This article would be quite enormous if I was to detail every method of transferring data between computers: Nevertheless, the major methods of doing so are worth a mention, ignoring the various data transmission protocols, such as TCP/IP, FTP, etc: –

Quite obviously there’s the internet – which is all very well and good, and a lot of the time is the only method available for transferring data. – For instance in the event of transferring an amount of data across the pond between America and the UK. – But the internet, although getting slowly faster, is, to the average consumer, quite slow. My personal internet connection has rarely peaked at a speed of 1 megabit of actual data transfer per second: That’s approximately a megabyte in 8 seconds. Now if I were transferring a gigabyte of data from America to my box here in the UK it would take me 1000 gigabytes X 8 seconds = 8,000 seconds, or 133.34 minutes. (2.223 hours.) – That’s if the connection reaches the highest speed that it’s ever reached and stays at that speed for that period. Normally it’s an average of about half that speed; so a gigabyte of data would take about 5 hours to transfer in this way. – That’s assuming that the gigabyte of data is a single huge file. 10.000 smaller files would take even longer.

I use BT Broadband as my ISP in the UK; which means that the data is transmitted to me via ADSL over the UK copper-wire telephone network. This limits the transfer speed too: Fortunately I live within a mile of the local telephone exchange. In that fact I’m lucky as maybe as much as two-thirds of the UK population live more than a mile from the telephone exchange and can’t get decent speeds at all via BT Broadband. Also Bt have kindly refused to enable broadband in a number of its smaller outlying, less-used exchanges. Most other ISPs use BT’s copper-cable network to transfer data also.

There is also Virgin Media’s cable broadband in the UK, which boasts download speeds of up to 20 megabits/second (Although in reality it’s usually quite a bit slower.); but the percentage of homes within the UK where this is available is also rather limited. If a home is more than 5 miles outside of a town or city centre then it’s very unlikely that a cable internet service would be available currently in the UK.

Then there’s also satellite internet; such as Sky Internet in the UK. This is usually used by people who live miles from a telephone exchange and well out of town. It’s commonly faster than dialup by a number of times, but factors such as atmospheric conditions and topographical features can interfere with the signal at times and on occasions.

Whilst some countries, such as Thailand, have an internet network second to none; many countries, including the UK and the USA have, to a large extent, a slow network that lags well behind the capabilities brought about by technological advancement, mainly due to lack of investment and political difficulties.

In fact, when I was last  in Africa some 30 years ago, the telephone service kept dying because the natives chopped down the telephone-line poles in the jungle to use as firewood. – I kid you not. That, though, was back in the 1970s, well before the internet was even heard of in Africa. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if it still happens today though. – Or some warlord blows up the local telephone exchange and the entire community’s dial-up goes out for a few weeks.

Moving on; let’s take a look at short-range data transmission.

So transferring data long-range via the internet is always currently going to be a slow process. Transferring data locally, however, can be a totally different ball-game.

There are two main methods of data transfer that will get your data transferred to another computer fairly quickly: Both of these involve being on a local network and transferring data via the ethernet connection of your computer, which is at time of writing, still the fastest data-transfer connection on any computer.

An office network can be used; where data is transferred fairly quickly between local machines via a central server, which also acts as a repository or storehouse for much of the data.

Faster yet, though, is a home network: This can be as simple as a pair of computers connecting with one another via a patch-lead, or any number of machines doing so via a router.

Personally on my home network I’ve achieved transfer speeds of 12 megabytes-per-second; which still takes over 1 1/2 minutes to transfer a gigabyte data file; but it’s a lot faster than the 5 hour internet comparison.

Wouldn’t it be good if…

If one was able to transfer data at that speed via the internet? Actually I see no reason why the internet has to be so slow; other than a lack of investment. Indeed it should be possible with today’s technology to transfer data in one’s local area at that kind of speed across the internet without all that much investment; just a bit more than is currently being put in to improving the internet infrastructure.

