This is Interesting: Free Magazines for Graphics designers and webmasters
Home > Archive > Webmaster forum > September 2005 > Broadband speeds - BEWARE!
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Broadband speeds - BEWARE!
|
|
| Matt Probert 2005-09-05, 7:56 pm |
| I'm probably the only web master who was not aware of this, but just
in case....
Broadband firms quote speeds such as "512k", "1 meg" and "2 meg" at
customers, but what they fail to tell you, which can be relevant to
web masters, is that this is the DOWNLOAD speed only. The upload speed
is often much less, for example I discovered my broadband upload speed
was 64 K (in reality much the same as a very much cheaper 56 K dial-up
connection).
When buying or upgrading a broadband account it is worth checking the
'upstream' rating, this is often 256 K but can be as low as 64 K
(about the same as a 56 K modem) and will make a major difference when
sending large updates to a remote hosting computer.
Try sending a 100 mB (binary) update down a 64 Kbit connection and
you'll soon realise what I mean!
May I also mention a useful UK broadband comparison site, with a handy
speed test facility:
http://www.adslguide.org/tools/speedtest.asp
Matt
| |
| Dylan Parry 2005-09-05, 7:56 pm |
| Using a pointed stick and pebbles, Matt Probert scraped:
> 64 K (about the same as a 56 K modem)
Not quite. A 56k modem would only get you between 28 and 42kbps upload
speed - nowhere near as high as 64kbps. Saying that, I do get your
point! My upload speed at home is 256kbps, which is something I checked
before signing up :)
--
Dylan Parry
http://webpageworkshop.co.uk -- FREE Web tutorials and references
| |
|
| Matt Probert wrote:
> I'm probably the only web master who was not aware of this, but just
> in case....
<g>
> Broadband firms quote speeds such as "512k", "1 meg" and "2 meg" at
> customers, but what they fail to tell you, which can be relevant to
> web masters, is that this is the DOWNLOAD speed only. The upload speed
> is often much less, for example I discovered my broadband upload speed
> was 64 K (in reality much the same as a very much cheaper 56 K dial-up
> connection).
That low! What's the download with that?
> When buying or upgrading a broadband account it is worth checking the
> 'upstream' rating, this is often 256 K but can be as low as 64 K
> (about the same as a 56 K modem) and will make a major difference when
> sending large updates to a remote hosting computer.
Don't know about the UK, but here all sites advertise using this
setup: 4096/640, so it's hard to miss the upload speed.
Example:
http://www.tiscali.nl/producten/ads...ationcode=15711
> Try sending a 100 mB (binary) update down a 64 Kbit connection and
> you'll soon realise what I mean!
No thanks, I'm very happy with my 576 upsteam :-)
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
| |
| William Tasso 2005-09-05, 7:56 pm |
| Writing in news:alt.www.webmaster
From the safety of the NTL cafeteria
Matt Probert <comments@probertencyclopaedia.com> said:
> I'm probably the only web master who was not aware of this, but just
> in case....
Assuming broadband (in this case) means DSL ...
> Broadband firms quote speeds such as "512k", "1 meg" and "2 meg" at
> customers, but what they fail to tell you, which can be relevant to
> web masters, is that this is the DOWNLOAD speed only. The upload speed
> is often much less, for example I discovered my broadband upload speed
> was 64 K
Clue: aDSL - the 'a' is short for asynchronous.
sDSL is very much more expensive (in the UK)
> When buying or upgrading a broadband account it is worth checking the
> 'upstream' rating, this is often 256 K but can be as low as 64 K
> (about the same as a 56 K modem) and will make a major difference when
> sending large updates to a remote hosting computer.
more specifically, that speed is comparible to a single ISDN link.
aDSL is a consumer product - embracing all that this means. I suspect
your business needs are starting to outgrow 'consumer' status?
--
William Tasso
drwxr-xr-x
| |
|
| In article <431c32cf.296936@news.ntlworld.com>,
comments@probertencyclopaedia.com says...
> I'm probably the only web master who was not aware of this, but just
> in case....
>
> Broadband firms quote speeds such as "512k", "1 meg" and "2 meg" at
> customers, but what they fail to tell you, which can be relevant to
> web masters, is that this is the DOWNLOAD speed only. The upload speed
> is often much less, for example I discovered my broadband upload speed
> was 64 K (in reality much the same as a very much cheaper 56 K dial-up
> connection).
>
> When buying or upgrading a broadband account it is worth checking the
> 'upstream' rating, this is often 256 K but can be as low as 64 K
> (about the same as a 56 K modem) and will make a major difference when
> sending large updates to a remote hosting computer.
>
> Try sending a 100 mB (binary) update down a 64 Kbit connection and
> you'll soon realise what I mean!
>
> May I also mention a useful UK broadband comparison site, with a handy
> speed test facility:
>
> http://www.adslguide.org/tools/speedtest.asp
>
> Matt
>
Actually, a 56 modem under perfect conditions (very rare) downloads at
5.6 kb/sec, and uploads at 3.36 kb/sec. In real world conditions, you
would most likely experience a rate of 10 - 20% slower.
