Lee

I for one would like to see ADSL pricey !

Reason being ? I have a webserver on a 2Mb line which costs bucketloads. How long will 2Mb of bandwidth last if I've got 20 people battering at it with ADSL ?

Worthless having a 2Mb download device if the server at the other end is lagged !

then again, from all the reports I've read, no-one will be getting the 2Mb down ho ho

Until the entire bandwidth industry becomes as cheap as the US there's no point.

Oh and btw its obvious why BT is stalling with ADSL - their ISDN product range becomes practically obsolete overnight...

SDB

Hi Lee

Don't worry, I'm sure everyone will use the new bandwidth respectfully and not just post controvertial messages on other peoples bulletin boards to save their own bandwidth

Seriously I think it will be a fabulous thing when BT finally gets their act together. For one, it'll sort the men from the boys. Also if hits increase, then so will advertising revenue, so if you've organised things correctly, it will only benefit the online industry and users alike.

At the end of the day, things move on, you either keep up or fall behind.

regards

Simon

DavidRB

Mmmmm, just think of all those insecure PCs with permanent IP addresses....

ChrisB

As a company we are paying out for a 2Mbps primary circuit with a 64k backup– our Internet connectivity costs in excess of £30,000 per annum. I have recently got prices to upgrade our backup circuit to 2Mbps or 8Mbps, thus giving us 4 or 10Mbps of resilient (two separate telco’s) bandwidth. God damn, 8Mbps is expensive – our ISP’s ‘list’ price on porting for 8Mbps of bandwidth per year is £96,000, with the circuit costing over £42,000 to rent!

Any road…..

I've been thinking about ADSL and high bandwidth connections. Lets say you run a web site and your home page is 30KB. Along comes Mr ISDN who get can a max of approx. 7 KB per sec but is more likely to be getting 5KB p/s (or less if he is on BT Internet!), whilst his friend Mrs ADSL can get say 30KB p/s (lots of people on her exchange). Our 2 Meg line at work can sustain about 230 KB per sec throughput.

Your page takes a shade over 6 seconds to come down for Mr ISDN. Along comes Mrs ADSL and bam, your home page is down in 1 second or less. Both users have downloaded the same amount of information though.

Mr ISDN used about 2% of the total bandwidth per second for 6 seconds, whereas Mrs ADSL used 12% of it for 1 second. So, in theory, if 40 to 50 people on ISDN hit our site at once, they would all download the home page in 6 seconds – lets call it 45 users ‘serviced’ in that those 6 seconds.

However, the ADSL folk will get it in 1 second, so in the 1st second 8 to 10 people get the page, in 2nd second a further 8 to 10 get the page and so on. In the 6 seconds 48 people would have download the page. We have serviced approx. the same number of people with a 2Mbps circuit.

Therefore, my theory is :

ISDN – Modem – Less of the bandwidth, longer download time
ADSL – More of the bandwidth, shorter download time

If lots of people download files from your server, then you may well have bandwidth problems though. I guess a lot of people are the same – they get a big *** Internet connection and download everything they can find. We certainly did – Microsoft’s download pages took a serious hammering as we pulled down every Service Pack we could find. Just looking at our firewall logs, our proxy service has transferred over 2.5GB of information in the last five days. After a certain point though, a fast connection becomes the ‘norm’, you only download what you need and the usage goes down.

BT are still dragging their heels upgrading exchanges outside the six major cities for ADSL, so thankfully problems aren’t going to arise overnight for providers. As Lee pointed out, the other issue is how much bandwidth BT or your provider has going out of the local exchange – the contention ratio is an important factor to look for on ADSL or very cheap leased lines. I remember reading during the ADSL trials in London, they were forever increasing the bandwidth out of the local exchanges.

However, today has given a hint of light to people paying for leased lines:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>UK telecoms watchdog Oftel has condemned BT for abusing its dominant position to keep wholesale leased line prices artificially high, a decision applauded by internet service providers and end users alike.

Anne Lambert, director of operations at Oftel, told silicon.com: "UK leased line prices are much higher than in the US and some European countries. In order to compete effectively we need to look at BT's pricing structure and bring the competition to a healthy level."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Chris L

I've posted on this before - but it is worth commenting on again. Contention ratios are the big thing with DSL connections (and for that matter cable modems).

The problem at the moment is that all ADSL traffic will flow into a BT exchange and through BTs DSLAM (DSL Access Multiplexor). It is only after this stage that the data will pass onto BTs backbone and from there onto your ISP. Contention occurs at the DSLAM and the performance you get will depend almost entirely on the amount of traffic entering the BT exchange (not your ISPs network).

