Tech journos are clueless

bealtine

http://www.yourtechstuff.com/techwire/2011/01/how-i-got-on-with-six-weeks-of-upcs-100mbs-broadband-service.html

Note the basic lack of comprehension of wifi:
"I did observe that the speed and signal strength fell off dramatically, if I was using the service over wi-fi. In the same room, the laptop clocked 60Mbs, a 40% fall-off (with about 5Mbs upload speeds). But two rooms away (about six yards), that fell to 30Mbs"

This is probably a common misapprehension of the basics of wifi but it is inexcusable for a technical journalists to not understand this...

watty

I believe the Pope might be Catholic.

PogMoThoin

No tests should ever be done on wifi, too many factors

Don't bother with this place of mis-information and political spin then so

lucernarian

I can't believe he doesn't know that wifi can't manage more than 54mbps, which is a very obviously printed speed on every 802.11G wifi router out there!

(In reality, that 54Mbps is more than halved due to how much is actually used for actual data traffic)

I honestly feel bad for him, there must be a lot of people out there who may not take him seriously with comments like that:o

bealtine

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

I can't believe he doesn't know that wifi can't manage more than 54mbps, which is a very obviously printed speed on every 802.11G wifi router out there!

Even if he was using an N router he would hardly get anything like the speeds advertised on the box:)

Lebow

Hi, Adrian Weckler here.

Sorry, must have neglected to mention that the router was 'N'. And that the the machines used were an iMac and a MacBook. Both new. Both 'N'.

Not sure why a service's wi-fi speed shouldn't be mentioned; vast majority of people out there would not know the fall-off using wireless.

Fair point to make for punters? If not, perhaps, for the experts here.

watty

Most of the time "N" is no faster than G. Only gives better speeds if there is only one client and it is also N and distance is short LOS.

Macs are less than 6% of Irish users.

Any test of Broadband more than 6Mbps should be on 100Mbps ethernet. Any test of more than 30Mbps Broadband needs 1Gbps ethernet verified to run at more than 300Mbps.

WiFi isn't part of ANY broadband service. That's a Router feature.

lynchie

Lebow wrote: »

Hi, Adrian Weckler here.

Sorry, must have neglected to mention that the router was 'N'. And that the the machines used were an iMac and a MacBook. Both new. Both 'N'.

Not sure why a service's wi-fi speed shouldn't be mentioned; vast majority of people out there would not know the fall-off using wireless.

Fair point to make for punters? If not, perhaps, for the experts here.

How can you be 100% sure the fall off was not due to interference?
How can you be sure that the iMac and MacBook are able to pull 100Mbs over their N connections? Have you got a router in the same room that was used as a baseline comparison for speed over the N connection to prove it was the UPC supplied router that was the cause of the drop off?

Lebow

Watty, Lynchie,

1. Using an ethernet cable, I got 108Mbs.
2. Plugging out the ethernet cable and using the wireless (N) router, I got 61Mbs.
3. Standing up and walking about 15 metres to a room across the house, it fell to 30Mbs. On the same laptop.

'6% of Irish users use Macs': that supposed to mean Macs can't get full speed? That would be strange, indeed.

Think it's not on to point out the big fall-off in speed over wifi to tech-novice punters?

Odd.

bealtine

Even though the router is rated at 300Mbps it is impossible to get anything approaching that speed with the router, the normal throughput for an N rounter is about 100Mbps in perfect conditions, that is physically just beside the router and being the only one using the router at the time. This is somewhat the same as the often quoted mobile phone data headline speeds. As you can see if the real throughput is about 100Mbs and you have 100Mbps broadband there's a bit of a bottleneck if there is any interference at all speeds will drop way below the 100Mbps so it will look like you are not getting full speed. The only way to realistically test 100Mbps broadband is with an ethernet cable.

While I think it is important to point out that speeds fall off the further you are away from the router, the impression you gave in the piece was that this somehow was the fault of UPC. Perhaps I've misread the piece or the intent of the piece.

watty

Lebow wrote: »

Watty, Lynchie,

1. Using an ethernet cable, I got 108Mbs.
2. Plugging out the ethernet cable and using the wireless (N) router, I got 61Mbs.
3. Standing up and walking about 15 metres to a room across the house, it fell to 30Mbs. On the same laptop.

