not very broadband

[rans6andrew]

For the last few days our broadband has been decidedly narrowband. A few runs of broadbandspeedchecker.co.uk shows that the download can be up to the 10Mb I pay for but it often doesn't manage more than 200Kb. The ping time seems to be up to 220mS more often than not and I didn't see better than 10kb upload speed on a number of runs of the test. The ping is to Maidenhead, about 6 or 7 miles from me.

We are seeing timeouts on many links.

The dire figures got me thinking. Why do the telecomms companies limit the upload speeds to, typicaly, 1/8th of the download speed?

What is the benefit to them?

If the line can handle the download speed why can't it handle the same upload speed? Surely it would be better for everyone if the upload speed was made equal to the download speed so that data exchanges completed more quickly?

Until recently our ISP was O2, who had a freephone helpline. Since they sold out to Sky I now have to ring an expensive number to get technical help. Progress.

Rans6.....

[ShyTorque]

I struggled on with ongoing problems with Sky for far too long. After many months of a non-functioning broadband service, and them trying to blame BT for the line (and BT continually denying the line had a fault) their technical helpline person tried to get me to move my PC to the entrance hallway.....so I just told them not to be so stupid and moved everything to BT. Much better now, up to 38Mb/8Mb.

[defizr]

The amount of data that's downloaded by your average household is much greater than they upload. If you have a 20Mb/s download speed and a 20Mb/s upload speed you'd need a connection capable of handling 40Mb/s rather than one capable of handling 22Mb/s as at present. Bandwidth costs money.

[mixture]

The dire figures got me thinking. Why do the telecomms companies limit the upload speeds to, typicaly, 1/8th of the download speed?

The clue is in the name my dear....

ADSL = Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line

You get what you pay for in this world, and that particular technology implementation makes it cheap for telcos to roll-out because of multiplexing magic at the exchange.

The precise figures you get depend on contention ratios and packet shaping going on at the ISP.

How else do you think they can afford to give you "superfast broadband" for a paltry single digit sum per month.

[oldbeefer]

Shy - the reason they asked you to that was to enable the router to be plugged into the test point in the main socket. A speedtest there will eliminate any problems caused by faulty extension wiring. ISPs will usually ask for that to be done before they escalate the problem to BT for a line check (which the ISP has to pay for).

[B Fraser]

I don't think BT charges ISPs for a remote diagnosis line check. Oldbeefer is 100% correct on the benefits of using the main socket. I suggested to a mod on this site that he moved his router from upstairs to the primary socket in the hallway. His speed jumped from 600k to 6Mb after a couple of days having allowed the kit in the exchange to re-set itself to adapt to the improved wiring.


Rans6Andrew, that sort of distance to the exchange is probably in a straight line which suggests you are close to the edge of the exchange area and hence you will have a far slower speed. The further the distance over copper, the slower the speed. That's the laws of physics I'm afraid. Your service provider may have access to BT's fibre to the nearest cabinet which would give you a far higher speed. If you buy a fibre based service from BT then they will give you a couple of sports TV channels for no additional charge.

[ShyTorque]

Shy - the reason they asked you to that was to enable the router to be plugged into the test point in the main socket. A speedtest there will eliminate any problems caused by faulty extension wiring. ISPs will usually ask for that to be done before they escalate the problem to BT for a line check (which the ISP has to pay for).

I was aware of the reason, having spent many hours trying to get Sky to escalate the technical advice to someone who actually knew what they were talking about, rather than repeatedly going through the same hoops dealing with a numpty reading from a checklist and getting absolutely nowhere! I'd already done extensive troubleshooting myself and had ruled out that there was any difference. The problem appeared to have been the distance from the exchange to our village and the number of subscribers sharing the over-worked network in my area. The speed was just about usable in the early hours but for much of the day the speed became so slow, or often non-existent, that pages constantly timed out before loading. Speedtest wouldn't often load all day.

