E
Embattle
Guest
- Thread starter
- #61
Then again it is £33 a month 
O
old.Nakoma
Guest
- Thread starter
- #62
But my post above shows Telewest for the t**ts that they are
GIVE ME SOMETHING BROAD(BAND)
-nakkeh
GIVE ME SOMETHING BROAD(BAND)
-nakkeh
E
Embattle
Guest
- Thread starter
- #63
You better get off the internet if you don't like tits of the person kind.
O
old.Nakoma
Guest
- Thread starter
- #64
Theres an extra * in there m8
-nakkeh
-nakkeh
E
Embattle
Guest
- Thread starter
- #65
Shouldn't that be c**ts?
S
shabazz
Guest
- Thread starter
- #66
Hmmm
Well personally im sick to deth of isdn now, due to the fact that you gotta have an isp on top, and every free one ive tried has either died (NGUK) or are just poo(BT)
So im gonna get adsl. - no cable here :/
but i have a question to ask.
My brother tells me that all adsl connections use the same network - i.e if i use bt and my neighbor uses clara then well still be using the same connection thingys at the exchanges.
He also says that they effectively use the same piece of bandwith, the isp part just saying who u are using it through (if u get me). In other words a trace would show 1 on bt and the other on clara, but they would be both coming from teh same place....
If true it wouldnt make a difference what isp u use effectively...... - i.e. if the port was full on bt, itll be full on any other adsl service.
Confusing? yes, but i just need to clear these things up
Well personally im sick to deth of isdn now, due to the fact that you gotta have an isp on top, and every free one ive tried has either died (NGUK) or are just poo(BT)
So im gonna get adsl. - no cable here :/
but i have a question to ask.
My brother tells me that all adsl connections use the same network - i.e if i use bt and my neighbor uses clara then well still be using the same connection thingys at the exchanges.
He also says that they effectively use the same piece of bandwith, the isp part just saying who u are using it through (if u get me). In other words a trace would show 1 on bt and the other on clara, but they would be both coming from teh same place....
If true it wouldnt make a difference what isp u use effectively...... - i.e. if the port was full on bt, itll be full on any other adsl service.
Confusing? yes, but i just need to clear these things up
P
Perplex
Guest
- Thread starter
- #67
Right and wrong. Thing of it as iSDN. Sure, all the connections go through the same ports at the local exchange, but where they connect to on the digital telephone network is another matter. All iSDN lines are BT, but you connect to whichever ISP you want. Much the same. Don't forget that ADSL is a dial-up medium...sort of.
Wrong. Similar to my previous answer. BT install ports into the ISPs premises, that handle (iirc) 25 users per DSL port. Sure, the data passes over BTs digital telephone network, but this works in much the same way as using NTL (or cable and wireless, or OneTel, etc) over a BT line by dialling 139 (or whatever it is) or using your BT homehighway iSDN to connect to Claranet.
S
shabazz
Guest
- Thread starter
- #68
ok ta m8
cleared that one up.....
/me slaps his brother
cleared that one up.....
/me slaps his brother
O
old.Cylone_Warrior
Guest
- Thread starter
- #69
WHOW
Hell i did not relise i would start a threat like this, it goes to show you that theirs alot of confussion about this subject you would think that the powers that be would sort things out but i think they woun't. we keep spending money so why should they??
Keep it up this is helping people that are thinking about getting one or the other
Hell i did not relise i would start a threat like this, it goes to show you that theirs alot of confussion about this subject you would think that the powers that be would sort things out but i think they woun't. we keep spending money so why should they??
Keep it up this is helping people that are thinking about getting one or the other
O
old.BeN316
Guest
- Thread starter
- #70
What do you expect from the most backwards telecommunications company on earth (BT).
O
old.RookieWan
Guest
- Thread starter
- #71
Let me put some fuel into the fire...
ADSL is better than cable for internet gaming. Perhaps backwards telecom are a bunch of wankers, from what I hear NTL are doing their best to catch up with BT.
Situation in Holland is about the same. We have a few cable companies, but only 1 can deliver the goodies for online gaming, ie. low and above all steady pings. A2000 it's called, and only a handful of people can get it. That's why it is as good as it is. There are relatively few people using the service so the backbone doesn't get overloaded. a2K ofspring Chello is being plaqued by bad routing, flaky network, but with a really good backbone, ie. my brother gets crap pings on Chello to the UK.
