Possibly a FAQ... but not one I can find...

I've embarked on an experimental project which involves serving
web-like content over TCP to remote users. I've been completely happy
with plain dialup access for my ordinary net access, but realise that
this will be insufficient if I plan to be able to serve several remote
users concurrently. I will require additional bandwidth and will
benefit from an always-on connection.

I have two concerns: First technical – which form of broadband service
will give me best value for money for upstream traffic? Second,
contractual – if I were to chose a broadband service targeted for
client use will broadband suppliers forbid use of the connection to
serve content? [In case anyone wonders, this isn't a
piracy/file-sharing or otherwise illegal idea...!]

Can anyone suggest suitable suppliers if I state that my most pressing
concerns are overall cost, availability of upstream bandwidth, low
latency and high availability (in that order)?

Steve
(P.S. I'm asking from a UK-centric perspective...)

Steve asked:
>Can anyone suggest suitable suppliers if I state that my most pressing
>concerns are overall cost, availability of upstream bandwidth, low
>latency and high availability (in that order)?

What you need is SDSL, (that is Symmetrical DSL, meaning the upload speed is
equal to download speed)
which is readily available business orientated service (meaning not cheap!).
Look up providers on adslgiude.org.uk, there is dozens to choose from.
Regards,
Martin

"Martin" wrote:
> What you need is SDSL, (that is Symmetrical DSL, meaning the upload speed is
> equal to download speed) which is readily available business orientated
> service (meaning not cheap!). Look up providers on adslgiude.org.uk,
> there is dozens to choose from.

While clear to me that a symmetric service is technically appropriate
for my purposes, it's not obvious to me that it offers the best value
for money. Consider these three services - admittedly with differing
issues of contention)

Eclipse 256Kbps SDL £350+£99*12 => £1536.00
256Kbps up 256Kbps down (Probably low contention.)

Telewest 1Mb Cable: $75+£35*12 =>£495
256Kbps up, 1Mbps down (contention probably higher.)

ADSL: £50 + £19*12 =>£278
256Kbps up, 512Kbsp down (50:1 contention)

SDL will cost me almost 5 times ADSL, yet offers the same maximum
upstream bandwidth. My instinct suggests that downstream bandwidth
will be most affected by high contention - which makes ADSL/Cable look
attractive... particularly as this is a private trial without
commercial funding. Should I expect similar performance with each of
these offerings, or will I find my typical upstream bandwidth
significantly lower with the cheaper services?

Martin Cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> I can only speak for ADSL, as that is the only service I have tried. But I
> have never had a problem getting the full 256k upstream through the
> connection, and generally, your point about the contention occuring
> downstream rather than upstream seems to be correct. Also, if you really
> need higher upstream bandwidth, you could always purchase 2 ADSL links, and
> bonmd the uplink using a firebrick or similar. This would still be
> significantly cheaper than SDSL and would allow you to have 512k upstream.

Maybe... but I'm still unsure.

I remain ill informed about the typical UK terms of service, making me
hesitant to say that ADSL is appropriate.

I don't think your idea of bonding a pair of ADSL links would work
very well - I suspect that they would be in the same contention block
- hence negating the majority of the potential benefits - but I'm not
well informed on this matter either.

(E-Mail Removed) (Steve H) wrote:

> Martin Cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > I can only speak for ADSL, as that is the only service I have tried.
But I
> > have never had a problem getting the full 256k upstream through the
> > connection, and generally, your point about the contention occuring
> > downstream rather than upstream seems to be correct. Also, if you
really
> > need higher upstream bandwidth, you could always purchase 2 ADSL links,
and
> > bonmd the uplink using a firebrick or similar. This would still be
> > significantly cheaper than SDSL and would allow you to have 512k
upstream.
>
> Maybe... but I'm still unsure.
>
> I remain ill informed about the typical UK terms of service, making me
> hesitant to say that ADSL is appropriate.
>
> I don't think your idea of bonding a pair of ADSL links would work
> very well - I suspect that they would be in the same contention block
> - hence negating the majority of the potential benefits - but I'm not
> well informed on this matter either.
>

Hi,
if you bonded 2 X 256K lines, you would still have the full 512K. The
general thing about ADSL is that very few people use much of the upload
capacity of the link, so contention would be unlikely to affect the uplink
anyway. I know that at least AAISP offer this as an option, there my be
others. The normal implementation is to have a 512K office package (ie. on
the 20:1 contention) and a 512K home link as backup (on the 50:1
contention). The thing about implementing it this way is that different
DSLAM's are used at the exchange for the 20:1 and 50:1 links, so you also
gain resilience.

Take a look at this thread http://tinyurl.com/irzs for a discussion of this
method by several people that are using it to get a faster uplink.

--

Martin