I never said I had adverts or any thing else loading slowly on my computer.
My AMD dual core is my second machine and at the moment is not in use anyway due to a faulty power switch, which at some point I will sort out, but it is more than capable of dealing with the web as thw web stands at the moment. It maybe old, but it is still a good machine.
My main machine which is what I am using now, is a 3.6Ghz AMD Phenom quad core, 8Gb of ram, with a radion HD6570 video card with it own 2GB of ram. oh and a 120GB corsair SSD.
The only thing that is letting it down is the lack of storage space. I need to get a third drive for it. this baby can handle almost anything apart fromt he latest high spec games, but then the video card is not a high spec card.
but it works fine for it's main use and that is video editing. if it came the time that I needed more just to use the internet then I would just give the internet up.
I assumed from the bit in bold below that you were complaining about adverts loading slowly.
As you said the internet is not a right, but surly if you pay for a service, then it is your right to have that service without website designers thinking that everyone got super fast broadband.
Noise, you must be unlucky, I got no junk mail from BT when I was with them, get nothing off TT, no phone calls, no emails. You go on about filters et al but if any are there they have had no impact on my internet experience.
Your making stuff up again lol. You pay more for a service that is several times slower than FTTC... your logic escapes me. Nowt so queer as folk as they say.
I myself did not have much come from BT when I was with them, at that time they did not offer much anyway. But towards the end of my time with BT, when I did not renew my contract I kept getting calls to get me to renew.
My neighbour kept getting phone calls from them to get FTTC, in the end my neighbour gave up and got FTTC, something which they don't really need.
Filters may not have any impact on my browsing normally, but they are still there and there have been problems with these filters already.
Not making stuff up, all of that have happened to different people, I just compacted it. the buck have been past many times between the ISp and Bt openreach. I suppose in theory that could happen here, if Zen have a a problem with their systems.
I pay less unless I went with Talk Talk, but I pay for a service that suits me and going by what my next door neighbour gets speed wise, I lose 10Mb/s if that.
As long as I can do what I need to do then I am fine with what I have got.
I assumed from the bit in bold below that you were complaining about adverts loading slowly.
I myself don't have a problem, my broadband and computer is fast enough. but some people have slower broadband, which is fine as long as website designers don't put a load of crap on their sites.
The problem is the faster broadband that can be acessed, the more junk website designers seems to stick on their site, not thinking that some people either can't get or don't want faster broadband and happy with what they got. They did that when people was changing between dial up and ADSL, with more flash and more graphics on their sites.
you only have to look on this site to be honest and see with all the menus flashing up when you roll over them and the pop up adverts.
I myself don't have a problem, my broadband and computer is fast enough. but some people have slower broadband, which is fine as long as website designers don't put a load of crap on their sites.
The problem is the faster broadband that can be acessed, the more junk website designers seems to stick on their site, not thinking that some people either can't get or don't want faster broadband and happy with what they got. They did that when people was changing between dial up and ADSL, with more flash and more graphics on their sites.
you only have to look on this site to be honest and see with all the menus flashing up when you roll over them and the pop up adverts.
Well this is the thing. Ever since the internet started increasing in popularity, it was destined to end up being something that advertisers could use to advertise their products. The more people use something, the more appealing it becomes to advertisers. The internet is now almost as popular as TV sets are. Once its popularity started increasing dramatically, it was inevitable that loads of advertisers would start placing their adverts in webpages. Now that faster connections are available, adverts are just going to get 'heavier', especially because of the faster hardware available these days.
But then we have money involved and usually no good comes of that.
There is nothing wrong with a website having a few adverts to cover their costs, but website owners then abuse that and see it as a way to make money and don't give a damn if it affects the people using the site.
If websites had been reasonable, then no one would have invented the ad-blocker.
But then we have money involved and usually no good comes of that.
There is nothing wrong with a website having a few adverts to cover their costs, but website owners then abuse that and see it as a way to make money and don't give a damn if it affects the people using the site.
If websites had been reasonable, then no one would have invented the ad-blocker.
But most websites are there to make money and there's nothing wrong with that. Adverts aren't just there to cover the costs they are there to make a profit!
If money wasn't involved a lot of your favourite websites just wouldn't exist at all.
But then we have money involved and usually no good comes of that.
There is nothing wrong with a website having a few adverts to cover their costs, but website owners then abuse that and see it as a way to make money and don't give a damn if it affects the people using the site.