My bro, network engineer also mentions, ADSL is good for latency dependant situations (online gaming), while cable is better for high bandwidth situations (pr0n browsing for most of the online wankers ).
From what I hear NTL are also overloading their network with too many people getting routed through a limited backbone and subsequently players are noticing more and more lag on NTL, and some even have pings soaring to unplayable heights on UK based servers.
The difference between ADSL and cable is what happens when the signal leaves ur home. ADSL goes to the phone box and then hits fiberoptic cable (phone lines) which has huge bandwidth, compared to copper of the cable provider. The cable company collects all wires/ signals from the users onto their own network and finally using one main gateway router routes the signals onto the internet. There's a massive length of copper wire running from your house to the cable switch box (causing lag due to the resistance of copper), while ADSL copper has a maximum of 4 Km's.
If the cable switch box/ router is limited in bandwidth, ie backbone of cable company to internet, with more users generating traffic it's only a matter of time until the network and routers get saturated and the pings go out of the window, and the bandwidth will go down.
While most NTL users are now enjoying nice pings, it won't be long be4 they will notice the extra lag when more and more users join NTL.
ADSL on the other hand has a maximum amount of people allowed within one phone box. Go over this amount and the independant wires suffer 'crosstalk' or something, afaik as a non-engineer. BT can't add more people on ADSL to one phone box, thus it'll mean the bandwidth of ADSL is steady. Because the ping depends with ADSL on the length of copper between phone switch box and ur home, remember 4 Km max, the ping will remain steady. The only problem you might have is if your ISP has insufficient backbone to the internet. But, if they have a good backbone it's more than likely your connection in the long run will remain better than via cable.
My 0.02
btw. BT/ KPN are still monopolistic wankers though
ADSL is better than cable for internet gaming. Perhaps backwards telecom are a bunch of wankers, from what I hear NTL are doing their best to catch up with BT.
Situation in Holland is about the same. We have a few cable companies, but only 1 can deliver the goodies for online gaming, ie. low and above all steady pings. A2000 it's called, and only a handful of people can get it. That's why it is as good as it is. There are relatively few people using the service so the backbone doesn't get overloaded. a2K ofspring Chello is being plaqued by bad routing, flaky network, but with a really good backbone, ie. my brother gets crap pings on Chello to the UK.
My bro, network engineer also mentions, ADSL is good for latency dependant situations (online gaming), while cable is better for high bandwidth situations (pr0n browsing for most of the online wankers
).From what I hear NTL are also overloading their network with too many people getting routed through a limited backbone and subsequently players are noticing more and more lag on NTL, and some even have pings soaring to unplayable heights on UK based servers.
The difference between ADSL and cable is what happens when the signal leaves ur home. ADSL goes to the phone box and then hits fiberoptic cable (phone lines) which has huge bandwidth, compared to copper of the cable provider. The cable company collects all wires/ signals from the users onto their own network and finally using one main gateway router routes the signals onto the internet. There's a massive length of copper wire running from your house to the cable switch box (causing lag due to the resistance of copper), while ADSL copper has a maximum of 4 Km's.
If the cable switch box/ router is limited in bandwidth, ie backbone of cable company to internet, with more users generating traffic it's only a matter of time until the network and routers get saturated and the pings go out of the window, and the bandwidth will go down.
While most NTL users are now enjoying nice pings, it won't be long be4 they will notice the extra lag when more and more users join NTL.
ADSL on the other hand has a maximum amount of people allowed within one phone box. Go over this amount and the independant wires suffer 'crosstalk' or something, afaik as a non-engineer. BT can't add more people on ADSL to one phone box, thus it'll mean the bandwidth of ADSL is steady. Because the ping depends with ADSL on the length of copper between phone switch box and ur home, remember 4 Km max, the ping will remain steady. The only problem you might have is if your ISP has insufficient backbone to the internet. But, if they have a good backbone it's more than likely your connection in the long run will remain better than via cable.
My 0.02
btw. BT/ KPN are still monopolistic wankers though
M
Mr_Horus
Guest
- Thread starter
- #72
Err wtf?
