Another speed?

[manxman]

Can any 1 of the ntl techys here answer a question for me...

are ntl going to promte a new speed of 3 to 5Mb

reason i ask is that some 1 posted something on a forum i goto and he says that his m8 who also works for ntl told him this?

[Ignition]

Not as far as I know, but then I don't *need* to know these things so...
Where is this forum info? Also a CSR is highly unlikely to know about any product changes of this magnitude at a very early stage.
5Mbit would be problematic for a few reasons.

[kronas]

we can always live in hope that NTL will raise speeds, the outcome of that is a highly unlikely, purely for technical reasons (constraints)

[Jonboy]

IMHO ntl will be soon be bringing into play the pay as you surf sarga which we had in the start back in the dark 1p per min as more and more people push for faster connections what better way to recoupe losses than slap it on the faster greedy downloaders myself included i might add

[Ignition]

Originally Posted by kronas

we can always live in hope that NTL will raise speeds, the outcome of that is a highly unlikely, purely for technical reasons (constraints)

Nope mostly commercial ones to be honest. If BT were doing a competitively priced 3 - 5Mbit service (ooo look hell freezing over!) ntl would be regardless of technical 'constraints' trust me

In the present conditions due to the UK consumer's demand for near 100% performance all the time combined with no real download restrictions, as low a price as possible, and no contention a pay per GB downloaded model is probably the most likely course of events - note the wave of capping coming in on DSL products.

[kronas]

Originally Posted by JustAnotherN00b

Nope mostly commercial ones to be honest. If BT were doing a competitively priced 3 - 5Mbit service (ooo look hell freezing over!) ntl would be regardless of technical 'constraints' trust me

it could be done, if there were limits.....now i dont want limits, it cant surely be a bandwidth issue as a cost ?

[Ignition]

Originally Posted by kronas

it could be done, if there were limits.....now i dont want limits, it cant surely be a bandwidth issue as a cost ?

Put 600 people on a uBR card, total downstream capcity roughly 27Mbit. Give 594 of them 1Mbit service, give 6 of them (who download all the bloody time, non-stop full whack queuing em up) 5Mbit services. Service for 594 will be affected by what 1% are doing.

This isn't by the way a theoretical thing it is quite plausible and the only reason it isn't seen on ntl's network is the download speed is relatively low.

There has to be a barrier somewhere between free usage and having a laugh sadly. UK users are relatively heavy compared to some, inspite of our rather low data rates.

EDIT: Oh and we show less tolerance than most to not getting 100% speed, as you yourself can attest to with your Internet Central experience

[kronas]

Originally Posted by JustAnotherN00b

EDIT: Oh and we show less tolerance than most to not getting 100% speed, as you yourself can attest to with your Internet Central experience

well....im not tolerating 600k to 1.5mbit everyday, when it is supposed to be 2 mbit all the time, btw it was only at 1.5 mbit for very brief periods, i dont consider that to be an acceptable service.

however i still do not see the reason (apart from technical constraints) that a viable solution to faster speeds cannot be introduced.

from what i have see of your sharing example it is still a 'technical constraint' if you cannot deliver the bandwidth.

[Ignition]

Not so much technical as financial. The bandwidth could be delivered but without a good business case to deliver it it won't happen.
Basically in this field there's not that much that can't be done if enough money is thrown at it, however those with hands on the purse strings will expect a return on the cash, and in the case of throwing more bandwidth at a group for an unprofitable minority to benefit a line has to be drawn.

That 600k - 1.5Mbit that you describe is nearly the performance I'm seeing at the moment though I go down to 256k download. Isn't my ISPs fault perse is issues with their provider, however I'm very unhappy with it - mostly because I'm on a business service. You rightly expect to achive the full speed of your service regularly, to never achieve it isn't good, especially considering the relatively low speeds we have here.