Even internet data transfer for long-distances and overseas could be faster; perhaps as much as 1 megabyte per second. Indeed it’s feasible that a dedicated data pipe connected to the UK telephone network via BT Broadband could be capable of a much faster local-transfer speed, within an area of, say, 5 square miles. With the proper investment I see no reason why the internet as a whole couldn’t be at least 10 times faster than it currently is. (Except, perhaps, in Thailand.)

When it’s quicker to burn 100 DVDs and send them by snail-mail than it is to transfer the data over the internet, then there has to be something lacking.

What are your thoughts on this subject?

Pictured: The UK internet in its uphill battle for improvement.

This particular feather in the cap marries technology and politics: It’s no great discovery and it’s hardly rocket-science: In fact it’s glaringly obvious. However, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: The British internet infrastructure is a fiasco. This time I have the backing of Ofcom; the UK telecoms regulator:-

A survey carried out for Ofcom indicated that the average UK customer typically gets only around 45% of the broadband speed advertised by their ISP that they’re paying for: Rip-off Britain in action. What do the ISP’s intend to do about it? As usual as little as possible: As long as the cash is coming in they’ll do their utmost to provide the minimum which they can get away with: i.e. Faster than dialup … Because they can’t possibly get away with anything less.

Researchers did 10 million tests in 1,500 homes in the UK over a period of 30 days. They found, not only that broadband speeds in rural areas were up to 15% less than those in urban environments, but also that the typical internet speed was an average of 3.6 Mb/s (Megabits per second.), despite the fact that the usual broadband speed currently advertised in the UK is 8Mb/s or more.

BT advertise 8Mb/s over their copper-wire telephone network, and Virgin Media advertise 20Mb/s over their fibre-optic network.

I’m a BT customer who lives within a few minutes walk of the BT exchange. A few years ago I was told that my internet speed was being increased from 2Mb/s to 8Mb/s for no extra charge. The 2Mb/s speed barely reached 1.5 Mb/s normally; and proportionally speaking the 8Mb/s service hardly ever gets above 6Mb/s. It’s normally at around 3 Mb/s. In fact, over the Christmas period last year (2008) it dropped to just below 1Mb/s.

That’s rip-off Britain for you: ‘Take all your wealth from you and give you shit in return.

It’s quite abysmal also that Virgin Media’s fibre-optic service; advertised at 20Mb/s, rarely gets up to a paltry 10Mb/s in most areas.

Having said that; when the faster service was first switched on; I clocked speeds of up to 7.3 Mb/s. This was short-lived, though. In addition to that my existing modem provided by BT was unable to cope with the faster internet and kept disconnecting until it eventually no longer worked at all. BT’s partially-English speaking Indian call-centre weren’t having any of it, and the person I had the displeasure of talking with gave me such grief that I ended up testing every bit of cable from my BT socket as well as the socket itself, through to my modem, then the patch lead from my modem to the computer. I then replaced the ADSL filter and still no internet. The Indian fascist on the other end of the phone told me that my computer was faulty and that I’d have to return it to the manufacturer. I informed him that I was the manufacturer, and that the line and modem didn’t work on any of my other computers either. I also informed him that he was a scare-mongering ignorant tele-thug who had no place in a call centre. I demanded to speak to his supervisor, who, it turned out, couldn’t understand a word of English. Eventually, after I managed to get to speak to someone who was a little more fluent, they agreed to send me a modem that was capable of handling the increased speed.

As I said in the past; BT is a rather reliable ISP; but when things do go wrong they’re hell to deal with.

As is the case with myself, millions of other internet customers are getting less than half the broadband speed they are paying for, restricting their ability to download music, film and games. It’s the stupid British people’s fault just as much as the ISP’s: They just grin and bear it; not daring to complain. I’ve complained about it before; but just got myself branded as a trouble-maker by BT and was ignored.

