Watchdog demands action on slow broadband
Enzo
broadband connections that are far slower than advertised, a watchdog said
on
The Consumer Panel, which advises communications regulator Ofcom, said there
was widespread discontent among computer users that broadband can be
frustratingly slow.
Full story at:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20071219/tuk-uk-britain-broadband-fa6b408_4.html
--
_____ __
/ __(_) /
_\ \/ / / |/ /
/___/_/_/
Eeyore
Enzo wrote:
> LONDON (Reuters) - Thousands of Internet users are being short-changed by
> broadband connections that are far slower than advertised, a watchdog said
> on
>
> The Consumer Panel, which advises communications regulator Ofcom, said there
> was widespread discontent among computer users that broadband can be
> frustratingly slow.
> Full story at:
> http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20071219/tuk-uk-britain-broadband-fa6b408_4.html
It's easy to fix.
Just use a good ISP.
Graham
ABC
"Enzo" <throwawaya...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fkb1kv$3g7$1...@news.albasani.net...
What we need is all these government depts (OFCOM, ASA, etc) to sing from
the same hymn sheet and remove the "upto" clause from advertising.
tony h
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:47692F04...@hotmail.com...
> It's easy to fix.
>
> Just use a good ISP.
>
> Graham
>
not for those of us some distance from the exchange 'up to' is still about
as honest as they can get, with an 'expected speed' given before signup.
watchdog /ofcom etc. should really be looking at 'unlimited' and poorly
explained shaping FUPs etc, which is where the dishonesty is, and ensuring
isps have the backhaul sufficient to service their clients
Getting a good ISP does enable us to make the best of the available
connection though, but without moving house i'm not going to get much better
than i have now until llu or 21cn arrive at my exchange (llu has arrived,
talktalk/cpw + aol, so i'll pass for now)
tony h
"ABC" <simo...@nospamemail.afraid.org> wrote in message
news:fkbb4l$l2$1...@nntp0.reith.bbc.co.uk...
>
> What we need is all these government depts (OFCOM, ASA, etc) to sing from
> the same hymn sheet and remove the "upto" clause from advertising.
>
and replace with what? if you live close to the exchange you may get about
8meg (7150 + overheads), if 5 miles away you may get 512k, both with the
same provider. ISPs should be forced to give reasonable expectation of
achievable speed before signup, which they can do once they have your phone
number, and should publish figures showing what % of subscribeers reach fit
which profile, but as front of house advetising goes, 'up to' is as honest
as saying 256k - 8meg. I do think the major isps are laughing at this debate
while they get away with throttling, capping and anything else their often
unpublished FUP will let them do, things that ofcom can do something
worthwhile about. the only isp which joined in with the gadget show was
fast4.net, whose pages give me no indication of speed i would expect except
"blisteringly fast Internet connection - up to 180 times faster than your
standard dial-up product!", so that will be 'up to' 8 meg then!
tony h
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/review/censura.php?cmd=details&itemid=279
so the advertising on channel 4 will drag more lambs to the slaughter,
entirely missing the point that no matter how fast you connect, your isp can
still stuff you making the connection useless.
Brian McIlwrath
: same provider. ISPs should be forced to give reasonable expectation of
: number, and should publish figures showing what % of subscribeers reach fit
: which profile,
Would that help? Before ADSL Max BT said that, as I was too far from the
Exchange, I *might* get 1Mb and would *not* get 2Mb.
So I WAS told some facts then. The fact that I am getting >6Mb currently
with Sky's LLU service leads me to believe that ANY predictions will be
close to useless! Especially as internal extension wiring can have a major
effect on ADSL - I improved my speed a lot by looking at the results from
the test socket and then performing tricks like removing the "ring" wire
from my extensions - hardly a thing that any ISP/OFCOM could sensibly
suggest!
Andy Burns
> llu has arrived, talktalk/cpw + aol
You obviously realise talktalk=cpw, but it's not clear whether you
realise that aol=cpw too.
tony h
"Brian McIlwrath" <b...@bkmpc.bnsc.rl.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:fkbfv1$2lr$1...@south.jnrs.ja.net...
afaik sky's llu product is sold as 'up to 16meg' (adsl2) and uses different
equipment in the exchange to BTw products which the majority of isps sell,
so if BTw (or reseller) said you could expect 1 meg then that was most
likely correct staying with their equipment. a bit like going to a ford
dealership and being told that a car they sell can go at 120mph, then going
to ferrari and getting a different type of car going 200mph and calling ford
liars, different products, different speeds.
there are always ways for those with a bit of nouse to improve their
speed/stability on any product, but for the majority a 'you should get x
meg' from samknows or similar should be reasonably accurate.
Brian McIlwrath
: afaik sky's llu product is sold as 'up to 16meg' (adsl2) and uses different
: equipment in the exchange to BTw products which the majority of isps sell,
No! I should have said that I am now on Sky's "Mid" product - which is also
"up to 8Mb" (but on their own equipment). My downstream attenuation
(46dB) is, I am led to believe, too high for the 16meg ADSL2 "Max" product.
Previously I was on BT ADSLMax with "Sky Connect" (until they installed LLU).
That was the one I increased to ~4.5Mb (from ~3) by working on the house
wiring.
Bob Eager
<simo...@nospamemail.afraid.org> wrote:
> What we need is all these government depts (OFCOM, ASA, etc) to sing from
> the same hymn sheet and remove the "upto" clause from advertising.
What exactly do you propose that they *should* say?