[kronas]

Originally Posted by JustAnotherN00b

Not so much technical as financial. The bandwidth could be delivered but without a good business case to deliver it it won't happen.
Basically in this field there's not that much that can't be done if enough money is thrown at it, however those with hands on the purse strings will expect a return on the cash, and in the case of throwing more bandwidth at a group for an unprofitable minority to benefit a line has to be drawn.

i can see your point my dear freind but how can you expect a market to grow and be prosperous if your not 'pushing the envelope' interms of providing a faster service ? im sure demand for bandwidth will contine to surge ahead as more bandwidth intensive services come online day by day.....

this is how company's loose out in the future, there will always be a company out there willing to push a new product if the market is ready for it.

but sometimes you have to be the one to do it first, this is in NTL's case, im not talking about ridiculously high speeds, but maybe the next level 3mbit ?

the upgrades will be short term costs, am i right in assuming that NTL pay for the bandwidth they use ?

Originally Posted by JustAnotherN00b

That 600k - 1.5Mbit that you describe is nearly the performance I'm seeing at the moment though I go down to 256k download. Isn't my ISPs fault perse is issues with their provider, however I'm very unhappy with it - mostly because I'm on a business service. You rightly expect to achive the full speed of your service regularly, to never achieve it isn't good, especially considering the relatively low speeds we have here.

since 2001, when i joined the broadband service, i have had 100% speeds, i expect near to that with other isp's, not below half the rated speed, you should be getting 60% of the time

[Ignition]

Originally Posted by kronas

i can see your point my dear freind but how can you expect a market to grow and be prosperous if your not 'pushing the envelope' interms of providing a faster service ? im sure demand for bandwidth will contine to surge ahead as more bandwidth intensive services come online day by day.....

Indeed Kroneh I absolutely agree with you However at the moment price is the main thing for most people so people are slurping up the 300k service as it's quicker than dialup and not much more expensive. The potentially £50 or so a month for 3Mbps may not be as pleasant.

this is how company's loose out in the future, there will always be a company out there willing to push a new product if the market is ready for it.

but sometimes you have to be the one to do it first, this is in NTL's case, im not talking about ridiculously high speeds, but maybe the next level 3mbit ?

The uptake of 1Mbit / 1.5Mbit is at the moment very low, in low single fingers % of total customer base. I would guess that the biggest product is now the 300k service. Simply most people are interested more in price than in how fast it is. For the average customer 300k is more than good enough and most can't justify the expense of higher. (Until they discover P2P / FTP / binary usenet obviously!) Simply - if people want the higher speeds they need to be prepared to pay for them, and right now the evidence says they aren't. BT also aren't interested in pushing the speed envelope either - they've been on 2Mbit down 256k up as an absolute max since the beginning of ADSL. (Note for smart arses I said A DSL not SDSL).

the upgrades will be short term costs, am i right in assuming that NTL pay for the bandwidth they use ?

Some but not all, there's also peering where ISPs agree to discount charges to each other for carrying traffic or not charge each other at all.

since 2001, when i joined the broadband service, i have had 100% speeds, i expect near to that with other isp's, not below half the rated speed, you should be getting 60% of the time

Where would you draw the line tho Kroneh, if NTL gave you 3Mbit would you be happy only achieving 2Mbit at peak times? Some people believe it's a leased line, these are the same people who leave P2P apps on all the time, usually stuff like kazaa, and think it's their absolute duty to download as much as possible all the time because 'They are paying for it.'. Where do you draw the line between acceptable performance for a shared service and giving the impression of no contention, the price paid for this is innovation to be honest.

FWIW I'm a massive advocate of higher speeds, however in this case I am, necessarily, playing devil's advocate. If people want the speeds they need to show demand, the applications are SLOWLY but surely arriving to push this forward, especially in the upstream direction, however those wanting more upstream to improve their share ratio on P2P apps or host the latest leet warez are I suspect going to be disappointed.

Yes this ISPs feed isn't good, however I'm moving to another one that will supply the 100% speeds that I should get at the contention ratio.