ADSL is also distance dependent and can also be affected by the quality (and thickness) of the wiring. It is possible to get upto 8Meg, but I don't think BT will be allowing this!

If you want to use DSL for your business to replace a traditional leased line I would look at SDSL which all the major carriers will be offering.

BTs attitude has not been good (although you can understand why they are doing it) and you won't see change until 1 July 2001 when they lose their local loop monopoly (but it will take sometime for other companies to install their equipment in the exchanges).

ISDN and leased lines are two of the biggest cash cows that BT has (when you consider that we have some of the cheapest rates for LLs in Europe, it makes you wonder what the others are making out of it).

Don't be quick to dismiss ISDN either. Because of the performance issues with ADSL in the States, many former ISDN users have converted to IDSL (ISDN DSL) which can convert your existing ISDN line into a potential 144K leased (always-on) connection. IDSL works in a slightly different way and you are not sharing bandwidth in the same way that you are with ADSL. This means you can get a 'guarranteed' 144K connection - not bad when you consider that some ADSL customers in the States were getting better performance from their 56K analogue modems!

There are a still a lot of commercial uses for ISDN, in particular the D-Channel which gives you a small (upto 9.6K, the rest of the 16K is used for signalling info) always-on service - perfect for small transactions such as ATM machines and credit card authentication. My company is still doing a lot of business in this area (if you are curious have a look at our web site

ChrisB

That's interesting Chris L.

Do you know if BT have any roll out dates for AO ISDN?

My tenner says no.....

You done anything with e-mail over the D Channel?

Cheers,

Chris.

Lee

Excellent discussion and technical in nature (should have been on 22b after all hoho)

Chris, your maths seem fine to me, but the problem I have is that "more bandwidth" is required for "better websites" ie more use of sound, video etc. As such the size of a website will grow and put more demands on the line. Just like the Pentium CPUs were marketed at home users for a "more interactive experience", ADSL is being pushed as the doorway to a new generation of websites.

Easynet have an interesting read at

NetMetrics

Hmmmm, one thing people seem to not understand or am I wrong Is that your 512k download speed is purely from your ADSL TA to your local exchange. Your ISP may put a 8MB pipe to the exchange but if they only have a 4MB internet connection there will be a performance hit. Hence the reason why you will only have a internet IP address eg.(192.168.0.0) the provider will then be able to monitor away at your traffic and at a drop of the hat will be able to block certain ports and traffic to you.

Leased line prices are dropping, but not quick enough.

Phil

ChrisB

Hi Phil,

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Hmmmm, one thing people seem to not understand or am I wrong Is that your 512k download speed is purely from your ADSL TA to your local exchange. Your ISP may put a 8MB pipe to the exchange but if they only have a 4MB internet connection there will be a performance hit. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's my understanding of the term contention - how manys users are sharing a certain amount of bandwidth.

Correct me if I'm wrong though .

Cheers,

Chris.

Chris L

Chris B - yep that's contention (along with the DSLAM being able to process and pass the data efficiently).

Re AO-ISDN, BT do have a D channel service called ISDNconnect - this was designed and installed by Virtual Access. The size of the D Channel made available is upto the Telco, in many parts of Europe it runs at 9.6K, in the UK I believe BT run it at 2.4K. I'm not sure if BT have plans for IDSL - I suspect like you, that they probably won't do it.

It is perfectly fesable to use the D Channel to 'drip feed' emails and other feeds (such a stock prices etc). We do this with our routers (details on the website posted earlier). What you are talking about using is AODI - Always On Dynamic ISDN (not to be confused with IDSL). With AODI, you can use the D Channel to maintain a permanent connection and when required (for instance, starting a web browser or downloading a large file), the router will automatically switch to one or both of the ISDN B Channels - giving you a potential 128K bandwidth.

All things considered, DSL connections are the way things are going, it will just take a bit of time. Wait until VDSL (Very high bit rate DSL (upto 50-60 Meg!)) services begin rolling out and you will get video on-demand direct to your house!!

Cheers

Chris

SDB

Lee, you crack me up! Always the profit of doom.

I personally think it is a great idea. It is surely one of the first big steps towards the cheep bandwidth industry you mentioned earlier.

You say you don't understand why hits will increase, well think about it...

