PN speedtests v AAISP

I have done several speedtests, both thinkbroadband and BT Wholesale, since my migration.

I did not re-sync for some time before migrating, and only did so today - gaining a whole 386kbps .

I think I can now say with confidence that with the common sync there is no discernable difference between the two ISPs on the x6 test and the overall speeds. Similarly with the BTW test.

The only difference is the x1 test when on a bad link, (I think that's a better word to use than gateway, as we know different users on the same gateway can have wildly different experiences). A few AAISP x1 results have been questionable but not violent like the poor Plusnet ones.

I've also run this test on my new sync of 57970kbps, IP Profile 56.05. BT Wholesale giving 54.38Mbps. Again, very similar to historic Plusnet tbb results. There certainly is not the frequently chunnered about loss of 2-3Mbps due to the Plusnet CLS and TM systems.

I can also say that on the other hand browsing performance is noticeably snappier on AAISP, and the initial email download when I start up in the morning is much quicker. The bulk of that being eight forum daily archives so a time difference is easy to spot.

Edited by RobertoS (Sun 16-Aug-15 17:18:26)

As AAISP also use the BT profile in their system (or did) perhaps that is a factor

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

I have done several speedtests, both thinkbroadband and BT Wholesale, since my migration.

I did not re-sync for some time before migrating, and only did so today - gaining a whole 386kbps .

I think I can now say with confidence that with the common sync there is no discernable difference between the two ISPs on the x6 test and the overall speeds. Similarly with the BTW test.

The only difference is the x1 test when on a bad link, (I think that's a better word to use than gateway, as we know different users on the same gateway can have wildly different experiences). A few AAISP x1 results have been questionable but not violent like the poor Plusnet ones.

I've also run this test on my new sync of 57970kbps, IP Profile 56.05. BT Wholesale giving 54.38Mbps. Again, very similar to historic Plusnet tbb results. There certainly is not the frequently chunnered about loss of 2-3Mbps due to the Plusnet CLS and TM systems.

I can also say that on the other hand browsing performance is noticeably snappier on AAISP, and the initial email download when I start up in the morning is much quicker. The bulk of that being eight forum daily archives so a time difference is easy to spot.

Yet i have seen very different results, with same sync rates and BT ip profile i now get 2mbps more throughput than when i did when with plusnet (Plusnets IP profile set 200kbps below BTW IP profile) But there again you don't sync at the full rates do you, so maybe, just maybe the amount of throughput loss increases as the sync rate increases ? either that or i and others got shafted from day 1
And i don't have the Sunday /Monday slowdowns as it is/was their busiest time of the week, so they have a cop out excuse

Edited by tommy45 (Sun 16-Aug-15 19:09:35)

You mean a (near?) copy? I did wonder, and I did see the other day a weird number somewhere that might have been it but the value didn't make sense.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

You mean a (near?) copy? I did wonder, and I did see the other day a weird number somewhere that might have been it but the value didn't make sense.

I assume you're with BTw "tail" rather than TTB "tail" on your AAISP connection ?

I haven't a clue what that post is all about, and as far as I know you still won't say who this wonder-ISP of yours is so it's utterly useless infromation. You also seemto be introducing further wild allegations about Plusnet, that I don't remember even you coming jp with before.

Have you got a problem? Or just having a bad hair day.

But, there is something I can tell you that you obviously don't know .

That is:-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I am fairly familiar with the contents of my own fairly lengthy opening post, and nearly everybody reading yours also will have. There is a Reply button you could have used that doesn't copy the whole damn thing into your reply .

That's is correct. I always asked PN in the past of why is throughput speed is 2.5Mbps less than other isp's and they say it make no difference.

When I used to be ADSL2+ (up to 24Mbps) before with icuk was far better throughput than PN.

Before with icuk:

ICUK IP Profile: n/a
BT IP Profile: 17.15Mb
icuk throughput: 16.50Mb
Downstream SNR 2.7dB

Migrate to PN:

PN IP Profile: 16.42Mb
BT IP IP Profile: 16.42Mb
PN throughput: 14.30Mb
Downstream SNR 3.3dB

Edited by adslmax (Sun 16-Aug-15 19:30:48)

I think if I migrate FTTC from PN to Zen or ICUK then I bet the throughput speed will be lots higher than PN.

PN IP: 77.3Mb
BT IP: 77.35Mb
Throughput: 73-74Mb

Zen or ICUK IP: n/a
BT IP 77.35Mb
Throughput: 75-76Mb

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

There certainly is not the frequently chunnered about loss of 2-3Mbps due to the Plusnet CLS and TM systems.

