The hand back speed is 7.9, and along with the quiet line test, presenting noise, i'd raise a voice fault, along with a low speed fault. Not sure which isp your parent's are with as that may impact in how you ask get something done.

If you could be there at the day of the engineer that would help the situation, hopefully they will do a dp test so to isolate the issue as being the house wiring

My friend is with BT if that makes a difference and I think the voice and low speed fault is the way forward and then see what they say on the day about the wiring.

I believe all wiring and sockets has been done previously by BT.

Here are the stats from the router.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kaNVG22mx4FTdwSuVSD...

Edited by StuB (Tue 25-Aug-20 13:33:52)

In reply to a post by BLaZiNgSPEED:

You can try joining an ISP like Vodafone FTTC that would install a new telephone line for free which will eliminate all the internal wiring issues.

If a migration they will use the existing line just like any other provider.
An engineer won't necessarily visit the property either.

It is unlikely that 17Mbps is the highest attainable speed under FTTC even with a 1km long cabinet for example.

At the very least 24-30Mbps should be receivable under FTTC. If those estimates are low then your line should not make much of a difference at all.

Do you just make this stuff up as you go along or are you reading this nonsense somewhere?

The longer the line, the lower the sync.
There isn't some magical distance where the minimum you receive is 24-30Mbps.

Where did you pluck 24-30Mb from anyway? What makes you think FTTC provides at least that figure? It does not.

FTTC can give considerably lower than 24Mb.
I've seen FTTC give 4Mb sync and the customer was thrilled with that as it was x4 what ADSL was providing.

if the user is receiving 17mbits, on adsl2, they are either exchange lines or just very close to the exchange, thus any fttc cab should give very good vdsl speeds unless they rerouted the cab via the sticks.

Any DP speed test will sort out if it is the cabling from the dp to the "socket".

ADSL filter should not cause a massive drop in speeds, basically doing the same job, unless it was a cheap and nasty eBay one, which can be particularly poor

You say filter, so just the router and a phone plugged in? Absolutely nothing in the house connected to the phone line e.g. sky box, ringer, other phone? What about extension wiring.

https://www.bt.com/help/landline/getting-set-up/cost...

If no one locally is up to figuring out the issue, link shows pathway to getting someone to do it commercially.

The checker is going to be showing low due to the feedback systems, i.e. real world data over time will override the checker estimates. Fix the in home issues and sync will improve.

Cabinet 6 is near to the phone exchange.

In reply to a post by j0hn83:

In reply to a post by BLaZiNgSPEED:

You can try joining an ISP like Vodafone FTTC that would install a new telephone line for free which will eliminate all the internal wiring issues.

If a migration they will use the existing line just like any other provider.
An engineer won't necessarily visit the property either.

It is unlikely that 17Mbps is the highest attainable speed under FTTC even with a 1km long cabinet for example.

At the very least 24-30Mbps should be receivable under FTTC. If those estimates are low then your line should not make much of a difference at all.

Do you just make this stuff up as you go along or are you reading this nonsense somewhere?

The longer the line, the lower the sync.
There isn't some magical distance where the minimum you receive is 24-30Mbps.

Where did you pluck 24-30Mb from anyway? What makes you think FTTC provides at least that figure? It does not.

FTTC can give considerably lower than 24Mb.
I've seen FTTC give 4Mb sync and the customer was thrilled with that as it was x4 what ADSL was providing.

Ok, so this is where my figures are coming from.

Superfast (>24 Mbps): 96.78%
Superfast (>=30 Mbps): 96.44%

Less than 4% of FTTC customers actually receive speeds lower than 30-24Mbps. I can now see the screenshot that the OP has captured and indeed I am dismayed at seeing the 17Mbps as the maximum. I initially thought this was mistaken for an ADSL service because this is the first time I have seen such low speed estimates.

This signals that there must be a defect somewhere that causes speeds to sync to this low. You've said it yourself before and others have in the past about my concerns with FTTC that if millions of customers are using such a service happily what is there for me to worry about?

That is when I got upgraded to FTTC last year. Fortunately for me I do get the top speeds and service has been very reliable unlike ADSL in my case when I was on EO Line previously. But no one expects FTTC to be less than 24Mbps, because the whole purpose of FTTC is to promise you speeds much faster than that, or otherwise what would be the point?