If you have a slow connection you are not going to try to download a 20MB file, if you have a HUGE connection you are much mnore likely to. That's one reason traffic will increase. Another way is the simple fact that browsing 10 pages of a site is likely to take less time that it currently does, so people will probably browse more simply because they can fit more into the same amount of free time.

regards

Simon

Blow Dog

I have had ADSL at home now for almost a year (I have been a BT trialist for a while now).
What started as a 2 mb line at £30 per month is now 512kb @ £50 per month. I will pay this and more to have this privilege of 24hour net access at high speed. I worry, though, that on the rollout of ADSL, the network that supports this will buckle under stress and even speeds of 512k would be rare during peak times. But for opinions on ADSL, it really is the next best thing since sliced bread.
Cem

adamson

From the above then, can I assume that the most appropriate upgrade path from a normal 56K modem connection would be firstly to ISDN, and then perhaps to ADSL, if and when it is fully rolled-out and stable?

NTL is my local cable company, but would prefer to use BT for ISDN/ADSL.

Many thanks in advance,

Craig.

adamson

Lee

Profit of doom here quite like that

I think you've hit a nail on its head Si. The fact that you *can* download 20MB without a care means you will be more likely to.

Consider all the videos on 22b.com. At present the server bandwidth isnt greatly affected cos pretty much everyone is between 4 and 8k a second. Mr AD Sel comes along and grabs a video. Even if he has a lowly 512Kb thats 64KB a second. 4 users downloading a video will maxx out a 2MB line.

OK, so the line is maxxed and any more users coming along just means that they start to all slow down which is fair enough, even dropping to 20K a second is great, but a poor ol geezer comes along with a modem and can't get a look in at the other websites that are on the server..thats bad..

As an ISP, what do you do ? Do you pay another 20K a year for some more bandwidth ? Doubt it. Instead you apply throttling to the big chunky video websites so they cannot grab more than say 10k a second.

End result = Mr AD Sel has a 512kb connection but is reduced to isdn speeds because the ISP has throttled it back.

Leased line prices need to drop substantially so ISP's can provide the service that ADSL users require.

So far all I can see is that ADSL is moving the bottleneck elsewhere...

Chris L

Craig

Depends on how you would want to connect to your client site, You could use a dial-up link (analogue or ISDN) to attach directly to the client (assuming they have some sort of remote access server). In this day and age you are more likely to connect to the client via the Internet using a secure (encrypted) VPN (Virtual Private Network) link. In this case, you could use either ISDN or ADSL - choice is yours.

As to what you buy - it really comes down to how much you want to pay and how long you expect to be connected to the web. In business terms it used to be that if you were connecting for more than 3 or 4 hours a day, it worked out cheaper to install a leased line rather than use ISDN2. Line charges have changed now so you might have to adjust these figures.

NTL like a many other carriers are ready to install their equipment in BTs exchanges - when they get the chance - then we will have true competition and the chance to measure performance and share the load over a number of networks, not just BTs.

At the moment BT say that they have had over 100,000 registrations for the ADSL service - assuming that a fair percentage of these install ADSL, that is going to take BT sometime to rollout. You might be best sticking with ISDN at the moment simply because it is widely available and it will be installed quicker than the ADSL service (you will be joining the back of the queue).

Chris

SDB

ROFL!

Lee

So what are you saying? That the technology should stay as it is and not progress so that people with the current technology will not be left behind?

Do you think that software developers should be forced to write software that will only run and a 386 so that people with fast machines don't have an advantage?

You started this off by saying "I for one would like to see ADSL pricey" and this statement was (as I understand it) to safeguard the bandwidth you can provide from your 2MB line.

I then questioned it and you said "I don't see why hits would increase simply because end user have more bandwidth ? " and said that your point was that the consumer would have a lessened service?!?!

I then said that it was because of the increassed likelihood of downloads / extra pages and you then agreed with me saying that the consumers increase in service is what would cause your site to have more hits!!!

What exactly is your point m8?

Cheers

Simon

Chris L

One other thing that the ISPs might do is introduce a 'download tax'. In other words, the ISP will log exactly how many megabytes of data you have downloaded in a month and then charge you for it. This would allow the ISP to lower the monthly charge and discourage people from downloading huge amounts of information and hogging all the bandwidth.

It has already be trialled in the States - don't be surprised if it is introduced here (especially if the ADSL service proves to be very popular).

Chris

Chris L

No problem Craig - I use Highway at the moment and its been very good. If you want a good ISP, try Freedom to Surf -

adamson

chris,

Thanks for that. I'm gonna go for BT Home Highway in the short term and then suck it and see from there.

