upstream vs distance

Can find lots of graphs / tables for downstream vs distance, but no data for upstream vs distance.

The BTW checker is estimating 57 / 20 for my line (cabinet went live on the checker today). Can I really expect to get the full 20 (19.0-19.5 actual) given my estimated downstream (I'm in the region of ~300M from the cabinet, as the cables lie).

My local primary school is right beside 'my' fibre cabinet and the BTW checker estimates 76 / 20 for their line. I was surprised to see the same upstream estimate for both lines, given the 300M difference in distance from the cabinet (reflected in the downstream difference of 20Mbps).

I'd like to understand the relationship between upstream and distance, at what distance does the upstream start to drop-off., in comparison to the downstream.

Is upstream artificially capped at very short distances, hence why at distances like 300M 20Mbps is still possible?

Cheers

Edited by mikeysoft (Wed 18-Sep-13 10:18:20)

Basically, yes 20Mbps is possible at 300m - my line is around 450m and I get a Max Attainable of about 26Mbps which is capped to 19999kbps and a throughput of around 18.5Mbps.

ADSL positioned Up and the low end of the spectrum whereas with VDSL there is a band of Up, then Down, Up, Down, Up, Down so both are gradually affected as distances increase

On a typical line that is capped at 80/20 you will see down starting to drop off around 150 to 200 metres and upstream will start to drop below 20 at maybe 500 to 600m - there are to many variables to give a specific point.

Yep definitely possible, the estimates are normally pretty good. You usually sync higher at first (usually 10 or so Mbps higher) and when crosstalk kicks in it ends up around the estimate I've found.

That'll rock a twenty meg upstream, no probs what so ever.

I'm about 470m as the cable lies, and the quoted rates are 37.9 Down and 6.1Mb up. I'm happy with the down, though I was hoping for a little more on the up. Do you think I'm likely to see it at 470m, or does the speed start dropping off quite quickly after 300m?

In reply to a post by mikeysoft:

Can I really expect to get the full 20 (19.0-19.5 actual) given my estimated downstream (I'm in the region of ~300M from the cabinet, as the cables lie).

Yes...and no

The simple answer: You're going to get the full speed upstream.

More complex answer: I don't think anyone ever gets 19/19.5. The best I've come across (me, lol) is 18.6. Even then I only got that after I'd hacked my Openreach modem and turned off the QoS feature. A standard installation doesn't normally give better than 17 up as far as I know.

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/button/13787...

..and hats off to IDNet for that. Half past seven in the evening and running flat out.

Edited by Andrue (Wed 18-Sep-13 09:07:38)

In reply to a post by w0067814:

I'm about 470m as the cable lies, and the quoted rates are 37.9 Down and 6.1Mb up. I'm happy with the down, though I was hoping for a little more on the up. Do you think I'm likely to see it at 470m, or does the speed start dropping off quite quickly after 300m?

6.1Mbps is VERY low.

In reply to a post by Andrue:

More complex answer: I don't think anyone ever gets 19/19.5. The best I've come across (me, lol) is 18.6. Even then I only got that after I'd hacked my Openreach modem and turned off the QoS feature. A standard installation doesn't normally give better than 17 up as far as I know.

I have plenty of results on a standard install with an unhacked modem giving 18.5Mbps and above

18.5Mbps

18.5Mbps

18.7Mbps

18.7Mbps

Edited by MHC (Wed 18-Sep-13 09:24:45)

http://blog.thinkbroadband.com/2013/05/so-how-fast-a...

The graph hides some of the data due to averaging, but raw numbers 10% faster than 18.4 Mbps on the upload

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

http://blog.thinkbroadband.com/2013/05/so-how-fast-a...

The graph hides some of the data due to averaging, but raw numbers 10% faster than 18.4 Mbps on the upload

Have Openreach ever published an idealised 'upload vs distance' graph / table?

In reply to a post by MHC:

6.1Mbps is VERY low.