Which would appear to be in some way you diss-ing others expiences, was this your intention?
It matters not who the isp is that i or others are with,and isn't no great secrect anyway The points here are Plusnets implementation of a secondry IP profile and their DPI traffic shaping /prioritisation as they and any devout plusnet fans will like to call it, are in part both responsible for decreased and degraded throughout speeds at peak time, and at all other times And even where the underlying cause for peak time slow downs is within the realms of BTW it's the ISP who are BTW's customer So it's their resonsiblity to give BTW a kick and keep kicking them harder if need be until they get a satisfacttory resolution , not do nothing about it (plusnet)

Edited by tommy45 (Sun 16-Aug-15 19:44:50)

You are aware that AAISP also implement their own secondary IP Profile?

Errr, more than "tail" . Hence the quoted IP Profile.

I don't know whether its WBC or WBMC, I expect the latter. That's another thing kitz raised over in the PN forums - she says there are two flavours of WBMC, which I didn't know.

I always thought that ISPs had dedicated MSILs for it, as WBC-ISPs do. She seems to thing the default is Shared MSILs but with an option for Dedicated. There's a diagram on her website IIRC, showing the shared setup. (Goes hunting - Gor blimey! I don't think that's the one she linked to recently - it seemed much simpler).

Thinks.... There probably isn't really a BTW tail on FTTx, as that would be the copper from the exchange to the customer. But yes - it's AAISP via WBM(?)C.

I think he's in enraged mode today. He's been semi-incoherent on a few forums. It's really funny about his ISP - I've asked him at least half a dozen times and he keeps saying it's no secret. But not once that I'm aware of has he ever posted which ISP it is.

I'm fairly certain Zen hold and use a copy as well.

In reply to a post by AndyHCZ:

You are aware that AAISP also implement their own secondary IP Profile?

My answer to your comment begins with a B and ends in S and even if they do they do not use it in the same way as plusnet do ,in simple terms it does not reduce max achievable throughput levels therefore any performace is set by BTW and their IP profile

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

I think he's in enraged mode today. He's been semi-incoherent on a few forums. It's really funny about his ISP - I've asked him at least half a dozen times and he keeps saying it's no secret. But not once that I'm aware of has he ever posted which ISP it is.

I'm fairly certain Zen hold and use a copy as well.

see no big secrect was it, and no they don't use a secondary ip profile and you you know this as on this very same forum you were one of the posters in the thread that discussed this very issue, and a ISP rep albeit related to ADSL linky but i don't see why they would wish to change that for fttc, and although zen's if you want to call it a copy of my current btw IP profile /sync rate is somewhat out of date and lower than the current btw one of 77.35( max for G.inp enabled circuits) but that isnt restricing my throughput like it did when with the illustrious plusnet pumnet or should they rebrand to minusnet ?

Edited by tommy45 (Sun 16-Aug-15 20:18:43)

Hang on, you say I am talking bs and then you say 'if they do'? Make your mind up

I suggest you talk to them because they do implement the downstream shaper also.

I think we've cleared up you're not with AAISP or Zen...I would assume you're with TT or BT.

Edited by deleted (Sun 16-Aug-15 20:29:12)

In reply to a post by AndyHCZ:

Hang on, you say I am talking bs and then you say 'if they do'? Make your mind up

I suggest you talk to them because they do implement the downstream shaper also.

I think we've cleared up you're not with AAISP or Zen...I would assume you're with TT or BT.

more bs by you yet again , now you are insulting your own intelligence IF may be a small/short word but it sure can have some very big meanings/ implications in other words This secondary IP profile isn't something both AAISP or Zen internet or in fact any other ISP advertise , and also your accusations go against what they Zen internet and AAISP advertise /claim not to do, and that is to be the "bottleneck" ie throttle,shape prioritize or any other bs definition you want to spout here, why don't you ask adrian i would love to read his reply on his blog

Edited by tommy45 (Sun 16-Aug-15 20:39:42)

Obviously...

BT run a rate limiter for your line at the BRAS. It limits traffic to a set level (typically whole Mb/s) that is below your line sync speed and can change over time depending on your line. We track this BRAS rate and set the CQM system to show this on the graph. It can only gets recorded per hour so shows the highest it was - with a dotted line for the lowest in the hour. You can ask us to limit your line below the BRAS rate - what is shown is the rate we have on the line for you service..

We normally rate limit the line at the same level as the BRAS, i.e. we are not trying to be the bottleneck. We can limit at a lower level if you ask us to. If there is a burst of traffic on your line that would exceed the BRAS rate and mean BT drop packets at the BRAS, then we drop the packet first. By us detecting the burst exceeding the BRAS rate we can (a) show this on the graph as a red dot at the bottom and (b) we can allow small packets such as those used for VoIP to go though when large packets would be dropped (we set a different latency limit for small and large packets). This may still be dropped by the BRAS but typically this has the overall effect of VoIP working well on a full line.

