PN IP Profile and BT IP Profile

Does anyone noticed that PN are now no longer matched BT IP Profile.

I did noticed it on my line, my parents line and asked my mate checked his line as well as all of us are the same match! Has Plusnet changed the IP Profile Policy by lower than BT IP and why is this?

Before:

BT IP: 77.35Mb Sync 79999k
PN IP: 77.3Mb

Now:

BT IP: 77.35Mb Sync 79999k
PN IP: 77.2Mb (less than BT IP)

That's an improvement

On FTTC it has always been 0.2Mbps below the IP Profile.

Though???? !!!

The IP Profile for 79999 sync is normally 77.4Mbps, so maybe that has been lowered.

I wonder if all FTTC IP Profiles have dropped by 0.5Mbps? That would reduce BTW Cloud backhaul usage considerably.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

That's an improvement

On FTTC it has always been 0.2Mbps below the IP Profile.

Though???? !!!

The IP Profile for 79999 sync is normally 77.4Mbps, so maybe that has been lowered.

I wonder if all FTTC IP Profiles have dropped by 0.5Mbps? That would reduce BTW Cloud backhaul usage considerably.

For some unexplained reason the BTW IP profile of 77.35 is the maximum if the connection has G.inp enabled , As opposed to the max IP profile if on Fast-path of 77.44 or 77.42 depending on modem chip set brand, Before G.inp was rolled out on Fast path With a sync at full rate,Huawei modem 77.42 ECI =77.44 as to why?

But yes i too had a lower than it should of been plusnet IP profile of :77.2Mb when BT's was 77.35
The support guy even said it should be set to 77.3 not 77.2 , Both restricted my throughput level , and this for some reason was still noticeable but not as much when they set their profile to 78,
It's not only BT saving bandwidth it's plusnet as well, so you get screwed twice if you are plusnet customer

Plusnet refuse to put IP Profile at 78Mb as they not allow to do this. They will do 77.2Mb to match BT IP as of 77.35Mb but surely it should be set at 77.35Mb (even on full sync rate 79999k)

Edited by adslmax (Thu 20-Aug-15 19:18:50)

In reply to a post by adslmax:

Plusnet refuse to put IP Profile at 78Mb as they not allow to do this. They will do 77.2Mb to match BT IP as of 77.35Mb but surely it should be set at 77.35Mb (even on full sync rate 79999k)

Some of the support staff will refuse to set it to 78mb But they can do this and have in the past when i was with them done this at my request, shame they won't disable their traffic shaping , ring them back and ask a different support adviser hopefully you will get one who is familiar with manually setting profiles , and is clued up

Edited by tommy45 (Thu 20-Aug-15 19:48:10)

What is the point, for the sake of a few kbps? Also, it is likely to revert following the next disconnect/reconnect.

In reply to a post by kasg:

What is the point, for the sake of a few kbps? Also, it is likely to revert following the next disconnect/reconnect.

it's not a few kbps though that's my point since i migrated away from plusnet my max downstream throughput is higher by some 2mbps or more with the PN IP set to 77.2 or even 77.3, why i don't know
My throughput with plusnet with ip profile set at those levels was 73mbps max when set at 78mbps it was 74.20 max on a good day at a quiet time of the day 4am
currently it is a almost consistent 74.75 to just over 75mbps, so BTW's IP profile coming into play
If on the BTOR GEA FTTC variant (No ip profile) i would be in theory like others be able to achieve the advertised 76mbps headline throughput speed and why should this be the case if you are synced at 80mbps

2 or 3 mbps on the face of it for one circuit may not sound like a lot, but it is in the grand scheme of things how many of plusnet customers subscribe and sync at the full 80/20 rate? multiply that number by the 2mbps and you have a lot of bandwidth saved
Go a step further and apply the same logic to all BTW based customers ,

I cant be the only cynical human being who has explored this surely

Edited by tommy45 (Thu 20-Aug-15 21:59:37)

Let me put this way:

(with PN)
Sync 80.00Mb
BT IP 77.35Mb
PN IP 77.2Mb
Throughput 73.9Mb

(without PN)
Sync 80.00Mb
BT IP 77.35Mb
Other ISP IP 80.00Mb
Throughput 76.4Mb

So, you lose 2.5Mb with PN

When I first activated on FTTC with Plusnet last February 2014 (PN current line speed set at 80Mb) and I get throughput around 76Meg then couple of hours later PN current line speed set at 77.4Mb and I get throughput of 73.5Meg. So, I lost 2.5Meg cos of [censored] stupid PN profile.

