In article o.uk, Dave
Liquorice scribeth thus
On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 13:39:34 +0100, tony sayer wrote:

Makes me feel a bit awkward telling that to those poor deprived sods out
in digital no go land that;!..

Sorry;(...

We get used to it, evn with the damn fibre 10' away.

* Not that far from here I believe there're testing 300 Meg or higher...

G.Fast? Carriers to over 106 MHz.

Trials have provided down stream speeds of around 800 Mbps over a
line length of an amzing 19 (nineteen) metres. Or 700 Mbps over 66
(sixty six) metres.


This is VM there're doing that around the Papworth Everad area just
south of Huntingdon if my memory serves me well.....


http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php...uk-rollout-100
0mbps-g-fast-ultrafast-broadband-2020.html

OK if they run fibre to "our" pole (it only serves us) but if they
are going to do that it would be cheaper and better to run the fibre
direct to us as it wouldn't involve trenching across the road. The
current lines get to the pole through direct buried armoured cable
not through a duct that could be utilised for a fibre duct.

I think its something to do with the kit thats in the boxes or the cost
of it, might be wrong tho...

Around here most lines from what could be called a DP are
significantly longer than 66 m, ours is about that.

The other possible snag is the G.Fast doesn't play nicely with VDSL,
so it's one or the other...


--
Tony Sayer

In article , Tim Watts
scribeth thus
On 17/07/15 12:11, tony sayer wrote:

Well not quite, using modern equipment with OFDM modulation systems it
can sometimes perform and do things you wouldn't expect...


Do those need some weird windows software running somewhere?

You just need a win PC to set them up on don't think they do Linux..

I looked at Ubiquity and I could not make out if they'd be a PITA or not
in a linux environment.

Well its only for setting them up, they'll run fine once you've done
that..

I went for Linksys semi-pro types which have been pretty solid
(802.11(a,b,g,n,ac) and supports loads of ESSIDS and VLANS.

--
Tony Sayer

On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 12:06:30 +0100, tony sayer wrote:

In article , Johnny B Good johnny-b-
scribeth thus
On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 00:11:30 +0100, Dave Liquorice wrote:

On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 11:24:01 +0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk wrote:

Oh dear, that is abysmal for your area. So much for our government
claiming that the UK will have the best broadband in Europe then.

They can claim it. Just won't be true.

Depends how you measure it. Phase 1 of the County Councils/BDUK/BT
work will have 93% of "homes and business's" within reach of
"Superfast" that is 24 Mbps download (15 Mbps peak time), broadband
by the end of the year. Phase 2, when its sorted out ought to add
another 2% to that. The remaining 5% are left with the "universal
access" level of at least 2 Mbps.

It's nice to know that my basic 30Mbps down / 2Mbps up Virgin Media
service exceeds "Superfast", and by a wide margin. I just checked using
SpeedTest and got 33.95Mbps down and 2.00Mbps up which accurately
reflects the Superhub's reported connection speeds of 35,000,000 bps
down and 2058000 bps up.

The down speed used to be reported as 30000000bps (or perhaps it was
33000000bps?) about a year ago and I'm still awaiting the free d/l
speed upgrade to 50000000bps (but same old 2Mbps up) promised just about
a year back as being in the pipeline sometime over the next 12 to 18
months... Any day RSN!

In the meantime, any new VM customers if past experience is anything to
go by, will get to enjoy the benefit of the long promised upgrade
straight away. So much for 'customer loyalty' :-(

They sometimes need reminding;!. Call the retention's dept and that
usually gets results.

I was tempted to try that the last time VM promised all of us 10Mbps
users a 'free upgrade' to a 20Mbps service RSN when their A4 junk
mailshot, addressed to "The Occupier"[1] revealed they were not only
trying to attract new customers with a really cheap first six months cut
rate offer (a fair enough tactic on its own) but also providing them not
with a 20Mbps service (as promised to existing customers sometime in the
next 12 or 18 months) but, in fact, a 30Mbps service!!!

Since my complaint wasn't really within the remit of the retentions dept
(I wasn't having a problem over paying the not unreasonable 22 quid a
month charges at the time which would be the normal reason to land up
being referred), I took it up with customer support to explain that I
wasn't at all happy that existing loyal customers were effectively being
penalised by being made to wait for a 'free upgrade' to a 20Mbps service
whilst they were providing new customers, not only the benefit of a
special introductory 6 month rate but an immediate speed upgrade that was
50% faster again.

In the end, once it was clear that the best they could do was to provide
me with a 60Mbps service (3Mbps upload) for a mere 5 quid a month extra,
I took them up on that offer with the intention of 'downgrading' a few
months later to what I hoped would be at least the 20Mbps service, if not
the 30Mbps one. As it turned out, those few months turned into 11 months
before I downgraded to the current '30Mbps' I'm now on.

In the meantime, the 22 quid a month was raised to 26 quid and a few
pennies shortly after that and then increased again (all as a result of
inflationary adjustments) to the 27 quid and some pennies a month that I
now find myself paying. The way things are going, I may well get myself
referred to the 'retentions department' in a year or two's time to save
spending money on what is *now* quite clearly an overkill solution in
regard of internet connectivity.

