VDSL Multicast on ADSL line

[Rodney Pont]

The BT checker says that my line will be able to get VDSL Multicast
from Feb 21st 2017. The line will still only be able to get ADSL MAX.
The exchange is only 20CN but there are VDSL cabinets around the
villages from this exchange and lines on those can already get VDSL and
VDSL Multicast.

Is this a data error on my line or can they actually do VDSL Multicast
on an ADSL MAX line? We do get the MAX 8128 sync speed on it. I'm not
wanting Multicast but I am curious.


--
Faster, cheaper, quieter than HS2
and built in 5 years;
UKUltraspeed <http://www.500kmh.com/>

[Graham.]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 08:53:45 +0000 (GMT), "Rodney Pont"
<mli...@infohit.me.uk> wrote:

>The BT checker says that my line will be able to get VDSL Multicast
>from Feb 21st 2017. The line will still only be able to get ADSL MAX.
>The exchange is only 20CN but there are VDSL cabinets around the
>villages from this exchange and lines on those can already get VDSL and
>VDSL Multicast.
>
>Is this a data error on my line or can they actually do VDSL Multicast
>on an ADSL MAX line? We do get the MAX 8128 sync speed on it. I'm not
>wanting Multicast but I am curious.

Your question is a non sequitur.
When and if your line is routed via an VDSL cabinet, you will no
longer have access to the ADSL DSLAM in the exchange so will no longer
be an ADSL MAX line.

Any "multicast" capability of the existing ADSL or future VDSL is a
"logical" thing set up by the ISP so that's also a red herring
(AFAICT)



--

Graham.

%Profound_observation%

[Davey]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 08:53:45 +0000 (GMT)

"Rodney Pont" <mli...@infohit.me.uk> wrote:

> The BT checker says that my line will be able to get VDSL Multicast
> from Feb 21st 2017.

Maybe. Maybe not. BT moves its own goalposts, sometimes going past
the last published date with no change shown. And then one day, it's
available, but they didn't tell anybody.
But you might be lucky (Pigs might fly, also).

Keep us informed, it would be nice to hear that it worked on time.

--
Davey.

[Graham.]

On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 00:35:49 +0000, Graham. <graham...@mail.com>
wrote:

Although it's pretty clear, now I have re read your post, that you
have already knew that, so either the line checker is wrong, or things
are moving faster than you anticipated.



--

Graham.

%Profound_observation%

[Paul Cummins]

In article <o56lc9$fe7$3...@n102.xanadu-bbs.net>, da...@example.invalid
(Davey) wrote:

> (Pigs might fly, also).

Well, ther is RAF OdiHAM

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
Please Help us dispose of unwanted virtual currency:
Bitcoin: 1LzAJBqzoaEudhsZ14W7YrdYSmLZ5m1seZ

[NY]

"Graham." <graham...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:36jd7ctvadi7ostm2...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 08:53:45 +0000 (GMT), "Rodney Pont"
> <mli...@infohit.me.uk> wrote:
>
>>The BT checker says that my line will be able to get VDSL Multicast
>>from Feb 21st 2017. The line will still only be able to get ADSL MAX.
>>The exchange is only 20CN but there are VDSL cabinets around the
>>villages from this exchange and lines on those can already get VDSL and
>>VDSL Multicast.
>>
>>Is this a data error on my line or can they actually do VDSL Multicast
>>on an ADSL MAX line? We do get the MAX 8128 sync speed on it. I'm not
>>wanting Multicast but I am curious.
>
> Your question is a non sequitur.
> When and if your line is routed via an VDSL cabinet, you will no
> longer have access to the ADSL DSLAM in the exchange so will no longer
> be an ADSL MAX line.

Wouldn't the DSLAM in the cabinet be ADSL Max capable if the line was
originally when it went right to the exchange? Or are they replacing Max
DSLAMs in the exchange with non-Max in the cabinet?

And wouldn't the line remain as it is unless and until he chooses to upgrade
to VDSL - would BT Openreach change *all* customers to route their lines
through the cabinet and its DSLAMs, even for those who wanted to remain with
ADSL?

[Dick]

Cabinets dont have ADSL DSLAMS, only VDSL.

[Angus Robertson - Magenta Systems Ltd]

>> Wouldn't the DSLAM in the cabinet be ADSL Max capable if the line
> was originally when it went right to the exchange? Or are they
> replacing Max DSLAMs in the exchange with non-Max in the cabinet?

Technically, BT cabinet DSLAMs could be equipped to support voice and
ADSL, but are currently only equipped for VDSL. So voice and ADSL
continue to be supported from the exchange. Lines are only diverted to
the cabinet DSLAM if VDSL is ordered.

One complication with ADSL is that probably half of the customers don't
use a BT exchange DSLAM atall, but a DSLAM from TalkTalk, Sky, etc.
These companies spent a billion or something installing these old
DSLAMs and need ADSL customers to pay for it. So they really don't
want ADSL moved to the cabinet.

> And wouldn't the line remain as it is unless and until he chooses

> to upgrade to VDSL - would BT Openreach change all customers to

> route their lines through the cabinet and its DSLAMs, even for
> those who wanted to remain with ADSL?

Currently the distance from the cabinet for VDSL customers is limited,
so the signals don't interfere with ADSL. BT is doing trials of long
reach VDSL that involves swapping all ADSL customers to a similar
priced version of VDSL on the same day, so VDSL can reach further than
normal and give better speeds on long lines.

But this is only practical on smaller cabinets, due to the
administrative effort of supplying new VDSL modems to all ADSL
customers on the cabinet and moving them to the new service on the same
day, and with multiple ISPs.

Angus

[NY]

"Angus Robertson - Magenta Systems Ltd" <an...@magsys.co.uk> wrote in
message news:memo.2017011...@magsys.adsl.magsys.co.uk...

> BT is doing trials of long
> reach VDSL that involves swapping all ADSL customers to a similar
> priced version of VDSL on the same day, so VDSL can reach further than
> normal and give better speeds on long lines.
>
> But this is only practical on smaller cabinets, due to the
> administrative effort of supplying new VDSL modems to all ADSL
> customers on the cabinet and moving them to the new service on the same
> day, and with multiple ISPs.

Is VDSL backward-compatible with ADSL, such that an ADSL router can talk to
a VDSL DSLAM, albeit at ADSL speeds (eg max 8 Mbps / 448 kbps)? Or will a
VDSL DSLAM *only* talk to a VDSL router (or an ADSL/VDSL router operating in
VDSL mode)? I'm guessing the latter since you mention having to change
everyone's router.