I'm estimated 41.2 down, and 6.1 up, and today sync at:

Max:	Upstream rate = 9711 Kbps, Downstream rate = 59912 Kbps
Path:	0, Upstream rate = 9559 Kbps, Downstream rate = 50252 Kbps

Huawei modem to Huawei large cabinet.

In reply to a post by MHC:

I have plenty of results on a standard install with an unhacked modem giving 18.5Mbps and above

What modem is that with - ECI or Huawei?

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18...

"Best tweak is turning off QOS which gives a nice 1mbs boost on your upload speeds."

http://community.plus.net/forum/?topic=102776.msg890597

Edited by Andrue (Wed 18-Sep-13 10:37:27)

Not that I can recall having seen, and have just done a quick look around again.

Welcome to the club, I'm about 450 meters. Original estimate was 57/20, current estimate is 36/6. Currently synced at 42/8, last speed test was 39/6

Seems some of us just have lines that perform very badly, I was first on the cabinet and I have never got anywhere near the original estimate, think the best I've achieved is 52/12 within the first few days of installation.

What speed is likely to be on FTTC 80/20 will I getting?

I just work out on google map below:

486 ft by walk or 0.2mi by road

0.2mi = 321.87m

486 feet =
148.1328 metres

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/guide/fibre-broadband.... half way down is a distance table

Probably full rate - or very close i.e. 70 Meg connection or faster, and full 20 Meg upload

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/guide/fibre-broadband.... half way down is a distance table

Probably full rate - or very close i.e. 70 Meg connection or faster, and full 20 Meg upload

Thanks, I am glad to see at least 70/20 is better than nothing

In reply to a post by R0NSKI:

Welcome to the club, I'm about 450 meters. Original estimate was 57/20, current estimate is 36/6. Currently synced at 42/8, last speed test was 39/6

Seems some of us just have lines that perform very badly, I was first on the cabinet and I have never got anywhere near the original estimate, think the best I've achieved is 52/12 within the first few days of installation.

How did your ADSL figures compare to the checker estimates? Did they also reflect a poorly performing line? (I guess ADSL and VDSL will be affected differently)

In reply to a post by R0NSKI:

Welcome to the club, I'm about 450 meters. Original estimate was 57/20, current estimate is 36/6. Currently synced at 42/8, last speed test was 39/6

Seems some of us just have lines that perform very badly, I was first on the cabinet and I have never got anywhere near the original estimate, think the best I've achieved is 52/12 within the first few days of installation.

I'm also at about 450m, I can't recall the original downstream estimate but the upstream was 20 and that's what I still get, tbb speedtest around 16.5Mbps.

Downstream has wagged about a bit, partly due to interleave being imposed/removed at various times but also for no particular reason that I can identify. Currently sync is just over 70Mbps (the highest it's ever been ), tbb speedtests average around 66Mbps.

Go figure.

I'm another 450m guy, synced at 70412/20000, latest TBB speed test here. Latency is higher than I get with speedtest.net and BQM.

Edited by kasg (Wed 18-Sep-13 15:00:05)

In reply to a post by billford:

Downstream has wagged about a bit, partly due to interleave being imposed/removed at various times but also for no particular reason that I can identify. Currently sync is just over 70Mbps (the highest it's ever been ), tbb speedtests average around 66Mbps.

Similar but slightly better than mine. I'm currently getting 66Mb/s because two weeks ago DLM relented. Dunno how long that'll last though. But my downstream is reliably 18.5Mb/s day in day out.

Edit: FWIW I think my attainable upstream is 30Mb/s.

Edited by Andrue (Wed 18-Sep-13 15:10:19)

My syncs are estimated from the BT tester profile, I haven't hacked the modem so the upstream is also lower than yours.

Latest tbb test- it's IPv6 but IPv4 is essentially the same, the very low single-thread value is because I'm using Safari on a Mac.

Not being a gamer I don't take much notice of ping times but my BQMs are in my sig for anyone interested.

Current estimates show adsl as 5.5 to 12, I was getting 11.5 so not bad, and certainly nothing to suggest a bad line.

ECI modem talking to a Huawei cabinet. ECI gives 1 to 2 Mbps better downstream and similar up.

This is what my modem is saying at the moment:

Max: Upstream rate = 26535 Kbps, Downstream rate = 71180 Kbps
Path: 0, Upstream rate = 20000 Kbps, Downstream rate = 72067 Kbps

I see that max is below actual at the modem so I guess that a DSL slap down is coming :-/

Edited by Andrue (Wed 18-Sep-13 16:43:36)

In reply to a post by Andrue:

I see that max is below actual at the modem so I guess that a DSL slap down is coming :-/

Possibly, but I have, in the past, had long periods when my attainable was below my actual. I guess your SNR margin is significantly below 6.

Edited by kasg (Wed 18-Sep-13 16:45:42)

well its probably because the snrm is below 6db, its only slightly below so unless your snrm is unstable I wouldnt expect your line to drop.

my hg612 always reports an attainable at least 1mbit higher than my sync when I first sync up and the snrm is always at least 6.5db at that point likewise.

the last week or so my attainable has been slowly drifting downwards so I am now at.

Max: Upstream rate = 34053 Kbps, Downstream rate = 71140 Kbps
Path: 0, Upstream rate = 20000 Kbps, Downstream rate = 70911 Kbps

So if I resynced now knowing my line seems to want at least 6.5db and a buffer of 1mbit below the modem attainable I suspect my sync speed would be about 70.1mbit at the max, although its possible bitswapping has disabled some tones so on a new sync those would be available again.

Edited by Chrysalis (Wed 18-Sep-13 16:52:53)

In reply to a post by kasg:

In reply to a post by Andrue:

I see that max is below actual at the modem so I guess that a DSL slap down is coming :-/

Possibly, but I have, in the past, had long periods when my attainable was below my actual. I guess your SNR margin is significantly below 6.

Yup. 5.6 at the moment. I wonder if it's worth bouncing the modem to get a safer speed to avoid DLM slapping me?

In reply to a post by Andrue:

Yup. 5.6 at the moment. I wonder if it's worth bouncing the modem to get a safer speed to avoid DLM slapping me?

I don't know, rather you than me

check your errors for last 24 hours and post them here.

that is if you interested in my view as you didnt reply to me.

DLM shouldnt care if you have 6db or 5db but more so if your line is dropping and the error rate.

Edited by Chrysalis (Wed 18-Sep-13 21:11:51)

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

check your errors for last 24 hours and post them here.

that is if you interested in my view as you didnt reply to me.

Lol, I couldn't reply to both of you

Anyway turns out I was right:

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/f6e48adcebb...
Max: Upstream rate = 26662 Kbps, Downstream rate = 77092 Kbps
Path: 0, Upstream rate = 20000 Kbps, Downstream rate = 65491 Kbps

Ignore the red yesterday evening. I've just checked on Craigswebsite and all the IDNet monitors have that.

Edited by Andrue (Thu 19-Sep-13 07:54:53)

In reply to a post by Andrue:

all the IDNet monitors have that.

IOS 7 has a lot to answer for

In reply to a post by billford:

In reply to a post by Andrue:

all the IDNet monitors have that.

IOS 7 has a lot to answer for

Ah. I take great pleasure in being able to say that I had no reason whatsoever to know that

your graph doesnt work, and did you ever check the errors before it changed?

I think you had too many crc errors hence the DLM change, The snr margin probably had nothing to do with it other than a lower margin increased your error rate.

ok graph loads now, what about the red today? I think you have a dodgy line, sadly you didnt ever confirm the crc error rate but thats very likely the reason.

LOL I checked my gateway graph.

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/3cece964479...

Nice bit of congestion there but I remember doing downloading during that time and no speed loss. What are apple doing releasing updates at peak and isp's runnings links too hot.

