Jim K submitted this idea :
Oh you mean homeplug(s) with access point(s) too, right.
--

Yes! One unit connects to the hub/router via wired connection. The
second unit goes into a mains socket wherever you need the remote
access. The second unit offers two wired LAN outlets and a wifi access
point.

Terry Casey formulated the question :
Why are you using your wife to connect to the internet? :-)


--

Spell chucker strikes again :-)

On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 06:06:26 +1000, cantankerous senile geezer Rot Speed
blabbered, again:

I chose to go for the fastest service because the 1mp upload
that I was getting with the adsl2+ service was almost unusable
for uploading videos and useless for cloud backup. The 50mb
upload with vdsl works perfectly for that stuff and is cheaper.

Does that compensate you for not getting it up anymore, you ridiculous
bigmouthed senile geezer from Ozzieland? LOL

--
Cursitor Doom about Rot Speed:
"The man is a conspicuous and unashamed ignoramus."
MID:

On Sat, 28 Jul 2018 13:57:56 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Might be fibre to the cabinet (FTTC). That's what we have, gives
35Mbps or so.

grr

53.7 here.

Grrrr

79.5Mbs here,

GRRrrr

6 (six) Mbps here on a a good day.

I think BT recently offered me an 'upgrade' to a higher speed. For more
money, of course. But the last one I had which doubled the download
speed made zero difference (that I could see) in practice. Most things
seem to have 'the other end' as the bottleneck.

The "other end" may well be your ISP, nearly all have "traffic
shaping" clauses of one form or another in their T&C, along with AUPs
that enable them to throttle users that have the temerity to fill
their "unlimited" pipe for extended periods of time. One or two
public state they do their best NOT to be a bottle neck.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Dave Plowman (News) formulated on Saturday :
When I got BT FTTC here, they supplied a new router etc. I've got them
installed in the cellar (don't actually want to see them all the time)
which is fine for most of the house. But the top floor and garden not so
good. So used the old router as an extra Wi-Fi point, fed via CAT5 on the
top floor. Seems to go a long way. ;-)

I have my setup the other way around. Phone cable is overhead, comes in
at the eaves, into loft, with the main router access point up there. It
gives pretty reasonable coverage around most of the place, but could be
better on ground floor. On the ground floor, I have a second access
point wired up to the first.

John Rumm brought next idea :
Homeplug devices work by injecting a RF signal into the mains wiring. Given
that was never really designed to limit radiation at those frequencies, some
of it will escape[1] - and may in theory make its way into the telephone
lines where it could interfere with the RF carrying the broadband. In
practice I have not seen this as a problem.

Yes, that was also my best guess at the cause and what Plusnet seemed
to be suggesting. Possible it is also a faulty or poor quality modem
router, hence all of his wifi range problems.

Dave Liquorice wrote:

grr
Grrrr
GRRrrr

6 (six) Mbps here on a a good day.

But when they *eventually* get round to your neck of the woods, it'll
likely be 330Mbps FTTP

On 28/07/2018 21:48, Andy Burns wrote:
Dave Liquorice wrote:

grr
Grrrr
GRRrrr

6 (six) Mbps here on a a good day.

But when they *eventually* get round to your neck of the woods, it'll
likely be 330Mbps FTTP

Is that all? VM keep trying to get me to upgrade from 100Mbps to their
VIVID 350 - though I'm told a lot of the time I'd likely only get 150 to
200 And heaven only knows when FTTP will arrive.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
news
You are a scourge on society. Home plugs are the Bain of my life as a
short wave hobbyist. These devices pump so much rf down the mains cable
they contravene the Wireless telegraphy act, but the authorities are
turning a blind eye to it for their own reasons. Just another law run
roughshod over by big business.
I think they hope in the fullness of time 5G will make such devices
obsolete. It cannot happen too soon, but I doubt it will stop as all sorts
of devices now use the same idea including home automation.

As for how fibre works, I guess you would need to look at what is plugged
into his router.No you need either fibre to the house or the virgin idea
of fibre in the road and then a device that shoves it on co-ax for the
last few feet.

As for poor reception. My guess is that so many people now have wifi that
its interference not lack of signal.

And not just wifi interference either. Those remote video senders
and stuff like that are even worse. Mate of mine has an obscene
level of interference from one of the neighbours.