--
[ 7'ism - a condition by which the sufferer experiences an inability
to give concise answers, express reasoned argument or opinion.
Usually accompanied by silly noises and gestures - incurable, early
euthanasia recommended. ]
Andy Burns
> What we need is all these government depts (OFCOM, ASA, etc) to sing from
> the same hymn sheet and remove the "upto" clause from advertising.
Why? What we really need is for people to read and understand the
description of what they are buying.
If someone bought a car that claimed to have a top speed of 150mph,
would they have a valid cause to complain if it couldn't achieve that
speed up a 1:4 hill with 10 sacks of cement in the boot?
o p @secret.com Gonz
"Bob Eager" <rd...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:176uZD2KcidF-p...@rikki.tavi.co.uk...
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 14:51:00 UTC, "ABC"
> <simo...@nospamemail.afraid.org> wrote:
>
>> What we need is all these government depts (OFCOM, ASA, etc) to sing
>> from
>> the same hymn sheet and remove the "upto" clause from advertising.
>
> What exactly do you propose that they *should* say?
"depending on how much debt we're in"
"based on an un-oversubscribed network"
Gizmo.
"tony h" <m...@home.com> wrote in message
news:fkbht7$dos$1...@news.albasani.net...
>
> "Andy Burns" <usenet....@adslpipe.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:13migua...@corp.supernews.com...
> sepearte businesses?
> AOL: Enabled as of 30/11/2007
> O2 / Be: Not available
> CPW / TalkTalk: Enabled as of 12/11/2007
> unless 30/11 was the buyout date of aol (not checked, not going to either)
> the bad news for me is the o2/be bit, though i'm with enta so as happy as
> i can be until a decent llu or 21cn come along
CPW bought AOL around 18 months ago. I can't be arsed to look it up either
... CPW and AOL are mde for one another.
naza
might loose them. Then broadband would really need regulating.
ato...@hotmail.com
On 19-Dec-2007, "Bob Eager" <rd...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> > What we need is all these government depts (OFCOM, ASA, etc) to sing
> > from
> > the same hymn sheet and remove the "upto" clause from advertising.
ISP's will set up speed tests, which being in their network, will be
as fast as the subscribers line supports. That's the speed they will
quote, and can demonstrate. It will also comply with the Trades
Descriptions Act.
They can have a piece of wet string speed to the outside world,
so access to stuff beyond your ISP's domain will be "wet piece
of string speed" which is what many of us are suffering.
It's the bean counters fault.
"If we spend money on advertising, it brings in customers and
revenue" and our T&C lock them in for a tewlvemonth.
Spending money on infrastructure and adequate backhaul
bandwidth costs us money, it hits our bottom line.
The bean counters argument wins hands down.
For a decent service we need fibre to the kerb, but BT buried
its head in the sand. With fibre, and its monopoly on ducts,
it could have been the only game in town. Of course it was
in the days of Ian Vallance that the critical decisions should
have been made. By now with a rolling program of fibre the
cost would have amortised itself, not to mention the returns
from selling off a lot of surplus redundent copper, most of
which is pre and immediate post-war, with a long lay of
twist, which is restricting the attainable spped.
Testing fibre circuits is also less labour intensive than
testing thousands of individual circuits when faults are
reported, the multiplexer at the kerb sends back it's
error rate, status and statistics, over its management
channel.
So in most cases all that OpenReach would need to
check would be the short connection from the cab to
the customer.
For the customer, phone calls would be clearer, and BT
could have been a serious competitor to Virgin and Sky for
multimedia distribution.
How is it that BT came to be led by a complete lot
of obscenely paid dipsticks?
I'm not surprised the government of the day broke
their monopoly and set up Ofcom, whose attempts
to kick them up the a*** isn't likely to achieve much.
Bob Eager
> On 19-Dec-2007, "Bob Eager" <rd...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> > > What we need is all these government depts (OFCOM, ASA, etc) to sing
> > > from
> > > the same hymn sheet and remove the "upto" clause from advertising.
No, I didn't. Please try and get your quoting right.
> ISP's will set up speed tests, which being in their network, will be
>
Eeyore
ABC wrote:
> "Enzo" <throwawaya...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> > LONDON (Reuters) - Thousands of Internet users are being short-changed by
> > broadband connections that are far slower than advertised, a watchdog said
> > on
> >
> > The Consumer Panel, which advises communications regulator Ofcom, said
> > there was widespread discontent among computer users that broadband can be
> > frustratingly slow.
> > Full story at:
> > http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20071219/tuk-uk-britain-broadband-fa6b408_4.html
>
>
> What we need is all these government depts (OFCOM, ASA, etc) to sing from
> the same hymn sheet and remove the "upto" clause from advertising.
You reckon that Gov't depts can change the laws of physics do you ?
Graham
Eeyore
tony h wrote:
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> > It's easy to fix.
> >
> > Just use a good ISP.
> >
> > Graham
>
> not for those of us some distance from the exchange
It seems you replied to the wrong post.
I see no reason why distance from the exchange limits your choice of ISP.
Graham
Eeyore
tony h wrote:
> but without moving house i'm not going to get much better
> than i have now until llu or 21cn arrive at my exchange
How do you think LLU will help you ?
Graham
Eeyore
Brian McIlwrath wrote:
> tony h <m...@home.com> wrote:
> : same provider. ISPs should be forced to give reasonable expectation of
> : achievable speed before signup, which they can do once they have your phone
> : number, and should publish figures showing what % of subscribeers reach fit
> : which profile,
>
> Would that help?
