Any ADSL for me?

How nice to be able to enjoy the benefits of 512k let alone 1mbs or even
2mbs! Is there any hope for the many like me who have been told they are
over the 60db noise level and not able to get ADSL, 62.3db to be exact? Any
truth in rumour about pushing it out even further from exchanges?
Many thanks,

John Lowe

"John Lowe" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:bn9f42$umfa3$(E-Mail Removed):

> How nice to be able to enjoy the benefits of 512k let alone 1mbs or
> even 2mbs! Is there any hope for the many like me who have been told
> they are over the 60db noise level and not able to get ADSL, 62.3db to
> be exact? Any truth in rumour about pushing it out even further from
> exchanges? Many thanks,
>
> John Lowe

i'm sure there will be some hope for people like us but i imagine it'll
be at least till after christmas. i find it hard to believe that bt will
just give up considering that plenty of urban areas can't get it, let
alone rural areas. maybe signal boosters in these areas may help.... i
dunno.

i must admit though, i do find it funny that some of the broadband
enabled community are starting to whine that they've been rejected or 1mb
or 2mb. the same people who tell people like ourselves to stop
complaining at BT are now doing the same themselves. oph, the irony.

people should be happy they can get at least get broadband.

> i must admit though, i do find it funny that some of the broadband
> enabled community are starting to whine that they've been rejected or 1mb
> or 2mb. the same people who tell people like ourselves to stop
> complaining at BT are now doing the same themselves. oph, the irony.

You'd be the same if you set your heart on it. And anyway, that's what
newsgroups are about - talking and talking usually involves opinions
(happy/not happy) In my case I applied for 1Mb and, in my opinion, I
believed that the tests ran by a BT engineer put me below the threshold for
the aforementioned 1Mb, is this unreasonable to ask the opinions of
others/facts? I don't believe in whining for no reason but if there is an
issue then discussion is a very healthy thing to do don't you think?

> people should be happy they can get at least get broadband.

I am (cautiously) happy - who says they won't turn round and say I can't get
a 512kb line neither? Would it be alright if I spoke up then? What do you
think?

Regards

Bartek

PS I guess what I'm trying to say is that its no use whinging, and its even
worse to whinge at the whingers who have nothing else to say than, you
guessed it: whinge whinge whinge. I'm with you on that one, hopefully not
sounding like I'm whinging without a cause

"Bartek" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:3f985cd4$(E-Mail Removed):

>> i must admit though, i do find it funny that some of the broadband
>> enabled community are starting to whine that they've been rejected or
>> 1mb or 2mb. the same people who tell people like ourselves to stop
>> complaining at BT are now doing the same themselves. oph, the irony.
>
> You'd be the same if you set your heart on it. And anyway, that's what
> newsgroups are about - talking and talking usually involves opinions
> (happy/not happy) In my case I applied for 1Mb and, in my opinion, I
> believed that the tests ran by a BT engineer put me below the
> threshold for the aforementioned 1Mb, is this unreasonable to ask the
> opinions of others/facts? I don't believe in whining for no reason but
> if there is an issue then discussion is a very healthy thing to do
> don't you think?
>
>> people should be happy they can get at least get broadband.
>
> I am (cautiously) happy - who says they won't turn round and say I
> can't get a 512kb line neither? Would it be alright if I spoke up
> then? What do you think?
>
> Regards
>
> Bartek
>
> PS I guess what I'm trying to say is that its no use whinging, and its
> even worse to whinge at the whingers who have nothing else to say
> than, you guessed it: whinge whinge whinge. I'm with you on that one,
> hopefully not sounding like I'm whinging without a cause
>

Bartek, I wasn't aiming my comment at you, so sorry if it sounded like
that.

What I was trying to say is that I see plenty of broadband enabled people
telling 56k people on NG's and forums to stop whining about why they can't
get broadband and more-or-less telling them "tough" when they ask why BT
won't do anything to help when they are well within 6km. OK we know it's
all about signal loss but a lot of people are asking why lines less than
5km are failing and getting no empathy when they complain about BT not
doing anything.

Now we are starting to see broadband enabled people getting knocked back
for 1mb or 2mb lines and they now are complaing at BT. Though I can
understand their feelings, I find it ironic considering it was OK for them
to have a go at 56k users for complaining earlier.

All I hope now is that plenty of people start to make a large enough voice
to get BT to listen and try to "upgrade" some of the blackspots that should
be able to receive the service but are not due to poor lines.

Regards.

i find it hard to believe that bt will
> just give up considering that plenty of urban areas can't get it, let
> alone rural areas. maybe signal boosters in these areas may help.... i
> dunno.

Think of it just like British Gas ....their pipe network does not go
everywhere, proving that it isn't economical to have everything available
everywhere ....

BT are no different ... Some rural exchanges serve about 200 people spread
across a fairly large geographical area, say 8km radius from exchange.

