is no cable
outside urban/medium sized town areas.

Solution is to get off your bum and get a community broadband service
running. Plenty of experienced help available, good starting point:

http://www.broadband-uk.coop/

Fibre DTH is possible, digging up roads is expensive and complicated
legally. So you don't dig up the roads but bring the land owners on board
to have fibre ducts laid under their land. Commercial contractors charge
for digging holes but out in the country there are plenty of people with
diggers, get them involved. There may even be some one with kit that can
mole the ducts through rather than having to cut 'n cover.

Fibre is the way to go if possible, should have life of 20 years or more
and upgrades just mean changing the kit on the ends. Symmetrical 100Mbps
internet connection? See if you can sell bandwidth/services from third
party content providers.

Backhaul rather than local distribution (fibre or wireless) is normally
the hard bit, not sure how much BT want for a gigabit fibre connection
these days. How are your local schools connected? Or hospital, is there an
e-Health initiative happening or in the pipe line? Maybe the community can
piggy back on those connections.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Peter Scott

unread,
Jan 8, 2009, 1:32:59 PM1/8/09
to

> Fibre is the way to go if possible, should have life of 20 years or more
> and upgrades just mean changing the kit on the ends. Symmetrical 100Mbps
> internet connection? See if you can sell bandwidth/services from third
> party content providers.
>
> Backhaul rather than local distribution (fibre or wireless) is normally
> the hard bit, not sure how much BT want for a gigabit fibre connection
> these days. How are your local schools connected? Or hospital, is there an
> e-Health initiative happening or in the pipe line? Maybe the community can
> piggy back on those connections.

Does fibre have to be laid in ducts? I know it is fragile in itself but
surely the cables are robust? The copper runs are all overhead once the
edge of the town is reached about 3km away. Has fibre ever been
installed overhead? I can see that fibre or wireless is the way it must
be done, but my original point is there has to be some commercial
imperative to get companies to do it. Allowing them to charge normal
rate for inferior service (and yes of course I know there are people
worse off than me) is not going to motivate them. It all smacks of the
English habit of putting up with things.

Peter Scott

meow...@care2.com

unread,
Jan 8, 2009, 1:41:43 PM1/8/09
to
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> meow...@care2.com wrote:
> > The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> >> meow...@care2.com wrote:
> >>> Peter Scott wrote:

> >>> Have you considered using a server to use your and one or more
> >>> neighbour's broadband lines so you both get twice the speed most of
> >>> the time?
> >> Very complicated.
> >
> > Even a humble win98 box supports this. Just need a second nic
> > and the cd or 98 files to install the necessary non-default bits.
> >
>
> And waht will that achieve? you need a second phone line.

yes, that is what was being suggested. 2 lines achieves upto twice
peak and mean data rates. The clever bit is that it doesnt increase
ISP subscription costs any.


> >>> Do you use a compression service that sends all files compressed, this
> >>> can over double the average speed?
> >> No one sends uncompressed data over the internet anyway. Even the
> >> meanest of web pages probably is compressed.
> >
> > Yes, but
> > a) further compression is often possible
> > b) lossy compression is possible for images, this can dramatically
> > speed up webpage loading
> >
> >
> Sorry mate, but we tried this way back in the 90's on international
> links. we got about 10% improvement, at the expense of a doubling in
> latency.
>
> About the only ting that isn't compressed to the hilt these days is
> usenet and text emails.

Why would lossy compression of images, which can reduce image file
size by a factor of say 8, make little difference?


> >>> I think national investment in rural broadband provision would be a
> >>> great thing, but you and I thinking that doesnt make any difference,
> >>> and saying it makes even less. The think tanks that decide these
> >>> things arent paid to spend months sitting around reading letters.
> >>>
> >> And the taxpayers would get pretty pissed if the 0.1% who cant get 1Mbps
> >> are paid for out of public money.
> >
> > Its infrastructure that makes businesses work. Taxpayers dont mind
> > lots of other infrastructure with the same goal - and far more
> > expensive infrastructure at that. Although its not libertarian, it may
> > well add up financially for the public purse and country as a whole.
> >
> >
>
> Get real. This is infrastructure for one person,. or at beast 20-30
> people in his location.

I was discussing national investment in rural broadband. I would think
it clear that this will have a positive impact on british business. Do
you not think it would?


NT

meow...@care2.com

unread,
Jan 8, 2009, 1:46:54 PM1/8/09
to

Thats exactly what we need more of. I load so many webpages using 100s
of k, and would be happier if they used just 1/10th that. Grossly
bloated code plus bloated content are a pain.

The other thing that totally pees me off is the likes of screwfix
displaying just 10 search results per page, which grossly inflates
total data dl and dl time, and for no visible reason. People who do
that typically say 'but we have to think of dialup users' - do they
not realise that for dialuppers theyre making it even worse by loading
10 pages instead of one?


NT

Bob Eager

unread,
Jan 8, 2009, 2:00:30 PM1/8/09
to
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 18:41:43 UTC, meow...@care2.com wrote:

> Why would lossy compression of images, which can reduce image file
> size by a factor of say 8, make little difference?

Because most of them are lossily compressed already?

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

TheOldFellow

unread,
Jan 8, 2009, 4:18:56 PM1/8/09
to
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 11:00:25 +0000

The Natural Philosopher <a@b.c> wrote:

>
> It's entirely - in the limit - down to the length of wire to the exchange.
>
>
> make it shorter, make it fibre, or replace with microwave link, and you
> can get more speed.
>
>
> All of those cost more money than you are willing to pay.

No-one ever asks us if we are willing to pay for it. They just refuse
to even offer it.

R.

Adrian

unread,
Jan 8, 2009, 4:28:57 PM1/8/09
to
TheOldFellow <theold...@gmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

>> All of those cost more money than you are willing to pay.

> No-one ever asks us if we are willing to pay for it. They just refuse
> to even offer it.

Bollocks.

They "refuse" to offer faster ADSL because of the limits of the
technology.

They "refuse" to offer cable, because new cable hasn't been laid
_anywhere_ in the country for YEARS, because of the back debts from
laying the last lot.

You've been given links to faster rural broadband options, available
today. But they're clearly too expensive for you. Oh, wait, you've
claimed that's not the problem.

You'll get faster broadband at some stage, when BT's 21CN upgrades get
around to you. But that probably won't be fast enough for you, because
other people will still have better than you.

I bet you're a _nightmare_ whenever a delivery wagon pulls up outside
next door, trying to see if they've gone a step ahead of you so you need
to go and buy a newer/bigger/faster widget to stay level.

TheOldFellow

unread,
Jan 8, 2009, 4:27:21 PM1/8/09
to
On 8 Jan 2009 12:14:42 GMT
Huge <Hu...@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:

> On 2009-01-08, meow...@care2.com <meow...@care2.com> wrote:
>
> > Have you considered using a server to use your and one or more
> > neighbour's
>

> Neighbour? Wossat?
>
>

The farmer in t'next valley.
R.

Frank Erskine

unread,
Jan 8, 2009, 5:14:42 PM1/8/09
to
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 16:24:13 +0000, Peter Scott
<pe...@peter-scott.org.uk> wrote:

>Lets take a parallel example - television reception. It is thought
>proper that the whole country should get a television signal. Some areas
>like hilly and coastal regions couldn't do so without local relays
>serving a small number of people. Do we complain about the extra cost?

Many people in rural areas have to club together at their own expense
to build a 'self-help' TV relay station.

>Does the relay user pay a higher licence fee? No, we accept the premise
>that it is an essential service.

I don't accept that it's essential - I don't have a TV set...

--
Frank Erskine

robgraham

unread,
Jan 8, 2009, 6:33:58 PM1/8/09
to

I've just found this on the BBC News website

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7817748.stm

and would suggest that it is relevent to the discussion.

Rob

Derek Geldard

unread,
Jan 8, 2009, 6:47:43 PM1/8/09
to
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 21:27:21 +0000, TheOldFellow
<theold...@gmail.com> wrote:


>> Neighbour? Wossat?
>>
>>
>
>The farmer in t'next valley.

"On the other side"

Na na na na, Na na na na.

Derek

Message has been deleted

Dave Liquorice

unread,
Jan 8, 2009, 7:21:38 PM1/8/09
to
On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 10:46:54 -0800 (PST), meow...@care2.com wrote:

> The other thing that totally pees me off is the likes of screwfix
> displaying just 10 search results per page, which grossly inflates
> total data dl and dl time, and for no visible reason.

