We should of had option, for fixed speed on fibre

I am getting a bit fed up of seeing my fibre speeds fluctuating. So it would be good that once we were happy, that we could just fix the speed/profile, so you always stayed the same.

You remember back in the days when we had fixed 1mbps and 2mbps. If you was able to have fixed speeds back then, that never really changed, then why can't they fix you to the max speed now?

I know it can't be done as PN told me it could not but said it would be a good idea.

Yet again, another shortsightedness, from openreach and a feature the numpties could of added, before fibre got off the ground.

I think would be 2 problems.

First openreach I would expect to be extremely conservative, so eg. there would be no fixed 80mbit sped.
Maybe fixed speed 20mbit at 100m, in other words they would do it so the chances of the sync falling below that speed is extremely remote.

When 576kbit dsl was released it needed a 43db attenuation, no where near pushing a typical 43db line.

The 2nd problem would be its not attractive to the market departments, a high "up to" speed brings i the punters even tho there is nothing in it that says will get those speeds but rather its possible if you lucky.

I think those days are history (before FTTP) unless regulation brings them back.

DLM and their profiling isn't really needed ISP's should be given control to allow for this, and if a user so wishes should The isp also be able to apply a cap on the max sync rate, but they didn't want to do that, probably because they BT would then have to employ properly trained or train staff up,

Edited by tommy45 (Sat 19-Jan-13 19:53:09)

I think DLM is certainly a good idea. People generally prefer stable over super fast.

Once fibre becomes self install and people install it in an extension socket, at the end of their DIY extension etc then DLM will be a godsend otherwise they will face no end of problems and drop outs.

The solution is to install it right but this doesn't happen in reality.

People just switch ISP rather than fixing internal wiring.

Edited by ukhardy07 (Sat 19-Jan-13 20:22:45)

Adjusting the parameters of the connection can be done far better manually sometimes should it need to be adjusted, I'm my situation i would be happy and accept any issues if there was no DLM

Edited by tommy45 (Sat 19-Jan-13 21:21:53)

my experience is DLM makes bad lines worse not better.

and its dodgy BT infrastructure not internal wiring cause of line issues.

The DLM will apply banding, (maximum sync capping and lowest sync fixing), if it encounters unacceptable instability. AIUI the bands are pre-determined.

So what's the problem? Similar to the old fixed speed but better in two ways.

1) If due to a fault, the banding can be removed.

2) If due to ongoing incurable (at reasonable expense) problems then a decent connection should be possible, as fast as it can be at the time within the band. As opposed to the old fixed speeds where if it couldn't achieve the specified speed it wouldn't connect at all. (Hence the extremely conservative attenuation levels for each of those fixed speeds).

The more issues with VDSL the better for the fibre on demand roll-out

The more people who buy it, the earlier Openreach may decide to go for a full FTTP roll-out and not the patchy one it is doing

As the provided modem (at least the HG612) has proven extremely reliable in service, capable of hanging on to really low SNRM values, it would be really good if target SNRM could be either user set or set by ISPs to 3 dB (as per ADSL).

My own connection should then see a sync speed boost & I would be happy to accept responsibility if it couldn't hang on at 3dB.

Even though I am up to 1000m or so from the cabinet, no doubt picking us some interference & suffering to an extent from crosstalk, I see very little fluctuation in the 6dB SNRM and the connection's attainable rates.

I have remotely monitored other connections though, where SNRM fluctuates by 3dB or more, so those connections would probably suffer with instability if allowed to use a 3dB SNRM.

Each one on its own merits could be a reasonable policy?

I'm not 100% sure I would like to see fixed speed rates, as they would no doubt be fixed at very conservative speeds in order to guarantee stability/ability to connect at all.

most people spend time enjoying and using their connection rather than stressing over what its speed is.

One hundred and eighty very white teeth. Impressive. Toothpaste or laser treatment?

Niether, I have had them copied and pasted !

Unless the OP is dropping sync, then the varying speed results he is bleating on about, are due to throughput issues, rather than anything else. A fixed speed service would not resolve this now, would it.

Agree. I have already said before that, we should be able to turn DLM off or on as or when needed but like this, didn't happen.

Edited by deleted (Sun 20-Jan-13 18:48:16)

As we discussed before, I don't want DLM on my line but have no choice. I would rather have a guaranteed fixed speed than this stupid banding nonsense.