That¹s a lot of are for say, 50% take up - 100 people, and if the upgrade
costs £250,000 due to a new cable route needed for the 25 miles to the
nearest data node ..... Reality bites.

Graham in Melton <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:BBBEA3E7.1647D%(E-Mail Removed):

> Think of it just like British Gas ....their pipe network does not go
> everywhere, proving that it isn't economical to have everything
> available everywhere ....
>
> BT are no different ... Some rural exchanges serve about 200 people
> spread across a fairly large geographical area, say 8km radius from
> exchange.
>
> That¹s a lot of are for say, 50% take up - 100 people, and if the
> upgrade costs £250,000 due to a new cable route needed for the 25
> miles to the nearest data node ..... Reality bites.

Hi Graham

Thanks for your reply as you always give thoughtful and realistic
answers.

In my case the area where I live is very urban, about 20 miles away from
London. Now the engineer told me that ADSL reaches homes to the area to
the right of a main road near where I live, but homes to the left are
unable to receive it. The population in this area is probably more than
5000 so would you think BT may look at signal boosters or something like
that?

I think the problem we have is that our exchange feeds a very large area
and so explains why there are some large blackspots.

On 24 Oct 2003 14:02:03 GMT, steve <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> ...so would you think BT may look at signal boosters or something like
>that?
I have often wondered why signal boosters are not used. Is there a
technical reason?

Phil

On 25/10/03 11:39 am, in article (E-Mail Removed),
"Phil" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On 24 Oct 2003 14:02:03 GMT, steve <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> ...so would you think BT may look at signal boosters or something like
>> that?
> I have often wondered why signal boosters are not used. Is there a
> technical reason?

Yes - a very good one - they don't work with ADSL at all. You can't "boost"
a signal without boosting noise* , and at 60dB signal loss, you're already
well down into the noise margin.

* you can actually, but it costs hundreds of pounds per circuit, for a gain
controller with temperature and humidity control circuits. Basically - its
like trying to amplify one voice in a football stadium of 100,000 people all
shouting at once. The problem is not the boost, but the selectivity of one
from 100,000 is the real challenge.

In article <BBBEA3E7.1647D%(E-Mail Removed)>, Graham in Melton
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>i find it hard to believe that bt will
>> just give up considering that plenty of urban areas can't get it, let
>> alone rural areas. maybe signal boosters in these areas may help.... i
>> dunno.
>
>Think of it just like British Gas ....their pipe network does not go
>everywhere, proving that it isn't economical to have everything available
>everywhere ....

Er, up to a point (Lord Copper). BG is an even more arcane situation now
Transco is separate (so their source of payback is less certain).
I had the galling experience of getting a gas supply brought right up to
the outskirts of a small community in Gloucestershire (by Bristol Water
for their own use) and BG refusing to help take it the remaining 200
yards to 50+ customers, because they were about to have Transco
separated off.

/Random Leftie Musing/
There is _ social_ dimension to BB provision too, which can't be
reflected in your neo-brutalist economics, (and its inability to
tolerate cross-subsidy :-)). At the end of the day a responsible near-
monopoly will recognise this.
//

--
robert w hall

On 25/10/03 1:20 pm, in article rW+nNPATqmm$(E-Mail Removed),
"robert w hall" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> /Random Leftie Musing/
> There is _ social_ dimension to BB provision too, which can't be
> reflected in your neo-brutalist economics,

How very true ... But neo-brutalist economics are responsible for the stable
UK economy ... Buck this at your peril and severe cost

(and its inability to
> tolerate cross-subsidy :-))

I have no objection to any cross subsidy, as long as I'm not the one
subsidising someone else's idyllic rural life .... And so sayeth most city
dwellers

.. At the end of the day a responsible near-
> monopoly will recognise this.

How untrue .... Monopolies are, by their very nature, inefficient, expensive
and lacking in creativity/foresight. They always lag well behind the
economic and technical sectors by some decades.

Any "privately owned" monopoly would never do broadband in rural regions
unless either it were legally obliged (in which case it would go bankrupt)
and the markets would refuse to lend the money., or it made rural economies
pay the real cost - what's wrong with that ? Rural communities already get
£11Billion in EU subsidies on agriculture - and that¹s quite enough to pay
for rural broadband if the poor farmers didn¹t use it all up.

Or if "public sector" owned/managed, the economy would be in ruins with the
increase in taxation and rural communities couldn't afford the £150 per
month it would cost them to get online, due to lack of competition and the
public sectors complete inability to manage anything to time and cost. And
it wouldn't be DSL, it'd be something unique to the UK with probably only
one supplier, no alternatives and no chance of getting anything new in the
foreseeable future.

In fact, just like the GPO were, pre-privatisation, when it took 3 months to
get anew telephone.

Give me the uncaring economic case every time - greatest good for the
greatest population works. Bankrupting economies to serve a minority doesn't
as once you serve the minority, the money that subsidised them dries up even
quicker.