Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.mobile.android > #57898 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-11-26 15:31 +0000 |
| Last post | 2018-11-29 15:52 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 181 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android
Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-11-26 15:31 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-11-26 17:01 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-11-28 11:57 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-28 14:03 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-28 10:52 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-11-28 16:03 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-28 11:08 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2018-11-28 16:21 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-28 11:49 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2018-11-28 18:30 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-28 13:49 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-28 10:30 -0700
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-29 15:54 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-29 10:30 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-29 22:50 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-29 17:44 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2018-11-30 08:48 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-01 03:47 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-30 22:04 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> - 2018-12-01 08:42 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Piet <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> - 2018-12-01 11:21 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-04 13:03 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Piet <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> - 2018-12-08 12:47 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Alfred <alfred@invalid.invalid> - 2018-11-28 12:48 -0600
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-28 13:50 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Alfred <alfred@invalid.invalid> - 2018-11-28 13:34 -0600
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-28 15:29 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Alfred <alfred@invalid.invalid> - 2018-11-28 16:10 -0600
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-28 17:32 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Alfred <alfred@invalid.invalid> - 2018-11-28 17:26 -0600
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-28 18:41 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-29 15:44 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-29 20:46 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-29 23:06 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-11-29 23:05 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-01 04:08 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-11-30 22:28 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-01 15:35 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-12-01 15:24 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-01 10:26 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-12-01 15:49 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-12-01 15:59 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-01 11:30 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-01 11:30 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-12-01 19:49 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-01 15:04 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-12-01 21:29 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-01 18:29 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-02 13:27 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-02 10:08 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-02 13:20 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-02 10:08 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-02 23:15 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-02 17:48 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-03 05:18 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-12-03 13:27 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-03 14:59 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-03 10:09 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-04 11:43 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Piet <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> - 2018-12-04 12:23 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-12-04 14:00 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-12-04 14:16 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2018-12-04 11:45 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-12-04 14:40 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-04 18:41 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2018-12-05 10:27 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-05 15:44 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries 123456789 <123456@123456.com> - 2018-12-05 10:04 -0700
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-05 12:17 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2018-12-05 19:10 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-05 20:30 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-05 14:40 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries 123456789 <123456@123456.com> - 2018-12-05 16:05 -0700
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-05 20:06 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-05 09:51 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2018-12-05 15:46 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-05 11:29 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries 123456789 <123456@123456.com> - 2018-12-05 10:04 -0700
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-05 20:09 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries +++ATH0 <news@ringpiece.local> - 2018-12-12 21:39 -0800
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-13 09:13 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-13 21:09 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-13 19:04 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-12-05 17:22 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2018-12-05 19:13 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-12-06 13:55 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-06 09:10 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-12-06 16:39 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-06 11:56 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-12-06 17:30 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-06 12:43 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Graham J <graham@invalid.com> - 2018-12-05 17:26 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-05 12:37 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-05 09:51 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2018-12-05 16:01 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-05 11:29 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-12-05 20:07 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-12-05 20:08 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-05 16:35 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-12-06 14:09 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-06 09:15 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-06 15:40 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-12-06 15:32 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-07 04:18 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-12-06 16:22 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-06 11:35 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2018-12-06 17:18 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-06 12:29 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-07 04:20 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-06 22:45 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2018-12-07 12:23 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries BugHunter <bughunter@com.invalid> - 2018-12-07 13:08 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2018-12-07 12:59 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-12-07 09:32 -0700
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-07 19:26 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-12-06 20:17 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-07 04:33 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2018-12-07 13:11 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-07 08:31 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-07 19:36 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-07 21:25 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-07 23:17 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-12-06 18:51 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-07 04:15 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-05 20:16 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-05 14:41 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-07 19:41 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-07 14:30 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-07 23:22 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-07 17:46 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-08 02:16 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-07 21:13 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-05 09:51 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-05 09:51 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-05 20:19 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-05 14:41 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-07 19:42 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-07 14:30 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-07 23:24 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-07 17:46 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-08 02:00 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-07 21:13 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2018-12-07 20:56 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-07 23:35 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-07 17:46 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-08 02:11 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-12-04 14:13 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-05 09:51 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-05 20:25 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-05 14:41 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-07 19:45 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2018-12-07 21:03 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-05 09:51 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-05 20:27 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-05 14:40 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-12-03 09:33 -0700
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-12-03 18:40 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-03 14:00 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-02 13:18 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-02 12:58 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-02 12:54 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Piet <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> - 2018-12-01 17:22 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-02 13:30 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2018-12-01 09:07 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-01 15:24 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-12-01 15:23 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-02 13:31 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2018-12-02 12:38 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-02 13:49 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Piet <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> - 2018-12-02 15:43 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-02 10:08 -0500
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-11-30 13:16 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-01 15:46 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Piet <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> - 2018-12-01 12:00 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "NY" <me@privacy.net> - 2018-12-01 11:16 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-12-01 11:41 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-12-01 12:27 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-12-01 13:14 +0000
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-12-01 15:47 +0100
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-11-28 10:18 -0700
Re: Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2018-11-29 15:52 +0100
Page 9 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 Next page →
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-02 12:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <gotcdf-7j9.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #58040 |
On 01/12/2018 16.26, nospam wrote: > In article <ptu92m$115t$2@gioia.aioe.org>, Java Jive > <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote: > >>> >>> My main laptop doesn't, only 802.11b/g >> >> In which case, I'd definitely cable it. which I do when I need more throughput. > > better yet, replace it entirely. Not going to happen - unless you kindly donate the hardware :-p -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Piet <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-01 17:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ptucfg$177e$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58035 |
Carlos E.R. wrote: > My main laptop doesn't, only 802.11b/g. USB slot free? Add a USB 802.11ac (nano) adapter. -p
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-02 13:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ssvcdf-mpb.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #58044 |
On 01/12/2018 17.22, Piet wrote: > Carlos E.R. wrote: >> My main laptop doesn't, only 802.11b/g. > > USB slot free? Add a USB 802.11ac (nano) adapter. When I need more speed I connect a cable, which I hide behind the TV set :-) But yes, that's an idea. Nano? Interesting. The problem with those is knowing what they are when you have more than one such. Or not loosing them. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-01 09:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pttj17$1sd3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58020 |
On 01/12/2018 03:08, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 30/11/2018 00.05, Martin Brown wrote: >> On 29/11/2018 22:06, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>> On 29/11/2018 21.46, Frank Slootweg wrote: >>>> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >>>>> On 28/11/2018 17.03, Martin Brown wrote: >>>>>> On 28/11/2018 13:03, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>>>> On 28/11/2018 12.57, Martin Brown wrote: > > ... > >>>>>>> Many people have such slow WiFi. And even slower if living on a flat >>>>>>> (apartment): 1 MB is typical. >>>>>> >>>>>> If there are zillions of users all fighting for the same channel 11 as >>>>>> BT used to by default set them up to do then you can get a huge >>>>>> slowdown >>>>>> due to collisions. I persuaded my nearest neighbours to use >>>>>> channels so >>>>>> that people on the same channel are separated as widely as possible. >>>>> >>>>> Oh, at that place there are so many neighbours all using WiFi that all >>>>> channels are used by more than one apartment. >>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, it is possible to purchase access points using 5 Gh and improve >>>>>>> speed. >>>>>> >>>>>> Most ISP provided modems are capable of 5GHz operation and 802.11n >>>>>> these >>>>>> days - maybe you should ask your ISP to replace your antidiluvian >>>>>> unit. >>>>> >>>>> Oh, they will. They are replacing them, forcibly, and charging extra, >>>>> which I do not want. I do not know if the new model does 5G - I'll >>>>> google. [...] Yes, it has 5G. But apparently only for new clients, not >>>>> guaranteed they install it if we complain. >>>>> >>>>> <https://comunidad.movistar.es/t5/Blog-Movisfera/Telef%C3%B3nica-sustituye-router-ONT-y-videobridge-por-un-nuevo/ba-p/2505790> >>>>> >>>> >>>> "charging extra"!? If you buy the router, then why should your ISP >>>> charge extra? >>> >>> Forget about me replacing the ISP provided router, out of the question. >>> >>> Why? Well, they manage the router remotely, and they do not publish the >>> various and complex configurations needed for the router to handle the >>> phone and TV services. And they do change things, that make things stop >>> working if you use your own hardware. >> >> OK so they manage their router remotely - but surely it has a decently >> fast fixed wire 10/100/1000 hard wired ethernet socket so you could buy >> a modern post-diluvian router to use in addition. > > I have a recent Access Point and what it does is 40 mbit. I just looked. That is truly bizarre. I can't see what the ISP gains by using such a prehistoric Wifi capability. Even my cheapo Mifi device the size of a packet of cigarettes can manage faster speeds. They would quickly go out of business in the UK if they tried that here. > > >>> Yes, I believe some people do it. I don't have time for that. For >>> fighting the device and them. >> >> It should be just a case of disabling the inbuilt Wifi and substituting >> your own as a pass through device. > > I did. I bought an AP a year or two ago, and it does the very modern and > decent rate of 40 mbit :-p Where did you buy it? In a junk shop? > > >>>> Anyhow, if you have a "600 Mbit land line", then why does your ISP >>>> get >>>> away with providing only a 45 Mbps router? If an ISP in our country >>>> tried that, a few complaints to a consumer organization would make the >>>> ISP get their act together very quickly. >>> >>> Interesting question, but all providers do that. >> >> How do they get away with it? My landline speed is a pathetic 5Mbps (the >> average local speed round here is typically 1-2Mbps) but the ISP >> supplied router is easily capable of 300M on its Wifi - and the chipset >> is nothing special it is the default ISP modem. > > Interesting. > >>> >>> They do the testing on Ethernet, obviously. >>> >>> With another provider at another place, the apartment has the minimal >>> Internet available. The ISP wanted to "improve" speed, and I said "no", >>> because the WiFi is the same. I had a hard time convincing the girl at >>> the other side that "no, we do not want more internet speed, and yes, I >>> know what I'm saying, and no, you don't". No, she did not offer to >>> improve the WiFi. >>> >>> So I got a rebate for the house instead. 