Mate, that is clearly a load of bullshit and you have demonstrated you have no knowledge of how NTL deliver their cable modem service.
When my line leaves my house, it runs about 50 metres down the streen to the local box. It then runs through fibre to the nearest UBR (Universal Broadband Router). It then travels down fibre optic again to the NTL core and through the gateway to the internet which is not where the problems with NTL are.
The problems are from peering diffucilties at the LINX.
NTL can easily add more cable users at the local junction and in fact anywhere on the netwotk by adding a new 6MHz channel to the downstream data.
BT on the other hand, are limited by the copper wireing which forms the 4km local loop and even then, each exchange has a finite amount of bandwidth that can be allocated to xDSL.
Mate, that is clearly a load of bullshit and you have demonstrated you have no knowledge of how NTL deliver their cable modem service.
When my line leaves my house, it runs about 50 metres down the streen to the local box. It then runs through fibre to the nearest UBR (Universal Broadband Router). It then travels down fibre optic again to the NTL core and through the gateway to the internet which is not where the problems with NTL are.
The problems are from peering diffucilties at the LINX.
NTL can easily add more cable users at the local junction and in fact anywhere on the netwotk by adding a new 6MHz channel to the downstream data.
BT on the other hand, are limited by the copper wireing which forms the 4km local loop and even then, each exchange has a finite amount of bandwidth that can be allocated to xDSL.
P
Perplex
Guest
- Thread starter
- #73
Aye, horus is right. You blatently haven't got a clue RookiWan and you just made a total arse of yourself.
Point 1) NTL runs on BRAND NEW copper coax to the local box (for me, about 100 meters), then fiber to the UBR. DSL runs on the old shitty twisted pair copper telephone wires to the exchange (some of these wires are 50+ years old), and the distance is up to 4kms...lol, compared to cable which on average is 100 meters
Point 2) Cable is capable of 57mbps (52mbps - overheads). DSL is capable of 8mbps
Point 3) The ping problems that NTL users have been suffering have nothing to do with saturation. Far from it. Both gigabit NICs in one of NTLs routers into LINX developed a fault, causing sky high pings. NTL are offering 1mbit connections within the next few months, and will be offering 2mb connections by the end of the year (hopefully).
Point 4) NTL is not like normal ISPs. DSL is restricted to individual ISPs, like Claranet, Demon, etc. These companies have limited funds for network improvements compared to a company like NTL...who are a fucking backbone/telephony provider.
Point 5) Don't try to make out you know what you're talking about, when discussing issues with people whom do...you only make yourself look like a total idiot.
Point 1) NTL runs on BRAND NEW copper coax to the local box (for me, about 100 meters), then fiber to the UBR. DSL runs on the old shitty twisted pair copper telephone wires to the exchange (some of these wires are 50+ years old), and the distance is up to 4kms...lol, compared to cable which on average is 100 meters
Point 2) Cable is capable of 57mbps (52mbps - overheads). DSL is capable of 8mbps
Point 3) The ping problems that NTL users have been suffering have nothing to do with saturation. Far from it. Both gigabit NICs in one of NTLs routers into LINX developed a fault, causing sky high pings. NTL are offering 1mbit connections within the next few months, and will be offering 2mb connections by the end of the year (hopefully).
Point 4) NTL is not like normal ISPs. DSL is restricted to individual ISPs, like Claranet, Demon, etc. These companies have limited funds for network improvements compared to a company like NTL...who are a fucking backbone/telephony provider.
Point 5) Don't try to make out you know what you're talking about, when discussing issues with people whom do...you only make yourself look like a total idiot.
O
old.Cylone_Warrior
Guest
- Thread starter
- #74
BT Contact Person
I still see people are having problems with this subject, now if anyone is getting contected by BT via open world (asdl)and are havingthe run around by the order management,sales or complaints, they should contact the following person, who i might say got them to get their act together.
Andrew Gibbons (BT manager)
Andrew.gibbons@BT.com
01324 456410
as to my dsl line i get constant pings on Elite force of between 35-50, but i might add it has 2 time jumped to 150-400, but i changed server and it was ok then ??