Yes, it's quite nice to be able to download the latest 1.5GB Linux Mint
iso image file in less than ten minutes from the university of Kent's
servers at 2 in the morning (the only time of the day when their server
seems prepared to match the almost 4MB/s bandwidth of my local connection
to VM's internet gateway) but this is a luxury I could well manage
without.

As best as I can surmise, a retentions connection now runs at 10Mbps
meaning such downloads will take a little bit longer, just under half an
hour in similar circumstances with a less proportionate loss of speed
during busier periods compared to the 50Mbps and faster services (I'll
not feel the pain of the internet's bottlenecking during the busy periods
quite so much - at least as far as simple one to one downloading sessions
are concerned, Torrented downloads, otoh *will* suffer from the lack of a
high speed connection but that's not such a big deal when the torrenting
happens to be offloaded onto a 24/7 NAS box).


Still I know people who'd nigh on kill to be on their network, those
out in the wild sticks near towns, that Fibre's a long time coming;!...


That's ever so true. What often surprised me when dealing with my local
customers was the number of times I found myself having to recommend
switching from ISPs such as Sky, BT and Talktalk, relying on "Poor Man's
BroadBand"[2] to VM's cable network service available right outside of
their own front gate.

When you live in an area already cabled for TV and internet services,
it's a no-brainer to eschew the many tempting offers by VM's competitiors
when you have such an opportunity to utilise such a trouble free and
consistently high speed internet connection. The only edge these
purveyors of "Poor Man's Broadband" have is on their service rental
charges being considerably lower to mitigate the costs in reliability and
performance their customers have to pay (costs go beyond mere monetary
savings).

I haven't seen what service rental rates are for someone on a
"Retentions Account" with VM. I suspect these rates aren't freely
published since they're only available to existing customers threatening
to leave VM's clutches, typically due to financial difficulties in
meeting the normal service rental charges. More to the point, they
probably depend on what competing ISPs have to offer by way of cut price
deals on their "Poor Man's Broadband" service in any given area.

I'm surmising that any VM customers who do get themselves referred to
"The Retentions Department" will find themselves haggling over the price
and maybe even having to sign a NDA over the whole deal.

My advice (to self as much as anyone else) is if, as an existing VM
customer, you feel they are 'taking the ****' re the monthly charges,
make sure that you're armed with full knowledge of exactly what each and
every viable alternative ISP in your area has to offer by way of economy
packages. That way, when you do finally confront the "Retentions
Department", you can demonstrate both a genuine intent to leave and
knowledge of benchmark price points giving you some leverage in haggling
the monthly retention package rate down to the lowest possible.

Virgin Media are obviously well aware of the truth of the adage, "It's
easier to hang onto a customer than it is to find a new one.", despite
their cynical abuse of their existing customer base as per the practice
used so blatantly by insurance companies, otherwise they wouldn't have
gone to the trouble of setting up a whole department dedicated just to
the business of hanging onto their existing customers. VM are simply
trying to "Have their cake *and* eat it."

When the attraction of "silly high speed" internet connectivity starts
to pall, especially when you have no need of the dubious benefits of the
TV and phone 'Value-add' packages, I'm sure a session with the
'retentions department' can prove a very fruitful cost cutting exercise
if you put you mind to it. Just how fruitful, I couldn't say (and, I
suspect, neither can any who have already availed themselves of this
service).


BTW, is it just me or does everyone experience that "Cliff Hanger"
feeling whilst watching the upload speedtest progress bar?

Not here we don't..

I'm not sure what to make of that reply[3] but the point I was making
was that whilst the download speedometer quickly reveals your final speed
to within a percent or two, that doesn't seem to be the case with the
upload speed test where the speedo quickly climbs to about half to two
thirds in the first two or three seconds leaving you to watch its antics
over the next 20 seconds or so as it struggles to approach the advertised
upload speed limit of your connection.

[1] We first acquired a broadband connection nearly 15 years ago when my
daughter signed up to NTL's digital TV and 512Kbps broadband services
(using, unbeknownst to me at the time, the fiction that her bedroom was
"Flat 3" at our home address), primarily for the broadband cable
connection - standalone cabled internet connections weren't yet available
at that time.

I offered to subsidise part of the monthly rental as an inducement to
persuade her then boyfriend (now my son in law) to configure a spare PC
running Debian Linux to act as a gateway router to the pre-existing
10Mbps cheapernet house LAN I'd installed a few years earlier. Thus it
was that I got hooked onto a "Real, 'always on' Internet Connection' and
the joys of a properly firewalled internet connection available to all
the PCs hanging off of the LAN.

When my daughter left home a few years later, I took over the NTL
account and immediately downgraded to a 128Kbps service to minimise the
costs. Even a mere 128Kbps connection was better than a dial up
connection providing at best one third of that speed whilst tying up a
phone line with the loss of a simple firewalled internet sharing facilty.

