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

"Peter Scott" wrote in message
om...
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

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

On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 10:10:14 -0000
"TMC" wrote:


"Peter Scott" wrote in message
om...
snip
"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

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



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.

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

Doesn't have to be

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

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!

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

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

Peter Scott wrote:

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


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 £25 every 4th month (for failure
to meet targets) they would simply up the price of the service by
£25/4 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

Peter Scott wrote:
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 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.


"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

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?

Peter Scott wrote:

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

Doesn't have to be

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

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!

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

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

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.

wrote:
Peter Scott wrote:

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


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?

Very complicated.

Do you use a compression service that sends all files compressed, this
can over double the average speed?

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


Do you use advert blocking on your browser?

Irrelevant to real download speeds.

Do you use DNS caching?

Irrelevant to download speeds.


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 £25 every 4th month (for failure
to meet targets) they would simply up the price of the service by
£25/4 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.


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


NT

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Peter Scott wrote:
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 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.


"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

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.



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.


--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

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?


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:
http://www.avcbroadband.com/

wrote:

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.


Well said.

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

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?


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:
http://www.avcbroadband.com/

I agree with all your points but the last "practical"? - the cost would make
clubbing together to get a fibre laid into the village an alternative. Doing
that together might even be a bit on topic!


--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)

"Peter Scott" wrote in message
om...

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

Doesn't have to be

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

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!

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

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

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

http://www.broadbandwherever.net/?gc...al%20Broadband

Tony

On 8 Jan, 09:59, Peter Scott wrote:
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

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

The Natural Philosopher coughed up some electrons that declared:

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?

Very complicated.

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.

http://www.aaisp.co.uk/kb-broadband-bonding.html

If 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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_aggregation

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

"Bob Mannix" wrote:
I agree with all your points but the last "practical"? - the cost would make
clubbing together to get a fibre laid into the village an alternative. Doing
that together might even be a bit on topic!


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.

robgraham wrote:

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.


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.

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
"Bob Mannix" wrote:
I agree with all your points but the last "practical"? - the cost would
make
clubbing together to get a fibre laid into the village an alternative.
Doing
that together might even be a bit on topic!


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.

Backup service isn't "broadband". The £69/month "broadband" gives you dial
up speeds. For 2Mb it costs £369 per month plus £999 for the equipment plus
£275 installation - hardly small beer!


--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)

robgraham wrote:
On 8 Jan, 09:59, Peter Scott wrote:
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

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
Look I live in a rural location, and out here we dont expect to be
pandered, because there ain't no one to pander us. We cut our own trees
down when they fall across the road. We hanlde the inch of ice on the
roads outside that aren'; gritted, We moan about the fact that no matter
how little we use it, a 4WD which is essential, is taxed out of all sense.

We don't moan about the fact that broadband came late, and isn't fast.
Nor te fact that postal deliveries are late, and irregular.
Nor the fact that the nearest supermarket is ten miles away.

Thats why we chose to LIVE here.

Broadband is a commercial entity: Not a government supplied basic human
right.

On Jan 8, 11:53 am, robgraham wrote:
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 don't think so.

For the last two years I have been an urbanite, but for ten years
before that, I lived in a mud hut in rural Suffolk so I understand
both sides of the trade-off.

The aggression is partly because many people (townies and country-
folk) disagree with the OP, and partly because the post is OT and he
won't admit it. (How to insulate the house is on-topic, campaigning
for the gas company to reduce the price of gas is OT.)

"robgraham" wrote in message
...
On 8 Jan, 09:59, Peter Scott wrote:
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

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

I have done as you suggest

I stand by all that I have said

It is not a 'city v country' thing its an 'I should be entitled to it
regardless of the cost and my personal choices because others elsewhere have
it' thing

I find it difficult to have any sympathy for the OP who does not even have
the grace in the original post to acknowledge that he is paying no more for
the far more expensive to install and maintain telephone line/exchange that
he complains about than urban users do for theirs

Country dwellers make a reasoned choice to move to or remain in the country,
they know what limitations exist

Is not the principle of the following scenario much the same?

People who live in urban terraced houses should be provided with adequate
parking for several cars as presumably people in the country have this
facility. They should all write to their local council to force this to
happen as they pay their council tax and as much road tax as country
dwellers. Its only a commercial decision after all to knock down some of the
houses to provide the extra parking

Tony

TMC wrote:

http://www.broadbandwherever.net/?gc...al%20Broadband

Tony


From their description of the Pro-Range service.

