100Mb NTL

grizzly

shinfujiwara wrote: »

Imagine yourself transferring some HD video to a website like YouTube or Vimeo for example, can take ages. The more bandwidth in both upload and download, the better.

Even if you think "I don't need such a high speed as 100mb/100mb", in truth everyone needs, we just don't like the abusive prices. If you take 10 minutes to do something, you would certainly love it to be only 1 min.

But I get your point. Most people wouldn't be uploading too much stuff, mostly text e-mails. And precisely because of that, they give you a good download rate but not a good upload.

Business

I wonder is there a technical limitation that it's split 10:1 downnload/upload? Could (for example) a package be up together that was 10mb up/down?

Nollog

grizzly wrote: »

I wonder is there a technical limitation that it's split 10:1 downnload/upload? Could (for example) a package be up together that was 10mb up/down?

Yeah, but it would cost the earth.

The main reason isp's have terrible upload speed is because bandwidth costs more up than down.

shinfujiwara

grizzly wrote: »

I wonder is there a technical limitation that it's split 10:1 downnload/upload? Could (for example) a package be up together that was 10mb up/down?

The technology used by UPC/NTL is known as EuroDOCSIS 3.0. Which could theoretically deliver speeds up to 444mb/s of down, and 122mb/s of up.

They don't do this because there are no reason for that, yet...

When they feel the "need" to bring these speeds to the table, because of competition, then I believe they will. Some countries already reached 10gbit/10gbit bandwidth using real fibre technology (FTTH).

Magnet Networks started or will start to deploy 200mbit/200mbit FTTH. Maybe if we are lucky enough, they will expand considerably fast. If they do that, UPC will have to change their fibre-to-the-cabinet technology (FTTC) to fibre-to-the-home (FTTH) soon enough.

But I wouldn't worry to much about names and stuff. Because considering the progress that Ireland had in the communication field these last few years, you'll see high speed/stable/new technologies available for many people really soon. At least I hope so. XD

EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOCSIS

vibe666

shinfujiwara wrote: »

The technology used by UPC/NTL is known as EuroDOCSIS 3.0. Which could theoretically deliver speeds up to 444mb/s of down, and 122mb/s of up.

that's not quite correct at the moment, although it should be very soon, with a bit of luck.

UPC are so far only using EuroDOCSIS 3.0 for the 100mbps upgrades, but up to now (afaik) they've been using EuroDOCSIS 1.1 for their customers although that may have moved to EuroDOCSIS 2.0 for the 30mbps upgrades although i can't say for sure either way, maybe someone else knows for definite?

I've still got the old Scientific Atlanta modem (which after a recent firmware update is now calling itself the Cisco EPC2203) that I had when i first signed up in November 2008 to the 20mbps package and at that time the EPC2203 wasn't yet certified for EuroDOCSIS 2.0 use, although that changed in July 09 (iirc), along with the Cisco EPC2425 modem/router combo that they started giving out last year.

shinfujiwara

vibe666 wrote: »

that's not quite correct at the moment, although it should be very soon, with a bit of luck.

UPC are so far only using EuroDOCSIS 3.0 for the 100mbps upgrades, but up to now (afaik) they've been using EuroDOCSIS 1.1 for their customers although that may have moved to EuroDOCSIS 2.0 for the 30mbps upgrades although i can't say for sure either way, maybe someone else knows for definite?

I've still got the old Scientific Atlanta modem (which after a recent firmware update is now calling itself the Cisco EPC2203) that I had when i first signed up in November 2008 to the 20mbps package and at that time the EPC2203 wasn't yet certified for EuroDOCSIS 2.0 use, although that changed in July 09 (iirc), along with the Cisco EPC2425 modem/router combo that they started giving out last year.

I believe the 30mbps plan is already docsis 3.0. Because the connection of many people have been upgraded to 100mbps+ without any previous notice. Probably temporally, I believe. Because I don't think it will cost the same as the 30mbps plan.

So, how they would be able to do that if the user don't have a docsis 3.0 capable modem in his home, you know?

hightower1

vibe666 wrote: »

if i'm brutally honest, you're consistently high levels of bull**** are actually beginning to get ever so slightly tedious, so you've finally made it onto my ignore list. feel free to talk as much crap as you like from now on, because i'm never going to see it.

Ahhhh Chris, just when we were getting along!

