Upload speeds- Ever going to increase?

CrimE

Just a quick question,

Does anyone have any idea if Eircom/ BT will ever upgrade their standard upload speeds past 128 to possibly 256? Anyone know if they have any plans to upgrade or if not do you think they will anytime soon?

Cheers lads, CrimE.

Sponge Bob

BTs 'own' DSL (where they control the kit in 40 exchanges nationwide) is 256k up IIRC. BT were considering a gamer special last year in conjunction with MS/Xbox users .

Smart have tested 256k up with some users on one or two of their exchanges with short line lengths in Dublin , the users are under NDA and not allowed discuss it in here (particularly in here ...even )

Eircom control the rest of the DSL installs and will not move . We only got the faster downloads because Smart rattled them in February .

Smart have nothing to lose at this stage bring out a gamer special with Interleaving Tweaks and 256k up , €49 a month and a dedicated tech support would be good. Sponsor a clan or two ....but not in Galway where they will all shoot each other first ....... and get some good vibes going in the power user space.

mp3guy

Just wondering, for what reason would eircom have to not upgrade the upload?

Sponge Bob

They feel they are not under pressure to do so unless LLU becomes a threat.

mp3guy

Llu?

Sponge Bob

mp3guy wrote:

Llu?

Oh Dear Dear .

Anyway, here is a list of the BT Business Packages which are supplied over an LLU line , anyone can get them not just businesses

SDSL 2048 kbps/2048 kbps
SDSL 1024 kbps/1024 kbps
ADSL 2 Mbps/256 kbps
SDSL 512 kbps/512 kbps
ADSL 1 Mbps/256 kbps
ADSL 512 kbps/256 kbps
SDSL 256 kbps/256 kbps

The cheapest (below) is €55 a month with no cap. Available from 40 exchanges only, Smart will generally cover the exact same exchanges in the 5 Biggest Cities by the way which may energise BT , dunno.

ADSL 1 Mbps/256 kbps

bk

mp3guy wrote:

Just wondering, for what reason would eircom have to not upgrade the upload?

Because a higher upload speed would make it more feasible for people to use VoIP, which Eircom are against.

Gonzo

well the next upgrade from eircom hopefully should come on its yearly target of around next march/april sometime and im really hoping that rather than another download speed upgrade or cap increase that instead they give us that 256k or better upload speed increase. our current download speeds at 1mb & 2mb for the home user are finally ok and im happy enough with those speeds and the eircom cap isnt as big a problem as it was in the past when we only had 4gig/8gig but with those improvements its now the 128k upload thats a real problem,

I find that in online games were there is alot of activity on larger servers that the pings generally go higher on mine than on a uk persons account with a higher upload, when the activities die down my ping goes back to being same as any uk person. I would assume that with a higher upload speed from eircom that my ping would remain around the same all the time (lower in general).

Also sending emails on 128k is a joke its so slow... having a lovely 2mb line is great but then the 128k upload really feels awfull and kills the feeling of broadband.

GarfieldConnoll

bk wrote:

Because a higher upload speed would make it more feasible for people to use VoIP, which Eircom are against.

Once of the principal reasons that we haven't gone to a default 256k upload is peer to peer traffic.

We've a customer that's dloaded 120GB in a 10 day period, with their upload constantly nailed at 128k.

We do have a 2Mb/ 256k for e54.45 (inc. VAT) and free line rental. It's the basic business package.

Garfield.

dahamsta

GarfieldConnoll wrote:

Once of the principal reasons that we haven't gone to a default 256k upload is peer to peer traffic.

We at Smart Telecom restrict peer to peer traffic on our network.

Any admissions on the VoIP front?

adam

Mutant_Fruit

GarfieldConnoll wrote:

We've a customer that's dloaded 120GB in a 10 day period, with their upload constantly nailed at 128k.

Thats a bit mad. Even during the worst of my downloading (When i got it first) i didn't take that much down. Thats even with the (legal) DVD images i was getting. Shocking stuff!

Still, i assume you can pull down stats such as how many people constantly upload at full whack. If theres only a few, upgrading everyone wouldn't have that much of an affect overall, but would increase useability for everyone. Of course, i'm sure thats already been discussed.

Ringo6

GarfieldConnoll wrote:

We've a customer that's dloaded 120GB in a 10 day period, with their upload constantly nailed at 128k.