In the main I have only one item on wifi, the echo dot, everything else is
wired with network cables, end of problem.

I do everything by wifi now except the desktop PC to the modem/router, works
fine.

"Harry Bloomfield" wrote in message
news
More on my friends Internet access issues, which I mentioned earlier..

He would seem to have several issues and is on Plusnet, which is BT
supplied.

1. He seems to be reporting his Internet connection is unstable.

2. His wifi access from the Plusnet router is desperately poor range
coverage.

He contacted PN this am and PN has checked out 1 and agree with him. They
are sending a new router and have upsold him to fibre. They suggest that
they don't need to run anything into his house, he just needs to switch
to the new router.

Virgin recently ran fibre round the village and left little plastic
access points in the pavement, adjacent to every home. Where people have
taken up the Virgin service, they have had to run from the access point,
into the house with cable. How come Plusnet/BT don't need to do this?

Friend bought himself a pair of BT Homplugs, to extend the range of his
wifi (2). During his call to PN, they said the Homeplug might be causing
him the problems with his poor interned - I don't really see how, however
the Homeplug access point, seemed not to be working at all, despite it
all being lit up. The AP failed to show in his devices list of available
AP's.

I have the same pair of Homeplugs here, just for when I might need them
and they work absolutely fine.

On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 07:21:36 +1000, cantankerous senile geezer Rot Speed
blabbered, again:


I do everything by wifi now except the desktop PC to the modem/router, works
fine.

....except that nobody gives a **** what you do, Rot!

--
Cursitor Doom about Rot Speed:
"he man is a conspicuous and unashamed ignoramus."
MID:

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
idual.net...
On Sat, 28 Jul 2018 15:32:37 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

which is fine for most of the house. But the top floor and garden not so
good. So used the old router as an extra Wi-Fi point, fed via CAT5 on
the top floor. Seems to go a long way. ;-)

That's the way to do it. Not with Home plugs or "WiFi extenders".
Home plugs just shove out lots of interference. WiFi extenders half
the throughput straight away

That's not correct when you use them in access point mode
with a cat5 back to the router.

before taking into account neighbours on
the same channel.

Harry Bloomfield Wrote in message:
Jim K submitted this idea :
Oh you mean homeplug(s) with access point(s) too, right.
--

Yes! One unit connects to the hub/router via wired connection. The
second unit goes into a mains socket wherever you need the remote
access. The second unit offers two wired LAN outlets and a wifi access
point.


Yes - the plot's already thinned thanks.
--
--
Jim K


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , John
Rumm wrote:

Because the BT "fibre" he has been sold is not really fibre in the true
sense. They are using Fibre to the Cabinet (FTTC), and then using VDSL (a
DSL varient designed for very high speed and short range) over copper for
the last few hundred metres...

Yes, and what is wrong with that?

Its a lot slower than FTTP can do.

The fibre to the cab looks like fibre
and quacks like fibre, so what are you complaining about.

On 28/07/18 23:09, Jock Green wrote:


"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , John
Rumm wrote:

Because the BT "fibre" he has been sold is not really fibre in the
true sense. They are using Fibre to the Cabinet (FTTC), and then
using VDSL (a DSL varient designed for very high speed and short
range) over copper for the last few hundred metres...

Yes, and what is wrong with that?

Its a lot slower than FTTP can do.

LOL. I think the top for a single monomode is around 100Gbps.

FTTP aint nowhere near that.



The fibre to the cab looks like fibre
and quacks like fibre, so what are you complaining about.




--
"A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight
and understanding".

Marshall McLuhan

In article l.net,
Dave Liquorice wrote:
I think BT recently offered me an 'upgrade' to a higher speed. For more
money, of course. But the last one I had which doubled the download
speed made zero difference (that I could see) in practice. Most things
seem to have 'the other end' as the bottleneck.

The "other end" may well be your ISP, nearly all have "traffic
shaping" clauses of one form or another in their T&C, along with AUPs
that enable them to throttle users that have the temerity to fill
their "unlimited" pipe for extended periods of time. One or two
public state they do their best NOT to be a bottle neck.

I'm not actually a heavy user. Bit of catch up TV etc. But that was fine
anyway before paying for the higher speed. The odd download I do from
wherever didn't suddenly take half the time.