In reply to a post by AndyHCZ:

Obviously...

BT run a rate limiter for your line at the BRAS. It limits traffic to a set level (typically whole Mb/s) that is below your line sync speed and can change over time depending on your line. We track this BRAS rate and set the CQM system to show this on the graph. It can only gets recorded per hour so shows the highest it was - with a dotted line for the lowest in the hour. You can ask us to limit your line below the BRAS rate - what is shown is the rate we have on the line for you service..

We normally rate limit the line at the same level as the BRAS, i.e. we are not trying to be the bottleneck. We can limit at a lower level if you ask us to. If there is a burst of traffic on your line that would exceed the BRAS rate and mean BT drop packets at the BRAS, then we drop the packet first. By us detecting the burst exceeding the BRAS rate we can (a) show this on the graph as a red dot at the bottom and (b) we can allow small packets such as those used for VoIP to go though when large packets would be dropped (we set a different latency limit for small and large packets). This may still be dropped by the BRAS but typically this has the overall effect of VoIP working well on a full line.

But that is customer choice , is it not, they AAISP are offering this as an extra to customers ? so where you have a customers who isnt interested in such features they will get full throughput in line with BT's IP profile yes/no?
As a plusnet customer it is a very different situation , they implement their secondary IP profile on all accounts ,due to the way their traffic shaping is designed to work ? there is no option available to their customer's to disable this , why not? when a small isp can offer this as a value added extra
but even if this secondary ip profile is set to a value higher than the customers BTW IP profile it still restricts their max throughput level , and the plusnet shaping did not benefit me in any way what so ever and the proven facts are it was responsible for restricting the max achievable throughput by around 2mbps 24/7 for 2 yrs, a lot of data usage saved by plusnet , That is the real reason behind their sales pitch bs

But it of no great surprise now, although back during 2013 things where slightly different, i have said before had i had a crystal ball and known that i would of enjoyed being able to sync at the full rates that VDSL2 offered i would not have chosen plusnet, I would of gone with one of the smaller ISP's every time, SKY would be a possibility but sadly they have to be MPF ukonline FTTC wow now that would rock

Edited by tommy45 (Sun 16-Aug-15 20:59:00)

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Errr, more than "tail" . Hence the quoted IP Profile.

Good point! However I think TTB has a similar system, for the reasons this thread has gone on to discuss (a bit obtusely).

I don't know whether its WBC or WBMC, I expect the latter. That's another thing kitz raised over in the PN forums - she says there are two flavours of WBMC, which I didn't know.

I always thought that ISPs had dedicated MSILs for it, as WBC-ISPs do. She seems to thing the default is Shared MSILs but with an option for Dedicated. There's a diagram on her website IIRC, showing the shared setup. (Goes hunting - Gor blimey! I don't think that's the one she linked to recently - it seemed much simpler).

Yes it seems very complex, but BTw probably had no option to redesign due to the capacity requirements that the FTTx products need. However AAISP will probably tell you what they use; and its probably on their website somewhere.

Thinks.... There probably isn't really a BTW tail on FTTx, as that would be the copper from the exchange to the customer. But yes - it's AAISP via WBM(?)C.

There is a pseudo tail but it selected which VLAN your line is on when you get to the DSLAM, so the traffic is then directed at the right path at the hosting exchange once the multiple gigabit-fibre's reach their terminus.

SO you are with Zen? I had no idea. Just pointing out my belief. To someone else.

At least I could understand that bit. The rest descended into gibberish so I stopped soon after line 1.

Try again in English or shut up.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

SO you are with Zen? I had no idea. Just pointing out my belief. To someone else.

At least I could understand that bit. The rest descended into gibberish so I stopped soon after line 1.

Try again in English or shut up.

no you just don't want to accept my POV thats your choice

You mean "NO" you are not with Zen?

Why do AndyHCZ kept merry go round the forum around the clock, Thinkbroadband forum, Plusnet forum, BT forum and Kitz forum lately?

Edited by adslmax (Sun 16-Aug-15 21:03:51)

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

You mean "NO" you are not with Zen?

i anticipated your response ,so i will answer it with the contempt it deserves ? Are you really so dumb, i don't believe that your actually are, so stop acting like a dumb ass ,
In other words you knew exactly what i meant ,and i ain't in raged mode either BTW so stop trying to dis me as they say

In reply to a post by adslmax:

Why do AndyHCZ kept merry go round the forum around the clock, Thinkbroadband forum, Plusnet forum, BT forum and Kitz forum lately?

because he/she is a troll , yes they may have access to some privileged BT info, but they do not use it to help those who don't ,
example:
I know this and that , and this may happen at this time ect ect, but i ain't going to tell you lot /or share details with those who haven't got this level of access because i think I'm special , I'm a superior being, NOT

IMO there's some truth in that assumption that others have arrived at, or he/she is just a blagger and they really know no more than the masses do

I could go on but i won't he/she isn't worth it, is how their personalty comes across to me

Edited by tommy45 (Sun 16-Aug-15 21:21:38)

Well not everybody can be as charming and helpful as you.