120 or 150 mbits, I think. >> >> It is odd that they sell such a fast WAN connection with such a >> dreadfully slow Wifi capability. Are you sure that the things Wifi >> cannot be re-configured to work as if it was made in the 21st century? > > Certainly. I just looked at the configuration pages of both devices, and > I can choose 20 or 40 mbits, no more. > > I just opened a page at my supplier, and I see some 11n routers, some at > almost 400 euros, some at 24€ (MIMO, 2.4 band only). > > Not very promising on the low price range. > > <https://www.pccomponentes.com/routers/wifi-11-n> One of the cheaper ones by a reputable brand ought to easily do 300M or 600M if you pay a shade more for it. This onse splits the difference: https://www.amazon.co.uk/TP-Link-Wireless-Router-Button-TL-WR940N/dp/B003Y5RYNY/ About £25 in the UK. PC magazines here regularly review better replacement routers for domestic and business use rating them by price/performance and range. > > And of course, I do not know if my laptops will be able to connect at > that speed. > RTFM -- Regards, Martin Brown
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-01 15:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <g6iadf-nh9.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #58027 |
On 01/12/2018 10.07, Martin Brown wrote: > On 01/12/2018 03:08, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 30/11/2018 00.05, Martin Brown wrote: >>> On 29/11/2018 22:06, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>> On 29/11/2018 21.46, Frank Slootweg wrote: >>>>> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> On 28/11/2018 17.03, Martin Brown wrote: >>>>>>> On 28/11/2018 13:03, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>>>>> On 28/11/2018 12.57, Martin Brown wrote: >> >> ... >> >>>>>>>> Many people have such slow WiFi. And even slower if living on a >>>>>>>> flat >>>>>>>> (apartment): 1 MB is typical. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If there are zillions of users all fighting for the same channel >>>>>>> 11 as >>>>>>> BT used to by default set them up to do then you can get a huge >>>>>>> slowdown >>>>>>> due to collisions. I persuaded my nearest neighbours to use >>>>>>> channels so >>>>>>> that people on the same channel are separated as widely as possible. >>>>>> >>>>>> Oh, at that place there are so many neighbours all using WiFi that >>>>>> all >>>>>> channels are used by more than one apartment. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, it is possible to purchase access points using 5 Gh and >>>>>>>> improve >>>>>>>> speed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Most ISP provided modems are capable of 5GHz operation and 802.11n >>>>>>> these >>>>>>> days - maybe you should ask your ISP to replace your antidiluvian >>>>>>> unit. >>>>>> >>>>>> Oh, they will. They are replacing them, forcibly, and charging extra, >>>>>> which I do not want. I do not know if the new model does 5G - I'll >>>>>> google. [...] Yes, it has 5G. But apparently only for new clients, >>>>>> not >>>>>> guaranteed they install it if we complain. >>>>>> >>>>>> <https://comunidad.movistar.es/t5/Blog-Movisfera/Telef%C3%B3nica-sustituye-router-ONT-y-videobridge-por-un-nuevo/ba-p/2505790> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "charging extra"!? If you buy the router, then why should your ISP >>>>> charge extra? >>>> >>>> Forget about me replacing the ISP provided router, out of the question. >>>> >>>> Why? Well, they manage the router remotely, and they do not publish the >>>> various and complex configurations needed for the router to handle the >>>> phone and TV services. And they do change things, that make things stop >>>> working if you use your own hardware. >>> >>> OK so they manage their router remotely - but surely it has a decently >>> fast fixed wire 10/100/1000 hard wired ethernet socket so you could buy >>> a modern post-diluvian router to use in addition. >> >> I have a recent Access Point and what it does is 40 mbit. I just looked. > > That is truly bizarre. I can't see what the ISP gains by using such a > prehistoric Wifi capability. Even my cheapo Mifi device the size of a > packet of cigarettes can manage faster speeds. They would quickly go out > of business in the UK if they tried that here. Well, now you see why "Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries". :-p >> >> >>>> Yes, I believe some people do it. I don't have time for that. For >>>> fighting the device and them. >>> >>> It should be just a case of disabling the inbuilt Wifi and substituting >>> your own as a pass through device. >> >> I did. I bought an AP a year or two ago, and it does the very modern and >> decent rate of 40 mbit :-p > > Where did you buy it? In a junk shop? No, in a very reliable and popular shop. >>>>> Anyhow, if you have a "600 Mbit land line", then why does your ISP >>>>> get >>>>> away with providing only a 45 Mbps router? If an ISP in our country >>>>> tried that, a few complaints to a consumer organization would make the >>>>> ISP get their act together very quickly. >>>> >>>> Interesting question, but all providers do that. >>> >>> How do they get away with it? My landline speed is a pathetic 5Mbps (the >>> average local speed round here is typically 1-2Mbps) but the ISP >>> supplied router is easily capable of 300M on its Wifi - and the chipset >>> is nothing special it is the default ISP modem. >> >> Interesting. >> >>>> >>>> They do the testing on Ethernet, obviously. >>>> >>>> With another provider at another place, the apartment has the minimal >>>> Internet available. The ISP wanted to "improve" speed, and I said "no", >>>> because the WiFi is the same. I had a hard time convincing the girl at >>>> the other side that "no, we do not want more internet speed, and yes, I >>>> know what I'm saying, and no, you don't". No, she did not offer to >>>> improve the WiFi. >>>> >>>> So I got a rebate for the house instead. 