[Angus Robertson - Magenta Systems Ltd]

> Is VDSL backward-compatible with ADSL, such that an ADSL router
> can talk to a VDSL DSLAM, albeit at ADSL speeds

No, ADSL and VDSL modems are completely different, you need the correct
one for the service.

However the upgrade can be painless, when I changed from ADSL to VDSL I
just unplugged my Vigor 130 ADSL modem and plugged in the Openreach
VDSL modem, did not need change authentication login so VDSL was
working before the engineer got back from re-jumpering the cabinet.

A little harder if you have a router that only supports ADSL, you need
one that does VDSL as well. I have a separate firewall/router and
modem.

Angus

[Bob Eager]

On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 17:36:45 +0000, NY wrote:

> Is VDSL backward-compatible with ADSL, such that an ADSL router can talk
> to a VDSL DSLAM, albeit at ADSL speeds (eg max 8 Mbps / 448 kbps)? Or
> will a VDSL DSLAM *only* talk to a VDSL router (or an ADSL/VDSL router
> operating in VDSL mode)? I'm guessing the latter since you mention
> having to change everyone's router.

ADSL and VDSL are different.

That said, one can buy dual standard routers that work with both. I have
one.

[Dick]

I have yet to see a VDSL modem/router that isn't also ADSL compatible.
The reverse is not the case, however. Openreach standalone modems are
also VDSL/ADSL devices.

[Graham J]

So far as I can see the Vigor V130-K modem supports both ADSL and VDSL -
see:

https://shop.seg.co.uk/vigor-130.html

... so you should not have had to swap it out for the Openreach modem.
I know from testing that the V130-K does sync with both ADSL and VDSL.

The earlier Vigor V120 modems were ADSL only.

--
Graham J

[Angus Robertson - Magenta Systems Ltd]

> So far as I can see the Vigor V130-K modem supports both ADSL and
> VDSL

Sorry, got the model wrong, I've got an old Vigor 120 but tell people
to buy the 130 (horrible price) since it's dual purpose.

When I got VDSL, Openreach still installed it's own modems, no other
choice.

Angus

[Roderick Stewart]

On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 08:30 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
an...@magsys.co.uk (Angus Robertson - Magenta Systems Ltd) wrote:

>> So far as I can see the Vigor V130-K modem supports both ADSL and
>> VDSL
>
>Sorry, got the model wrong, I've got an old Vigor 120 but tell people
>to buy the 130 (horrible price) since it's dual purpose.

At a slightly better price, there's this-

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Billion-8800NL-Gigabit-Wireless-Router/dp/B00K6D2ESM/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1484302949&sr=8-2&keywords=billion+8800

or this-

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Billion-8800NL-R2-Wireless-Connections/dp/B01EVNR22K/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1484302949&sr=8-1&keywords=billion+8800

or this-

https://www.amazon.co.uk/TP-LINK-Archer-VR400-Connections-Compatible/dp/B01LFGTEI6/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1484303114&sr=8-4&keywords=tplink+fibre+modem

All these include wireless routers. The first is the one I bought
myself for VDSL and which works very nicely, the second appears to be
an updated and restyled version of the same thing, and the third I
bought for another family installation where it's currently working
well on ADSL. There seems to be quite a variety of ADSL/VDSL dual
standard modems now, so you're not restricted to Draytek.

>When I got VDSL, Openreach still installed it's own modems, no other
>choice.

Openreach will provide a modem, and if you want to use it you will
have to supplement it with your own router, but you can swap it for
whatever you like as soon as Openreach have gone. Just don't let them
screw their modem to the wall, which for some reason the Openreach man
wanted to do in my case, though I persuaded him not to on the grounds
that I'd already made a little corner shelf for it and the router.

My Openreach modem and the cheap router I bought from my ISP have been
demoted to spare status and are currently gathering dust in a box in
my junk room, having been replaced by a single unit (above) that runs
cooler, looks neater, and gives better wireless coverage.

Rod.

[NY]

"Dick" <inv...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:o58osl$d33$1...@dont-email.me...

Dual-mode modems/routers are compatible with both, but evidently not at the
same time: they need to be configured into one mode or the other. A router
in VDSL mode will not work on both ADSL and VDSL lines, even though the user
ID is the same :-(

I fell foul of this. When our old TP-Link router (ADSL) packed up (wireless
access point stopped working) I replaced it a slightly higher model that
supported both ADSL and VDSL, as future-proofing in case we might want to
upgrade to VDSL. When we did eventually decide to upgrade, the changeover
date unfortunately fell on the day that we were due to go on holiday, and I
couldn't get my ISP and BT Openreach to defer the date until we were back
and I could reconfigure the router from ADSL to VDSL. I did try setting it
to VDSL mode in advance, hoping that it was backwards-compatible, but it
wasn't. The changeover hadn't taken place by the time we set off and
happened later that day (I could tell the time that we lost internet because
I have a weather-station which updates a web-page periodically and I could
see the last time it updated).

[Java Jive]

On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 10:47:09 +0000, Roderick Stewart
<rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
> At a slightly better price, there's this-
>
> https://www.amazon.co.uk/Billion-8800NL-Gigabit-Wireless-Router/dp/B00K6D2ESM/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1484302949&sr=8-2&keywords=billion+8800

"1 x Gigabit, 3 x 10/100 LAN ports", so a useless doorstop as far as
I'm concerned.

> or this-
>
> https://www.amazon.co.uk/Billion-8800NL-R2-Wireless-Connections/dp/B01EVNR22K/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1484302949&sr=8-1&keywords=billion+8800

"4 x 10/100 LAN ports", so not even 1 Gb port in the newer version!
Ditto.

> or this-
>
> https://www.amazon.co.uk/TP-LINK-Archer-VR400-Connections-Compatible/dp/B01LFGTEI6/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1484303114&sr=8-4&keywords=tplink+fibre+modem

'Gigabit', but that could only mean on one port, as in the first
Billion model. Don't leave it to chance, check the manufacturer's
spec.

Gigabit technology is over a decade old now, the latest spec is 10Gb.
There really is no excuse for supplying routers and switches which
only have 20-year old Fast Ethernet at 1/10 or 1/100 of current
speeds.
--
========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

[Graham J]

Since January 2016 Openreach (I think) no longer supply a modem when
they upgrade the service for another ISP - so you have to be prepared to
supply on yourself. Having said that most ISPs will supply a complete
router that supports VDSL.