Edited by adslmax (Thu 20-Aug-15 23:19:03)

Could you explain, for everyday emails, browsing, gameplaying, Netflixing, etc, what issues does a 3% reduction in speed actually cause?

In reply to a post by broadband66:

Could you explain, for everyday emails, browsing, gameplaying, Netflixing, etc, what issues does a 3% reduction in speed actually cause?

I don't think that max was suggesting that the loss of 2-3mbps would have any effect on those things, but in all fairness it still doesn't make it right for plusnet to get away with in effect capping customers connections so they get less than they would with another ISP on the same BT OR product it's a way of throttling everyone via the back door

Interesting thoughts

1. Have tried to spot this 'cap' and not obvious across the speed test user base
2. If it existed then PlusNet would have to advertise a lower speed since hitting the 10% up to 38 Mbps and up to 76 Mbps should be almost impossible.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

I wonder if all FTTC IP Profiles have dropped by 0.5Mbps? That would reduce BTW Cloud backhaul usage considerably.

Wouldn't make much of a dent. would be negligible. Top speeds affect usage far less than you might think once they're beyond a certain level.

All the P2P stuff and downloads would slow. I'm discounting browsing, email, gaming and catch-up TV streaming for example. Just stuff that goes full belt if it can get it.

Note I said all IP Profiles. Not just the high-speed ones. There are vast numbers still on ADSLx, and most of those are well below the maximum for their product.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Interesting thoughts

1. Have tried to spot this 'cap' and not obvious across the speed test user base
2. If it existed then PlusNet would have to advertise a lower speed since hitting the 10% up to 38 Mbps and up to 76 Mbps should be almost impossible.

I bet there are no Plusnet FTTC customers able to get 76mbps Note the FTTC bit as they also do have some FTTP customers Who seem to fair a little better as far as throughput goes in both directions certainly closer to the head line product speeds 80/20

As for their 40/10 or 40/2 customers i don't know if this affects them or by how much, but i would guess it would be less noticeable ,

Those who will notice it more are those who sync at the full 80/20 rate as said 2 years of being a plusnet customer not once did i get over 74.20mbps (PN ip set at 78mbps) less(72-3mbps) if it was set to what it would normally default to 77.4 or if g.inp 77.2

But is that advertised upto 76mbps max throughput or sync speed ? If throughput how could their claim of 10% of their customer base be proved or disproved, without a reliable impartial independent source ? Also if the 76mbps figure is representative of throughput then they should change their advertising to reflect the truth, if we had indisputable proof ASA would listen

Edited by tommy45 (Fri 21-Aug-15 17:28:23)

I read some of the ASA stuff this morning and I don't think they even know the difference.

I believe everyone thinks they mean sync, and it can be read like that, until you find the bit that says speeds can go down at busy times. That would probably make a nonsense of any 10% claims by any bulk ISP.

Perhaps it means 10% of the customer base can get that speed at some time of some days?

In reply to a post by StephenTodd:

Perhaps it means 10% of the customer base can get that speed at some time of some days?

more like 10% of their FTTH customers , as none of their FTTC customers will be able to achieve that advertised headline speed, if it is referring to actual throughput regardless of time of day,

I find it so strange because when my parents was on FTTC 40/20 (BT IP Profile set at 74.22Mb but PN IP Profile set at 40Mb and they getting better throughput speed of 38.5Mb) and now my parents was on FTTC 80/20 (BT IP Profile set at 77.35Mb but PN IP Profile set at 77.2Mb) and they only getting throughput speed of 73.7Mb.