120 or 150 mbits, I think. >>> >>> It is odd that they sell such a fast WAN connection with such a >>> dreadfully slow Wifi capability. Are you sure that the things Wifi >>> cannot be re-configured to work as if it was made in the 21st century? >> >> Certainly. I just looked at the configuration pages of both devices, and >> I can choose 20 or 40 mbits, no more. >> >> I just opened a page at my supplier, and I see some 11n routers, some at >> almost 400 euros, some at 24€ (MIMO, 2.4 band only). >> >> Not very promising on the low price range. >> >> <https://www.pccomponentes.com/routers/wifi-11-n> > > One of the cheaper ones by a reputable brand ought to easily do 300M or > 600M if you pay a shade more for it. This onse splits the difference: > > https://www.amazon.co.uk/TP-Link-Wireless-Router-Button-TL-WR940N/dp/B003Y5RYNY/ > > > About £25 in the UK. PC magazines here regularly review better > replacement routers for domestic and business use rating them by > price/performance and range. 24€ at my supplier. The description says "MIMO technology", not "802.11n". The detailed description does :-p And it only does 2.4 - 2.4835 GHz, not 5. >> And of course, I do not know if my laptops will be able to connect at >> that speed. >> > RTFM LOL. Go find them... My new and small laptop specs do not say. The word Wifi or Wif-fi is not included in the 80 pages maintenance PDF or the 33 pages of the user manual. So I go to an spec site: <https://uk.hardware.info/product/331498/lenovo-yoga-300-11ibr-80m10049mh/specifications> No mention of wifi on the network paragraph. So I find another page on India, which says "802.11 ac". So, no "n". <https://gadgets.ndtv.com/lenovo-yoga-300-11ibr-5295> But the page has some other specs wrong (it came with W10, not 8.1) AFAIK only my mobile phone supports "n". -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-01 15:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ptu90r$115t$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58034 |
On 01/12/2018 14:24, Carlos E.R. wrote: > > So I find another page on India, which says "802.11 ac". So, no "n". > > <https://gadgets.ndtv.com/lenovo-yoga-300-11ibr-5295> 'ac' is the next standard *beyond* 'n', and so will be backward compatible with 'n'
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-02 13:31 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <iuvcdf-mpb.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #58038 |
On 01/12/2018 16.23, Java Jive wrote: > On 01/12/2018 14:24, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> >> So I find another page on India, which says "802.11 ac". So, no "n". >> >> <https://gadgets.ndtv.com/lenovo-yoga-300-11ibr-5295> > > 'ac' is the next standard *beyond* 'n', and so will be backward > compatible with 'n' Oops. I never remember all those letters. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-02 12:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g6i21rFdfooU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #58065 |
Carlos E.R. wrote: > Java Jive wrote: > >> 'ac' is the next standard *beyond* 'n', and so will be backward >> compatible with 'n' > > I never remember all those letters. Look forward to 802.11ax soon, with the catchy marketing name of "WiFi 6"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-02 13:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <b01ddf-gqc.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #58066 |
On 02/12/2018 13.38, Andy Burns wrote: > Carlos E.R. wrote: > >> Java Jive wrote: >> >>> 'ac' is the next standard *beyond* 'n', and so will be backward >>> compatible with 'n' >> >> I never remember all those letters. > > Look forward to 802.11ax soon, > with the catchy marketing name of "WiFi 6" LOL. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Piet <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-02 15:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <pu0r38$11pn$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58066 |
Andy Burns wrote: > Carlos E.R. wrote: >> Java Jive wrote: >>> 'ac' is the next standard *beyond* 'n', and so will be backward >>> compatible with 'n' >> >> I never remember all those letters. > > Look forward to 802.11ax soon, And don't forget your binoculars, because "soon" might be end 2019. -p
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-02 10:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <021220181008526336%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #58069 |
In article <pu0r38$11pn$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Piet <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> wrote: > > > > Look forward to 802.11ax soon, > > And don't forget your binoculars, because "soon" might be end 2019. draft units will be available before then, with many access points being sold today only needing a firmware update.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-30 13:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ptrgo4.5dc.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #58001 |
Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > On 29/11/2018 21.46, Frank Slootweg wrote: > > Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > >> On 28/11/2018 17.03, Martin Brown wrote: > >>> On 28/11/2018 13:03, Carlos E.R. wrote: > >>>> On 28/11/2018 12.57, Martin Brown wrote: > >>> > >>>>> My own 3G connection will run 20Mbps at home whereas my best fixed line > >>>>> is 5M and for most rural domestic users round here 1-2M is more typical. > >>>>> So apart from the data charges which sting a little 3G is way faster > >>>>> (and 4G is a distant pipe dream - most masts here are still EDGE 2.5G). > >>>> > >>>> Well, my WiFi does at most 45 Mbit (with a 600 Mbit land line). So 4G, > >>>> with a theoretical speed of 301Mbit, is faster than my WiFi - unless > >>>> there are many phones in the area actively using internet, because the > >>>> speed is shared. > >>> > >>> That seems insanely slow WiFi speed for such a fast landline. > >> > >> Indeed, but it is what most providers provide. > > > > Doesn't your broadband modem/router have a LAN port? If it has, a > > 300 Mbps Wireless N router would dramatically increase the speed > > (assuming your devices have N-capability as well). Prices of such > > routers start at some 30 Euro in our country (NL). > > MIMO. I don't have it currently. I would need two such, one per house > level. When I had it I did not see my laptop going much faster. As others have also said, Wireless N is not MIMO. Anyway, before changing anything, check which Wi-Fi standards/speeds your devices support/can_support, especially devices with built-in Wi-Fi, such as laptop, smartphone, tablet, etc.. > I will have to consider it. > > >>>> Many people have such slow WiFi. And even slower if living on a flat > >>>> (apartment): 1 MB is typical. > >>> > >>> If there are zillions of users all fighting for the same channel 11 as > >>> BT used to by default set them up to do then you can get a huge slowdown > >>> due to collisions. I persuaded my nearest neighbours to use channels so > >>> that people on the same channel are separated as widely as possible. > >> > >> Oh, at that place there are so many neighbours all using WiFi that all > >> channels are used by more than one apartment. > >> > >>>> Yes, it is possible to purchase access points using 5 Gh and improve > >>>> speed. > >>> > >>> Most ISP provided modems are capable of 5GHz operation and 802.11n these > >>> days - maybe you should ask your ISP to replace your antidiluvian unit. > >> > >> Oh, they will. They are replacing them, forcibly, and charging extra, > >> which I do not want. I do not know if the new model does 5G - I'll > >> google. [...] Yes, it has 5G. But apparently only for new clients, not > >> guaranteed they install it if we complain. > >> > >> <https://comunidad.movistar.es/t5/Blog-Movisfera/Telef%C3%B3nica-sustituye-router-ONT-y-videobridge-por-un-nuevo/ba-p/2505790> > > > > "charging extra"!? If you buy the router, then why should your ISP > > charge extra? > > Forget about me replacing the ISP provided router, out of the question. > > Why? Well, they manage the router remotely, and they do not publish the > various and complex configurations needed for the router to handle the > phone and TV services. And they do change things, that make things stop > working if you use your own hardware. > > Yes, I believe some people do it. I don't have time for that. For > fighting the device and them. I'm not talking about replacing the ISP provided router, but about *adding* your own, i.e. just for Internet (not phone and TV services). That's why I asked if your broadband modem/router has a LAN port, but you didn't answer that question. (And of course I mean a LAN port on the *modem* side, not just at the local side of the router.) > > Anyhow, if you have a "600 Mbit land line", then why does your ISP get > > away with providing only a 45 Mbps router? If an ISP in our country > > tried that, a few complaints to a consumer organization would make the > > ISP get their act together very quickly. > > Interesting question, but all providers do that. If they do, they should - if not to say must - provide a LAN port on the modem side, so the customer can add their own higher speed Wi-Fi router. > They do the testing on Ethernet, obviously. > > With another provider at another place, the apartment has the minimal > Internet available. The ISP wanted to "improve" speed, and I said "no", > because the WiFi is the same. I had a hard time convincing the girl at > the other side that "no, we do not want more internet speed, and yes, I > know what I'm saying, and no, you don't". No, she did not offer to > improve the WiFi. > > So I got a rebate for the house instead. 120 or 150 mbits, I think.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-01 15:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mejadf-9pa.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #58006 |
On 30/11/2018 14.16, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> On 29/11/2018 21.46, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 28/11/2018 17.03, Martin Brown wrote:
>>>>> On 28/11/2018 13:03, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>>>> On 28/11/2018 12.57, Martin Brown wrote:
...
>> Forget about me replacing the ISP provided router, out of the question.
>>
>> Why? Well, they manage the router remotely, and they do not publish the
>> various and complex configurations needed for the router to handle the
>> phone and TV services. And they do change things, that make things stop
>> working if you use your own hardware.
>>
>> Yes, I believe some people do it. I don't have time for that. For
>> fighting the device and them.
>
> I'm not talking about replacing the ISP provided router, but about
> *adding* your own, i.e. just for Internet (not phone and TV services).
> That's why I asked if your broadband modem/router has a LAN port, but
> you didn't answer that question. (And of course I mean a LAN port on the
> *modem* side, not just at the local side of the router.)
No.
There is one, which is connected to the ONT device. Intended for input.
Any router I'd add would have to cover all the services on the house.
I know how to connect an AP there, which is what I would do.
>
>>> Anyhow, if you have a "600 Mbit land line", then why does your ISP get
>>> away with providing only a 45 Mbps router? If an ISP in our country
>>> tried that, a few complaints to a consumer organization would make the
>>> ISP get their act together very quickly.
>>
>> Interesting question, but all providers do that.