If the OP can't get above 17Mbps, it is as if he has ADSL instead! If there is a line fault inside the property then either Openreach will have to find the problem, but they generally will charge you if they find the fault in your property. If this is the case, then my proposal is to try a new line. Now maybe due to Corona period, engineers might not visit the property. But I have in the past many years ago managed to get an Openreach engineer to install me a new line when I had a lengthy line traveling under my carpet and it was causing problems. I managed to get a new line at that time with new socket as I now have laminate flooring. Perhaps my case was an exception.

I also got an engineer to visit my flat in February when I first upgraded to FTTC and the Openreach engineer installed a new NTE5C filtered faceplate free of charge as part of my FTTC upgrade.

It doesn't seem quite normal to see that the user is connected to the same cabinet as someone else but has drastically different speeds. Usually the speed checker would show similar speed estimates for the same post code under the same cabinet.

It wasn't a comment specific to the OP but a generic statement about FTTC.

He regularly posts such nonsense.

The filter would have been the one originally supplied with BT at some point, probably a few years ago.

They also tried a spare but that resulted in the same.

The stats I posted were with nothing plugged into the downstairs socket except for an adsl filter and the router.

The only exception to that is the line is split just after it joins the house at the eaves and I believe the other cable runs to another extension upstairs. There is nothing plugged into this extension and it is unused.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ceOEIh0Fs2-bOOfZpw8...

I presume disconnecting the upstairs socket wiring wouldn't help unless it was also disconnected at the junction box at eaves.

There is also a BT box in the house that I assume is a junction box that is between the line coming in and the downstairs socket.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/11lQjnKEOYSpNYEwYFKq...

With this setup what wiring is owned by BT and what is owned by the home owner. I'm pretty sure all wiring will have been installed by BT in the past.

Thanks for the link for getting help from BT.

I'm guessing that this wiring will have the ring wire still connected, any value in trying to disconnect this as I know this sometimes helped on older ADSL connections.

They thought they were on ADSL but it appears they are actually on FTTC already and as per the stats upload I've posted in another post they get about 3.8 down and 0.8 up.

There must be a fault somewhere either inside or out.

In reply to a post by BLaZiNgSPEED:

I initially thought this was mistaken for an ADSL service because this is the first time I have seen such low speed estimates.

There are plenty of other examples in this forum. There was one example where someone was on (I think) 9Mbps ADSL, and BT force-migrated them to VDSL, and they ended up with a lower speed. This is part of BT's strategy for phasing out ADSL and LLU, but unfortunately a minority of people end up with a worse service.

In reply to a post by BLaZiNgSPEED:

This signals that there must be a defect somewhere that causes speeds to sync to this low.

Not necessarily. It could just indicate that they are a long way from the cabinet.
https://www.increasebroadbandspeed.co.uk/2013/chart-...

ADSL uses the low end of the frequency spectrum which carries best over long distances. To avoid interference with ADSL, VDSL uses higher frequencies (2.2 MHz upwards I think). Higher frequencies suffer higher attenuation - that is, the attainable speed drops off faster by distance. G.Fast uses even higher frequencies, and hence even worse performance at long distances.

In reply to a post by BLaZiNgSPEED:

No one expects FTTC to be less than 24Mbps, because the whole purpose of FTTC is to promise you speeds much faster than that, or otherwise what would be the point?

If you were 5 miles from the exchange and were getting 0.2Mbps on ADSL, and then found yourself 2 miles away from an FTTC cabinet and getting 10Mbps on VDSL, you'd probably be very happy with the improvement. This does happen.

In reply to a post by BLaZiNgSPEED:

It doesn't seem quite normal to see that the user is connected to the same cabinet as someone else but has drastically different speeds. Usually the speed checker would show similar speed estimates for the same post code under the same cabinet.

I agree (excluding the case where adjacent properties are going to different cabinets).

The noisy line here is the give-away. It seems there is a copper fault which is reducing the speed; the availability checker responds to actual measured sync speed, and reduces its estimates accordingly.

So the number one issue is to raise a noisy line fault with the telephone provider - who may or may not be the same as the broadband provider. The rectification of that will probably solve the problem entirely. The bridge tap issue is secondary and may give a small additional speed boost.

Edited by candlerb (Tue 25-Aug-20 15:33:05)