So, 40Mbps give u 38.5Mbps is pretty good. (1.5Mbps less is spot on)
But, 80Mbps give u 73.7Mbps is a massive gap (6.3Mbps less is terrible one) as I mean 80Mbps should be around 76Mbps throughput! (around 4Mbps less)

Edited by adslmax (Sat 22-Aug-15 00:42:21)

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

All the P2P stuff and downloads would slow. I'm discounting browsing, email, gaming and catch-up TV streaming for example. Just stuff that goes full belt if it can get it.

Note I said all IP Profiles. Not just the high-speed ones. There are vast numbers still on ADSLx, and most of those are well below the maximum for their product.

People are hardly ever using their full whack. It's why the peak time usage on BTW FTTC is <500kb/s.

Slow someone downloading at full pelt their downloads will slow. Resulting in them downloading at their new full pelt for longer and adding additional load to the network when they would be finished at the higher speed.

Edited by deleted (Sat 22-Aug-15 01:48:45)

In reply to a post by tommy45:

But is that advertised upto 76mbps max throughput or sync speed ? If throughput how could their claim of 10% of their customer base be proved or disproved, without a reliable impartial independent source ?

Throughput, and Samknows boxes.

They should migrate to an Opal retailer or Sky. Maybe even Zen if they are available on their exchange.

Not bad throughput 75.47Mb on BT IP @ 77.35Mb as PN put IP Profile set at 80Mb
http://postimg.org/image/flfy4swnj/
http://postimg.org/image/5dquaot0j/

Edited by adslmax (Sat 22-Aug-15 01:53:43)

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

In reply to a post by tommy45:

But is that advertised upto 76mbps max throughput or sync speed ? If throughput how could their claim of 10% of their customer base be proved or disproved, without a reliable impartial independent source ?

Throughput, and Samknows boxes.

So they couldn't distinguish if a connection was FTTC or FTTH then, as PN's FTTH customers get better speed test results, In with case plusnet advertising 76mbps is misleading because those with FTTC 80/20 can't achieve such throughput levels 76mbps is optimistic without an additional IP profile and traffic shaping

Unfortunately the BTW perfomance tester isn't reliable it gives me a result of near my IP profile So over 77mbps all other testers report 74-75mbps or just over 75mbps

In theory samknows is meant to know all about your cinnection type so they can use the data to feed the model that calculates speeds for the uk averages

I look forward to the moans when people get Gig speeds and that it never gets that

Due to a delay in getting a new profile from BT I ran speed checks with a Plusnet profile of 80Mb/s and 46.8Mb/s and the speed difference was 1Mb/s

First 1Gig FoD connection should go live in the next few weeks.

Unfortunately, the chance of someone on the FoD 1Gig trials being a TBB member is going to be pretty slim.

In reply to a post by AndyHCZ:

First 1Gig FoD connection should go live in the next few weeks.

Unfortunately, the chance of someone on the FoD 1Gig trials being a TBB member is going to be pretty slim.

Which ISP is offering FoD 1Gig?

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

I look forward to the moans when people get Gig speeds and that it never gets that

We've seen Hyperoptic customers post around 990 Mbps speed tests too, its that missing 9Mbps that will cause the firestorm

I would like to be able to have 73 Mbps - I'm 450m from the cabinet. So I think these "full sync" people moaning about the profile need to realise how lucky they are !!

Edited by jchamier (Sat 22-Aug-15 10:49:35)

Ever heard of load-spreading? And queuing theory?

In reply to a post by adslmax:

I find it so strange because when my parents was on FTTC 40/20 (BT IP Profile set at 74.22Mb but PN IP Profile set at 40Mb and they getting better throughput speed of 38.5Mb) and now my parents was on FTTC 80/20 (BT IP Profile set at 77.35Mb but PN IP Profile set at 77.2Mb) and they only getting throughput speed of 73.7Mb.

