|
|
On your attenuation, a lower attenuation is generally better, a 34dB downstream attenuation SHOULD NOT BE SUB 1 Mbps, in fact should be above 8 Mbps.
Even at the worse 45dB attenuation figure speeds of 5 Mbps should be possible. From your description of the service I was expecting a figure of 63dB.
This suggests maybe those figures are wrong or the line has had a severe fault on it for many years. It is possible if I was to know the postcode of the property to cross-check and see if you are located where very low speeds or nothing is possible.
It may be you are on an old IPStream Max service, which will have a bearing on things, knowing exchange name would let people figure that out.
|
|
The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that the attenuation looks wrong.
Perhaps because it is being taken from a SamKnows unit which, unless I'm mistaken, doesn't act as a modem.
Unless the user has re-purposed an old SamKnows unit.
|
|
Register (or login) on our website and you will not see this ad.
|
|
|
Correct its not a modem and don't see how it can be displaying attenuation, now it could be trying to scrape it from the users modems web interface, but unless they've given permission that would not be a good thing for it to be doing (and never heard of their kit doing this)
|
|
The author of the above post is a thinkbroadband staff member. It may not constitute an official statement on behalf of thinkbroadband.
|
|
|
|
Attenuation of 45 and 34 are you sure?
This should give around 7 - 10Mbps...
I expect your actual line attenuation is over 70 and displayed as 63 by the router (the highest the router will display)...
|
|
|
|
I have had Samknows boxes for years. They do not read attenuation figures. If the user is using a Samknows box then it is either not the ones used for speedtesting or they are likely reading a figure that they assume is attenuation but actually isn't (my guess is it is the latency readings they are looking at - but if so then they are fairly high which would suggest heavy interleaving).
|
|
|
|
My apologies.
The figures I quoted are for latency, not attenuation. I don't have any figures for attenuation.
Oct 2016 average numbers are: Downstream - 0.76 Mbps, Upstream - 0.38 Mbps, Latency - 35.54, Packet loss - 0.02%
Nov 2011: Downstream - 0.28 Mbps, Upstream - 0.35 Mbps, Latency - 45.71 ms, Packet loss - 0.21%.
I've no objection to disclosing my postcode but not sure of the etiquette. Exchange is Llanymynech & I'm just over 10 km from it as the cable goes.
Library closes in a few minutes (& closed tomorrow) so it may be after Christmas before I see any replies.
billward
|
|
|
|
It looks like your line has been gradually deteriorating over a long period. The lower speeds and higher latency suggest the line has been increasing interleaving and reducing sync speed in order to hold a connection. It is likely that whatever has been deteriorating has now got so bad that it can't hold on to any real connection and therefore BT have 2 choices - do the work to find and fix the fault or decide they can no longer support the line. Doing the first would be good customer service but could cost a lot of money, doing the second is bad customer service but possibly the only "cost effective" route that BT can take.
|
|
|
|
I think you misread. The latency and speed have been getting better not worse over time.
|
|
|
|
Quite the opposite
Oct 2016 Downstream - 0.76 Mbps,
Nov 2011: Downstream - 0.28 Mbps
Demonstrating a marked improvement overtime.
3x faster in 2016 than 2011.
|
Pages in this thread: 
Print Thread
witchunt