'6% of Irish users use Macs': that supposed to mean Macs can't get full speed? That would be strange, indeed.

Think it's not on to point out the big fall-off in speed over wifi to tech-novice punters?

Odd.

You need to make it clear that the WiFi is NOTHING to do with the Broadband supplied. Either review WiFi products or Broadband products. Don't confuse people by mixing the two. Remarking that in general WiFi may only work to 20Mbps and depends on the Client Device more than the Airpoint in the Router, that for High Speed Broadband from any supplier, it's to support many users, multiple wifi points, or a single user via ethernet cable.

Macs are irrelevant to the Review as real broadband works with ANYTHING that has TCP/IP and Ethernet, and the vast majority of folk don't use a Mac. Are you reviewing Fast Broadband Product or a Mac? Focus. I can run 100Mbps Broadband on Windows For WorkGroups 3.11 with 133MHz Pentium I. To go faster I need 1Gbps cabled ethernet on P4 or better CPU.

Fast Broadband
The main value of any broadband more than about 6 or 7Mbps is to support Multiple users (5 to 6 Mbps per user) or ISP based IPTV/VOD. There are few websites that will download much more than about 4Mbps. There is little or no advantage to more than 5Mbps for Web browsing for a single user.

30Mbps will allow 5 or 6 people viewing YouTube at once. A 5Mbps connection is only good for 1 or 2 users watching Web Video.
Because of how WiFi works (no QOS usually), a single Airpoint is only really good for ONE true HD stream (i.e. from Bluray or Broadcast, not "fake" Web HD streaming") or 4 to 6 people watching Web video (Rte player, YouTube etc) if the Broadband is better than 30Mbps.

20Mbps or More Fast Broadband, especially 100Mbps is really only needed for Medium to large Business, bunch of Students/Adults or other heavy video/Download users.

The Data cap needs to be about 20Gbyte per 10Gbps of speed minimum (i.e. 200Gbyte for 100Mbps) for light users and 100 Gbyte per 10Mbps for heavy users (i.e. 1 Tbyte for 6 heavy users on 100Mbps or large Business).

Unless you have ISP permission and you are a security & IT guru, don't even think about "fast broadband" for self hosting. The speed is also usually the wrong way round. Use a Datacentre and the Fast Broadband for live SQL connection to Data centre if you need real time Hosting.

WiFi "Review"
Most gadgets with WiFi can't go much faster than 20Mbps. Many still only do 802.11b 11Mbps (less than 5Mbps duplex). If you have ONE device in use that is 802.11g (54Mbps) your WiFi is limited to about 22Mbps or less.

In our "normal" Semi-detached house we have 8Mbps Broadband.

But anything needing performance is on our 1Gbps switches (peak traffic of maybe 7Gbps if machines peering). It means LAN network gaming (all on ethernet cable) doesn't kill Broadband or Wifi. We have two wifi points to give coverage. One peaks at at about 40Mbps duplex (802.11a,b,g and turboG) and the other at about 20Mbps duplex (802.11b,g). Wifi speed drops rapidly with more users and range. So for 4 or 5 users having 2 x 802.11g (54Mbps) wifi points will work better than one 802.11n (250Mbps) WiFi point.

WiFi is almost always limited by the power, aerial, performance and WiFi version of the netbook, laptop or gadget rather than the Airpoint in the Router. Speed tends drop worse than 1/2 for doubling user numbers. Speed can be slightly less than 1/4 for doubling distance to Airpoint.

The "switch" (four ports usually) in a combo router/WiFi airpoint, or worse Modem/router/WiFi airpoint usually can't cope with much more traffic than the Boardband and WiFi. So we only use one port on the Router and use separate fully spec 1Gbps ethernet switch for all the ethernet cables and cable to second airpoint. Never use WiFi Repeaters, that makes speed drop to less than 1/2 and doubles latency, at best. Always cable airpoint WiFi back to the switch or Router.

lynchie

bealtine wrote: »

While I think it is important to point out that speeds fall off the further you are away from the router, the impression you gave in the piece was that this somehow was the fault of UPC. Perhaps I've misread the piece or the intent of the piece.