Absolutely. It's accurate for me.
> Before ADSL Max BT said that, as I was too far from the
> Exchange, I *might* get 1Mb and would *not* get 2Mb.
>
> So I WAS told some facts then. The fact that I am getting >6Mb currently
> with Sky's LLU service leads me to believe that ANY predictions will be
> close to useless!
So how far are you from the exchange ? That's a huge diffeence which suggests
some gremlin got into your BT based results.
> Especially as internal extension wiring can have a major
> effect on ADSL - I improved my speed a lot by looking at the results from
> the test socket and then performing tricks like removing the "ring" wire
> from my extensions
If that's BT supplied wiring that's strictly not kosher. Have done it myself
though and got a slight performance lift.
> - hardly a thing that any ISP/OFCOM could sensibly suggest!
It would be possible for suppliers to market extension cables that are both nice
tightish twisted pair and have the ring circuit removed.
Graham
Eeyore
tony h wrote:
> "Brian McIlwrath" wrote
> > tony h <m...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> > : same provider. ISPs should be forced to give reasonable expectation of
> > : achievable speed before signup, which they can do once they have your
> > : phone: number, and should publish figures showing what % of subscribeers
> reach
> > : fit: which profile,
> >
> > Would that help? Before ADSL Max BT said that, as I was too far from the
> > Exchange, I *might* get 1Mb and would *not* get 2Mb.
> >
> > So I WAS told some facts then. The fact that I am getting >6Mb currently
> > with Sky's LLU service leads me to believe that ANY predictions will be
> > close to useless! Especially as internal extension wiring can have a major
> > effect on ADSL - I improved my speed a lot by looking at the results from
> > the test socket and then performing tricks like removing the "ring" wire
> > from my extensions - hardly a thing that any ISP/OFCOM could sensibly
> > suggest!
>
> afaik sky's llu product is sold as 'up to 16meg' (adsl2) and uses different
> equipment in the exchange to BTw products which the majority of isps sell,
> so if BTw (or reseller) said you could expect 1 meg then that was most
> likely correct staying with their equipment.
Errr ..... NO.
ADSL2 or ADSL2+ can't make THAT much difference. If it had REALLY only been
capable of 1 Mbps with BT's max, then ADSL2(+) wouldn't lift it at all probably.
Graham
ato...@hotmail.com
> You reckon that Gov't depts can change the laws of physics do you ?
Ofcom could, but won't.
All it needs is a little box to be put in randomly chosen
users homes. It does test downloads from randomly
chosen sites, UK and overseas, using a variety of
protocols, (http, P2P, VOIP, VPN etc)
at unpredicable times.
This would give a truer picture of what users are
experiencing with each ISP, over a variety of
line lengths.
Publish the results monthly in the major national
newspapers.
Anybody looking for an ISP would go for the
one that for the last 3 mths has headed the list
(unless they are penny pinching gits who will get
what they pay for).
The random sites would be ones with good
connections like UK and foreign universities,
government agencies, etc.
ato...@hotmail.com
On 19-Dec-2007, "Bob Eager" <rd...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> No, I didn't. Please try and get your quoting right.
News reading clients never get their attributions right
it's a fact of life.
tony h
with the right isp, up to 16mb (i expect about 11.5 -12), uncapped, no
implemented FUP, as opposed to 6.5meg, capped (330gb), no fup which i have
now.
tony h
<ato...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:476987b5$0$13931$fa0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
it has been a long time since i was in a science lesson, but that would
change the law of physics how, exactly?
tony h
sorry for any misunderstanding, as explained elsewhere in this thread, and
as you know already, distance does affect headline speed, though it does
take a bad isp (read most major 'high street' ones) to make a poor
connection sh!t.
Eeyore
ato...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > You reckon that Gov't depts can change the laws of physics do you ?
>
> Ofcom could, but won't.
Eh ? Care to explain that ?
Graham
Eeyore
Eeyore
tony h wrote:
> "Eeyore" wrote:
> > tony h wrote:
> >
> >> but without moving house i'm not going to get much better
> >> than i have now until llu or 21cn arrive at my exchange
> >
> > How do you think LLU will help you ?
>
> with the right isp, up to 16mb (i expect about 11.5 -12),
Not all LLU is ADSL2(+) . In fact probably the minority is.
> uncapped,
Uncapped provision has NOTHING to so with LLU.
> no implemented FUP,
FUP has NOTHING to do with LLU.
> as opposed to 6.5meg, capped (330gb), no fup which i have now.
What you're talking about is due to your choice of ISP , NOT a BT/LLU line
issue. You seem to be getting things confused.
Graham
Eeyore
tony h wrote:
> "Eeyore" wrote
> > tony h wrote:
> >> "Eeyore" wrote
> >>
> >> > It's easy to fix.
> >> >
> >> > Just use a good ISP.
> >>
> >> not for those of us some distance from the exchange
> >
> > It seems you replied to the wrong post.
> >
> > I see no reason why distance from the exchange limits your choice of ISP.
>
> sorry for any misunderstanding, as explained elsewhere in this thread, and
> as you know already, distance does affect headline speed, though it does
> take a bad isp (read most major 'high street' ones) to make a poor
> connection sh!t.
The problem here is primarily the ISP.
I've seen figures that suggest the average ADSL broadband connection is capable
of 5Mbps.
Graham
ato...@hotmail.com
>
> Eh ? Care to explain that ?
Ofcom imposing regulations won't work, as I said, all
the ISP has to do is set up a speed tester and
demonstrate that it is delivering the highest speed
that the customers line will support.
