Hi Craic,

Always happy to put you straight..

LOL, I just knew when he spelled your name wrong something would be coming.

Edited by R0NSKI (Wed 19-Dec-12 22:53:51)

In reply to a post by BT_Care:

Hi Badboy,

Yup so I seen we can forward this to our BT Business colleagues..

ta

Craig

I see you understand BatBoy's real personality! Just don't call him BattyBoy.


I have a call back scheduled for next week - and don't have too much time this week to deal with it, and I can suffer a few more days!

attainable rate took another dive, this time large again and on the upstream.

now attainable is lower than 80 meg is 73408 and upstream dropped to 23718

so in less than a month I have gone from 110meg down to 73meg down and 36meg up to 23meg up.

The change I think happened at 10am this morning, Obviously since the attainable went below my previous sync it now means I have a new sync as well.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

Obviously since the attainable went below my previous sync it now means I have a new sync as well.

Not necessarily. My attainable on downstream sometimes went below sync when I was on Fast Path, no chance at all of course on interleaved. Upstream sync currently 14933, attainable 14613.

More likely whatever noise has hit you caused a low resync and also a low attainable.

You have the logging going now don't you? It can be interesting to watch the attainable varying all the time, and relate that to what the noise margin is doing. You could page back to whatever happened and check the figures just before and after.

You do seem to have a messy d-side .

I meant a resync.

If my long term sync drops to the estimated I can deal with that as thats what was estimated and still a good speed, my concern however is how fast this has dropped in a 2 week period and DLM, I spoke to the engineer today and he said has been 6 installs including mine and one this morning, and the cabinet can hold another 120 or so.

I havent been logging 24/7 and over the course of the day whenever checking the attainable has been only slight variance of a few hundred kbit. The 2 drops have been sudden large drops and confirmed as installs by my engineer and yes I have his number as he asked me to report back to him how my speeds are and ip profile.

If it was temporary noise my snrm would go back up after the noise has gone away. My new graphs from the modem show increased quiet line noise across the board, and less available snr (not snrm) on the higher frequencies from about 1/3 onwards.

So I am now waiting for vectoring

Edited by Chrysalis (Sat 22-Dec-12 20:49:38)

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

The 2 drops have been sudden large drops and confirmed as installs by my engineer and yes I have his number as he asked me to report back to him how my speeds are and ip profile.

That's grim. Still points towards a d-side issue to do with the other d-sides, giving abnormally high signal distortions. Wouldn't that tie in with your ADSLx troubles?

If it was temporary noise my snrm would go back up after the noise has gone away. My new graphs from the modem show increased quiet line noise across the board, and less available snr (not snrm) on the higher frequencies from about 1/3 onwards.

Agreed.

I get the impression you are only running the snapshot script by Bald_Eagle1. I strongly recommend the 24/7 logging one instead. That doesn't stop you running a snapshot if you like at any time. The instructions are on page 5 of the setup pdf.

I was running just the snapshot, I am not going to run the 24/7 forever.

Also I need to set it up on anothe rmachine really rather than this one if I am for long periods. I have had it running the last several hours tho to see how stable things are after the recent change.

The guy who wrote the hg612 firmware page suggested that the QLN graph can be used to diagnose crosstalk and that does seem to suggest its crosstalk as well, it has almost across the board quiet line noise increase, approx doubled noise.

I do agree with you tho there may well be an issue d-side thats making crosstalk more severe than average. But its not like I will be able to report it as a fault, as I am not even supposed to be aware of my attianable so as far asBT are concerned my sync has dropped 10% and is still above the estimated speed. Is there a MSR figure on FTTC that protects me against extreme drops in future tho?

Also of interest is that to protect adsl2+ lines the frequency that clashes with adsl2+ has massively reduced power output so vdsl2 to protect adsl2+ sacrifices a chunk of the strongest part of its signal. This I have no isse with tho but its interesting because if the day comes adsl is removed as a product then I would assume they would increase this power again.

The adsl troubles I had were e-side noise bursts during office hours, no signs of those on this service.

Edited by Chrysalis (Sun 23-Dec-12 01:28:47)

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

Is there a MSR figure on FTTC that protects me against extreme drops in future tho?

No. There is a blanket minimum of 15Mbps, provided you got more than 15Mbps in the first place.

It is strange that there is nothing related to either the initial speed, or the estimate.

Also of interest is that to protect adsl2+ lines the frequency that clashes with adsl2+ has massively reduced power output so vdsl2 to protect adsl2+ sacrifices a chunk of the strongest part of its signal.

Yes. When the cabinet is closer to the exchange, the "power mask" limits the power less but over a wider frequency range. If the cabinet is further away, the mask causes a higher power reduction (of VDSL2) but over narrower frequencies.

It is one aspect where the distance from the exchange *does* play a part in the speed you can get

This I have no isse with tho but its interesting because if the day comes adsl is removed as a product then I would assume they would increase this power again.

It would have to be removed as a product from all LLU's, and then dismissed as a possibility by NICC too. I think we'll get FTTP first...

you think the closer to exchange masking is more generous?