If websites had been reasonable, then no one would have invented the ad-blocker.
You could very well say the same about adverts that get shown on TV. One or two is fine, but five or six is just going too far. The internet is no different to TV channels. Most website owners create their sites for the purpose of making as much profit as they can. If they just covered the cost of running the site, what would be the point of creating one if they intended on putting adverts on it? I think it's bang out of order when they start putting pop-up adverts on it though. Pop-up adverts really are bloody annoying and frustrating. Don't mind banner adverts, but I can't stand bloody pop-ups though.
If there is no moral issue, then let's have full page pop up adverts that you have to read and answer a full questionnaire on to prove that you have read it, before any access to a site is given?
They are there to make a profit so apparently anything goes.
How we got from my hole in the ground + Shiny new Fibre Cab to this, I don't know!
Ooo! There are currently no less than two big Openreach trucks up on the pavement with many bods attending to my hole.
Well, technically the hole has now been filled in and re-tarmacked, but that wasn't as funny.
So by the end of the week, it might at least have some cables and connectors in it.
More and more areas are getting access to superfast fibre connections. ADSL technology is slowly starting to die off. I look forward to the day when television programmes, documentaries etc are sent through fibre cables under the ground (for everyone). No more losing the signal because of bad weather or snow that's built up on the LNB of the dish.
The old cabinet door is open and about 4 new fat black unstripped cables are sprouting out of the door, from a ducting pipe in the based.
I agree about the TV via cable that is unaffected by weather and doesn't involve me going up the ladder any more. ( I ain't getting younger and there will come a time when I can't play with my dish any more)
MI look forward to the day when television programmes, documentaries etc are sent through fibre cables under the ground (for everyone).
Think about the numbers. When, say, 10m - 15m homes want to watch some big event like the Olympic Games opening ceremony, and the HD (or 4K) feed takes even 2Mbit/s - 5Mbit/s (assume new, better, codecs) that is a huge amount of data to be sent. It could only be done via a dedicated set of distributed playout servers, possibly via a multicast network. I can't see any of the providers having the money to invest in that, especially when they need to cover 99% of the population. It might be possible for a single provider, but do you fancy a £1000/year TV licence, anyone?
Broadcasting via satellite or terrestrial is a far more cost-effective and economical model for large-scale live public TV, with IP-based services good for catch-up and minority channels.
Think about the numbers. When, say, 10m - 15m homes want to watch some big event like the Olympic Games opening ceremony, and the HD (or 4K) feed takes even 2Mbit/s - 5Mbit/s (assume new, better, codecs) that is a huge amount of data to be sent. It could only be done via a dedicated set of distributed playout servers, possibly via a multicast network. I can't see any of the providers having the money to invest in that, especially when they need to cover 99% of the population. It might be possible for a single provider, but do you fancy a £1000/year TV licence, anyone?
Broadcasting via satellite or terrestrial is a far more cost-effective and economical model for large-scale live public TV, with IP-based services good for catch-up and minority channels.
The trouble is though, broadcasting through terrestrial and satellite has its disadvantages though, in terms of loss of signal when there's bad weather. Obviously the network would have to be extremely strong to be able to handle it, but I definitely think television content being delivered through fibre cables is the way to go. What about the bandwidth that's sent to aerials and satellite dishes? MPEG4 codecs can decrease the amount of bandwidth for each programme etc in MPEG2 by a lot, and it would look so much better as well.
The trouble is though, broadcasting through terrestrial and satellite has its disadvantages though, in terms of loss of signal when there's bad weather.
A good installation will only lose satellite signal in extreme bad weather, I've never had it happen on terrestrial. I'd guess that for most people their broadband goes down more often than their satellite TV does!
What about the bandwidth that's sent to aerials and satellite dishes?
About 40Mbit/s in total from any one satellite transponder, I think. It can serve millions of subscribers, that's why it's such a good system, when you need to serve huge numbers with the same info.
Think about the numbers. When, say, 10m - 15m homes want to watch some big event like the Olympic Games opening ceremony, and the HD (or 4K) feed takes even 2Mbit/s - 5Mbit/s (assume new, better, codecs) that is a huge amount of data to be sent. It could only be done via a dedicated set of distributed playout servers, possibly via a multicast network. I can't see any of the providers having the money to invest in that, especially when they need to cover 99% of the population. It might be possible for a single provider, but do you fancy a £1000/year TV licence, anyone?
