OT: my broadband

On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 08:32:32 +0000 (UTC), Adrian wrote:

cable

So who installed all the cable systems in most towns and cities in the country 30(+?) years ago? It wasn't HMG, it wasn't BT it was the private cable companies who had just got the franchises. They cherry picked of course, just like BT is cherry picking with FTTC now. Except that BT aren't paying for FTTC, we all are ,but not every one is getting the same service.

That is now not back when the cable franchises were issued. Only just over 10 years ago the cable co's were still quite keen on expanding. The frnchise holder for here said they would cable the town if the backhaul could be provided. Back then suitable backhaul cost the arms and legs of several people ...
Backhaul is still a major problem for small/community ISPs, at one point in the BDUK stuff there was rumour of BT putting in 1 Gbps fibre to isolated places for the local/community ISP to distribute over what ever could be made to work, be that FTTC, FTTP, WiFi, WiMax etc. That seems to have been killed by BT cherry picking with FTTC. This cherry picking also effectively prevents local/community ISPs growing as the bulk of their potential customers are covered by BT's FTTC and thus EU funding for the local ISP gets withdrawn as there is no coverage overlap allowed between BT FTCC and local ISPs.
--
Cheers
Dave.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 12:49:20 +0000, Dave Liquorice wrote:

Indeed they did. Briefly. Then they realised just how expensive it was, they all stopped digging and then they all went under or got taken over to become Virgin Media (this week).
So, yes...

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

They sometimes will if theres a few subs to make it worthwhile, problem is finding the right person to speak to;(...
--
Tony Sayer




  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So what stopped them? Borrowing money now is free, even the most basic cable customers with just a telephone service produce a revenue stream of 150 quid per annum, those with tv service and broadband anything from 250 quid to 600 quid. But what margin there is is debatable.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 29/11/2013 23:12, Dave Liquorice wrote:

But they don't do FTTP to most places. Virgins "fibre" broadband is copper from the street cabinet, just like FTTC.
Incidently you could have had gigabit (with 100M as a cheap option) ethernet five years ago but the comment I got from Valance was "If we put new copper into the ground the press will crucify us". It was costed up at about £2bn, far less than fibre. All you needed was to drop cat5 wire and waterproof switches into the footway holes and/or poles. Being copper even the BT engineers could cope. (It was intended that the whole thing would become a mesh network using MPLS to route stuff and the core would vanish after a few years, but that's a different story.)
You have been waiting for fibre since then and are still getting copper.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Who are fibre to the cabinet but it does the rest of the way on co-ax which seems less "lossy"....
--
Tony Sayer


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 19:28:43 +0000, tony sayer wrote:

cable

True enough but they still spent the money digging holes, laying ducts etc. So they shoved in coax and twisted pair shotgun cable back then suitable fibre kit was either sodding expenesive or more likely non-existant. These days the sensible thing would be to bung in fibre, ONTs are less than £100.

Does anybody know the "reach" of the coax systems?
--
Cheers
Dave.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 29/11/2013 17:51, Dave Baker wrote:

That is more a failure of your imagination than anything else. A bare minimum for watching streamed HDTV on iPlayer is 3500Mbps and you need a connection capable of at least 4Mbps BRAS for that.
Skype and video conferencing needs at least 2Mbps to be comfortable.

The haves will shortly have enough bandwidth to watch 20 channels of HDTV simultaneously where the have nots are already at the stage where some grossly over Flashed corporate sites take minutes to load.

I used to watch sumo from Japan using a special codec on a 56k connection. It was a triumph of bandwidth management at the time.

The universal service needs to be around 4Mbps. The government standard of 2Mbps is fit only for Luddites and technophobes.
Anywhere unable to economically get landline 4Mbps should have subsidised 3G nodes with directional antennas installed to cover the typical linear development profile of small rural villages.
If the government insists that farmers have to fill in loads of forms online they damn well have to roll out broadband to rural areas too!
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 09:46:33 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:

I've yet to find a HD programme on iPlayer that runs at more than 2.5 Mbps with the odd peak to 2.7 or 2.8. I think the spec is 3.2 Mbps but in reality they don't peak at that rate. IMHO 3.2 is just good SD, it's not enough for decent HD that needs 10 Mbps or more, remember that there is over 1 Gbps dribbling out the back of a broadcast HD camera ...