There may be some confusion here, there is no way you are uploading at
only 6.4 kb/sec. In your case, you should be uploading at 64 kb/sec, in
reality 20 times faster than dial-up. Any slower could indicate a
problem with your connection or modem.
| |
| William Tasso 2005-09-05, 7:56 pm |
| Writing in news:alt.www.webmaster
From the safety of the cafeteria
saz <saz1958@nospammersexcite.com> said:
[aDSL uploads]
> ...
> Any slower could indicate a
> problem with your connection or modem.
or geography.
In the UK, DSL connections are subject to a 'contention ratio' of
typically 50:1 better contention ratios attract higher subscription costs.
[1] an industry euphanism for 'shared with all the snotty kids in your
neighbourhood'
--
William Tasso
drwxr-xr-x
| |
|
| In article <op.swmqhrgxm9g4qz-wnt@tbdata.com>, SpamBlocked@tbdata.com
says...
> Writing in news:alt.www.webmaster
> From the safety of the cafeteria
> saz <saz1958@nospammersexcite.com> said:
>
> [aDSL uploads]
>
> or geography.
>
> In the UK, DSL connections are subject to a 'contention ratio' of
> typically 50:1 better contention ratios attract higher subscription costs.
>
> [1] an industry euphanism for 'shared with all the snotty kids in your
> neighbourhood'
>
>
I'm spoiled - I have cable. 256 up, 3mb down. In reality, I get about
half of that. Much better than the dial-up I had until a year ago.
| |
|
| Once upon a time *Matt Probert* wrote:
> I'm probably the only web master who was not aware of this, but just
> in case....
>
> Broadband firms quote speeds such as "512k", "1 meg" and "2 meg" at
> customers, but what they fail to tell you, which can be relevant to
> web masters, is that this is the DOWNLOAD speed only. The upload speed
> is often much less, for example I discovered my broadband upload speed
> was 64 K (in reality much the same as a very much cheaper 56 K dial-up
> connection).
>
> When buying or upgrading a broadband account it is worth checking the
> 'upstream' rating, this is often 256 K but can be as low as 64 K
> (about the same as a 56 K modem) and will make a major difference when
> sending large updates to a remote hosting computer.
>
> Try sending a 100 mB (binary) update down a 64 Kbit connection and
> you'll soon realise what I mean!
>
> May I also mention a useful UK broadband comparison site, with a handy
> speed test facility:
>
> http://www.adslguide.org/tools/speedtest.asp
>
When I asked my ISP about the maximum speed that I can get to with my
10Mbit LAN, I was told that ISP's quote speeds as "UDP speed" and as
we know that is normaly slower than TCP.
But with the help of the TCPOptimizer from www.speedguide.net I'm now
able to get a TCP speed that compare well to what I get with UDP.
--
/Arne
You will be ignored if you top post, don't quote what
you are replying to and cut of only the signatures!
http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/
| |
| SpaceGirl 2005-09-05, 7:58 pm |
|
saz wrote:
> In article <op.swmqhrgxm9g4qz-wnt@tbdata.com>, SpamBlocked@tbdata.com
> says...
> I'm spoiled - I have cable. 256 up, 3mb down. In reality, I get about
> half of that. Much better than the dial-up I had until a year ago.
384k up, 4096k down - here in Edinburgh. But I knew what I was getting
right away, as the ratio is advertised as part of the deal with
BlueYonder. I had a quick look around and all the big UK providers
clearly tell you what your upload speed it - it's just not usually as
emphasised as the download speed. It's not hidden away in the small
print or anything. Cable is also split into cells, so you do get some
contention there as well, but nothing like what you get with ADSL - the
network is about ten times fatter than the actual bandwidth you can buy
- I believe in Edinburgh the network (vlan) runs at full 100mbit, but
they limit it to 4mbit for home users. I suspect it's MUCH fatter than
that really (gigabits?) because the cable is also streaming 100,000's
of MPEG video streams + interactivity over the same IP network.
| |
| Matt Probert 2005-09-05, 7:58 pm |
| On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 13:07:36 +0100, Dylan Parry
<usenet@dylanparry.com> wrote:
>Using a pointed stick and pebbles, Matt Probert scraped:
>
>
>Not quite. A 56k modem would only get you between 28 and 42kbps upload
>speed - nowhere near as high as 64kbps. Saying that, I do get your
>point! My upload speed at home is 256kbps, which is something I checked
>before signing up :)
Oh pedant!
In real tests (reality), the difference between a 56K modem and a 64K
broadband connection are very small, eg "about the same" when
contrasted to the differences between a 56 K modem and a 512 K
broadband connection, or between a 56 K modem and a 128 K broadband
connection.
Matt
| |
| Matt Probert 2005-09-05, 7:58 pm |
| On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 13:12:32 +0100, "William Tasso"
<SpamBlocked@tbdata.com> wrote:
>Writing in news:alt.www.webmaster
> From the safety of the NTL cafeteria
>Matt Probert <comments@probertencyclopaedia.com> said:
>
>
>Assuming broadband (in this case) means DSL ...