If Ofcom were to do random automated tests, using
a box measures what is actually delivered,
connecting to UK and overseas sites whose
bandwidth is not a limiting factor, using a
variety of protocols, then publish the results
monthly in the national papers, shiddy ISP's
with poor backhaul bandwidth and inadequate
capacity in their own domain, would soon find
that users were migrating with their wallets.
Losing customers causes panic in boardrooms,
and things generally improve.
Whilst line quality is obviously a limiting factor,
only a minority of ISP's can drive the customers
line at it's maximum speed.
tony h
>
> What you're talking about is due to your choice of ISP , NOT a BT/LLU line
> issue. You seem to be getting things confused.
>
> Graham
>
>
to clarify.
there are isps which offer products which i would happily move to if those
said isps moved their equipment into my local exchange. as it is my choices
are a essentially 1 llu provider with a very poor reputation, and the myriad
of ipstream providers, of which i've chosen an entanet reseller (vivaciti)
with which i am very happy.
i do suspect that you knew that, but just being awkward.
Bob Eager
Mine does - yours obviously doesn't.
Actually, it's clear there was an error between chair and keyboard...you
lefdt my name in, but snipped everytjing I wrote.
Bob Eager
> All it needs is a little box to be put in randomly chosen
> users homes. It does test downloads from randomly
> chosen sites, UK and overseas, using a variety of
> protocols, (http, P2P, VOIP, VPN etc)
> at unpredicable times.
> This would give a truer picture of what users are
> experiencing with each ISP, over a variety of
> line lengths.
How would you remove the variability due to the lines themselves?
tony h
>
> How would you remove the variability due to the lines themselves?
> --
magic packets, which sniff out aluminium etc., and take a run up before
meeting it, obviously
Bob Eager
Also get tired if the wire is too long, and are allergic to corrosion!
ato...@hotmail.com
> > All it needs is a little box to be put in randomly chosen
> > users homes. It does test downloads from randomly
> > chosen sites, UK and overseas, using a variety of
> > protocols, (http, P2P, VOIP, VPN etc)
> > at unpredicable times.
> > This would give a truer picture of what users are
> > experiencing with each ISP, over a variety of
> > line lengths.
>
> How would you remove the variability due to the lines themselves?
It would rate the difference between bandwidth
of the subscribers loop, what the line should
deliver, and what it actually delivers, being how
fast the ISP can drive it.
Mark McIntyre
> just a bit of searching, fast user comments
> http://www.ispreview.co.uk/review/censura.php?cmd=details&itemid=279
>
> so the advertising on channel 4 will drag more lambs to the slaughter,
> entirely missing the point that no matter how fast you connect, your isp can
> still stuff you making the connection useless.
How is it your ISP's fault that you live five miles from the exchange,
and that BT haven't replaced your copper since 1987, and that your
in-house extension cabling was run in by a drunken ex-taxi driver
earning a few bob on the side ?
How is it your ISP's fault that the websites people connect to are
permanently overloaded with like-minded people downloading hilarious
videos of their mate's dog being sick, or some girl falling out of her
tee shirt at a gig?
Sheesh.
tony h
"Mark McIntyre" <markmc...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:13mjam0...@corp.supernews.com...
its not.
it is my isps fault if they dont have enough backhaul to accommodate the
subscribers, also it is their fault if they offer me an unlimited service,
yet limit what i can productively do with it (traffic shaping).
read the comments on the link from fast4 users, and compare with zen, idnet,
entanet etc., all running on the same types of wires, but with far fewer
disgruntled customers. as to the overloaded websites, looks like you mean
youtube, which i've not had a single problem with since switching from pipex
(same line, same exchange, same router, same connection speed).
Bob Eager
> It would rate the difference between bandwidth
> of the subscribers loop, what the line should
> deliver, and what it actually delivers, being how
> fast the ISP can drive it.
Not very accurate. The bandwidth of teh local loop can vary according to
weather and other external influences. At this time of year (Christmas)
many lines run slower, for example.
Brian McIlwrath
: > Especially as internal extension wiring can have a major
: > effect on ADSL - I improved my speed a lot by looking at the results from
: > the test socket and then performing tricks like removing the "ring" wire
: > from my extensions
: If that's BT supplied wiring that's strictly not kosher. Have done it myself
: though and got a slight performance lift.
It was (partly) BT supplied extension wiring - however, to the best of
my knowledge, BT's repsonsibility now ENDS at the master socket. I merely
found the speed to MUCH greater at the BT test point in the master socket
and set about bringing my extensions to be nearer that speed.
Eeyore
ato...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > Ofcom could, but won't.
> >
> > Eh ? Care to explain that ?
>
> Ofcom imposing regulations won't work, as I said, all
> the ISP has to do is set up a speed tester and
> demonstrate that it is delivering the highest speed
> that the customers line will support.
That's not changing the laws of physics. Did you actually bother to READ
what I wrote ? Do you even KNOW why ADSL can't always deliver 8Mbps ?
And stop snipping almost ALL of the previous post. You're supposed to
leave enough of the previous post so that anyone can see what you're
replying to.
Graham
Eeyore
tony h wrote:
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote
> >
> > What you're talking about is due to your choice of ISP , NOT a BT/LLU line
> > issue. You seem to be getting things confused.
>
> to clarify.
> there are isps which offer products which i would happily move to if those
> said isps moved their equipment into my local exchange.
What's wrong with the several excellent ISPs out there using BT lines ?
> as it is my choices
> are a essentially 1 llu provider with a very poor reputation, and the myriad
> of ipstream providers, of which i've chosen an entanet reseller (vivaciti)
> with which i am very happy.
> i do suspect that you knew that, but just being awkward.
NO. You're simply fixated for no good reason with LLU circuits.
Graham
Eeyore
Bob Eager wrote:
> ato...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > All it needs is a little box to be put in randomly chosen
> > users homes. It does test downloads from randomly
> > chosen sites, UK and overseas, using a variety of
> > protocols, (http, P2P, VOIP, VPN etc)
> > at unpredicable times.
> > This would give a truer picture of what users are
> > experiencing with each ISP, over a variety of
> > line lengths.
>
> How would you remove the variability due to the lines themselves?
I don't think he even understands that. Watchdog probably don't either.
He also apaprently thinks that Ofcom can change the laws of physics.
Another excellent product of our wonderful education system.
Graham
Eeyore
ato...@hotmail.com wrote:
You don't really have a clue do you ?
Hint : none of what you suggest is needed. The only thing that'll fix it
is investment by the underperforming ISPs in question in
'infrastructure', mainly their 'backhaul'. In short, it's about MONEY,
nothing else.
Graham
Graham Murray
> What exactly do you propose that they *should* say?
That they provide an ADSL Max service, or ADSL2+ etc as appropriate.
Bob Eager
That would be fine, but I think he wants something much more specific
(and impractical).
Mark McIntyre
> it is my isps fault if they dont have enough backhaul to accommodate the
> subscribers,
You're assuming that is the case. And even if it is, no ISP buys 100%
coverage - its completely uneconomic at the price levels consumers
expect to pay. And for what its worth, no significant network has
capacity for 100% of clients running at 100% activity level. If your
office's LAN suddenly had all its computers using 100% of their 1Gb
network card's capacity, you can bet it'd go t*tsup...
> also it is their fault if they offer me an unlimited service,
> yet limit what i can productively do with it (traffic shaping).
Disingenuous wording. If written thus - unlimited service, provided you
don't unfairly hog the line - it sounds quite different.
Plus no ISP sells unlimited service. They sell a service which is
subject to a FUP. This is such common knowledge it amazes me that people
complain about it. If you want unlimited guaranteed bandwith, fork out
2Kpcm for a leased line.
> read the comments on the link from fast4 users, and compare with zen, idnet,
> entanet etc., all running on the same types of wires, but with far fewer
> disgruntled customers.
I'm not arguing that some ISPs oversell their service. I'm pointing out
that there are a whole sheaf of factors beyond the ISPs internal network
which are outside their control.
> as to the overloaded websites, looks like you mean
> youtube, which i've not had a single problem with since switching from pipex
> (same line, same exchange, same router, same connection speed).
same routers at the ISP, same gateway, same network path to youtube,
same gateway server at youtube... ?
Eeyore
Graham Murray wrote:
But they DO.
Graham
Eeyore
Mark McIntyre wrote:
> tony h wrote:
> > it is my isps fault if they dont have enough backhaul to accommodate the
> > subscribers,
>
> You're assuming that is the case. And even if it is, no ISP buys 100%
> coverage - its completely uneconomic at the price levels consumers
> expect to pay. And for what its worth, no significant network has
> capacity for 100% of clients running at 100% activity level.
No. But companies such as Idnet do purchase enough capacity to ensure that their
backhaul has margin in hand at all times of the day.
Graham
PhilT
wrote:
> No. But companies such as Idnet do purchase enough capacity to ensure that their
> backhaul has margin in hand at all times of the day.
they also limit their customers demand by having "inclusive GB"
tariffs. So it isn't just that IDnet are prepared to spend more, they
also match supply and demand with GB limits and pay for extra GB.
Seems to me there are a few options for matching supply and demand :-
1. Charge a fortune so you can buy plenty of capacity per customer
2. Limit the peak GB used by customers with caps or inclusive GB
accounts
3. PAYG pay per GB to limit demand and fund matching supply
4. FUP to kick off the "download the internet" users and control the
average demand
5. Traffic management to squeeze a quart into a pint pot by limiting
the "download the internet" protocols
6. Congestion, packet loss and chaos by overloading circuits
7. Entanet's ALT which is a better managed version of 6 in the "off-
peak" high demand period.
In the long run economics will sort it all out, but in the short term
crap companies offerring "free broadband" and uneconomic prices mean
that anyone trying to run a high quality service and charging a
corresponding price is basically looking at having not very many
customers.
At least with a hundred-odd ISPs we can choose which option we prefer,
and half of them have monthly contracts if we aren't sure which will
work out best.
Phil
Eeyore
PhilT wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
>
> > No. But companies such as Idnet do purchase enough capacity to ensure that their
> > backhaul has margin in hand at all times of the day.
>
> they also limit their customers demand by having "inclusive GB"
> tariffs. So it isn't just that IDnet are prepared to spend more, they
> also match supply and demand with GB limits and pay for extra GB.
It's hardly demand limiting since you can buy far more if you want it. It just means
that if you are going to be downloading lots, they've got the income to ensure their
infrastructure is up to it. I don't see any viable alternative if you want a decent
reliable servcie.
Graham
tony h
>
> It's hardly demand limiting since you can buy far more if you want it.
true, but the cost can be prohibitive, i pay enta £20, ident would have cost
me £75 last month (£25 for first 30gb, £1/gb extra)
George Weston
"tony h" <m...@home.com> wrote in message
news:fkg6jp$b6e$1...@news.albasani.net...