The reason for using a Vigor router is generally that you require a
specific function that it provides - such as LAN-to-LAN VPN, or
bandwidth control, or the like ...

--
Graham J

[Andy Burns]

Java Jive wrote:

>> https://www.amazon.co.uk/Billion-8800NL-Gigabit-Wireless-Router/dp/B00K6D2ESM/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1484302949&sr=8-2&keywords=billion+8800
>
> "1 x Gigabit, 3 x 10/100 LAN ports", so a useless doorstop as far as
> I'm concerned.

Don't you have a gigabit switch already, uplink the 1GB port to that,
hardly makes it a doorstop.

>> https://www.amazon.co.uk/Billion-8800NL-R2-Wireless-Connections/dp/B01EVNR22K/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1484302949&sr=8-1&keywords=billion+8800
>
> "4 x 10/100 LAN ports", so not even 1 Gb port in the newer version!

4x100 *plus* 1xGb

> Gigabit technology is over a decade old now, the latest spec is 10Gb.

It's 40Gb over cat8 copper now (100Gb available but needs fibre or
twinax copper) but not much call for even 10Gb at home.

[Java Jive]

On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 12:26:00 +0000, Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk>
wrote:

>
> Java Jive wrote:
>
> >> https://www.amazon.co.uk/Billion-8800NL-Gigabit-Wireless-Router/dp/B00K6D2ESM/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1484302949&sr=8-2&keywords=billion+8800
> >
> > "1 x Gigabit, 3 x 10/100 LAN ports", so a useless doorstop as far as
> > I'm concerned.
>
> Don't you have a gigabit switch already, uplink the 1GB port to that,
> hardly makes it a doorstop.

That's not the point, I'm not the one who's looking for a new router.
It is unsound advice to pass on recommendations for models that don't
meet modern standards.

If Roderick Stewart recommended a model of TV that didn't have HD
tuners, you'd probably want to point out that the recommended model is
a decade or more out of date, and advise against buying it. Similarly
here.

And anyway, requiring a second box just to add functionality that
could and should have been provided in the first is a waste of
electricity to me and of the associated global warming to the wider
world.

[Roderick Stewart]

On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 12:08:24 +0000, Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

>> or this-
>>
>> https://www.amazon.co.uk/TP-LINK-Archer-VR400-Connections-Compatible/dp/B01LFGTEI6/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1484303114&sr=8-4&keywords=tplink+fibre+modem
>
>'Gigabit', but that could only mean on one port, as in the first
>Billion model. Don't leave it to chance, check the manufacturer's
>spec.
>
>Gigabit technology is over a decade old now, the latest spec is 10Gb.
>There really is no excuse for supplying routers and switches which
>only have 20-year old Fast Ethernet at 1/10 or 1/100 of current
>speeds.

Unless you have a gigabit or 10gb internet connection, I don't think
you'd notice the difference.

If you have a local network that really does run at those speeds, then
of course you wouldn't use your internet modem/router as the
centrepiece of it, but will presumably have another router and would
simply plug it into one of its ports.

Rod.

[Roderick Stewart]

On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 13:06:30 +0000, Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

>> Don't you have a gigabit switch already, uplink the 1GB port to that,
>> hardly makes it a doorstop.
>
>That's not the point, I'm not the one who's looking for a new router.
>It is unsound advice to pass on recommendations for models that don't
>meet modern standards.

That depends on what you call a "standard". If it does the job
required of it, then it's good enough, regardless of the fact that it
may not be capable of performing a different one.

>If Roderick Stewart recommended a model of TV that didn't have HD
>tuners, you'd probably want to point out that the recommended model is
>a decade or more out of date, and advise against buying it. Similarly
>here.

As it happens, I don't use the tuner in my TV at all, and don't even
have an aerial lead fed to it, as all my programme material comes from
external boxes. I'm sure I can't be the only person with an
arrangement like this. If the built-in tuner is not required for use,
then its capabilities are not relevant. If somebody asked me for a
recommendation for some piece of equipment or other, I'd try to take
account of what they intended to do with it, and not reject anything
just because it didn't have some capability that wasn't needed and
would only restrict the choice and make it more expensive.

Rod.

[Roderick Stewart]

On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 11:45:14 -0000, "NY" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

>Dual-mode modems/routers are compatible with both, but evidently not at the
>same time: they need to be configured into one mode or the other.

I can't imagine a likely setup where it would be required to do both
at the same time, unless perhaps you had two phone lines, one with
ADSL and one with VDSL, and why would anybody have that? Presumably
you'd also want some kind of failover arrangement in this situation,
which is a whole different ballgame, as they say.

If you just want something that will work on ADSL for now, and then
VDSL after you've upgraded the service, then one of these will be just
fine. They don't switch over automatically, but all you need to do is
login on the 192.168.x.x address and make a minor change to the
config, or you could change back again just as easily. You don't need
to replace the equipment.

Rod.

[Angus Robertson - Magenta Systems Ltd]

> The reason for using a Vigor router is generally that you require
> a specific function that it provides - such as LAN-to-LAN VPN, or
> bandwidth control, or the like ...

The Vigor 120/130 are not routers, they are PPPoE modems, like the
Openreach modem.

They are all still useful when you need two or more broadband
connections, and/or want a proper firewall router like my Dell
Sonicwall. It supports fallover so if one connection dies, everything
is routed to the second.

Angus

[Dick]

On 13-Jan-17 11:45 AM, NY wrote:
> "Dick" <inv...@invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:o58osl$d33$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On 12-Jan-17 6:21 PM, Bob Eager wrote:
>>> On Thu, 12 Jan 2017 17:36:45 +0000, NY wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is VDSL backward-compatible with ADSL, such that an ADSL router can
>>>> talk
>>>> to a VDSL DSLAM, albeit at ADSL speeds (eg max 8 Mbps / 448 kbps)? Or
>>>> will a VDSL DSLAM *only* talk to a VDSL router (or an ADSL/VDSL router
>>>> operating in VDSL mode)? I'm guessing the latter since you mention
>>>> having to change everyone's router.
>>>
>>> ADSL and VDSL are different.
>>>
>>> That said, one can buy dual standard routers that work with both. I have
>>> one.
>>>
>> I have yet to see a VDSL modem/router that isn't also ADSL compatible.
>> The reverse is not the case, however. Openreach standalone modems are
>> also VDSL/ADSL devices.
>
> Dual-mode modems/routers are compatible with both, but evidently not at
> the same time: they need to be configured into one mode or the other. A
> router in VDSL mode will not work on both ADSL and VDSL lines, even
> though the user ID is the same :-(
>

Well of course they have to be configured for one or the other!!!