No, you *know* I use an NTL cable connection. And come on, not all
webmasters are network experts!
>
>
>Clue: aDSL - the 'a' is short for asynchronous.
Like all webmasters are network engineers!
>
>sDSL is very much more expensive (in the UK)
>
>
>more specifically, that speed is comparible to a single ISDN link.
On paper. But try it in reality through analogue connections....
>
>aDSL is a consumer product - embracing all that this means. I suspect
>your business needs are starting to outgrow 'consumer' status?
Not at all. Just making a point that here in the UK consumers are
often provided with insufficient data. I was under the naive
impression, supplied by my provider's advertising, that "256 K
broadband" was 256 K up and 256 K down.
Matt
| |
| Matt Probert 2005-09-05, 7:58 pm |
| On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 07:24:14 -0500, saz <saz1958@nospammersexcite.com>
wrote:
>There may be some confusion here, there is no way you are uploading at
>only 6.4 kb/sec. In your case, you should be uploading at 64 kb/sec, in
>reality 20 times faster than dial-up. Any slower could indicate a
>problem with your connection or modem.
I'm not a netork expert, but I am technical.
The realities of the connections here are as reported (6.4 Kbytes per
second, you may have misread that, equivalent to 54.64 K bits per
second). Any problems may be due to the ISP, but after changing to a
128 K upstream the rate amended accordingly.
With a 56K modem the upload speed is slightly less, but not
significantly so, than the 64 K 'broadband' (cable) connection.
Matt
| |
| Matt Probert 2005-09-05, 7:58 pm |
| On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 13:33:17 +0100, "William Tasso"
<SpamBlocked@tbdata.com> wrote:
>Writing in news:alt.www.webmaster
> From the safety of the cafeteria
>saz <saz1958@nospammersexcite.com> said:
>
>[aDSL uploads]
I'm not talking about aDSL !!!
>
>or geography.
>
>In the UK, DSL connections are subject to a 'contention ratio' of
>typically 50:1 better contention ratios attract higher subscription costs.
>
>[1] an industry euphanism for 'shared with all the snotty kids in your
>neighbourhood'
Again, not an issue with cable, I'm not refering to aDSL - but this
does highlight another issue in the UK about "broadband" as it is sold
to consumers.
Matt
| |
| William Tasso 2005-09-05, 7:58 pm |
| Writing in news:alt.www.webmaster
From the safety of the NTL cafeteria
Matt Probert <comments@probertencyclopaedia.com> said:
> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 13:12:32 +0100, "William Tasso"
> <SpamBlocked@tbdata.com> wrote:
>
>
> No, you *know* I use an NTL cable connection. And come on, not all
> webmasters are network experts!
/mumble /grumble - bah
>
> Like all webmasters are network engineers!
I know, I know - my bad. /meekly: sorry
>
> Not at all. Just making a point that here in the UK consumers are
> often provided with insufficient data. I was under the naive
> impression, supplied by my provider's advertising, that "256 K
> broadband" was 256 K up and 256 K down.
aha - but surely the UK based consumer is now well trained and expects to
be ripped off at every opportunity - especially when swimming with sharks
(present comopany excepted)
--
William Tasso
drwxr-xr-x
| |
| Kim André Akerø 2005-09-05, 7:58 pm |
| Matt Probert wrote:
> I'm probably the only web master who was not aware of this, but just
> in case....
>
> Broadband firms quote speeds such as "512k", "1 meg" and "2 meg" at
> customers, but what they fail to tell you, which can be relevant to
> web masters, is that this is the DOWNLOAD speed only. The upload speed
> is often much less, for example I discovered my broadband upload speed
> was 64 K (in reality much the same as a very much cheaper 56 K dial-up
> connection).
>
> When buying or upgrading a broadband account it is worth checking the
> 'upstream' rating, this is often 256 K but can be as low as 64 K
> (about the same as a 56 K modem) and will make a major difference when
> sending large updates to a remote hosting computer.
In Norway, both the upload and download speeds are advertised in full
by all the DSL providers I can think of.
Personally, I sit on a 1000kbps/300kbps (down/up, in that order) ADSL
line at home. Not too bad, considering we started out with a
384kbps/128kbps line, and our provider has just upgraded the line as we
went along (same package, same price, better speed).
--
Kim André Akerø
- kimandre@NOSPAMbetadome.com
(remove NOSPAM to contact me directly)
| |
| Matt Probert 2005-09-05, 7:58 pm |
| On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 14:35:46 +0100, "William Tasso"
<SpamBlocked@tbdata.com> wrote:
>aha - but surely the UK based consumer is now well trained and expects to
>be ripped off at every opportunity - especially when swimming with sharks
>(present comopany excepted)
>
Aha! Rick!
We shall see. My sos has just bought a BT phone line with the
intention of adding "broadband". Remains to be seen what he makes of
it, I sent him off to WH Smiths to get a magazine with comparison
charts and the like.....
