Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lampynoiseboy]

A basic fact is that an rf based system is ALWAYS going to have significant bandwidth limitations and hence the max data stream that can be supported will always be compromised and dependent on number of users, signal state etc.

THE answer is a thin piece of glass to the home......

If you ever want some fun, call virgin media and ask them to fit the fibre optic broadband they bang on so much about, they normally reply "you have it sir"

Er, no, there's no red light in my cable, i want fibre........then listen to them try to explain the fact that it's in the box at the end of the road...... You can run rings round them!!

Trouble is, it seems to me that we're going backwards. Whilst I agree that cable of any type is always more stable (unless bt layed it 80 years ago), so much has moved forward to wireless it seems a shame to have to still plug stuff in.
Appreciate cable to the home for tv and film streaming etc, because of the file sizes, but as some-one not desk based, decnt speed internet anywhere is very important to me

[Lampynoiseboy]

To be honest, I don't get why they don't use more satellite based stuff. You'd get a much wider coverage than land cells, especially in the sticks, and it worked (still works??) for the Motorola Iridium satellite phone- even if it was a lump & very expensive to call.

Granted they are expensive to set up, rockets n stuff, but surely once they're up & running......?

I will be interested to see when 4G does start rolling out, Verizon have be trialling it with Blackberry in the U.S, with very good results iirc

lol.  They are switching off analogue tv in favour of digital tv (satelite)  brilliant service till it rains, wonder how the country would cope if the same problem happended with thier internet.

That's just because sky are shit. Virgin manage to receive the signals and re-transmit down cable ok no matter what the weather!

[TheBoy]

Test in a few places round the country recently, underneath the actual Marble Arch in London, 4G USB dongle, speeds of 40mb are being reported.

Is this the end for cable? Why would you pay virgin/bt/anyone for service at home & a wifi router, when you have that speed on a stick anywhere?

Obviously usage limits are to be expected to keep speed up, but still, 40mb anywhere?? (unless you are TB in the back end of nowhere apparently)

Looking forward to a rollout....

Yes, but remember that a significant proportion of the UK population will have access to 'up to 80Mb' fixed line broadband by April, so even 4G is looking slow.  Those lucky enough to get FTTP may soon see 300Mb 

We have seen from 3G and so-called 3.5G than actaul in-use speeds are relatively poor compared to the marketing promises.

Although, in reality, is this speed required.  I can stream SD IPlayer stuff over a 2Mb line.  OK, can't stream HD IPlayer.  But then, currently, I rarely stream anything.  Agreed, my "Linux Distros" would come down faster than I can "test and install them", but I don't really do that either.

[Martian]

If you ever want some fun, call virgin media and ask them to fit the fibre optic broadband they bang on so much about, they normally reply "you have it sir"

Er, no, there's no red light in my cable, i want fibre........then listen to them try to explain the fact that it's in the box at the end of the road...... You can run rings round them!!

Trouble is, it seems to me that we're going backwards. Whilst I agree that cable of any type is always more stable (unless bt layed it 80 years ago), so much has moved forward to wireless it seems a shame to have to still plug stuff in.
Appreciate cable to the home for tv and film streaming etc, because of the file sizes, but as some-one not desk based, decnt speed internet anywhere is very important to me

The optical node isn't necessarily in the cabinet, it can be half a mile or even more away from you.

[Kevin Wood]

We have seen from 3G and so-called 3.5G than actaul in-use speeds are relatively poor compared to the marketing promises.

Yep. That's because the Marketeers promise the absolute best case theoretical speed possible, and it has become normal practice to quote speeds that aren't remotely realistic. The coding needed to transmit this kind of rate over the air is extremely fragile, and as soon as you have more users sharing the air interface, or a real-world propagation path between the node B and your device, the system backs down to more robust, but slower, coding.

We are developing with LTE devices at work and even with a cabled RF connection they don't hit their promised bit rates. Take it out of a shielded chamber and you can see the performance hit straight away.

At least with a wired / fibre connection you have some level of dedicated throughput back into the core network.

Much of the driving force behind 4G is actually more efficient use of spectrum but, of course, to sell it, it has to be marketed as "up to <insert bull5h1t here>".

[Martian]

We have seen from 3G and so-called 3.5G than actaul in-use speeds are relatively poor compared to the marketing promises.

Yep. That's because the Marketeers promise the absolute best case theoretical speed possible, and it has become normal practice to quote speeds that aren't remotely realistic. The coding needed to transmit this kind of rate over the air is extremely fragile, and as soon as you have more users sharing the air interface, or a real-world propagation path between the node B and your device, the system backs down to more robust, but slower, coding.

We are developing with LTE devices at work and even with a cabled RF connection they don't hit their promised bit rates. Take it out of a shielded chamber and you can see the performance hit straight away.

At least with a wired / fibre connection you have some level of dedicated throughput back into the core network.

Much of the driving force behind 4G is actually more efficient use of spectrum but, of course, to sell it, it has to be marketed as "up to <insert bull5h1t here>".

Pretty much what the manufacturers of cheap amplifiers have been doing for years, so much so they even invented a whole new acronym known as PMPO in order to make the specs read impressively.
What I'd like to know is how those manufacturers arrive at the PMPO figure, because as far as I'm aware there isn't an agreed method of calculating it in the first place. Having said that, the brain of the average chav who buys in to that crap would probably go in to meltdown trying to understand the comprehension of true RMS, let alone having to cope with the task of doing the math to get the true figure 

[Rods2]

Chavtastic PMPO definition: Any peak power higher than this and the output transistors are toast. 

[Lampynoiseboy]

PMPO....... Ah yes, those 800w computer speakers that will produce that for about 3 nanoseconds before it catches fire faster than a powersounder

Code for RMS 4w

Tw8ts

Tbh i'd be more than happy with 40mb, as long as i can get it everywhere, i don't stream or dnld movies, at least not 'til i can afford my THX cinemascape tv