For the first page of say a search result but after that there is the "See
All" option. What pees me off is sites that don't have that and/or no
crumb trail.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Dave Liquorice

unread,
Jan 8, 2009, 7:55:47 PM1/8/09
to
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 18:32:59 +0000, Peter Scott wrote:

> Does fibre have to be laid in ducts?

Normally yes. You lay the duct then blow the fibre through. So each end
point needs its own duct all the way back to a fibre hub. The fibre itself
contains two optical cores and two balancing ones but is still pretty
light and feeble. "Duct" might be misleading, AIUI, it's more of a bundle
of tubes one for each end point, I believe a 24 tube duct is about 2" dia.

> I know it is fragile in itself but surely the cables are robust?

Robustish you can get robust fibre cables but I doubt they come cheap
compared to stuff you blow through a duct.

> Has fibre ever been installed overhead?

Attached to the outside of the terraced houses is one of the ways that
fibre might be distributed in the town. It would make sense to be able to
fly across building gaps rather than go up and down.

Putting poles in probably isn't all that cheap, 20 poles per km? Not to
mention the visual impact. Not sure BT would let you share theirs.

> I can see that fibre or wireless is the way it must be done, but my
> original point is there has to be some commercial imperative to get
> companies to do it.

With low rural population densities it just isn't going to happen. Even
the government are baulking at the cost of a full UK wide "Next
Generation" installation, figures of £25bn being bandied about, they might
spend £10bn. The big plus is that the government are aware that commercial
companies will not cover rural areas and don't want that digital divide to
get any wider. I'm confident that money will be available for community
based enterprises to install fibre or WiMax type systems. Money won't be
available (as always) to keep such a system running, the on going cost of
the backhaul could be crippling, income streams other than the end user
subscriptions are pretty much essential.

> Allowing them to charge normal rate for inferior service (and yes of
> course I know there are people worse off than me) is not going to
> motivate them.

And getting them to charge an even lower rate is?

--
Cheers
Dave.

Owain

unread,
Jan 8, 2009, 7:53:04 PM1/8/09
to
Bruce wrote:
> In the meantime, here's a practical alternative:
> http://www.avcbroadband.com/

"area of outstanding natural beauty ... not allowed a dish ..."

Owain


Dave Liquorice

unread,
Jan 9, 2009, 2:44:48 AM1/9/09
to
On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 00:53:04 +0000, Owain wrote:

> "area of outstanding natural beauty ... not allowed a dish ..."

Which AONB? No such restriction here (that I'm aware of). National Parks
are different ball game.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Gordon Henderson

unread,
Jan 9, 2009, 3:57:38 AM1/9/09
to
In article <n1obm456t4q15oo4h...@4ax.com>,
Bruce <n...@nospam.net> wrote:

>In the meantime, here's a practical alternative:
>http://www.avcbroadband.com/

Hm. Prices have certinaly come down a lot for satellite internet. The
endty level @£69 is OK for email and some lightweight web browsing
if you're patient. Web sites seem to have gone overboard a bit again,
however I was at the end of a 512Kb ADSL line ysterday for a bit, and yes,
it really felt slow, but it was more than usable with a bit of patience.

Big contrast the day before when I did an install that achieved 23Mb/sec
on ADSL2+... However that was in the big city (Bristol!) and 0.5Km from
the main exchange...

The faster ones might be very suitable for a small community who were
willing to share the costs though...

Gordon
(Living on the edge of Dartmoor in rural Devon, getting 8Mb ADSL :)

Rod

unread,
Jan 9, 2009, 4:45:22 AM1/9/09
to
Even one on the ground behind a hedge? That was the solution a neighbour
arrived at when challenged by that problem. It was accepted. But I'd
guess they could have done that without even being noticed - but they
initially asked about putting one on their house. (That would have been
on a G2 house in small town - can't remember if it was a conservation
area or anything else, but it looked like it)

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
<www.thyromind.info> <www.thyroiduk.org> <www.altsupportthyroid.org>

meow...@care2.com

unread,
Jan 9, 2009, 4:57:06 AM1/9/09
to
Bob Eager wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 18:41:43 UTC, meow...@care2.com wrote:
>
> > Why would lossy compression of images, which can reduce image file
> > size by a factor of say 8, make little difference?
>
> Because most of them are lossily compressed already?

doesnt make any difference to the fact that one can greatly reduce
file size by further (lossy) compression


NT

meow...@care2.com

unread,
Jan 9, 2009, 4:59:30 AM1/9/09