Excuse me?

So the next time you ask for my help, I will be sure to oblige...

We all thought you were going onto Pulse8... ??

I've been downloading all day and my monitor has finally settled. http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/d0985761527...

Edited by deleted (Sun 16-Aug-15 22:21:24)

Samknows data for max lines on FTTC 80 shows that BT and EE lines achieve the same maximum speed measurements to within a tight window of 0.3 Mb/s. Plusnet is different - about 10% of lines make the window, then there is a gap to the rest who are evenly spread between 0.8-2.0 Mb/s lower.

I can't say I have taken any interest in this before, do you know what the typical TBB result is for a Plusnet user on 80 sync?

http://blog.thinkbroadband.com/2014/12/detailed-anal...

Has speed profiles from the main providers

Generally 2-3Mbps below BT Consumer it seems. What is unclear is the reason for it. The argument is with those who blame it on the Plusnet copy IP Profile system, which is just far too simplistic.

I'm pleased about the similarity you post between BT and EE . That veers towards what something/somebody "sort of authoritative" but I can't remember the source said a couple of years ago.

That BT Consumer broadband doesn't feed into MSILs from the BTW Cloud, but goes straight to BTW peering outwards. (Isn't that rather like BT Central Pluses worked? I think they may have been mentioned at the same time).

How to confirm or rubbish that I don't know. But what we do know is that EE must be working like that, as EE doesn't have its broadband traffic fed from BT Wholesale. (It is possible they do still have mail hosting under their own control of course). They sold the whole operation to them, so it appears to be White Label. Could BT Consumer also be such is the question that arises.

If this is the case, straight away we have a possible explanation of the higher speeds that BT achieve.

The thread arose of course from my empirical results of near-identical speed test results on my non-resync'ed line at similar times. Plus this afternoon after a re-sync figures comparable with historic Plusnet results I have.

For historic figures I opened up my thinkbroadband test results and looked for very close matches to today's results. Then I browsed through all my TTTS posts to find corresponding dates, and checked my syncs as shown in my sig for them.

It is quite clear that Plusnet is no slower on speedtests than AAISP. Normal usage feels better.

However, as is often the case when Plusnet speeds are mentioned, disruption and distraction ensue from a particular poster, thus preventing rational discussion of what is going on.

Hopefully we are back on track .

I'm not quite sure what you are saying with "there is a gap to the rest who are evenly spread between 0.8-2.0 Mb/s lower". By "the rest" are you referring to the rest of Plusnet lines, or the rest of the ISPs, and if the latter which is how I initially took it, are you saying they are below Plusnet?

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

http://blog.thinkbroadband.com/2014/12/detailed-anal...

Has speed profiles from the main providers

I would think that sam knows data to be possibly more accurate as there probably will be a bigger number of samples , it corresponds with my own experience when with plusnet, unlike the results that suggest that throughput levels increase during peak times which is more than likely due to customers who are /have been unaffected by the peak time issues, running speed tests at those times, or some other occurrence i can still recall trying to conduct a speed test on tbb, and the speed tester failing to load due to insufficient bandwidth, or not completing on occasions when things where that bad

Edited by tommy45 (Sun 16-Aug-15 23:34:49)

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Generally 2-3Mbps below BT Consumer it seems. What is unclear is the reason for it. The argument is with those who blame it on the Plusnet copy IP Profile system, which is just far too simplistic.

really when they need that secondary profile for their traffic shaping , Regardless of what bit of kit in the chain at plusnet is responsible for the lower throughput levels if they did not use a secondary ip profile as a way of capping throughput then it couldn't be deemed as responsible or in part responsible could it? to go from a max throughput of 72.?? 73 mbps to 74-75mbps by swapping isp higher if i was with sky (75-76mbps ) but they aren't on BT WBMC with it's IP profile are they they are BTOR GEA

Edited by tommy45 (Sun 16-Aug-15 23:46:24)

I mean 90% of the Plusnet lines were 0.8-2.0 Mb/s slower than the corresponding BT and EE lines.

I don't think you can conclude anything from your single result in isolation - e.g. you may have been in the 10%. I also don't think anything about BTw infrastructure offers an obvious explanation for Plusnet's slower speeds (although I think EE even though end-to-end managed uses WBMC dedicated, unlike Plusnet who use WBMC shared)

Just seen this, but need some shut-eye. Thanks for the extra info .

thanks for the feedback, good for the community.