Broadcasting via satellite or terrestrial is a far more cost-effective and economical model for large-scale live public TV, with IP-based services good for catch-up and minority channels.
Well this is the thing. Ever since the internet started increasing in popularity, it was destined to end up being something that advertisers could use to advertise their products. The more people use something, the more appealing it becomes to advertisers. The internet is now almost as popular as TV sets are. Once its popularity started increasing dramatically, it was inevitable that loads of advertisers would start placing their adverts in webpages. Now that faster connections are available, adverts are just going to get 'heavier', especially because of the faster hardware available these days.
Advertising I have no problem as long as it don't distract from using the site and digital spy advertising does, which is why so many people uses ad blockers. You make a site slow and unfriendly because you are blasting adverts at everyone, then you get less people using the site, which in turn will turn advertisers away.
My main problem with these sites is when they use third party companies, to track you through the internet.
At the moment on this page there is 3
Criteo
SkimLinks
Google Analytics
I have never heard of the first two, i don't block the advertising, I block the tracking, i do admit I use flash blocker more these days.
But it is not just advertising, may sites are just over complex and use loads of graphics and animations. You ever tried using this site on a slow connection? about 1Mb/s and this site is almost unusable.
Still a lot of people out there with that sort of speed.
More and more areas are getting access to superfast fibre connections. ADSL technology is slowly starting to die off. I look forward to the day when television programmes, documentaries etc are sent through fibre cables under the ground (for everyone). No more losing the signal because of bad weather or snow that's built up on the LNB of the dish.
Never going to happen, well certainly not in the next 50 years. There are places that still don't have ADSL, so no chance of them having superfast fibre connection. this is why companies like Allpay have started up wireless connections, too get a decent speed connection to people who have little chance of getting broadband any other way.
ADSl technology will still be around for a long time, even around here, their are still some places right smack in the middle of the city centre that don't have FTTC. I really don't know how BT works out who get FTTc and who don't.
If anything happen that I had to give up the service I am on, then I would think about going back to ADSL.
A good installation will only lose satellite signal in extreme bad weather, I've never had it happen on terrestrial. I'd guess that for most people their broadband goes down more often than their satellite TV does!
About 40Mbit/s in total from any one satellite transponder, I think. It can serve millions of subscribers, that's why it's such a good system, when you need to serve huge numbers with the same info.
I was thinking of satellite dishes. The signal gets lost here whenever there's bad weather. Saying this though, the dish is about 13 years old. I do think that TV content will eventually be sent through cables in the ground in the future. The signal would always be protected from the bad weather. You talk about never having lost your signal. Well, what about when there's been heavy snowfall? I know I've had a loss of signal when there's been a lot of snow on my aerial. This hardly ever happens though.
Never going to happen, well certainly not in the next 50 years. There are places that still don't have ADSL, so no chance of them having superfast fibre connection. this is why companies like Allpay have started up wireless connections, too get a decent speed connection to people who have little chance of getting broadband any other way.
ADSl technology will still be around for a long time, even around here, their are still some places right smack in the middle of the city centre that don't have FTTC. I really don't know how BT works out who get FTTc and who don't.
If anything happen that I had to give up the service I am on, then I would think about going back to ADSL.
I wouldn't be so sure of that. Fibre's becoming increasingly popular with people now. 50 years is a LONG time. Technology's spreading further and further out. Once everyone in towns and cities has access (if they want it) to fibre connections, they'll likely start on those areas that don't have as many people as the bigger areas. Areas with enough people are being made a priority at the minute because BT wants to concentrate on getting a good return on their investment. Once they've got a lot of their money back, they'll then probably start rolling out fibre to areas that's less populated. I mean, why deny some people fibre if it's going to make you that bit extra profit? More money means more profit. They obviously won't do it anytime soon, but once everywhere in all the cities and towns in Britain have it, then the less populated areas will probably get it as well.
Edit: I doubt that there'll be an ISP's service running through your exchange that'll be running ADSL. A lot of only copper wire services are now ADSL2+
I wouldn't be so sure of that. Fibre's becoming increasingly popular with people now. 50 years is a LONG time. Technology's spreading further and further out. Once everyone in towns and cities has access (if they want it) to fibre connections, they'll likely start on those areas that don't have as many people as the bigger areas. Areas with enough people are being made a priority at the minute because BT wants to concentrate on getting a good return on their investment. Once they've got a lot of their money back, they'll then probably start rolling out fibre to areas that's less populated.