Here’s something: the download speed meter which is part of the BT Online Help software which they give you with their service, along with free Norton Security Centre (An outdated version.) and other useless bloatware, all of which I wouldn’t use even if they offered to pay me to use it, has a few lines of unchanging text underneath it, which says something to the effect of: -

"This speed is judged to be acceptable by BT for your connection, bearing in mind the time of day and the distance of your property from the BT exchange. Although BT do advertise a certain download speed, we are unable to maintain this at all times. Factors that can affect the speed of your connection include the distance of your computer from the telephone socket, the distance of your place of residence from the exchange, as well as the number of users currently using our services."

…And my age, the position of the sun relative to the galactic core, in addition to the effect of Jupiter’s gravitational pull on the Earth no doubt.

This message appears no matter what the download speed: I’d still get exactly the same message if it was 1 byte a year. It’s just another cop-out from BT.

There is something to do with the speeds pertaining to the time of day though: In the tests that were run; speeds were lowest between 5pm and 6pm on Sundays, when internet usage is at its peak. – Can’t you just hear the infrastructure creaking under the weight put upon it? Don’t you smell the stench of melting insulation as the copper wires heat up?!

…And still the politicians are talking about doing something about it in a future tense. UK businesses such as BT are holding back on doing anything about it until they can be sure that they’ll make instant vast profits.

David Cameron, leader of the Opposition, says "Elect the Tories at the next election and we’ll do something about it."

Meanwhile Gordon Brown is still thinking about doing something about it. Perhaps he’ll say: -

"No; elect the Labour Party at the next election and we’ll do even more about it."

…And then have a round of meetings to discuss it for another four years if he gets elected?

Don Foster, the Liberal Democrat culture, media and sport spokesman, said:

“This is yet more evidence that broadband providers are ripping off British consumers.”

– Quite obviously not much gets past him!

Jeremy Hunt, – which rhymes with "front", and "runt", – the Shadow Culture Secretary, is expected to voice his criticism today. In a speech to be delivered at Microsoft’s London offices, he will say:-

“The UK has some of the slowest broadband speeds in the developed world, coming 21st out of 30 countries in a survey by the US-based Information Technology & Innovation Foundation.” 

- To which Microsoft will probably quite rightly reply "If you can’t maintain your own country that you’re supposed to be looking after; we’re not going to do it for you. Sod off!"

The song lyrics "A little less conversation – A little more action" spring to mind.

One thing is that if we keep talking about it long enough we’ll eventually no doubt be welcomed warmly into the third-world; where we can learn to communicate by means of bongo-drums instead.

"That’s almost up to 30 kilobytes a second so far!"

New research data from Point Topic, which details profiles of broadband DSL and ADSL services worldwide, indicates that the number of new broadband lines added to the UK’s infrastructure between July to September was a clear 20 per cent below previous forecasts.

"To keep on track Britain needed to add 390,000 broadband lines in the July to September quarter, said Tim Johnson, chief analyst at Point Topic. "We estimate that the actual number was only 313,000. That’s 20% down on the target". Point Topic also estimates that Virgin Media may have gained another 60,000 cable modem customers at the expense of BT and other smaller alternative broadband ISPs, who actually lost around 70,000 customers during this period.

Local loop unbundling – where ISPs such as Carphone Warehouse, Utility Warehouse, and Sky install their own equipment in BT‘s telephone exchanges – was found to be the main driver of continuing growth in broadband, adding 323,000 lines in the third quarter of 2008.

"By the end of 2009 there should be about 18.4 million broadband lines in Britain, 300,000 short of what was expected six months ago." Continued Johnson.

He predicts that this means that fewer people will switch from dial-up lines to broadband, and about 240,000 more homes will be without any kind of internet access by the end of 2009.

To my mind that is utterly diabolical: Nearly 1/4 million homes giving up internet access altogether! It underlines the tightfisted nature of the British consumer in general; slashing costs indiscriminately in the face of a shortage of beer-money or reserve cash for cosmetics, without a second thought for the effect on themselves caused from the denial of a principal technology. Of course this shortsighted approach is in the face of a financial assault by the money-grabbing profiteering UK ISPs who, as with most British business, will stop at nothing to rob the public of as much money as possible while at the same time delivering the minimum service that they can possibly get away with.