So if I understand right, there is still visible BTw issues but nowhere near as severe as plusnet, and in addition various activities perform faster.

On sky for me is similar, web browsing is definitely snappier, speedtests also have always been perfect aside from that one night when tbb had an issue.

Interestingly as well ipv6 via a HE tunnel works better than native ipv6 did on plusnet, not had the same mtu issues, but this maybe down to the fact sky dont use pppoe so is natively 1500 bytes mtu.

Also on plusnet I had weird issues with pages occasionally not loading or hanging, the most frequent was the bbc website, those issues have gone since I migrated.

tommy I have to say whilst I agree your issues with plusnet were mostly valid.

The profile issue isnt one of them, plusnet set it below the BTw level, but the % difference is small enough to not really be relevant, plusnet have much bigger issues than the profile. In fact their main issue with the profile system is the fact it can get stuck rather than what it is set at.

I have QoS/policing on my own router which is set below my line rate, this is to manage bufferbloat, I consider the loss of max burst speed acceptable, but I have excempted samknows (and now also tbb speedtester) so I dont provide bad data to samknows testing.

Interestingly I compared my tbb to jchamier who also is a samknows tester and his spikes are noticeably worse. When I used QoS on my router on plusnet the spikes were reduced, if I do the same now on sky they dissapear completely. So plusnet's QoS I feel degrades the connection.

Edited by Chrysalis (Mon 17-Aug-15 05:41:50)

If 90% then should be visible from profile plots.

Samknows is good for profiling a line but sample sizes otherwise are very low when you consider 2000 boxes for six providers, adsl & fttc products and different line length profiles and location across uk

I think you need to get over the sample size thing.

Still waiting for you to publish data that is only from logged in users and who have plotted tests against peak and off peak. Even if its only 5 users its better.

It cant be hard given the small amount of users, it just seems something is motivating you to not do it.

Using anonymous tests with no tracking to individual lines is clearly not the way.

Edited by Chrysalis (Mon 17-Aug-15 07:57:10)

Well I offered to give unique tracking versions some time ago and people are so concerned that no-one came forward.

Love how you say something is motivating me not to do it, I'd love to be able to wave a red flag saying look an ISP has very poor speeds that contradict every other outlet on speeds

Only reluctance is spent two days so far and inclusive results so far and add the many times I've sat in an evening looking at peoples results and the pattern is say four tests from a user and 1 is bad three are good and even when people say its falling apart.

http://labs.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/index.php?s...
Is a unique version that will do an auto detect of postcode (may or may not work) but will test people every five minutes (8 seconds download, 8 seconds upload so not too much capacity used)

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

http://labs.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/index.php?s...
Is a unique version that will do an auto detect of postcode (may or may not work) but will test people every five minutes (8 seconds download, 8 seconds upload so not too much capacity used)

It did!. I'll leave it running for a bit. Still no problems at all with Plusnet speeds or responsiveness, but that view doesn't seem very popular round here.

Can see a few of you running that version now So will take a peak in the evening to see how things change.

Yeah thats tester has decided I'm actually in Pulburough, and even changed my postcode when trying to enter it manually!

It could have put you in worse places Pulborough is not too bad at all.

I'm sure its nicer than Crawley these days!

Well that was an interesting one: http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/button/14398...

OK, this is getting silly: http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/button/14398...

You are about to take off! Fasten the belt!

I'm going to stop this now as I've just had another stupid 271Mbps result and it's not helping anyone. It doesn't happen with every one of them, many are sensible figures around 60Mbps.

Hope Andrew picks up on these results and makes sure they're not going onto the maps!

Postcode side is experiment so wont affect monthly stats

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

http://labs.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/index.php?s...
Is a unique version that will do an auto detect of postcode

It put me in Southampton. I live in the north of Scotland...

Can someone explain the Buffer Bloat symbols, please?

BufferBloat is when the test monitors the ping of your connection whilst its downloading or uploading... it then uses the results to grade it A - F

I'm not sure of the values, but I think address said that F means the ping has multiplied by 6x during the saturation of the connection (download/upload)

Thanks. So as both down and upstream show A for buffer bloat, that's the best possible outcome?

A+ is best. But A is still very good and very close to A+ on their thresholds.

Edited by Chrysalis (Wed 19-Aug-15 08:16:07)

We just use A to F on our tester.

Need to add some more notes for people on it, was running the tests in background for a few months, and went live ahead of time because DSLReports started doing theirs.

Hmmm, very good... I've struggled to get mine above C... and that was with heavy QOS intervention so gave up...