This was the impression I got from reading it too. One could argue that a non tech savy person might infer from the article that if they didn't get the full 100Mbps that it was UPC's fault and that they were not getting what the paid for etc. While I agree most people use the wireless features on their routers it is important for end users to know that any service being delivered by an ISP is only measured by the throughput delivered to the router and that wireless speeds are not guaranteed from router to their device.

Lebow

Watty,

Think there may still be a bit of confusion as to the context of the service and the review.

This is the service: UPC sells a broadband service advertised at 100Mbs. The service is the pipe and the hardware (not simply the pipe). The hardware includes the router, which is provided by UPC.

That is 'the service'. I reviewed 'the service'.

'The service' delivered over 100Mbs on ethernet and between 30Mbs to 60Mbs on wifi. Most people (believe it or not) would be unaware that broadband slows over wifi. I pointed this out. Specifically that it slowed by up to 70%.

I also pointed out that 30Mbs is still a good speed. But it is not 100Mbs. Whether 100Mbs is only needed by small business etc -- as you argue -- is totally beside the point. Either the service delivers 100Mbs or it does not. It does over ethernet. It does not over wifi.

It really is as simple as that.

I wrote:

"Don't get me wrong; 30Mbs is a great broadband connection. But it's a long way off 100Mbs. In fairness to UPC, broadband speeds always fall off a little over wi-fi. To me, 70 per cent seems like a lot, though."

Sorry, but that IS a lot. There are other routers that probably wouldn't have resulted in such a fall-off. But UPC supplied me (and others, presumably) with THAT router. Surely, then, it falls back on them? Even somewhat?

As for suggestions that I should make allowances that it is over a Mac that I am reviewing it, sorry; it really, really shouldn't make a jot whether it's a Mac or a PC. Broadband operators don't differentiate between the two when making speed claims. Neither will I in a review. (Besides, Macs are hardly inferior to PCs when it comes to fast broadband.)

Anyway, I'm sure we're all busy here. So back to work.

bealtine

Lebow wrote: »

Either the service delivers 100Mbs or it does not. It does over ethernet. It does not over wifi.

It really is as simple as that.

I wrote:

"Don't get me wrong; 30Mbs is a great broadband connection. But it's a long way off 100Mbs. In fairness to UPC, broadband speeds always fall off a little over wi-fi. To me, 70 per cent seems like a lot, though."

Well I see your point but that doesn't make it right:)

In fairness to UPC, no router will deliver 100Mbs no matter who supplies it...that's just a fact of life and the laws of physics.

Just like the nonsense that mobile phone companies use to sell their products
with their 7.2Mbs and so on speeds simply doesn't make it true.

Being surprised that wifi doesn't deliver 100Mbs throughput is the point at issue here and you should make that clear in your article.

watty

No-one anywhere can provide wifi that "really" does 100Mbps. 802.11n is 90% hype. Yes in conditions of perfect signal, no other WiFi nearby you can get about 125Mbps full duplex. In the real world the speed you got was very good. Your article and last post suggests a fundamental misunderstanding between what a Modem/Router is and ethernet on Cat5e and a WiFi Airpoint that happens to be built-in to the Router/Modem and internally "bridged" to the internal switch.

Re-read what I said about WiFi above. WiFi is not the product or Service. WiFi can't replace wired ethernet. If you have 10 users on 802.11n 250Mbps WiFi, they will likely get lower speeds than 10 users with 10Mbps Ethernet on Cat5 to a Switch. The Switch will handle 100Mbps, or 1Gbps (or even 10GBbits of peering traffic) if it's a 16 port 10/100/1000 Ethernet Switch with 10 users.

I'm sure if you use 3 other WiFi Points cabled to the Router, the Router/Modem will provide the full 108Mbps total to 4 users, an average of 25 Mbps per user or WiFi point. It's not reasonable to expect better than that.

