from 1meg to 1.5meg on max worth it?

danoliver1 · 11 Apr 2006 at 15:55

Currently on 1meg with bt but now adsl max is up and runnin they say i can get 1.5meg because of my crappy line, question is is it worth the trouble upgrading?
I mainly just surf the web and play on line games, will it help my ping times?
Dont really want another 12 month contract. Anyone recomend somewhere that does max with shorter contracts? cheers

tolien · 11 Apr 2006 at 15:58

danoliver1 said:
Currently on 1meg with bt but now adsl max is up and runnin they say i can get 1.5meg because of my crappy line, question is is it worth the trouble upgrading?

Probably not. Though it would seem BT (Retail?) are refusing to regrade people who wouldn't get a benefit out of it.

I mainly just surf the web and play on line games, will it help my ping times?

Nope. There's a chance it'll get worse.

Anyone recomend somewhere that does max with shorter contracts? cheers

Zen. www.adslguide.org.uk is your friend.

Skilldibop · 11 Apr 2006 at 17:24

the question you're really asking is are you willing to possibly pay more for that extra 512k download.

Which, really, is a question only you can answer.
The only substantial advantage in that scenario is the bonus upload, but if your just using it for web browsing and the occasional download then you won't make much use of it.

gam3r · 11 Apr 2006 at 17:28

If you can bear the 1mbit, leave it at that, 512k isnt that much, but if you want it go for it.

Dave2150 · 11 Apr 2006 at 19:53

danoliver1 said:
Currently on 1meg with bt but now adsl max is up and runnin they say i can get 1.5meg because of my crappy line, question is is it worth the trouble upgrading?
I mainly just surf the web and play on line games, will it help my ping times?
Dont really want another 12 month contract. Anyone recomend somewhere that does max with shorter contracts? cheers

BT said 1.5mbit for my line on max, but im getting 3.1mbit - definately worth it for me.

Stats on BTW 1mbit:

Stats on BTW MAX

Note that im now syncing @ 3.1mbit, so I should get 3mbit data throughput when the BRAS updates.

csmager · 11 Apr 2006 at 20:43

Dave2150 said:
Note that im now syncing @ 3.1mbit, so I should get 3mbit data throughput when the BRAS updates.

I'd note you're syncing at under 3Mb, so you'll get 2.5Mb when it updates. You need to sync at 3424kbps+ to get 3Mb.
http://www.adslguide.org.uk/newsarchive.asp?item=2622

Dave2150 · 11 Apr 2006 at 22:24

csmager said:
I'd note you're syncing at under 3Mb, so you'll get 2.5Mb when it updates. You need to sync at 3424kbps+ to get 3Mb.
http://www.adslguide.org.uk/newsarchive.asp?item=2622

Hadnt seen that new article, thanks.

Looks like its spot on too, judging by my speedtests:

http://www.adslguide.org.uk/tools/speedchart.asp?id=f5cd65fb10a8495bd426337d5b

If only I synced a little faster I would have that much more throughput.

Bah I dont really care - Im more concerned for the pooor people syncing at 900k and not getting any speed increase over 512k - thats simply not fair IMO.

Being able to download at 299kB/sec is amazing to me - such an increase over my 119kB/sec - just loving this Maxdsl

Clientbug · 11 Apr 2006 at 23:04

Yes it is worth it, remember the days, when 56kbps was considered the fastest, 512kbps was then brought out.. Only around 450kbps faster but look at the difference, It SHOULD decrease your ping and latency by around a quarter of the original.

tolien · 11 Apr 2006 at 23:19

Clientbug said:
It SHOULD decrease your ping and latency by around a quarter of the original.

No it won't.
It's worth it if your sync rate goes high enough to push you over the next 0.5mbps step in data rates.

Skilldibop · 12 Apr 2006 at 10:08

It SHOULD decrease your ping and latency by around a quarter of the original.

Ping is dependant entirely on the number of hops and link speed between hops on route to the destination. Ping packets are tiny, so on 1meg you send that packet in about 1.5ms on 2 meg you send it in 1.35ms.
Those are completely fabricated numbers but the principle being there is a reduction in the time taken to transmit the packet to the destination but it's so so SO small in comparison to latency encountered later on that it's for all intents and purposes completely neglegible.

sagramore · 12 Apr 2006 at 13:21

Dave2150 said:
BT said 1.5mbit for my line on max, but im getting 3.1mbit - definately worth it for me.