Yer gets wot yer pays for in this world, Sunshine.
No more, no less.
George
tony h
"George Weston" <geow...@NOSPAMgooglemail.com> wrote in message
news:5t1l8rF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> Yer gets wot yer pays for in this world, Sunshine.
> No more, no less.
>
> George
>
true, i'm more than happy with what i get for my money.
Clive Sinclair
bad/good ISP's, or the charges for connection. It was all about the
advertising slogan they use i.e. "up to".
I myself am very happy with my ISP (cable) I get the full 4mb I am
paying for. I think the original and ongoing complaint is justified.
I am sure there are people who do get the 'up to' speed, but VERY few -
judging by the fact that almost everyone agrees with the complaints
against ISP's (re the speed claims).
One ISP (mentioned on TV recently) has started using the average speed
i.e. they take reading from BT and after 10 days of testing they quote
these speeds. A much more realistic way of informing customers of the
speeds they will or should get.
If you have ever travelled to Japan, you will see how ISP's should be
run - cheap, fast (very) and reliable. As is usual in the UK, we put up
with rubbish service, false advertising and overpriced products.
Clive
--
Clive
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take.....
but by the moments that take our breath away.
tony h
"Clive Sinclair" <cl...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:WRNaj.66282$c_1....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> One ISP (mentioned on TV recently) has started using the average speed
> i.e. they take reading from BT and after 10 days of testing they quote
> these speeds. A much more realistic way of informing customers of the
> speeds they will or should get.
>
>
my isp (entanet) has published those figues for a while now, showing which %
or subscribers are on which profile. much as 'the majority' of people are
opposed to the 'up to' label, the majority are also idiots with no
understanding of the technologies involved and the reality that BTw isps are
still unable to change the laws of physics. i still firmly believe that this
is the wrong campaign to run, and that opposition to vague fups and
unpublished caps has a better grounding in reality, and as such a better
chance of sucess, but, again, the 'majority' don't even know what a fup is,
or if they have one.
Eeyore
tony h wrote:
> "Eeyore" wrote
> >
> > It's hardly demand limiting since you can buy far more if you want it.
>
> true, but the cost can be prohibitive, i pay enta £20, ident would have cost
> me £75 last month (£25 for first 30gb, £1/gb extra)
80GB ?
Graham
Gizmo.
Another problem is that most folk havent a clue how much data they're eating
each month. Not helped by most ISPs not making the tools available for their
customers to check their useage.
tony h
>
> 80GB ?
>
> Graham
>
>
near enough, fluctuate between 50 - 90/month (4 kids, 5 PCs). i used to be
with bt, they threw a strop, and pipex, need i say more. enta, though not
perfect, offer me far more than i need for a great price and no matter what
time of day everything works smoothly
Eeyore
Clive Sinclair wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > ato...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> >>>> All it needs is a little box to be put in randomly chosen
> >>>> users homes. It does test downloads from randomly
> >>>> chosen sites, UK and overseas, using a variety of
> >>>> protocols, (http, P2P, VOIP, VPN etc)
> >>>> at unpredicable times.
> >>>> This would give a truer picture of what users are
> >>>> experiencing with each ISP, over a variety of
> >>>> line lengths.
> >>>>
> >>> How would you remove the variability due to the lines themselves?
> >>>
> >> It would rate the difference between bandwidth
> >> of the subscribers loop, what the line should
> >> deliver, and what it actually delivers, being how
> >> fast the ISP can drive it.
> >>
> >
> > You don't really have a clue do you ?
> >
> > Hint : none of what you suggest is needed. The only thing that'll fix it
> > is investment by the underperforming ISPs in question in
> > 'infrastructure', mainly their 'backhaul'. In short, it's about MONEY,
> > nothing else.
>
> The original story (circulating in the media recently) is not about
> bad/good ISP's, or the charges for connection. It was all about the
> advertising slogan they use i.e. "up to".
Which the likes of Watchdog don't appear to understand. The speed you connect
at over the local loop is almost totally divorced from the speed that the ISP
chooses to deliver.
There are TWO issues. The 'up to' is initially determined by the physical
performance of YOUR telephone line and no Ofcom edict can affect that.
However over-subscribed ISPs may fail to deliver what your line is capable of
and this is the more serious isiue since it's often deliberate and
intentional.
> I myself am very happy with my ISP (cable) I get the full 4mb I am
> paying for. I think the original and ongoing complaint is justified.
>
> I am sure there are people who do get the 'up to' speed, but VERY few -
> judging by the fact that almost everyone agrees with the complaints
> against ISP's (re the speed claims).
I get a full bore 8.128 Mbps sync rate and the download speeds I get come
close to (within a few percent of) the maximum possible 7150 kbps associated
with that sync rate.
People who get bad service are usually simply looking for a 'cheap' deal with
a useless major, heavily advertised ISP. It can be fixed in a trice by
changing to a competent one but so many people would prefer to save a few bob
and complain. They get what they deserve.
Hint: if it advertises on the telly, don't use it.
> One ISP (mentioned on TV recently) has started using the average speed
> i.e. they take reading from BT and after 10 days of testing they quote
> these speeds. A much more realistic way of informing customers of the
> speeds they will or should get.
>
> If you have ever travelled to Japan, you will see how ISP's should be
> run - cheap, fast (very) and reliable. As is usual in the UK, we put up
> with rubbish service, false advertising and overpriced products.