Matt
| |
| Matt Probert 2005-09-05, 7:58 pm |
| On 5 Sep 2005 06:18:28 -0700, "SpaceGirl"
<nothespacegirlspam@subhuman.net> wrote:
>384k up, 4096k down - here in Edinburgh. But I knew what I was getting
>right away, as the ratio is advertised as part of the deal with
>BlueYonder. I had a quick look around and all the big UK providers
>clearly tell you what your upload speed it - it's just not usually as
>emphasised as the download speed. It's not hidden away in the small
>print or anything.
Yeah right!
You don't get the same TV commercials that we do in England, then?
For example, try the NTL home page:
http://www.ntl.com/index.html
"1Mb Broadband - Now £9.99 a month"
Or Blueyonder
http://www.telewest.co.uk/websales/product.do?id=227
"With a speed of 512k it's nearly 10x faster than dial-up "
Heck, let's try AOL....
http://www.aol.co.uk/products/broad...romoCode=228937
"Up to 512Kbps – up to 10 times faster than dial-up
Free* modem "
To the naive/thick (like what I am) the realities are *not* clear!
Full credit to AOL for stating "Up to....."
Matt
| |
| SpaceGirl 2005-09-05, 7:58 pm |
| Matt Probert wrote:
> On 5 Sep 2005 06:18:28 -0700, "SpaceGirl"
> <nothespacegirlspam@subhuman.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Yeah right!
>
> You don't get the same TV commercials that we do in England, then?
>
> For example, try the NTL home page:
>
> http://www.ntl.com/index.html
>
> "1Mb Broadband - Now £9.99 a month"
>
> Or Blueyonder
>
> http://www.telewest.co.uk/websales/product.do?id=227
>
> "With a speed of 512k it's nearly 10x faster than dial-up "
>
> Heck, let's try AOL....
>
> http://www.aol.co.uk/products/broad...romoCode=228937
>
> "Up to 512Kbps – up to 10 times faster than dial-up
> Free* modem "
>
>
> To the naive/thick (like what I am) the realities are *not* clear!
> Full credit to AOL for stating "Up to....."
>
> Matt
>
>
Okay I suppose that's true. It's only on the actual sign up pages that
they tell you.
Also... see NTL slide in their capping? 3Gb per month... I go through
that every few days :|
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #
# this post (c) Miranda Thomas 2005
# explicitly no permission given to Forum4Designers
# to duplicate this post.
| |
| Toby Inkster 2005-09-05, 7:58 pm |
| Matt Probert wrote:
> Broadband firms quote speeds such as "512k", "1 meg" and "2 meg" at
> customers, but what they fail to tell you, which can be relevant to
> web masters, is that this is the DOWNLOAD speed only.
Yep -- that's the "A" in the "Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line".
> I discovered my broadband upload speed was 64 K (in reality much the
> same as a very much cheaper 56 K dial-up connection).
That's pretty slow. With most ADSL packages it's either 256K or 512K
upstream.
--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
| |
| SpaceGirl 2005-09-06, 7:27 am |
|
Toby Inkster wrote:
> Matt Probert wrote:
>
>
> Yep -- that's the "A" in the "Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line".
>
>
> That's pretty slow. With most ADSL packages it's either 256K or 512K
> upstream.
>
> --
> Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
> Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
Really wish that Telewest would increase their upstream. It's really
hard work at home right now - trying to copy all this data to my new
host and it takes FOREVER. I had to upload 2Gb last night at it took
HOURS... :(
| |
| William Tasso 2005-09-06, 7:27 am |
| Writing in news:alt.www.webmaster
From the safety of the http://groups.google.com cafeteria
SpaceGirl <nothespacegirlspam@subhuman.net> said:
> ...
> Really wish that Telewest would increase their upstream. It's really
> hard work at home right now - trying to copy all this data to my new
> host and it takes FOREVER. I had to upload 2Gb last night at it took
> HOURS... :(
but, but, but you have remote access to your new server?
Can't you log in and run the FTP connect direct to your old server?
--
William Tasso
drwxr-xr-x
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2005-09-06, 7:27 am |
| SpaceGirl wrote
> Really wish that Telewest would increase their upstream. It's really
> hard work at home right now - trying to copy all this data to my new
> host and it takes FOREVER. I had to upload 2Gb last night at it took
> HOURS... :(
That'll be yer average user for you, who downloads much more than they
upload!
Have fun anyway! This business wouldn't be the same if everything was
easy!
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2005-09-06, 7:27 am |
| William Tasso wrote
> Writing in news:alt.www.webmaster
> From the safety of the http://groups.google.com cafeteria
> SpaceGirl <nothespacegirlspam@subhuman.net> said:
>
>
>
> but, but, but you have remote access to your new server?
>
> Can't you log in and run the FTP connect direct to your old server?
I was thinking along the same lines, but if memory serves me correctly,
Mir's old account is blocked.
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
| |
| SpaceGirl 2005-09-06, 7:25 pm |
|
William Tasso wrote:
> but, but, but you have remote access to your new server?
>
> Can't you log in and run the FTP connect direct to your old server?
>
> --
> William Tasso
>
> drwxr-xr-x
A good idea, but our main site has been under re-development locally.
