LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks56K dial-up? Luxury! We used to dream of 56K dial-up (etc)Originally Posted by scaryjim
Edit: These days I would be more interested in having access to buying a super-fast graphics card for less than the value of my car.
56K dial-up? Luxury! We used to dream of 56K dial-up (etc)
Edit: These days I would be more interested in having access to buying a super-fast graphics card for less than the value of my car.
Superfast is snake oil word which is used by the likes of talk talk and other crap providers. How can 24mbps be "superfast" if it won't allow you to even watch proper 4k tv/streams? Even netflix requires 25mbps for 4k. For it to be called superfast it would at very least need to cover basic internet usage scenarios lol
Last edited by aniilv; 29-01-2018 at 02:10 PM.
Was really naffed off when our village got fibre but our street was left out as not economically viable (our local authority paid open reach to get fibre in the village). We are all on exchange only lines and have had to scream and shout to get anything done but finally got new hardware in the exchange for ADSL 2 december, so have gone from 8.1 meg down to 21meg down 1.1meg up.
same problem here. You found a good method? I've basically had to suck up two price rises. Getting a bit fed up of it.
where do you live? are you by the transatlantic net cable or something?
The stat is only the people "can" get > 24mbps, not that they "do" or "will". If there is a technical capability that you can be connected to a VDSL-capable cabinet you're probably counted in this stat. Many people who technically "can" get > 24mbps probably rarely do.
Also, it's nothing to do with luck. It's to do with where they've bothered to roll out the infrastructure. Given that 18% of the population lives outside "urban areas" (although this does include rural towns as well as smaller settlements) means hitting 95% coverage might not be as bad as it sounds. 5.8% of the population live in "villages", and a further 3.5% live in "hamlets or isolated dwellings"...
Don't call me Shirley
The problem is that "superfast" is a marketing term. It doesn't really mean anything. As others have said, the target, and therefore definition, was set in 2010, but even then the target wan't just "superfast" - the target was a defined line speed. "Superfast" was just the public-friendly marketing term they applied to it.
Even so, most people can't realistically get over 80mbps, so having 500 is very niche. Claiming that it's not superfast just because you personally could get a faster line probably isn't going to win you many fans
... watch proper 4k tv/streams ...I do not think that means what you think it means....... basic internet usage scenarios ...
Pob255 (31-01-2018)
Pretend you're going to leave and hope they don't check whether you actually can get fibre where you live...
Define 'can'.....
If I 'can' get it, why then aren't I getting it... especially as that's what I'm paying for??!!
I do not wish to sound rude, but, bully for them. Our house is connected to the lowest possible package speed our ISP provides, which is 8mbit, even though it's a physical impossibility to even receive 8mbit (1/4 of that is possible in ideal circumstances).
It *is* true that it's not much down to luck but frankly when your county put in the £ millions several years ago and promised you 24mbit+, and 5 years later you still don't have 8, well, you can decide that for yourself. Even prior blackspots in our area have been sorted out (good, they deserved it) but still we are ignored. Fibre reached our exchange months to years ago and they don't even have a rollout plan to get FTTC to the connected homes yet.
The only alternative in my area is a wifi-based solution which can at best provide 20mbit, and at worst provide nothing in poor weather at peak time. Just because of latency it's a solution I would not accept. It's also more expensive than ADSL, and we require landline phone anyway, so then it'd be doubling up on cost.
Personally I think 95%+ access to VDSL speeds is quite a good achievement. I would like to see prices lower, like in Russia, parts of India and Eastern Europe but we do tend to get good service levels.
Sorry for those still stuck on 8mbps or below, though !
hexus trust : n(baby):n(lover):n(sky)|>P(Name)>>nopes
Be Careful on the Internet! I ran and tackled a drive by mining attack today. It's not designed to do anything than provide fake texts (say!)
How do the prices compare in UK? In Canada I pay $55 CAD for 50Mbps Down and 10Mbps Up.
I pay summat like $83 CAD for 0.7Mbps Down and about 0.22Mbps Up.
Suspect there will be a fair few of us in rural Scotland that will be in the last 0.05% to get a decent internet connection. I certainly look at some of the above quoted speeds with envy. Can't have everything I suppose (and "no" I don't want to move).
Live long and prosper.
I'm currently paying around $24CAD for 20 down 1 up ADSL. But the provider is not very good now (Origin) and I am looking to move on to some kind of fibre solution.
I'm in London though, and you're in massive Canada, so...
hexus trust : n(baby):n(lover):n(sky)|>P(Name)>>nopes
Be Careful on the Internet! I ran and tackled a drive by mining attack today. It's not designed to do anything than provide fake texts (say!)
Equivalent of $95 CAD for 67Mbps down and 18Mbps up, static IP with no filtering or shaping, including phone line and free local calls.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote