I moved from a Draytek to a TP-LINK and have not looked back. Mine was a present so cost me £0. now where is ebay?

In reply to a post by billford:

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

The reported attenuation is a result of a calculation.

Of course it is.

The attenuation at a range of frequencies is measured, a (probably weighted) average is calculated and the result given.

If certain frequencies, or a range thereof, aren't used then they don't provide an attenuation figure and don't contribute to the reported average.

If that were true, then attenuation would change instead of being fixed. Attenuation only changes when the equipment is changed or the modulation changes.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

If that were true, then attenuation would change instead of being fixed. Attenuation only changes when the equipment is changed or the modulation changes.

You're not so far off.
The first sentence above is correct - the attenuation DOES change.

The second sentence is wrong though. The fact that you believe it's true probably means that (a) you are lucky enough to have a relatively low attenuation figure, and (b) that your router rounds the reported attenuation to the nearest dB (like mine). Some report values rounded to the nearest tenth of a dB...

You said in an earlier post: "The attenuation is a function of the line length and the frequency it's measured at". This was absolutely correct. The bit that you are missing and which billford attempted (semi-patiently ) to explain is that the frequencies IN USE can change (subtly) with every resync. On my line (atten > 50dB, ouch) I can see varying speeds AND varying attenuations. It's always in the range 50-52dB though.
I think all of this stuff is explained on the kitz site (or links from it) but it's been a while since I read it.

Thanks for creating another username just to make that post. Unfortunately, it does nothing for your credibility

Hilarious!
I'm not Bill though. (You think a moderator would make a new username? )
And did you actually disagree with what I wrote?

In reply to a post by spudski:

Hilarious!
I'm not Bill though. (You think a moderator would make a new username? )
And did you actually disagree with what I wrote?

I don't think you read any of my posts. On the bright side, you now have a post-count of 2.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

Thanks for creating another username just to make that post. Unfortunately, it does nothing for your credibility

Seb would take an extremely dim view of a moderator posing as an ordinary member just to demonstrate support for his own arguments.

I feel this is a matter you should report to [email protected] for further investigation.

Batboy's allegation just shows him for what he is...a)wrong and b) in need of medical attention.

DrT

In reply to a post by billford:

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

Thanks for creating another username just to make that post. Unfortunately, it does nothing for your credibility

Seb would take an extremely dim view of a moderator posing as an ordinary member just to demonstrate support for his own arguments.

I feel this is a matter you should report to [email protected] for further investigation.

Don't let the new poster trick you into thinking I meant you, Bill. As I see it we were having a sensible and fruitful discussion. But I think you'll agree, he's not a newbie, and as far as I'm concerned not worthy of entering into a discussion with, as it's clearly a troll post.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

But I think you'll agree, he's not a newbie

On the evidence available to me- no, I wouldn't agree with that.