http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/10/ntl_trial/

Other countries have for years been running 100Mbit SDSL
for about 30 quid a month and its good to see at least one
UK outfit going 100Mbit even if its only a technologically
inferior ADSL only type of dis-service.

In article <6SzHf.18802$wl.16758@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
website_has_email@www.enemygadgets.com says...
References?

--
Mugwump

Reply to 'usenetmail{at}discworld{dot}org{dot}uk

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 08:01:38 +0000, Mugwump wrote:

Its 7's pet subject, anytime now it will be a tirade against BT.

Dave

"7" <website_has_email@www.enemygadgets.com> wrote in message
news:6SzHf.18802$wl.16758@text.news.blueyonder.co. uk...
It isn't ADSL.

Alastair wrote:

Doh! Who said it was?
Its not SDSL - i.e. equal upload and download bit rate.
Its ADSL type - i.e. low upload bit rate compared to download bit rate.

Dave Stanton wrote:

Hmm...
Thanks for reminding me.... to remind fsck wits at BT$ sales nuts
astroturfing here that they are tiresome ding dongs that should fall on
their own swords whenever they are caught with their panties down on issues
like offering capped dis-service when capping equipment costs more than
uncapped service, failing to offer low cost cheaper SDSL than ADSL
by bundling unwanted SLA, or failing offer speed in line with global norms.

To previous poster, I meant to say 100Mbit has been available for years
in many countries like Japan, Korea etc for 30 quid a month
and that 100Mbit SDSL had been rolled out in USA for many months for about
same price as ADSL. You can google.

7 wrote:

A Hong Kong cable service was the first one I'd heard of, in
the second half of last year. If you claim a number of other
countries have been ofering this for years, some URLs of their
service providers would show it was the case. No URLs and this
looks like more of your old ramblings. Peter Morgan.

"Peter M" <us-mail@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:43ef05eb$0$6976$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
Dubai have had 100M Ethernet for years.
I worked for the company that planned and installed it.

I don't know of many others where the network can actually deliver 100M even
though the technologies allow it.
Iceland probably can but its been a while since I saw any network diagrams
for that country.

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 08:52:25 GMT, 7
<website_has_email@www.enemygadgets.com> wrote:

7

Irealise that assisted suicide is illegal in this country, but I'd be
willing to take the risk in your case.

dennis@home wrote:

Thanks for that. Wonder what users pay ... vaguely remember
some of the oil-rich nations had all local phone calls free,
and internet services might be subsidised, too.

From memory, on the HK cable service, only local connections
can be up to 100 Mbps, with international connections limited
to 20 Mbps. Many LANs have worked well for years at 10 Mbps,
and one reason for switching to 100 Mbps these days would be
the cost and availability of kit running at 10/100 while 10
Mbps kit is now getting to be the exception!

It's all very well to have 10 Mpbs or higher, but I see hardly
any point in expecting much higher speeds from some remote web
server, because while the NTLs and others offer a fast link to
their network, plenty of web farms still offer services based
on 2 Mbps burst speed, and even with dedicated servers, just
10 Mbps per server card, so their networks aren't flooded!

The quest for speed is fun, but has limited need, or use, for
now, and perhaps for a while to come, IMO. Peter M.

"dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote in message
news:_PDHf.18852$wl.7951@text.news.blueyonder.co.u k...
I worked for the Etisalat on their mobile phone network and
infrastructure.... ahh those were the days, easy money and lots of it
))

I only know of a couple of places were it actually works, but they used
"ibre to the home"... which is kinda cheating ;o)

Peter M wrote:

You seem to be falling into the trap of presuming that all people ever do
with an internet connection is browse websites, all hosted in data centres.

For example, if one had two offices, linked by 100mbit Cable, and one ran a
VPN over it, NTLs network would effectively become one's own network. Which
would be very cool.

--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (gebssnfxl@ubgznvy.pbz)
11:19:18 up 17 days, 15:37, 3 users, load average: 0.79, 1.19, 0.79
This is my BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMSTICK

Peter M <us-mail@rocketmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
Nope.
If 'proper' 100Mbps connections were widely available, then the first
application that went on it for me would be a mirroring app, to keep
live disk backups, and to enable all but one of a mirrored disk to
be spun down.

Not to mention 2Mbps webcam streams, ...

"Peter M" <us-mail@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:43ef1090$0$6958$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
Like er Hong Kong... where local calls were free for decades.

Presumably this is a throughput class restriction to provide diversity on
external links.

chappycheeky wrote:


Alright, go ahead and jump you fool!

We will clap thoughtfully on your behalf.

Thats assistance enough for you I hope?

Peter M wrote:


That just summarized what little you know about internet.
The biggest 'provider' of content are not web servers or
indeed any centralized server based product of any kind.
Despite explosive growth, server traffice has largely
been superceeded by peering traffic. 100Mbit would greatly
speed up peering. The very same thing that pusnets of this
world are trying to deny to internet users with keyhole links
from their buildings and illegally named and sold capped services.

"Gizmo" <Gizmo@home.now> wrote in message
newspmdnTHBBpZdiXLeRVnyig@giganews.com...

from doing so as it would have made the cable operators uncompetitive.

"dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote in message
news:%YHHf.18973$wl.14636@text.news.blueyonder.co. uk...
I think you missed my smiley " ;o) "

"Gizmo" <Gizmo@home.now> wrote in message
news:fN6dnfFaHYe25nLeRVnytw@giganews.com...

I thought that was a fragment of code attached to your message.
Its easy to pass encrypted messages by dispersing them through posts.
IMO it explains the big rise in what looks like txt spk in usenet messages.
I mean people that are that thick wouldn't be able to post to usenet in the
first place would they? ;-)

In article <1869131.84kkIDJNOq@ale.cx>, look@my.sig (alexd) wrote:

Indeed. I run an internal 100Mbps network, as does a friend. We VPN to
each other, since I have a terabit drive here. But we're currently
limited to 256Kbps VPN transfers...

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981