[NY]

"Dick" <inv...@invalid.com> wrote in message

news:o5anrm$8tm$1...@dont-email.me...

>> Dual-mode modems/routers are compatible with both, but evidently not at
>> the same time: they need to be configured into one mode or the other. A
>> router in VDSL mode will not work on both ADSL and VDSL lines, even
>> though the user ID is the same :-(
>>
> Well of course they have to be configured for one or the other!!!

Would it not be possible for the router's modem to be auto-sensing and to
switch automatically depending on whether it "hears" ADSL or VDSL on the
phone line?

[Graham J]

Angus Robertson - Magenta Systems Ltd wrote:

>> The reason for using a Vigor router is generally that you require
>> a specific function that it provides - such as LAN-to-LAN VPN, or
>> bandwidth control, or the like ...

What I implied by this was that:

"The reason for using a Vigor router

*** as opposed to the integrated VDSL modem/router typically supplied by
your ISP ***

... is that you might want some other function in the router.

Given that a more sophisticated router might well be more expensive, its
functionality can be extended by using an Ethernet modem, rather than
having to replace the whole router.

As you say, the V130 is a modem with an Ethernet port.

> The Vigor 120/130 are not routers, they are PPPoE modems, like the
> Openreach modem.
>
> They are all still useful when you need two or more broadband
> connections, and/or want a proper firewall router like my Dell
> Sonicwall. It supports fallover so if one connection dies, everything
> is routed to the second.

Just out of interest, does anybody make an Ethernet modem that takes a
SIM card and which connects to the mobile phone network?

This would be ideal for failover since the modem component could be
sited up to 100 metres away from the router - which might make it viable
for use with 3G in (real world) locations suffering from poor reception.
At present the only 3G modems I know of connect via USB - which is not
much good when the router is sited inside a large building.

--
Graham J

[Bill Taylor]

The Vigor 130 modem does that.

(Unless you buy one from the BT shop, when it comes with ADSL
disabled. Once you enable ADSL it does auto detect the line type.)

[Andy Burns]

Graham J wrote:

> Just out of interest, does anybody make an Ethernet modem that takes a
> SIM card and which connects to the mobile phone network?

Yes, multitech and no doubt others, moxa perhaps.

<http://www.multitech.com/brands/multiconnect-ecell>

But I've tended to use 3G->ethernet routers rather than modems in
vehicles behind a loadbalancer, so it will use any and all available
mobile signals, in some cases it makes sense rather than using e.g. the
"roaming" manx SIMs which will prefer a weak 2G Voda signal over a
blazing fast Three signal.

[Bob Eager]

As it happens, my modem/router does run at gigabit speed on all ports
(apart from the VDSL one, of course). But since I have a firewall in
between it and the LAN, I only use one of those ports.

[Dick]

But the Vigor is just a modem and is only dealing with the DSL signal
not the PPP layer which needs to be configured differently in the router
for ADSL and VDSL.

[Java Jive]

On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 13:54:26 +0000, Roderick Stewart
<rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
> If somebody asked me for a
> recommendation for some piece of equipment or other, I'd try to take

> account of what they intended to do with it.

That's the problem right there! That's precisely what you're NOT
doing! Just because you don't happen to need Gigabit connectivity,
that doesn't mean that noone else does. Most people buying a router
today will *expect* it to be able to support the same order of
magnitude of cabled speeds as other equipment they may have purchased
recently, be purchasing at the same time, or may be purchasing in the
near future, and at least two of your so-called 'recommended' models
cannot do that. Hell! Even modern WiFi standards are faster than
so-called Fast Ethernet! It's only 'fast' by comparison with the
original spec of 10Mbps!

Buying a 10/100Mbps router to connect Gigabit (10/100/1000Mbps)
equipment is about the same level of mismatch as taking your 100mph
Ferrari out of its garage only to find that the government has applied
a blanket 10mph speed limit on all roads and motorways.

It is simply common-sense when going to the trouble and expense of
buying new equipment to ensure that it complies with all the current
standards, and preferably also as many as possible of the new ones
just coming in. There is absolutely no point at all in anyone buying
today *new* and expensive equipment that can't even meet the standards
of a decade or more ago, let alone those of today. Thus, there is no
point in buying a *new* router that doesn't have at least Gigabit
cabled LAN ports. As there's no point in anyone buying, there's no
point in anyone else recommending, particularly without making any
effort to point out such important shortcomings in their specs. Really
that should have been the end of the discussion, or rather, it
shouldn't even have been necessary to have one in the first place.

[Java Jive]

On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 13:47:03 +0000, Roderick Stewart
<rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 12:08:24 +0000, Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:
> >
> >Gigabit technology is over a decade old now, the latest spec is 10Gb.
> >There really is no excuse for supplying routers and switches which
> >only have 20-year old Fast Ethernet at 1/10 or 1/100 of current
> >speeds.
>
> Unless you have a gigabit or 10gb internet connection

https://b4rn.org.uk/

> I don't think
> you'd notice the difference.

You just don't get it do you? I've explained before that my entire
LAN is cabled gigabit. To put a 10/100Mbps so-called Fast Ethernet
router at the center of it would slow it to a crawl.

THAT is the implication of what you are recommending so unwisely to
others.

> If you have a local network that really does run at those speeds, then
> of course you wouldn't use your internet modem/router as the
> centrepiece of it, but will presumably have another router and would
> simply plug it into one of its ports.

Or I could simply not follow Roderick Stewart's crap advice and buy a
router with gigabit LAN ports in the first place, and thus save myself
the expense of having to buy and run a second box because I listened
to someone talking through his arse on the internet, and also save the
world the extra global warming that would be caused thereby.

[Andy Burns]

Java Jive wrote:

> You just don't get it do you? I've explained before that my entire
> LAN is cabled gigabit. To put a 10/100Mbps so-called Fast Ethernet
> router at the center of it would slow it to a crawl.
>
> THAT is the implication of what you are recommending so unwisely to
> others.

My modem is not at the centre of my network, it's at the edge, outside
my firewall. I'm lucky enough to get a decent FTTC speed now, and though
there is a Gb connection between my modem and firewall (just because
both devices have spare Gb ports) it wouldn't make any difference if it
*was* only 100Mb, the internet connection is the bottleneck.

