So that's what VW mean by a very robust VW Driveshaft...especially for UK Customers.
282 posts • joined 17 Nov 2007
So that's what VW mean by a very robust VW Driveshaft...especially for UK Customers.
That Ofcom Poster Child may only be two years old, but he already looks like an Ofcom Employee, a f**king dickh***d. - white, middle class and priviledged*
White privilege. That cheeky grin is the innate knowledge he’s Ofcom, rich, advantaged and will never know *any* difficulties or hardships in life of slow Rural Broadband as long as he tows the BT line.
“Let’s find photos of 3yo Syrian refugee children in Notspots and see if they look alike, eh?”
Don't worry “I’m sound in my socialist, atheist and republican opinions."
“I don’t believe Ofcom have any place in a modern democracy, least of all when they live on public money. That’s privilege and it needs to end.”
We might then have a non BT biased agenda then, that doesn't stifle real fibre optic technology and allows families to live and work in the communities they grew up in.
(*Sharon 'White' been the exception, who's little Civil Servant in-joke was it appointing her. Almost a straight script lift from 'Yes Minister'.)
(with UK regulators sitting on the hands as usual)
The Windows 7 Forced Upgrade is very discriminating against partially sighted and disabled users, where is the punishment for this?
How about setting the benchmark regards Privacy, Accessibility/Useability - Microsoft, get yourself out of the gutter.
Force anyone that works for Ofcom and MPs/BT's senior Management to eat their own dog food, if they think the fudged max 10Mbps 'voluntary' universal service obligation is acceptable for the masses, going forward, let's see 'these people of influence', have this as their only Broadband option, and even better halve it. Force them onto packages with a max 5Mbps till 2020, or until they change their spots.
Mobile networks should be banned from charging for 2G/Edge Data, between the base station and consumer mobiles too, this should become free, 2G is completely useless for consumer mobiles in 2016.
BT astroturfing types on here, keep sprouting how wonderful G.fast will be, but fail to mention the vast amount of G.fast equipment locations, power requirements and compatibility issues (firmware issues, crap, damp, windy, poor aka. aluminium cabling issues that need to be resolved etc) needed to give blanket ultrafast coverage. It not a cheap solution, its a bloody expensive one and a potential can of worms to fix. It completely favours BT's current legacy copper.
G.fast is an 'obfuscation plan' of the largest order.
It will set Britain back for a decade, because (I'm already seeing it) apathy sets in, as its impossible for consumers to work out what level of actual service (once live) will be achieved with FTTC/G.fast from (the above) technical issues + Network management, local and regional bottlenecks, crosstalk.
Worse, its a completely manufactured situation by BT/(acceptable too, to Ofcom, as it reinforces their role) to make Broadband seem like a 'finite resource' and charge tiered banded rates for usage + per MB prices for mobile, where, actual laid fibres to the premises would mean most of the regulatory infrastructure in place , Ofcom etc, wouldn't be needed (well certainly not the same scale), because in effect, copper speed/bandwidth limiting factors on the final mile, no longer apply to the same extent.
So much politics involved in what should really just come down to what is the best technical implementation going forward for the UK as a whole, irrespective of the incumbent BT operator's legacy copper network. Instead, technical solutions (garnered from BT 'expertise') have clearly been favoured towards BT's current infrastructure.
Its seen worst in remote rural locations ('notspots' forming a two tier Britain) because FTTC is an inferior solution for these types of locations-small hamlets of 5-10 houses and certainly not as cost effective as BT make it appear, compared to a true optical fibre based rollout of FTTP for all properties at least 500m from the exchange.
FTTC/G.fast costs rise exponentially for properties at least 500m, to get blanket ultrafast rollout.
Sandisk have just sadly switched the very good budget Sandisk Plus (120GB-480GB capacities) G.25 which was an MLC to cheaper and smaller TLC, and changed the controller too.
Sandisk obviously felt the need to ditch a good product, then use the branding to sell an inferior, cheaper to produce version of the SSD. The modern day form of bait and switch.
Whether love or hate Apple, one thing that they get right is how upgrades are presented and pushed out for both iOS and OSX/macOS. Just enougfh visual persuasion, but leaving the option to stay where you are.
On the whole, they don't (yet) piss you off, the way they go about it.
But it's easier for Apple, because of their limited hardware platforms.
Given Theresa May (that's Theresa with a 'Heil Hilter' H) is now in power. Separation of BTOpenreach all comes down to whether the Investigatory Powers Bill is better implemented by having a single Telecom Company (BT) in charge of UK's backhaul infrastructure, including most of the local loop, or splitting off BTOpenreach, will hinder this.
Its never been about competition, because there isn't any. Its a faux situation, at best. (que the replies, well anyone can set up their own Telecoms company. Someone has to pay for it - Ultrafast Broadband Rollout). It won't be BT risking its capital, because they don't need to, from where they are currently sitting, now owning EE aswell.
Investigatory Powers Bill is going to be a licence to print money for BT, because Government just can't keep their noses out of the rich metadata at stake here (and ultimately, control of People's lives), why would BT voluntarily invest their own money? Better to leave Governments to be forced to.
