Fast broadband in Rural Yorkshire (FAIL)

[Martin Brown]

Latest news on North Yorkshires rural broadband initiative is not at all
promising. Basically they conclude it can't be done!

One village has been successfully put on FTTRN but it isn't cost
effective. Worse still they have contrived to install FTTC in another
village so that those closest to the exchange do not get it!

Not surprisingly they are more than a bit upset after having OpenReach
vans parked outside the exchange for ages. The hardware cost per cabinet
£30-40k seems a bit high. Are they really *that* expensive before
installation or is someone playing fast and loose with the figures?

The recent story about Askrigg's woes is online here:

http://www.darlingtonandstocktontimes.co.uk/news/11870208.Fast_internet_access_bypassing_parts_of_rural_North_Yorkshire/

The other about the FTTRN being uneconomic appears to have been censored
online although it appeared immediately under this one in the print
edition. Only the positive spin one from Feb 20th remains online:

http://www.darlingtonandstocktontimes.co.uk/news/11781737.TINY_village_in_Wensleydale_is_first_in_North_to_benefit_from_new_broadband_technology/

The missing one was titled "Plans for high-speed broadband is (sic)
unlikely to materialise due to rising costs in rural regions".

The problem seems to be that the cost per premises installed has risen
sharply from £150 each to £750 and is set to reach £1500. Basically they
are set to abandon the dales completely and expect the residents to be
glad if they get any kind of service however bad. Plenty don't even get
the official (and uselessly low) basic 2Mbps ADSL.

They won't contemplate wireless (microwave) internet because apparently
it doesn't meet some EU standard or other (presumably to qualify for a
grant). The problem is in remote areas only line of sight wireless or
existing 3G services stand any chance at all of being cost effective.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Richard_CC]

I suppose its a good time to write to every candidate for the next
parliamentary election (and local elections if you have them this year),
asking them if they unequivocally support fast broadband where you live,
but I wouldn't expect a very positive response unless you have the
luxury of living in a marginal constituency where a few votes matter.

[Theo Markettos]

Richard_CC <ric...@nospam.rjcresources.co.uk> wrote:
> I suppose its a good time to write to every candidate for the next
> parliamentary election (and local elections if you have them this year),
> asking them if they unequivocally support fast broadband where you live,
> but I wouldn't expect a very positive response unless you have the
> luxury of living in a marginal constituency where a few votes matter.

They will undoubtedly 'support' it. But if BT don't want to do it, they're
limited in what they can do (hitting BT with a big stick being a somewhat
blunt instrument).

It appears the FTTRN problem is one of power supply:
http://democracy.northyorks.gov.uk/FunctionsPage.aspx?dsid=74680&action=GetFileFromDB
sections 4.6-4.8

It would seem to me that power isn't an impossible nut to crack - there are
power feed solutions out there, it just depends on finding one at acceptable
cost. For instance:
http://www.aethra.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/FTTC_Remote_Power_Feeding_Aethra_Telecommunications.pdf

Driving up the volume and integrating these with the RN will drive down the
costs further.

Theo

[Mark Allread]

On Tue, 24 Mar 2015 08:13:29 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:

> Latest news on North Yorkshires rural broadband initiative is not at all
> promising. Basically they conclude it can't be done!

Not quite what I have been told

>
> The problem seems to be that the cost per premises installed has risen
> sharply from £150 each to £750 and is set to reach £1500.

This is because they are now seeking to deliver it to the more remote
properties so the cost per property is mch higher

Basically they
> are set to abandon the dales completely and expect the residents to be
> glad if they get any kind of service however bad. Plenty don't even get
> the official (and uselessly low) basic 2Mbps ADSL.

How I agree!

>
> They won't contemplate wireless (microwave) internet because apparently
> it doesn't meet some EU standard or other (presumably to qualify for a
> grant). The problem is in remote areas only line of sight wireless or
> existing 3G services stand any chance at all of being cost effective.