But it is not fibre, it is the inferior fibre to the cabinet, which have mixed results. Pure fibre is years away from most people, took long enough to get FTTC, that is the problem with having a company that is all about profit in charge of it.
The infrastructure would not cope with everyone accessing on line video all at once. Can you imagine millions of people going on line to watch coronation street at the same time? the system would break. Maybe in around 50 years they will find a way of stopping that happen and maybe by then pure fibre will be available for everyone at a decent price.
Not that we know what will happen in 50 years, we may have a huge war by then and all man kind wiped out or they may have mucked about with something they know nothing about and sucked the eartyh into a black hole
I mean, why deny some people fibre if it's going to make you that bit extra profit? More money means more profit. They obviously won't do it anytime soon, but once everywhere in all the cities and towns in Britain have it, then the less populated areas will probably get it as well.
but as I said before, even places around here don't have FTTC and yet the exchange is enabled.
Edit: I doubt that there'll be an ISP's service running through your exchange that'll be running ADSL. A lot of only copper wire services are now ADSL2+
You are splitting hairs, when people say ADSL in the context I did, they normally mean broadband using copper wires, be it ADSL, ADSL, ADSl2+ or what ever other ADSl they manage to get through the phone lines.
Of cause it will be ADSl2+. Hopefully it will not come to that and my provider will keep on going, they seem to be doing ok at the moment, in fact they are still expanding.
But it is not fibre, it is the inferior fibre to the cabinet, which have mixed results. Pure fibre is years away from most people, took long enough to get FTTC, that is the problem with having a company that is all about profit in charge of it.
The infrastructure would not cope with everyone accessing on line video all at once. Can you imagine millions of people going on line to watch coronation street at the same time? the system would break. Maybe in around 50 years they will find a way of stopping that happen and maybe by then pure fibre will be available for everyone at a decent price.
Not that we know what will happen in 50 years, we may have a huge war by then and all man kind wiped out or they may have mucked about with something they know nothing about and sucked the eartyh into a black hole
but as I said before, even places around here don't have FTTC and yet the exchange is enabled.
You are splitting hairs, when people say ADSL in the context I did, they normally mean broadband using copper wires, be it ADSL, ADSL, ADSl2+ or what ever other ADSl they manage to get through the phone lines.
Of cause it will be ADSl2+. Hopefully it will not come to that and my provider will keep on going, they seem to be doing ok at the moment, in fact they are still expanding.
I think it's three quarter's fibre and the last bit copper. BT have already started trialling pure fibre connections in certain parts of Britain. It shouldn't be THAT long before FTTP starts getting installed in people's homes the way FTTC is now. Because BT's testing out FTTP connections with the odd areas in Britain, this means that it could be about 7 years before they start offering it to the home user like they're now doing with FTTC. If Virgin manage to do this without any problems, why can't the same be applied for TV altogether? I'm also very happy with my fibre connection. It doesn't feel 'inferior' at all. It probably took years to get fibre because there wasn't the demand for it back in the last decade. Now, however, quite a few files out there are too big to comfortably download on an ADSL2 connection. You seem to have a dislike for FTTC connections and a love for ADSL2+ connections. I suppose everyone's entitled to their views, but I really don't get why you're so against FTTC connections.
I think it's three quarter's fibre and the last bit copper.
Which is why it can be hit and miss. You are still relying on old copper cables and the fibre cabinet could be further away that than the exchange. Pretty remote that it will be , but it could be.
May still get faster speed using FTTC, but how much faster?
BT have already started trialling pure fibre connections in certain parts of Britain. It shouldn't be THAT long before FTTP starts getting installed in people's homes the way FTTC is now. Because BT's testing out FTTP connections with the odd areas in Britain, this means that it could be about 7 years before they start offering it to the home user like they're now doing with FTTC.
I think Bt are happy to keep things as they are, unless they are sure that people will go to FTTP, they are not going to spend the money on it and if the prices are too high, people will not bother.
a extra tenner a month for FTTC is a bit different to what it might be for FTTP.
There are people now on these forums saying that £10 a month for FTTc is too much and going back to ADSL.
If Virgin manage to do this without any problems, why can't the same be applied for TV altogether?
