In reply to a post by daccordimark:

I'm slightly confused now because it seems as if an RF2 doesn't always mess up the ADSL speed from what some of you had said and that we are now running at the maximum we could expect.

To try and clarify. For that downstream attenuation your connection speed is close to the maximum.

However:
* The throughput you are getting is lower than you should for that connection speed.
* The filter might be artificially increasing the attenuation on your line.

It would help if you could estimate the distance from your telephone exchange. The cable won't go in a straight line but if you assume it takes the obvious road route that should give you an idea. 54db attenuation equates to approximately 4km of typical cable.

Mark,

Regarding "forcing more speeda down the line" you can force ANY information rate you like down a bandwidth (in Hz!) PROVIDED you have lots of spare S/N to trade off.. I think usually there is an assumption that S/N at (? 300kHz) will define total performance which isn't the case if your RF2 is slicing off higher frequencies.

Secondly the RF2 was put there for a reason - does it still exist ? suggest ask neighbors if they had trouble. If whatever it was is history OK but if you live in Droitwich say with 400 kW on 198 kHz you will still need something and I suspect the RF2 may be better than RF3

Hi Guys,
Following the obvious road route it is 1.1km from the exchange to the cabinet and then 0.5km to our house. As for possible RFI problems we have line of sight to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moorside_Edge_transmitt... 1.5km away.

Cheers,
Mark.

The thing is, and here's the thing, if it is an RF2 filter, chances are it would be killing the ADSL stone dead.

I wonder if the OP could ask what speeds, on ADSL, his neighbours are getting ?

I'd also be asking for his ISP to arrange a revisit for the installation of the VDSL, get a halfway decent engineer out there, show him what you think the issue is, and have them sort it.

If the line is in the 1.5 to 2km range then the RF2 is killing off your ADSL speeds already

As suggested need to return to the ISP with the new information and get the info passed down the change for an engineer install

Does http://windows.mouselike.org/be/index.asp?DoAction=B... give the line length?

With three transmitters around 1MHz pushing out 400kW just 1.5km from the house there are going to be some real problems. Will and RF2 or RF3 actually solve them? or just limit the capability?

Would allowing an FTTC install without a filter get reasonable results but with a big notch of missing frequencies from 950 to 1250 kHz?

Edited by MHC (Sun 09-Mar-14 10:27:33)

"Would allowing an FTTC install without a filter get reasonable results but with a big notch of missing frequencies from 950 to 1250 kHz? "

At the sort of power level involved the modem could go into overload and loose many channels. If it stays in control it could de-sensitise just those channels BUT I would be surprised if the RF didn't enter by several routes - power supply, phone extensions and/or ethernet link to computer.( Are power lines overhead ? ) With several paths you can get complications due to phase differences - i.e. two 1 mV levels of interference can add up to anything from 0 to 2 so removing one can seem to make things worse - so one step at a time !

As the RF2 is already rejecting in-band interference adequately (?) I would be half inclined to see what happens to ADSL by substituting a RF3, since a RF4 (or whatever for VDSL) is two stages worse for CM rejection of 500kHz or so., but I'm not a speed demon !

P.S. Just calculated 100kW @ 1.5km gives about 1 volt/metre The RF2 is doing a good job. !

Edited by deleted (Mon 10-Mar-14 09:51:51)

Just like to add that I had an ADSL2/2+ connection back in 2007 with an attenuation of 58-60db and was getting 6-8mb at 6db snr

Edited by Seansmit17 (Mon 10-Mar-14 16:37:24)

58-50? Should that be 48-50?