--
*Why is the third hand on the watch called a second hand?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 28/07/18 23:09, Jock Green wrote:


"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , John
Rumm wrote:

Because the BT "fibre" he has been sold is not really fibre in the true
sense. They are using Fibre to the Cabinet (FTTC), and then using VDSL
(a DSL varient designed for very high speed and short range) over
copper for the last few hundred metres...

Yes, and what is wrong with that?

Its a lot slower than FTTP can do.

LOL. I think the top for a single monomode is around 100Gbps.

FTTP aint nowhere near that.

Sure, but its a lot better than VDSL2 can do.

Some places like Singapore you have have 2 1Gb
services if you want that. Not expensive either.

The fibre to the cab looks like fibre
and quacks like fibre, so what are you complaining about.

On 28/07/2018 22:05, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , John
Rumm wrote:

Because the BT "fibre" he has been sold is not really fibre in the
true sense. They are using Fibre to the Cabinet (FTTC), and then using
VDSL (a DSL varient designed for very high speed and short range) over
copper for the last few hundred metres...

Yes, and what is wrong with that? The fibre to the cab looks like fibre
and quacks like fibre, so what are you complaining about.

Its slow by comparison to FTTP (80/20 at best compared to 330/30 typical
for FTTP), and the reliability is limited by what in many cases will be
a very old copper installation.

(personally I would not complain about having FTTC, since it would be
better than the 1.5Mbps I get at the end of 6km of soggy string -
however its a bit deceptive to refer to it as fibre broadband)


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Andy Burns wrote:
Harry Bloomfield wrote:

How come Plusnet/BT don't need to do this?

Because it's only fibre to the cabinet, then twisted pair to the house.

Virgin usually use coax (plus twisted pair for phone) to the house, but
it sounds like your area may be covered by Virgin's Project Lightning
which *is* fibre all the way to the house.


I thought we were on Virgins Project Lightning (new grey cabinets in the
street) but final connection is still coax. No twisted pair though, theyve
just moved over to VOIP.

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Brian Gaff
wrote:

As for how fibre works, I guess you would need to look at what is plugged
into his router.No you need either fibre to the house or the virgin idea of
fibre in the road and then a device that shoves it on co-ax for the last
few feet.

You obviously haven't been paying attention Brian.


Are far as I can tell, Virgin either run coax from a street cabinet to your
house OR provide full FTTP. Theyre hardly likely to terminate just a few
feet from your house.

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

I am doing some lighting business in UK

I want to DIY some lighting with led ,How about this supplier :www.lightstec.com

On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 08:00:10 +1000, Jock Green wrote:

WiFi extenders half the throughput straight away

That's not correct when you use them in access point mode with a cat5
back to the router.

Then it's not an extender (aka repeater) is is it? It is, as you say,
an access point.

You still need to be careful about channels and any overlap of
channels and coverage but you don't get the instant 50% reduction in
through put that you do with an extender/repeater.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Tim+ explained :
Are far as I can tell, Virgin either run coax from a street cabinet to your
house OR provide full FTTP. Theyre hardly likely to terminate just a few
feet from your house.

As near as I could see, what was dropped into the ground from cabinet
to every house, was a semi rigid and yellow coloured.

In article l.net,
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 08:00:10 +1000, Jock Green wrote:

WiFi extenders half the throughput straight away

That's not correct when you use them in access point mode with a cat5
back to the router.

Then it's not an extender (aka repeater) is is it? It is, as you say,
an access point.

You still need to be careful about channels and any overlap of
channels and coverage but you don't get the instant 50% reduction in
through put that you do with an extender/repeater.

There's an Android app* for looking to see which channels are in use.

*WiFi Analyser

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On Sat, 28 Jul 2018 21:48:41 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:

Dave Liquorice wrote:

grr
Grrrr
GRRrrr

6 (six) Mbps here on a a good day.

But when they *eventually* get round to your neck of the woods, it'll
likely be 330Mbps FTTP

Looking at where general FTTP infrastruture has been installed around
here it's not likely to appear here. The places it has are small
groups (dozen or so) premesis all fairly close together ie less than
a handful of poles covers all of them. The premesis in this part of
the world are detached by a 1/4 mile or more...

It's not lack of fibre in the area, they installed a fibre cable down
to the villages cabinet for FTTC. They normally put in 96 core cable,
that cable passes under our forecourt 10' from the door. There
*might* be access into that cable at large chamber 200 m away.