While the databases were fine on the old server, the structure has
changed a lot in the new site so it had to be FTP'd from the local copy
:/
| |
| Matt Probert 2005-09-06, 7:25 pm |
| On 6 Sep 2005 02:01:32 -0700, "SpaceGirl"
<nothespacegirlspam@subhuman.net> wrote:
>
>Really wish that Telewest would increase their upstream. It's really
>hard work at home right now - trying to copy all this data to my new
>host and it takes FOREVER. I had to upload 2Gb last night at it took
>HOURS... :(
>
You should worry. Try sending a 100mB file down a 64K bit line (with a
real rate of 54.64 K bytes per second) - yes it did take almost six
hours....
That's when I realised I hadn't been told the whole picture about
"broadband" (no I don't use aDSL or any other form of DSL).
Matt
| |
| SpaceGirl 2005-09-06, 7:25 pm |
|
Matt Probert wrote:
> On 6 Sep 2005 02:01:32 -0700, "SpaceGirl"
> <nothespacegirlspam@subhuman.net> wrote:
>
>
> You should worry. Try sending a 100mB file down a 64K bit line (with a
> real rate of 54.64 K bytes per second) - yes it did take almost six
> hours....
>
> That's when I realised I hadn't been told the whole picture about
> "broadband" (no I don't use aDSL or any other form of DSL).
>
> Matt
ISDN?
Anyway - the mind boggles. Surely you researched before you bought?
Short of getting a leased line and paying many =A3100s per month you
have no choice. ISDN is marginally better than a modem; ADSL is pretty
good if you can cope with contention ratios and mediocre upload speeds.
Cable is the best value, but the speeds lag behind those of ADSL. SDSL
is good, but expensive, and you still have contention (although a lot
lower than ADSL, depending on your provider). Lease line fibre is the
best - unpolutled 2mbit in both directions (at least) and very little
latency... but sooooo expensive... and a man with a digger usually has
to tear up a bit of the road to install it.
| |
|
|
"Matt Probert" <comments@probertencyclopaedia.com> wrote in message
news:431c4707.5473350@news.ntlworld.com...
>
> Oh pedant!
>
Hmmm.... well I was goin to ask what '100 mB' meant [100 milli-byte?], but I
daren't now! :)
| |
| SpaceGirl 2005-09-06, 7:26 pm |
|
Matt Probert wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 13:07:36 +0100, Dylan Parry
> <usenet@dylanparry.com> wrote:
>
>
> Oh pedant!
>
> In real tests (reality), the difference between a 56K modem and a 64K
> broadband connection are very small, eg "about the same" when
> contrasted to the differences between a 56 K modem and a 512 K
> broadband connection, or between a 56 K modem and a 128 K broadband
> connection.
>
> Matt
Actually that ignores some pretty stark technological differences; 56k
modems use very raw error correction, and are effectivelt analogue
(aren't they?). ADSL etc are digital from end-to-end. You can run a
modem on a non-digital line - but not a DSL connection. That means
while the line speed may be similar, the actual transmit speed (given
error corrections and re-transmits) is vastly superior on DSL...
| |
| Matt Probert 2005-09-06, 7:26 pm |
| On 6 Sep 2005 07:00:51 -0700, "SpaceGirl"
<nothespacegirlspam@subhuman.net> wrote:
>
>Matt Probert wrote:
>
>Actually that ignores some pretty stark technological differences; 56k
>modems use very raw error correction, and are effectivelt analogue
>(aren't they?). ADSL etc are digital from end-to-end. You can run a
>modem on a non-digital line - but not a DSL connection. That means
>while the line speed may be similar, the actual transmit speed (given
>error corrections and re-transmits) is vastly superior on DSL...
>
Ho hum, did I mention I don't use aDSL or any other type of DSL ?
Anyways, the telephone exchanges here are analogue. The modem uses
some error correction and compression, and the "broadband" connection
well that's a mystery except it travels down a cable TV cable!
What I do know, is comparing transfers between the modem and the
cable, that upstream is almost the same from this location. That's not
to say that at another location a similar cable might not be vastly
better - but 7 kilo bytes per second compared to 8 kilo bytes per
second is not that much different, time taken to transfer 1024 kilo
bytes is 1024 / 7 == 146 seconds or 1024 /8 == 128 seconds (14 seconds
faster over 2 minutes, not very significant).
Matt
| |
| Norman L. DeForest 2005-09-06, 11:21 pm |
|
On Tue, 6 Sep 2005, Matt Probert wrote:
> On 6 Sep 2005 02:01:32 -0700, "SpaceGirl"
> <nothespacegirlspam@subhuman.net> wrote:
>
>
> You should worry. Try sending a 100mB file down a 64K bit line (with a
> real rate of 54.64 K bytes per second) - yes it did take almost six
> hours....
I've downloaded a 94MB file with a 14.4 modem (about 6.6MB/hour).
Thank $DIETY for the ZModem "resume"/"crash recovery" feature.