I suppose the very first thing I have to do, is arrange a BT line ;-)

Cheers,

Craig.

adamson

Chris,

Thanks, again.

Cheers for the pointer to Freedom to Surf. As a matter of interest, are there any reliable ISP's providing internet access (via ISDN) on a 0800 number with a subscription charge?

I know AOL do but I believe you get tied in to their e-mail client.

Cheers,

Craig.

Lee

heh heh...

No, the technology should not stay the same, I have never said that. Faster = better in my books !

Comparing it to software developers writing code for old machines is unfair..software developers don't have to pay massive premiums for writing code for todays fast machines..anyways, software is a highly profitable industry, hosting is not.

My original statement is my point - I would like to see ADSL pricey. This would put it out of the reaches of joe public and thus "safeguard my bandwidth"

You are talking increased "hits" whereas I am talking increased "traffic". Not the same thing. My point was that mr AD Sel (who used to have a 56k modem and wouldnt dream of it) now decides he can easily download that 20MB video on his fast pipe. "Hits" to the site haven't changed (he's a regular ) but suddenly the traffic has increased through the roof.

In a summing up, my point is this : Unless the cost of leased lines falls dramatically the ISP's will not be able to provide the bandwidth the ADSL users require - they will apply throttling - and the end user loses out since he is paying a premium for fast access but cannot use it.

So in order to keep joe public away from ADSL I would like to see it pricey !

Do the maths on a like for like basis..ADSL bandwidth vs the ISP bandwidth...

Say you pay £40 a month for 512Kb download. 4 users = 2Mb download = £160 a month = £1920 a year.

You find me a company who will sell me a 2Mb line for £1920 a year and I'll shut up

LanCat

Having upgraded the pipe here from 64 to 128 to 512 to 2mb over the past few years one thing I can add is that usage will always tend to fill the pipe. More users with ADSL will increase hit's because their hour of surfing will deliver more data.

One possible answer for site hosts is to manage the bandwidth. We use packetshaper. That means you can limit the bandwidth for certain traffic types or sources.

So in your example, either limit traffic from a particular url or ftp or whatever to use a maximum of 64k on that video file and leave the remainder of the bandwidth for the rest of the users.

Chris L

Craig

You could check out F2S's website they do an 0800 access with an £8 monthly charge (I think dial-in is evenings and weekends only). All you need to do is provide them with the telephone number you will be dialing in from. Might be best to check that this will support ISDN dial-in though.

Lee

Nice idea, but ADSL is going to be for the masses. I know of one large ISP that already has 8 34 Meg bearer circuits from BTs ATM network just for ADSL traffic!!

Chris

simes

LanCat,

You basically covered what I wanted to say, which is can't you throttle your users?

I know I'd like to .

Cheers

Simon

LanCat

Sometimes the power I have just goes to my head :-)

BarryK

adamson

BT Internet Freecall. £9.99 pm. evenings to midnight and all weekend. ISDN connection is fine.

Jamie Watts

ADSL from BT, what a great idea, sounds wonderful.

Oh good I can set up my own server from home... WRONG!

BT in their infinite wisdom have decided that they will allocate dynamic IPs. This means you can't set up a server. So for c.£40/month all you get is a slightly faster Internet connection with BT as your ISP.

I think I'll wait for the service to be opened up to other providers who I am sure will have the sense not to opt for dynamic IPs.

Actually, I spoke to the BT helpdesk and they said "other providers who we can't mention will provide the srvice".

Well, we're so good at nearly getting it right in this country!!

I'm glad I got that off my chest. Sorry guys!

Lee

Easynet, inweb etc etc are offering a range of fixed ip addresses.

might be suitable for a small hobby server but not for a production machine. I would assume the range of ip's you will be given to be very limited - RIPE controls them after all and doesnt dish em out ***** nilly.

plus all the providers' pages I've read say you are "allowed" to run a server, but don't expect too much from the service.

Interestingly though, I've not seen a "fixed IP" scheme for anywhere near £40 a month.

adamson

I had a bad experience with Inweb about 18 months ago. I was taken in by their snazzy website and their [so-called] committment to customer service. I had to move my domain name away from them in the end (about 12 months into a 24 month signup!)

The problem? they wanted to charge me for every e-mail address on my own domain name, i.e. craig@, anne@, etc.. They even said they would match what other people were offering but reneged on this.

Towards the end they got outright abusive :-(

Craig.