In reply to a post by mikejp:

As a Royalist I'll stick with King, thanks, and it was good enough for Hans C A..

Well I thought Kejserens nye Kl�der translates to "Emperor's New Clothes", but then I don't speak Danish.

In reply to a post by mikejp:

No, but we are not even talking about 100% are we - I don't think any County has 'promised' that. The question is can BT even achieve what Joe Public is expecting - which takes us back to your 'political hot air'.

He's saying what he thinks will win him votes like any politician, yeah. But other members of "Joe Public" can see his comments for what they are and won't be so impressed.

most of the graphs are for thinner gauge than one would find on a 9km line

You get 60% more distance for a given attenuation for 22 AWG compared to 26 AWG wire for example.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/A... is a prediction that goes well beyond 70 dB.

Edited by yarwell (Sat 21-Sep-13 12:48:42)

In reply to a post by mikejp:

Certainly I understand the losses with ADSL2+ over long lines are far greater than with ADSL2.

That's a definition problem. The losses at the same frequency are the same. The extra frequencies of ADSL2+ are lost on long lines, so appear as a bigger loss, but the loss of sub 1 MHz signal is the same.

In my experience of a >70 dB village ADSL2 does substantially better than G.dmt, as indeed it should.

Your link shows ADSL2+ running out of 'puff' at about 53db!

May I repeat the question,
"I take it you have no comment on BT's estimates for the 9km line (up to 4.5mb')? " on the 9km dial-up line?

In reply to a post by mikejp:

Your link shows ADSL2+ running out of 'puff' at about 53db!

It shows it has no advantage over ADSL2 at that point because the additional frequencies have been attenuated out. ADSL2+ is a superset and encompasses ADSL2 so a multimode router on a long line would perform at ADSL2 levels or negotiate ADSL2 in the first place. What was your point ?

May I repeat the question,
"I take it you have no comment on BT's estimates for the 9km line (up to 4.5mb')? " on the 9km dial-up line?

Not sure where your "dial up" comes from, you must be some swivel eyed campaigner or something. The OP has a 1M sync speed and would get more at a 3dB noise margin.

I have inadequate information to comment about an apocryphal claim that a speed estimator was incorrect when accessed at an unknown stage for a line in an undisclosed location on an undisclosed exchange. I am aware of 9km lines that work on ADSL.

I would say that speed estimators are more often right than wrong, by a large margin, and simply don't matter at all anyway as the modem and exchange negotiate the best deal they can. First world problem.

If the OP believes they were missold the rules are in place to get them a refund.

@ Oliver341,

Having access to a service isn't the same as having the service connected if you observe what BT say re FTTC. E.g. you might have a Huawei 96 FTTC, or even a Huawei 288, but with say 500 lines in the PCP you could be unlucky.
We also don't like the area being littered with multiple FTTC just because the sums and design were wrong.

Hence why some areas end up with two or more fttc cabs when demand is high

"you must be some swivel eyed campaigner" - aha! Do I detect an enobled Conservative here?

"Not sure where your "dial up" comes from" - let me help you - this refers to post 4 on the thread, not the OP. Not 'apocryphal'. I could post the BT wholesale 'prediction' jpg if desired, but obviously de-identified on phone number. The estimate was WILDLY incorrect as the premises is confirmed as dial-up only, and we have the very real risk that if the local Council are not keeping their wits about them, BT could conveniently declare it as >2mb and 'job done'. The OP posts another 'WILDLY inaccurate' BT speed prediction.

"What was your point ?" - merely querying "is a prediction that goes well beyond 70 dB." when the evidence you provide stops at 53? What was the point of the graph?