I think BT give their business customers better treatment then their residential one's, whom they seem to flob of to freeserve, this is another point people can argue with them.
you would think that a company like BT would treat their customers better but untill ntl become a real force in the Uk BT will keep treating us like this.
good work every one keep up with the info, this will help some one who is having problems, lets help them out and screw BT hahahahaha !!!!
I still see people are having problems with this subject, now if anyone is getting contected by BT via open world (asdl)and are havingthe run around by the order management,sales or complaints, they should contact the following person, who i might say got them to get their act together.
Andrew Gibbons (BT manager)
Andrew.gibbons@BT.com
01324 456410
as to my dsl line i get constant pings on Elite force of between 35-50, but i might add it has 2 time jumped to 150-400, but i changed server and it was ok then ??
I think BT give their business customers better treatment then their residential one's, whom they seem to flob of to freeserve, this is another point people can argue with them.
you would think that a company like BT would treat their customers better but untill ntl become a real force in the Uk BT will keep treating us like this.
good work every one keep up with the info, this will help some one who is having problems, lets help them out and screw BT hahahahaha !!!!
E
Embattle
Guest
- Thread starter
- #75
RookieWan that might be the case in your country but not here
O
old.Cylone_Warrior
Guest
- Thread starter
- #76
dsl
depends where u live
depends where u live
E
Embattle
Guest
- Thread starter
- #77
They will always treat their business customers better since its where they make more profit normally.
O
old.RookieWan
Guest
- Thread starter
- #78
Originally posted by Embattle
RookieWan that might be the case in your country but not here
Some1 who actually READS be4 he starts to BL33t crap!
But then I expect Horus and Perplex have stock options with NTL?
O
old.RookieWan
Guest
- Thread starter
- #79
Ahhh but perhaps you should read this :
Found this on a techy site... nice explanation what the difference is between DSL and cable...
Although downstream speeds are usually high (typically in the range of 768 Kbps to 1.5 Mbps), consumer-grade Cable or DSL service often has an upstream cap (artificial limit) of 128 Kbps, which is only about 3 times faster than a V.90 (56K) dial-up modem, and a fraction of the downstream speed.
What is not generally well-known is that the upstream cap can also affect the downstream speed -- if the upstream is saturated by uploading (e.g., sending a large PowerPoint file to the boss, or running a Napster or other public service), the downstream will drop to about the same speed. This is due to a weakness in the basic TCP Internet protocol, not Cable or DSL per se, and not the service provider.
Cable Internet is more vulnerable to this problem than DSL. Unlike DSL, where each subscriber has a dedicated connection to the head-end (DSLAM), the Cable Internet upstream path to the head-end (CMTS) is shared by all subscribers on a given cable segment. If that upstream gets saturated, which might be caused by only a relatively few subscribers, downstream speeds take a big drop for all subscribers on that segment.
As an illustrative example, consider a DOCSIS cable segment with 4 upstream channels per downstream channel, and 1000 subscribers (a recommended maximum).
The upstream channels can be anywhere from 160 Kbps (200 kHz QPSK) to 10 Mbps (3.2 MHz QAM 16), with 800 Khz QPSK perhaps the most common in practice, giving an upstream channel capacity of 640 Kbps.
The downstream channel can be 27 Mbps (QAM 64) or 36 Mbps (QAM 256), with 27 Mbps (QAM 64) perhaps the most common in practice.
The aggregate upstream capacity of 4 channels would be about 2.5 Mbps, as compared to downstream capacity of 27 Mbps. If the upstream saturates, the downstream rate will drop to about the same speed, a dramatic slowdown of about 90% (2.5 Mbps as compared to 27 Mbps).
Even with cable modems capped to 128 Kbps upstream, 2.5 Mbps upstream capacity can handle only 20 (2.5 Mbps / 128 Kbps) simultaneously active modems before saturation. That's generally not a problem if cable modem usage is typically (1) infrequent, (2) downstream [e.g., web surfing], and (3) interactive [e.g., fetch-use]. The system can break down if those conditions are not met.