Freddie59

Waterford - 25 Megs:

vibe666

shinfujiwara wrote: »

I believe the 30mbps plan is already docsis 3.0. Because the connection of many people have been upgraded to 100mbps+ without any previous notice. Probably temporally, I believe. Because I don't think it will cost the same as the 30mbps plan.

So, how they would be able to do that if the user don't have a docsis 3.0 capable modem in his home, you know?

believe what you want, but the fact is, that neither the EPC2203 nor the EPC2425 (click the links, look it up) modem/routers that are in 99% of UPC customers homes are capable OR certified for EuroDOCSIS 3.0 use so it's not physically possible for them to be running on v3 now, simple as that.

nobody has been upgraded to 100mbps unless they are part of the trial in limerick and not without getting their modem/router upgraded to one that is EuroDOCSIS 3.0 certified.

and the chances of it costing anything like the 30mbps package are pretty much nil. the price of the 100mbps product when it's rolled out is *likely* to be in the region of €80+ based on what's been heard on here and going by the prices in other UPC territories.

i don't know where you're getting you're information from, but so far you're so far off the mark i'm starting to think that you've been listening to hightower1, unlike me.

hightower1 This user is on your Ignore List.

everdead.ie

shinfujiwara wrote: »

The technology used by UPC/NTL is known as EuroDOCSIS 3.0. Which could theoretically deliver speeds up to 444mb/s of down, and 122mb/s of up.

They don't do this because there are no reason for that, yet...

When they feel the "need" to bring these speeds to the table, because of competition, then I believe they will. Some countries already reached 10gbit/10gbit bandwidth using real fibre technology (FTTH).

Magnet Networks started or will start to deploy 200mbit/200mbit FTTH. Maybe if we are lucky enough, they will expand considerably fast. If they do that, UPC will have to change their fibre-to-the-cabinet technology (FTTC) to fibre-to-the-home (FTTH) soon enough.

But I wouldn't worry to much about names and stuff. Because considering the progress that Ireland had in the communication field these last few years, you'll see high speed/stable/new technologies available for many people really soon. At least I hope so. XD

EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOCSIS

I actually think that a greater number of channels can be bonded together(Theoretically) if need be to increase upload and download speed and at the moment they have a large amount of channels unused as we simply don't have enough channells to use up all the space however it is highly unlikely that they will Introduce these speeds once they reach parity with the sister corporations in Austria/Netherlands etc until they too increase there speed. To be Frank however there are no websites that I am aware of that can actually upload to you fast enough I suppose it will be best used for hose using peer to peer networks and who download from multiple locations at the same time.

shinfujiwara

vibe666 wrote: »

believe what you want, but the fact is, that neither the EPC2203 nor the EPC2425 (click the links, look it up) modem/routers that are in 99% of UPC customers homes are capable OR certified for EuroDOCSIS 3.0 use so it's not physically possible for them to be running on v3 now, simple as that.

nobody has been upgraded to 100mbps unless they are part of the trial in limerick and not without getting their modem/router upgraded to one that is EuroDOCSIS 3.0 certified.

and the chances of it costing anything like the 30mbps package are pretty much nil. the price of the 100mbps product when it's rolled out is *likely* to be in the region of €80+ based on what's been heard on here and going by the prices in other UPC territories.

i don't know where you're getting you're information from, but so far you're so far off the mark i'm starting to think that you've been listening to hightower1, unlike me.

I'm not a UPC employee, dude. So of course I don't have any solid info, like you. I just saw a bunch of people here on the boards.ie showing some speedtests above the mark of 100mbps. Saying that this happened without previous notice or change of equipment. And sometimes just for a few days. Nothing serious, and I never said it was. Maybe they were in the trial that you mentioned.

I don't even know who hightower1 is, but if he behaved like he was the "universal truth holder" and read my posts as something that one should consider "serious business"... maybe you did right.

If you read again you'll see that basically I was clarifying for the user grizzly "yes, they can do a lot more than that, there is no excuse." Of course they do, they could put 100 gbit/s if they wanted to, what would be their profit then? That's why I said "business ". And even if they use DOCSIS 1 or 2 would't they be able to achieve 10/30mbps of upload?

You see what I'm talking about? Why only 3mbps? Damn business

shinfujiwara

everdead.ie wrote: »

I actually think that a greater number of channels can be bonded together(Theoretically) if need be to increase upload and download speed and at the moment they have a large amount of channels unused as we simply don't have enough channells to use up all the space however it is highly unlikely that they will Introduce these speeds once they reach parity with the sister corporations in Austria/Netherlands etc until they too increase there speed. To be Frank however there are no websites that I am aware of that can actually upload to you fast enough I suppose it will be best used for hose using peer to peer networks and who download from multiple locations at the same time.