That is because Virgin got the infrastructure and they been in the game for many years and have their own network.
I'm also very happy with my fibre connection. It doesn't feel 'inferior' at all.
If you had ADSL before then no doubt FTTC is not inferior, but against pure fibre it is.
It probably took years to get fibre because there wasn't the demand for it back in the last decade.
It is all about profits and Bt will only stick FTTC in if they are either subsidised by the tax payers or they know they are going to get the money back.
They are a business, so they are not doing it for us that is for sure.
Now, however, quite a few files out there are too big to comfortably download on an ADSL2 connection.
You can download any file on ADSL2+, even if you only got 3Mb/s, it is just going to take a bit longer.
What files do you really download that is too large?
You seem to have a dislike for FTTC connections and a love for ADSL2+ connections. I suppose everyone's entitled to their views, but I really don't get why you're so against FTTC connections.
Not against it at all, I am against the you got to FTTC mentality that is going around. People ask me if I am on FTTc and I say no and they look at me as if it is a crime of the century. I get asked why not when it is available where I live and when I explain why they still think it is strange.
someone else i know have the same problem and they are still on copper wire broadband, they get a good speed.
It is the same on here as well, if you are not on FTTC and you can get it, people on here wonder why you have not got it.
If I was against it, then I would not recommend it to people would I? It is the best thing we are going to get from BT to be honest, so if people want faster broadband and they can afford the extra and it is available, then go for it.
I think it's three quarter's fibre and the last bit copper. BT have already started trialling pure fibre connections in certain parts of Britain. It shouldn't be THAT long before FTTP starts getting installed in people's homes the way FTTC is now. Because BT's testing out FTTP connections with the odd areas in Britain, this means that it could be about 7 years before they start offering it to the home user like they're now doing with FTTC. If Virgin manage to do this without any problems, why can't the same be applied for TV altogether? I'm also very happy with my fibre connection. It doesn't feel 'inferior' at all. It probably took years to get fibre because there wasn't the demand for it back in the last decade. Now, however, quite a few files out there are too big to comfortably download on an ADSL2 connection. You seem to have a dislike for FTTC connections and a love for ADSL2+ connections. I suppose everyone's entitled to their views, but I really don't get why you're so against FTTC connections.
That's not right. BT aren't trialing FTTP.
It is available as a proper product in some areas and sold as Infinity 4. The speed is 330Mb.
It's just not available in many areas, they've said recently it'll be used a fair bit in new build areas from now on. From the last figures I saw it is available to a few hundred thousand customers.
Comments
I assumed from the bit in bold below that you were complaining about adverts loading slowly.
I myself did not have much come from BT when I was with them, at that time they did not offer much anyway. But towards the end of my time with BT, when I did not renew my contract I kept getting calls to get me to renew.
My neighbour kept getting phone calls from them to get FTTC, in the end my neighbour gave up and got FTTC, something which they don't really need.
Filters may not have any impact on my browsing normally, but they are still there and there have been problems with these filters already.
Not making stuff up, all of that have happened to different people, I just compacted it. the buck have been past many times between the ISp and Bt openreach. I suppose in theory that could happen here, if Zen have a a problem with their systems.
I pay less unless I went with Talk Talk, but I pay for a service that suits me and going by what my next door neighbour gets speed wise, I lose 10Mb/s if that.
As long as I can do what I need to do then I am fine with what I have got.
I myself don't have a problem, my broadband and computer is fast enough. but some people have slower broadband, which is fine as long as website designers don't put a load of crap on their sites.
The problem is the faster broadband that can be acessed, the more junk website designers seems to stick on their site, not thinking that some people either can't get or don't want faster broadband and happy with what they got. They did that when people was changing between dial up and ADSL, with more flash and more graphics on their sites.
you only have to look on this site to be honest and see with all the menus flashing up when you roll over them and the pop up adverts.
Well this is the thing. Ever since the internet started increasing in popularity, it was destined to end up being something that advertisers could use to advertise their products. The more people use something, the more appealing it becomes to advertisers. The internet is now almost as popular as TV sets are. Once its popularity started increasing dramatically, it was inevitable that loads of advertisers would start placing their adverts in webpages. Now that faster connections are available, adverts are just going to get 'heavier', especially because of the faster hardware available these days.
There is nothing wrong with a website having a few adverts to cover their costs, but website owners then abuse that and see it as a way to make money and don't give a damn if it affects the people using the site.
