Rural broadband speeds

[Peter Scott]

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

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

Text of letter...

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

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

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

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

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

Peter Scott

[Huge]

Lucky you. About 50% quicker than mine, then.

BTW, you've two chances of this making a difference - slim and none.

[TMC]

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

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

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

You pays your money and you takes your choice

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

Tony

[TheOldFellow]

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

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

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

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

R.

[Peter Scott]

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

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

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

Peter Scott

[meow2222]

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

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

Look at your suggestion from the point of view of basic market economics: if your ISP had to pay out =A325 every 4th month (for failure to meet targets) they would simply up the price of the service by =A325/4 per month plus the cost of administering such a scheme. And anywhere they were not confident of succeeding most of the time they would simply withdraw the service altogether, and you'd be back to

56k.

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

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

NT

[The Natural Philosopher]

The kit you are using costs the same..

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

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

256kbps of bandwidth into the entire country..

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

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

[The Natural Philosopher]

There are not.

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

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

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

[The Natural Philosopher]

Very complicated.

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

Irrelevant to real download speeds.

Irrelevant to download speeds.

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

[Bob Mannix]

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

[Bruce]

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

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

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

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

In the meantime, here's a practical alternative:

[Bruce]

Well said.

[Bob Mannix]

clubbing together to get a fibre laid into the village an alternative. Doing that together might even be a bit on topic!

[TMC]

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

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

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

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

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

If you want a better broadband try this

[robgraham]

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

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

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

All I can say is shame on you all.

Rob

[Tim S]

The Natural Philosopher coughed up some electrons that declared:

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

Fit master sockets with ADSL filters to both lines.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers

Tim

[1] If the ISP does it using 802.3ad

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

[Bruce]

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

Not cheap, I grant you, but the backup service at £39 per month hardly costs a fortune. Compared to the overall cost of owning/renting/running a household, it is small beer.

[Bruce]

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

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

[Huge]

You're adrift of the mark with that one.

[Huge]

Neighbour? Wossat?