Hm... You think they will stick with DOCSIS technologies for many years then? I don't doubt that, but I genuinely hope not! Hehehe.

There are so few websites that can handle hundreds of mbps? I didn't know that. But I think the really important sources can handle really high speeds. Currently, high speed connections would substantially benefit me only downloading things from Playstation Network and P2P. P2P without any restrictions and with all peers with large uploads, would reach our "crazy high" download speeds, am I wrong?

Software download/updates from major companies would be pretty quick too, no? Microsoft, Apple, Google, Mozilla, Canonical. When you download Ubuntu distros you get it from universities. And when you download things from SourceForge too. Can't they handle it yet?

vibe666

shinfujiwara wrote: »

I don't even know who hightower1 is, but if he behaved like he was the "universal truth holder" and my posts as something that one should consider "serious business"... maybe you did right.

he likes to think he is, but the vast majority of the time he's just making crap up to try and support an argument that doesn't actually exist.

shinfujiwara wrote: »

You see what I'm talking about? Why only 3mbps? Damn business

they could give us more, but it costs more to provide than download bandwidth so they keep it to a minimum and concentrate on download speed because it's (apparently) what's most important to 'regular' users.

they could provide higher upload speeds, but it would only be to the benefit of a small minority of us at the expense of everyone else and majority rules.

that said, the other UPC territories who already have either 100mbps or 120mbps have a 10mbps upload and the lower package of either 50mbps or 60mbps with a 5mbps upload, so maybe they'll give us the same if we're lucky, who knows.

shinfujiwara

vibe666 wrote: »

he likes to think he is, but the vast majority of the time he's just making crap up to try and support an argument that doesn't actually exist.

they could give us more, but it costs more to provide than download bandwidth so they keep it to a minimum and concentrate on download speed because it's (apparently) what's most important to 'regular' users.

they could provide higher upload speeds, but it would only be to the benefit of a small minority of us at the expense of everyone else and majority rules.

that said, the other UPC territories who already have either 100mbps or 120mbps have a 10mbps upload and the lower package of either 50mbps or 60mbps with a 5mbps upload, so maybe they'll give us the same if we're lucky, who knows.

I totally agree with everything that you said. And I too am hoping they give us at least the same bandwidth than them, and same prices.

My point was exactly this. The fact that they could, without any problem at all, provide more bandwidth (up or down). They would still earn lots of money, less, but still huge amounts.

I don't believe the costs of a 300/100mbps FTTC are nearly as high as 1/1gbps FTTH, for example. And yet, people across the ocean deploy this. I think what the user grizzly wanted to know was "they don't do it because they can't?" But the truth is, they don't do it because they don't want to. Don't you agree?

Moriarty

vibe666 wrote: »

they could give us more, but it costs more to provide than download bandwidth so they keep it to a minimum and concentrate on download speed because it's (apparently) what's most important to 'regular' users.

It doesn't cost them more, which is ironic considering your previous paragraph.

The reason there's less upload bandwidth is because that's the way the docsis standard was designed. The design of docsis took into account that most people download far more information than they upload.

paulm17781

Moriarty wrote: »

The design of docsis took into account that most people download far more information than they upload.

I wonder if that's still the case? I'm not doubting you, don't get me wrong, but back in the early days people did far more downloading, then as upload speed increased, people starting doing more of it. I wonder when we will start to see symmetric speeds.

ronkmonster

paulm17781 wrote: »

I wonder if that's still the case? I'm not doubting you, don't get me wrong, but back in the early days people did far more downloading, then as upload speed increased, people starting doing more of it. I wonder when we will start to see symmetric speeds.

They probably could do it now but you'd need to give up some download speed, i thought it was initially split due to it being very limited so they focused on download speed.

80/30 split would be nice instead of the 100/10

watty

There is over 30% growth a year in video streaming, that's 99.9% downloading
Web is more heavy with javascript, ajax, flash... that's 99.9% downloading

P2P is less than 10% of users.

photo stuff is more viewing than uploading.

So end user connection of many systems is designed to give more bandwidth to download.