That's because the effective cap on Plusnet 40/20 is the 40Mbps Plusnet Current line speed and IP Profile is wayyyyy higher and irrelevant. In other words, on PN 40/20 40Mbps should be achievable.

On the 80/20 the IP Profile kicks in and then the CLS just below it.

ISPs...and I am unable to say which ones, but those taking part in the trials.

In reply to a post by AndyHCZ:

ISPs...and I am unable to say which ones, but those taking part in the trials.

What I mean is, is it an Openreach product?

It's an Openreach trial in Huntingdon of a 1000/100Mbps FoD product along side the 330/50Mbps G.Fast trial.

ISPs will be taking part directly with Openreach (LLU) and through BT Wholesale (WBMC/WBC).

Edited by deleted (Sat 22-Aug-15 11:20:13)

Thanks for that. I see ISPReview have more details http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2015/08/isp-zen...

990 Mbps is impossible since Gig Ethernet has a max TCP/IP throughput of 943 Mbps

Not run it as news as we covered the original product news so waiting for more concrete stuff and Gig from Openreach will upset too many people.

Indeed.

ISP Review clearly don't have access to first hand information as they've reported some things incorrectly (to be clear, FoD will only be available to 43 postcodes in Huntingdon/Gosforth will not have FoD).

I understand there will be media involvement in the next few weeks anyway.

Plan is to drag myself up with camera like we've done before to see what is different with the new FoD

In reply to a post by AndyHCZ:

ISP Review clearly don't have access to first hand information as they've reported some things incorrectly

No change there then.

at least they trying to get information out there which is better than "guess what I have the info but I am not sharing".

Personally g.fast doesnt excite me. the speeds from vdsl2 are enough for almost all mainstream activity, FTTP would excite me as thats an entirely different technology, so with FTTP comes reliability and guaranteed access speed.

Also post g.fast rollout will be the inevitable of backhau'ls been too small because once again the clever people will be surprised at the network demand (both VM and BT).

Edited by Chrysalis (Sat 22-Aug-15 13:38:50)

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

990 Mbps is impossible since Gig Ethernet has a max TCP/IP throughput of 943 Mbps

Thanks, knew there had to be a reliable number, but didn't search for it.

I've not looked, but hopefully the Gig ISPs so far (Hyperoptic, B4RN, etc) are correctly advertising this maximum.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

Personally g.fast doesnt excite me. the speeds from vdsl2 are enough for almost all mainstream activity, FTTP would excite me as thats an entirely different technology, so with FTTP comes reliability and guaranteed access speed.

I've been usefully impressed with the stability of VDSL2 on my FTTC compared to my previous ADSL2+ but that may just be due to the shorter line. I do have work colleagues who only get 25 Mbps or less on their FTTC, so G.FAST technologies will help - but I still wonder if that is spending the wrong money. As you say FTTP gives a lot more assurance. (e.g. in server rooms copper runs at 10 GigE reliably now, but we still use fibre as well between racks).

I have specifically been given information "in commercial confidence", yet you expect me to share it? Clearly you've never worked in any industry with commercial sensitivity. You might not agree with commercial sensitivity, but you still have to respect it.

Some of the ISP Review news is guess work. I know for a fact that Openreach or more specifcally, the BT Press Office, will not have released certain information. The problem with guess work is it's entirely that.

Unfortunately, I have no idea what is different compared to before on the physical side - only the ordering/planning side.

It will be interesting to see what is physically different to the current FoD.

In reply to a post by AndyHCZ:

It's an Openreach trial in Huntingdon of a 1000/100Mbps FoD product along side the 330/50Mbps G.Fast trial.

ISPs will be taking part directly with Openreach (LLU) and through BT Wholesale (WBMC/WBC).

Hmmm that's fast, it's a pity Openreach aren't as quick at coming to check and fix a reported line fault ..... 10 days is too slow.