About a year after that, NTL started advertising a cheap introductory
offer for an internet only cable package (15 quid a month for their
128Kbps service, long since 'upgraded for free' to the current 30Mbps
service of today) so I arranged to have my TV and internet package
'downgraded' to this new internet only service.

Unfortunately, when NTL's engineers turned up to complete the
conversion, I was in hospital. When I finally returned home, just a week
or so before Christmas, I discovered that they'd simply recovered the
Pace STB, neglecting to replace it with the all important cable modem,
leaving us without an internet connection, despite their obvious cock up,
until mid to late January the following year. If I had been there to
watch what they were doing, I'd have not let them recover the STB until
they returned with a modem. Unfortunately I wasn't and the missus, bless
her heart would not have realised NTL's cock up until way too late.

That was the one and only serious cock up I've ever had to contend with
so far in my dealings with NTL/VM over the past 12 years or so. The issue
was finally resolved with a generous refund covering the lost 5 or 6
weeks of service plus a discount over the next 6 months rental period to
compensate for the inconvenience caused. Not too bad a result but it's a
great pity that they weren't able to see fit, in view of it being a cock
up on their part in the first place, to squeeze another engineering visit
during what was obviously a very busy schedule of new customer
connections.

Anyhow, all that aside, I started receiving junk mailshots addressed to
'the occupier' of various flats to the extent that I spoke to customer
services to advise them that no such addresses existed and that I was
already a customer so no more such junk mail please! I don't think the
message got through to their marketing department since I still get VM
junk mailshots every two or three months or so.

Ever since I was alerted to the outrageously preferential treatment to
new customers, at the expense of existing customers, I'm not so bothered
since it keeps me advised of VM's latest marketing tricks where existing
customers are last in the queue for any promised upgrades that are given
immediately to the "Johnny come lately" newest customers.

The problem stems from the fact that they know they can afford to take a
cavalier attitude to their existing customers since the competing ISPs
have so much less to offer (and the Retentions Department provides a
backstop insurance against customers deciding to 'vote with their feet').

[2] "Poor Man's Broadband" is an expression I started using when I was
still signed up with zetnet, a small but excellent ISP which was to
eventually be consumed by an asset stripping company, Breathe Networks
Limited (BNL), back in 2008. A wikipedia article here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zetnet

Offers a brief synopsis of zetnet's history.

When I first signed up with zetnet, I was using their Lo-call dial in
service (a penny a minute off-peak call rate number) but once I had
access via the NTL BB connection, I was able to make use of a recently
enhanced connection feature of zetnet's proprietry ZIMACS email client/
news reader user interface which allowed me to connect via any other ISP's
Point of Presence dial in number, including broadband connections.

Thereafter I never had to dial up a zetnet connection ever again. I
considered zetnet to be my value added ISP (it had a USP of which BNL
seemingly remained totally oblivious to) with NTL merely providing a
broadband connection to the internet, albeit only a mere 128Kbps service
at that time. Also, around that time, zetnet were reselling BT's ADSL
connections to their customers, who like me, could, if the occasion
demanded, still fall back on the dial up connection which was just as
well for those using ADSL since they, unlike myself, were often obliged
to make use of it on account of the never ending problems, countrywide,
with ADSL.

As a cable broadband connected customer, I soon realised that "I'd never
had it so good." to borrow a phrase from elsewhere, and dubbed the
troublesome ADSL offerings as "Poor Mans' Broadband" in recognition of
that fact. It's a description that still rings true today.

[3] The only thing that comes to mind being that it's because you're
using an SDSL service of some kind (otherwise, pass!).

--
Johnny B Good

In message , Tim Watts
writes
On 17/07/15 11:51, Davey wrote:

That is exactly the experience of my neighbour. The speedtests on
her new fibre connection show full anticipated throughput, but she sees
no improvement when browsing. The boost is almost certainly in her
kids' streaming and downloading.


That sounds like poor DNS performance.


Try changing to 8.8.8.8 (google) and/or installing a local cache.

The other thing it could be is poor latency - but a ping test will
reveal that.

dunno, I can't say that web browsing really seems any better on our
about 65 MB FTTC connection than it did on the old about 12 Mb ADSL+
connection. I always assumed it's because much depends on the remote
webserver, a most pages you are likely to be browsing nowadays have got
pull stuff out of a database etc. Added on top, lots of users wil be
doing it over a local wifi connection which seems to add it's own
sluggishness at times.

But yes does make a difference to youtube/netflix/iplayer etc. esp as
often multiple streams nowadays, and the extra upload speed is very
useful here.
--
Chris French

In message , Davey
writes
On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 07:36:58 +0100
News wrote:

Having said that, my little Netbook is an antique compared to many,
running XP over wifi, and there are three of us sharing the
connection.

That is exactly the experience of my neighbour. The speedtests on
her new fibre connection show full anticipated throughput, but she sees
no improvement when browsing. The boost is almost certainly in her
kids' streaming and downloading.