Our Server can manage a sustained 350Mbps file transfer to one of our Workstations. I doubt you can sustain more than 30Mbps typically on 802.11n WiFi, getting 60Mbps would suggest sitting within cable distance of the Airpoint /Router and no-one else on WiFi. In really really perfect conditions, yes you can get higher on 802.11n. But it's not very common, especially if any other ISM band equipment. Since 2009 the 5.8GHz Video Senders legal. So you are competing with other WiFi points and 2.4GHz or 5.8GHz "stuff". 802.11g uses 1/3rd roughly of the 2.4GHz channels to get 54Mbps or 108Mbps. The 802.11n on 2.4G tries to use all the channels to get the speed.

Don't confuse WiFi with Ethernet or Routers or Broadband.

Lebow

Look, here's the actual service info: http://www.upc.ie/broadband/hundred/

Check the literature. Check the conditions. Check everything about it.

Now show it to someone who doesn't have major tech nous (90% of the country.). Ask them whether they think the service they're reading about means 100Mbs broadband over wireless, too.

If they genuinely walk away with the impression that you're suggesting -- that wifi and the router is clearly something separate to the service they're reading about and that 100mbs over wifi is clearly not what's intended -- then I'm wrong and the article was misguidedly crafted.

Fair enough?

bealtine

Lebow wrote: »

Now show it to someone who doesn't have major tech nous (90% of the country.). Ask them whether they think the service they're reading about means 100Mbs broadband over wireless, too.

Right that is the impression given.Blame marketing departments.

100mbs over wifi is clearly not what's intended -- then I'm wrong and the article was misguidedly crafted.

That's the whole point of the thread.

Lebow

Selective/misleading portion of a quote, there. Show the whole quote for true context.

bealtine

Lebow wrote: »

Selective/misleading portion of a quote, there. Show the whole quote for true context.

Seems to be little point in pointing out the obvious yet again, simply because you don't want to listen. So thread closed as far as I'm concerned.

whadafook

A wireless router is provided to allow a user connect to the service. It is not part of the service. If you call UPC with an issue relating to speed the first thing you'll be asled to do is connect directly to the router via Ethernet.

PogMoThoin

whadafook wrote: »

A wireless router is provided to allow a user connect to the service. It is not part of the service. If you call UPC with an issue relating to speed the first thing you'll be asled to do is connect directly to the router via Ethernet.

As do Eircom or any other provider, even on a 1 Mbit package they demand You use ethernet.

I don't see where that service info is misleading, they're not advertising wireless as part of the service. The only mention to wireless is that a free wireless router is provided

Cabaal

PogMoThoin wrote: »

As do Eircom or any other provider, even on a 1 Mbit package they demand You use ethernet.

and only right,
Far too often have I come across users complaining of slow speeds and after looking into it to find it was an issue with wireless, ethernet is the only way to be sure

I don't see where that service info is misleading, they're not advertising wireless as part of the service. The only mention to wireless is that a free wireless router is provided

Agreed, if people assume that UPC are some how responsiblefor all the enviromental variables (interference with wifi) and PC configuration/hardware issues in their home affecting UPC's actual provided speed then thats the users fault.

If it works properly over ethernet then UPC have provided the service as is and its not their fault if the user assumes incorrectly.

cgarvey

I take it that it's this thread that warranted the

http://twitter.com/adrianweckler/status/28018267905851392 wrote:

"Ireland Offline used to be a respected, serious lobby group. What happened?"

tweet?

UPC's marketing of WiFi with this service is ill-advised, but not explaining the blame apportioned to UPC for WiFi's failure is irresponsible to the non-tech-savvy.

bealtine

cgarvey wrote: »

I take it that it's this thread that warranted the tweet?

UPC's marketing of WiFi with this service is ill-advised, but not explaining the blame apportioned to UPC for WiFi's failure is irresponsible to the non-tech-savvy.

I suppose that's what you get when you let a lawyer review technical things.
We need more engineers to convert to journalism so the issues can be clearly
communicated to the masses...