Edited by Chrysalis (Thu 19-Sep-13 11:53:42)

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

ok graph loads now, what about the red today? I think you have a dodgy line, sadly you didnt ever confirm the crc error rate but thats very likely the reason.

The red bump yesterday evening seems to have been an Apple upgrade that everyone else and his dog downloaded. The red line this morning was my modem retraining when the DLM put interleaving back on.

As for error counts:

Total time = 1 days 17 hours 15 min 33 sec
FEC: 6738084 21253
CRC: 4659 2608
ES: 13945 2411
SES: 20 2
UAS: 56 56
LOS: 10 0
LOF: 10 0
Latest 15 minutes time = 33 sec
FEC: 0 0
CRC: 0 0
ES: 0 0
SES: 0 0
UAS: 0 0
LOS: 0 0
LOF: 0 0
Previous 15 minutes time = 15 min 0 sec
FEC: 119 0
CRC: 0 0
ES: 0 0
SES: 0 0
UAS: 0 0
LOS: 0 0
LOF: 0 0
Latest 1 day time = 17 hours 15 min 33 sec
FEC: 20090 214
CRC: 0 31
ES: 2670 29
SES: 11 0
UAS: 17 17
LOS: 5 0
LOF: 5 0
Previous 1 day time = 24 hours 0 sec
FEC: 0 277
CRC: 0 34
ES: 985 33
SES: 4 0
UAS: 0 0
LOS: 0 0
LOF: 0 0
Since Link time = 6 hours 32 min 57 sec
FEC: 20090 81
CRC: 0 12
ES: 0 11
SES: 0 0
UAS: 0 0
LOS: 0 0
LOF: 0 0

But with the retrain this morning it's a bit academic. I was surprised when DLM switched off interleaving earlier this month - it's left it on all summer so I thought that was it. Anyway I think it was chancing its arm and no surprise it's gone back on. Perhaps a neighbour was away on holiday at the end of August and DLM got a bit too optimistic.

Really I was just wondering last night if I could resync a bit slower due to lower margin and therefore avoid interleaving. I don't know if that's a reasonable thing to try in general but anyway it looks like the DLM had already had enough :-/

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

LOL I checked my gateway graph.

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/share/3cece964479...

Nice bit of congestion there but I remember doing downloading during that time and no speed loss. What are apple doing releasing updates at peak and isp's runnings links too hot.

It wasn't peak on the West Coast of the USA where Apple are based, nor was it peak for the USA or Asia.

ISPs aren't going to run with 40-50% spare capacity for 364 days a year to ensure congestion free operation on the 365th day of the year when a specific high bandwidth consuming event happens.

Edited by Ignitionnet (Thu 19-Sep-13 14:11:17)

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

What are apple doing releasing updates at peak and isp's runnings links too hot.

They released it at 10am in California, where their offices are, with a global release.

Amazing to see the amount of demand; people couldn't wait even one day? Interesting.

In reply to a post by jchamier:

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

What are apple doing releasing updates at peak and isp's runnings links too hot.

They released it at 10am in California, where their offices are, with a global release.

Amazing to see the amount of demand; people couldn't wait even one day? Interesting.

Cult behaviour

Well we got no idea how much extra bandwidth demand there was but the update is under a gig. Given I didnt notice this (especially the latency) I dont think the gateway was congested but more the peering point tbb was using (probably shared with apple).

This is the first sign of congestion I have seen since feb 2013 so isnt a big deal assuming is a one off, but was surprised when I seen it.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

assuming is a one off

Well, maybe a two-off

the fast path stats are gone, but 20k FEC in 6 hours suggests CRC probably was at least a moderate amount prior to the switch.