If websites had been reasonable, then no one would have invented the ad-blocker.
But most websites are there to make money and there's nothing wrong with that. Adverts aren't just there to cover the costs they are there to make a profit!
If money wasn't involved a lot of your favourite websites just wouldn't exist at all.
You could very well say the same about adverts that get shown on TV. One or two is fine, but five or six is just going too far. The internet is no different to TV channels. Most website owners create their sites for the purpose of making as much profit as they can. If they just covered the cost of running the site, what would be the point of creating one if they intended on putting adverts on it? I think it's bang out of order when they start putting pop-up adverts on it though. Pop-up adverts really are bloody annoying and frustrating. Don't mind banner adverts, but I can't stand bloody pop-ups though.
They are there to make a profit so apparently anything goes.
How we got from my hole in the ground + Shiny new Fibre Cab to this, I don't know!
Well, technically the hole has now been filled in and re-tarmacked, but that wasn't as funny.
So by the end of the week, it might at least have some cables and connectors in it.
More and more areas are getting access to superfast fibre connections. ADSL technology is slowly starting to die off. I look forward to the day when television programmes, documentaries etc are sent through fibre cables under the ground (for everyone). No more losing the signal because of bad weather or snow that's built up on the LNB of the dish.
I agree about the TV via cable that is unaffected by weather and doesn't involve me going up the ladder any more. ( I ain't getting younger and there will come a time when I can't play with my dish any more)
Think about the numbers. When, say, 10m - 15m homes want to watch some big event like the Olympic Games opening ceremony, and the HD (or 4K) feed takes even 2Mbit/s - 5Mbit/s (assume new, better, codecs) that is a huge amount of data to be sent. It could only be done via a dedicated set of distributed playout servers, possibly via a multicast network. I can't see any of the providers having the money to invest in that, especially when they need to cover 99% of the population. It might be possible for a single provider, but do you fancy a £1000/year TV licence, anyone?
Broadcasting via satellite or terrestrial is a far more cost-effective and economical model for large-scale live public TV, with IP-based services good for catch-up and minority channels.
The trouble is though, broadcasting through terrestrial and satellite has its disadvantages though, in terms of loss of signal when there's bad weather. Obviously the network would have to be extremely strong to be able to handle it, but I definitely think television content being delivered through fibre cables is the way to go. What about the bandwidth that's sent to aerials and satellite dishes? MPEG4 codecs can decrease the amount of bandwidth for each programme etc in MPEG2 by a lot, and it would look so much better as well.
About 40Mbit/s in total from any one satellite transponder, I think. It can serve millions of subscribers, that's why it's such a good system, when you need to serve huge numbers with the same info.
BT do have their Connect multicast system for TV
Advertising I have no problem as long as it don't distract from using the site and digital spy advertising does, which is why so many people uses ad blockers. You make a site slow and unfriendly because you are blasting adverts at everyone, then you get less people using the site, which in turn will turn advertisers away.
My main problem with these sites is when they use third party companies, to track you through the internet.
At the moment on this page there is 3
Criteo
SkimLinks
Google Analytics
I have never heard of the first two, i don't block the advertising, I block the tracking, i do admit I use flash blocker more these days.
But it is not just advertising, may sites are just over complex and use loads of graphics and animations. You ever tried using this site on a slow connection? about 1Mb/s and this site is almost unusable.
Still a lot of people out there with that sort of speed.
Never going to happen, well certainly not in the next 50 years. There are places that still don't have ADSL, so no chance of them having superfast fibre connection. this is why companies like Allpay have started up wireless connections, too get a decent speed connection to people who have little chance of getting broadband any other way.
ADSl technology will still be around for a long time, even around here, their are still some places right smack in the middle of the city centre that don't have FTTC. I really don't know how BT works out who get FTTc and who don't.
If anything happen that I had to give up the service I am on, then I would think about going back to ADSL.
I was thinking of satellite dishes. The signal gets lost here whenever there's bad weather. Saying this though, the dish is about 13 years old. I do think that TV content will eventually be sent through cables in the ground in the future. The signal would always be protected from the bad weather. You talk about never having lost your signal. Well, what about when there's been heavy snowfall? I know I've had a loss of signal when there's been a lot of snow on my aerial. This hardly ever happens though.