Since uploads to my ISP don't have the resume option available for ZModem,
to *upload* such a file (if I had the disk quota necessary), I would have to:
1. Encode the file as base64 (with UUENVIEW.EXE or some similar utility),
2. Cut the file into pieces of less than 1MB in size,
3. Upload the pieces separately,
4. Join the pieces into one file with a text editor (PICO),
5. Create a dummy email with headers and attachment (or just
copy a spam with an attachment) and paste that into the file
to create a simulated email message with my file as the "attachment",
6. View the file with Pine and save the "attachment" as a file.
7. Delete the dummy email.
--
``Why don't you find a more appropiate newsgroup to post this tripe into?
This is a meeting place for a totally differnt kind of "vision impairment".
Catch my drift?'' -- "jim" in alt.disability.blind.social regarding an
off-topic religious/political post, March 28, 2005
| |
|
|
"Matt Probert" <comments@probertencyclopaedia.com> wrote in message
news:431c4880.5850432@news.ntlworld.com...
> With a 56K modem the upload speed is slightly less, but not
> significantly so, than the 64 K 'broadband' (cable) connection.
>
> Matt
>
A 56k V90/V92 modem will have a maximum upload speed of 33.6Kbps or 4.2KBps.
Your 64k cable connection will have an maximum upload speed of 64Kbps or
8KBps.
The difference is a factor of 2 (if we assume that both routes suffer a
similar but small level of loss).
However, I do concede that almost all broadband providers tend not to shout
about upload speeds (though I don't think they hide them as such).
I have known for a long time that most 512K ADSL connections have an upload
speed of half that (ie 256Mb). I have a 2Mb ADSL connection myself, and I
kind of expected to have a upload speed of half as much again (1Mbps) but
was disappointed to find it stuck at 256Kbps. But I found this out before I
signed up - although they didn't shout it from the rooftops, it was
displayed in various places before sign-up.
And I must admit that I haven't come across a 64Kbps upload speed before...
and it does seem a bit paltry...
If it bothers you that much, I'd check the providers advertising again - if
this wasn't clear, you could have a good case to argue they misrepresentated
their package, and you may be able to end the contract and seek a better
provider....
Chris
| |
| SpaceGirl 2005-09-07, 7:45 am |
|
Matt Probert wrote:
> On 6 Sep 2005 07:00:51 -0700, "SpaceGirl"
> <nothespacegirlspam@subhuman.net> wrote:
>
>
> Ho hum, did I mention I don't use aDSL or any other type of DSL ?
I know. Where did I say you used either of those? :) I was trying to
make a point about the different technologies and how *technically*
modems - even if rated at similar speeds to ISDN - are always *likely*
to be slower because of the errors that cause re-transmits on analogue
lines.
> Anyways, the telephone exchanges here are analogue. The modem uses
> some error correction and compression, and the "broadband" connection
> well that's a mystery except it travels down a cable TV cable!
BB is digital all the way; very little error correction needed, so you
dont have to wait for packets to be re-transmitted when they get lost
in the "noise" of the network.
> What I do know, is comparing transfers between the modem and the
> cable, that upstream is almost the same from this location. That's not
> to say that at another location a similar cable might not be vastly
> better - but 7 kilo bytes per second compared to 8 kilo bytes per
> second is not that much different, time taken to transfer 1024 kilo
> bytes is 1024 / 7 == 146 seconds or 1024 /8 == 128 seconds (14 seconds
> faster over 2 minutes, not very significant).
Okay! :)
My dad lives in a little village in North Lancashire. Until recently he
had a 56k modem, but could only get 33k connection, even when they
upgraded the lines to digital last year, because of the line quality
and distance. Finally BT rolled out broadband last year and he gets
512/256 perfectly. He's paying less for his BB connection than he was
for his dialup. So, I suppose it comes down to personal situations?
| |
| SpaceGirl 2005-09-07, 7:45 am |
|
Norman L. DeForest wrote:
> Since uploads to my ISP don't have the resume option available for ZModem,
> to *upload* such a file (if I had the disk quota necessary), I would have to:
> 1. Encode the file as base64 (with UUENVIEW.EXE or some similar utility),
> 2. Cut the file into pieces of less than 1MB in size,
> 3. Upload the pieces separately,
> 4. Join the pieces into one file with a text editor (PICO),
> 5. Create a dummy email with headers and attachment (or just
> copy a spam with an attachment) and paste that into the file
> to create a simulated email message with my file as the "attachment",
> 6. View the file with Pine and save the "attachment" as a file.
> 7. Delete the dummy email.
ouch!
| |
| SpaceGirl 2005-09-07, 7:45 am |
|
Matt Probert wrote:
> I'm probably the only web master who was not aware of this, but just
> in case....
>
> Broadband firms quote speeds such as "512k", "1 meg" and "2 meg" at
> customers, but what they fail to tell you, which can be relevant to
> web masters, is that this is the DOWNLOAD speed only. The upload speed
> is often much less, for example I discovered my broadband upload speed
> was 64 K (in reality much the same as a very much cheaper 56 K dial-up
> connection).
>
> When buying or upgrading a broadband account it is worth checking the
> 'upstream' rating, this is often 256 K but can be as low as 64 K
> (about the same as a 56 K modem) and will make a major difference when
> sending large updates to a remote hosting computer.