BT can just cherry-pick G.fast rollout, as little, as much as they like, 'upto' Mbps - BT have fitted a 'precision control' to the UK's broadband pipe by opting to re-use Legacy Copper/G.Fast technologies, to effectively obfuscate, make Superfast/Ultrafast Broadband appear like a limited resource, permiting obfuscated price gouging, under regulator supervision.
As ever, BT just hold the UK to ransom by sitting on their hands, until someone stumps up the money (Taxpayers in the form of BDUK etc) to upgrade the infrastructure and every solution for that upgrade put forward by BT (and pals at Ofcom who previously worked at BT) is biased towards BT's own Legacy copper or the constrained limits of such an Legacy copper based upgrade. i.e. 'upto' 100Mbps future targets for Ultrafast, often been mentioned, even by Government Ministers. BT have Government Ministers trained. Averages are always mentioned, which always skew the figures, ignoring rural rollouts/notspots.
As far as Ofcom's role - its never seems to about changing this, getting rid of the large legacy operator sitting on their hands, because so many at Ofcom have ex-BT vested interests. Going forward - that needs to be centre stage.
If BDUK investment hadn't have happened BT would be now sitting on a network with what amounts to (more and more towards) zero voice call revenue from its subscribers (assuming mobile networks took up the slack of poor fixed line broadband). BT can't have it both ways.
Things don't look good though. You only have to look at Amber Rudd in her role as Energy Secretary, the pathetic enforcement by Ofgem over her tenure. Ofgem is even worse than Ofcom, as a regulator.
Energy Utility companies with a blantant monopoly situation, customer service levels of dire proportions, excessive call times, inaccurate billing examples - yet no real action taken. Nearly every single major supplier under investigation with little in the way of real fines. No change at all.
The idea Amber Rudd is going to sort this out (the implementation of the intricate complex Investigatory Powers Bill) and have a definitive answer regards BTOpenreach has zero chance ever happening. I believe Theresa May has deliberately chosen a weak useless candidate, so she remains in control of the Home Office, regards the Investigatory Powers Bill.
Hence, even though BTOpenreach should be split off, it won't be.
Amber Rudd is a mouthpiece of utter conjecture most of the time. She's not about to change her spots.
Brad Sams and Paul Thurrott must be at least two of those names on the petition. Mary Jo Foley won't be, as she hates games.
Even Brad Sams and Paul Thurrott have stated they won't develop a Microsoft Universal Windows App for Petri.com because they would have to support 2+1 dead platform (my words not theirs, but what was implied) and they all are all but paid by MS, to promote Windows 10 Mobile.
Dead Parrot sketch, because well, its Dead, dead as the W10 mobile platform can be.
I find the easiest way to rememeber Theresa May (with a H) is associate her with the phrase 'Heil Hitler!'. I haven't got it wrong since.
'Traveling on Southern', You make it sound like something 'idealic'.
I feel for the all the Air passengers arriving at Gatwick.
If the experience of Gatwick's UK Border Control wasn't soul destroying enough, with queues equivalent to a chicken farm, going through grey cold emotiveless gates, which says anything but 'Welcome (back) to the UK", it really says 'Welcome to Britains' Open Prison - glad you could join us'
I always queue to at least speak to a 'human', as actually its the only chirpy thing left in the expansive minimal destitute place, but fuck, its such a miserable first 'display window' if what Britain has to offer.
Camera's fixed on you at every opportunity with Big Brother style spinning LEDs around the lens, forcing people to lookup into the camera lens.
Then followed by, a large expanse of a baggage reclaim room with no personal direction, poorly marked exits.
Who designs this stuff? Theresa May personally?
Only to head to Southern Trains tiny ticket hall and queue in pens for 10 mins for one of the few automated ticket machines, with the only (non English) person to help just saying No.6, No.5 etc.
I'm not been racist here, more that if you are showcasing 'Britain' for the first time, showing tourists/people the ropes, at least have a sudo-mock English presence doing this, in the same way we promote our Madame Tussaud's Royal Family. After all, that's what many have paid to come to see - real life waxworks.
Then head to the platform, where an 'English' phonetically broken (somewhat irritating, I'm probably tired) automated announcement tells you of the next arrival.
Or - Take a hire car and you're subject to zero tolerance Hadecs speed cameras as soon as you leave the terminal building, nice getting that first ticket + hire car admin fees, 10mins into your trip, at least announce its 'zero tolerance' speed limits to the unaware, instead of fleecing each and every tourist.
For the attention of Theresa May:
Fuck, if you really don't want to make people feel like staying in the UK, Gatwick Airport / Border Control / Southern trains is doing everything in its Power to put that point across.
If we didn't know it now, we'll know it soon but life under Theresa May as Prime Minister is going to be the most miserable existence ever, given what she's done so far as Home Secretary.
Thank God for Linux though, somehow (to me) respresents an antithesis to everthing else happening in mainstream (Microsoft lef) Tech/Surveillence/Intelligence.