I would rather do that but when I'm not getting the speeds I have been told, I have to keep a check on it and my isp.

I see what your saying but they can still do fixed speeds if the wanted to.

Yes it's down to money and they probably don't want fixed speeds, as they can't slow down your fibre like that can with "upto" fibre.

Edited by deleted (Sun 20-Jan-13 18:51:38)

You know before they start rolling out new broadband technology, a full public consultation should be done on forums like TB.
Then we can ask for features and discuss what customers want and opinions on the services.

As you can see, because nothing like that was done for fibre, I have pointed out annoy issues that could of been implemented, with a bit of common sense.

I don't care what private companies like openreach want or what the Telco�s want. We are the ones paying for the services and have a right to ask for various options.

Ofcom are a waste of time as said before but we have many clever and knowledgeable members on here, including you mr saffron, where we could help to make a better broadband service.

Edited by deleted (Sun 20-Jan-13 19:11:09)

What other publicly traded companies carry out a public consultation on what new technology products to launch?

Even when BT was the GPO this never happened.

If Openreach is not providing the service it leaves room open for a competitor to enter the market and other what millions want. If we as a nation were rather that there be no opportunity for that, then perhaps a referendum to re-nationalise Openreach and put them at the beck and call of our elected officials would be best.

If the fixed speed service was say 20 Mbps at a price of £200 per month then it might fix that issue

So what are you variations like then?

In reply to a post by superspeed:

I don't care what private companies like openreach want or what the Telco�s want.

I agree, what they want doesn't matter. Nor does what the customers want.

What matters is what the shareholders want as they own the company, and what they want is a healthy bottom line...

In reply to a post by superspeed:

I see what your saying but they can still do fixed speeds if the wanted to.

Yes it's down to money and they probably don't want fixed speeds, as they can't slow down your fibre like that can with "upto" fibre.

Nope they'd just set it incredibly conservatively. Remember that the initial attenuation requirement for fixed 2Mb was 45dB - lines routinely hit 3 or more times that on ADSL Max - precisely to supply extremely high headroom and ensure stability.

Whatever you're getting right now you could probably cut by 2/3rds on a fixed rate product.

Unsure what you mean as far as 'they can't slow your fibre down' means - even the fixed rate products didn't guarantee line rate 24x7, Openreach don't slow your connection down, they want it to run as fast as possible as they're in the business of selling bandwidth.

Edited by deleted (Sun 20-Jan-13 21:26:08)

I would rather do that but when I'm not getting the speeds I have been told, I have to keep a check on it and my isp.

You choose to do that, many couldn't care or have lives.

In reply to a post by superspeed:

You remember back in the days when we had fixed 1mbps and 2mbps. If you was able to have fixed speeds back then, that never really changed, then why can't they fix you to the max speed now?

Back then though you connected at your fixed speed or you didn't connect at all.

There was no "line is too noisy for 2meg, I'll connect at 1.5".

And that fixed speed was usually well below what the line could manage.

Do you really think I sit at my computer and monitor my speed minute by minute? Like you, I have a life and have commitments, so I don't have time, thank you very much. I go by speed tests when I do them.


Isn't it about time you stopped worrying about what I say and updated this, seriously out of date list you made. Pull your finger out Yarwell.


https://spreadsheets0.google.com/pub?hl=en&hl=en&key...

Edited by deleted (Mon 21-Jan-13 20:39:13)

Most of the time I seem to get anything from about 42mbps to 44mbps. I should be getting about 48 to 49mbps as 50mbps was what the checker told me.

When I first started, I had 48mbps but never had that speed since. It may not sound much and some may say that's expectable but it's like going from a 2mbps speed, to 8mbps. Thats still quite slow and a drop.

Thats why I would of liked to have a fixed speed, that does not change. I never had a problem with my old LLU. I stayed at the same speed all the time. Only if a problem at isp end but that rarely happened.

I have seen other customers complaining that their speed were the lowest on PN .

Edited by deleted (Mon 21-Jan-13 21:00:54)

I ment the term "upto" is used as a get out clause to slow you down as the isp see's fit. Not fixed speed Like i was talking about.

I'm not sure about openreach wanting it to go as fast as it can. Openreach would want to cut corners and save on costs like most isp's can and do. Or capacity problems.