[Graham J]

I have some experience with the Vigor 2860 - a router with integrated
ADSL/VDSL modem.

The modem component can be configured for "Auto" but I've not had the
opportunity to see how it behaves when the service is upgraded from ADSL
to VDSL.

Further, the Router's WAN1 configuration requires a VLAN tag value of
101 to be supplied - see:

http://www.broadbandbuyer.com/features/2106-draytek-vigor-2860-vdsl-setup/

I suspect this has nothing to do with the modem but is a work-around for
a design error by Draytek.

Further, with firmware 3.7.8.3 ...
Hardware Acceleration > Setup - Mode must be set to disabled (not "Auto"
- the default). Failure to do this results in an apparently working
connection but no traffic throughput. Draytek tech support cannot
explain why this setting is necessary. I've not tested this with more
recent firmware.

So in principle it should be possible to configure the V2860 to work
with ADSL and have the correct settings in place for VDSL. When
Openreach change the jumpers in the green cabinet to upgrade to VDSL
(for the same ISP, obviously) it ought to reconnect immediately. But it
would not surprise me that the router would need to be rebooted across
the upgrade.

--
Graham J

[Andy Burns]

Graham J wrote:

> the Router's WAN1 configuration requires a VLAN tag value of
> 101 to be supplied

> I suspect this has nothing to do with the modem but is a work-around for
> a design error by Draytek.

I think VLAN=101 is what most UK providers use for PPPoE, similar to the
way most used VPI=0/VCI=38 for PPPoA.

[Java Jive]

On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 18:15:42 +0000, Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk>
wrote:
>

> My modem is not at the centre of my network

Neither is mine, but neither of our networks are normal in this
respect. Most SOHo subscribers will expect to be able to buy a
router, connect everything up to it, and it 'just works', not to find
everything crawls along at 1/10th speed.

[Roderick Stewart]

On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 16:44:02 +0000, Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

>Buying a 10/100Mbps router to connect Gigabit (10/100/1000Mbps)
>equipment is about the same level of mismatch as taking your 100mph
>Ferrari out of its garage only to find that the government has applied
>a blanket 10mph speed limit on all roads and motorways.

Not everybody wants a Ferrari at all.

Rod.

[Java Jive]

On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 19:26:58 +0000, Roderick Stewart
<rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Not everybody wants a Ferrari at all.

But EVERYONE wants to be able to travel faster than 10mph.

[Roderick Stewart]

On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 15:07:16 -0000, "NY" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

>Would it not be possible for the router's modem to be auto-sensing and to
>switch automatically depending on whether it "hears" ADSL or VDSL on the
>phone line?

I'm sure it would be possible, but it seems an unnecessary
elaboration, as a phone line would normally be assigned one system or
the other, and you'd know which one you had ordered. It might change
once if you upgraded from ADSL to VDSL. I can't imagine a scenario in
which it would change often enough to make it worth the bother of the
extra circuitry to do it automatically.

Rod.

[Andy Burns]

Java Jive wrote:

> Most SOHo subscribers will expect to be able to buy a
> router, connect everything up to it, and it 'just works', not to find
> everything crawls along at 1/10th speed.

Most SoHo users will probably use WiFi for all devices

[Andy Furniss]

It's an openreach requirement - nothing to do with pppoe though. I don't
think sky/talk talk even use pppoe. Even with BTW the vlan will take the
pppoe and normal IP in the case of multicast which is outside ppp.

[Bob Eager]

On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 19:17:26 +0000, Graham J wrote:

> I have some experience with the Vigor 2860 - a router with integrated
> ADSL/VDSL modem.

I have the sane. Specifically purchased because I was on ADSL, but due to
upgrade to VDSL.

> The modem component can be configured for "Auto" but I've not had the
> opportunity to see how it behaves when the service is upgraded from ADSL
> to VDSL.
>
> Further, the Router's WAN1 configuration requires a VLAN tag value of
> 101 to be supplied - see:
>
> http://www.broadbandbuyer.com/features/2106-draytek-vigor-2860-vdsl-
setup/
>
> I suspect this has nothing to do with the modem but is a work-around for
> a design error by Draytek.

Exactly. That gave me a little grief. There were certainly various
settings that had to be changed.

> Further, with firmware 3.7.8.3 ...
> Hardware Acceleration > Setup - Mode must be set to disabled (not "Auto"
> - the default). Failure to do this results in an apparently working
> connection but no traffic throughput. Draytek tech support cannot
> explain why this setting is necessary. I've not tested this with more
> recent firmware.

I ended up needing new firmware anyway. Twice.

I upgraded to the latest firmware when I got the router. It included a
'new' firewall. After a *lot* of packet sniffing (at the ISP end too) I
discovered that even if that firewall was turned off, it blocked outgoing
UDP on port 53. Embarrassing if you are running a DNS primary. I sent the
details to Draytek and they produced a fixed firmware within about 5 days.

The second time I found that IPv6 wasn't working correctly. This time
they acknowledged the error and said they had a fresh firmware coming out
the next day because they were already fixing that one. I got that and
all was fine.

> So in principle it should be possible to configure the V2860 to work
> with ADSL and have the correct settings in place for VDSL. When
> Openreach change the jumpers in the green cabinet to upgrade to VDSL
> (for the same ISP, obviously) it ought to reconnect immediately. But it
> would not surprise me that the router would need to be rebooted across
> the upgrade.

And some reconfiguration, I found.

[Java Jive]

On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 19:40:42 +0000, Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk>
wrote:

Certainly for mobiles and tablets, probably for laptops, but probably
not for a desktop, NAS, or a Network Media Player, as would be too
slow. Why limp when you can run?

[Bob Eager]

On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 20:08:34 +0000, Chronos wrote:

> On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 19:17:26 +0000 Graham J <gra...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> So in principle it should be possible to configure the V2860 to work
>> with ADSL and have the correct settings in place for VDSL.
>

> The problem with most of these modems is that, at least here in the UK,
> ADSL operates over ATM whereas VDSL uses PTM. The firmware usually isn't
> clever enough to store both the VLAN ID for PTM and the VPI/VCI pair for
> ATM.

That's right. My 2860 needed that changing, at least.

> Also, ADSL is Annex A, VDSL is Annex B, which usually requires a blob
> change for the modem device, although profile 17a does seem to share
> subcarriers in both annexes.

Well, it auto detected VDSL or ADSL as appropriate. I just checked the
settings and it's on 'Auto' there.