"Our Pro-Range is one of the newest Satellite Broadband Products to be
introduced into the UK market, and is fully RoHS Compliant( see FAQ's ).
Using DVB-S standards the Pro-range offers both performance and
reliability to those who can't get broadband via traditional landlines."

Very engaging to start mentioning RoHS in the first sentence!.

"Hell, it's RoHS! - I _must_ get this service!"

;-)

--
Adrian C

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
wrote:
Peter Scott wrote:

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


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?

Very complicated.

Even a humble win98 box supports this. Just need a second nic
and the cd or 98 files to install the necessary non-default bits.


Do you use a compression service that sends all files compressed, this
can over double the average speed?

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

Yes, but
a) further compression is often possible
b) lossy compression is possible for images, this can dramatically
speed up webpage loading


Do you use advert blocking on your browser?

Irrelevant to real download speeds.

to webpage dl speeds its very relevant. To compressed file dls its not
- but it all makes for higher mean speed.


Do you use DNS caching?

Irrelevant to download speeds.

No pause while it looks up dns info, it removes one instance of
latency


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.


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

Its infrastructure that makes businesses work. Taxpayers dont mind
lots of other infrastructure with the same goal - and far more
expensive infrastructure at that. Although its not libertarian, it may
well add up financially for the public purse and country as a whole.


NT

wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

wrote:

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?

Very complicated.

Even a humble win98 box supports this. Just need a second nic
and the cd or 98 files to install the necessary non-default bits.

Not to do proper load balancing of multiple ADSL lines it doesn't, no
version of Windows does, if you channel bond multiple lines from the
same ISP to a single router it's easier, but lines from different ISPs
is tricky even with Linux, and any one download will tend to use a
single line.

Bruce wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

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?


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.

Businesses have now realised that getting real with potential
customers costs money, and its no longer acceptable. 750k isnt bad at
all for a rural location. If he were getting 56k I'd be more
sympathetic.

Another thing that can be done is to have the local server cache as
much as possible with a big disc, then revisits to pages load real
fast, plus all the reused elements of new pages on the same site.
Browsers already do this of course, but only with limited cache, and
only one a per one user basis.


In the meantime, here's a practical alternative:
http://www.avcbroadband.com/

Looks usable for business use. Perhaps slow rural speeds is a blessing
in that it will encourage many businesses to create less bloated
sites. Whatever we have, the bloat will simply expand to fill the
space and more.


NT

"Peter Scott" wrote in message
om...
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!

It costs more to give you any sort of communications..
think yourself lucky we are subsidising you.
You wouldn't want to pay what it costs.


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.

You can buy a fibre connection or a satellite connection.
There is nothing stopping you and some other locals clubbing together to get
a faster link to share.


"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.

Even though it costs a lot more to give you your connection.
I agree with you you shouldn't get it at the same cost.
I think double or more would be about right.


"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.

Longer cables cost more to maintain, you don't pay any extra.


"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!"

So you want rural dwellers not to have broadband just because you get less
for your money?


Peter Scott

"Peter Scott" wrote in message
om...


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.

If people were prepared to pay for a better service someone would provide
it.
However I doubt if you are prepared to pay.
If you were you would already have a faster service.

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.

DIY fibre laying down rural roads?

robgraham wrote:
On 8 Jan, 09:59, Peter Scott wrote:

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

snipped


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.

.... and some found the op offensive. Personally I just think its an
attitude that pervades our society today and is absolutely the core of
so many problems people face today. And there is only one solution, to
grow up and act to solve one's own problems. If/when people accept
this, they do so much better in life.


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'm glad you acknowledge it is just an assumption. FWIW it has nothing
whatever to do with where I'm coming from.


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

Shame on society for fostering this kind of foolishness, and many
people for never getting real and sharing life's solutions with
people. This stuff changes lives. Many people suffer so many problems
from being stuck in the foolish attitude presented. And I mean serious
problems. I shan't apologise for speaking of the real solution, I only
wish people did so more. We still have freedom of speech, and the op
is free to add me to the killfile if they wish.

Part of the solution,


NT

On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 10:41:34 +0000, Peter Scott wrote:

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

Doesn't have to be

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

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!