>
> If they do, they should - if not to say must - provide a LAN port on
> the modem side, so the customer can add their own higher speed Wi-Fi
> router.
No, there are 4 LAN ports on the other side of the modem. Hardware wise,
yes, I could replace the modem entirely. Certainly. The problem is its
configuration, not published.
I can *add* an access point for WiFi, which is not a router, on the same
LAN (or it would not handle TV).
The setup they do is:
(wifi)
Y Y
fibre--[ONT]--eth---[router]--4 eth ports--[TV module]
The phone is currently connected to the ONT.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Piet <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-01 12:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <pttpje$7bu$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #57999 |
Frank Slootweg wrote: > Anyhow, if you have a "600 Mbit land line", then why does your ISP get > away with providing only a 45 Mbps router? If an ISP in our country > tried that, a few complaints to a consumer organization would make the > ISP get their act together very quickly. That wouldn't happen. What does "600 Mbit land line" say? To me only that the line is capable of 600 Mbps. But it says nothing about the customer's subscription. If I pay for, say, 30 Mbps, then a 45 Mbps router does the job and there's nothing to complain about. My fiber land line is capable of 1 Gbps, maybe much more, but I pay for 100 Mbps, so that's what I get and I have no reason to complain. -p
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "NY" <me@privacy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-01 11:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <Ed-dnWnZ5YY28J_BnZ2dnUU78evNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #58029 |
"Piet" <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> wrote in message news:pttpje$7bu$1@gioia.aioe.org... > Frank Slootweg wrote: >> Anyhow, if you have a "600 Mbit land line", then why does your ISP get >> away with providing only a 45 Mbps router? If an ISP in our country >> tried that, a few complaints to a consumer organization would make the >> ISP get their act together very quickly. > > That wouldn't happen. What does "600 Mbit land line" say? To me only > that the line is capable of 600 Mbps. But it says nothing about the > customer's subscription. If I pay for, say, 30 Mbps, then a 45 Mbps > router does the job and there's nothing to complain about. > My fiber land line is capable of 1 Gbps, maybe much more, but I pay > for 100 Mbps, so that's what I get and I have no reason to complain. Yes, there's always a rate-limiting step. If it's exchange/ISP equipment and you only pay for what you get, then that's fair enough. The problem is when you pay the same rate as someone who can get the maximum that ADSL can supply (which I believe is about 15 Mbps down and 1 Mbps up) but the quality of the *line* restricts you to 1.8 / 0.2 - which is what I get here, at the end of a fairly long line from the exchange. The exchange is 5 km as the crow flies, and the phone line probably takes a significantly longer route. When they first enabled ADSL in this village, everyone was gobsmacked that it was possible at all, but several years on from that, people are starting to moan about the abysmal speed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-01 11:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ptts0n$b7t$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58030 |
On 01/12/2018 11:16, NY wrote: > > When they first enabled ADSL in this village, everyone was gobsmacked > that it was possible at all, but several years on from that, people are > starting to moan about the abysmal speed. Yes, because when they were first connected, page weights were more reasonable, but as they increase on average about 15-20% every year, it takes longer and longer to load a page over a slow line, and understandably people get more and more frustrated.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-01 12:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <QFi0Gj394nAcFw57@255soft.uk> |
| In reply to | #58031 |
In message <ptts0n$b7t$2@gioia.aioe.org>, Java Jive
<java@evij.com.invalid> writes:
>On 01/12/2018 11:16, NY wrote:
>>
>> When they first enabled ADSL in this village, everyone was gobsmacked
>>that it was possible at all, but several years on from that, people
>>are starting to moan about the abysmal speed.
>
>Yes, because when they were first connected, page weights were more
>reasonable, but as they increase on average about 15-20% every year, it
>takes longer and longer to load a page over a slow line, and
>understandably people get more and more frustrated.
Is it only 15-20%? My impression is that it's more. But even that much
is bad.
It's rather like, to me, domestic electricity consumption in the
1950s-'70s or so: it just grew, on the assumption that the network would
grow to keep pace with it. OK, it's not _quite_ the same, in that
improvements in technology mitigate it more than they did back then with
power consumption, but I do think we're well overdue for the web page
design equivalents of the low-energy lightbulb.