Only one that seems to be is wait for it - TalkTalk

Max theoretical TCP payload rates:

GbE - 949.28 Mb/s (timestamps off), 941.48 Mb/s (timestamps on)

Openreach VDSL2 - 75.36 Mb/s (timestamps off), 74.74 Mb/s (timestamps on

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Only one that seems to be is wait for it - TalkTalk

In reply to a post by AndyHCZ:

I have specifically been given information "in commercial confidence", yet you expect me to share it? Clearly you've never worked in any industry with commercial sensitivity.

Well yes I have. And I'm surprised you think that alluding to such knowledge is in any way acceptable.

In what was is it unacceptable? It breaches no agreements or MoUs.

The fact is people have commented on things incorrect, or put misinformation out there. I have tried to correct things people have said, only to be vindicated for it. Where possible, I have published certain things. There are many things ISPs could publish and release, but most (or all) chose not to do so - this is often to the dislike and frustration of a select few "enthusiasts".

There are certain things that can be released and reported, and certain things that cannot. It's not me who decides.

Seriously?

Another way of looking at this is you're simply repeating the story published by ISPReview then claiming it doesn't have the correct details...

...which you have but are unable to repeat because you're bound by a non-disclosure agreement.

That would be childish.

I published some details of the trial before they did.

They have said the FoD2 trial would also be in Gosforth, which is incorrect. They reported the number of FoD2 trial spots incorrectly (the number of places is very limited) and confused it was premises passed. The diagram used in the article is also not correct - new fibres have been run directly back to the exchanges (new L2S equipment is being used).

You asked which ISP/s were offering 1Gig FoD, but I clearly cannot disclose that.

In reply to a post by AndyHCZ:

You asked which ISP/s were offering 1Gig FoD, but I clearly cannot disclose that.

That's fine. I asked the wrong question. I wanted to ask whether it was an Openreach product which you answered.

In reply to a post by adslmax:

Not bad throughput 75.47Mb on BT IP @ 77.35Mb as PN put IP Profile set at 80Mb
http://postimg.org/image/flfy4swnj/
http://postimg.org/image/5dquaot0j/

So are you going to stay with PN or go to Pulse8?

I have, but when I am under NDA I simply avoid commenting, I dont show off and let people know I have information but cannot tell.

Clearly you have...

And it's when people like you ask me to "prove" things or post copies of internal slides, that I say I am unable to. I have never boasted about information I am privy to. Some people (especially those on the "pay" site) are clearly jealous.

Edited by deleted (Sun 23-Aug-15 09:53:46)

I don't think anyone's jealous, just irritated by your showing-off.

If it is sooooo sensitive why mention it at all?

In the overall scheme of things, does this really matter?

In reply to a post by broadband66:

In the overall scheme of things, does this really matter?

Yes i think that it does as those who are fortunate enough to sync at the full rate
Are unable to achieve their lines full potential if with plusnet, Also they state that they don't slow customers down when this is clearly not the case, It's the deception that bugs me
And also plusnet not giving their customers a choice to opt out of their traffic shaping that they like to call prioritisation if the customer does not want or need it
This would most probably result in the secondary IP profile being disabled or set in such away that it no longer has any negative effect on those customers throughput

I would also think that if they provided this option, those who are suffering peak time issues would see an improvement , at least it would be clearer of who's domain the underlying cause for the peak issues lay in i believe that their traffic management may in some cases amplify the effects end users see

Or goaded by the provocative style, which he jolly well knows.

I only say that when someone asks me to publish/disclose information I am unable to release.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Ever heard of load-spreading? And queuing theory?

Yes. Even worked for ISPs alongside capacity planning bods. Small downstream increases make virtually no impression on network load. Even doubling speeds once a customer has something approaching superfast only increases bandwidth demand by perhaps 30-40%.

The biggest component in bandwidth issues is about statistical contention - selling too much of the overall bandwidth available to a single customer. Minor reductions to bandwidth across a big customer base won't make much of a dent because, as I said, very, very few customers are using anywhere near their full capacity at any one time. Average speeds across a cohort may perhaps be 40Mb, in which case forcibly lowering that average to 38Mb isn't going to make a massive impression in overall load. Even if everyone were maxing out all the time it'd only drop usage by 2.5%.