This makes it easier to see why certain Cable Internet providers condemn continuous use of upstream (e.g., running a popular public service) as "abuse" -- each such subscriber consumes capacity normally allocated for 1000 / 20 = 50 subscribers. Worse, there's a threshold effect: If the upstream is running at (say) 80% of capacity with typical subscribers, it takes only 4 (out of 1000) heavy upstream users at 128 Kbps to drive the upstream into saturation, thereby slowing downstream to a crawl for all subscribers on that segment. (Exact numbers, of course, depend on actual channel numbers and speeds.)
Any1 awake still???
You can find the whole explanation at this site: http://cable-dsl.home.att.net/
RW
[Edited by RookieWan on 10-04-01 at 15:19]
Found this on a techy site... nice explanation what the difference is between DSL and cable...
Although downstream speeds are usually high (typically in the range of 768 Kbps to 1.5 Mbps), consumer-grade Cable or DSL service often has an upstream cap (artificial limit) of 128 Kbps, which is only about 3 times faster than a V.90 (56K) dial-up modem, and a fraction of the downstream speed.
What is not generally well-known is that the upstream cap can also affect the downstream speed -- if the upstream is saturated by uploading (e.g., sending a large PowerPoint file to the boss, or running a Napster or other public service), the downstream will drop to about the same speed. This is due to a weakness in the basic TCP Internet protocol, not Cable or DSL per se, and not the service provider.
Cable Internet is more vulnerable to this problem than DSL. Unlike DSL, where each subscriber has a dedicated connection to the head-end (DSLAM), the Cable Internet upstream path to the head-end (CMTS) is shared by all subscribers on a given cable segment. If that upstream gets saturated, which might be caused by only a relatively few subscribers, downstream speeds take a big drop for all subscribers on that segment.
As an illustrative example, consider a DOCSIS cable segment with 4 upstream channels per downstream channel, and 1000 subscribers (a recommended maximum).
The upstream channels can be anywhere from 160 Kbps (200 kHz QPSK) to 10 Mbps (3.2 MHz QAM 16), with 800 Khz QPSK perhaps the most common in practice, giving an upstream channel capacity of 640 Kbps.
The downstream channel can be 27 Mbps (QAM 64) or 36 Mbps (QAM 256), with 27 Mbps (QAM 64) perhaps the most common in practice.
The aggregate upstream capacity of 4 channels would be about 2.5 Mbps, as compared to downstream capacity of 27 Mbps. If the upstream saturates, the downstream rate will drop to about the same speed, a dramatic slowdown of about 90% (2.5 Mbps as compared to 27 Mbps).
Even with cable modems capped to 128 Kbps upstream, 2.5 Mbps upstream capacity can handle only 20 (2.5 Mbps / 128 Kbps) simultaneously active modems before saturation. That's generally not a problem if cable modem usage is typically (1) infrequent, (2) downstream [e.g., web surfing], and (3) interactive [e.g., fetch-use]. The system can break down if those conditions are not met.
This makes it easier to see why certain Cable Internet providers condemn continuous use of upstream (e.g., running a popular public service) as "abuse" -- each such subscriber consumes capacity normally allocated for 1000 / 20 = 50 subscribers. Worse, there's a threshold effect: If the upstream is running at (say) 80% of capacity with typical subscribers, it takes only 4 (out of 1000) heavy upstream users at 128 Kbps to drive the upstream into saturation, thereby slowing downstream to a crawl for all subscribers on that segment. (Exact numbers, of course, depend on actual channel numbers and speeds.)
Any1 awake still???
You can find the whole explanation at this site: http://cable-dsl.home.att.net/
RW
[Edited by RookieWan on 10-04-01 at 15:19]
P
Perplex
Guest
- Thread starter
- #80
Well, I know that all the Ipswich cable nodes are at saturation point (ie. no more people can subscribe to the service untill upgrades are done) but I still download between 800 and 1000kbps (sustained, not burst)?? Even though I'm supposed to be capped to 512kbps? And trust me, I have a lot of mates in this area, whom are constantly uploading (various naughty activities).
O
old.RookieWan
Guest
- Thread starter
- #81
Well it could be the fact that your cable outlet has more bandwidth than is good for those naughty m8s of urs
S
shabazz
Guest
- Thread starter
- #82
personally, if u can get a 28.8 modem then your laffing............
M
Moving Target
Guest
- Thread starter
- #83
14.4k modem 0wnZ j00