tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post68459416084666350..comments2024-03-18T12:28:29.902+00:00Comments on RevK<sup>®</sup>'s ramblings: Broadband speedRevKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12369263214193333422noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-69133046270356497102015-07-08T11:38:43.075+01:002015-07-08T11:38:43.075+01:00I'd say at least 10% of line use aluminium or ...I'd say at least 10% of line use aluminium or other poor grades of metal so it may help get cables changed in slow areas. Doubt it though since the reason they aren't changed is the horrendous cost and changing provider wont actually improve the speeds, they could already change at the end of a year anyway.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09019276835545056175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-33517900116773976972015-06-22T13:10:59.953+01:002015-06-22T13:10:59.953+01:00My 40/10 FTTC line is faulty because I only get 40...My 40/10 FTTC line is faulty because I only get 40/10! I want a free migrate out to these nice A&A people who claim to fix all faults on migrated lines within a month... :-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-51561100838934347602015-06-22T07:47:56.125+01:002015-06-22T07:47:56.125+01:00I can certainly remember a lot of 28.8kbps modems ...I can certainly remember a lot of 28.8kbps modems being sold as 115.2kbps because that was the theoretical top speed after compression (generally limited by the RS232 interface between the computer and modem). Also tape streamer / DAT capacities and throughputs were often quoted after taking compression into account, rather than the raw throughput.Steve Hillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09798286430189689578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-3730260443960107192015-06-20T11:54:05.275+01:002015-06-20T11:54:05.275+01:00It's a great shame that the physics of copper ...It's a great shame that the physics of copper don't allow the same kind of progress that the physics of iron on "hard" disks have permitted over the last 20 or so years.<br />Recording densities have increased enormously so that mutli terrabyte spinning disks are now small, even tiny, and very inexpensive.<br />Copper transmission technology has made a lot of progress but not nearly as much as has been made with "Winchester" disks.<br />The only answer proposed at present is to replace copper with glass where possible and financially feasible. This is bad news for anyone not living in demesne populated -and therefore cheap to re-cable - urban areas.briesmithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18028386036313948348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-2787622047517057152015-06-20T10:04:57.324+01:002015-06-20T10:04:57.324+01:00I can see where the ASA/BCAP are coming from, as s...I can see where the ASA/BCAP are coming from, as someone else suggested, think of the massive overhead discrepancies between Wifi, 4G, VDSL, ADSL. As I interpret the guidelines, if an ISP advertises "Up to X Mb/s data rate" or "Up to X Mb/s sync speed" then they are fine, as this is a specific claim which can be backed up by reference to the relevant protocol. The problem comes when they start advertising "Up to X Mb/s download speed" and aren't the ASA right, hasn't the ISP itself overstepped the mark and started selling based on maximum performance of download protocols? I know you have a sharp mind for this sort of thing, and wonder what's your interpretation of the guideline? I also wonder if ISPs selling "Up to 76 Mb/s download speed" are using IP throughput as their measure. Forgive me for being dumb, but is IP level data all passed on to end-devices like a tablet or PC? If so, then I can see how they think this counts as a "protocol relevant to downloading".Benny the Ballhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07306683883948694918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-58513189425541244412015-06-20T08:17:23.187+01:002015-06-20T08:17:23.187+01:00I had not really gone in to protocol overheads, an...I had not really gone in to protocol overheads, and that is yet another issue. It seems it is, once again, a total failure of ASA and the like to understand what is being sold. Again, connection beyond the link in to the ISP is outside of the control of the ISP, but ignoring that for a moment, the ISP sells, at most, IP connectivity. They don't sell HTTP or FTP protocols. The choice of protocol is down to the user. Some are horridly slow at application, e.g. if you look at actual displayed text from an HTML page to overall IP level data transferred. I mean, if I send a high res image that depicts a single 4 letter work, is that 4 bytes are user level? Some protocols may include compression, so could mean higher application rate than IP rate. Comms lines have always been sold at bit rate. Nobody ever complained at 300 bps modems, or 64k ISDN being misleading. So all an ISP needs do is test a large text file over a gzipped lower level protocol and they can advertise massively higher speeds - yay ASA!RevKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369263214193333422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-40349885411691018532015-06-19T23:47:26.078+01:002015-06-19T23:47:26.078+01:00I read someone elsewhere claim if an advert says &...I read someone elsewhere claim if an advert says 'download speed' it should mean "download throughput at the application layer". I’m not sure, but the ASA quotes do seem to indicate that the speed should be based on the relevant protocol rather than raw data rate, and based on speed testing representative of downloading rather than sync speeds. Wondered what thoughts were. All of what follows is a copy of what he said…<br /><br />The guidance document is here: https://www.cap.org.uk/~/media/Files/CAP/Help%20notes%20new/speed%20claims.ashx<br /><br />It is clear to me at least that for a claim of 76 Mb/s download speed, like Plusnet make, the speed should refer to download throughput at the application layer seen by the end-user, not sync speeds. Looking at ASA judgements, the ISPs indeed seem to submit speed tests as evidence not sync speeds, I saw one referencing Ofcom's report and one uSwitch speed test data.