Yes, it has to be 'superfast' to get the grant aid. I have pointed out
that when you get speed measured in kbps anything is superfast in
comparison.

I have also raised with them the options of installing sat BB to
properties. A neighbour has just installed at a cost of £600 for the set
up but I don't know which domestic package he has gone for. I know the
monthly cost is significantly higher than other BB packages but it could
be a cost worth bearing if there are no alternatives.

IN terms of initial cost I said that they could effectively do twice as
many properties for the cost they would pay for one (when the cost is
£1500 vs £600 for sat installation).

Our Cty Cllr is very keen to progress it and has promised to see what can
be done in terms of options.

He is one who does deliver too - but whether NYCC corporately will
deliver does, I have to say, seem unlikely.

[NY]

"Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:mer6b8$f2h$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

> Worse still they have contrived to install FTTC in another village so that
> those closest to the exchange do not get it!

This aspect of FTTC - that people close to the exchange don't go via a
cabinet and therefore don't get FTTC - is one hell of a cock-up. Why can't
they install the same equipment at the exchange as they do in all the remote
cabinets and make the exchange into a "virtual cabinet" for the purposes of
FTTC. "Too close to the exchange" sounds an incredibly lame excuse when it's
normally being too far away that is the problem.

It needs an organisation that is independent of BT to impose the "virtual
cabinet at the exchange" solution on them if they won't do it themselves.
After all, they have the monopoly on the hardware/wiring for most people,
irrespective of which ISP customers use, so normal rules of competition
driving the spread of technology don't apply.

[Graham J]

I've been told of "green cabinets" being bolted on the outsides of
exchange buildings ...!!!!

--
Graham J

[Rodney Pont]

On Tue, 24 Mar 2015 15:42:56 -0000, NY wrote:

>This aspect of FTTC - that people close to the exchange don't go via a
>cabinet and therefore don't get FTTC - is one hell of a cock-up. Why can't
>they install the same equipment at the exchange as they do in all the remote
>cabinets and make the exchange into a "virtual cabinet" for the purposes of
>FTTC. "Too close to the exchange" sounds an incredibly lame excuse when it's
>normally being too far away that is the problem.

As I understand it crosstalk is the problem with too many cables coming
out of the exchange in a bunch. With the cabinets it's only a couple of
hundred but an exchange will have several times as many and that really
limits the speed. If you are limited to ADSL speeds there is no point
in putting VDSL(fibre) in.

Our small exchange has room outside for a couple of cabinets and that's
what they have done so some of those who were in the exchange can now
have fibre.

--
Faster, cheaper, quieter than HS2
and built in 5 years;
UKUltraspeed <http://www.500kmh.com/>

[Martin Brown]

On 24/03/2015 17:01, Rodney Pont wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Mar 2015 15:42:56 -0000, NY wrote:
>
>> This aspect of FTTC - that people close to the exchange don't go via a
>> cabinet and therefore don't get FTTC - is one hell of a cock-up. Why can't
>> they install the same equipment at the exchange as they do in all the remote
>> cabinets and make the exchange into a "virtual cabinet" for the purposes of
>> FTTC. "Too close to the exchange" sounds an incredibly lame excuse when it's
>> normally being too far away that is the problem.
>
> As I understand it crosstalk is the problem with too many cables coming
> out of the exchange in a bunch. With the cabinets it's only a couple of

That sort of makes sense on large scale town exchanges but in rural
North Yorkshire the whole exchange is likely to have a total line
capacity that is equivalent to at most three to five cabinets worth.

A lot of the oldest rural lines are exchange only with all the
electrical properties of decayed wet string. The really unlucky ones
have a section of badly decayed aluminium somewhere in the path.

Taking NEEHL as a typical example it serves under 600 premises all up.

https://www.samknows.com/broadband/exchange/NEEHL

I could find you even smaller exchanges like Goathland for 260.
(for fans of Heartbeat)

https://www.samknows.com/broadband/exchange/NEGTD

Or Jervaulx at just over 200

https://www.samknows.com/broadband/exchange/NEJV

> hundred but an exchange will have several times as many and that really
> limits the speed. If you are limited to ADSL speeds there is no point
> in putting VDSL(fibre) in.

Where they have enabled FTTC they do seem to have installed a new
powered cabinet on the street. One local village got nothing because
there was no mains anywhere near their existing one. Another quirky
feature is that the guy who lives opposite our local cabinet cannot have
a fibre service because "he is on the wrong side of the road".

Another place they bust a gut to FTTC them and chop the legs off a local
entrepreneur with a microwave based rival internet service.

> Our small exchange has room outside for a couple of cabinets and that's
> what they have done so some of those who were in the exchange can now
> have fibre.
>

Round here they seem to put them at the roadside generally very close to
somewhere that they can tap into for a mains supply.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Theo Markettos]

Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Where they have enabled FTTC they do seem to have installed a new
> powered cabinet on the street. One local village got nothing because
> there was no mains anywhere near their existing one. Another quirky
> feature is that the guy who lives opposite our local cabinet cannot have
> a fibre service because "he is on the wrong side of the road".

For places where FTTRN might be an option, are there usually spare pairs
that might be used to route power? The solution I pointed to upthread
delivers a few hundred watts using spare pairs at 175V. Something else that
could be done is to terminate DSL at the remote node, then DACS the voice
service back to the exchange on fewer pairs, which would leave spare pairs
for power.

> Another place they bust a gut to FTTC them and chop the legs off a local
> entrepreneur with a microwave based rival internet service.

This happened during early ADSL rollout too. OTOH I can see the reason why
'state aid' is only available for >25Mbps service - it's possible to hack up
a service that roughly works, at 3Mbps or whatever. But that's not a long
term solution.

Theo

[Andy Burns]

NY wrote:
> This aspect of FTTC - that people close to the exchange don't go via a
> cabinet and therefore don't get FTTC - is one hell of a cock-up.

Solved round here by installing a fibre cab about 100m away from the
exchange.

OTOH the people close to the exchange will have benefited from >20Mb
speeds for several years, let them go to back of the queue for a bit
while the poor sods struggling with <2Mb see some improvement.

[Andy Burns]

Theo Markettos wrote:

> It would seem to me that power isn't an impossible nut to crack -

> http://www.aethra.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/FTTC_Remote_Power_Feeding_Aethra_Telecommunications.pdf

350V might give the copper thieves something to think about too :-P

[NY]

"Andy Burns" <usenet....@adslpipe.co.uk> wrote in message
news:f6qdnZSARMTdJYzI...@brightview.co.uk...

20 Mb/sec even over ADSL? I thought the maximum was 8 Mb/sec, with either
448 Kb/sec or 900-odd Kb/sec upload depending on ages of exchange. Or does
ADSL 2 give you faster speeds? Both houses where I've lived since having
broadband have only had "ADSL 1" at the exchange so I wouldn't know.

With the increased use of cloud storage which requires data to be
*up*loaded, something that ADSL wasn't designed for, the biggest improvement
with FTTC/VDSL is fast uploads for cloud, FTP or sending large emails.

[Theo Markettos]

:-)

I note they also have solutions where the DSLAM is powered from the
customer's end over their copper pair - makes sense since the distribution
point is probably nearer to the customer than the exchange.

http://www.aethra.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/FTTdP_carrier_solutions_Aethra_Telecommunications.pdf
(this seems to envisage 'basement' installations, but 'pole' installations
aren't much different except for environmental conditions)

Theo

[Andy Burns]

NY wrote:

> 20 Mb/sec even over ADSL? I thought the maximum was 8 Mb/sec, with either
> 448 Kb/sec or 900-odd Kb/sec upload depending on ages of exchange. Or does
> ADSL 2 give you faster speeds?

yes, ADSL2+ gives max. 24Mbps at close range, with annexe M (for
providers that support it) allowing up to 3.3Mbps upload, at the expense
of some download speed, but I've never seen it go faster than 2Mbps up.