Garfield.

dahamsta wrote:

We at Smart Telecom restrict peer to peer traffic on our network.

Any admissions on the VoIP front?

adam

Do you not think that 12Gb per day is rather excessive?

I don't think it's fair to say that Smart are restricting peer to peer traffic under these circumstances.

Stark

Just out of interest GarfieldConnoll, what ISP do you work for?

I know some Smart enabled buildings allow very high download/upload speeds because they're serviced by fibre optic and use VoIP for the phone connection, rather than relying on the Eircom network. I could imagine someone being able to download 12GB a day on one of those connections.

juliuspret

GarfieldConnoll = Smart's PR guy for boards.ie

I realise that 120GB in 10 days is excessive...but most people wont come near that sort of usage with the average being in the teens at best...mabye only single didgit GB's in a month.
Early adopter will always be enthuaists/high users...and that must be accepted!

Would you prefer GarfieldConnoll that users signed up to newsgroupls and went nuts on those instead of P2P???...Illegal is still Illegal!!!

CyberGhost

GarfieldConnoll wrote:

Once of the principal reasons that we haven't gone to a default 256k upload is peer to peer traffic.

We've a customer that's dloaded 120GB in a 10 day period, with their upload constantly nailed at 128k.

Garfield.

and what did you guys do to that guy?

120GB in 10 days? I don't know any p2p that you can download 120 gigs in only 10 days!

on even with bittorrent, you usually never get full speeds, and with illegal torrents, speeds are even slower.

EDIT

another question, if the guy maxes out his downloads 24/7 what's wrong with him maxing out his upload? does upload "load" effect the network more?

dahamsta

Ringo6 wrote:

Do you not think that 12Gb per day is rather excessive?

I don't think it's fair to say that Smart are restricting peer to peer traffic under these circumstances.

Someone else will be along to explain the bigger picture to you shortly.

Snaga

CyberGhost wrote:

120GB in 10 days? I don't know any p2p that you can download 120 gigs in only 10 days!

on even with bittorrent, you usually never get full speeds, and with illegal torrents, speeds are even slower.

If someone is in any way dedicated they can easily reach those figures.

Chances are if they traffic that much they have access to private warez...I mean, er, 'linux ISO' filled FTP servers which they simply queue up the uploads and downloads and let it rip for days on end at full speed.

It may not be 'peer to peer' traffic by its current definition (i.e bittorrent, edonkey etc..), but usage volumes like that are almost certainly file sharing traffic.

GarfieldConnoll

Couple of questions there.

I'm the Programme Manager for Smart's BB rollout.

We don't restrict P2P traffic on the network. I would have thought someone's ability to do 120GB in 10 days would have indicated that.

Apparently, most P2P applications have a built in ratio between download speeds and upload speeds (i.e. the faster the upload, the faster the download). Therefore a faster upload would result in even more downloads.

We have FTTH (Fibre To The Home) projects where the building is served on fibre and the apartments are served on CAT5/6. Those projects use IPTV and VoIP, but our LLU (DSL) offering is also based on VoIP, albeit only from the exchange back to the core network, not in the residence itself.

Regarding VoIP, we haven't restricted the upload to 128k to restrict VoIP and we do have a 2Mb/ 256k service (as I mentioned above).

Garfield.

CyberGhost

Thanks for answering guys!

GarfieldConnoll

CyberGhost wrote:

Thanks for answering guys!

CyberGhost,

Just noticed your two questions:

1. We didn't do anything to the guy who did 120Gb in 10 days.
2. Upload speeds affect download speeds on many P2P applications.

Garfield.

zuma

Over those 10 days the mass downloader using P2P you talk about would have had an average of 138Kbytes a second in downloading!!!

Personially I feel that such a download rate is impossible using P2P and still extremely difficult using newsgroups/FTP servers(which dont saturate your bandwidth!

3,600 seconds in an hour with 24 hours in a day over 10 days to download 120GBytes.

=120,000/(3,600 x 24 x 10)
=120,000/864,000
=0.138MByte/s

~138KBytes a second, 24 hour a day for 10 straight days????

In other word your telling tall tales.

Mutant_Fruit

Rofl.

What P2P are you using that you can't get more than 130kB/sec. I frequently get more than 180KB/sec on anything i download. Also, if you're downloading that much, its hardly just one torrent/file he's running. Multiple files = faster speeds...

zuma

24 hours a day for 10 days straight????