Edited by deleted (Mon 21-Jan-13 20:54:41)

So what fixed speed would you like and what would you want the VDSL modem to do if due to noise or other issues it were not to get that speed?

Also are we talking connection speed or throughput, as the basic sum is that each Mbps of guaranteed bandwidth to the Internet costs around £30 per month

The technicalities of managing a fixed speed VDSL connection are such that if one was offered it would probably be a 5 or 10 or 15 Mbps option only.

That is the biggest problem, the shareholders want more money and come first.

Edited by deleted (Mon 21-Jan-13 20:56:51)

If openreach wanted to cut back on speeds why did it launch an 80 Meg service option last year?

You could see if your provider will let you downgrade to the 40/10 product, which costs them £3 a month less to buy. Then you would most likely get the full 40 Meg rate limit on the service

I would be happy with around 48mbps fixed speed, that allowing for overheads, whatever that is on fibre.

I would say both but speed more so. Your probably mean to get what I wanted, I would have to have some sevice level agreement and pay alot more.

A 40/10 product is worse. Remember I was put onto that when I shouldn't of.

Average speed when I was on 40/10 was about 34mbps.

Edited by deleted (Mon 21-Jan-13 21:12:12)

48Mbits/second downstream sync speed is an unrealistic expectation on your line. The DLM on BT provided FTTC starts out being fairly optimistic, then gradually settles on a stable speed. Over time, as more people connect to the FTTC cabinet, crosstalk tends to cut back on the speed offered.

Unfortunately, you were one of those for whom the checker prediction was optimistic - most have found it pessimistic and achieve a higher speed than that quoted.

A guaranteed speed would allow for a huge noise margin - probably 15-18dB - which would mean your guaranteed downstream speed would be considerably less than 48Mbits/second. Further, at the prices charged for FTTC, there would have to be a 'too difficult, we give up' option for Openreach - they're not going to change a 100 pair cable just because they can't meet a guaranteed speed for one person.


Guaranteed sync speed fibre products will soon be available. It's called FTTP On Demand.

Edited by deleted (Mon 21-Jan-13 21:20:14)

In reply to a post by superspeed:

Most of the time I seem to get anything from about 42mbps to 44mbps. I should be getting about 48 to 49mbps as 50mbps was what the checker told me.

When I first started, I had 48mbps but never had that speed since. It may not sound much and some may say that's expectable but it's like going from a 2mbps speed, to 8mbps.

False comparison that (48 - 42) = 6 = (8 - 2)

They truly compare as 42/48 = 88% is far better than 2/8 = 25%.

But as the modem syncs at above that usually the variable sync speed should not be an issue.

Thus giving you the equivalent of a fixed speed connection. If the problem is throughput variations then a change of ISP may be the only option. Though guaranteeing 40 Mbps of traffic is not cheap

So provider should produce a fixed speed product at 48 Mbps, and below that I presume it would not sync at all if noise meant VDSL at 48 Mbps was not possible for a period of time.

Personally short of paying for fibre on demand when its available (which gives guaranteed connection speed but throughput may still vary) your only other option is an Ethernet service

Yeah I know, you got to pay more if you want it. Just seen some of the prices for fibre on demand and way to much.


http://recombu.com/digital/news/bt-fttp-on-demand-tr...

If Virgin Media is available they do fixed speed connections, but throughput variance can be the issue with them

Suppose I will just have to put up with it then. Can't afford much more than I am paying now.

I can't get cable where I am. Only cable and wireless LLU

So why not get an E3 at 34.368Mbps (or T3 at 45Mbps) and pay for your peering connections. Then you will realise how much a fixed speed connection actually costs.

In reply to a post by superspeed:

I ment the term "upto" is used as a get out clause to slow you down as the isp see's fit. Not fixed speed Like i was talking about.

I'm not sure about openreach wanting it to go as fast as it can. Openreach would want to cut corners and save on costs like most isp's can and do. Or capacity problems.

Openreach don't have capacity problems on their fibre broadband network. They never will. They allocate a huge amount of bandwidth to each customer and can easily upgrade this on demand as they've provisioned high fibre count cables.

The 'up to' term is used to acknowledge that it's a shared platform where performance cannot be guaranteed.

Reading a few of your speed tests I can't help but notice that regardless of your IP Profile you always seem to hit approximately 44Mb/s downstream and 11Mb/s upstream.