If there was a large consensus towards Linux Desktop, MS would have to unlock the Microsoft Office 201x Linux compiled version, we know they have locked up somewhere :).
The idea we're forced to use Windows 10 because of MS Office, is only in our minds, so to speak. If Admins make the move towards Linux, in preference to Win10 - so would MS for the major apps.
MS is a cross platform company now, and if there is money to be made selling a Linux version of Office 2016, THEY WILL. MS would likely profit because I'm sure MS's support costs for MS Office 2016 on Linux would be cheaper in the long run too.
For most users anyway, Libre Office 5 is as good as any of the iOS / Android versions of MS Office 2016.
You don't provide MS SQL Server for Linux, without providing MS Office 201x for Linux, hence my belief, its coming.
Seems an odd sequence of events to be killing the 'free' Windows 10 Update, 3 days before releasing the Windows 10 Aniversary Update. If you are still on Windows 7, the idea you need to 'rush' now to install a 4GB download, only then have to wait a further 3 days to install a second large xxGB Aniversary update.
Maybe this 3 day spacing is taking into account how long borked Windows 7 takes to get updates, of late, so in fact its actually to make things appear seamless*
Microsoft never make things simple (or properly think things through).
(*Yes, I know you can install Windows 10 directly, without updating Windows 7SP1 beforehand, but many attempt to update Win7 anyway, coincidently, with 3 day waits to install updates)
Penguin, because well, you still can - anytime (no hoops to jump through).
Where is that black box they called the 'Internet' currently kept?, we need to locate from its secured location and give it to Andrea Leadsom for safe keeping ASAP, she needs to understand the true responsibility of safely storing this, for future generations. Just don't let Theresa near it.
The current definition sits firmly and comfortably, as though BT themselves wrote it, so it fits in with the mediocre plans of FTTC over copper.
Mobile operators have the IMEI number of the Featurephone/Smartphone - easy to filter Billing 'free 2G' to consumer/business Smartphones. And no, in no shape or form is 2GB relevant (or should have charges applied) in 2016, its absolutely useless, and is a red flag to show Mobile Operators haven't invested in certain (many rural) areas.
O2 - I'm looking at you especially.
Thanks, for making it feel more like Twatter.
Its about time @ofcom prevented any network data charges been made where Data is attempted over poor slow connections - i.e. 2G/Edge between mobile and mast.
Would have the effect of forcing any old 2G legacy data networks to be upgraded to 3G / 4G before charges can be applied to data transfers. And prevent Networks showing 2G data coverage as a means of masking their lack of 3G / 4G coverage in rural areas.
@ofcom its about time you faced up to the fact that 2G/Edge Data transfers between mast and mobile are all but useless and if thats what the network operator is still giving, at least prevent them charging for shit service.
But then I'm expecting @ofcom to be thinking outside the box, so its not going to happen.
Given what gets left in tents at Glastonbury, I'm sure the Astronauts/Cosmonauts/new recruits will be sligthly wary entering that module in a few months time.
It should really be given the honorary nickname 'The Glastonbury Module', hope that sticks.
Impressive how it stops the spin, very early on. Then well, just nails it!
In the UK, the upgrade notification process seems to be in clear breach of the Equality Act 2010.
An organisation such the RNIB (Royal National Institute for Blind People) really needs to start a prosecution against Microsoft under the Equality Act 2010.
Does no one at Microsoft Marketing realise their responsibilities to People less fortunate than them?
(Sends all the wrong messages and undermines the hard work other teams at Microsoft have done regarding the Ease of Access Centre, can't someone in that team at least highlight this)
An organisation such the RNIB (Royal National Institute for Blind People) really needs to start a prosecution against Microsoft under the Equality Act 2010.
Does no one at Microsoft realise their responsibilities to People less fortunate than them?
Sounds like you used Paragon Hard Disk Manager.
Paragon Hard Disk Manager 12 works (32bit-linux bootable ver) will work with non-PAE processors still, Paragon Hard Manager 14/15 (linux bootable ver) switched to PAE processors only. Try an older version if you can, HDM12 will work with Windows 7. Its one of those quirk's thats worth knowing,
(Linux Based recovery tools (getting underneath Windows) are the support life line to Windows. I'd have ditched Windows completely years ago, if you couldn't backup/restore Images via linux, to save re-installing Windows.
You have a program GWX Control Panel that is actively preventing MS runnng 'their code'/preventing installing recommended updates (the updates which, are trying to force Windows 10 on you) from installing.
I said this before, I expected GWX Control panel to be marked by MS Security Essentials as Malware and be removed, it will probably happen sometime in July, which would see a 'nice uptick' (in their eyes) for MS, before the end of July.
MS want GWX Control Panel removed from Windows machines, make no mistake.
...and have the tools in place (MS security essentials), to remove it.
(Maybe GWX Control Panel should be nicknamed 'Swampy' given its good intentions against the forced rollout by a Multinational company)
PS. 'Swampy' was a person who protested against the building of the A30 in Devon the 1980s, by locking his arms through underground tunnels, to prevent the build from taking place,
This method doesn't work for restored images. Also, the original KB3102810 (rather than its update KB3138612) still works for a fresh install.