Where there is the infrastructure I don't think I've seen an
installed "drop wire" from the fibre DPs at the top of the poles to a
premesis. That could mean a few things:

The infrastructure isn't capable of being lit. Highly unlikely, why
would Openreach spend money and not light and sell it? Yes, the money
could be Phase 2 (Or is it 3?) BDUK money but if so it would be
capable of being lit.

The combination of these three is more likely though:
The consumer cost (installation and/or rental) of the service is too
high.
Consumer ignorance and poor marketing by the few ISPs that do sell
it.
Lack of ISPs selling the service.

Of course if I wait until 2033:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44921764

I've been saying since the inception of BDUK and the use of FTTC that
they shouldn't be doing FTTC as it's not future proof enough. I used
to use the example of a family at home, with Mum watching Men &
Motors, Dad a soap and the kids surfing away on YouTube, all with 10
Mbps HD streams so 50 Mbps minimum required not the 24 Mbps mimimum
that qualifies a link as "superfast"...

These days with the emergence of 4k UHD/HDR as the broadcast TV
standard (new trucks/studios are UHD 4k if not 8k capable and IP
based). I'll revise that to 100 Mbps not being enough. The recent
trials of live streaming UHD needed a 40 Mbps link...

They are trying to fudge it with G.Fast *up to* 330Mbps but only if
you can throw a rock at the cabinet and hit it.

--
Cheers
Dave.

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
idual.net...
On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 08:00:10 +1000, Jock Green wrote:

WiFi extenders half the throughput straight away

That's not correct when you use them in access point mode with a cat5
back to the router.

Then it's not an extender (aka repeater) is is it?

It is when it's a mode you select in that device.

It is, as you say,
an access point.

You still need to be careful about channels and any overlap of
channels and coverage but you don't get the instant 50% reduction in
through put that you do with an extender/repeater.

Dave Liquorice wrote:

Looking at where general FTTP infrastruture has been installed around
here it's not likely to appear here. The places it has are small
groups (dozen or so) premesis all fairly close together ie less than
a handful of poles covers all of them.

A friend who works for openreach, lives on a rural lincolnshire road
with individual properties strung-out over miles, apparently they're
getting FTTP real soon now (problem due to crossing a railway line).

Harry Bloomfield wrote:

As near as I could see, what was dropped into the ground from cabinet to
every house, was a semi rigid and yellow coloured.

Just a hollow tube to allow fibre to blown in later. Given how many
tubes were bundled together into the minitrench, it was amusing to see
how they checked which was which ... one chap walked up the road with a
trolley containing a generator and a compressor and some hose, squirted
air into the stopcock for each house, and then walkie-talkied to his
mate to label which tube corresponds to that house at the cabinet end.

On 28/07/2018 12:24, alan_m wrote:

BT is fibre to the nearest (green) box in the street.* Whereas before it
may have been wire to the exchange which for many people would have been
Km long and which were possible installed 50+ years ago its now fibre to
the nearest box with only the bit between the box and house being wire.

Usually.

About 4% of us genuinely have fibre. FTTP - fibre to the premises.

Andy

On 28/07/2018 22:05, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , John
Rumm wrote:

Because the BT "fibre" he has been sold is not really fibre in the
true sense. They are using Fibre to the Cabinet (FTTC), and then using
VDSL (a DSL varient designed for very high speed and short range) over
copper for the last few hundred metres...

Yes, and what is wrong with that? The fibre to the cab looks like fibre
and quacks like fibre, so what are you complaining about.

FTTC gets you 80 if you're lucky, and more likely a lot less if you
aren't next to the cabinet.

Retail fibre gives you 330 if you want to pay for it (GPON). And it
doesn't matter how far the cabinet is.

That's a pretty muffled quack.

Andy

In article ,
lid says...


FTTC gets you 80 if you're lucky, and more likely a lot less if you
aren't next to the cabinet.


That doesn't apply to VM FTTC, though, as the coax
distribution from the cabinet maintains its full 750MHz
(typically) bandwidth throughout the entire coax network so it
doesn't matter where on that network you are connected.

--

Terry

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

On 31/07/18 11:33, Terry Casey wrote:
In article ,
lid says...