[Martin Brown]

On 24/03/2015 18:35, Theo Markettos wrote:
> Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Where they have enabled FTTC they do seem to have installed a new
>> powered cabinet on the street. One local village got nothing because
>> there was no mains anywhere near their existing one. Another quirky
>> feature is that the guy who lives opposite our local cabinet cannot have
>> a fibre service because "he is on the wrong side of the road".
>
> For places where FTTRN might be an option, are there usually spare pairs
> that might be used to route power? The solution I pointed to upthread

Not a chance. They have been DACSing grannies since forever round here.

They typically break an existing ADSL connection for every two new ones
they install. In theory FTTC should help but in practice disturbing the
old connections has resulted in major service outages (mine included).

It got so bad a couple of years back that they had to bus engineers in
from Lancashire for a couple of weeks to try and sort out the mess after
large chunks of the village had outages that incurred penalties.

> delivers a few hundred watts using spare pairs at 175V. Something else that
> could be done is to terminate DSL at the remote node, then DACS the voice
> service back to the exchange on fewer pairs, which would leave spare pairs
> for power.

Everything that can be DACS'd already has been. They have been on
borrowed time for nearly two decades. Real copper was already an issue
where I live back in 1996. Prehistoric post about "new" DACS is here:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/DACS$20martin$20brown$2056k/uk.telecom/9kThSLquLBY/r5J86WyrUR8J

The clueless muppets in BT sales tried to install my Redcare service on
a DACSd line - that was how I first found out about this problem.

>
>> Another place they bust a gut to FTTC them and chop the legs off a local
>> entrepreneur with a microwave based rival internet service.
>
> This happened during early ADSL rollout too. OTOH I can see the reason why
> 'state aid' is only available for >25Mbps service - it's possible to hack up
> a service that roughly works, at 3Mbps or whatever. But that's not a long
> term solution.

A solution that works anywhere at 4-5Mbps (ie one HD video channel on
demand would be OK for most ordinary users) anything less is pointless.
A universal service of 2Mbps is not enough in this digital era.

The way things are going city dwellers will be able to stream 20
channels of HD video simultaneously whilst some unlucky rural users will
be lucky to stream even a single radio channel without stalling.

Some in a neighbouring village would be better off with bonded ISDN than
with the pathetic unreliable sync rate they get on ADSL. My own domestic
wired connection is slower than my 3G Three Mifi (but 3G data charges
sting a bit) and I am lucky to be on top of a hill.

Only Three has a 3G signal in my region, EE has a 2.5G and O2 nada.

Subsidising the 3G network to cover ribbon developments would make a lot
more sense than giving BT pots of money to shaft its competitors.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Rodney Pont]

On Tue, 24 Mar 2015 19:17:20 +0000, Andy Burns wrote:

>OTOH the people close to the exchange will have benefited from >20Mb
>speeds for several years, let them go to back of the queue for a bit
>while the poor sods struggling with <2Mb see some improvement.

We only had ADSL MAX (8meg) on our exchange before the FTTC arrived.
The FTTC missed me as it went down the road and I would be extremely
happy with ADSL2+ since I do get the full 8meg with ADSL MAX.
Personally 8meg is fine and I wouldn't pay extra for more speed but
neither would I complain if ADSL2+ came :-)

[Andy Burns]

Martin Brown wrote:

> Theo Markettos wrote:
>
>> For places where FTTRN might be an option, are there usually spare pairs
>> that might be used to route power?
>

> Not a chance. They have been DACSing grannies since forever round here.

Does that power delivery system require spare pairs dedicated to power
delivery? Any reason it couldn't provide phantom power *between* pairs?

[Andy Burns]

Andy Burns wrote:

> Does that power delivery system require spare pairs dedicated to power
> delivery? Any reason it couldn't provide phantom power *between* pairs?

^
active
Presumably party lines can be ignored at this point?