The reason I stick to the older one, is it works still, the only thing MS would be adding to its successor is more ways to prevent you restoring Windows 7 from an image, so that Windows 10 upgrades are a one way path (once the 30 days are up).
KB3102810 was released to solve the problem of slow updates, I'm not sure the newer versions of it have the same intentions.
If its a new install KB3102810 still works for fresh installs (but it no longer works for restored Disk images)
There is a knack to it though.
On completing a fresh install of Windows 7 SP1.
Select Manual updates (Check for updates but let me choose whether to download and install them)
Deselect - Give me recommended updates the same way I receive important updates check box.
Check for updates, allow it to install the new version of Windows Update, this will close Windows Update and relaunch the Window, once the new Window 'checking for updates' relaunches, shutdown and restart the machine. Once rebooted Apply KB3102810 (you need to manually download this).
Once applied, check for updates again.
This should take not longer than 8 minutes on an SSD with fast internet connection 20Mbps+.
If BT want to invest in G.fast that fine, but its not a technology the UK taxpayer should be backing.
FTTrN / FTTdP are pilot projects, not real deployments in the UK at the moment, and none are self powered using redundant copper cores (as has been suggested, UK Health and Safety sees to that) , the schemes currently rely on the same power supplies as existing larger FTTC cabinets (it may have changed but that was the case initially, and powering the units was a key problem in the pilot project).
None of the pilots are on the scale of deploying 25 FTTC / FTTrN /FTTdp (cabs/Pole Equipment per 2Km2, to give blanket coverage at 330Mbps speeds.
You're completely missing the point - per 2Km2 area (thats are very small dot on the map of the UK), you need to install 25 FTTC/FTTrN/FTTdP cabs/Pole Equipment to blanket cover to achieve speeds of 330Mbps for everyone in that 2Km2.
If the general public knew that, I doubt they would be wanting to back it as taxpayers, because they realise that sort of deployment is never going to happen Rurally. They'd understand the fundamentals, that its a lot of equipment to maintain for such a small area, to achieve a relatively modest outcome regards headline broadband speeds (even if you do later, as you suggested to tweak it up slightly, with modified protocols)
I don't accept G.fast represents the solution for Faster Broadband services going forward, either been cheaper, but more regards its shelf life , with its lack of ability to ramp up to Ultrafast speeeds.
Everything you have stated is theoretical Lab stuff, that doesn't work the same, when you potentially have Welsh Hills / Scottish Mountains / Wind swept roads - water logged junction boxes, multiple cable connections, parallel cables over a distance (crosstalk), aswell as multiple protocols in adjacent cabling - it just doesn't stack up in the real world to achieve those sort of 5Gbps speeds your proposing, over copper. And that theoretical 5Gbps you talk about is over distance as short a 20m max (which you fail to mention the shorter cable distances, to achieve higher speeds, inherent part of G.fast).
I've already stated why apathy will set in, because its impossible for the average subscriber to fathom why they are suffering from a slow internet connection. More needs to be done in this area. Its not helped by Ofcom's acceptance of the inherent 'upto' characteristics of BT's FTTC technology.
(Odd also to have the Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer - Vodafone India Ltd, sticking up for BT FTTC/G.fast plans too, if that's who you are),
Thanks for taking the time to reply, but can't agree with your sentiment at all regarding so called errors, the fundamentals/essence of what I'm saying is correct. 'Yes men' will say different.
The biggest reality check you need is how quick 330Mbps services will be the 'norm' / expected service level by subscribers and how little leeway BT will have with FTTC over copper going foward and the flak they get will be a lot worse than today, when People/Companies can't compete against Countries with a real Fibre Networks.
Once you have a UltraFast 1Gbps+ connection and have to go back, boy, do the complaints start.
'The let's get rid of Copper' enthusiasts have fought backward looking People like you for years and years.
I heard the same with ADSL roll-out, from Regional Development Agencies - 10 years ago. Remember vividly been told 'There is no chance a small little market town will ever get ADSL, its just not needed, no one is interested'.
This is by people that are supposed to be forward looking business types FFS.
Look at it now, everything delivered online, by Amazon and others. Order 10pm, get at your door 9am next day. Everyone in my road using either ADSL2+/VDSL2+ 80/20 Broadband (even the technically illiterate ones), wondering how they ever coped without it.
BT have 'kept their hands in the pockets' resisting change, every single time from:
28Kbps Dial up PAYG,
to 56Kbps Dial up PAYG,
to 56Kbps (Unlimited),
to 64Kbps ISDN,
to Bonded 128Kbps Home Highway,
to 512Kbps ADSL,
to 2048Kbps ADSL,
(avoided 'expensive' Syncronous SDSL Networks, saying not required for consumer use)
to 8192Kbps ADSL,
to 24Mbps ADSL2+,
to 40Mbps VDSL (BTInfinity),
to 80Mbps VDSL2+ (BTInfinity2).