Edited by deleted (Mon 24-Aug-15 23:16:00)

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

I look forward to the moans when people get Gig speeds and that it never gets that

I'd quite like to see speeds advertised Comhem-style when they are being delivered over networks that aren't rate adaptive.

BT Wholesale kinda allude to it in their speed test where they give an acceptable throughput range.

I've just check my modem stats and noticed its managed to claw back around 1500kbps of the lost 3000kbps attainable sync, so powered it off for 5 mins and then back on and I've gone

from:

Last initialization procedure status: 0
Max: Upstream rate = 22968 Kbps, Downstream rate = 65192 Kbps
Bearer: 0, Upstream rate = 19999 Kbps, Downstream rate = 64673 Kbps
Bearer: 1, Upstream rate = 0 Kbps, Downstream rate = 0 Kbps

to:

Last initialization procedure status: 0
Max: Upstream rate = 22621 Kbps, Downstream rate = 65428 Kbps
Bearer: 0, Upstream rate = 19999 Kbps, Downstream rate = 66008 Kbps
Bearer: 1, Upstream rate = 0 Kbps, Downstream rate = 0 Kbps

I've now got to wait for Plusnet to update until I will see the throughput but BTw reports my profile as

IP Profile for your line is - 63.82 Mbps

So what will Plusnet set it as??

PN will set as 63.8 Mb (probably 63.7 Mb)

Please explain what a difference of 3% will do to a user who is watching catchup tv, browsing the web, uploading photos to "the Cloud", downloading an update, etc.

A bit.

Or so.

Per millisecond.

In reply to a post by broadband66:

Please explain what a difference of 3% will do to a user who is watching catchup tv, browsing the web, uploading photos to "the Cloud", downloading an update, etc.

it's important because they are throttling/slowing down customers maximum throughput potential without disclosing this fact at point of sale, & even on the web site, Other ISP's manage without doing this

Edited by tommy45 (Tue 25-Aug-15 22:22:41)

Banging on about it in these forums just makes you look like someone with a bee in their bonnet.

If you think it really matters, the two places to say anything are the ASA and Ofcom. Only they can do anything about it.

Anywhere like this you achieve nothing and become a nuisance crank.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Banging on about it in these forums just makes you look like someone with a bee in their bonnet.

If you think it really matters, the two places to say anything are the ASA and Ofcom. Only they can do anything about it.

Anywhere like this you achieve nothing and become a nuisance crank.

If i thought there was any chance of either of those 2 doing anything i would of already done that,

Plusnet have already removed their claims of 'totally unlimited' which may have been relevant to suggestions of misleading. There is potential I suppose for any difference to reflect in the 'up to' speed claims, if the ASA ever hold an ISP to the CAP/BCAP help note.

I hadn't noticed, so thanks.

However, having been an strong recommender of Plusnet for about three years I have completely changed my position. Which is why (a) why I left, and (b) do not keep bang up-to-date .

They are still relevant for large numbers of people of course. Many of those may visit these forums and take note, but most of those that post asking for an opinion are looking for better.

In reply to a post by vimto_girl:

Plusnet have already removed their claims of 'totally unlimited'

source for this please?

All I see from Plusnet end was:

Unlimited usage

Unlimited broadband with no monthly usage limit - letting you browse and download around the clock.

Edited by adslmax (Wed 26-Aug-15 01:23:54)

I'm not sure what you're asking. A source that Plusnet used to claim 'totally unlimited' broadband?

yes

http://web.archive.org/web/20150319053213/https://ww...

blimey never notice it myself

In reply to a post by vimto_girl:

Plusnet have already removed their claims of 'totally unlimited' which may have been relevant to suggestions of misleading.

I wonder if this was also behind the removal of the link to Current Line speed.
Some idiot went into panic mode.

hmm it gets worse. Looks like we got out at the right time.

http://community.plus.net/forum/index.php/topic,1431...