Oh yes. Wifey and child love the high speed service, but they both have
more modern machines than my little Tosh, and are both gamers. I just
browse the web and read Usenet :-)
--
Graeme

Johnny B Good wrote a great deal, including:

My advice (to self as much as anyone else) is if, as an existing VM
customer, you feel they are 'taking the ****' re the monthly charges,
make sure that you're armed with full knowledge of exactly what each and
every viable alternative ISP in your area has to offer by way of economy
packages. That way, when you do finally confront the "Retentions
Department", you can demonstrate both a genuine intent to leave and
knowledge of benchmark price points giving you some leverage in haggling
the monthly retention package rate down to the lowest possible.

Agreed, I've been with them for ages now, and last year managed a
speed and router upgrade for less money, eased by my having been
on a 20 MB tariff they were trying to phase out.

It is sad but true, that you have to keep doing this from time to
time to keep costs down. Just saved nearly £20 on my AA subs.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Plant amazing Acers.

On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 12:14:25 +0100
Tim Watts wrote:

On 17/07/15 11:51, Davey wrote:

That is exactly the experience of my neighbour. The speedtests on
her new fibre connection show full anticipated throughput, but she
sees no improvement when browsing. The boost is almost certainly in
her kids' streaming and downloading.


That sounds like poor DNS performance.

Try changing to 8.8.8.8 (google) and/or installing a local cache.

The other thing it could be is poor latency - but a ping test will
reveal that.

I don't think she's really worried, and I have no idea if she would
know what your suggestion would mean. I am not getting involved with
adjusting somebody else's system!

--
Davey.

bit reduced


BTW, is it just me or does everyone experience that "Cliff Hanger"
feeling whilst watching the upload speedtest progress bar?

Not here we don't..

And we're not using SDSL either just plain ole VM ...

I'm not sure what to make of that reply[3] but the point I was making
was that whilst the download speedometer quickly reveals your final speed
to within a percent or two, that doesn't seem to be the case with the
upload speed test where the speedo quickly climbs to about half to two
thirds in the first two or three seconds leaving you to watch its antics
over the next 20 seconds or so as it struggles to approach the advertised
upload speed limit of your connection.

Seems much the same either way round most all of the time. However one
Fibre we have at Ely in Cambridgeshire is very good most all the time,
70 odd meg, but the upload can be really slow sometimes around 18 on a
good day but I believe its because its not a main exchange but a branch
one with limited backhaul capacity..


snipped a bit more of a tale of Telco services;!...
--
Tony Sayer

On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 11:11:38 +0100, tony sayer wrote:

bit reduced


BTW, is it just me or does everyone experience that "Cliff Hanger"
feeling whilst watching the upload speedtest progress bar?

Not here we don't..

And we're not using SDSL either just plain ole VM ...

Hmm, so just me then that's seeing this 'tantalising' behaviour with
speedtest's upload speedometer. :-(


I'm not sure what to make of that reply[3] but the point I was making
was that whilst the download speedometer quickly reveals your final
speed to within a percent or two, that doesn't seem to be the case with
the upload speed test where the speedo quickly climbs to about half to
two thirds in the first two or three seconds leaving you to watch its
antics over the next 20 seconds or so as it struggles to approach the
advertised upload speed limit of your connection.

Seems much the same either way round most all of the time. However one
Fibre we have at Ely in Cambridgeshire is very good most all the time,
70 odd meg, but the upload can be really slow sometimes around 18 on a
good day but I believe its because its not a main exchange but a branch
one with limited backhaul capacity..


snipped a bit more of a tale of Telco services;!...

Presumably, purely in the interests of reducing the burden on news
servers worldwide. Sensible action imo. :-)

--
Johnny B Good

On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 12:14:25 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:

That is exactly the experience of my neighbour. The speedtests on
her new fibre connection show full anticipated throughput, but she
sees
no improvement when browsing.

That sounds like poor DNS performance.

I doubt it, more likely to be:

1) A slow/overloaded remote server, try well connected sites like BBC
News.

2) Website that makes your PC excute 200 k bytes of javascript to
just say "hello world" in plain text using browser defaults. I run
with javascript turned off, generally speaking sites load/render far
faster without javascript and are easier to navigate. Anybody who
writes a site that requires javascript for ordinary links to work
shouldn't be writting websites.

3) Website that is pulling tracking apps, adverts, plugins etc from
all over the web, see 1) & 2).

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 11:44:05 +0100, Davey wrote:

Depends on your viewpoint, currently being visited by
grandchildren
into streaming videos, they are clocking up to 5G a day on my 10G
a
month account.

So they, or their parents, need to reimburse you for the extra cost.
Otherwise they will never learn that everything has a value.

If the ISP speed limits after the cap is reached it might be more
instructive to let that happen, particulary if the Grandchildren are
yet to have a decent grasp of of the concept of "money".

It would not be unreasonable to ask son/daughter to pay for the cap
to be lifted so their kids can continue to enjoy the internet at
Grandads.

No.1 Daughter knows full well that she is expected to pay for the
extra download I have to buy to now she is back home to stop us
hitting the (100 GB) cap. She needs to get an income first though...
B-(

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 18/07/15 16:33, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 12:14:25 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:

That is exactly the experience of my neighbour. The speedtests on
her new fibre connection show full anticipated throughput, but she
sees
no improvement when browsing.

