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