[Graham J]

Chronos wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 19:17:26 +0000
> Graham J <gra...@invalid.com> wrote:
>

>> So in principle it should be possible to configure the V2860 to work
>> with ADSL and have the correct settings in place for VDSL.
>

> The problem with most of these modems is that, at least here in the UK,
> ADSL operates over ATM whereas VDSL uses PTM. The firmware usually
> isn't clever enough to store both the VLAN ID for PTM and the VPI/VCI
> pair for ATM.

Ah - thank you ...

> Also, ADSL is Annex A, VDSL is Annex B, which usually requires
> a blob change for the modem device, although profile 17a does seem to
> share subcarriers in both annexes.
>

I'm sure I've read that the UK should have chosen Annex B for ADSL,
which could then have been used on the same line as ISDN - as I think is
done in Germany. Having said that, the line quality in Germany may be
better (i.e. not so many long lines to rural locations, so presumably
more repeaters in roadside cabinets) thereby making available more
bandwidth at a useful SNR margin.

--
Graham J

[Vir Campestris]

On 13/01/2017 19:31, Java Jive wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 19:26:58 +0000, Roderick Stewart
> <rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Not everybody wants a Ferrari at all.
>
> But EVERYONE wants to be able to travel faster than 10mph.
>

Most home users don't network between their devices, so the bottleneck
is _always_ the ADSL/VDSL connection. So 100Mb is enough.

It's only weirdos like us that have internal networks.

Andy

[Roderick Stewart]

On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 19:31:08 +0000, Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid>

wrote:

>>
>> Not everybody wants a Ferrari at all.
>
>But EVERYONE wants to be able to travel faster than 10mph.

You're probably right about that, but to translate it back to the
original context, not everybody wants a connection from their internet
modem to their local network that is ten or a hundred times faster
than the feed from the internet itself. What would it enable them to
do any faster?

Rod.

[Graham J]

Phil Lee wrote:
> Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> considered Fri, 13 Jan 2017 15:32:00

> Just searching on 3g ethernet modem found several suitable boxes.
>
> As a bonus, it would be possible to power the simple modems with PoE
> using a break out to micro-USB, at fairly low expense, since most such
> devices seem to use micro-USB for power (or charging if internally
> powered, as at least some are).
> So sticking it under a plastic cover on top of a pole should be
> possible, if that's what you have to do to get a decent 3g signal.
>

A single unit in a waterproof box and equipped with PoE would be ideal.

--
Graham J

[Java Jive]

Then why would router manufacturers bother to supply an integral
switch with 3 or 4 cabled LAN ports, when, if what you are saying is
true, then a single port + WiFi would be perfectly adequate?

If a job's worth doing it's worth doing properly. If it's worth
supplying an integral switch with 4 LAN ports as part of a router,
then it's worth making it one to the standards of today, not the
standards of 20 years ago.

[Java Jive]

I would have thought the answer to that was obvious - backing up
your PC, restoring it after a crash or a virus, moving media data onto
a networked media player, etc.

[Java Jive]

On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 02:38:20 +0000, Phil Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>
wrote:

> Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid> considered Fri, 13 Jan 2017 19:31:08

> +0000 the perfect time to write:
>

> >On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 19:26:58 +0000, Roderick Stewart
> ><rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> Not everybody wants a Ferrari at all.
> >
> >But EVERYONE wants to be able to travel faster than 10mph.
>

> But what you are wanting is motorways for mopeds!
>
> 100Mbit switched ethernet is perfectly adequate for even most LAN use,
> and still faster than most people can connect to the internet - which
> is all most people will use it for.

It isn't, it's *desperately* slow at moving files of any size at all.
It's so slow that when I have to reconcile my bedside 100Mbps NMP -
delete stuff I've watched, copy new stuff to watch, etc - it's
actually quicker to go to the bother of bringing it downstairs to my
desk so I can connect it via USB to a PC.

> So why have power-hungry GbE ports that you don't need, when a much
> lower power 10/100 will still carry more data than you can stuff
> through the internet connection - especially as most modem/routers are
> left powered on 24/7, unlike most PCs.

See my previous answers. If it's worth supplying a switch rather than
a single ethernet port, then it's worth making it one of the standards

of today, not the standards of 20 years ago.

> Heck, most PCs can't even saturate a GbE connection on more than a
> very brief burst (from the cache) anyway.

But these days they can *easily* turn a 100Mbps LAN into a bottleneck
for sustained periods of time, and that's the point. Most PCs
supplied today will have Gb ports, why would anyone want to connect
them via a router that only allows them to be used as 100Mbps ports?

> You need to keep in mind some sage advice: "better to remain silent
> and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt".

You need to follow your own thinking there.

> You have removed all doubt so many times that I mainly post only for
> the education of any silent readers who may be looking for expertise
> in this group. You have proved time and again to be ineducable.

So, not having any worthwhile, rational argument to make, you resort
to abuse.

Easy answer to that, PLONK!

[NY]

"Java Jive" <ja...@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:7atj7ctq1hetbljcm...@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 23:25:16 +0000, Vir Campestris
> <vir.cam...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 13/01/2017 19:31, Java Jive wrote:
>> > On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 19:26:58 +0000, Roderick Stewart
>> > <rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Not everybody wants a Ferrari at all.
>> >
>> > But EVERYONE wants to be able to travel faster than 10mph.
>> >
>> Most home users don't network between their devices, so the bottleneck
>> is _always_ the ADSL/VDSL connection. So 100Mb is enough.
>>
>> It's only weirdos like us that have internal networks.
>
> Then why would router manufacturers bother to supply an integral
> switch with 3 or 4 cabled LAN ports, when, if what you are saying is
> true, then a single port + WiFi would be perfectly adequate?
>
> If a job's worth doing it's worth doing properly. If it's worth
> supplying an integral switch with 4 LAN ports as part of a router,
> then it's worth making it one to the standards of today, not the
> standards of 20 years ago.

Agreed. It's presumably as cheap to make modern routers and PCs have Gigabit
ports as it is to give them 10 or 10/100 ports.

I *think* the original USB modems that BT supplied for ADSL were USB1, so
limited to a maximum of 1.5 Mbps - but then at that time you were lucky to
get 2 Mbps for ADSL. When my wife moved house in 2007, she still used her BT
Voyager modem that she'd had since she first got broadband at her previous
house. It was only when I came on the scene that we got a router a) so we
could both use the internet at the same time, b) so we could use wireless,
and c) so we could make full use of the ADSL speed - which was originally
about 3 Mbps at her new house and increased to about 7 by the time we
changed to VDSL.