That sounds like poor DNS performance.

I doubt it, more likely to be:

1) A slow/overloaded remote server, try well connected sites like BBC
News.

2) Website that makes your PC excute 200 k bytes of javascript to
just say "hello world" in plain text using browser defaults. I run
with javascript turned off, generally speaking sites load/render far
faster without javascript and are easier to navigate. Anybody who
writes a site that requires javascript for ordinary links to work
shouldn't be writting websites.

3) Website that is pulling tracking apps, adverts, plugins etc from
all over the web, see 1) & 2).


4) some virus checker screwing every packet..


--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 12:11:54 +0100, tony sayer wrote:

That's always been a major issue with point to point microwave
links,
you need a clear line of sight between stations. The short
wavelengths
facilitate very high gain antenna setups (20 to 30 dBi) but only
when
an unobstructed path is available.

Well not quite, using modern equipment with OFDM modulation systems it
can sometimes perform and do things you wouldn't expect...

Agreed. The RF guys providing broadcast radio cameras or wireless
monitors seem to just dump the aerial anywhere vaugely close to the
place that needs coverage. If they go to the trouble of getting the
aerial up a bit and clear of obstructions the things work extremely
well and most definately not limited to line of sight.

What netwrking kit utilises OFDM modulation? I don't think all the
802.11 variations do? Have a friend down in the village who may want
to link two places about 500 m apart with no line of sight but might
have building's/fell side to bounce a signal off...

--
Cheers
Dave.

In article , Johnny B Good johnny-b-
scribeth thus
On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 11:11:38 +0100, tony sayer wrote:

bit reduced


BTW, is it just me or does everyone experience that "Cliff Hanger"
feeling whilst watching the upload speedtest progress bar?

Not here we don't..

And we're not using SDSL either just plain ole VM ...

Hmm, so just me then that's seeing this 'tantalising' behaviour with
speedtest's upload speedometer. :-(

Well it does go up and down a bit at times but its generally much the
same the "receive" side is usually a flat topped line!...


I'm not sure what to make of that reply[3] but the point I was making
was that whilst the download speedometer quickly reveals your final
speed to within a percent or two, that doesn't seem to be the case with
the upload speed test where the speedo quickly climbs to about half to
two thirds in the first two or three seconds leaving you to watch its
antics over the next 20 seconds or so as it struggles to approach the
advertised upload speed limit of your connection.

Seems much the same either way round most all of the time. However one
Fibre we have at Ely in Cambridgeshire is very good most all the time,
70 odd meg, but the upload can be really slow sometimes around 18 on a
good day but I believe its because its not a main exchange but a branch
one with limited backhaul capacity..


snipped a bit more of a tale of Telco services;!...

Presumably, purely in the interests of reducing the burden on news
servers worldwide. Sensible action imo. :-)


Indeed;-

--
Tony Sayer

In article o.uk, Dave
Liquorice scribeth thus
On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 12:11:54 +0100, tony sayer wrote:

That's always been a major issue with point to point microwave
links,
you need a clear line of sight between stations. The short
wavelengths
facilitate very high gain antenna setups (20 to 30 dBi) but only
when
an unobstructed path is available.

Well not quite, using modern equipment with OFDM modulation systems it
can sometimes perform and do things you wouldn't expect...

Agreed. The RF guys providing broadcast radio cameras or wireless
monitors seem to just dump the aerial anywhere vaugely close to the
place that needs coverage. If they go to the trouble of getting the
aerial up a bit and clear of obstructions the things work extremely
well and most definately not limited to line of sight.


Well I wouldn't expect them to do otherwise from what I've seen of them
thats well, what they do;!.

I doubt anyone tells them that when training them to do their jobs in
the first place....


What netwrking kit utilises OFDM modulation?

Quite a bit and its in your DAB receiver and DTV too...


http://www.radio-electronics.com/inf...ign/ofdm/ofdm-
basics-tutorial.php


I don't think all the
802.11 variations do? Have a friend down in the village who may want
to link two places about 500 m apart with no line of sight but might
have building's/fell side to bounce a signal off...


I'd try a pair of these they are quite good at that sort of thing the
MIMO copes with that type of environment rather better than most and you
don't really want too much aerial directivity, as you'll be relying on a
lot of bounced paths or multipath and that using OFDM Mod will cope as
well as anything in that environment.

However one of their situations where until he tries it he won't know
how it'll go..



http://www.wifi-stock.co.uk/details/...stationm5.html
--
Tony Sayer

On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 20:41:29 +0100, tony sayer wrote:

Agreed. The RF guys providing broadcast radio cameras or wireless
monitors seem to just dump the aerial anywhere vaugely close to
the
place that needs coverage. If they go to the trouble of getting
the
aerial up a bit and clear of obstructions the things work
extremely
well and most definately not limited to line of sight.

Well I wouldn't expect them to do otherwise from what I've seen of them
thats well, what they do;!.