Lebow

Eamonn,

Which "lawyer" are you referring to?

Adrian

bealtine

Lebow wrote: »

Eamonn,

Which "lawyer" are you referring to?

Adrian

My point is clear we need more journalists from a technical background, especially those that review technical subjects, that can understand the issues and clearly communicate those issues to the public.

Lebow

Yes, but who is the "lawyer" you were referring to?

bealtine

Lebow wrote: »

Yes

If you agree with my premise what do you plan to do about it?

Lebow

bealtine wrote: »

I suppose that's what you get when you let a lawyer review technical things.
We need more engineers to convert to journalism so the issues can be clearly
communicated to the masses...

Er, stop being a "lawyer"? (Which I'm not: where did you dig that one up (genuinely curious)? And are you going to acknowledge that?)

Lebow

bealtine wrote: »

If you agree with my premise what do you plan to do about it?

On this point, nothing. I don't write articles for a Slashdot market. I write for a mainstream, mass-market audience. And mainstream readers of a mainstream publication don't understand that a broadband provider doesn't take responsibility for the kit they put into a house. (Even if you think this is for 'clueless' people.)

watty

Then explain they are only providing a connection
Explain that 20 Mbps to 100Mbps is for more than one person
Explain that true IPTV/VOD isn't ever over the Public Internet (that's only Web TV, different thing) but only from the ISP.
Explain what WiFi is for and the inherent limitations of WiFi.

Talk about and relate the data caps to the Real world usage.

Explain why 20Mbps to 100Mbps makes no difference for web browsing unless a lot more than one person using it.

Your article didn't explain anything. An arts student given 100Mbps for an afternoon could have written it.

BTW I read slashgear and engadget. Mostly that's gadget drool and no journalism, no research, facile and shallow. In fact I used to read gizmodo too. All you needed for your article to fit right in at gizmodo was a NSFW link and a few Apple product references.

bealtine

Lebow wrote: »

On this point, nothing. I don't write articles for a Slashdot market. I write for a mainstream, mass-market audience.

Then you have a responsibility to be technically accurate.
We are offering to peer-review your articles in the interest
of technical accuracy.
Your job is "words" we won't tell you how to do that part
as that would be very presumptuous of us, we can however
check the technical accuracy of the articles.

Lebow

bealtine wrote: »

Then you have a responsibility to be technically accurate.
We are offering to peer-review your articles in the interest
of technical accuracy.
Your job is "words" we won't tell you how to do that part
as that would be very presumptuous of us, we can however
check the technical accuracy of the articles.

Thanks for that.

At the risk of this becoming a Paxman/Howard theme, why did you refer to me as a "lawyer"?

Lebow

watty wrote: »

Then explain they are only providing a connection
Explain that 20 Mbps to 100Mbps is for more than one person
Explain that true IPTV/VOD isn't ever over the Public Internet (that's only Web TV, different thing) but only from the ISP.
Explain what WiFi is for and the inherent limitations of WiFi.

Talk about and relate the data caps to the Real world usage.

Explain why 20Mbps to 100Mbps makes no difference for web browsing unless a lot more than one person using it.

Your article didn't explain anything. An arts student given 100Mbps for an afternoon could have written it.

BTW I read slashgear and engadget. Mostly that's gadget drool and no journalism, no research, facile and shallow. In fact I used to read gizmodo too. All you needed for your article to fit right in at gizmodo was a NSFW link and a few Apple product references.

Michael, thanks for the advice.

With respect, non-Slashgear readers are far more interested in knowing what speed they will actually get. And whether that matches their expectations of the service's advertising/promises.

watty

Well, you explained nothing about the speed.

I'm no writer but I showed the article to non-technical people and they could not see the point of it.

Lebow

watty wrote: »

Well, you explained nothing about the speed.

I'm no writer but I showed the article to non-technical people and they could not see the point of it.

