Exactly Bob, as I had previously said, not everything that makes a radio holler is affecting ones DSL service. Locating proper sources of interference is by no means an exact science.
The phrase 'dark ju-ju' springs to mind.

I removed the powerline adapters and it made a huge difference. But, there are still these spikes.

Spikes of non issue causing FEC's?

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

As you have been told by several people many times before you went on a short sabbatical, and as you yourself have said at least three times. What is it that makes you repeatedly "unrealise" it?

Yes, I went on a short "sabbatical", because everyone was becoming irritating, most of that was caused by me, but tbh not all of it. Anyway, not sure what you mean, but what I can say is there are a few members including yourself that have a better understanding of DSL than me, which I respect and am willing to learn further. I do, however, feel I have enough understanding of DSL to apply it in a self employed environment.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

They do need to be there. They need to be there precisely because they prevent excess retransmissions.

I know they need to be there, if there's noise present, but if that noise was removed, then there would be less FEC's meaning a lower likelihood of CRC's.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

A better way of finding if there is anything in your property causing the errors that are corrected by the FEC system is to turn off at the mains so nothing left on standby everything else in the property powered by electricity. Not forgetting fridges, freezers and even a gas cooker if you have one. Nearly all modern gas cookers are kept alive by electricity.

Right, fair enough. I'll try that if my parents are willing to do so. LOL.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

As for finding the source by using an AM radio, it doesn't need to be in a property. A mild electric storm (or thunderstorm) miles away can send you enough electrostatic noise to cause your modem to re-sync at a ridiculously low speed because it hasn't got the processor power to do all the corrections or handle the resultant retransmissions.

Interestingly, we had quite a severe overhead thunderstorm last year! Yes, it caused a lot of SES, but not enough for the line to resync! Maybe with G.INP you need a very close lightning strike to cause a resync. Just shows how powerful G.INP is.

Edited by deleted (Fri 19-May-17 09:45:10)

Yes, but that's not the point. I don't want you to look like a fool when the device causing the issue starts causing my line to resync, when you told me to leave it.

You don't know that it will though. You can't predict the future.

Until it becomes service affecting (if it ever does), you're wasting your time.

True, but better to be safe than sorry.

A couple of weeks ago something happened on my line overnight that sent the error correction into overdrive with over 2.1 million FECs per minute and and ES up to around 680/hour and the line was still synced and sort of usable albeit slow. It never disconnected in the 8 hours the problem persisted.

In reply to a post by WilliamGrimsley:

I know they need to be there, if there's noise present, but if that noise was removed, then there would be less FEC's meaning a lower likelihood of CRC's

This where you may understand what you are saying. I think I do, but what you have written is confusing rubbish. Reducing FECs does not mean a lower likelihood of CRCs. Your post says that less FECs causes the reduced likelihood of CRCs.

No! Reducing noise is expected to reduce both FECs and CRCs. Neither causes the other.

Interestingly, we had quite a severe overhead thunderstorm last year! Yes, it caused a lot of SES, but not enough for the line to resync! Maybe with G.INP you need a very close lightning strike to cause a resync. Just shows how powerful G.INP is.

Yes, I was laying it on a bit thick about a distant storm causing a re-sync, but it has happened to me twice due apparently to lightning strikes on overhead high-voltage power lines seven miles away.

These effects are also present on ADSLx, which does not have G.INP. Which is, in case you've forgotten, largely a re-transmission system to obviate the need for high levels of interleaving. It doesn't remove it, but the turns out to be more efficient on FTTC than such heavy interleaving.

In reply to a post by WilliamGrimsley:

True, but better to be safe than sorry.

You are obsessing.