Something's artificially limiting you somewhere along the chain. You seem to be using Windows XP, have you tweaked it?

I think how optimistic it is depends on how quickly you get installed after the cabinet is ready, how high takeup is and luck of the draw on cable quality, positioning in bundle etc. I assume a cable in the centre of a bundle is going to get battered on crosstalk vs the ones on the outside.

I started way above my estimate, it very quickly within a few weeks dropped to slightly above my estimate which is where I am now, I personally would be surprised if in a year's time I am still above the estimate given the large drops that have already happened. Unless vectoring shows up then I expect a huge jump in attainable sync.

By the way I suggest anyone on fttc to use the .nl based ookla beta server, it actually has proper set send buffers so I get 19mbit or so upstream throughput on that test vs nearer 17mbit on other servers. Seems ookla did respond to my report then by setting this server up.

Edited by Chrysalis (Tue 22-Jan-13 18:41:44)

Nice one, that does indeed report a more accurate upstream

It's not my OS that is the problem but I have just done the test, with xp and 7 a few hours ago.

Screen grabs.
http://s6.postimage.org/4palniidd/Tweak_test_xp_22_0...

http://s6.postimage.org/lec1jfeyp/Tweak_test_win7_22...

Edited by deleted (Tue 22-Jan-13 20:12:06)

In reply to a post by superspeed:

Do you really think I sit at my computer and monitor my speed minute by minute? Like you, I have a life and have commitments, so I don't have time, thank you very much. I go by speed tests when I do them.

So you don't really care what your connection sped is, you want a service which always gives you the same result from a speed test?

No! That was posted in response to what yarwell said. Please don't take my posts out of context.

Edited by deleted (Tue 22-Jan-13 20:14:27)

In reply to a post by superspeed:

It's not my OS that is the problem but I have just done the test, with xp and 7 a few hours ago.

Screen grabs.
http://s6.postimage.org/4palniidd/Tweak_test_xp_22_0...

http://s6.postimage.org/lec1jfeyp/Tweak_test_win7_22...

Well the XP machine needs its settings fixed. The receive window / RWIN you have set is so small it will cap you, at 12ms latency, to about 44Mb.

This would explain the results in your profile.

I haven't changed any setting and has stayed the same for many years. Never had a problem or needed to do anything with my old isp.

So what setting should I use then? This is how it is now according to dr-tcp.
http://s6.postimage.org/6dsl4i6pt/drtcp_before.png

From what I read, it's not so simple. Or should this be done in the router?

Edited by deleted (Wed 23-Jan-13 00:23:57)

TcpOptimizer has an auto setting that should be fine. It's what I used to use on XP.

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

Well the XP machine needs its settings fixed. The receive window / RWIN you have set is so small it will cap you, at 12ms latency, to about 44Mb

Why? That Tweak Tester didn't say so; it said "Looking Good".

I have my RWIN set at the 1027840 recommended by TcpOptimizer and it says "Choose RWIN between 188340 and 500780".

In reply to a post by XRaySpeX:

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

Well the XP machine needs its settings fixed. The receive window / RWIN you have set is so small it will cap you, at 12ms latency, to about 44Mb

Why?

RWIN is reported as 65535 bytes - that's the maximum possible with TCP Window Scaling off.

The maximum TCP throughput is RWIN / latency. If you calculate 65535 / 12e-3, then multiply the result by 8 to convert from bytes to bits, you get 43.69Mbit/second maximum TCP throughput. In practice, things are not that precise, not least as the latency is likely not exactly 12ms, but the point holds - that machine is limited to around 44Mbit/second at 12ms latency and a whole lot less than that at greater latency.

The DSLR tweak tester probably doesn't pick this up because you didn't tell it the downstream speed of your connection, you just specified 'fiber'. The problem is likely not your configured RWIN, but that TCP Window Scaling is disabled. Turn that on, and you'll probably see the RWIN you thought you'd configured appear on the tweak tester page rather than 65535.

In reply to a post by superspeed:

That is the biggest problem, the shareholders want more money and come first.

Pretty much anyone with a private pension is a shareholder in BT

You are mixing me up with the OP!

In reply to a post by David_W:

The DSLR tweak tester probably doesn't pick this up because you didn't tell it the downstream speed of your connection, you just specified 'fiber'.

et al.

Then why didn't the tester say "Input line speed for RWIN recommendation", as it does for me when I omit the line speed?