<br /><br />Quotes from the document<br />- Where advertisers make a numerical speed claim that is likely to be understood by consumers as the maximum speed of their service, they should be able to demonstrate that the speed is achievable for at least 10% of the relevant customer base.<br /><br />- Specific claims, such as “50Mb Download speed”, should be based on tests of protocols relevant to downloading large files.<br /><br />- Speed claims for a service in general should be based on speed testing that is representative of the activities that users generally perform.<br /><br />My guess is ISPs think their numbers can comply, and they think they can prove it through calculation of the throughput after overheads, plus real testing on a sample of lines on max sync, which at least 10% of users have.Benny the Ballhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07306683883948694918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-62799645075738554682015-06-18T15:40:17.248+01:002015-06-18T15:40:17.248+01:00Well I've just quickly perused the new code bu...Well I've just quickly perused the new code but nowhere does it mention the phrases "distance from the exchange" or "length of line". So 'similar connections' can mean anything the ISP wants it to mean. Are OFCOM really so dense that they are unable to see that not defining 'similar connections' will inevitably lead to abuse by the more unscrupulous ISPs? <br /><br />Furthermore, I assume that minimum access line speed refers to sync speed. If so, it is an even more useless definition. Someone with a congested ISP who gets a sync speed of 12mb but only gets a throughput speed of perhaps 5mb because of under capacity at the exchange, will not be able to break their contract without charges. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10823387395371201608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-23364434286603926312015-06-18T14:12:21.619+01:002015-06-18T14:12:21.619+01:00We are not planning to do 40/2. It is an odd choic...We are not planning to do 40/2. It is an odd choice for ISPs. Maybe if the FTTC is slow (e.g. 10M) it may make sense.RevKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369263214193333422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-40913978904861466812015-06-18T14:09:29.841+01:002015-06-18T14:09:29.841+01:00Just when I thought FTTC made more sense than Virg...Just when I thought FTTC made more sense than Virgin because FTTC uplink was a quarter of downlink, they go and do something stupid like 40/2. Are they mad? My dad gets 12/1 on his ADSL 2+ ie. a better ratio, and yet usually when things are slow for my dad it is the 1mbit uplink which is saturated. He regularly complains that sending large emails is slow.Owen Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00890951742186614705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-77370998391589556512015-06-18T12:29:25.147+01:002015-06-18T12:29:25.147+01:00Indeed. The exact criteria for "similar"...Indeed. The exact criteria for "similar" was never that clear, but the more you narrow that the worse it gets. It is always at least 10% of lines faulty. Last time it was lines *AT* or below the 10th percentile, so short lines getting max rate (e.g. lots of lines on 40Mb/s capped FTTC) will all get exactly 40Mb/s meaning that 100% are considered faulty...RevKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369263214193333422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-45022530710960393842015-06-18T12:23:28.760+01:002015-06-18T12:23:28.760+01:00I did a little more reading about this following y...I did a little more reading about this following your blog post a week or two ago. It looks like the proposed new rules (minimum guaranteed access line speed) are something of an improvement: the 'slowest 10%' criteria is based on 'similar connections', so it wouldn't apply to all ADSL connections as a whole, but only those of a similar distance from the exchange (or in FTTC terms, a similar distance from the cab, one presumes).<br /><br />So there would be no need to consider the long slow line getting 500kbps in your example above as 'faulty', provided other lines of similar length were also getting around 500kbps.<br /><br />Granted, it still doesn't address the issue that in their view 10% of lines would always be considered 'faulty', which is just plain daft, but at least it *tries* to take into account line length...Chris @ Minotaurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05483863423399413251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-21955677222179203872015-06-18T11:52:41.806+01:002015-06-18T11:52:41.806+01:00It would appear that 40/2 is gaining popularity as...It would appear that 40/2 is gaining popularity as an FTTC speed, with both TalkTalk and PlusNet offering it by default now. Should think that's going to affect download speed significantly at some point, as that's not a lot of upload left after ACK packets have left the building!Matthewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04311149395810537121noreply@blogger.com