I restricted my 60/18 to 50/15 and still got between C - E ratings.... but then thats something I've noticed an issue with on my Plusnet connection.

sorry yeah, was thinking of dslreports.

Thanks for answering tho as I would assume tbb would also have A+.

if your router has rubbish buffering configuration (heavy buffers) then yeah rate limiting wotn improve your latency under load.

There is no standard, maybe in term when we see LOT of people getting A/A we may add a higher standard just like electricity ratings on white goods.

Not a clue... all I know is the router is an Asus RT-AC87U and boasts about its super gaming abilities and bandwidth so would assume this would be something that would enhance the bufferbloat... but hey technology... 1 step forward and about 2 million back...

I can tell you the built in asuswrt downstream policing is junk to the point its useless, but the built in upstream QoS should at least reduce the upstream bufferbloat. My downstream policing is my own custom tc based script. In my view the downstream limit on the asus firmware can actually increase bufferbloat, so try setting the downstream speed to "higher" than your line speed leaving the buffering isp side, and only manage the upload on your QoS..

Edited by Chrysalis (Wed 19-Aug-15 16:11:04)

Well I found it to be a little helpful but I did have to set the bandwidth considerabley lower on downstream to take affect and even then it wasn't much.... I've since disabled it all and just let the QOS on HG612 doing its thing... it seems to do a better job!

Will look into again when I have an ISP that isn't constantly playing up... I'm having some browsing difficulties on certain websites at the moment... which is pain in the [censored] to say the least!

Hi Roberto

Hope you are well I happened to notice your post as someone had pointed out that thread to me to ask what AAISP use (WBMC Shared).

She seems to thing the default is Shared MSILs but with an option for Dedicated.

Not sure where that has come from, because I certainly dont think that If anything Shared is an extension of the Dedicated product and not the other way round

There are 2 main products WBC and WBMC.
The main difference between the two products is that WBC MSILs connect to a 3rd party supplier, whilst WBMC MSILs connect to the Core.
WBC nodes (both for WBC & WBMC) are the entry point to the 21CN backhaul.


WBMC is further split
- Dedicated for those ISPs who purchase their own bandwidth at the MSILs. As with WBC ISPs they have total control of their bandwidth and routing.
- Shared is for those ISPs who can afford to rent MSILs, so BTw buys the MSILs and shares the bandwidth between all ISPs who use shared. They dont have control of any the MSIL bandwidth or routing other than to chose where they connect to which is usually a central point in London. They purchase bandwidth in a different way to Dedicated or WBC. Termination off the Core is presented to the ISP in the form of a 'host link' at a location of their choice.

The MSILs are at the the APs - ie the InterConnects dotted around the country.
They aren't Centrals - nothing like. In fact its the Host Links that are comparable to Centrals as they both directly connect[ed] to the ISP gateway. The MSILs could be hundred of miles away from the [shared] ISP gateway.


I cant think of any simpler way to put it other than this - WBC, Dedicated WBMC & Shared WBC in a nutshell which has been up there for >6yrs.


But if it helps to take it down to a very basic level. Think of the APs as being ports in the back of a router only its a very big router with lots of ports that provide access to the 21CN backhaul.

The MSILs are like LAN cables to connect to a different switch/router. They are the cables which connect to another network - so either the Core (WBMC) or a 3rd party network (WBC).

There are hundreds/thousands of MSILs around the UK which connect to the Core both Shared & Dedicated.
Because there are so many for shared, then it is possible to get on a different one by doing a PPP disconnect. That would also depend on how many host links the ISP has, the locations, and also how the ISP has their Steering server set up. (ie if they are directing specific EU's to specific gateways).

I said on the PN forums way back in February that if PN were flat out denying there was an issue with the host links, then the other likely point would be the MSILs. Since Rev K is also noticing some of the Core entry points being hot and is also griping to BTw about some of the core node locations, it certainly does look like there could possibly be an issue with some of the shared MSILs.

Well just done a quick test as noticed some "extra" issues with my browsing...

Rather Interesting Result!

So with 24-48 hours until my migration to Zen the comparison already looks better

What a week !

And you were testing this on an idle connection?!

Something doesn't add up with that speed result and ping response.

Yes and I know it don't add up.. but checked the network to make sure and the only thing only the network with any sort of activity was Sonos system streaming Radio!

It's back to normal slow browsing now!

So not long been connected with Zen this morning and already seeing the difference in performance, also my baseline ping is around 6-7ms compared with Plusnet's 10-12ms...

Sonos Radio Streaming is working correctly again... no stutters and lags, also took 1-2 seconds to connect to the station instead of 10-25 seconds that it has the last few weeks.