JPG
Have you ever disagreed with a petition, but been frustrated that there's no
way you can *show* that you disagree? If so, visit 255soft.uk - and please
pass it on, especially to twitter, facebook, gransnet/mumsnet, or any such.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
I long for the commercialised Christmas of the 1970s. It's got so religious
now, it's lost its true meaning. - Mike [{at}ostic.demon.co.uk], 2003-12-24
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-01 13:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ptu1gh$kt9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #58032 |
On 01/12/2018 12:27, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: > > In message <ptts0n$b7t$2@gioia.aioe.org>, Java Jive >> >> Yes, because when they were first connected, page weights were more >> reasonable, but as they increase on average about 15-20% every year, >> it takes longer and longer to load a page over a slow line, and >> understandably people get more and more frustrated. > > Is it only 15-20%? My impression is that it's more. But even that much > is bad. Yes, that's about the figure, but sustained over 5 successive years that will double page weight over that time. 2014 - 15% increase in average page weight: https://www.sitepoint.com/average-page-weight-increases-15-2014/ 2015 - 16% increase in average page weight: https://www.sitepoint.com/average-page-weight-increased-another-16-2015/ Finally in 2017: "The average web page is 3MB." https://speedcurve.com/blog/web-performance-page-bloat/ Further reading: https://www.sitepoint.com/complete-guide-reducing-page-weight/ "An overweight site will adversely affect your bottom line" ... which headline gives an interesting new jocularity to the question: "Does my bum look big in this?" For most corporate web-pages the answer is a resounding "YES!" because most of them consist 90% or more of bloat. A few months ago in a thread about the mess that is the BBC website, I calculated that the particular page that I was complaining about contained 8,183 characters of text content visible to the user, but 188,105 characters of source code which had to be downloaded to display that text content, and wasn't even crunched to remove surplus whitespace to make it load more quickly (and further generated 113 errors and warnings when put through a W3c validator). This gives a Macfarlane bloat index* for the page of 188105/8183 = 23 times, just to show some text and some pictures! Inverting that gives the result that just 4% of the page's coding produced anything of use to the viewer. * An admittedly crude but simple and effective means of measuring web-page bloat, the higher the number, the worse the bloat. Values of 3 to 7 are normal for a well designed, crunched (superfluous whitespace removed) web page. Corporate pages are rarely less than 10, because they use content delivery systems, but pages around 20 are far too common, seemingly mainly because of corporate harvesting of user data. To get back on topic, the above is largely why an ADSL service that seemed wonderful a decade or more ago, is now frustrating and too slow to be any longer fit for purpose. Another factor is deterioration of the line over the intervening period. Ours around here were never properly buried, and in at least a dozen places hereabouts are lying on the surface vulnerable to damage by verge trimming, ditch clearance, etc. So the number of joints in the lines increases over the years.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-01 15:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nhjadf-9pa.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #58029 |
On 01/12/2018 12.00, Piet wrote: > Frank Slootweg wrote: >> Anyhow, if you have a "600 Mbit land line", then why does your ISP get >> away with providing only a 45 Mbps router? If an ISP in our country >> tried that, a few complaints to a consumer organization would make the >> ISP get their act together very quickly. > > That wouldn't happen. What does "600 Mbit land line" say? To me only > that the line is capable of 600 Mbps. But it says nothing about the > customer's subscription. If I pay for, say, 30 Mbps, then a 45 Mbps > router does the job and there's nothing to complain about. > My fiber land line is capable of 1 Gbps, maybe much more, but I pay > for 100 Mbps, so that's what I get and I have no reason to complain. No, it is 600 Mbits contracted. It is difficult to contract less, they do not publish it. Only after insisting for a lower speed they tell you. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | 123456789 <12345@12345.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-28 10:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ptmiku$h0m$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #57948 |
On 11/28/2018 6:03 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote: > my WiFi does at most 45 Mbit (with a 600 Mbit land line). So 4G, > with a theoretical speed of 301Mbit, is faster than my WiFi How do you test your speed? When I test my overall speed I often get different answers depending on the device used, even though I test at the same (seconds apart) time, same cable connection, same WiFi, and using the same speed test site. Reported speeds have varied by as much much as 50 Mbps. As a general rule the cheaper the device I'm using the lower the reported speed. So I usually just the same device for day to day comparisons.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android
csiph-web