39 posts • joined 27 Jun 2010
It's a positive step for UK broadband
If only BT were smart enough to put fibre back in the ground after the copper was knicked. After all, it is broadly agreed that an 80% civil engineering cost overhead is required to put cables into the ground, so why wouldn't they capitalise on their civil engineering repair costs and upgrade it to fibre?
Lower maintenance, longer lifespan, future proof ... but wait. That would decimate BT's leased line business, and not help their BDUK race to the bottom DSL technology deployment dead-end.
Ah well ... coat, grabbed, gone.
Re: Just because they give it to you
Yep. It's as future proof as a puddle in the Sahara.
Copper is not the future. The ASA say BT can continue to call it "fibre broadband", as the data travels over fibre for MOST of the distance towards your home, until it comes in to your house. Cue image of a 6 lane motorway, becoming a single track farm road that doesn't like it when it rains ... how many vehicles per hour down there? It's the wrong technology. Just plain wrong.
It's our tax money BDUK are spending with BT, and we have no effective oversight of BTs interpretation of "financially viable". They are having all their cake, and munching down on it.
Bootnote: Can we trade in HS2 for FTTH for everyone? The numbers seem to add up [HA HA HA]
And the duty cycle?
... isn't what I'd call "mainstream" for Backblaze. I see their drives, in enclosures that required shutting the whole thing down to replace a single drive, as "jam jars". You fill 'em up once with lots and lots of writes, then occasionally you ask pretty please for some of the data back. Meanwhile you truck on to filling up the next "jam jar". As the data on the drives age, the read requests reduce, to the point where they can probably be powered down, waiting for a stray read request that needs something from a dormant spindle.
This isn't "classic" OLTP or datacentre duty for a spindle. Apples and oranges ... please.
Some "science" on the duty cycle per spindle of the drive comparison would better inform us the of the job these drives were doing. You put a layer of write buffering flash in front of these boxes to further level out the writes to become almost synchronous to each spindle, and you change the drive head step pattern again. Heck ... we'll have the stuff on tape soon [SMILE].
Comical statisticians at work ...
I mean really - 150? That's it? Try again.
QoS doomed and finger pointing
... will become the norm more so than it already is. Whose cell was I logged on to when I got the 56Kbps download using my shiny 4G phone? Whose backhaul was saturated when 12 of us watched that Premiership match in HD?
Helpdesks, performance and coverage are so poor from both operators, that my expectations are low enough for me not to care much about this new agreement. In my neck of the woods at any rate.
How does a user "check" a website is secure?
Surely not by clicking on the green SSL certificate? We all know how that can end nowadays.
Because users with weak passwords understand PKI and certificate authority trust chains.
Well intention'd, but I shiver at the money they are spending on the campaign. Bit like their ludicrous approach to broadband (BDUK) and giving £1.2b to BT. That'll end well.
Re: What's to stop a US native using this?
Very easy for Three to limit roaming to 4, 6, 8, whatever weeks of consecutive airtime without the SIM returning to its UK HLR.
Smallprint will reveal all I expect.
Ummm ... so if you want to upload/backup to an Internet cloud service or use concurrent HD video conferencing streams, you're restricted to 20 Mbps? Perhaps BT haven't heard that the last 20 years of Internet traffic patterns don't necessarily represent the next 20 years?
So where are all the BT Infinity 2 "fibre" (it's not - it's COPPER) folk with "up to" 80 Mbps?
And the 10%-16% who won't get FTTC "up to" speeds?
... why won't BT tell us where they are, and let energetic, motivated communities like B4RN fix it themselves?
If Openreach hadn't made PIA so expensive, others could have competed on a fairer playing field. No surprise that Fujitsu pulled out and that BT is winning all these contracts - there isn't any competition for reasons that the EU understood very well and wanted performance and monitoring conditions on the State Aid approval.
Lies, damn lies, ...
Ah yes. And in other news, 86.7% of broadband users said their speeds dropped by 20% last year.
PS: In a survey of 15 users, interviewed in the Dog 'n' Duck at 10:50pm on a Friday.
The broadband divide between urban and rural gets bigger. Yes indeed.
BT know that the people that matter in communications can see straight through this hogwash. Publish the detail on the stats, if you want to get credibility BT - don't play politics and publish nonsense numbers.
O365 - backed by a financial guarantee ...
... yeah RIGHT. Microsoft promise to pay you the paltry amount you paid them for each user. The atrocious effect on your business is not their problem and never will be.
If you choose cloud, choose very, very carefully. Putting stuff there without understanding the risk to your business could be a career limiting move.
Waste of public money?