FTTC gets you 80 if you're lucky, and more likely a lot less if you
aren't next to the cabinet.


That doesn't apply to VM FTTC, though, as the coax
distribution from the cabinet maintains its full 750MHz
(typically) bandwidth throughout the entire coax network so it
doesn't matter where on that network you are connected.

Mmm. There is a length limit on coax though


--
€œIt is hard to imagine a more stupid decision or more dangerous way of
making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people
who pay no price for being wrong.€�

Thomas Sowell

In article , lid
says...

On 31/07/18 11:33, Terry Casey wrote:
In article ,
lid says...


FTTC gets you 80 if you're lucky, and more likely a lot less if you
aren't next to the cabinet.


That doesn't apply to VM FTTC, though, as the coax
distribution from the cabinet maintains its full 750MHz
(typically) bandwidth throughout the entire coax network so it
doesn't matter where on that network you are connected.

Mmm. There is a length limit on coax though

Yes and no.

There is a distinct difference between a coax network and a
length of coax.

True, signals will be attenuated along the length of the coax,
as with any other type of transmission line, particularly at
the higher frequencies but, at intervals along the route,
amplifiers restore the level and pre-equalise the levels for
feeding the next section so, within limits, levels across the
band are controlled throughout the length of the netork.

Also, the quality of the network is defined in a British
Standard which forms part of the cable operator's licence
terms.

Thus the signals fed to any subscriber on the network will
conform to tightly defined limits which ensure that all
subscribers receive the same level of service.

That is something that BT's copper network cannot do.

--

Terry

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

On 31/07/2018 13:47, Terry Casey wrote:
In article , lid
says...

On 31/07/18 11:33, Terry Casey wrote:
In article ,
lid says...


FTTC gets you 80 if you're lucky, and more likely a lot less if you
aren't next to the cabinet.


That doesn't apply to VM FTTC, though, as the coax
distribution from the cabinet maintains its full 750MHz
(typically) bandwidth throughout the entire coax network so it
doesn't matter where on that network you are connected.

Mmm. There is a length limit on coax though

Yes and no.

There is a distinct difference between a coax network and a
length of coax.

True, signals will be attenuated along the length of the coax,
as with any other type of transmission line, particularly at
the higher frequencies but, at intervals along the route,
amplifiers restore the level and pre-equalise the levels for
feeding the next section so, within limits, levels across the
band are controlled throughout the length of the netork.

Also, the quality of the network is defined in a British
Standard which forms part of the cable operator's licence
terms.

Thus the signals fed to any subscriber on the network will
conform to tightly defined limits which ensure that all
subscribers receive the same level of service.

That is something that BT's copper network cannot do.



Virgin can't either.
Although they have tight control over the signal levels there is the
slight problem of contention. They only have a limited bandwidth
available and its shared with all the subs on a segment.
So you may get 330 Mb/s some of the time you may not get it if there are
a few heavy users on your segment.

This is why virgin were traffic shaping to reduce the throughput of
heavy users and leave some for others.

I don't know what traffic shaping they currently do.

BT suffers the same but the contention is in the links to the ISP not
the access network like virgins. This means that different ISPs may have
different connections and suffer from different levels of contention
depending on what they pay for.

Mine for instance doesn't appear to have any contention as I can max out
the link to the DSLAM whenever I try.

In article , The Natural Philosopher
scribeth thus
On 31/07/18 11:33, Terry Casey wrote:
In article ,
lid says...


FTTC gets you 80 if you're lucky, and more likely a lot less if you
aren't next to the cabinet.


That doesn't apply to VM FTTC, though, as the coax
distribution from the cabinet maintains its full 750MHz
(typically) bandwidth throughout the entire coax network so it
doesn't matter where on that network you are connected.

Mmm. There is a length limit on coax though



Well ours is around 350 metres IIRC but they are only in urban and
suburban areas so you aren't likely to be "that" far from a cabinet we
can get 350 meg odd here, if we want it, but its hardly worth bothering
with the 220 we do get is fine for our needs the rest of the net seems
it needs to catch up first;!...
--
Tony Sayer

In article , dennis@home
scribeth thus
On 31/07/2018 13:47, Terry Casey wrote:
In article , lid
says...

On 31/07/18 11:33, Terry Casey wrote:
In article ,
lid says...