What do but it still works so why bother erecting stands running
feeders etc if it'll work just as well sticking up in the corner of
the bag?

I doubt anyone tells them that when training them to do their jobs in
the first place....

Most of these guys are pretty clued up and do know their stuff but
"think of the derig".

I'd try a pair of these they are quite good at that sort of thing the
MIMO copes with that type of environment rather better than most and you
don't really want too much aerial directivity, as you'll be relying on a
lot of bounced paths or multipath and that using OFDM Mod will cope as
well as anything in that environment.

The path is about 500 m. One point has a clear view down to the area
of the other end point that is obscured by big trees but can
proabably see the buildings about 50 m away. I was thinking that
fairly wide angle aerial down there to "illuminate" the
trees/buildings/fellside and a relatively directional one up at the
clear site to look at this illuminated area and provide some gain.

http://www.wifi-stock.co.uk/details/...stationm5.html

16 dBi twin aerials, MIMO, as you say might work "out fo the box" as
with all RF you won't really know until you try it.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 2015-07-14 19:38:48 +0000, DerbyBorn said:

Virgin have upgraded me to 100MB broadband - but to use it I need to be
able to receive 5GHz. My tablet does but my laptop and desktop won't. The
limitation seems to be the WLAN Card.

Could I get a plug in USB WiFi dongle thing that will receive 5GHz - or
will this merely find another bottleneck?

Fortunately the Vigin Hub outputs 2.4GHz as well so I am no worse off.

If you use an ethernet cable to say your desktop you'll be able to get
the speed regardless. We're on Virgin 100mbps and during the day at
least we get almost that - say 96mbps - on various desktops and
notebooks plugged into our ethernet nertwork. Obviously we have to use
wifi for iPads and phones and for notebooks moved around.

E.

On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 20:29:17 +0100, tony sayer wrote:

In article , Johnny B Good johnny-b-
scribeth thus
On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 11:11:38 +0100, tony sayer wrote:

bit reduced


BTW, is it just me or does everyone experience that "Cliff Hanger"
feeling whilst watching the upload speedtest progress bar?

Not here we don't..

And we're not using SDSL either just plain ole VM ...

Hmm, so just me then that's seeing this 'tantalising' behaviour with
speedtest's upload speedometer. :-(

Well it does go up and down a bit at times but its generally much the
same the "receive" side is usually a flat topped line!...


The download plot is pretty well flat topped from start to finish rather
akin to a super car accelerating from the hard shoulder onto a quiet
motorway with the cruise control preset to 79mph.

The upload speedo behaviour, otoh, (I don't see a speed plot) is more
like that of a Trabant driver's attempt to beat his own personal best
speed record along a 1 mile stretch of runway.

I've just repeated this morning's test and, just like before, I managed
to edge the upload speed to 2.00Mbps on the second attempt (it didn't
quite make it the first time round - just 1.97Mbps).

The D/L speed on this second attempt shows 32.49 Mbps (ping time 9ms btw)
I forget what the first one was. When the D/L speed results consistently
hit the 32/33Mbps mark, the novelty of it all gets old rather fast. I
suppose it'll start to look more interesting when (assuming I haven't
struck a deal with 'Retentions' before then) VM finally do get around to
upgrading my line speed to 50Mbps as promised over a year ago now. :-(

--
Johnny B Good

On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 17:17:22 +0100, tony sayer wrote:


http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php...rm-uk-rollout-
1000mbps-g-fast-ultrafast-broadband-2020.html

OK if they run fibre to "our" pole (it only serves us) but if they
are going to do that it would be cheaper and better to run the
fibre
direct to us as it wouldn't involve trenching across the road. The
current lines get to the pole through direct buried armoured cable
not through a duct that could be utilised for a fibre duct.

I think its something to do with the kit thats in the boxes or the cost
of it, might be wrong tho...

G.Fast is very different kit but strikes me as yet another an urban
only solution. What is needed is some means of delivering at least
Superfast access to over 10 km from the exchange. Copper can't do it,
all the current technolgies drop below 24 Mbps at less than 2 km from
the source.

What can do it is fibre to the premises, but digging trenches to
install it is expensive, even in urban areas. As shown by they amount
effort that goes into trying to make copper work for the last few
hundred metres. In rural areas you could be digging several hundred
meters of trench for one customer, that just ain't going to happen.
This is "new install" I don't think they are allowed to use poles for
new installs these days. Existing network on poles can be maintained,
including replacing rotten poles. Would replacing Dropwire No.10 with
one also containing four fibres along with two copper pairs be classd
as "new install" or "Maintenance"? Still need to get the fibre to the
DP though.

--
Cheers
Dave.

In article , Johnny B Good johnny-b-
scribeth thus
On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 20:29:17 +0100, tony sayer wrote:

In article , Johnny B Good johnny-b-
scribeth thus
On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 11:11:38 +0100, tony sayer wrote:

bit reduced


BTW, is it just me or does everyone experience that "Cliff Hanger"
feeling whilst watching the upload speedtest progress bar?

Not here we don't..

And we're not using SDSL either just plain ole VM ...