[Angus Robertson - Magenta Systems Ltd]

> http://www.aethra.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/FTTC_Remote_Po

> wer_Feeding_Aethra_Telecommunications.pdf
> 350V might give the copper thieves something to think about too :-P

And the BT engineers working on those cables, don't think health and safety
would allow such voltages.

Feeding power from the exchange is clever, but the brochure totally ignores
cabinet distance from the exchange.

The power loss over 5km of copper pairs must be horrible, thus the
suggestion of high voltages to counter that loss, but they should spell out
exactly what distances they can cover.

Angus

[Andy Burns]

Angus Robertson wrote:

> Feeding power from the exchange is clever, but the brochure totally ignores
> cabinet distance from the exchange.

I do remember seeing power over fibre systems, but the available power
was quite paltry, only a handful of watts IIRC.

[Martin Brown]

I think there is a technology mentioned in the thread above that does
phantom power down the copper wire but at the distances involved and
with the ropey state of the insulation on rural conductors I would not
want to be an OpenReach engineer if they were actually adopted!

Life expectancy of engineers in a wet trench with the sorts of voltages
mentioned by the proponents of phantom powered FTTRN will be very short.

The crazy thing seems to be that they don't have a right sized PSU for a
single FTTRN node and have to fit an over specified full cabinet PSU!

My instinct was that the killer would be running a fibre to each remote
node but apparently the PSU hardware costs are allegedly the problem.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Denis McMahon]

On Tue, 24 Mar 2015 12:25:36 +0000, Theo Markettos wrote:

> It appears the FTTRN problem is one of power supply:
> http://democracy.northyorks.gov.uk/FunctionsPage.aspx?
dsid=74680&action=GetFileFromDB
> sections 4.6-4.8
>
> It would seem to me that power isn't an impossible nut to crack - there
> are power feed solutions out there, it just depends on finding one at
> acceptable cost. For instance:
> http://www.aethra.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/
FTTC_Remote_Power_Feeding_Aethra_Telecommunications.pdf

The problem isn't the availability of power, the problem is that these
cabinets run off of unmetered supplies and the cabinet is billed by the
power company according to the size of the PSU.

Whether the cabinet is supplying 20 or 200 premises, it uses the same
size PSU, and so has the same power bill from the electric company.

The cost of power supplied to the cabinet is usually offset by the
revenue generated by providing services from the cabinet. However, in
this case the cost of power per revenue earning line is effectively 10
times the cost at most other locations, because of the low number of
premises served by the cabinet.

--
Denis McMahon, denismf...@gmail.com

[Denis McMahon]

On Tue, 24 Mar 2015 15:42:56 +0000, NY wrote:

> This aspect of FTTC - that people close to the exchange don't go via a
> cabinet and therefore don't get FTTC - is one hell of a cock-up. Why
> can't they install the same equipment at the exchange as they do in all
> the remote cabinets and make the exchange into a "virtual cabinet" for
> the purposes of FTTC. "Too close to the exchange" sounds an incredibly
> lame excuse when it's normally being too far away that is the problem.

FTTC requires a fibre node to be installed next to the street DP, I think
it has to be within 200 metres as the cable goes from the street DP to
the premises.

However, up to I think 500m from the exchange, possibly 800m in less
densely populated areas, you may not be serviced by a street DP, but
rather copper straight to the distribution frame in the exchange.

If the exchange is more than 200m as the cable runs from your premises,
then you're too far from the exchange for VDSL from the exchange, and
there's no street DP to park a fibre / VDSL node cabinet next to to
supply you from the cabinet.

If you live close enough to the exchange you can get VDSL, the people
that can't get it are those who live too far from the exchange for the
VDSL but not far enough to be served by a street DP which a fibre/VDSL
cab can be hooked up to.

--
Denis McMahon, denismf...@gmail.com

[Denis McMahon]

On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 13:50:47 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:

> My instinct was that the killer would be running a fibre to each remote
> node but apparently the PSU hardware costs are allegedly the problem.

It's not the hardware cost. It's the electricity supply costs based on PSU
size for the unmetered supply.