Had a quick blast on some online gaming this has also now stopped lagging.

I can't compare speed to Plusnet currently as I've lost 8000Kb/s sync speed due to DLM resetting the line and losing G.INP but here is the first test!

So currently, it's what I've been looking for all the time... a stable connection and technical support was very helpful this morning, even looked for links to guides on Asus's website in case I needed them...

Soooo!, far superior to Plusnet's services, but then I suppose you pay for what you get!

No doubt you'll end up complaining about something (or multiple things) and taking them to arbitration in due course though.

Of course..... If I find something wrong that is!

In reply to a post by mlmclaren:

So not long been connected with Zen this morning and already seeing the difference in performance, also my baseline ping is around 6-7ms compared with Plusnet's 10-12ms...

Now you're on Zen, if you're interested in native IPv6 support, join the Zen IPv6 trial. Though it's a trial service, it works well for me.

I've posted some details on how Zen's trial service works from a customer perspective on the Zen forums.

Already registered for it... just waiting for activation !

nothing wrong complaining about a broken service, there is something odd about telling people to put up with it tho.

good news

obviously tho you know by now a test at 10am isnt that much of a test, do it again at 10pm although I expect it be fine a 55mbit test is still fast enough to show PN issues given when the single threaded collapses it goes down to adsl speeds.

Also the lower latency is probably down to how zen route their backhaul vs BT wholesale, so like me you have gained in that respect.

I didn't get in from work til nearly 11 tonight and then I started streaming to Xbox One with no issues..

Don't think its worth sharing any speed tests after peak time.. will try get one around 10:30 tomorrow!

Either way, all looking very good!

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

nothing wrong complaining about a broken service, there is something odd about telling people to put up with it tho.

'applauds'

Tuesday's BQM.

I went out at 7:20pm and returned at 11:05pm. Laptop in hibernation, iPad off. No other internet connections. I think I've seen a similar pattern somewhere before .

Well this is mine, I went out at 5PM and returned around 11PM...

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/66df13ce9fc...

well yeah that was the one issue going to aaisp, you stayed with BTw. AAISP for whatever reason dont want to use talktalk for FTTC.

But with the tbb data aside have the improvements you mentioned still ongoing?:

In reply to a post by mlmclaren:

Well this is mine, I went out at 5PM and returned around 11PM...

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/66df13ce9fc...

Well you should be in the right place that will give BTW a kick where the sun don't shine , they will push BTW on issues like CONGESTION
And god only knows what it will be like once they start rolling out FTTrN ect BTW have failed to invest in enough capacity so far in many areas And is probably why BTW think that throughput dropping by only 20-35 mbps is acceptable, in that if your IP profile is 77.?? unless throughput is lower than 40mbps they don't consider this as a fault, that is using their joke of a speedtest that nearly always gives a higher result
IMO is throughput drops more than 5-10mbps or is very erratic it isn't acceptable at all

Edited by tommy45 (Wed 16-Sep-15 08:30:48)

Just in case your not aware but I'm not using BT Wholesale anymore... I'm on Zen's own backhaul!

I got off BT Wholesale for reasons like the one's you mention.

Yes. Everything snappier. Speed tests as Plusnet without any x1 baddies at same sync's.

mine http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/087584db8f7...

mine http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/66df13ce9fc...

In reply to a post by mlmclaren:

So not long been connected with Zen this morning and already seeing the difference in performance, also my baseline ping is around 6-7ms compared with Plusnet's 10-12ms...

Sonos Radio Streaming is working correctly again... no stutters and lags, also took 1-2 seconds to connect to the station instead of 10-25 seconds that it has the last few weeks.

Had a quick blast on some online gaming this has also now stopped lagging.

I can't compare speed to Plusnet currently as I've lost 8000Kb/s sync speed due to DLM resetting the line and losing G.INP but here is the first test!

So currently, it's what I've been looking for all the time... a stable connection and technical support was very helpful this morning, even looked for links to guides on Asus's website in case I needed them...

Soooo!, far superior to Plusnet's services, but then I suppose you pay for what you get!

+1 million on everything

In reply to a post by AndyHCZ:

No doubt you'll end up complaining about something (or multiple things) and taking them to arbitration in due course though.

Well being with Zen he is with one of the superior providers where they don't charge peanuts to power the monkeys. So I can't see that happening at all.

Such a bitter comment to..

any chance you can keep a link your tbb in your sig?

And you don't think 'charge peanuts to power the monkeys' is insulting to those staff at the big ISPs?

Matthew has a track record with his ISP complaints. It's only a matter of time before he finds 'issues' with Zen.

Edited by deleted (Wed 16-Sep-15 13:19:24)

In reply to a post by ZenUserJP:

Well being with Zen he is with one of the superior providers where they don't charge peanuts to power the monkeys. So I can't see that happening at all.