And so on, always saying the next higher speeds aren't needed, taxpayers need to fund this, if we are to move forward.
Adding in traffic shaping / network management as these services launched, its the same approach everytime, holding back the tide of change, heavily advertising the older technologies like Home Highway, at the time 512Kbps ADSL was launching. BT have to be dragged kicking and screaming everytime to the next logical step, always looking for handouts, saying its just not competitive to invest (yet reaps most of the 1Bn+ profits once the taxpayer stumps up the cash)
As said, Copper is not a solution to lines of more than 250m in length, in terms of Ultrafast 1Gbps+ Services, so why are we spending vast amounts on a dead end copper based technology, that can't make the leap to faster network speeds without been ripped out, to start the process again (and all the upheaval that entails), it won't be seemless.
We were told FTTP 6 years ago was coming by BT to an exchange for areas on the outskirts, everytime the ball has been kicked back into the grass, in the hope the FTTrN / FTTdP is the 'golden solution' to this problem, when its still on the drawing board.
BT covering the bases, hovering over the dead carcass of their copper network, in case anyone decided to think about laying actual FTTP, in the same way B4RN has been successful.
Why is BT replacing end of life Copper with Copper.
Why is BT been sneaky, replacing Copper lines with 0.9mm copper to 'just meet contract specs' , for longer lines, rather than do the right thing as part of the Superfast Broadband Programmes and install Proper Fibre, which was the clearly the point of the programme. (That's just pure public deception)
Why isn't their a programme, where streets that are due to have their Poles/Circuits replaced, are upgraded to true Fibre. Why is the taxpayer having to subsidise this twice?
There is only one person deluded (stuck in the past) round here and it ain't me.
The BT solution is no better, and isn't value for money in the longer term, some would say its dishonest/obfuscates in what it portrays as technically achievable with FTTC/G.Fast.
BT offers little hope to the notspots in the UK.
To cherry pick, to obfuscate actual achievable speeds (with the direct blessing of Regulator Ofcom to accept this obfuscation as been an inherent characteristic of FTTC 'upto' speeds), to play down the technical complexity / the exponential increase in roll-out of Cabs/Pole equipment required to achieve blanket G.Fast 330Mbps coverage using current FTTC technologies. To fail to mention the increased maintenance costs / increased line rentals required from maintaining the legacy dead carcass copper network.
It also avoids mentioning the complexity of what happens when the G.Fast bottleneck/brick wall is hit - the technical limits of FTTC/G.fast 330Mbps is reached and if and how the demands for 1Gbps+ services will be implemented.
That transition won't be cheap. Most believe the topology of the network design won't be suitable at that point, for the transition to true optical fibre - FTTP.
And that's the point, for lines longer than 250m, its already obvious that Legacy Copper / G.Fast doesn't fit the bill in terms of future Ultrafast 1Gbps+ services, going forward, so why not start to get it right now for those longer rural lines, because we know today, FTTP is inevitable for these lines, its going to be a slow process, but its a start.
Let's stop the lies and deceit (with Ofcoms backing) that somehow G.Fast is going to magically solve the problem of long lines and slow internet. It won't.
->Both are solved. The kit is available to buy from Alcatel Lucent.
If it was solved and available to buy, why are BT dragging their feet, regarding their previous commitment to FTTP rollout as part of the Welsh Superfast Cymru Broadband Programme?
Is that kit directly compatible with Huawei FTTC kit? (Most of BT's FTTC network)
Assuming a firmware update will solve that (yes, and its something else that needs to be maintained, along with both the Copper power feeds and the Pole fed Fibre).
OK, so explain what (do) you need to get blanket coverage of 330Mbps (not 'upto' speeds, blanket coverage at 330Mbps using FTTC - not cherry picking), how many FTTC/FTTdp/FTTrN(s) are involved to do that per 2km2?.
Go on, I'm all ears. Let's get this out in the open.
I think its about right, you need around 25 FTTC or newer equivalent FTTrN/FTTdP Cabs/Pole Mounts per 2Km2 (with some overlap) to get true G.Fast speeds of 330Mbps, to get blanket coverage (not 'upto' speeds) with a maximum distance of 125m (crow flies), 250m by cable, in real world conditions.
You (Mr BT representive) sell this as a solution to rural broadband, but its just not going to happen and its a crap foundation to building a robust future network for Britain.
Subscribers will never get blanket 330Mbps coverage (it maxes out 330Mbps at 250m distance), because apathy will set in, already has to a point with FTTC at 'upto' 80Mbps.
Why has Apathy set in? because BT/ofcom have made it almost impossible for a consumer/subscriber to work out the reason for a slow connections, often signing up to 80/20 FTTC finding they get 50Mbps at best, 5Mbps at peak times, with contention, traffic shaping, ping latency and if not traffic shaping - traffic shaping by another name - network management kicking in to maintain the network.
The complexity 'sweating' of FTTC is all designed to gouge the Customer/Subscriber.