FTTC gets you 80 if you're lucky, and more likely a lot less if you
aren't next to the cabinet.


That doesn't apply to VM FTTC, though, as the coax
distribution from the cabinet maintains its full 750MHz
(typically) bandwidth throughout the entire coax network so it
doesn't matter where on that network you are connected.

Mmm. There is a length limit on coax though

Yes and no.

There is a distinct difference between a coax network and a
length of coax.

True, signals will be attenuated along the length of the coax,
as with any other type of transmission line, particularly at
the higher frequencies but, at intervals along the route,
amplifiers restore the level and pre-equalise the levels for
feeding the next section so, within limits, levels across the
band are controlled throughout the length of the netork.

Also, the quality of the network is defined in a British
Standard which forms part of the cable operator's licence
terms.

Thus the signals fed to any subscriber on the network will
conform to tightly defined limits which ensure that all
subscribers receive the same level of service.

That is something that BT's copper network cannot do.



Virgin can't either.
Although they have tight control over the signal levels there is the
slight problem of contention. They only have a limited bandwidth
available and its shared with all the subs on a segment.
So you may get 330 Mb/s some of the time you may not get it if there are
a few heavy users on your segment.

This is why virgin were traffic shaping to reduce the throughput of
heavy users and leave some for others.

I don't know what traffic shaping they currently do.

Don't think they do now least not on the service we have, its fine

On a speed test its usually reporting over 200 Meg anytime.


BT suffers the same but the contention is in the links to the ISP not
the access network like virgins. This means that different ISPs may have
different connections and suffer from different levels of contention
depending on what they pay for.

Mine for instance doesn't appear to have any contention as I can max out
the link to the DSLAM whenever I try.



--
Tony Sayer

In article ,
lid says...

On 31/07/2018 13:47, Terry Casey wrote:
In article , lid
says...

Thus the signals fed to any subscriber on the network will
conform to tightly defined limits which ensure that all
subscribers receive the same level of service.

That is something that BT's copper network cannot do.


Virgin can't either.
Although they have tight control over the signal levels there is the
slight problem of contention. They only have a limited bandwidth
available and its shared with all the subs on a segment.
So you may get 330 Mb/s some of the time you may not get it if there are
a few heavy users on your segment.

This is why virgin were traffic shaping to reduce the throughput of
heavy users and leave some for others.


Apart from re-segmenting the network so that fewer and fewer
subscribers are on any individual segment, improments in
DOCSIS enable a number of downstream signal (equivalent to DTV
muxes) to be bonded together, thus they can continually offer
higher and higher speeds as the technology improves.

I originally worked on commisioning a nrew network based on
600 home nodes, whereas 2,400 home nodes was the norm in the
cable environment. This made resegmentation much easier to
perform in the headend. I would imagine that, where demand
exists, some of those older 2,400 home nodes have been split
at street level to provide more flexibility.

However, it is 11 years since I retired and it is a rapidly
developing situation, so I have no idea exactly what goes on
these days although I'm familiar with the basic principles.

Strange - it only seems a very short while ago that we were
rolling out our initial 600bps broadband product in
competition with 56kbs dial-up!


--

Terry

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

On Tue, 31 Jul 2018 16:33:30 +0100, Terry Casey wrote:

====snip====


Strange - it only seems a very short while ago that we were rolling out
our initial 600bps broadband product in competition with 56kbs dial-up!

Typo? ITYM 600Kbps broadband service. :-)

I *well* remember the time when NTL used the 'harmonisation' of the
128Kbps service to 150Kbps (quarter the speed of the 600Kbps which had
formerly been 512Kbps) to squeeze a disproportionate (exhorbitant!) 3
quid increase over the 15 quid a month I'd formerly been paying.

To be fair, it was only a 2.4% increase on a cost per Kbps speed basis
but as far as I was concerned, they could stick their poxy 22Kbps speed
"upgrade" where the sun don't shine and let me keep that 3 quid in my own
pocket. Mind you, during the past 15 years or so, that same basic 150Kbps
service has now morphed via several free speed upgrades into an 85Mbps
service (only a paltry 5Mbps upload speed though) for just under 35 quid
a month.

It has to be said that a price increase over a 15 year period that must
be less than inflation for a 64 fold speed increase is a pretty good deal
compared to the more typical customer experience of "Service Industries"
in general.