Hmm, so just me then that's seeing this 'tantalising' behaviour with
speedtest's upload speedometer. :-(

Well it does go up and down a bit at times but its generally much the
same the "receive" side is usually a flat topped line!...


The download plot is pretty well flat topped from start to finish rather
akin to a super car accelerating from the hard shoulder onto a quiet
motorway with the cruise control preset to 79mph.

The upload speedo behaviour, otoh, (I don't see a speed plot) is more
like that of a Trabant driver's attempt to beat his own personal best
speed record along a 1 mile stretch of runway.

I've just repeated this morning's test and, just like before, I managed
to edge the upload speed to 2.00Mbps on the second attempt (it didn't
quite make it the first time round - just 1.97Mbps).

The D/L speed on this second attempt shows 32.49 Mbps (ping time 9ms btw)
I forget what the first one was. When the D/L speed results consistently
hit the 32/33Mbps mark, the novelty of it all gets old rather fast.

Can't comment, we just have the 100D/6H here and its well, nothing I'm
grumbling about!...

I
suppose it'll start to look more interesting when (assuming I haven't
struck a deal with 'Retentions' before then) VM finally do get around to
upgrading my line speed to 50Mbps as promised over a year ago now. :-(


Don't tell I, tell thee..
--
Tony Sayer

In article o.uk, Dave
Liquorice scribeth thus
On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 20:41:29 +0100, tony sayer wrote:

Agreed. The RF guys providing broadcast radio cameras or wireless
monitors seem to just dump the aerial anywhere vaugely close to
the
place that needs coverage. If they go to the trouble of getting
the
aerial up a bit and clear of obstructions the things work
extremely
well and most definately not limited to line of sight.

Well I wouldn't expect them to do otherwise from what I've seen of them
thats well, what they do;!.

What do but it still works so why bother erecting stands running
feeders etc if it'll work just as well sticking up in the corner of
the bag?

I doubt anyone tells them that when training them to do their jobs in
the first place....

Most of these guys are pretty clued up and do know their stuff but
"think of the derig".

Ah!, probably the main reason then:!...


I'd try a pair of these they are quite good at that sort of thing the
MIMO copes with that type of environment rather better than most and you
don't really want too much aerial directivity, as you'll be relying on a
lot of bounced paths or multipath and that using OFDM Mod will cope as
well as anything in that environment.

The path is about 500 m. One point has a clear view down to the area
of the other end point that is obscured by big trees but can
proabably see the buildings about 50 m away. I was thinking that
fairly wide angle aerial down there to "illuminate" the
trees/buildings/fellside and a relatively directional one up at the
clear site to look at this illuminated area and provide some gain.

http://www.wifi-stock.co.uk/details/...stationm5.html

16 dBi twin aerials, MIMO, as you say might work "out fo the box" as
with all RF you won't really know until you try it.


Well sometimes involving on obstructed path and fresnel zone clear its
quite predictable, but when its obstructed then not quite so easy. There
are some units that do very well in "difficult" locations but the price
goes up very steeply indeed....

--
Tony Sayer

In article o.uk, Dave
Liquorice scribeth thus
On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 17:17:22 +0100, tony sayer wrote:


http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php...rm-uk-rollout-
1000mbps-g-fast-ultrafast-broadband-2020.html

OK if they run fibre to "our" pole (it only serves us) but if they
are going to do that it would be cheaper and better to run the
fibre
direct to us as it wouldn't involve trenching across the road. The
current lines get to the pole through direct buried armoured cable
not through a duct that could be utilised for a fibre duct.

I think its something to do with the kit thats in the boxes or the cost
of it, might be wrong tho...

G.Fast is very different kit but strikes me as yet another an urban
only solution. What is needed is some means of delivering at least
Superfast access to over 10 km from the exchange. Copper can't do it,
all the current technolgies drop below 24 Mbps at less than 2 km from
the source.

What can do it is fibre to the premises, but digging trenches to
install it is expensive, even in urban areas. As shown by they amount
effort that goes into trying to make copper work for the last few
hundred metres. In rural areas you could be digging several hundred
meters of trench for one customer, that just ain't going to happen.
This is "new install" I don't think they are allowed to use poles for
new installs these days. Existing network on poles can be maintained,
including replacing rotten poles. Would replacing Dropwire No.10 with
one also containing four fibres along with two copper pairs be classd
as "new install" or "Maintenance"? Still need to get the fibre to the
DP though.


The answer might well be in localised radio distribution seems to work
well in other counties and its on the go in some parts of the UK...

One here thats been around quite some time now...

http://www.w3z.co.uk/
--
Tony Sayer

On 19 Jul 2015 10:45:13 GMT, Huge wrote:

In rural areas you could be digging several hundred
meters of trench for one customer, that just ain't going to
happen.

Particularly in out case where the "several hundred" is 1.1km. And
that's just to the cabinet in the road. We're ~7km from the exchange.

But has that cab been fibre'd? If the bit of copper 1.1 km long is of
the higher poundage and all the joints in good condition you'd
probably get a few Mbps above the 24 Mbps lower limit of "Superfast".