Right. In future I'll write articles for non-technical people (like your friend) that read thus :

"Anything needing performance is on our 1Gbps switches (peak traffic of maybe 7Gbps if machines peering). It means LAN network gaming (all on ethernet cable) doesn't kill Broadband or Wifi. We have two wifi points to give coverage. One peaks at at about 40Mbps duplex (802.11a,b,g and turboG) and the other at about 20Mbps duplex (802.11b,g). Wifi speed drops rapidly with more users and range. So for 4 or 5 users having 2 x 802.11g (54Mbps) wifi points will work better than one 802.11n (250Mbps) WiFi point.
WiFi is almost always limited by the power, aerial, performance and WiFi version of the netbook, laptop or gadget rather than the Airpoint in the Router. Speed tends drop worse than 1/2 for doubling user numbers. Speed can be slightly less than 1/4 for doubling distance to Airpoint.
The "switch" (four ports usually) in a combo router/WiFi airpoint, or worse Modem/router/WiFi airpoint usually can't cope with much more traffic than the Boardband and WiFi. So we only use one port on the Router and use separate fully spec 1Gbps ethernet switch for all the ethernet cables and cable to second airpoint. Never use WiFi Repeaters, that makes speed drop to less than 1/2 and doubles latency, at best. Always cable airpoint WiFi back to the switch or Router."

Thanks for the advice.

All the best.

lucernarian

Lebow wrote: »

Right. In future I'll write articles for non-technical people (like your friend) that read thus :

"Anything needing performance is on our 1Gbps switches (peak traffic of maybe 7Gbps if machines peering). It means LAN network gaming (all on ethernet cable) doesn't kill Broadband or Wifi. We have two wifi points to give coverage. One peaks at at about 40Mbps duplex (802.11a,b,g and turboG) and the other at about 20Mbps duplex (802.11b,g). Wifi speed drops rapidly with more users and range. So for 4 or 5 users having 2 x 802.11g (54Mbps) wifi points will work better than one 802.11n (250Mbps) WiFi point.
WiFi is almost always limited by the power, aerial, performance and WiFi version of the netbook, laptop or gadget rather than the Airpoint in the Router. Speed tends drop worse than 1/2 for doubling user numbers. Speed can be slightly less than 1/4 for doubling distance to Airpoint.
The "switch" (four ports usually) in a combo router/WiFi airpoint, or worse Modem/router/WiFi airpoint usually can't cope with much more traffic than the Boardband and WiFi. So we only use one port on the Router and use separate fully spec 1Gbps ethernet switch for all the ethernet cables and cable to second airpoint. Never use WiFi Repeaters, that makes speed drop to less than 1/2 and doubles latency, at best. Always cable airpoint WiFi back to the switch or Router."

Thanks for the advice.

All the best.

That is very facetious. This shouldn't warrant major discussion, I think most people in this thread would appreciate that you clarified why you experienced lower speeds on wifi. That it's due to the limitations of wifi and that using ethernet cables provide higher speeds. It doesn't require someone to go into nerd-speak. Can't you accept this?

jmcc

A fascinating thread but at least to give Adrian credit where it is due, he is interacting with his readers. Bandwidth and throughput tend to be fertile ground for advertising people to make claims that the technology just cannot sustain.

The SBP technology supplement's readers are not generally what could be described as techologically clueful and the articles tend to be pitched accordingly. Product pimping is a big part of what passes for "technology" journalism in the mainstream Irish media. It irritates the hell out of people who really know the technology. Microwave RF engineering is known as a Black Art in engineering for a reason and beyond the basics, expecting a non-technical reader, or indeed the average technology journalist (who often does not have any technological expertise to draw upon) to understand it can be a bit much. And it would probably be overkill for the SBP's readers.

Regards...jmcc

watty

A simple

"WiFi from any manufacturer can't be relied on to deliver more than 20Mbps despite claims of 250Mbps to 300Mbps for 802.11n WiFi (Wireless N). Thus to fully utilise 30Mbps to 100Mbps Broadband you need to use cabled ethernet or multiple WiFi Points shared to 4 to 20 people rather than WiFi for one or two people from a single point"

He's the tech writer. It's up to him to make it clear to the non-technical person, or else it useless.

Also nowhere does the article point out clearly(it's alluded to) that 100Mbps for "typical" Internet usage for a Single person is pointless.