Stats on BTW 1mbit:

IMG

Stats on BTW MAX

IMG

Note that im now syncing @ 3.1mbit, so I should get 3mbit data throughput when the BRAS updates.

I like how your SNR changed so much for the better...
I'm on Eclipse 2mbit atm and just opted for the regrade to 8mbit Evolution Option 4 (the "expensive one") but my SNR is a bit dodgy at the moment - i hope mine changes for the better like yours did!

I'm informed 3.5mbit should be my limit actually (1.7km from exchange) so I'll let you all know how it goes once it arrives....

danoliver1 · 12 Apr 2006 at 15:05

My stats pretty much the same as dave2150s so sod it ive upgraded lets hope i get the same download speeds as u

tolien · 12 Apr 2006 at 15:06

sagramore said:
I like how your SNR changed so much for the better...

Er, down is worse...

Skilldibop · 12 Apr 2006 at 15:19

20ish SNR is generally viewed as "OK" 30+ is good

SNR = Signal to noise Ratio, therefore strong signal divided by low noise = big number.

Dave2150 · 12 Apr 2006 at 17:20

Skilldibop said:
20ish SNR is generally viewed as "OK" 30+ is good

SNR = Signal to noise Ratio, therefore strong signal divided by low noise = big number.

Hope you know that how "good" an SNR is depends on the sync speed.....

Some of the quietest, shortest lines syncing at 8128k have 7db and are perfectly stable, very low CRC errors etc.

If your talking about SNR @ 2mbit, then yes the values you posted with your descriptions of "ok" and "good" are correct.

Skilldibop · 12 Apr 2006 at 17:39

SNR is down to how good the signal your router puts out is.

My SNR didn't really change at all from 512k to 2mbit and if your router has a Very very good modem chip in it, it should remain constant until the chip hits max.

Noise is just a mishmash of voltage on the line. The more stable the voltage and current from your modem the easier that is to distiguish from the noise.
That's why 510v4s synch better at long range than other routers, because the alcatel chip isn't scraping the bottom of the barrel on the voltage tollerance.
The longer the line the more noise you get the same as the longer the aerial the better your radio signal is, but it *shouldn't* be affected by the frequency of the signal travelling down it, unless your unlucky enough that the increased frequency coincides closely with the frequency of whatever is causing most of the noise on your line.

best way to observe that is hook an oscillioscope up to your line and watch what happens when you connect your modem.

csmager · 12 Apr 2006 at 18:06

Skilldibop said:
My SNR didn't really change at all from 512k to 2mbit and if your router has a Very very good modem chip in it, it should remain constant until the chip hits max.

It will almost always go down at higher speeds, unless you happen to have no noise on the line. At low speed, ADSL only needs to use a limited number of the BIN's available. So it tests each of them to work out the SNR for each - which does vary because they're at different frequencies. Different noise sources will cause problems different frequencies. Not to mention that as you increase frequency the reactance of the capacitance and inductances will increase causing more attenuation - reducing SNR.

It stands to reason that if you require fewer BINs the best will be cherry picked. If you want to go all out and use the lot to get 8Mb, there's going to be some duff ones that have more noise than the others, and the higher frequency ones are going to have higher attenuation - your modem has no control over this.

The longer the line the more noise you get the same as the longer the aerial the better your radio signal is

But the best aerial length is half the wavelength, surely? Hence the huge Radio 4 LW transmitter in Droitwich for 198kHz and small mobile phone aerials for Ghz ranges.

tolien · 12 Apr 2006 at 21:35

Bang on, and that's why the "6dB per doubling of your speed" falls apart rapidly, as well as why different chipsets give different SNRs (barring dodgy accuracy).

cyclopopcicle · 13 Apr 2006 at 08:11

what speed is mine likely to be good for?

OllyM · 13 Apr 2006 at 09:31

You are all forgetting the increased upload on Max... perhaps that might be enough to 'tip the balance'?

cyclopopcicle said:
what speed is mine likely to be good for?

Your stats are kind-of similar to mine. Attenuation was 29dB, SNR was 31dB, now synced at a solid 8128/832 without any drops, but my SNR is down to about 6dB.