Thankfully, the BT service, using the same socket, but more modern fibre optic equipment their end, was instantly far better and I now get 37-39 Mbps download and 8 Mbps upload. I wouldn't go back to Sky even if it were free, because it became unusable. Judging by the high number of BT Wifi hotspots around here, many others have taken the same step. :)

[BOAC]

BT have just issued a press release telling us they will be 'upgrading our exchange to fibre' soon. This is part of the BDUK roll-out in West Sussex.

It does seem as if reality has, however, dawned at County and BT as they are promising us 'up to 20mb' - now, why did I think that 'fibre' and BDUK were aiming for at least 24mb and where are my 80mb BT meteorites that should be landing in my garden..............?:ouch:

Distinctly unimpressed as we are already on an 'up to 20mb' AFDSL2+ exchange - and will BT be in default on the contract through failing to provide 24mb+???

Mind you, the 'official' HMG line now is that the BDUK roll-out should provide broadband at a speed that "feels like 15mb"...you couldn't make it up, could you?

[mixture]

and will BT be in default on the contract through failing to provide 24mb+???

Of course not. Read the service spec and the small print of your contract. 24Mb is the headline (as in advertising headline) rate. BT employ all the tricks in the book on their network to cram as many subscribers onto as smaller pipes as possible.

I know many places slap bang in the middle of London which have a cats chance in hell of achieving the headline rate due to the wonderfully antique structure of the BT network. So I rate your chances even lower than that of the London based entities to whom I refer.

(and before you say "oh but they can get fibre in London" .... nope. They might as well be located out in the sticks as far as BT is concerned).

I maintain that people should not be entering into contracts with BT Retail if they can possibly help it (and avoid indirect contracts that stick you on the BT Wholesale white-label ADSL service.... you should go LLU all the way !). BT are nothing but clever marketing... incredibly poor track record on delivery.

[oldbeefer]

BT rarely get things right. My area was one that won the Race to Infinity. Work was to be complete by March 2012. I'm STILL am unable to upgrade to Fibre Optics!

It's true a remote line check is free, but further investigation has to be paid for. One of the reasons for the check from the master socket is that if the 'further investigation' reveals the fault to be in the house wiring, BT charge the householder (about 120 quid, I believe).

[ShyTorque]

They have obviously prioritised the most important areas.... mine (160 miles north from there)! :ok:

[BOAC]

Read the service spec and the small print of your contract. - sadly not available as County and BT will not disclose.

[The Flying Pram]

Surely it would be better for everyone if the upload speed was made equal to the download speed so that data exchanges completed more quickly?

Unless you are trying to send large attachments via email, uploads consist of tiny data packets - mainly website URL's. Downloading the content of those image and video filled web pages we all "enjoy" makes up the bulk of transfer. You can get a "symmetric" line if you want, and are prepared to pay for it, but normal domestic users would see little benefit.

If you want to see what is flowing each way you can download and run this nifty little programme from Nirsoft: http://www.nirsoft.net/utils/smsniff.html Just extract the Zip folder to somewhere on your computer and run the .exe file inside. The columns "Remote Address" "Packets" and "Data Size" are the ones of interest. Call up a webpage and watch the results. Particularly good if you are watching a video or listening to streaming radio, and you'll soon find out how many other programmes are "phoning home" in the background! Google any IP addresses you don't recognise.

[mixture]

normal domestic users would see little benefit.

Indeed.

Having on multiple occasions had the opportunity to plug my laptop straight into a 1Gb switch fed off a 10Gb symmetric internet connection , I can tell you that whilst the download speed is great fun (and very useful for things like software updates, streaming etc.), at a personal level I found very little use for the large upload capacity.

The downside is you soon discover capacity issues elsewhere on the internet ... :( (e.g. the website you're visiting is slow because of load or they've got slow connectivity)

At a business level, of course there are a whole multitude of uses for a symmetric connection .... email servers, VPN connectivity to other sites.... but even then, you have to be doing an awful lot of that to be able to justify even a 20Mb symmetric leased line let alone anything bigger.