Snaga

It would be quite easy to average 130KB/sec over 10 days if your max is close to 245KB/sec on a 2Mb line. (Irish ISP test results appear to be showing rates of 1.96Mbits/sec or above).

It could be a mix of p2p/FTP traffic. Simply queue them up and let them rip. If its a private FTP with a decent connection there is nothing to stop you maxing your connection to it indefinitely. (You just need to keep feeding the queue and have giant hard drives and a wad load of DVD-R's!)

CyberGhost

Mutant, I don't wnat to get into specifics since it's not allowed here, but it's very rare to hit more than 120kb/s, at least in my case

zuma, like Snaga said, if he had access to ftp stuff, especially the ones in Sweden and Finland, he could have reached those numbers easily, in fact, what he downloaded what not THAT much if he was leeching from ftp servers

and what's wrong with running a computer for 10 days straight?

StonedParadoX

GarfieldConnoll wrote:

Once of the principal reasons that we haven't gone to a default 256k upload is peer to peer traffic.

We've a customer that's dloaded 120GB in a 10 day period, with their upload constantly nailed at 128k.

We do have a 2Mb/ 256k for e54.45 (inc. VAT) and free line rental. It's the basic business package.

Garfield.

he wouldnt happen to be from wicklow would he?

Sponge Bob

Smart did not throttle the geezer , they observed him and maybe contacted him to say they noticed .

They are simply not minded to increase the upload speed of their base E35 package so as not to encourage more like him onto their network .

zuma

On that type of reasoning why not offer 4M/64k upload???

CyberGhost

ssssshhhh, eircom might read it and implement those speeds

CuLT

It's VERY easy to average those speeds using a bittorrent client with multiple torrent queing, if I was on a 2MB package I'd be disappointed if I wasn't getting at the very LEAST an average of 138k/s.

over ten days you ask? TV Series. There's a few shows I want to watch that I just cba remembering times of the evening and days of the week that they're scheduled for.

mang87

Yeah I have been able to max my connection downloading for a day or two when I wanted to test out just how much I could download in like 2 days. Just left it running and went about business.

OfflerCrocGod

It's probably for real but I still don't think that it's a representative sample. The average amount downloaded by the 2Mb package customers is a far more useful piece of data than a single person downloading spike. Those figures are simply dust in our eyes and are not representative of the average amount used or the possible increase use of resources that would be engendered by an upload speed increase.

dahamsta

OfflerCrocGod wrote:

It's probably for real but I still don't think that it's a representative sample. The average amount downloaded by the 2Mb package customers is a far more useful piece of data than a single person downloading spike. Those figures are simply dust in our eyes and are not representative of the average amount used or the possible increase use of resources that would be engendered by an upload speed increase.

There you go Ringo6, that's about as good an explanation as you're going to get.

adam

mp3guy

bk wrote:

Because a higher upload speed would make it more feasible for people to use VoIP, which Eircom are against.

hmm, mpeg layer 3, 192kbps OR 24KBytes/s. 128kb upload, would give you about 12kbytes a second up, thats 96kbps mp3. I don't see the problem with VoIP here.

Stark

It's very rare that you can upload at the full 128kpbs, I find even 80kpbs tends to saturate my connection.

Although dedicated voice codecs like Speex can do quite well in as little as 8kpbs.

OfflerCrocGod

Stark wrote:

It's very rare that you can upload at the full 128kpbs, I find even 80kpbs tends to saturate my connection.

Although dedicated voice codecs like Speex can do quite well in as little as 8kpbs.

Also you would have to take into account others using the line with 256 you have breathing space but with 128 you get choked by simply browsing.

Blaster99

How do you manage to choke 128kbps _upload_ speed when you're browsing?

The reality is that VoIP works just fine over ADSL as configured in Ireland. There will always be QoS problems whether you have an asynchronous or synchronous connection, unless you implement traffic shaping.

zuma

Blaster99 wrote:

How do you manage to choke 128kbps _upload_ speed when you're browsing?

The reality is that VoIP works just fine over ADSL as configured in Ireland. There will always be QoS problems whether you have an asynchronous or synchronous connection, unless you implement traffic shaping.