@Drew - you may or may not be aware that the KCC BDUK team have issued a confidential (WHY WHY WHY?) Invitation to Tender with support from Tunbridge Wells Borough Council to "improve rural broadband". The results of the tender are expected to be announced in April this year. If BT don't win it I'll eat my hat. The confidential list of respondees are chasing BDUK RCBF funding which they are expected to match. What the successful bidder is planning to do nobody is saying, not even TWBC or KCC, which I see as unhelpful at the very least. If necessary I will be raising an FoI request to expose this spend of public funds to improve public awareness of the value derived. I strongly suspect a limited number of FTTC cabinets will appear and little more.
To measure the benefit, a not-for-profit community organisation called Broadband 4 the Rural South have deployed 67 Sam Knows (www.samknows.com) "whiteboxes" and have a GoogleMap (http://www.b4rs.org.uk/GoogleMap) with monitored speeds across the parish of Speldhurst. Any benefit from funds spent with a commercial operator will be carefully monitored and reported on! Great to hold anyone getting public money to account for what they deliver. B4RS (www.b4rs.org.uk) itself wants to repeat in Kent the success of B4RN (www.b4rn.org.uk) up in Cumbria.
Given the undeniable goal of Openreach to please its shareholders in preference to providing rural broadband in Kent, it's not fair to expect them to deliver fast rural broadband in loss making areas. What we don't need however, is our government providing them with public money to extend the life of their long paid for copper infrastructure, allowing them to interfere with others who don't need to make a profit from fixing it! They can't have it both ways. It is all rather David and Goliath, of course. Yes, I'm a huge supporter of B4RN and B4RS.
UK trailing behind Israel now then ...
At least Israel has decided to fund and implement future proof fibre, and not pump the long paid for, legacy, rotten, rusty, copper, owned by an incumbent that must appease shareholders first, everyone else after that. UK Plc doing nothing about it - BDUK is a farce in its current form.
QoS and using someone else's statistics ...
... would have made a more compelling article. It is very difficult to build reliable QoS for cloud services, private or otherwise. Quoting your own statistics to support the legacy CAPEX procurement model in 2010 smacks of fox counting chickens. There are many organisations that currently have a percentage of procurement coming from "true cloud" (cough - flexible, metered, granular, on-demand services), however business critical services won't get there until the QoS is reliable and rigid enough.
Of course, we all know the internet isn't a predictable resource, don't we? Anything cloud, over the internet, has an immediate hurdle right there.
Perhaps the problem ....
... is more fundamental.
Storage often isn't as "simple" as an organisation the size of Dell would like it to be (the "Simplification bandwagon"). When you arrive at a client, their current mess, and you wouldn't be there if there wasn't one, needs a careful guiding hand to make enough sense of it, to understand which bits can be effectively and profitably simplified.
By dumbing the exercise down to the point where cheap storage hardware margin is expected to cover the cost of the clever analysis, the business model starts to fall apart, and the quality delivered to the end client falls. This affects market perception and the value of any "consumed" vendor that used to be a specialist in a unique area.
Infrastructure is becoming a commodity, but the complexity of implementing the commodity bag of spanners for a specific customer's business process, isn't changing. Too many customers forget to build in appropriate billing engines to the infrastructure deployment, then realise after the project that they have no idea how much it is actually costing, and therefore what they're saving on OPEX - but it is VERY dynamic and shiny. Duh.
Re: Electrical Engineers To The Rescue !
Deary me ... I trust we're not all assuming the transaction that matters is at the storage interface. It's one piece of a much bigger puzzle.
It's a sad fact that the majority of organisations don't have a complete view of where their "business" transactions actually take place, and by inference what must be persisted, and how, given various types of failures.
Don't we have to fix that, before we trumpet to the business "replicate the array and we're all good, buddy"?
Try bringing up 46 Windows VMs from a corrupt VMFS v5 partition on a 1TB LUN. Ain't happening. Even if they booted, and NTFS found MOST of the orphaned clusters on the vdisks, the apps are unlikely to be consistent especially if they use a binary DB of some description. But blindly we continue to trust ... "she's up - must be good".
Putting too much money into a single link in the technology chain supporting a transaction isn't good value, and doesn't solve the bigger problem. Spreading infrastructure investment appropriately across the entire transaction footprint, driven by business requirements and risk, is the way of the enlightened grasshopper.
I would argue that storage alone is not the answer here, nor is HSM (which mainframes had ohhhhh ... a while back), nor is the RDBMS, nor is transactional JMS - it's a little bit of everything, in just the right amounts. Just add beer.
Fetching coat, again.
... so, does the 50V we in the UK currently shunt down every copper telephone line to power the ringer, heating the insulation with16.46 Ohms per 1000ft at 25C, help balance the power budget required to send wavelengths down a fibre? Do any of them have some numbers on what this requires in power budget?