A size X PSU is deemed to draw x KWh per year from the mains, and the
telephone company is billed for electricity on that basis.

What they need is a size X/10 PSU to install in cabinets that only supply
20 (instead of 200) VDSL lines, although it would probably be nearer to
X/8 as the fibre side power requirement probably doesn't scale, even if
the VDSLAM side does.

--
Denis McMahon, denismf...@gmail.com

[Martin Brown]

Is it really completely beyond the wit of man to design a smaller PSU?

Whatever happened to whole systems engineering?

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Martin Brown]

OK. Thanks for that clarification.

Would metering FTTRN PSU feeds not be one way out of this bind?

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Martin Brown]

On 25/03/2015 23:07, Denis McMahon wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Mar 2015 15:42:56 +0000, NY wrote:
>
>> This aspect of FTTC - that people close to the exchange don't go via a
>> cabinet and therefore don't get FTTC - is one hell of a cock-up. Why
>> can't they install the same equipment at the exchange as they do in all
>> the remote cabinets and make the exchange into a "virtual cabinet" for
>> the purposes of FTTC. "Too close to the exchange" sounds an incredibly
>> lame excuse when it's normally being too far away that is the problem.
>
> FTTC requires a fibre node to be installed next to the street DP, I think
> it has to be within 200 metres as the cable goes from the street DP to
> the premises.
>
> However, up to I think 500m from the exchange, possibly 800m in less
> densely populated areas, you may not be serviced by a street DP, but
> rather copper straight to the distribution frame in the exchange.

I am on an exchange only line at 3 miles from the exchange in rural
North Yorkshire. There is no cabinet at all between me and the exchange.
There was a roadside non-cabinet until a hedge flailer destroyed it some
years back and there is now a hole in the ground with the interconnects
in it and usually out of standing water.

The closest FTTC enabled cabinet is further from me than the exchange.

>
> If the exchange is more than 200m as the cable runs from your premises,
> then you're too far from the exchange for VDSL from the exchange, and
> there's no street DP to park a fibre / VDSL node cabinet next to to
> supply you from the cabinet.
>
> If you live close enough to the exchange you can get VDSL, the people
> that can't get it are those who live too far from the exchange for the
> VDSL but not far enough to be served by a street DP which a fibre/VDSL
> cab can be hooked up to.

VDSL in rural settings you *have* to be joking!

ADSL or ADSL Max is the most you can hope for out in the sticks.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Denis McMahon]

On Thu, 26 Mar 2015 08:18:52 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:

> VDSL in rural settings you *have* to be joking!

VDSL is how FTTC travels the last 200m.

--
Denis McMahon, denismf...@gmail.com

[Denis McMahon]

The PSU's will have been designed to a BT spec that takes into account
unsupervised operation in street cabinets with varying environmental
conditions and powering a specified amount of equipment. Whoever supplies
the cabinets will have designed (or procured) a PSU to the BT spec, and
they'll ship that with the cabinet.

Designing a smaller PSU will probably involve various testing processes
before BT will approve the new PSU, it's going to be a low volume item
and the design and approvals process is not going to be cheap. It may be
the case that the cost of procuring smaller PSUs (to reduce the
electricity bill) is so high due to the high design and approval process
costs and small anticipated production run (possibly not worth
programming a line for, so it's all going to be manual production, and
that means more inspection costs too!) that BT have decided they're
unwilling to pay that cost.