[NY]

"Java Jive" <ja...@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message

news:9ktj7c5c6cmik8lqd...@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 23:41:39 +0000, Roderick Stewart
> <rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 19:31:08 +0000, Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>> >> Not everybody wants a Ferrari at all.
>> >
>> >But EVERYONE wants to be able to travel faster than 10mph.
>>
>> You're probably right about that, but to translate it back to the
>> original context, not everybody wants a connection from their internet
>> modem to their local network that is ten or a hundred times faster
>> than the feed from the internet itself. What would it enable them to
>> do any faster?
>
> I would have thought the answer to that was obvious - backing up
> your PC, restoring it after a crash or a virus, moving media data onto
> a networked media player, etc.

For those people who understand about those things, yes. But a lot of people
(weird as it may seem to techies like us!) don't do any computer-to-computer
transfer (eg from PC/laptop to tablet or networked hard drive).

[Roderick Stewart]

On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 10:02:55 +0000, Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid>

wrote:

>> >> Not everybody wants a Ferrari at all.
>> >
>> >But EVERYONE wants to be able to travel faster than 10mph.
>>
>> You're probably right about that, but to translate it back to the
>> original context, not everybody wants a connection from their internet
>> modem to their local network that is ten or a hundred times faster
>> than the feed from the internet itself. What would it enable them to
>> do any faster?
>
>I would have thought the answer to that was obvious - backing up
>your PC, restoring it after a crash or a virus, moving media data onto
>a networked media player, etc.

I don't see the point of upgrading the speed of the connection to my
internet modem, as it is already faster than the speed of the internet
connection, and so wouldn't enable anything to go any faster.

Rod.

[Brian Gregory]

On 11/01/2017 08:53, Rodney Pont wrote:
> The BT checker says that my line will be able to get VDSL Multicast
> from Feb 21st 2017. The line will still only be able to get ADSL MAX.
> The exchange is only 20CN but there are VDSL cabinets around the
> villages from this exchange and lines on those can already get VDSL and
> VDSL Multicast.
>
> Is this a data error on my line or can they actually do VDSL Multicast
> on an ADSL MAX line? We do get the MAX 8128 sync speed on it. I'm not
> wanting Multicast but I am curious.
>
>

Are you hoping to get multicast or hoping to get VDSL?

--

Brian Gregory (in the UK).
To email me please remove all the letter vee from my email address.

[Rodney Pont]

On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 15:28:22 +0000, Brian Gregory wrote:

>On 11/01/2017 08:53, Rodney Pont wrote:
>> The BT checker says that my line will be able to get VDSL Multicast
>> from Feb 21st 2017. The line will still only be able to get ADSL MAX.
>> The exchange is only 20CN but there are VDSL cabinets around the
>> villages from this exchange and lines on those can already get VDSL and
>> VDSL Multicast.
>>
>> Is this a data error on my line or can they actually do VDSL Multicast
>> on an ADSL MAX line? We do get the MAX 8128 sync speed on it. I'm not
>> wanting Multicast but I am curious.
>>
>>
>
>Are you hoping to get multicast or hoping to get VDSL?

As my last sentence says I'm not hoping for multicast, I'm just
curious, nor am I wanting VDSL. I would like ADSL2+ but you need to
have 21CN networking for that. I'm close enough to the exchange that I
would expect to get about 16meg. Generally my 8meg MAX is fast enough.

--
Faster, cheaper, quieter than HS2
and built in 5 years;
UKUltraspeed <http://www.500kmh.com/>

[Java Jive]

On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 15:17:02 +0000, Roderick Stewart
<rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >I would have thought the answer to that was obvious - backing up
> >your PC, restoring it after a crash or a virus, moving media data onto
> >a networked media player, etc.
>
> I don't see the point of upgrading the speed of the connection to my
> internet modem, as it is already faster than the speed of the internet
> connection, and so wouldn't enable anything to go any faster.

You're either trying to wind me up by being deliberately obtuse, or
else you've got a completely irrational blind-spot about this ...

If the items on your LAN - say one or more PCs, a NAS, perhaps even
an NMP, all with Gb 10/100/1000Mbps ethernet ports - are all cabled
via a 100Mbps switch in your router, it doesn't matter how otherwise
excellent the router is, nor that all your other kit is Gb
10/100/1000Mbps, you can still only back up your PC to your NAS, or
copy video files to your NMP, at the rate of the slowest part of your
connection, which is the 20 year old technology of the 100Mbps switch
in your router.

And believe me, with modern file sizes, compared to 10/100/1000Mbps
speeds, that can seem f*king slow!

[Stephen]

On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 23:25:16 +0000, Vir Campestris
<vir.cam...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 13/01/2017 19:31, Java Jive wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 19:26:58 +0000, Roderick Stewart
>> <rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> Not everybody wants a Ferrari at all.
>>
>> But EVERYONE wants to be able to travel faster than 10mph.
>>
>Most home users don't network between their devices, so the bottleneck
>is _always_ the ADSL/VDSL connection. So 100Mb is enough.

Some of us use cable - now running at 150 Mbps here, but up to 300
Mbps is now supported.

When the last upgrade came thru and I was not seeing the full speed, I
found a 2 pair patch lead in 1 of my switch to switch connections was
limiting a desktop PC to 100 Mbps......

>
>It's only weirdos like us that have internal networks.

GigE is pretty standard on NAS these days. Not all of them can keep it
busy though.....

And the latest dual band multi radio 802.11 whatever-we -are-up-to
access point can more than saturate 100 Mbps
https://dl.ubnt.com/datasheets/unifi/UniFi_AP_DS.pdf

>
>Andy
Stephen Hope stephe...@xyzworld.com
Replace xyz with ntl to reply

[Stephen]

On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 02:43:30 +0000, Phil Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>
wrote:

>Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> considered Fri, 13 Jan 2017 19:40:42

>+0000 the perfect time to write:
>

>Which is contended, and therefore even slower than switched 10/100
>ethernet.

Possibly for 1 device on 1 band on 802.11N.

The latest enterprise APs ( 802.11ac wave2? ) are coming with either
multiple GigE ports, or support the new 2.5 / 5G Ethernet over copper
cable standards.

because a GigE access to the device is starting to be the limiting
factor when you use the most recent 802.11 standards and multiple
radios in different bands...