DSL is configurable. Symmetric is slightly less total capacity.

i.e. 8M down and 512K ADSL up might only be 3Mbps symmetrical SDSL on same line. Reverse 8M up and 512K down is possible. Also two pairs "bonded" one normal ADSL and one reverse DSL or both SDSL

Cable and Mobile inherently, by design have more download than upload and it's not re-configurable. But Cable usually has better relative upload than ADSL.

Fibre can be symmetrical with no loss of download.

Cable has 60MHz of upstream spectrum (broadband only) and about 400MHz to 800MHz (depending on Coax quality) of Downstream (shared between TV and Broadband).

Also Downstream can use more power and higher QAM (256 typical) and DVB-c as it's all multiplexted from one source.

Upstream is typically TDMA with time slots scheduled by the CMTS (the box feeding downstream). The signals of all the modems upstream (uploads) are separate so there is guard timing and QPSK or 16 QAM. 64 at best. So the Mbps per MHz is about 5 or 6 maybe on Downstream and maybe 1 on upstream. So downstream capacity is maybe 50 to 60 times upstream. In reality a lot of downstream space is TV, so Downstream Speed 8x to 10x the upstream.

vibe666

Moriarty wrote: »

It doesn't cost them more, which is ironic considering your previous paragraph.

The reason there's less upload bandwidth is because that's the way the docsis standard was designed. The design of docsis took into account that most people download far more information than they upload.

then I stand corrected and I'm happy to do so, which is the big difference between myself and one or two others around here.

if i'm wrong then i've no problem admitting that at all.

(altho i did PM watty just to make 100% sure before i admitted it)

shinfujiwara

If it doesn't cost more, why wouldn't they give us something like 400/100mbps? They can do it with DOCSIS 3.0, can't they?

They do it only because they "don't see why"? Just because there is no threat to them right now? Because if it is that way, boy... business really irritares me.

-_-

vibe666

shinfujiwara wrote: »

If it doesn't cost more, why wouldn't they give us something like 400/100mbps? They can do it with DOCSIS 3.0, can't they?

They do it only because they "don't see why"? Just because there is no treat to them right now? Because if it is that way, boy... business really irritares me.

-_-

he means that it doesn't cost more per gb for uploaded data than it does for downloaded data (which was the bit I'd got wrong), but it does cost more to provide a 400mbps service than it does to provide a 100mbps one and everything in between.

they're looking to provide a speed that is attractive to users that is a no brainer when compared to their DSL and wireless competitors at a price people are willing to pay and that still turns a profit for them in the long run.

i imagine they'll be running at a loss for a good while after all the millions they've invested into their network to make this happen, but they're a strong company with a lot of financial backing and they're in it for the long haul, unlike eircom who are millions in debt and on the back foot the whole time, just trying to keep up with their competition on an ageing network they can't afford to invest enough in to properly fix that just isn't up to the job.

shinfujiwara

vibe666 wrote: »

he means that it doesn't cost more per gb for uploaded data than it does for downloaded data (which was the bit I'd got wrong), but it does cost more to provide a 400mbps service than it does to provide a 100mbps one and everything in between.

they're looking to provide a speed that is attractive to users that is a no brainer when compared to their DSL and wireless competitors at a price people are willing to pay and that still turns a profit for them in the long run.

i imagine they'll be running at a loss for a good while after all the millions they've invested into their network to make this happen, but they're a strong company with a lot of financial backing and they're in it for the long haul, unlike eircom who are millions in debt and on the back foot the whole time, just trying to keep up with their competition on an ageing network they can't afford to invest enough in to properly fix that just isn't up to the job.

My mistake then, sorry.

So, the best that could happen in Ireland's scenario would be another big company like UPC to compete with them, wouldn't it? Because if they're going to the 100mbps mark without any real threat to them, I believe they would do much more under pressure, right?.

If only Magnet was big enough... Damn, I would love to use their FTTH.

vibe666

shinfujiwara wrote: »

My mistake then, sorry.

no bother, it happens to the best of us.

shinfujiwara wrote: »

So, the best that could happen in Ireland's scenario would be another big company like UPC to compete with them, wouldn't it? Because if they're going to the 100mbps mark without any real threat to them, I believe they would do much more under pressure, right?.

If only Magnet was big enough... Damn, I would love to use their FTTH.

i think it's unlikely due to the investment required to roll something like that out.

before UPC came along and threw a mountain of money at the problem, chorus & NTL had spent years and years slowly installing their infrastructure in ireland to build up a decent customer base. without that, UPC wouldn't exist in ireland at all.

unless someone comes up with some mad new DSL (or maybe even wireless if we're dreaming ) standard in the next couple of years i don't see any competition for UPC in ireland. it's doubtful that it would be DSL tho as altho technically speaking the infrastructure IS there, it's pretty much old and fect as it is and i don't see anyone doing for eircom (and all their debts) what UPC did for chorus & ntl to bring that up to speed.