I wouldn't be so sure of that. Fibre's becoming increasingly popular with people now. 50 years is a LONG time. Technology's spreading further and further out. Once everyone in towns and cities has access (if they want it) to fibre connections, they'll likely start on those areas that don't have as many people as the bigger areas. Areas with enough people are being made a priority at the minute because BT wants to concentrate on getting a good return on their investment. Once they've got a lot of their money back, they'll then probably start rolling out fibre to areas that's less populated. I mean, why deny some people fibre if it's going to make you that bit extra profit? More money means more profit. They obviously won't do it anytime soon, but once everywhere in all the cities and towns in Britain have it, then the less populated areas will probably get it as well.
Edit: I doubt that there'll be an ISP's service running through your exchange that'll be running ADSL. A lot of only copper wire services are now ADSL2+
But it is not fibre, it is the inferior fibre to the cabinet, which have mixed results. Pure fibre is years away from most people, took long enough to get FTTC, that is the problem with having a company that is all about profit in charge of it.
The infrastructure would not cope with everyone accessing on line video all at once. Can you imagine millions of people going on line to watch coronation street at the same time? the system would break. Maybe in around 50 years they will find a way of stopping that happen and maybe by then pure fibre will be available for everyone at a decent price.
Not that we know what will happen in 50 years, we may have a huge war by then and all man kind wiped out or they may have mucked about with something they know nothing about and sucked the eartyh into a black hole
but as I said before, even places around here don't have FTTC and yet the exchange is enabled.
You are splitting hairs, when people say ADSL in the context I did, they normally mean broadband using copper wires, be it ADSL, ADSL, ADSl2+ or what ever other ADSl they manage to get through the phone lines.
Of cause it will be ADSl2+. Hopefully it will not come to that and my provider will keep on going, they seem to be doing ok at the moment, in fact they are still expanding.
I think it's three quarter's fibre and the last bit copper. BT have already started trialling pure fibre connections in certain parts of Britain. It shouldn't be THAT long before FTTP starts getting installed in people's homes the way FTTC is now. Because BT's testing out FTTP connections with the odd areas in Britain, this means that it could be about 7 years before they start offering it to the home user like they're now doing with FTTC. If Virgin manage to do this without any problems, why can't the same be applied for TV altogether? I'm also very happy with my fibre connection. It doesn't feel 'inferior' at all. It probably took years to get fibre because there wasn't the demand for it back in the last decade. Now, however, quite a few files out there are too big to comfortably download on an ADSL2 connection. You seem to have a dislike for FTTC connections and a love for ADSL2+ connections. I suppose everyone's entitled to their views, but I really don't get why you're so against FTTC connections.
Which is why it can be hit and miss. You are still relying on old copper cables and the fibre cabinet could be further away that than the exchange. Pretty remote that it will be , but it could be.
May still get faster speed using FTTC, but how much faster?
I think Bt are happy to keep things as they are, unless they are sure that people will go to FTTP, they are not going to spend the money on it and if the prices are too high, people will not bother.
a extra tenner a month for FTTC is a bit different to what it might be for FTTP.
There are people now on these forums saying that £10 a month for FTTc is too much and going back to ADSL.
That is because Virgin got the infrastructure and they been in the game for many years and have their own network.
If you had ADSL before then no doubt FTTC is not inferior, but against pure fibre it is.
It is all about profits and Bt will only stick FTTC in if they are either subsidised by the tax payers or they know they are going to get the money back.
They are a business, so they are not doing it for us that is for sure.
You can download any file on ADSL2+, even if you only got 3Mb/s, it is just going to take a bit longer.
What files do you really download that is too large?
Not against it at all, I am against the you got to FTTC mentality that is going around. People ask me if I am on FTTc and I say no and they look at me as if it is a crime of the century. I get asked why not when it is available where I live and when I explain why they still think it is strange.
someone else i know have the same problem and they are still on copper wire broadband, they get a good speed.
It is the same on here as well, if you are not on FTTC and you can get it, people on here wonder why you have not got it.
If I was against it, then I would not recommend it to people would I? It is the best thing we are going to get from BT to be honest, so if people want faster broadband and they can afford the extra and it is available, then go for it.
That's not right. BT aren't trialing FTTP.
It is available as a proper product in some areas and sold as Infinity 4. The speed is 330Mb.
It's just not available in many areas, they've said recently it'll be used a fair bit in new build areas from now on. From the last figures I saw it is available to a few hundred thousand customers.
Who's with me?