There is no logical extension of FTTC G.fast technology after been sweated/maxed to 330Mbps. To jump to 1Gbps speeds and above, without bonding copper lines (which has the same expense of connecting true fibre to the subscriber) - You hit a wall in terms of speed with G.fast, hence why its a Cul-de-Sac Technology.
G.Fast is a dead end technology from the start, if BT want to promote it - fine, but it sounds more and more like BT are looking again at future subsidies to roll out G.Fast.
We need a network that isn't beholden to BT and paying subsidies to them, each time they perform an incremental upgrade, which is what we have now (and going forward) which could have been avoided from the start by proper investment/proper legislative framework, which didn't involve subsidising BT's legacy copper dead carcass of a network.
Once over a barrel, always over a barrel.
Then imagine the maintenance costs regards maintaining 25 FTTC cabinets (more likely still theoretical FTTdP / FTTrN Equipment) per 2km2, keeping firmware between customers equipment and the DSLAM equipment upto date, with potential for rogue firmware routers to cause interference/cross talk, the practicalities of maintaining this can of worms is just crazy and expensive. Fault finding will become a nightmare.
And that's why Rurally its never going to happen. Notspots will remain Notspots if we carry on with FTTC. Yes, you can target certain areas with FTTC, but en masse Ultrafast is never going to happen.
You need an exponential rise in the number of FTTC cabinets in a 2km2 area to achieve an average 100Mbps speed per customer, its just not feasible using FTTC. Thats why its known as a Cul-de-Sac Technology, to upgrade it, you need to reverse out (of the Cul-de-Sac) and mostly start again, to achieve 1Gbps average speeds using real fibre.
Per 2km2, you need to add a minimum of 8 cabinets to reduce the maximum line length to 500m (as the crow flies), from a maximum line length of 1km (as the crow flies) per 2Km2 area.
To achieve G.Fast at 330Mbps you probably need a maximum line length of 250m by cable.
If you plan it so you meet in the middle, you have your 250m distance (as the crow flies), but cable routes are not that structured or straightforward, and often quoted as twice the length. To half this distance still further to 125m, you then need another 16 FTTC cabinets per 2km2.
That makes a total of 25 FTTC cabinets per 2km2, each cabinet having a maximum line length (as the crow flies) of 125m, which by cable would give you a more realistic 250m distance to meet the G.Fast quoted speeds of 330Mbps.
The Cabinets on the edges of the theoretical 2km2 area would in theory, feed the adjacent areas, so there is some overlap, but you still need 25 Cabinets (connected to Power too) per 2km2. for near Ultrafast speeds en masse for everyone, by that I mean not 'upto' but actually 330Mbps for everyone. 1Gbps speeds - well you just need to lay real Fibre, and chuck out everything you have so far.
It would be better to show it as a diagram, I have to say. Basically the whole wonderful Ultrafast 330Mbps G.Fast Technology parade by BT and Ofcom is utter tosh (being polite), its never going to happen, well not in the next decade. It will need some serious miniaturisation/clever self powering to achieve it.
The point being, if they knew it was going to be this complicated to achieve faster speeds why were the likes of ofcom hoodwinked into going down this route, other than technical incompetence, dare I say - bribery/greasy palms.
Lets Cap all Senior BT Management, Ofcom numpties, Politicians to a random and patchy 'upto' 10Mbps for a year, better still, make that 2Mbps - see how they cope. Nothing like forcing them to eat their own dog food.
Interesting how Ed Vaizey, toes the BT line, mentions top speeds of 100Mbps (which is within BT's remit for FTTC (just), not FTTP speeds of 1Gbps and up). In other words read that, as your stuck with FTTC for at least the next generation.
BT are going to sweat their copper to buggery, before they give in to laying real Fibre to the Premises, with all that entails. Unreliable, expensive to maintain - connections, upto speeds, contention issues, weather dependent services. FTTC is a legacy Cul-de-Sac technology Britain is now stuck with, while other Countries just lay proper fibre. What a Mess.
FTTC needs an massive exponential increase in FTTC Cabinets, to achieve a mass roll out to achieve average speeds of 100Mbps, its expensive (so expensive it will never be done especially rurally), each FTTC Cab needs a dedicated connection to the Mains/Grid, with the rental that entails.
We had a choice, and we definitely made the wrong one, regards backing BT/FTTC-copper based technologies, as taxpayers.
You can always open an Excel 97-2003 '.xls' in LibreOffice though, handles the file as well as any non-Windows version of Microsoft Office, i.e. MSOffice for Android, iOS etc.
->I find the most annoying thing about Windows are the lengthy updates
Especially when you can install Linux Mint 17.3 (to fully updated, updates applied during install) from a USB/ISO Installer in the time it takes MIcrosoft to find and update the definitions for Windows Defender, FFS.
Windows 10 really needs to stop trying to impress, get back in the background, become 'boring' again where it belongs, its an OS, to enable you to do things, not an entity in itself. Boring is good, you can still appreciate something/someone who quietly gets on with their job.
Windows Update is like someone flailing arms their arms, everytime you ask them to do something.