What people don't realise is its not all about the headline speeds.... its about quality of service. Not all high speed internet connections are made of the same stuff.

[mixture]

If you want to see what is flowing each way you can download and run this nifty little programme from Nirsoft:

Or the better known big brother known as Wireshark. :E

[rans6andrew]

the 6 or 7 miles to Maidenhead is not the distance to my local exchange but the distance to the nearest place that the speed tester (Broadband Speed Checker - THE UK's No.1 Broadband Speed Test (http://www.broadbandspeedchecker.co.uk)) uses for ping test. When we had our line tested when we moved to O2 as our ISP, they managed to sustain 18Mb download. As we only signed up for 8Mb they soon throttled it back.

I was just winding myself up to complain earlier this week when everything returned to normal, typically getting 8 - 9Mb download speed. It is still back to normal.

Ta,

Rans6.......

[ShyTorque]

Just done a Speedtest check on my tablet via Wifi to the BT modem. The speeds are 37.45 Mbps / 9.48 Mbps.

Pretty good for a northern village, especially bearing in mind that the previous Sky connection was sometimes as low as 28 Kbps, or non existent.

[BOAC]

I have just been told that the 'latest' press release 'passed to me' for my area from BT was in fact dated May 2012 and concerned the upgrade to ADSL2+. Confuson explained and I shall not rely on that source again.:ugh:

[oldbeefer]

Shy. As you know, life moves pretty slowly in this part of Shropshire!

[ShyTorque]

Old Beefer, i do, even though it's almost thirty years since I moved from there. Where did those years go? Happy days! :)

[Mikehotel152]

You lot don't know you're born!

We get 2mb down and 0.5mb up, on a good day. We're in a Suffolk village ten minutes drive from a major town, with copper lines running 5 miles to an exchange.

I'm hanging my hopes on an extension of the 4G network to the area!

[rans6andrew]

Oh joy of joys. According to BT advertising guff, Sky are soon going to bin all of the o2 accounts that they took over last year.

I wonder if o2 new that all of it's customers were going to be crapped on when it sold out without asking us.............

Rans6.......

[mixture]

According to BT advertising guff, Sky are soon going to bin all of the o2 accounts that they took over last year.

And you seriously pay much attention to BT's marketing department resorting to such poor tactics as denigrating its competitors ? :rolleyes:

If you could be bothered to go read the Sky website rans6andrew, you would find out the TRUTH !

In May 2013, Sky officially purchased O2 Home Broadband and Home Phone so this means your contract is now officially with Sky.

Over the last few months Sky and O2 have been working together to ensure the transition is as smooth as possible. Some of you have chosen to move over to Sky straightaway, whilst others are waiting to be moved over by Sky. We can now confirm that Sky plans to start moving O2 customers over to Sky from October 2013.

So Sky is binning NOBODY, and BT should be reported to the Advertising Standards people for such despicable marketing.

[mixture]

I've just found a sample of that advert.... its DISGUSTING ! Utter lies ! Even more reason for people to never ever sign up with BT Retail for any of their products !

http://community.o2.co.uk/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/5380i383CF48D3FE41B62/image-size/original?v=mpbl-1&px=-1

[crewmeal]

I saw this ad and realised there were more options than BT and Sky and saw what BT were trying to do. They also offer sweetners to enable more customers to sign up. The true reality of BT services and products will cost a lot more in the future than many of the options available. BT offer Sky sports channels for free, for now, but watch in the future when you have to start paying for them.

I signed up with Plusnet and have a perfectly reliable service including fibre optic which is excellent and consistant.

[mixture]

I signed up with Plusnet

A company owned by BT Retail... proving useful to them for now as part of their marketing mix... but we shall see what the future holds... :cool:

[crewmeal]

I knew that at the time. My view on it is why 'kill the goose that lays the golden egg'. It would be commercial suicide to interfere with a product that's working well.

However if BT were to interfere with it then I would be the first to migrate after contract completion, along with thousands of others who hate BT.

As you say we shall see what the future holds.