[Ramrod]

The uptake of 1Mbit / 1.5Mbit is at the moment very low, in low single fingers % of total customer base. I would guess that the biggest product is now the 300k service. Simply most people are interested more in price than in how fast it is. For the average customer 300k is more than good enough and most can't justify the expense of higher. (Until they discover P2P / FTP / binary usenet obviously!) Simply - if people want the higher speeds they need to be prepared to pay for them, and right now the evidence says they aren't. BT also aren't interested in pushing the speed envelope either - they've been on 2Mbit down 256k up as an absolute max since the beginning of ADSL. (Note for smart arses I said A DSL not SDSL).

Does it cost ntl anything much to impliment higher speeds for those who want them/are willing to pay?
..and how do they know if people are /aren't willing to pay for higher speeds if they don't offer them?

[Mauldor]

Dont Telewest right now offer 3mbit/256 for i dont know - £50 a month or something? Do the very same telewest users on 3mbit have to worry about a CAP impossed on even there top end service? (sorry to mention that ugly word CAP but it fits in with me bit im saying).

You mentioned speeds and what is good, well lets say im on 750 right, now max is what 92KB/Sec - if my download comes along at 70 say, im not on the phone like then and there complaining, if the speed was always this for weeks on end then yet i would be.

Funny though, its the high speed users, the tiny percent as you said who are more lightly do cause problems that a 300k one, correct yes? If a general person who is checking the web etc gets a 300 connection then why would he need any more? Once he has discovered reasons to download stupid amounts then of course he might well sign up for 1.5mbit to get them loverly jublly's faster.

Talking of 3mbit/5mbit/SDSL/Fibre etc - NTL have obiuosly proven there struggling now with the current technology, lets say SDSL becomes a lot cheaper and peole can pay £50 a month for 2mbit each way - how on earth will NTL be able to Match that? I guess simple answer is they cannot. Now the problem Im guessing is the last mile correct? But dont NTL Wire all the way to the home, so why at least for example could they not put ethernet (somehow) in there instead or even fibre - push things forward so to speak. instead of offering 1.5mbit/256 as there top speed with no room for anything, they could be offering 1/1mbit and so forth. By the way, USA do sell SDSL 2mbit for $160 a month so people SHARE the cost as it were, cos even at that price, still means 1mbit both ways for two people...

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by kronas

it could be done, if there were limits.....now i dont want limits, it cant surely be a bandwidth issue as a cost ?

It's the cost of bandwith to the home, not the core bandwidth across the global internet that is the problem, faster connections to the home mean more UBRs and more UBRs means more cost.
Faster connections do not pay an equivilant more for their speed due to competition. Look at the math (Jerrek RIP)
1x 1.5Mb makes £38 a months, the equivilant b/w could go to 5 300k ers at £17.99 a month a total of £90.

How much will you pay for 3Mb £50? So this is now the equivilant of 10 300k ers or 179.90 in revenue, make the mix more skewed to 750kers thats 4 of them at £25 a months or £100 vs £50.

Go to 5Mb at how much £80? Compare to 3 1.5Mb and 2 300k still vs £150.

[BBKing]

I would guess that the biggest product is now the 300k service.

Perfectly correct. The vast majority of customers seem to rate always on above download speed. My Mum, who's the miner's canary for me on this, is sending photos of grandchildren around the place for which her 128k (Telewest 750k) upload is beginning to creak. However, she's still FAR more likely to ring me up and complain (she holds me responsible for all IT outages in the world ever, I even get forwarded mail from her mates) if her cable goes down rather than if it seems slow downloading. Taking a few minutes to send or receive an email doesn't worry her, it's gone when she presses 'Send' and it's there when Mail goes 'ping' as far as she's concerned. If the UK Rail website isn't there or the Sporting Life racing pages or something she'll notice, though.

Ramrod - it costs a flipping fortune to upgrade speeds, new equipment for capacity upgrades, people's time from other teams, overtime for night work, engineer visits to sites and homes, swapping Pace boxes out. Not a cheap proposition.

The comfort is that it would almost certainly cost BT more (more suppliers, more different modems to support not all of which are BT-owned or supplied). This is presumably why there haven't been any higher speeds launched on BT supplied DSL for a while (1Mb and 2Mb have been around for a while). Niche suppliers like Bulldog beat ntl and BT for speed on this, fewer customers, their own network, no wholesaling.