There is a lot Microsoft could learn from the latest Linux Mint approach to Interface design, house-keeping.
Comparing the History of Road Building, with the History of Computing, we've reached the equivalent point in history at which Speed Bumps were invented and implemented.
There is nothing new from here on (everything will take longer from now on), its all about revenue streams / 'bumping heads', tripping up People so they pay fines/generate revenue.
And its not just Microsoft, Google's Privacy Check-up is the most irritating interface ever designed, purposely designed that way so you don't turn off Google's data slurping. Its actually a total of 30 clicks to turn off all settings, which could be achieved in a tenth of that (and be persistent, not stored as a 'Cookie').
Firefox's new tab feature exactly the same, (how many go straight to options to make the new tab a blank page)
The future is voice because as a technology its difficult to Open Source. (Cloud based AI core voice interface engines)
We're heading back to the 1980's/proprietary systems/lock-in. No one will understand you better (the same) than either Google AI - Voice, Microsoft Cortana, or Apple Siri, but like a family feud, none of them will talk to each other.
It will be a bit like chatting to each of your divorced Parents.
Google realise this is their future, because its how to continue to control the Search market.
Recruitment? If you're really good at Security, only a fool would take their salaries...and not sure they will manage to employ anyone (going forward) with any moral high ground, given the way Snowden has been treated, but maybe that's the idea.
If you think @ofcom are bad, just try dealing with @ofgem regards energy suppliers such as @CoopEnergy which are a complete and utter shambles and have been for 14 months now, with no improvement. Not a single sanction against them, all swept under the carpet. (Just see the historical @CoopEnergy twitter feed)
The fundamental problem with regulators in the UK, is (like the South Yorkshire Police force with regards Hillsborough) are narcissistic organisations that actually care more about their own reputation and funding, than actually dealing with inherent problems/issues, that really need dealing with.
Because dealing with it, brings the problem into the mainstream/public domain, along with the bad publicity that also brings. So if they can fob you off, pretend they are doing a good job-keep the status quo, they will, everytime.
Basically it reflects badly on the regulator, so they prefer the sweep under the carpet method, kick the ball into the long grass. The cross employment opportunities between Regulator @ofcom and BT really needs to be severely curtailed too.
Could we be in a worse situation regards future FTTP/Mobile mast rollout in the UK if @ofcom didn't exist, I doubt it.
Nah...Microsoft Windows wouldn't be Windows, without a few holes in it.
I'm sure even Satya Nadella is testing Linux 4.6 right now ('so to speak' ; yep, we know where you're going with things), given how fed up everyone has become waiting for the borked clunky code of Windows 7 (and to a lesser extent 10) to check for updates.
Dropbox works for that scenario, sharing files across Android, Chrome and Linux Mint, so probably not a good example (as it shows up the limitations of OneDrive, which needs to work in a few more places first)
You just waste hours with Windows 10, due to forced updates, or you can waste hours just waiting for updates with Windows 7. Choices, Choices.
Windows 10 resurrected the old chestnut of the Synaptics Touchpad driver v19 this month, to overwrite the older working version Synaptics Touchpad Driver v15, which allows two finger scrolling.
(This was an annoying issue on release of Win10 July15, as it kept reinstalling itself (as it does again)).
The hardware - manual driver update setting (System->Advanced System Settings->Hardware Tab) only seems to work if you install the existing driver via 'Browse my Computer..Let me pick'.
It doesn't prevent the Synaptics Driver v19 reinstalling itself again if you use 'rollback to the previous' - Synaptics v15 driver, even with manual driver updates selected. (Another example of rushed coding by MS)
I assume the reason - MS are/were getting Paranoid by all the two finger gestures they were getting, via Telemetry.
You say that, but when it comes to it, when users genuinely have the choice, having a nice slim aesthetic phone that fits in your pocket and looks good, wins the money ever time, in terms of sales, over chunky phones with a slightly better battery life. Yep there is a market for chunky phones but its a lot smaller.
Given the methods Microsoft are using, you can see now why they didn't call it Windows 9 / ('Nein').
Windows Phone is (was already) Dead. Universal Apps? Not so important now, so a lot of dead wood already in Windows 10, making Windows 7 look the leaner choice, trouble is, MS has now purposely 'borked' Windows Update for Windows 7, making it unusable if you reinstall, restore from an Image. Manually installing KB3102810 worked for a while, not now.
MS literally seem to be putting a hammer to Windows 7SP1 to kill it.
Microsoft have always biased themselves towards Intel, this time it appears Microsoft is having the rug pulled from under them, but maybe Intel saw the writing on the wall, and pulled the plug first.
This stems back to 2012, Microsoft failing to upgrade WinPhone 7 users to Windows 8 Mobile, then getting caught trying to do the same with Windows 10 Mobile, getting asked the question directly and stating 'No - everyone will get a free upgrade' , then realising this wasn't technically possible.
It looks like Joe Belfiore took the can for that one.
I'm sure someone will describe it as 'growing pains' though its more getting old pains.
What a Mess.