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

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 ISPs and infrastructure providers are commercial companies, with a certain,
limited amount of money available for hardware and cabling.
You seem to be suggesting that they spend it on upgrades in your sparsely
populated region - which would benefit a small number of people, rather than
spending it in a highly populated area, where it would benefit a larger number.

I would suspect that what you pay for your speeds are still considerably less
than what *everyone* paid for that speed when it was considered cutting-edge.

I would like to be able to view your situation sympathetically, but I can't
think of a single factor that gives me cause to think you're being hard done by.

"Peter Scott" wrote in message
om...
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

Well I moved from the fringes of London, where I got about 2Mb/s to
here where we have no gas and no mains sewage, but my broadband is now
8Mb/s !!!!!!!

AWEM

Tim S wrote:
The Natural Philosopher coughed up some electrons that declared:

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?
Very complicated.

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.


That the complicated bit.
Easier to order two phone lines and be done with it.

But even so its only double the speed.

On Jan 8, 9:59*am, Peter Scott wrote:
"I live in the country and have very poor broadband speed, at around 750
kbit/s.

I don't consider my location particularly rural and i only get 1Mbit/
s. it's more than enough for any normal use.

MBQ

wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
wrote:
Peter Scott wrote:

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

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?
Very complicated.

Even a humble win98 box supports this. Just need a second nic
and the cd or 98 files to install the necessary non-default bits.


And waht will that achieve? you need a second phone line.


Do you use a compression service that sends all files compressed, this
can over double the average speed?
No one sends uncompressed data over the internet anyway. Even the
meanest of web pages probably is compressed.

Yes, but
a) further compression is often possible
b) lossy compression is possible for images, this can dramatically
speed up webpage loading


Sorry mate, but we tried this way back in the 90's on international
links. we got about 10% improvement, at the expense of a doubling in
latency.

About the only ting that isn't compressed to the hilt these days is
usenet and text emails.


Do you use advert blocking on your browser?
Irrelevant to real download speeds.

to webpage dl speeds its very relevant. To compressed file dls its not
- but it all makes for higher mean speed.


Do you use DNS caching?

Irrelevant to download speeds.

No pause while it looks up dns info, it removes one instance of
latency

DNS lookup are trivial in the context of even a 9.6 kbps link.


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.

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

Its infrastructure that makes businesses work. Taxpayers dont mind
lots of other infrastructure with the same goal - and far more
expensive infrastructure at that. Although its not libertarian, it may
well add up financially for the public purse and country as a whole.



Get real. This is infrastructure for one person,. or at beast 20-30
people in his location.


NT

Andy Burns wrote:
wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

wrote:

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?

Very complicated.

Even a humble win98 box supports this. Just need a second nic
and the cd or 98 files to install the necessary non-default bits.

Not to do proper load balancing of multiple ADSL lines it doesn't, no
version of Windows does, if you channel bond multiple lines from the
same ISP to a single router it's easier, but lines from different ISPs
is tricky even with Linux,

You need to run BGP on the router, and unless you are technically
competent no ISP will let you. Well you can run it, but they wont
propagate it. or listen to it.



and any one download will tend to use a
single line.

Not if you do the routing properly.

With equal weighting and a choice of two routes, most routers will round
robin on a packet by packet basis.

wrote:
Bruce wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

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?

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.

Businesses have now realised that getting real with potential
customers costs money, and its no longer acceptable. 750k isnt bad at
all for a rural location. If he were getting 56k I'd be more
sympathetic.


Its brilliant. I only changed from 512k last year. That was in fact more
than adequate for most of what I wanted.

Another thing that can be done is to have the local server cache as
much as possible with a big disc, then revisits to pages load real
fast, plus all the reused elements of new pages on the same site.
Browsers already do this of course, but only with limited cache, and
only one a per one user basis.


In the meantime, here's a practical alternative:
http://www.avcbroadband.com/

Looks usable for business use. Perhaps slow rural speeds is a blessing
in that it will encourage many businesses to create less bloated
sites. Whatever we have, the bloat will simply expand to fill the
space and more.

Well I am designing a web site that has to work on the need of s
broadband line: so its only able to deliver at best about 700kbps upload
to the net.

So I compressed it, and shrunk a 60k page to 16k..hahah.



