RedM Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8282839.stm A study of the global state of broadband has put the UK 25th out of 66 countries in terms of the quality and reach of its networks. I was amazed to read this: In South Korea, for example, the government has promised universal speeds of up to 1Gbps (gigabit per second) by 2012. That's bloomin' fast. So what's the cause of our poor performance? British Telecom? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustGav Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 So what's the cause of our poor performance? British Telecom? The fact that companies don't want to put in the physical infrastructure underneath, but instead try and eeek out the last ounce that they can from what they have got. Virgin/BT are both guilty for this I feel. It is the way things are it seems, you are told that you have something and that is better than nothing. ADSL to me is and always has been a crazy option, sending highspeed data down probably the worst copper. Cable isn't much better but at least it can support a bit more and has a better core infrastructure. There is no reason in my mind why when houses are now built, fibres are installed when they install the gas/electric/water pipes. The additional increase wouldn't be that high and then that prepares the house for the foreseeable future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedM Posted October 1, 2009 Author Share Posted October 1, 2009 you are told that you have something and that is better than nothing. . Aye. Apparently the acceptable speeds for a 2mb connection can vary from as much as 8mb(!) down to barely any faster than dial-up(!!). I may be exaggerating a bit there but not much. It smacks of "It's better than nothing". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustGav Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Aye. Apparently the acceptable speeds for a 2mb connection can vary from as much as 8mb(!) down to barely any faster than dial-up(!!). I may be exaggerating a bit there but not much. It smacks of "It's better than nothing". Not at all, I actually know someone who has around 128k ADSL speed and gets told 'Well, that's the best you will get, sorry but you still have to pay for the 2mb package as that is the smallest we do' I personally would love to sit down with a developer, and plan a community network when they put these 1200+ housing developments in. Fibre to each house with a central hub feeding the community, perhaps even connect it up to the main UK fibre ring. Everything could then be deployed down the fibre; telephone, tv, internet. BUT that would of course mean spending a bit of money which telecoms companies seem to despise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlotte Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 This might sound ridiculous but it's just come into my head. If we as a 'western' country implemented broadband and the like a few years ago won't our system be older than in some of the other countries that have only just got it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaveriK Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 The medium of presentation is always going to be the deciding factor in our case regardless of what's behind it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martini Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 This might sound ridiculous but it's just come into my head. If we as a 'western' country implemented broadband and the like a few years ago won't our system be older than in some of the other countries that have only just got it? Sure, but I think what is meant is that the way that broadband is implemented in other countries, that have just got it, is far better than the "backwards compatibility" way that we do it (in much the same way that most places have much better rail networks because ours is so old and neglected). We need to rip out the telephone lines and replace them all with fibres, just as JustGav said. Problem is, we do actually "have" the internet so people are told to "put up and shut up". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
penguin Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 what every happened to wimax? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewOW Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Hong Kong fibre optic cabling is amazingly fast, and so is my Sky broadband at home, so I'm not complaining too much. Yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbeh Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 ADSL to me is and always has been a crazy option, sending highspeed data down probably the worst copper. Cable isn't much better but at least it can support a bit more and has a better core infrastructure. A bit more?! Virgin media are already trialling 200 mbit in some areas, where as ADSL has a maximum of 24! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustGav Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 A bit more?! Virgin media are already trialling 200 mbit in some areas, where as ADSL has a maximum of 24! I was speaking relatively Cable supports a lot more than ADSL agreed, however cable is still not in league of DWDM stuff of 10gb speeds. (Although it isn't in consumer reach yet, however fibre would support it, so is future proof). Yes, cable is a good option with a fair amount of headroom since it is only the last mile bit that is physically copper and it is half decent stuff. If we were running 200mb or even better fibre options, cloud storage and computing would be a very very viable option. People would end up renting virtual machines and simply have output devices in their homes. Would open up a whole new ISP market environment Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbeh Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Yup, comparing it to 10gbits there is quite a difference right now.. don't think many consumers would even be able to receive such speeds that high these days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustGav Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Yup, comparing it to 10gbits there is quite a difference right now.. don't think many consumers would even be able to receive such speeds that high these days. I know, I know, my ideas are very much pie-in-the-sky stuff, which I know won't be realized for many years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbeh Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 That's the thing, I think most companies barely provide the technology that's good enough to supply current demands let alone the stuff that will be going on in 5 years time! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.