--
Johnny B Good

On 31/07/18 13:47, Terry Casey wrote:
In article , lid
says...

On 31/07/18 11:33, Terry Casey wrote:
In article ,
lid says...


FTTC gets you 80 if you're lucky, and more likely a lot less if you
aren't next to the cabinet.


That doesn't apply to VM FTTC, though, as the coax
distribution from the cabinet maintains its full 750MHz
(typically) bandwidth throughout the entire coax network so it
doesn't matter where on that network you are connected.

Mmm. There is a length limit on coax though

Yes and no.

There is a distinct difference between a coax network and a
length of coax.

True, signals will be attenuated along the length of the coax,
as with any other type of transmission line, particularly at
the higher frequencies but, at intervals along the route,
amplifiers restore the level and pre-equalise the levels for
feeding the next section so, within limits, levels across the
band are controlled throughout the length of the netork.

Also, the quality of the network is defined in a British
Standard which forms part of the cable operator's licence
terms.

Thus the signals fed to any subscriber on the network will
conform to tightly defined limits which ensure that all
subscribers receive the same level of service.

That is something that BT's copper network cannot do.

It could. Line powered ADSL repeaters every 2km would have gootten
everyone up to speed.


But the point is that copper twoisted pair and coax are the same. At
distance the signals are so atteneuated that bandwith foes down withiout
repeaters.

Most virgin is fibre to the cab and coax to the premnises. No repeaters


Coax is just a bit better up to say a km


--
Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early
twenty-first centurys developed world went into hysterical panic over a
globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and,
on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer
projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to
contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.

Richard Lindzen

In article , johnny-b-
says...

On Tue, 31 Jul 2018 16:33:30 +0100, Terry Casey wrote:

Strange - it only seems a very short while ago that we were rolling out
our initial 600bps broadband product in competition with 56kbs dial-up!

Typo? ITYM 600Kbps broadband service. :-)

Oops! Yes, 600kbps.


I *well* remember the time when NTL used the 'harmonisation' of the
128Kbps service to 150Kbps (quarter the speed of the 600Kbps which had
formerly been 512Kbps) to squeeze a disproportionate (exhorbitant!) 3
quid increase over the 15 quid a month I'd formerly been paying.

We were Bell Cable Media at the time (later Cable & Wieless
Communications) and didn't offer a lower speed than 600kbps


Mind you, during the past 15 years or so, that same basic
150Kbps service has now morphed via several free speed
upgrades into an 85Mbps service (only a paltry 5Mbps upload
speed though)

I've never had the need for blisteringly fast upload speeds
and I doubt that the average user does, either.

However, the reason for the lower upload speed is embedded in
history when CATV first started and upload requirements were
usuaally limited to STB and supervisory data comms.

Attainable bandwidths were also low - 300MHz in the mid 70s,
increasing to 450MHz by the mid/late 80s, then 550 - 600MHz in
the early 90s. The older networks were upgraded for the
ionitial digital roll-out, when a figure of 750MHz was chosen
for most networks.

By far the lion's share of this bandwidth was always for the
downstream channels, the return path initially being 5 -
30MHz, increasing later to 50MHz and then 65MHz.

When I was redesigning the RF distribution network for the
Vintage Wireless Museum, I wanted a decent Band I/III diplex
filter, which I managed to scrounge from VM.

As it came out of a large box of identical used 65/85MHz
filters, I surmised that the return path had again been
increased, probably up to 85MHz, meaning that the FM band was
no longer carried.

How widespread such changes have been, I have no idea. Bearing
in mind the large number of original cable operators there
were intially, all with their own design ideas and choice of
equipment manufacturer, uprading the networks on a national
scale must be quite a tall order!

I'm now on what was originally Diamond Cable and, although
I've worked on their broadband routers in the past, I've never
had any contact with the RF side of their network, so know
niothing about it but I've run some speed tests in the last
few minutes and getting about 85Mbps download and just over
12Mbps upload.
--

Terry

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

In article , lid
says...

Coax is just a bit better up to say a km

!!!

The average subscriber drop cable is rarely likely to exceed a
tenth of that!

Given that the signals leave the cabinet with a forward tilt,
they won't be far off level across the band at the end.


That is much more than 'just a bit better' than God knows how
many km of twisted pair.


--

Terry

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com