NT

Now this really is getting off-topic but I want to answer some of the
points raised. The county where I live subsidises cities. I am not
making that up, it is a fact. I pay the same taxes as anyone else but
the amount of tax-payers money spent per head in the cities is much
higher than in the country. That's why, though I pay very similar
council tax rates, I get much poorer services like roads, policing and
education spending. Central government support is much lower.

Lets take a parallel example - television reception. It is thought
proper that the whole country should get a television signal. Some areas
like hilly and coastal regions couldn't do so without local relays
serving a small number of people. Do we complain about the extra cost?
Does the relay user pay a higher licence fee? No, we accept the premise
that it is an essential service. Do we object that electricity users in
the country have to be provided with long lines at extra cost? No of
course not.

Happily I ignore the ad hominem attacks. If you can't win the argument,
then attack the person. Such tactics have always been looked down on.
Similarly the PC word 'offensive' should be struck from the dictionary.

Peter Scott

Peter Scott wrote:
Now this really is getting off-topic but I want to answer some of the
points raised. The county where I live subsidises cities. I am not
making that up, it is a fact. I pay the same taxes as anyone else but
the amount of tax-payers money spent per head in the cities is much
higher than in the country. That's why, though I pay very similar
council tax rates, I get much poorer services like roads, policing and
education spending. Central government support is much lower.

Well if you want to go that route, as a single non married childless
person for years, I subsidised the rest of the population.

So what?

Cities alos benefit you, by making the countryside a nicer place to live in.


Lets take a parallel example - television reception.

Not the same at all.

For a start the BBC is a subsidised operation, with a mandate to achieve
ncoverage. BT aint. Once a tranmitter exists, its trivial to add
commercial stations to it.

You should be complaining that the licence fee subsidises commercial
stations..

It is thought
proper that the whole country should get a television signal.

Not by me it aint.

Some areas
like hilly and coastal regions couldn't do so without local relays
serving a small number of people. Do we complain about the extra cost?
Does the relay user pay a higher licence fee? No, we accept the premise
that it is an essential service.

I dont.

Do we object that electricity users in
the country have to be provided with long lines at extra cost? No of
course not.

well actually they do end up with a worse service as a result. Cheap
overhead lines prone to lightning damage and trees falling..



Happily I ignore the ad hominem attacks. If you can't win the argument,
then attack the person. Such tactics have always been looked down on.
Similarly the PC word 'offensive' should be struck from the dictionary.


Te argument is whether or not fast broadband shuld be considered a basic
citizens right, and subsidised to make it so.

So far, Bt has managed to resist being re-nationalised, and we have
believe it or not, a better service than we ever had when it was.

If you want a monopoly state supplier of indifferent broadband,
throttled back so that we all only get 512k,nbecauseits fair that way,
say so.


Peter Scott

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Peter Scott wrote:
Now this really is getting off-topic but I want to answer some of the
points raised. The county where I live subsidises cities. I am not
making that up, it is a fact. I pay the same taxes as anyone else but
the amount of tax-payers money spent per head in the cities is much
higher than in the country. That's why, though I pay very similar
council tax rates, I get much poorer services like roads, policing and
education spending. Central government support is much lower.

Well if you want to go that route, as a single non married childless
person for years, I subsidised the rest of the population.

So what?

Cities alos benefit you, by making the countryside a nicer place to live
in.

Don't quite follow the last point. I don't see how I benefit from
cities. Did you mean by not having lots of houses?

I entirely agree about subsidies however. There are all kinds of them,
including, I hope, one for the cost of providing better broadband in the
country. I was attempting to point out that rural areas subsidise the
cities, and would like a bit back.

To pick up the child point, without people willing to devote time and
money to bringing up children there would not be the future earners to
pay for the care of older people. Even if an older person is entirely
self-sufficient on investments, there has to be a thriving economy to
keep up the value of those investments, and this relies on young
generations.

Peter

I live in the middle of the city and my broadband speed is barely 1MBS
(because the BT lines are rubbish and I can't have cable) while my TV
reception is also rubbish (and I can't have satellite). Can I have a
subsidy to have a more rural lifestyle to compensate for this?

TMC wrote:

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


Depends on your definition of rural. I've seen many rural village residents
get excellent broadband speeds, as nowhere is within more than a mile or so
at most from the village's exchange....