WillieFlynn

vibe666 wrote: »

before UPC came along and threw a mountain of money at the problem, chorus & NTL had spent years and years slowly installing their infrastructure in ireland to build up a decent customer base. without that, UPC wouldn't exist in ireland at all.

Cable TV started in 1970 and was only sold to NTL in 1999.

What held up cable broadband for years in Dublin was that Eircom half owned the cable TV network and didn't want to damage their phone / adsl business.

watty

NTL and Chorus had no money eventually. They both did minimal investment. What UPC is doing could have been done 8 years ago.

Chorus and NTL could have had Broadband on Cable before eircom or Esat launched DSL.
Chorus had Fixed Wireless Broadband (I think in 2000 or 2002) but lost licence due to lack of rollout.
Chorus and NTL could have had Digital on MMDS and Cable before Sky Digital launched.

Not entirely accurate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_television_in_Ireland

BROADBAND SERVICE

Work on a further expansion of the town’s services will commence this week with the laying of the new fibre-optic cable to provide broadband service to those areas of town where the biggest potential users are presently located.

The route the cable-laying - which will inevitably cause further traffic disruption - will take in the industrial estates at Shandon and the businesses on the Youghal Road / By-pass, as well as Grattan Square, Bridge Street, Davitt‚s Quay and Mary Street.

This will complement the Casey Cablevision service which has been providing a high quality broadband network, as well as a comprehensive TV network for the whole town for the last five years and which also covers outlying areas such as the fastgrowing Ballinroad.

From http://archives.tcm.ie/waterfordnews/2003/10/03/story12080.asp October 2003

Goverment did belatedly make it a condition of cable TV licence to provide Broadband but it was years too late and they kept the bar too low and also were not perpared to withdraw licence so kept extending compliance dates.

Eircom privatisation was exactly at wrong time and with no enforceable conditions and without prior separation of Network and Retail.

Ultimately lack of enforcement of regulations and lack of will of Government to implement their own recommendations was at fault. Not the companies.
The Oireachtas 24th March 2004:

Define broadband as a service that provides at least 512Kbs connectivity and set a target of the widespread availability of 5Mps connections by 2006 and with a further suggested target of 10Mps connections by 2008.

http://broadband.oireachtas.ie/Chapter02.htm
and
http://broadband.oireachtas.ie/Chairmans_Preface.htm

The Joint Committee has concluded, for the Irish market, that speeds of anything less than 512kbs is not broadband but is in fact in a class known as 'mid-band'. This would include such services as ISDN connections and 124 and 256kbs DSL connections. In this respect the Joint Committee's definition of broadband differs from that in use by other groups and significantly differs from the definition currently to be found in Section 8 of the Finance Bill 2004. The Joint Committee believes that all connections at speeds of less than 124kbs, currently the majority in the Irish economy, have to be regarded as narrowband connections.

We are at about 1/2 the speed of the 2006 recommendation.

The NBS Scheme doesn't meet 2004 Definition of Broadband.

vibe666

WillieFlynn wrote: »

Cable TV started in 1970 and was only sold to NTL in 1999.

What held up cable broadband for years in Dublin was that Eircom half owned the cable TV network and didn't want to damage their phone / adsl business.

ah well, falling down on my irish history again. i do know my own scottish history much better tho, can i have a brownie point for that?

shinfujiwara

smur89 wrote: »

They changed your plan to 100/10?

Spear

smur89 wrote: »

This is over the wireless to my iMac



It's not very stable

Turn off the flood protection.

FloatingVoter

smur89 wrote: »

Just did that, seems to have helped alot.

heres the wireless results




Though as you can see the speed still varies alot.

What sort of modem / router setup are you using with that ?

shinfujiwara

smur89 wrote: »

The one provided is a Thomson, Model number TWG87OUIR.

The Microtik router beside it is not being used currently.

Is this a N model? How far is the iMac from this router? Because you lost a lot of MBs.

Thor

smur89 wrote: »

Thats the full model number ive given, nothing else is really written on it other than serial numbers and that.

The iMac is probably about 10 feet away and up one floor.

Where abouts are you located, How did you go about getting involved in the trial.