Your pro-Zen jibes against other ISPs are getting pretty tedious now.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

any chance you can keep a link your tbb in your sig?

It's on the to do list...

In reply to a post by AndyHCZ:

Matthew has a track record with his ISP complaints. It's only a matter of time before he finds 'issues' with Zen.

I hardly think complaining about 2 ISP's using two separate infrastructures and with genuine issues is a "track record" and are you insinuating that my complaints where not valid...

In the case if my first complaint (Virgin Media) it was a big enough issue to attract the attention of the media...

January - https://www.cable.co.uk/news/broadband-customers-in-...

February Local Follow-Up - http://www.crawleynews.co.uk/Virgin-Media-promises-i...

April - https://www.cable.co.uk/news/virgin-media-promises-b...

and I suspect another will follow if its ever followed up (based on local natter)

and my 2nd is again a genuine issue.... at least CISAS and Ofcom seemed to think so anyway...

I can also provide a couple of news stories related to 'our' issues too if you like but don't think its necessary...

So I once again ask you not to make even the 'slightest' of accusations about or towards myself regarding any complaints I have made publicly in this or other forums and...

AGAIN ask that unless you have anything useful to contribute that may help resolve the issues that even Plusnet themselves can't identify or resolve, please refrain from commenting on my contributions in forums or mentioning my user ID or even my name at that!

Thanks

Your name is public knowledge. User profile.

Err, Yes I know??

I didn't say it wasn't supposed to be...

So why get so shirty about people using it.

If you stopped moaning about everything and did some work other than replying and posting during the day then you might not have to work at night.

I kinda like my little extra job of an evening, why would one want to sit in front of a computer all day and night... unless it was there job of course!

but while were down at this level of immaturity, why do you think adding pointless posts to a forum and also going against the forum rules by taking a thread OT!

So as you've nothing useful input into this discussion I shall ask you not to post anything at all and if you continue to post OT content I shall make a formal complaint to the moderators.

Hmmmm.

I seem to remember someone starting a thread, with a Subject that rather blatantly broke the language rules. I regard that as immature.

The matter of that thread appears to be about a perfectly normal migration away from a WBC/WBMC connection to a form of LLU. It is highly unlikely, as I explained earlier, that your loss of connection was caused by Plusnet.

It is far more likely that Openreach broke the connection, which on my migration triggered an immediate email from the Plusnet system, and in your case caused closure of the account. Openreach would within minutes have made the required connection to Zen.

From your other posts it would appear that your account at Zen was either not fully activated at that time, or was incorrectly activated, and the Zen side of things only resolved when you contacted them in the morning.

It is great that your new service is better than it was. I am pleased for you. But I believe you are entirely wrong in that offensive Subject and your opinion as to why you lost connection for so long.

Plusnet told me yesterday that they got the date wrong... PLusnet was supposed to leave the connection active yesterday and the work by Zen (which happened at 9am) would then kill the plusnet connection,

However Plusnet ceased the PPP session on my line and then refused it when my router attempted the connection again.... then when I entered the new details I had been provided by Zen it then gave me authentication errors... but then when reverting to the Plusnet sign in details on my router I got a refused type error... I then turned everything off and went to bed...

It was at around 8.45 that I turned everything back on and still got the same message with the Plusnet login, I then entered the Zen login again and got an authentication failure...

At 9.10/15 I tried Plusnet login again and this time got authentication error

Then I got onto Zen and just as I got through to someone at Zen at around 9.15/20 the other computers in the office started getting mail...

So IMO that meant the work at the exchange was then only done at 9am and PLusnet jumped the bullet!

Edited by mlmclaren (Wed 16-Sep-15 16:11:16)

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

In reply to a post by ZenUserJP:

Well being with Zen he is with one of the superior providers where they don't charge peanuts to power the monkeys. So I can't see that happening at all.

Your pro-Zen jibes against other ISPs are getting pretty tedious now.

As is your Pro PN [censored] licking. But that's the balance of public forums.

In reply to a post by ZenUserJP:

As is your Pro PN [censored] licking.

I do no such thing. I'm not even on Plusnet.

Hundreds of threads go off track, why complain about this one?

Feel free to complain but if you post I am entitled to comment on that post.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

I can also say that on the other hand browsing performance is noticeably snappier on AAISP, and the initial email download when I start up in the morning is much quicker. The bulk of that being eight forum daily archives so a time difference is easy to spot.

why do you think that is better DNS ? or PN is manipulating the speed test result ?

I assume it is a faster DNS server and perhaps better peering.

I don't see what speed test results have to do with that. As per the OP, those are very similar.