You can easily choke 128K if you are browseing media rich pages.

dahamsta

zuma wrote:

You can easily choke 128K if you are browseing media rich pages.

Not the upload, unless you're playing some weird game. However I think the OP was talking about saturating the upload while using VoIP, thus affecting the quality of the voice connection.

adam

Gonzo

also if your sending an email with a large file attachment and its using alot of the upload speed, the broadband is as good as useless as the download is completely choked too.

CrimE

Alot of good points made by people to say why we need greater upload speeds...

I just wish eircom didnt have such a monopoly so that they manage to force competition to deliver the same crap service as themselves :mad:

Cabaal

Don't eircom advertise the fact you can send large files in seconds with eircom dsl?

Would it not be possiable to argue that its false advertising due to the fact that you can only send them at 15k/sec max and a 10MB e-mail attachment would take a good few min to actually upload and send.

TimTim

Cabaal wrote:

Don't eircom advertise the fact you can send large files in seconds with eircom dsl?

Would it not be possiable to argue that its false advertising due to the fact that you can only send them at 15k/sec max and a 10MB e-mail attachment would take a good few min to actually upload and send.

You could but then the other ISP's get hit with the same bullet, however they could argue its eircoms wholesale package.....

Cabaal

I will admit that 1024k/128k is a joke considering you can buy 256k/256k from almost every ISP in the UK.
They could easily justify 256k/128k and sell that as their product but they properly sell 256k/256k so users can upload files quicker etc

Gonzo

that advertising about sending emails quicker is pure bs on eircoms part, before I had broadband I had crappy ISDN and it was better than my current broadband for sending large emails as I could use 128k on that and got higher speeds (16k/sec) while sending an email but on eircom broadband the most I get from the 128k upload is about 11k/sec or maybe 12k/sec on a good day. Also if im sending that email my 2mb download is as good as useless as its completely choked untill the email has finished sending.

TimTim

Gonzo wrote:

that advertising about sending emails quicker is pure bs on eircoms part, before I had broadband I had crappy ISDN and it was better than my current broadband for sending large emails as I could use 128k on that and got higher speeds (16k/sec) while sending an email but on eircom broadband the most I get from the 128k upload is about 11k/sec or maybe 12k/sec on a good day. Also if im sending that email my 2mb download is as good as useless as its completely choked untill the email has finished sending.

I'd say thats to do with the overheads from PPPoE but by the looks of it

Eircom/other resellers: 1.79Mb
Smart: 1.92Mb

I wonder who's making the effort to compensate for it?

vishal

well i think smart should contact the invidual to downloaded those many gb in 10 days.
i dont think the average user would go over 20gb in a month and even a heavy user 30gb. when i was upgraded to 2mb, i did not download 4 times the data per month but the same amount give or take 4 or 5 gbs, but i spent less time waiting for the download to complete.
i am still going to use torrents, so why not increase the upload speed so i can get them even quicker?

davidoco

bk wrote:

Because a higher upload speed would make it more feasible for people to use VoIP, which Eircom are against.

eircom (my source wouldn't give up anything more so don't ask) in April this year were preparing a product to go to the market in the coming months regarding VOIP. They have pushed it back a bit because SMART ain't that smart when it comes to getting the customers. In essence they are ready with the killer solution to VOIP if and when the market looks for it or it looks like somebody else (like Skype) are getting popular here.

Sponge Bob

Smart launched in Feb this year, Eircom countered in Feb or March. What eircom did in April was prepare a yelllowpack time based package at €50 a month for the unwary. Pure scumbaggery applied

That was launched in June to an underwhelming response planet wide .

Where is the killer app ?????

Gonzo

if eircom do bring out some voip broadband package with good upload speed they are gonna charge a fortune costing well beyond the affordable means of most broadband gamers while leaving the current packages stuck on 128k upload I reckon:(

all we want is the normal 256k upload for residential broadband thats the minimum standard in every other country. 256k upload would be good enough for most games.

1huge1

GarfieldConnoll wrote:

Once of the principal reasons that we haven't gone to a default 256k upload is peer to peer traffic.

We've a customer that's dloaded 120GB in a 10 day period, with their upload constantly nailed at 128k.

We do have a 2Mb/ 256k for e54.45 (inc. VAT) and free line rental. It's the basic business package.

Garfield.

lol ive isdn and only download about 8gb a year come on what a sad sad person