Raspberry PI is a seed that will be flowering fully in about 5 years, both Industry controllers and Education. Intel's IOTs idea is a non starter, even now. You don't need an Intel processor to do IOTs.
I posted this previously (Aesop's Fables: The North Wind and the Sun) but its a little more omnious now, well, now we have this Video.. ;)
"..has been indicating heavy amounts of rainfall" (if only it was Sunshine, poor MS) "across South West Iowa. Argh, Microsoft recommends upgrade to Windows 10, Argh, What should I do? Don't you love it when that pops up. Argh. Erm. Hmmm..".
"The Winds have been vey gusty overnight aswell. Its that Windows 10 right, that's what people are going it say - Don't do it!"
Here again, if you missed it last time (esp. for Microsoft)
Aesop's Fables: The North Wind and the Sun
(Have the folk at Microsoft never heard of it? They really need to)
The North Wind boasted of great strength. The Sun argued that there was great power in gentleness. "We shall have a contest," said the Sun.
Far below, a man traveled a winding road. He was wearing a warm winter coat.
"As a test of strength," said the Sun, "Let us see which of us can take the coat off of that man."
"It will be quite simple for me to force him to remove his coat," bragged the Wind.
The Wind blew so hard, the birds clung to the trees. The world was filled with dust and leaves. But the harder the wind blew down the road, the tighter the shivering man clung to his coat.
Then, the Sun came out from behind a cloud. Sun warmed the air and the frosty ground. The man on the road unbuttoned his coat.The sun grew slowly brighter and brighter. Soon the man felt so hot, he took off his coat and sat down in a shady spot.
"How did you do that?" said the Wind.
"It was easy," said the Sun, "I lit the day. Through gentleness I got my way."
Windows Phone is Dead, OK mothballed, if MS won't admit dead. (it's dead though)
Joe B is not on a Sabbatical.
(If he ever was, he chose the worst time for leave of absence)
The App Store needs some love.
Microsoft need to use Topcashback / Quidco in the UK, to promote Windows 10, giving cashback in the form of App credit, with every install of Windows 10. Create a slush fund for developers to go after.
Have a totaliser (Blue Peter style) to show how much free credit has been given away for Developers to see.
(Hence my reasoning why Windows 10 shouldn't be free after July).
Charge, give free App Credit back, it makes sense to build an MS Universal App Ecosystem.
Microsoft, if you are reading this, give us back some control. This is becoming ridiculous.
Really struggling here (and why you should really avoid Windows 10 1511 or using a Mac to do anything that doesn't involve OSX). Anything off the beaten track with Apple is a no no.
We need to run an older Nvidia Graphics Driver on an iMac in BootCamp running Win10 1511 (latest). It must not update/replace itself with a Windows Update Driver. Simple you say?
Windows 10 Update thinks it knows better, updates the Nvidia Driver to a generic newer Nvidia one through Windows Update (replacing the one from Bootcamp 5.1). The iMac freezes and is generally unstable with this Windows Update Driver (designed for PC's running Windows obviously). Oddly (which becomes important) Windows Update is offering two identical Nvidia Drivers at the same time. (Is this because the Bootcamp driver only supports Win8.1?, so is offering Win8.1 Update + Win10 Update)
I remove the updated Nvidia driver, replace it back with (older) BootCamp 5.1 Driver, Windows Update downloads and replaces (as above).
I've tried System->Advanced Settings->Hardware: Device Installation Settings, 'Do you want to automatically download manufacturer's apps and custom icons that are available for your devices'
Set to 'No'. Makes no difference - still downloads and installs.
I've tried using local Group Policy Manager to block Hardware Device Drivers by Hardware ID (but this still allows the Nvidia setup.exe to be run, hence installs all the support software, ovewrites everything, installing the driver a different way (that doesn't check GPM) shows all the software updated, machine freezes. Duplicates and leaves the older Nvidia 3D Control Driver in place.
Had some partial success with this, in that it prevents the BootCamp driver been reinstalled manually, but doesn't prevent Windows Update running Nvidia setup.exe files and reinstalling all the driver software, i.e with no graphics driver installed, this method prevents the BootCamp driver from been installed.
Tried setting Group policy for Downloads to Notify and download, still installs.
Tried using the KB3073930, to hide updates, doesn't work, because Windows Update is offering two identical drivers at the same time, if you hide one, the other is still visible, and installs.
Tried installing Powershell Windows Update Module add-on, using Powershell commands to prevent any Windows Updates beginning with 'NVIDIA', still installs, again because WindowsUpdate is offering up two identical drivers at the same time, catches the first, second installs.
Another option is to prevent execution of any drivers signed by Nvidia, and also prevent device drivers by Hardware IDs at the same time, but Windows Update still offers the Nvidia Driver for download, and then tried to install, filling the Windows Update log with multiple failed driver installs.
I generally know what I'm doing, how can something so simple have become so f'in frustrating!
FU Microsoft and you controlling tendencies.
Yes. but the cryptic blue screen message meant the average user hadn't a clue it was a hardware problem or driver problem. Windows is still shit at explaining the difference.