I honestly didn’t realise that there were so many people in the UK who still used dial-up! Why use dial-up? At the end of the day it costs more than a broadband connection, is far slower, and in some cases less reliable too.

I know that in America many people in far-flung reaches of the continent have no choice as there is as yet no broadband or cable service in their area. That’s possibly acceptable in such a huge country, at least temporarily so anyway. This is the UK though: This is a small group of overpopulated islands. Th4ere is no excuse whatsoever for there not to be a countrywide broadband service in the UK at this point in the 21st Century. If the powers that be would invest their profits rather than pocketing them, I’m quite sure that the task could be completed in a short time. The only thing standing in the way is British greed.

What do you think about this subject? Do you agree that the UK needs to pull its socks up, and fast?

Multinational British-based telecommunications company BT has chosen  around 15,000 homes/businesses in Muswell Hill, London, and in Whitchurch, South Wales, to be the launching-points for its new internet service  of its "Fibre-to-the-Cabinet" internet-delivery-system.

BT are claiming this service could give customers speeds of up to 40Mbps, and is scheduled to be in operation in the summer of 2009.

BT are unclear as to which ISPs will be using the scheme as yet, but have said that those ISPs will be setting the prices for their services once this matter has been further sorted out. Further details for the next stage of the operation, in which the service will be on offer on a larger (Nationwide?) scale, is to be announced in 2010.

According to David Campbell, director of next generation access at BT Openreach:-

"Services in these areas will be available to all UK communication providers on a wholesale basis. The sites were chosen in consultation with communications providers and took into account feedback from regional development agencies, devolved authorities and similar organisations."

"It was also necessary to take into account current network topology and our ability to run testing procedures in the chosen areas. We have a good mix of areas, allowing us to test our products in both urban and semi-rural environments."

What’s the big deal though? Is this all too little too late? In 1994/5, the then NTL cabled most of the more easily-accessible areas of the UK with its fibre-optic cables, on which, since the merge with Virgin Media, a 40Mbps internet connection has been available for quite some time.

It would appear that BT are intending to do exactly the same; thus giving the already-cabled areas a choice of hi-speed internet, while leaving the rural outlying areas with the paltry choice of slow-dial-up or expensive satellite internet services.

If the above paragraph is true, then nothing changes other than an increase in variety for the select recipients in more densely-populated areas; screw the rest of them.

Having areas of 40Mbps connection whilst continuing to have areas where, to keep costs down, customers opt for a 56Kbps dial-up connection, isn’t really going to be productive: The most vulnerable point in any chain is its weakest link; so if little Jenny, who has a 40Mbps connection, is sending her granny, who has a 56Kbps dial-up connection, a 500MB file of her favourite cartoons, then Jenny may as well have a 56Kbps dial-up connection also for all the time it’ll take to reach granny.

Maybe I’m being a bit melodramatic in the above paragraph; but unless everyone gets a decent deal out of a new development which affects society as a whole, then what is the point of it if it’s just going to produce bottlenecks? I mean what is the point of having a 10-lane motorway for 99% of the distance between towns A and B, if at the end of the motorway is a single-track winding lane making the final connection?

Meanwhile Thailand (Which isn’t exactly a technological superpower.) continues to have its hyperfast-internet which is available to almost everyone; and the traffic between Thailand and the UK is not a massive amount. I wonder why? Perhaps it’s because they get fed up with waiting for the British to receive their message? It leaves Thailand within the second; gets to the UK 3 seconds later, and reaches its final destination as a complete download later that week! Am I being melodramatic again? Not in all cases: I’ve known email from abroad to reach its UK destination 3 days later. In some cases even longer than that. When snail-mail becomes faster than the internet it’s clear that someone somewhere is doing something wrong.

So come on BT: I hope everyone, regardless of area, local population, and accessibility, is going to benefit from this: If they don’t it all seems pretty pointless and just another one of the UK’s famous postcode-lotteries.