|
Yes, You have G.INP active.
This means that re-transmission is configured on bearer 0 - the main data channel. It also has very small amounts of FEC and interleaving enabled, but these impact your line at much lower levels than the old-style FEC and interleaving.
My previous calculations are that FEC (alongside G.INP) uses about 5% of bandwidth (rather than 20%+), and latency is increased by 0.2ms
I haven't fully figured out what bearer 1 is used for (I used to think it was for re-transmission of packets, when needed, but I'm less sure now); however, it is very low volume (about 0.1Mbps), and has very high FEC protection on every line. Some lines also apply interleaving to this portion - yours does, as does mine.
In fact, your G.INP settings entirely match mine - a line running at 80/20 (attainable 101/33) with 50 ES's per day before activation, now running at 80/20 (attainable 107/35) with 0 ES's per day afterwards.
The one way that your line looks different is that your retransmit counters are higher.
On the face of it, G.INP isn't affecting your line, and doesn't look to be giving you upstream problems. certainly you aren't seeing any errors upstream - so all packets should be getting through fine.
BUT...
I see that your modem is predicting a max attainable speed upstream of 48Mbps. That is huge.
For comparison, my line (with 8.4dB attenuation downstream) is 107/35. Yours, with 10.6dB attenuation, is 92/48.
One reason could be your upstream power level. Mine reads -8.2dBm, while yours reads 7.8dBm. Being close to the cabinet, upstream power should be reduced to prevent our lines from interfering with those lines further away - a process known as upstream power backoff. However, it doesn't look like your line is doing this ... I wonder why?
The high power level would give you inflated SNR levels, so would make the modem think that a high upstream speed was possible.
Perhaps this, ultimately, is leading to upstream problems that aren't visible through the stats.
|