I think a deliberate resync to bring it back to 6db would have not stopped DLM, 1mbit or so reduction in sync speed probably would have made little difference.

on the banded profiles there is 74mbit but then the next one down is a whopping 20mbit at 54mbit. As I was thinking if the DLM hopping bothers you and you want a perm fast path then you could request of isp to get you put on a lower band (I think this maybe can be done, fixed bands) to reduce the errors but dropping to 54mbit sync speed is a big hit. Might be worth checking if you not on the stable DLM profile.

My own line is still losing snr, the margin is now 5.9-6.0 so attainable moving below the sync, my error rate isnt icnreasing tho, today I have about half the errors I had yesterday and yesterday the attainable was about 1.5mbit higher.

Edited by Chrysalis (Thu 19-Sep-13 17:36:02)

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

My own line is still losing snr, the margin is now 5.9-6.0 so attainable moving below the sync, my error rate isnt icnreasing tho, today I have about half the errors I had yesterday and yesterday the attainable was about 1.5mbit higher.

Fingers crossed for you

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

Well we got no idea how much extra bandwidth demand there was but the update is under a gig.

It increased load by 120Gbps-ish on the public peering on LINX. LONAP saw maximum traffic over 60% higher than previous maximum.

It's a very peculiar graph for congestion, no ramp up to speak of. In any event I fully expect congestion to become more of a feature on transit and peering points as access networks catch up with them more.

Plusnet's experience - 30% of their entire bandwidth was consumed by Apple updates.

Edited by Ignitionnet (Thu 19-Sep-13 18:37:13)

Post deleted by MrSaffron

Cough, language

Oops, sorry boss.

Will avoid mentioning the company named after fruit that puts the letter 'i' in front of everything in future

Edited by Ignitionnet (Thu 19-Sep-13 18:42:02)

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

Will avoid mentioning the company named after fruit that puts the letter 'i' in front of everything in future

LOL.

I suspect as it was after work hours in the UK that lots of UK iOS owners were sitting hitting the update button from 5:50pm onwards.

yeah a lot of traffic, I am pretty sure it was peering/transit side the issue.

so you expect peering capacity to not be upgraded in line with access networks?

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Cough, language

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

Oops, sorry boss.

Will avoid mentioning the company named after fruit that puts the letter 'i' in front of everything in future

He should be banned for a week! lol he must be lucky day!

Edited by adslmax (Thu 19-Sep-13 19:32:35)

To an extent no, I do not expect transit and peering to keep pace with access speeds.

They haven't elsewhere where access networks have gone ultra fast so unsure why we'd be different unless we really take our time over getting to seriously high data rates.

Saying that we probably will do exactly that. FTTP availability was scaled back, FTTPoD has various flaws in it and take up has been abysmal in the few areas where it's been released in no small part due to those flaws, and Openreach are doing their utmost to protect leased line revenues by offering farcically low upstream speeds.

The flaws refer to stupid things like refusing to install FTTPoD to a second address in the same physical building, great for those small businesses who are realistically going to be most of the market for this thing and rejecting installs to what they think are MDUs because the (contractor) surveyors see two cars outside a house.

Charging the full price rather than the considerably lower 'transitional' price for 330/30 on FTTPoD won't be helping matters, and that it costs CPs 45.60GBP/month just to get 330/30 to the exchange.

So I'll slightly modify my remark. If Openreach stop being tools about upstream on FTTP and sort out the FTTPoD offering so that it's actually a genuinely usable product rather than lip service to cover up for their not wanting to spend on FTTP to save a few hundred million on CapEx edge may struggle to keep pace with access.

I know FTTPoD is being looked at again due to both disinterest from ISPs, 3 year contracts are scary things and the rental price is a rip off, and their customers. We'll see if this changes anything.

Personally I would far rather Openreach increase the installation cost and offer their full FTTP portfolio, though with an FTTP portfolio that actually properly reflects that GPON is 2.4Gb down and 1.2Gb up, not the 2.4Gb down and 240Mb up you'd think it were given their offerings.