The discretionary power usage in a datacentre varies far too much according to the whims of shareholders rather than communications necessity. I believe there are a great many years left in our "essential" datacentre power budget before we need optical switching - which is just as well, as it could take us a fair few years to get it working commercially.
The Ozzies do talk straight, but I'm missing a few variables in the equations they're producing.
The optical flip-flop would be a nice toy. Yes please.
@skeete Actually, Team 1 spend a day looking at the requirements as presented by the business, decide the risk profile is not acceptable and do not take part in the race. They use the resources that would have been wasted on a pointless endeavour to enter a different competition, which they win. Team two lose a wheel at the first corner and crash into a wall. They're no longer in business. Risk management is important, and it's hard to do well across many disciplines.
Re: Kinda hope
Hmmm ... I've been waiting on RS for 6 months now. Shocking communications - been told "shipping now" a couple of times, then I get an Email to say "delayed by up to 9 weeks" at the end of August. I won't bore this thread with the details, but RS scores a poor "must try harder" on their report card. Logistics planning absolute #FAIL. If it's not their fault, they would do well to say so.
I hope we're getting version 2.0 of the logistics and customer communication pipeline.
Son of EMAS?
Anybody else remember EMAS? Filesystem on that was certainly not separate, nor easily portable to any other head-end.. How times have changed.
MTBF of SSD - MLC, SLC, TLC ...
So ... what *IS* this number?
Using SSD as cache in a storage tier pretty much assures it of continual write activity, which could be close to theoretical write speed limits. At this speed, the published manufacturer write limits can be reached in months, not years. I can imagine that replacing an active SSD cache component (whether it's array cache, or SSD or PCIe or something else) is going to involve a reduction in IOPs are the very least, if not intrusive failover/downtime.
Does anyone have a reliable source of MTBF for EMC, HDS, >anything else< using FLASH?
So what else could the silicon do ...
... if it wasn't locked/tied into talking to arguably third rate AV software drivers?
Intel could be making a substantial error if they believe enterprise customers want to be told which AV vendor to use, and that silicon is being dedicated to it, when it could mean extra cache/cores instead.
I wince every time my laptop BSODs, as the TPM module has all the keys to my encrypted hard drives. It's a carefully planned, encryption free, full recovery from backup if the motherboard goes. Is this where Intel want to take generic computing? Silicon doesn't evolve and adapt at the rate the virus authors do. The gap will widen, with fork lift CPU upgrades replacing AV software upgrades. I do not like the look of this.
Re: Re: Re: The bar to acceptance doesn't seem to have been high
Yeah - comments on website were broken. Minimum 6 chars, maximum was around 70, although it would let you type more but refuse to submit. Poor, poor quality for 4 weeks of effort.
Not a hint of any services to help buyers decide what is appropriate and safe to outsource into the cloud. I guess the assumption is such skills (migration from legacy to cloud) already exist in solid, reliable pockets of individuals within government. Feels to me like a big chunk of missing DNA in the G-Cloud genome.
Something is better than nothing, to break the stranglehold of the large corporates.
54Mbit/s = 1.5MByte/s (ish)
So .... that's on an 802.11g network with a single busy client pulling SMB data from a server. Now, why aren't there concurrent client benchmarks reminding everyone that Wifi is fundamentally a CSMA/CA network. I.e. you have rather limited *concurrent* bandwidth. Even Wimax (slightly off topic) struggles with concurrency when many clients want to transmit at the same time - it pretends to be token ring to "trick" you, ultimately nailing available bandwidth to the floor as distance increases.
This is one reason why we moved quickly to switching ethernet frames and star network designs instead of using hubs with the old yellow/red coax cable [SMILE]. Showing my age.
Fundamentally, Wifi will *never* replace cable for anything other than light traffic, low user count applications e.g. at home or browsing. The radio spectrum/Niquist-Shannon theorem just doesn't support it. Chucking more channels/frequencies at it is sticking tape and string. Is that a MIMO access point I see before me, or a hedghog?
@Jim in Hayward
TiVo has been around since 1999. Wikipedia is your friend.
Patents since 1999 or earlier .... NPV relevant here. I'm still using mine+FreeSat in preference to Sky+ due to excessive charging model from Sky, but that's another discussion all together.
It's NOT fibre ... meh
It is FTTC. It is VDSL2+ at best, with *serious* limitations on distance from cabinets. It might one day reach 100Mbps downstream and 10Mbps upstream. You can forget "cloud anything" that involves sending your data anywhere at more than 1MBps. Seems a lot now, but it won't in 5 years. Those unlucky enough to live close to an exchange are stuck with ADSL2+ Annex M at 24Mbps at best. No infinity for them, unless the RFI regs are changed to allow installation of the VDSL kit *inside* the exchange.