Plusnet wouldnt have changed that unless they had to. So I guess is more changes incoming.

So again there is no real time difference. You never seem happy about any speed you get.

Users get what they get. If it starts high but drops off by a HUGE amount then fair enough they are entitled to query and complain but for those that bleat on and on about a small drop from their theoretical max then most people will have no sympathy.

In reply to a post by broadband66:

So again there is no real time difference. You never seem happy about any speed you get.

Users get what they get. If it starts high but drops off by a HUGE amount then fair enough they are entitled to query and complain but for those that bleat on and on about a small drop from their theoretical max then most people will have no sympathy.

I wasn't bleating on about it,

But giving this little known about fact some exposure, Because i think it's important ,and feel that the IP should have to disclose the effects of it's own IP profile in its adverts but it advertised headine speeds of up to 76mbps even tough it did not have the 10% of customers able to achieve that speed only 1% according to a which report

Edited by tommy45 (Wed 26-Aug-15 15:01:34)

I'm pretty sure most users don't give a stuff that they get 73.5mbps instead of 76mbps.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

hmm it gets worse. Looks like we got out at the right time.

http://community.plus.net/forum/index.php/topic,1431...

Plusnet wouldnt have changed that unless they had to. So I guess is more changes incoming.

I think they removed the claims because of an investigation by the ASA. So it just means Plusnet probably should haven't been advertising 'totally unlimited' broadband, rather than the products have changed or are about to change.

In reply to a post by adslmax:

PN will set as 63.8 Mb (probably 63.7 Mb)

Well updated:

Phone exchange:
CRAWLEY
Estimated line speed:
57Mb (Download speed could vary depending on line conditions. Estimates are the maximum speeds that your phone line can support. These speeds are dependent on the package you choose.) - Checked on 2015-06-17 11:32:59
Current line speed:
63.8 Mb

Did speedtest when noticed but no change

anyway so I killed PPP session and reconnected, rerun test and throughput increased accordingly!

New screenshot below of sync rate verus ip profile with maximum throughput speed:

http://postimg.org/image/ppt1crwpp

In reply to a post by adslmax:

New screenshot below of sync rate verus ip profile with maximum throughput speed:

http://postimg.org/image/ppt1crwpp

Except many plusnet customers won't ever get 75mbps due to their traffic shaping and secondary IP profile being set at a lower value than BTW's
Are they still advertising upto 76mbps ? In which case that is misleading according to the info in the image you posted, Because most connections are likely to have G.inp applied as BTOR installed more G.inp compatible Huawei hardware than ECI across the uk so any isp having 10% of it's FTTC subscriber base getting the advertised max speed of 76mbps are incorrect

Where did you get that from and what's it got to do with Plusnet?

In reply to a post by kasg:

Where did you get that from ....................?

Might have been from here perhaps?

I am sync at 79999k and BT and PN IP Profile are 77.35Mb and I getting 75Mbps throughput. Well, bit closer to 76.

http://postimg.org/image/eggynztt5/

In reply to a post by Apprentice:

Might have been from here perhaps?

Yes, evidently. This thread seems to be going round in circles.

In reply to a post by adslmax:

I am sync at 79999k and BT and PN IP Profile are 77.35Mb and I getting 75Mbps throughput. Well, bit closer to 76.

http://postimg.org/image/eggynztt5/

And that speed tester is accurate? My finding are that is always gives a higher result than actual throughput on the DS and lower upstream,
I have had results in excess of the IP profile of 77.35 before now,

In reply to a post by tommy45:

My finding are that is always gives a higher result than actual throughput on the DS and lower upstream,
I have had results in excess of the IP profile of 77.35 before now,

The BT wholesale test always gives a slightly lower result than other speed testers for me and has never given a result in excess of the IP profile.

A speedtest can exceed the IP profile when the line has synced higher but the router has failed to update the IP profile. Also anti-virus can often cause bogus results.