The idea that they are selling enough FTTP to have contention issues on the upstream is laughable, and even more so on FTTPoD. Purely a cynical commercial move which looks even more pathetic when you note that even in the more capitalist and indeed as far as telecomms goes monopolist USA the far bigger telco Verizon deliver higher upstreams on their PON network both to home and business users - because they know that a company that needs dedicated, SLA'd bandwidth isn't going to dump it for best effort FTTP via PON and accept it's how the market is now.

YMMV.

Edited by Ignitionnet (Thu 19-Sep-13 21:22:20)

Wow that was a completely unnecessary rant.

That was borne out of frustration that:

1) There is no prospect of my exchange being permitted to take FTTPoD any time soon and
2) I'm a home worker with an employer happy to pay a fair whack for my connectivity and who requires it to be solid. I would be an obvious candidate for FTTPoD given I'm not at all shy about paying 4 figures for installation yet, due to the asinine nature of the product options, the retail prices I've had mentioned to me are 3 figures a month which my employer would balk at somewhat and quite rightly too. I can't justify that cost and I really shouldn't have to.

yeah was a much larger reply than expecting, regardless thanks for the read.

Tonight the tbb graph shows some tiny spikes but thats it. I tested throughput from some speedtests and ftp servers and all full speed, even tho lonap is looking heavy again.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

yeah was a much larger reply than expecting, regardless thanks for the read.

Sorry Sir I started so I finished

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

yeah was a much larger reply than expecting, regardless thanks for the read.

Tonight the tbb graph shows some tiny spikes but thats it. I tested throughput from some speedtests and ftp servers and all full speed, even tho lonap is looking heavy again.

I was getting very poor results from TBB earlier. Just tried it again and it says the server is busy.

Speedtest.net (London/Namesco) has been fine all evening despite a scatter of red at the top of my graph.

tbb ok here.

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/button/13796...

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

tbb ok here.

Perhaps staying with the bigger ISPs is a good move in congested times

In reply to a post by jchamier:

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

tbb ok here.

Perhaps staying with the bigger ISPs is a good move in congested times

I don't think that was the problem. It seemed specific to the TBB tester. Anyway it came back eventually at more or less full speed.

Edited by Andrue (Fri 20-Sep-13 07:20:45)

In reply to a post by Andrue:

I don't think that was the problem. It seemed specific to the TBB tester. Anyway it came back eventually at more or less full speed.

Interesting. I wonder if the guys who host TBB also host people who download a lot of updates from a certain company.:?

IDNet only have a single GigE to the LINX LAN. That probably maxed out due to the Apple updates leaving a bit of a queue for the TBB meter packets.

Had TBB maxed out every graph would have shown issues.

BT have 300Gb however that's imbalanced between 50Gb on the Extreme LAN and 250Gb on the Juniper LAN so not impossible that their Extreme LAN peering was maxed out by the iLeeching while their Juniper, PI and transit were not.

We host tbb ourselves and no-one would have been updating their mobile inside a data centre.

We have a lot more capacity than a Gig on the speed test server and have ran internal data centre tests at well over 1 Gigabit.

If it says busy, usually the user limit kicking in to avoid server load issues rather than bandwidth issues. Or we were fiddling, which was the case earlier today.

We would know if our server got close to its bandwidth limits

I thought you did, but I know Seb is an Apple fan, but suspect the lack of RJ45 ports on the mobile would have stopped him

Andrew I think he meant idnet only have 1 gig not tbb. Looks like things have settled down again now.

Edited by Chrysalis (Fri 20-Sep-13 23:39:26)

my line has eventually dropped earlier tonight, but not DLM. Seems I had a temporary dip in downstream snrm and a sustained dip in upstream snrm, line has came back with a lower sync but the attainable is higher. Although the hg612 seems to be exagerating the attainable somewhat as my snrm is now 7.5db with an attainable 6 mbit higher than my sync.

Line is still fast path so not quite sure why the attainable seems whacked. I will reboot the modem tommorow, dont want to give dlm 2 downtimes to ponder over.