In reply to a post by superspeed:

Suppose I will just have to put up with it then. Can't afford much more than I am paying now.

And there, in a nutshell, you have encapsulated almost every throughput related complaint ever raised on these forums

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

I started way above my estimate, it very quickly within a few weeks dropped to slightly above my estimate which is where I am now, I personally would be surprised if in a year's time I am still above the estimate given the large drops that have already happened. Unless vectoring shows up then I expect a huge jump in attainable sync.

I started on 79999 but over the autumn/winter it has dropped to a tad over 72000 now. I'm hoping some of that speed will come back with lighter/warmer evenings but I have my doubts. The line does seem stable though, I checked last night and it's saying DSL has been up for about 37 days now.

http://www.speedguide.net/bdp.php suggests a TCP Receive window value of 400,000 for 80 Mbits/s at 40 ms delay. Turn on MTU discovery and Window scaling.

Thanks. Have just change it but I used the optimal settings. Not sure if that is anygood or what you ment. See this screen grab here.

I did not use dr TCP but just confirms some of the settings.
http://s6.postimage.org/urvgpvt6p/TCPO_settings.png

See my reply to roberto, just used TCP optimiser. Otherwise I have to manually edit the registry.

Just did this with the new settings

« SpeedGuide.net TCP Analyzer Results »
Tested on: 2013.01.23 11:42
IP address: xx.xxx.xxx.xx
Client OS/browser: Windows XP (Internet Explorer 8.0)

TCP options string: 020405ac0103030501010402
MSS: 1452
MTU: 1492
TCP Window: 2055680 (NOT multiple of MSS)
RWIN Scaling: 5 bits (2^5=32)
Unscaled RWIN : 64240
Recommended RWINs: 63888, 127776, 255552, 511104, 1022208
BDP limit (200ms): 82227kbps (10278KBytes/s)
BDP limit (500ms): 32891kbps (4111KBytes/s)
MTU Discovery: ON
TTL: 48
Timestamps: OFF
SACKs: ON
IP ToS: 00000000 (0)

Edit just done a speed test on here and nothing has changed really. http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/button/13589...

Edited by deleted (Wed 23-Jan-13 16:54:50)

apologies I was talking of attainable sync

in actual sync its not a huge deal 79999 down to around 71500.

Right well the slow speeds has nothing to do with XP then ,as above. I am now on win 7 and have just performed a BT speed test. It's still around 43mbps with a profile of 44mbps.

So the problem is at plusnets end or it's the modem that is limiting me. I have heard that BT customers have the same problems.

See here for test. http://s6.postimage.org/lpg6ac875/BT_speed_test_win7...

So Thats the reason why we should have fixed speeds.

Edited by deleted (Wed 23-Jan-13 19:42:46)

It's already been explained to you a few times why that would give you a nice steady 25Mbps or maybe less.

Which is preferable, and why?

What's the purpose of your sig please?

I used to have a fixed DSL 2Meg connection with Madasafish before the BT/PN ownership days, the only thing fixed was the sync rate ..... the "speeds" (throughput) would vary.

In reply to a post by superspeed:

MTU: 1492

In your previous post you said you changed your MTU to 1500, but here it still shows 1492. That means you never changed it in router, only in XP. So router is limiting it.

Funny thing is, my router says 1500MTU and I did set with TCPOptimizer at 1500MTU. I then did MTU latency test and it must of changed it to 1492. Which it has now.

So will now change it to that in my router and see what happens. Don't think it will do much as speed is same on win 7.


Was thinking, if XP could not cope with faster speeds, the why aren't isp's advising customers or make some guide for xp customers on the website? You would think they would do that.

95/98 most likely won't cope with fasters speed's.

Edited by deleted (Thu 24-Jan-13 00:42:15)

In reply to a post by superspeed:

So Thats the reason why we should have fixed speeds.

That's no reason. Or not one I can understand. You seem to be saying that you want fixed speeds so that the speed doesn't change. That seems a rather pointless and circular argument to me. Surely what people want is a reliable connection that goes as fast as it can?

A minimum speed makes sense but what application are you trying to use that demands a constant speed?

95/98 less the OS thats the issue more the CPU and memory on the machine.
Saying that a reasonable machine of that era could do 100 Mbps over its network card.

XP has no official support from Microsoft anymore, it is a dead OS unless you are a geek.