Not convinced that even *4G* has the overall bandwidth required for say 50 households to all stream (current) iplayer at the same time. I spend time at Premier League football grounds, most have 4G coverage and speeds before the crowd arrive are pretty respectable at least as good as the best ADSL2 and not so asymetric. Once the crowd are in speed falls through the floor ...

Agreed but the 2 Mbps Universal Access is adequate for that. HMG's sites are not overloaded with flash and pointless eye candy. Most don't even need javascript, filing a VAT return doesn't need javascript.
--
Cheers
Dave.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I remember a time when the difference between the haves and the have nots was to do with life's essentials. Watching a sporting event from half way round the world (or watching any kind of TV for that matter) doesn't come into the "life's essentials" category for me.
--
Mike Barnes

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 30/11/2013 09:46, Martin Brown wrote:

Its also worth highlighting that a major limitation of ADSL is the A bit i.e. its asymmetric bandwidth - hence even for customers getting 20Mbps down, they are frequently stuck with 448 kbps up. That can become a real problem for many applications.
(FTTC is still asymmetric - but you get a big jump in uplink capability to 8Mbps or more)

Indeed. and when you try working from home where you want a VPN to allow file transfers in both directions, or add in services like online backup, and cloud delivery of applications as a service, and you start pushing the requirements further.

Even then its a moving target... 4Mbps will soon become "too slow"

--
Cheers,

John.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yup, that's a significant reason why we will move over soon once the FTTC install in the village goes live.
We have about 10mbs on ADSL at mo (and about 1.2 down, on Annex M), though even that struggles sometimes with multiple users in the house, But I really would like a faster upload speed.
We have online backup, lots of photo and video uploading, I'm setting up a minecraft server for the youngest and that could do with better upstream speed as well I think when a number of people are on it
--
Chris French


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 30/11/2013 18:05, John Rumm wrote:

Agreed although comparatively few end users originate that much content some of the online backup and cloud functions do eat uplink bandwidth.

448k is only a minor irritation most of the time. Basically you start an ftp session in the background and/or walk away for a hour or three.

I think it disingenuous of the government to set the standard at 2Mbps - it is not enough for the main consumer application of streamed HD video content on demand and a bit borderline for basic rate TV streams.

Agreed, but at least it is fast enough to allow the majority of end users to do the sorts of things that are advertised as "possible".
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 29/11/2013 15:49, Adrian wrote:

Maybe rural users could pay a more reasonable price to cover the extra costs in supplying them.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 29/11/2013 21:40, dennis@home wrote:

Quite often they already do if there is no competitor equipment at their exchange.
--
Michael Chare

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 29/11/2013 23:54, Michael Chare wrote:

But they don't as they still pay the same as an urban customer for the service even though there is a greater cost. Its not as though broadband is an essential like electricity.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 30/11/2013 13:38, dennis@home wrote:

No they don't. The price is higher because there is no effective inter ISP price competition since it is BT kit or nothing in rural exchanges. We get ripped off for an inferior service.
Meanwhile the Superfast Broadband executives go prancing around town councils telling them what a good job they are doing (NOT).
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 14:29:19 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:

the

It's rapidly heading the way of an essential utility with many things becoming online only and/or non-online attracting higher costs.

Might be BT kit but you don't have to buy your internet connectivity from BT, you can buy from pretty much who ever you choose, so there is competion. LLU is a another block of competion and I guess one can argue that ISP X over LLU might be cheaper than ISP X over BT Wholesale.

Even with LLU the copper pair is still maintained bt BT Openreach. IMHO it just bungs yet another layer of "customer service" script jockys in the way. Under LLU you have no contract with BT, thus you are at the mercy of your LLU provider to contact and negociate with BT Wholesale who then pass it to BT Openreach.
--
Cheers
Dave.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 30/11/2013 16:11, Dave Liquorice wrote:

There are higher overheads for off line stuff, that's why some shops are struggling. Do you really want most people to pay more just so the few who decided to live in the sticks can be subsidised?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 30/11/2013 14:29, Martin Brown wrote:

If there is BT in the exchange then there can be several ISPs to choose from. A lot just use BT kit and back haul. A few install their own kit. If there are no ISPs prepared to offer a service at your exchange its because there is no money in it and you are getting a subsidised BT service so be grateful.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.