Actually, this is a complete myth. UK broadband provision is not at all
expensive compared to the vast majority of countries. It's quite a bit more
expensive in the USA for example when comparing like with like.
Graham
Clive Sinclair
other country? I mentioned Japan.
Take a look here
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070529-survey-average-broadband-speed-in-us-is-1-9mbps.html
AND HERE
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6900697.stm
I paid £7.50 Per month for 40mb up AND down. At the time I lived in
Japan, they were just introdicung 100mb up/down for £12.99 and no STM.
Eeyore
Clive Sinclair wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > Clive Sinclair wrote:
> >>
> >> If you have ever travelled to Japan, you will see how ISP's should be
> >> run - cheap, fast (very) and reliable. As is usual in the UK, we put up
> >> with rubbish service, false advertising and overpriced products.
> >
> > Actually, this is a complete myth. UK broadband provision is not at all
> > expensive compared to the vast majority of countries. It's quite a bit more
> > expensive in the USA for example when comparing like with like.
>
>
> Graham have you lived in another country or paid for Broadband in any
> other country? I mentioned Japan.
>
> Take a look here
> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070529-survey-average-broadband-speed-in-us-is-1-9mbps.html
>
> AND HERE
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6900697.stm
>
> I paid £7.50 Per month for 40mb up AND down. At the time I lived in
> Japan, they were just introdicung 100mb up/down for £12.99 and no STM.
So ? Japan is cheap.
Now compare with a US provider (which I would expect to be cheap but isn't). The grass isn't greener
everywhere you know.
Graham
Eeyore
tony h wrote:
> "Eeyore" wrote
> >
> > 80GB ?
>
> near enough, fluctuate between 50 - 90/month (4 kids, 5 PCs).
That explains a lot !
> i used to be
> with bt, they threw a strop, and pipex, need i say more. enta, though not
> perfect, offer me far more than i need for a great price and no matter what
> time of day everything works smoothly
Fair enough in that case.
Graham
Nigel Cliffe
> Japan, they were just introdicung 100mb up/down for Ł12.99 and no STM.
Japan is cheaper because of the way people live; large numbers of people in
apartment blocks. So, its very cheap to put in a fibre cable to the block,
distribute it with the block wiring, etc.
You need a comparison where the housing stock and population densities are
broadly similar.
- Nigel
--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/
Clive Sinclair
model!!!! der!
Of course it's cheaper to run an ISP in Japan. Because they INVESTED in
a decent infrastructure unlike the UK - which is why our upload speeds
are pathetic. British ISP's are too busy lining the pockets of share
holders.
Most people agree that the service we get from an ISP is 'poor' in the
UK - yet you two have to disagree....
Let me guess you don't want 40mb up/down for a tenner a month? Or maybe
you work for a UK ISP.......??
Paul Herber
>Graham & Nigel - in my ORIGINAL post I did quote Japan as an ideal
>model!!!! der!
The phrase "an ideal model" can be read in at least two different
ways, two different meanings.
--
Regards, Paul Herber, Sandrila Ltd.
http://www.sandrila.co.uk/ http://www.pherber.com/
Eeyore
Clive Sinclair wrote:
> Most people agree that the service we get from an ISP is 'poor' in the
> UK
That's because your alleged 'most people' have accounts with useless ISPs like all the big ones because
they haven't the wit to look further than the junk mail that drops through theitr letterbox or watch ads
on TeeVee. And then they're also too lazy to move when they realise it's crap too. I don't personally
know *anyone* with a really poor broadband service.
> - yet you two have to disagree....
I have an excellent broadband service from Idnet. It costs only a couple of quid more than the average
useless major ISP. It's available to anyone with a BT line.
> Let me guess you don't want 40mb up/down for a tenner a month?
I certainly don't need the 'up' facility at that speed. Of course faster would be nice but until you can
find a way to lay fibre to every home at very low cost it simply isn't going to happen.
> Or maybe you work for a UK ISP.......??
Idiot.
Graham
tony h
> Most people agree that the service we get from an ISP is 'poor' in the
> UK - yet you two have to disagree....
>
i'm not sure that they do. i was at a rally recently and one member was
wanting to get broadband,another was telling him how fantastic tiscali are,
when i tried to explain their fup and shaping he had no idea what i was
talking about, he's been with them years
i do believe that the ones who are complaining are the people who have
gained enough knowledge to know that they're with a sh!te ISP, but are
either locked into a long contract, or don't understand the choices, and
there are plenty. fibre to the home, or even kerb, would be lovely, but bt
aren't going to invest in it, and the isps don't have the money to. i read
an estimate recently of £10Bn, though i can't remember if that was to the
kerb or house
Eeyore
tony h wrote:
21CN ?
http://www.btplc.com/21CN/index.htm
" The UK currently enjoys the highest stable speed broadband across the widest
national footprint in the world, thanks to BT's investments. Where end users'
existing broadband lines are connected to a 21CN broadband-enabled exchange,
from 2008 service providers will be able to choose to supply end users with a
richer broadband experience based on BT Wholesale's next generation broadband
service."
Ok, it's mainly marketing gobbledook. I gather it involves using more fibre
though.
Graham
Gizmo.
"Clive Sinclair" <cl...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:eNUaj.66527$c_1....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> Clive Sinclair wrote:
>>
>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>
>>>> Actually, this is a complete myth. UK broadband provision is not at
>>>> all expensive compared to the vast majority of countries. It's quite
>>>> a bit more expensive in the USA for example when comparing like with
>>>> like.