Remember an Internet Service Provider is not your personal IT support desk

In reply to a post by superspeed:

Was thinking, if XP could not cope with faster speeds, the why aren't isp's advising customers or make some guide for xp customers on the website?

XP can! No reason for ISPs to do so!

I know they are not a personal support desk but XP is still widely used. Even businesses are still on it. All I was saying is, if speed on XP is an issue and it's still being used by many customers, then providing some setup guide like they do now, won't be a problem.

XP is still supported until, April 8, 2014.
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-GB/windows/products/...

Edited by deleted (Thu 24-Jan-13 12:58:09)

Fast speed and a reliable connection should be the case. I should get around the speed I am quoted. Not like 10mbps less.

It's irrelevant what demands constant speed. It's as above.

The speed you're quoted is a prediction of the maximum speed available. It is not a guaranteed speed - if you want a guarantee of available speed you will have to pay many times more than consumer broadband.

At the high speeds now available, a short synthetic speed test can struggle to saturate the connection. Speed test results don't necessarily mean you've been cheated.

Extended support i.e. for those companies with software that requires Windows XP and will not run on vista etc

Otherwise I have to manually edit the registry.

DrTCP changes the registry entries, you don't do it manually.

TCP Window: 2055680 is OK now anyway for sites 200 ms away at 80M as it says :-

BDP limit (200ms): 82227kbps (10278KBytes/s)

Is RWIN OK though yarwell? There are two ways of reading what it says - the probable way being fine.

From what I remember the speedguide measures the prevailing windows size

ie "TCP Window: 2055680 (NOT multiple of MSS)"

which in this case is RWIN * a scaling factor.

I think

In reply to a post by yarwell:

which in this case is RWIN * a scaling factor.

You mean::
Unscaled RWIN * the scaling factor.

But it is not one of the Recommended RWINs?

(NOT multiple of MSS)

presumably why - "best practice" is presumably an integer or power of two multiplier of the MSS.

Yes, I know but my point was that:

TCP Window: 2055680 (NOT multiple of MSS)

is not even close to the range of:

Recommended RWINs: 63888, 127776, 255552, 511104, 1022208

FYI: My own results do conform to this::

MSS: 1460
MTU: 1500
TCP Window: 1027840 (multiple of MSS)
RWIN Scaling: 4 bits (2^4=16)
Unscaled RWIN : 64240
Recommended RWINs: 64240, 128480, 256960, 513920, 1027840

yeah, his TCP Window is double the highest suggested value

However BDP limit (200ms): 82227kbps (10278KBytes/s) so if he spends a lot of time on US sites at high banwidth it could arguably be ok, but a smaller value may be better for routing UK use as IIRC too large a window can cause problems by delaying the response to dropped packets etc.

Agreed!

why you using 1460 MSS on PPPoE?

change the rwin to 2044416 so its a multiple of 1452.

Edited by Chrysalis (Fri 25-Jan-13 16:34:31)

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

why you using 1460 MSS on PPPoE?

Cuz MTU 1500 - 40 = 1460 = MSS I think. Isn't that the relationship?

Am I on PPPoE? I thought I was on PPPoA.

PPPoE is 1492 bytes for MTU. A bit of data posted from you earlier showed a 1492 bytes MTU.

Edited by Chrysalis (Fri 25-Jan-13 18:31:46)

As I said earlier, I'm not on PPPOE!

You are confusing me with OP

seems I am yeah sorry.

In reply to a post by superspeed:

Fast speed and a reliable connection should be the case. I should get around the speed I am quoted. Not like 10mbps less.

But the "speed" as you are measuring it (using a speed test) can never be constant on a connection with limited shared bandwidth. I suggest you read about contention.

A fixed line speed will never overcome the fact that the bandwidth we share is not enough for all of us to get full speed all of the time.

Contention makes it possible to provide the service you get at the price you pay. If you want dedicated bandwidth then you have to pay for it.

You would think they would have enough bandwidth on fibre by now. ADSL is a different matter.

BT don't seem to use Contention anymore.

Edited by deleted (Sat 26-Jan-13 17:52:30)

BT don't seem to use Contention anymore.

They may not quote a contention ratio, but the systems are certainly contended.

You only have 20 or 30M downstream allocated to you on the fibre from the cab to the exchange, for example, depending on 40 or 80M service (or sync speed if less than above).