>
> Try sending a 100 mB (binary) update down a 64 Kbit connection and
> you'll soon realise what I mean!
>
> May I also mention a useful UK broadband comparison site, with a handy
> speed test facility:
>
> http://www.adslguide.org/tools/speedtest.asp
>
> Matt
If you are a Telewest/Blue Yonder user, read this!
http://www.telewest.co.uk/websales/service.do?id=2
10mbit downloads! Yay. 384k uploads. Booooooh!
| |
| Matt Probert 2005-09-07, 7:57 pm |
| On 7 Sep 2005 02:14:39 -0700, "SpaceGirl"
<nothespacegirlspam@subhuman.net> wrote:
>My dad lives in a little village in North Lancashire. Until recently he
>had a 56k modem, but could only get 33k connection, even when they
>upgraded the lines to digital last year, because of the line quality
>and distance. Finally BT rolled out broadband last year and he gets
>512/256 perfectly. He's paying less for his BB connection than he was
>for his dialup. So, I suppose it comes down to personal situations?
>
Oh indeed, the only point I was trying to make was that broadband
providers often mislead and are economical with the facts. Ergo buyer
beware.
I wasn't slamming broadband, just saying I'd have liked to have been
clearly told the facts at the outset.
Matt
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2005-09-07, 7:58 pm |
| CJM wrote
> A 56k V90/V92 modem will have a maximum upload speed of 33.6Kbps or
> 4.2KBps.
This confuses me. You're obviously talking about bits and bytes. I know
the difference between the two, but I see all sorts of abbreviations for
them.
Got a definitive guide?
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
| |
|
|
| Dylan Parry 2005-09-07, 7:58 pm |
| Using a pointed stick and pebbles, Charles Sweeney scraped:
> Got a definitive guide?
b = bits
B = bytes
So KBps is kilobytes-per-second, whereas Kbps is kilobits-per-second.
--
Dylan Parry
http://webpageworkshop.co.uk -- FREE Web tutorials and references
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2005-09-07, 7:58 pm |
| Dylan Parry wrote
> Using a pointed stick and pebbles, Charles Sweeney scraped:
>
>
> b = bits
> B = bytes
>
> So KBps is kilobytes-per-second, whereas Kbps is kilobits-per-second.
That's definitive alright! I seem to see all sorts of abbreviations
though...KB, kb. Should the "K" always be capitalised?
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
| |
|
|
| Charles Sweeney 2005-09-07, 7:58 pm |
| William Tasso wrote
> Writing in news:alt.www.webmaster
> From the safety of the No thank you cafeteria
> Charles Sweeney <me@charlessweeney.com> said:
>
>
> Does this help?
>
> http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/prefixes.html
> http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
Actually no! I'm more confused now!
In the first example it shows kilo with a lower-case "k". This is against
Dylan's definition. It also shows kilo as 10 to the power 3, which is
correct for distance and weight, but wrong for bytes. A kilobyte is 2 to
the power 10...1024.
http://computer.howstuffworks.com/bytes6.htm
The above page uses the capital "K" for the abbreviated kilo as Dylan did.
It also uses the lower-case "b" in "Kbytes", against Dylan's definition.
The second example does show a "kilobinary", 2 to the power 10 as mentioned
above, but it calls it a "kibi" with the symbol "Ki".
It does show one "kibibit" as 1024 bit.
So I'm back where I started!
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
| |
| William Tasso 2005-09-07, 7:58 pm |
| Writing in news:alt.www.webmaster
From the safety of the No thank you cafeteria
Charles Sweeney <me@charlessweeney.com> said:
> ...
> I'm more confused now!
>
Now then, about the need for well documented, widely implemented standards
......
SCNR :)
--
William Tasso
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and good with
ketchup.
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2005-09-07, 7:58 pm |
| William Tasso wrote
> Writing in news:alt.www.webmaster
> From the safety of the No thank you cafeteria
> Charles Sweeney <me@charlessweeney.com> said:
>
>
> Now then, about the need for well documented, widely implemented
> standards .....
>
> SCNR :)
TOUCHE!
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
| |
| Toby Inkster 2005-09-07, 11:27 pm |
| Charles Sweeney wrote:
> That's definitive alright! I seem to see all sorts of abbreviations
> though...KB, kb. Should the "K" always be capitalised?
"k" (kilo) *should* always be lowercase. "M" (mega) and "G" (giga) should
always be capitalised.
--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
| |
|
|
"Toby Inkster" <usenet200509@tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7vc4v2-gr1.ln1@ophelia.g5n.co.uk...
> Charles Sweeney wrote:
>
>
> "k" (kilo) *should* always be lowercase. "M" (mega) and "G" (giga) should
> always be capitalised.
>
I'm not sure I agree... AFAIK prefixes that have positive indices are in
upper-case, and those that have negative indices are lower case:
eg.
x 10^3 = Kilo = K
x 10^6 = Mega = M
x 10^-3 = milli = m
x 10^-12 = pico = p
UPDATE:
Forget all the above... from all that I can google, for some reason kilo and
below are all lower case, and above are all uppercase:
http://www.knowledgedoor.com/1/Unit...er_Prefixes.htm
http://dbhs.wvusd.k12.ca.us/webdocs...c-Prefixes.html
Hmmm... I'm sure there is a very good reason for this... but I wouldnt have
a clue what it is...