>>>>
>>> Graham have you lived in another country or paid for Broadband in any
>>> other country? I mentioned Japan.
>>>
>>> Take a look here
>>> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070529-survey-average-broadband-speed-in-us-is-1-9mbps.html
>>>
>>> AND HERE
>>>
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6900697.stm
>>>
>>> Japan, they were just introdicung 100mb up/down for £12.99 and no STM.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Japan is cheaper because of the way people live; large numbers of people
>> in apartment blocks. So, its very cheap to put in a fibre cable to the
>> block, distribute it with the block wiring, etc.
>>
>> You need a comparison where the housing stock and population densities
>> are broadly similar.
>>
>>
>> - Nigel
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Graham & Nigel - in my ORIGINAL post I did quote Japan as an ideal
> model!!!! der!
>
> Of course it's cheaper to run an ISP in Japan. Because they INVESTED in a
> decent infrastructure unlike the UK - which is why our upload speeds are
> pathetic. British ISP's are too busy lining the pockets of share holders.
>
> Most people agree that the service we get from an ISP is 'poor' in the
> UK - yet you two have to disagree....
>
> Let me guess you don't want 40mb up/down for a tenner a month? Or maybe
> you work for a UK ISP.......??
Your post certainly indicates that you have never worked in the ISP / Telco
industry.
Yet another clueless fuck
stephen
news:eNUaj.66527$c_1....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
actually i suspect that the issue is about access links to users, living
density and economics.
Japan has much higher housing density and more people live in multiple
family / person building, like flats.
That cuts the amount of digging needed to hook up a user - that translates
into lower per access link costs, and makes putting in high speed links to
share for a building much more economic for homes rather than just
businesses.
Same thing happens in some parts of Europe, like Netherlands & Italy, and
the same effect is true for other services like cable TV.
>
> Most people agree that the service we get from an ISP is 'poor' in the
> UK - yet you two have to disagree....
>
> Let me guess you don't want 40mb up/down for a tenner a month? Or maybe
> you work for a UK ISP.......??
>
> --
> Clive
>
> Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take.....
> but by the moments that take our breath away.
--
Regards
stephe...@xyzworld.com - replace xyz with ntl
stephen
No
final link to a house will still be copper pair / ADSL.
All the BT exchanges were linked by fibre a long time back.
21CN is really about BT (or BT retail / wholesale / openreach etc)
rationalising its links between exchanges and the national network, and
running fewer parallel networks for different services.
All your voice and Internet, and various types of business services will be
on a common IP set of BT plumbing once it gets past the exchange, all
connected by the new MSANs in each exchange, so that changing services for
BT becomes more about provisioning and software setup than an engineer
rearranging wiring and equipment connections in the exchange.
Although all that LLU stuff means the regulator has forced BT to allow
others to connect to each copper pair, so the complexity is in the links
between different kit owned by different companies in the same exchange. I
suspect BT is happy with that, since they can charge for anything they do
for another company......
>
> Graham
tony h
> http://www.btplc.com/21CN/index.htm
>
> " The UK currently enjoys the highest stable speed broadband across the
> widest
> national footprint in the world, thanks to BT's investments. Where end
> users'
> existing broadband lines are connected to a 21CN broadband-enabled
> exchange,
> from 2008 service providers will be able to choose to supply end users
> with a
> richer broadband experience based on BT Wholesale's next generation
> broadband
> service."
>
> Ok, it's mainly marketing gobbledook. I gather it involves using more
> fibre
> though.
>
> Graham
>
>
as a calendar...) but afaik the increased broadband provisioned by the
technology is a side effect of bt changing to voip (which will cut their own
costs), not an investment in broadband infrastructure per se. if bt
discovered a technology which would increase profits further that involved
fibre to the house then i'm sure they'd use it, but i guess thats another 10
years away. speeds are going to have to increase in time to meet the demand
which new technologies will impose, but i'm not sure who's going to pay for
it. its also reasonable to assume that new technologies will make better use
of the copper pair increasing speed,i've heard that we'd hit the throretical
maximum speed since back in the days of 1200 baud, we now have 'up to' 24
meg', and if that is just running on 1 strand of the pair, there must be a
way of seperating voice and getting the same on the other. (adsl2+ allows
pair bonding(to another pair), doubling the speed)
maybe if bt get fibre to the kerb (green box), they could then charge
householders to install the short distance to the house (maybe same amount
as a new installation, about £150), those interested in the capacity
increase would pay, those with no interest wouldnt, and it would severely
reduce the fiscal burden on bt.
The Natural Philosopher
Dream on. You can see the little microwave dish on our local one..
you would be surprised how much backbone traffic goes over microwaves.
Still, for low bandwidth its just as good.
stephen
news:119832064...@proxy01.news.clara.net...
doesnt mean there isnt fibre as well :) - often microwave is there because
it actually is for a customer link, or it is for something else.
Some of the rooftop masts / dishes on exchanges seem to actually belong to
other companies.
>
> you would be surprised how much backbone traffic goes over microwaves.
>
> Still, for low bandwidth its just as good.
high bandwidth has been around a long time - 140 Mbps (ie pre SDH) old stuff
is still in use in the UK.
dual 155M is pretty common on point to point microwave (and the kit now
fairly cheap for carrier gear), and 622M is available if you need more, and
can afford it, get the licence and so on.
Devs
<markmc...@spamcop.net> writes
>or some girl falling out of her tee shirt at a gig?
Link please? :O)
--
Devs
"Punchdown Pete the old Kroner"
Un autre 4 ans!