Yay!!!

 

I hear that blueyonder are making their connections even faster :D

 

They are going to be double the original speed. So if you had a 512 (Which was increased to 768 about 6 months ago) it will be upgraded to a 1024 (1Mbit) connection.

 

The original 1Mbit will be 2Mbit, and 2Mbit will be 4Mbit.

 

:D :D :D

 

Bet the upload speed is still rubbish, but Im not complaining. :D

mmmm - I wonder if ntl will follow suit :hyper:

Bet the upload speed is still rubbish, but Im not complaining. :D

 

The upstream on the new 4Mb will be 384Kb - so a slight increase, and more than ADSL..

 

NTL are going to be following suit of sorts (not quite the same speeds, but an increase across the board)

 

Finally got ADSL here, only 512Kb though, and 68dB attenuation so no chance of anything faster, ever :cry: Telewest are taunting me by making their online checker say my area is active for broadband - but when you order they tell you that it's all actually still analogue :cry: the gits :)

Im with AOL,when i changed to broadband 512kb i really noticed the difference, but over time it seemed slower, so i upgraded to 1mb........Dos'nt seem any faster! I know it depends on the connection of who your downloading from,but i think that there are so many people on the net now its becoming very congested and we are paying more a month on faster connections just to keep our downloads to a reasonable speed :(

Im with AOL,when i changed to broadband 512kb i really noticed the difference, but over time it seemed slower, so i upgraded to 1mb........Dos'nt seem any faster! I know it depends on the connection of who your downloading from,but i think that there are so many people on the net now its becoming very congested and we are paying more a month on faster connections just to keep our downloads to a reasonable speed :(

 

Congestion has a lot to do with it - the thing affecting how fast you can browse web pages isn't so much how fast your connection is in Mb/s, it's the latency of it..

 

The connection where I used to work was a 2Mb SDSL line (that's 2Mb in both directions), but you'd be hard pushed to tell the difference between it and a 512Kb ADSL line if you're just browsing the 'net. Downloading files was a different matter of course - 260KB/s is very nice indeed ;)

 

The thing with browsing is that every page you view actually results in dozens of requests to the server - take this page, as it stands (before I post this reply) there are 80 images on this page, plus the page itself, plus any CSS file.. Say it's 80 (easier maths ;)) - if the ping to the server it's hosted on is 20ms (about as fast as you'll find), then every request to the server is going to take at least 20ms.. 80 requests, thats 1.6 seconds.. Since the page is quite 'small' in size, that 1.6s makes up a large proportion of the time you have to wait for it to finish loading.

 

Say your latency jumps to 50ms (probably more average, 20ms is very best case), all of a sudden you're talking about 4 seconds just to request each element of the page - forget actually downloading them ;)

 

And since increasing your connection speed has very little effect on latency (fwiw, the 2Mb connection was 20-30ms average, my 512Kb connection here is 30ms average) you can see how upgrading in speed tends to make little difference to browsing.

 

Unless you have a wireless connection :( My Pipex connection had 50-100ms latency - that's 4 to 8 seconds per page :( And my 1Mb wireless connection was 200-300ms on average - thats 16 to 24 seconds..

 

I kid you not, there were times when that 1Mb connection felt as slow as a modem :cry:

 

Anyway, judging by what you said, most of this message is teaching granny to suck eggs ;) I just thought I'd clear it up for anyone else reading.. plus I'm bored :rofl:

 

(P.S. I know, my figures are on the pessimistic side as things don't quite add up like that - for a start, most browsers will send multiple requests at once - though usually only in the order of 3-4 at once.. but you get the idea :))

Oh and another thing - yep the 'net is getting more congested, but the technology that's driving it all is solid.. the main things that need sorting are spam (lets face it, that makes up a crapload of the traffic) and viruses - another crapload of traffic is caused by all the fools that are still infected by things like Bagle et al, sending out constant streams of emails and/or trying to attach to every PC they find :cry:

 

Oh, and it's not helped when judges in the US decide that 'non portable IP blocks' should be made portable.. fs, that's just kicking the legs out from under the routing system that the entire 'net is built on..

 

Right, I'll stop rambling now :)

to be honest I cant complain much about the blueyonder connection. We went from the 512 to the 1mb and noe 1.5mb and there is little difference in loading a site from the 1mb and 1.5. There was very little difference between thr 512 and the 1mb.

But downloading large files is where the difference happens as you know.

 

But I have noticed that there are a lot of sites, even large companies, if anything the large compainies are worse, where I will only download at 64kbs, even down to 8kbs.

 

I agree with you about the SPAM and viruses. Its estimated that 99% of all emails send are SPAM. that is a lot of wasted traffic. Also viruses take a huge amount of bandwith as does Spyware.

My boss nearly threw his 1 year old computer away and canceled his broadband because he said it was going very slow. Wose than dial up. I told him to put spysweeper on and he said it has never been better.

His computer was probably sending out a constent streem of spyware data.