[Graham.]

When I was still using a USB ADSL modem, I had two computers running
off it. No switch, just two NICs with a crossover cable between them,
and Windows 98 Internet Connection Sharing (ICS) running on the
machine with the modem.




--

Graham.

%Profound_observation%

[NY]

"Graham." <graham...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:rt608c5rvo8ib6a5q...@4ax.com...

> When I was still using a USB ADSL modem, I had two computers running
> off it. No switch, just two NICs with a crossover cable between them,
> and Windows 98 Internet Connection Sharing (ICS) running on the
> machine with the modem.

I'd forgotten about the delights of Internet Connection Sharing. I used it
occasionally to share my *dial-up* connection with my laptop because its
modem had failed: I set up the modem connection on my Windows 98 PC and then
shared it so the laptop could access it. Painfully slow (I don't think the
remote computer ever sees *all* the bandwidth that the modem connection
provides, even if the "donor" PC is completely idle) but it worked.

It's hard to imagine going back to the speed of dialup, though I got very
close to it over Christmas when we were on a cruise and the ship provided a
wifi connection to the ship's satellite internet. The speed of that was
diabolical - ping times of at least 800 msec (normal ADSL gives about 30
msec) and often longer than that. So slow that speedtest.net wouldn't even
run (I tried it out of curiosity). Simple text-only web pages took several
seconds to display. But it was internet. It was weird to be in the middle of
the Atlantic, with no land for a thousand miles, and to able to send/receive
emails and browse web sites and even have a voice conversation over Facetime
with my parents and sister on Christmas Day. Interestingly, the tariff of
connection that we paid for wouldn't let Skype run (they seemed to have
blocked the relevant ports) but Facetime (Apple's equivalent) evidently used
different ports that weren't blocked :-) I was surprised that with a ping
time of nearly 1 second there wasn't more lag evident in the conversation -
I was expecting the sort of time delay that you get when a TV news studio is
talking via satellite with a reporter somewhere else in the world.

[Java Jive]

On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 10:25:27 -0000, "NY" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> It's hard to imagine going back to the speed of dialup

It's easy if you live in the Scottish Highlands. The average ADSL
speed around here is probably not much more than dialup at 512Kbps.

[Bob Eager]

On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 11:46:59 +0000, Java Jive wrote:

> On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 10:25:27 -0000, "NY" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>> It's hard to imagine going back to the speed of dialup
>
> It's easy if you live in the Scottish Highlands. The average ADSL speed
> around here is probably not much more than dialup at 512Kbps.

You were lucky to get a tenth of that on dialup. Unless you used bonded
ISDN.

[Davey]

On 19 Jan 2017 12:21:34 GMT

Ah, memories of upgrading to a lightning-fast 56K modem.

--
Davey.

[Adrian Caspersz]

Fond memories of my jump from 2400 to 14400, and having to upgrade my
serial ports for that :-)

--
Adrian C

[Andy Burns]

Adrian Caspersz wrote:

> Davey wrote:
>
>> Bob Eager wrote:

>>
>>> Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>>> The average ADSL speed around here is probably not much more
>>>> than dialup at 512Kbps.
>>>
>>> You were lucky to get a tenth of that on dialup. Unless you used
>>> bonded ISDN.
>>
>> Ah, memories of upgrading to a lightning-fast 56K modem.
>
> Fond memories of my jump from 2400 to 14400, and having to upgrade my
> serial ports for that :-)

I've just unearthed my stack of Courier v.everything, internal and
external i-modems ...

[Graham.]

On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 11:46:59 +0000, Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

>On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 10:25:27 -0000, "NY" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>> It's hard to imagine going back to the speed of dialup
>
>It's easy if you live in the Scottish Highlands. The average ADSL
>speed around here is probably not much more than dialup at 512Kbps.

Luxury.
My first ADSL service (Tiscali) was 256Kb/s in both directions.


--

Graham.

%Profound_observation%

[Graham.]

On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 22:02:47 +0000, Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

>On Sat, 14 Jan 2017 15:17:02 +0000, Roderick Stewart
><rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >I would have thought the answer to that was obvious - backing up
>> >your PC, restoring it after a crash or a virus, moving media data onto
>> >a networked media player, etc.
>>
>> I don't see the point of upgrading the speed of the connection to my
>> internet modem, as it is already faster than the speed of the internet
>> connection, and so wouldn't enable anything to go any faster.
>
>You're either trying to wind me up by being deliberately obtuse, or
>else you've got a completely irrational blind-spot about this ...
>
>If the items on your LAN - say one or more PCs, a NAS, perhaps even
>an NMP, all with Gb 10/100/1000Mbps ethernet ports - are all cabled
>via a 100Mbps switch in your router, it doesn't matter how otherwise
>excellent the router is, nor that all your other kit is Gb
>10/100/1000Mbps, you can still only back up your PC to your NAS, or
>copy video files to your NMP, at the rate of the slowest part of your
>connection, which is the 20 year old technology of the 100Mbps switch
>in your router.
>
>And believe me, with modern file sizes, compared to 10/100/1000Mbps
>speeds, that can seem f*king slow!

Whilst taking your side in this argument thus far, I would point out
that Rod said "modem" not router. I suspect by modem he means a
stand-alone modem. Most people call the portmanteau device that
combines the functionally of a router, switch and probably a wireless
access point too "a router" but as Teresa May might say, modem means
modem.

Just don't get me started about what a HUB is these days.




--

Graham.

%Profound_observation%

[Bob Eager]

I started on 1200/75. Then I was able to install a surreptitious 2400bps
modem at work, linked to a PC.

I then had a TCP/IP gateway...

[Dick]

Well if you are going down the 4 Yorkshiremen sketch route, my first
modem was a mains powered 62type equipment practice bit of kit (like
this if you don't know what 62type equipment looks like
http://www.lightstraw.co.uk/ate/main/strowger/tep1.html#62) which
delivered a blistering 300Baud to a BBC Model B from a bulletin board.

[Graham.]

I expected at least a wooden box with acoustic coupled 300 series
handset.


--

Graham.

%Profound_observation%

[Davey]

On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 17:32:53 +0000
Graham. <graham...@mail.com> wrote:

> I expected at least a wooden box with acoustic coupled 300 series
> handset.
>

We had one of those at work. When the lunchtime switchboard operator
came on duty, she would listen to connected extensions, hear the
strange whistling sound, and pull the connection, thinking it had a
fault on the line. Again and again.

--
Davey.