Openreach are having fun with low light levels on three of the newly
fibre'd cabinets here. Two of which are only a couple of km from the
local exchnage. However they have also installed 40 km of new fibre
all the way from Hexham to the local exchange.

What I'd like to know is where the exchange end laser
transmiter/receivers are. In the local exchnage with the cabinets
agregated onto new fibre back to Hexham, which makes them having
light level problems a bit odd. Or 40+ km away in Hexham, with each
cabinet having its own fibre pathway all the way there, in which case
light level problems are much less of a surprise.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 19 Jul 2015 18:31:07 GMT, Huge wrote:

Particularly in out case where the "several hundred" is 1.1km.
And
that's just to the cabinet in the road. We're ~7km from the
exchange.

But has that cab been fibre'd?

BTFOOM.

Wot?

BT reckon that we're not scheduled to get FTTC any time soon.

What does your County Council/BT/BDUK site say? Of the 8 cabinets off
our exchnage all but one are being fibred. That one is not being done
because most of the people served from it are over a km away and thus
unlikely to get Superfast speeds. The BDUK funding is principally to
provide Superfast, though if they can't do that they should at least
provide the "universal access" of 2 Mbps minimum.

On 8 km of line they'll have fun. FTTrN is a possibilty.

That would be truly joyful, and I suspect the copper's fine (it's all
new), but I doubt there's fibre in the cab.

At least one shiny new cab will spring up to hold the Fibre to VDSL
kit this requires power and has ventilation louvers. Sometimes a new
jumpering cabinet is also required depending on the state of the
existing network.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 20 Jul 2015 08:59:38 GMT
Huge wrote:

Status: Exploring Solutions

We're keen to bring Superfast Fibre to your area and are exploring
how best to achieve that. We may deliver it as part of our commercial
programme, or by working in partnership with your local authority. At
the moment you can't order Superfast Fibre.



That's at least more honest than all the adverts. we used to get from
BT offering us Infinity, years before fibre was anywhere near us. Even
before it was listed as having a possible, theoretical, inaccurate
date.
And when it finally arrived, BT didn't tell anybody, we only found out
it was active by checking the bt-adsl-checker website.

--
Davey.

On 20 Jul 2015 08:59:38 GMT, Huge wrote:

What does your County Council/BT/BDUK site say?

Status: Exploring Solutions

We're keen to bring Superfast Fibre to your area and are exploring
how best to achieve that. We may deliver it as part of our commercial
programme, or by working in partnership with your local authority. At
the moment you can't order Superfast Fibre.

That reads as direct from BT direct rather than from the County
Council led, BDUK funded, organisation like "Connecting Cumbria" or
"Connected Counties" (Bucks & Herts) or "Superfast Northamptonshire".

Of course that organisation might just parrot BT...

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 20 Jul 2015 10:59:14 GMT
Huge wrote:

On 2015-07-20, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On 20 Jul 2015 08:59:38 GMT, Huge wrote:

What does your County Council/BT/BDUK site say?

Status: Exploring Solutions

We're keen to bring Superfast Fibre to your area and are exploring
how best to achieve that. We may deliver it as part of our
commercial programme, or by working in partnership with your local
authority. At the moment you can't order Superfast Fibre.

That reads as direct from BT direct rather than from the County
Council led, BDUK funded, organisation like "Connecting Cumbria" or
"Connected Counties" (Bucks & Herts) or "Superfast
Northamptonshire".

Ah, OK, thanks.

Further investigation reveals there is a programme called
"Accelerating Bedford". I shall look into this.



I love the way these names all sound as though the relevant area is
going to be part of a huge Superfast network, whereas often it's a case
of getting the infrastructure into the 20th, let alone the 21st,
century.

--
Davey.

On 20/07/2015 12:33, Davey wrote:

I love the way these names all sound as though the relevant area is
going to be part of a huge Superfast network, whereas often it's a case
of getting the infrastructure into the 20th, let alone the 21st,
century.


Look up sky fibre Ultra in York.
I don't know if they will ever bring it elsewhere.

On 20/07/15 12:33, Davey wrote:
whereas often it's a case
of getting the infrastructure into the 20th, let alone the 21st,
century.

We weren't talking about the Labour party, were we?


--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 12:33:39 +0100, Davey wrote:

That reads as direct from BT direct rather than from the County
Council led, BDUK funded, organisation like "Connecting Cumbria" or
"Connected Counties" (Bucks & Herts) or "Superfast Northamptonshire".

Further investigation reveals there is a programme called "Accelerating
Bedford". I shall look into this.

I love the way these names all sound as though the relevant area is
going to be part of a huge Superfast network, whereas often it's a case
of getting the infrastructure into the 20th, let alone the 21st,
century.

Hey, I'm in the middle of FASTERSHIRE!

Apparently, we should be blessed with AT LEAST 2Mbit by the end of the
year. Delays notwithstanding.

There's various letters painted onto the tarmac near the exchange (a
small brick outhouse in a field), so something might be happening. Sheep
rustling, probably.