If it *were* fibre, real fibre, not metal, then synchronous Gbps is easy and logical. BT have never explained their contention ratios, or whether they rollout FTTC before or after they've made the backhaul capable of dealing with a massive increase in consumer traffic. Just how many HD movies do you need to watch/download to do 4 GByte in a day? One, with commercials. Pointless to have 10Gbps even if that's what you're capped at.
The BT Infinity product is a denial of the inevitable need to "pass" every home with fibre, not copper. Little to none of the Infinity equipment is reusable to achieve this. Or, in other words, the BDUK funding they are gobbling up is a complete waste of public money, supported by our short sighted government. BT will continue to enjoy the monopoly of the final copper mile they've had for more than 30 years.
Virgin LLU relevance ...
Ludicrous to compare Virgin TiVo with the others given the dismal network coverage of the UK. Notable is the Sam Knows website revealing that 1334 exchanges are Virgin LLU enabled (http://www.samknows.com/broadband/llu/virgin), with NONE PENDING. So Virgin are happy with the coverage they have, and stuff everyone else.
When did they last put any fibre in the ground? Waiting for us to pay them with BDUK money no doubt. Could be a long, cold wait in the dark.
ROI of FIVE years? Duh?
Nowadays, in a cloud infrastructure you'd expect to see a 12-18 month ROI, or you ain't doing it right.
IBM saw them coming.
Fessing up to backhaul/transit contention ratios ...
Would go a long way to qualifying the service offered by BT. 5:1, 20:1 or 1000:1? Just how over-subscribed is the BT backhaul and transit throughput during peak traffic periods?
Like BT will *ever* talk about that! We can only therefore assume, it does not paint a positive picture for them, and therefore it is bad.
It *will* be over subscribed, or it wouldn't be financially viable. It is HOW oversubscribed it is in comparison to the other ISPs that makes it interesting.
Windows IPv6 and Teredo - danger by default
So, you enabled IPv6 by default on Windows, and presented tunnels and routing to the internet for free?
I have unloaded all IPv6 stacks from all our Windows servers, pending architecturally correct deployment, with the assurance that IDS/IPS and firewalls all treat IPv6 with the respect it deserves. No place for Teredo in our site, sorry.
94.2% of all statistics are lies
Really - we all rush off and discuss this as if it's reliable and accurate. Without disclosure of the underlying data it's nothing more than propaganda. We should keep it for the pub.
My coat's next to the log fire and the malt whisky.
Rock and a hard place ...
So, VISA and Mastercard issue new T's & C's and say "let us sell your data or cut your card up". Not really a choice in today's society.
Still we make apples play like pears ...
Why do we insist on making perfectly efficient NAND memory pretend to have cylinders, sectors and speak SCSI?
Not convinced a train company is the best early adopter for this technology.
Business application support - DOOMED
Mozilla is doomed. For any busines applications which have to be tested against a specific browser version, the business app test cycle alone takes longer than the period between major version releases.
They have effectively, and efficiently, qualified themselves out of ever making inroads into the business desktop market. Plain stupid.
Not entirely sure ...
... illegally acquiring someone's personal details means they have been "hacked". The data holding institution got hacked. End user is the vitcim. Smites of sensationalism.
This will kill corporate usage - DEAD
It takes companies like EMC, Oracle or defense contractors YEARS to add support for a major browser version atop their latest ERP software stack/dung pile. This release schedule effectively gives all that ground to IE, positioning FF with the raft of "boutique" browsers that aren't prepared to acknowledge the software lifecycle in B.I.G. organisations and government.
Not clever. Worrying actually. IBM have it right, gosh.
iCal attachments - AT LAST!
iOS 4.2 does bring the ability to add calendar invites to your calendar. Something that Apple have dragged their feet on for soooooo long. this was the only thing stopping us from allowing iPhone as a company phone.
Software warranty anyone?
My latest iTunes update came with a hefty 98 pages of 8pt PDF. Rather than stay with redundant versions, I ticked and loaded, trusting that the flock of users before me would assist in the class action that may follow when Apple fall.
The entire software, security and "fit for purpose" argument would be moot were software creators once again confident enough to offer a warranty with their wares. The entire software industry needs to revisit this, before software producers will be motivated to consider security concurrently with profit, which would remove the need for the disclaimers that currently prevail. Apparently, no software produced since the early 70's is fit for purpose. It all started then.
- Very fabric of space-time RIPPED apart in latest Hubble pic
- Dell charges £16 TO INSTALL FIREFOX on PCs – Mozilla is miffed
- Video Hubble snaps SPACE CRUMBLE enigma 'roid
- CIA snoops snooped on Senate to spy spy torture report – report
- Updated Newsweek knocks on door of dad-of-six, tells him he invented Bitcoin