--
Denis McMahon, denismf...@gmail.com

[Mark]

On Thu, 26 Mar 2015 22:57:45 +0000, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>
wrote:

>Denis McMahon <denismf...@gmail.com> considered Thu, 26 Mar 2015

>13:27:13 +0000 (UTC) the perfect time to write:
>
>>On Thu, 26 Mar 2015 08:18:52 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:
>>
>>> VDSL in rural settings you *have* to be joking!
>>
>>VDSL is how FTTC travels the last 200m.
>

>Rather more than that, except for the very lucky and/or entirely
>urban.
>I think you may be thinking of the distance over which VDSL2 76/18mbps
>can be supplied at full speed, because I'm 600+ metres from my cabinet
>(as the wet string meanders), and I get 60 down / 14.65 up, with 0.62
>ES/Hr average. ISTR an article giving 1.5km as the distance beyond
>which VDSL gave no speed increase over ADSL, but that might not be
>correct, either due to my memory or subsequent improvements in
>technology. For example that may have been prior to things like INP
>being implemented, or vectoring being trialed, both of which will
>extend the reach even further (but only on VDSL). I do have INP,
>which has improved my speeds by a bit and my error counts by a lot.
>SNRM is up too, so there may be a bit more speed to come as DLM
>settles down.

How can I find out if my connection has INP?
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

[Mark]

On Sat, 28 Mar 2015 01:37:41 +0000, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>
wrote:

>Mark <i...@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> considered Fri, 27 Mar 2015

>If you use a router/modem which you can monitor (I use and recommend
>the Billion BiPAC 8800NL, which I monitor with DSLstats) it will tell
>you. Even without a program to monitor it, you should be able to tell
>either from the web interface or with the right incantation over
>telnet. It'll also tell you the system and dsl uptime, SNRM (in
>total, per-band, and per-tone), attenuation, error rates, depth of
>interleaving (if any), traffic flow, let you watch your data
>consumption, etc. - pretty much everything you could want to know.

I do have the aforementioned router. And INP is enabled now.
I am a relatively long way from my street cabinet AFAIK so don't get
particularly fast performance:

Down Up
SNR Margin (dB) 12.5 6.0
Attenuation (dB) 22.0 0.0
Output Power (dBm) 13.3 -4.9
Attainable Rate (Kbps) 55219 8383
Rate (Kbps) 40173 8398
D (interleaver depth) 8 4
INP (DMT symbol) 47.00 44.00

[Mark]

On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 03:06:03 +0100, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>
wrote:

>Mark <i...@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.net> considered Sat, 28 Mar 2015

>Your snrm is rather high, and your download speed very low compared to
>the max attainable. Your attenuation is only 1 dB higher than mine.
>so you should be getting a bit more speed than you are.

Right now my SNRM is 7.4dB.

I am on the "up to 40Mbps" product with my ISP because my sync speed
was lower than this recently.

>Which firmware version are you on?
2.32d.dh14

>I'm getting this from my stats:
>
>DSLAM/MSAN type: BDCM:0xa485 / v0xa485
>Modem/router firmware: AnnexA version - A2pv6F039g1.d24m
>DSL mode: VDSL2 Profile 17a
>Status: Showtime
>Uptime: 13 hours 6 min 21 sec
>Resyncs: 0 (since 29 Mar 2015 14:10:51)
>
>A power failure of several hours yesterday makes uptime and resyncs
>irrelevant, as I had to shut almost everything down :-(
>
> Downstream Upstream
>Line attenuation (dB): 21.0 0.0
>Signal attenuation (dB): Not available on VDSL2
>Connection speed (kbps): 60000 14016
>SNR margin (dB): 6.6 5.9
>Power (dBm): 12.6 7.5
>Interleave depth: 16 4
>INP: 48.00 47.00
>G.INP: Enabled
>
>RSCorr/RS (%): 0.8862 19,4505
>RSUnCorr/RS (%): 0.0000 0.0000
>ES/hour: 0.23 0
>
>Current firmware is available (if you need it) here:
>http://www.billion.uk.com/esupport/index.php?/Knowledgebase/Article/View/362/107/bipac-8800nl-232ddh14-firmware
>
>I'm about 600 metres from the cabinet, if the wet string is routed
>sensibly (so probably further than that in reality), so hardly close.
>
>I have taken some steps to optimise my physical connection as far as
>possible.

Me too. My router is connected directly to the master socket, via a
short cable. There are no extension cables.

The cables to my house were replaced not long ago due to a fault.