I'm not sure my brain can handle such a change this late in the day...
Chris
| |
| Dylan Parry 2005-09-08, 7:31 am |
| Using a pointed stick and pebbles, Toby Inkster scraped:
> "k" (kilo) *should* always be lowercase.
My bad :) but the rest of what I said stands!
--
Dylan Parry
http://webpageworkshop.co.uk -- FREE Web tutorials and references
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2005-09-08, 7:31 am |
| Dylan Parry wrote
> Using a pointed stick and pebbles, Toby Inkster scraped:
>
>
> My bad :) but the rest of what I said stands!
So it should be "kB" for kilobytes?
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
| |
|
|
"Charles Sweeney" <me@charlessweeney.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96CB66BFCEBFBmecharlessweeneycom@130.133.1.4...
>
> So it should be "kB" for kilobytes?
>
Apparently, yes... though I think most people still use KB/Kb...
| |
| Dylan Parry 2005-09-08, 7:35 am |
| Using a pointed stick and pebbles, Charles Sweeney scraped:
> So it should be "kB" for kilobytes?
So it would seem. Although I don't think that anyone would misunderstand
you if you were to use a 'K' (well anyone who knows what you were
talking about anyway!)
--
Dylan Parry
http://electricfreedom.org -- Where the Music Progressively Rocks!
| |
| Charles Sweeney 2005-09-08, 7:29 pm |
| Dylan Parry wrote
> Using a pointed stick and pebbles, Charles Sweeney scraped:
>
>
> So it would seem. Although I don't think that anyone would misunderstand
> you if you were to use a 'K' (well anyone who knows what you were
> talking about anyway!)
Cheers D. I think I'm still confused, but I'm not sure!
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
| |
|
| Charles Sweeney wrote:
> Cheers D. I think I'm still confused, but I'm not sure!
I don't think the k is the issue - it's the b. You won't confuse anyone
with the case of the k, but I think that some service providers sometimes
purposely flip-flop between kbps and kBps when describing their speeds...
likely because it makes it difficult for less seasoned folks to compare the
services they're shopping for.
At least with adsl, if you look it up, you'll find the 'a' stands for
asymmetrical, and that's more of a hint than you'll get from a cable
provider.
--
Not Lori - it's Dan, finally posting in the naked webmasters group ;)
http://www.eYardsale.com
| |
| Dylan Parry 2005-09-29, 6:24 am |
| Using a pointed stick and pebbles, Lori scraped:
> Not Lori - it's Dan, finally posting in the naked webmasters group ;)
Hi Dan. I guess that this group really is a family group now[1]! Just so
long as you don't think you because Lori showed us some nudie pics that you
need do the same. I can assure you that you don't ;)
_____
[1] Actually, ISTR that my brother posted here for a few weeks some time
back :s
--
Dylan Parry
http://webpageworkshop.co.uk -- FREE Web tutorials and references
| |
|
|
| Charles Sweeney 2005-09-29, 6:27 pm |
| Dylan Parry wrote
> Using a pointed stick and pebbles, Lori scraped:
>
>
> Hi Dan. I guess that this group really is a family group now[1]! Just
> so long as you don't think you because Lori showed us some nudie pics
Hey, I only saw one pic of Lori, I demand an inquiry!
> [1] Actually, ISTR that my brother posted here for a few weeks some
> time back :s
I remember that too. How's he doing?
--
Charles Sweeney
http://CharlesSweeney.com
| |
| Dylan Parry 2005-09-29, 6:27 pm |
| Using a pointed stick and pebbles, Charles Sweeney scraped:
>
> Hey, I only saw one pic of Lori, I demand an inquiry!
Well, she showed us that one of her friend Nicole too... I think that
counts as a plural :\
>
> I remember that too. How's he doing?
He's okay. Not sure what he's up to at the moment though! I don't think
he even does Website stuff anymore, although he does spend a lot of time
dabbling in Photoshop. I'm off to my parent's house tomorrow, so I'll
have to ask him what he's doing now!
--
Dylan Parry
http://electricfreedom.org -- Where the Music Progressively Rocks!
| |
|
| Charles Sweeney wrote:
> Lori wrote
>
>
> Get your own username!!
That's what I thought too - only saw it wasn't Lori 'cause Dylan
replied to the sig :-)
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
| |
| Matt Probert 2005-09-29, 6:28 pm |
| On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 03:15:00 -0400, "Lori" <learn@webfreeks.com>
wrote:
> At least with adsl, if you look it up, you'll find the 'a' stands for
> asymmetrical, and that's more of a hint than you'll get from a cable
> provider.
Even if you do then have to look up "asymmetrical" in a dictionary to
work out what the hell they're talking about.
Matt
--
You should be so lucky!
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com
|
|
|
| | Copyright 2003 - 2008 forum4designers.com Software forum Computer Hardware reviews |
|