There is no clear reference that 100Mbps is either for someplace with 4 or 5 WiFi points and maybe 10 to 20 users, or for specialist applications for which 30Mbps isn't suitable, and that in fact for "ordinary" single user 6Mbps to 10Mbps is the point where everything seems "Zippy" and for a single ordinary user Increasing the 6Mbps to 100Mbps will make little or no difference to Email, Web Browsing, Downloads and Web Video since most of these are limited to 3Mbps to 5Mbps per client.

Only "impressions" are
1) The service does what is claimed on a cable
2) UPC's WiFi is rubbish (without explaining that no WiFi supplied by anyone is reasonabley expected to be better and that WiFi isn't part of Broadband Service)
3) He has no clue what 100Mbps is for.

I agree the article needs to be non-technical. The whole point of a Technical Journalist* Technology Journalist is to have the skill to de-mystify and explain the important issues for non-technical people. The article as it stands could have been written by any random Journalist after one evening use and no research.

There is a reason I don't write for Newspapers. I've written huge quantities of stuff for Engineering and Technical Mangers, Feasibility studies, Tenders that are lamost judged by weight. So I'd not easily write for non-technical people. www.saortv.info is my attempt at it and I'd love it to be re-written by any competent writer. It's still too technical.


[Technical Journalist* someone writing for technical people in Tech Journal
Technology Journalist is someone writing in ordinary media for ordinary non-technical person. If they don't demystify or explain you might as well print press statements framed by random writer with no technical understanding]

jmcc

watty wrote: »

A simple

"WiFi from any manufacturer can't be relied on to deliver more than 20Mbps despite claims of 250Mbps to 300Mbps for 802.11n WiFi (Wireless N). Thus to fully utilise 30Mbps to 100Mbps Broadband you need to use cabled ethernet or multiple WiFi Points shared to 4 to 20 people rather than WiFi for one or two people from a single point"

He's the tech writer. It's up to him to make it clear to the non-technical person, or else it useless.

I agree on this but Adrian is a technology journalist rather than a tech writer.

Only "impressions" are
1) The service does what is claimed on a cable
2) UPC's WiFi is rubbish (without explaining that no WiFi supplied by anyone is reasonabley expected to be better and that WiFi isn't part of Broadband Service)
3) He has no clue what 100Mbps is for.

Most people wouldn't know what to do with 100Mbs. The only thing that matters is that it allows them to download movies faster etc.

I agree the article needs to be non-technical. The whole point of a Technical Journalist is to have the skill to de-mystify and explain the important issues for non-technical people. The article as it stands could have been written by any random Journalist after one evening use and no research.

The difference between a Technical Journalist and a Technology Journalist is the knowledge of technology. The Technical Journalist typically has a background in technology that allows them to explain the technology and concepts simply (where possible). It is the expectation that Technology Journalists would have this depth of knowledge and expertise that causes the problem for those in the industry.

There is a reason I don't write for Newspapers. I've written huge quantities of stuff for Engineering and Technical Mangers, Feasibility studies, Tenders that are lamost judged by weight. So I'd not easily write for non-technical people. www.saortv.info is my attempt at it and I'd love it to be re-written by any competent writer. It's still too technical.

Perhaps yourself and Adrian could cooperate for a few articles in the SBP as Digital TV is going to be a big thing over the next year or so. (Akin to satellite TV in the 1990s and colour TV before that.) It would be good to get a series of articles on the subject that are both technologically accurate and highly readable.

Regards...jmcc

watty

jmcc wrote: »

Most people wouldn't know what to do with 100Mbs. The only thing that matters is that it allows them to download movies faster etc.

In most cases, not any faster than 2Mbps to 15Mbps from a single site, depending on site. It will only let you download "faster" than 10Mbps Broadband if you are downloading 10 things at once from different sites.

Torrents is a more complex issue.


I've edited my earlier comment.

I've collaborated with journalists before. Though none claimed to be Technology Journalists or Technical Journalists. It's a lot of time and effort. In the future I think I'd want to be paid and credited.