Kitz ADSL Broadband Information
adsl spacer  
Support this site
Home Broadband ISPs Tech Routers Wiki Forum
 
     
   Compare ISP   Rate your ISP
 
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9

Author Topic: G.Inp on ECI Possibly Delayed  (Read 10224 times)

Black Sheep

  • Helpful
  • Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 4526
Re: G.Inp on ECI Possibly Delayed
« Reply #105 on: September 11, 2017, 03:10:17 PM »

BlackSheep had G.INP applied to the upstream of his HH5A. He said it made his line unstable and he had to perform a DLM reset.

I thought the ECI DSLAM's were only capable of G.INP on the downstream though. Is that correct? That should make the recent HH5A firmware update irrelevant unless it also targeted downstream G.INP compatibility with ECI DSLAM's.

Ummm, I actually said it was the downstream SNR that was set to 'sub 6dB' that was making my line 'flappy'. I lost the ReTx when I performed a full DLM re-calc, but it returned after the expected 3 day wait.  :) :) :)
Logged

j0hn

  • Kitizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1041
Re: G.Inp on ECI Possibly Delayed
« Reply #106 on: September 11, 2017, 03:21:21 PM »

Ahh. Upstream ReTx was also applied to your line a couple days before your DLM reset. Is it possible this contributed to the line being "flappy"? It's the 1st time we've ever seen it on a HH5A.
Logged
BT FTTC 55/10 ECI Huawei Cab - Zyxel VMG1312-B10A bridge mode + Asus RT-AC68U running Asuswrt-Merlin - minted on MDWS via DslStats

Black Sheep

  • Helpful
  • Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 4526
Re: G.Inp on ECI Possibly Delayed
« Reply #107 on: September 11, 2017, 03:36:06 PM »

Hmmm ?? I'll be honest, I don't know how long the ReTx had been applied to my circuit prior to me resetting it ??

As the regulars will know, I don't monitor my circuit really ..... it was only when the drops were happening every day that I decided to 'Ave a gander' and noticed my DS SNR was at 3dB. I assumed this was the culprit, and reset it to the default 6dB and haven't had a problem since ??.

Yes, I've lost about 10Mbps from the SNR increase, but stability is absolute key to me. As I've said before, if I could I'd give more of my speed away to those less fortunate. I really don't need it all.  ;D :) :)
Logged

Ixel

  • Reg Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 708
Re: G.Inp on ECI Possibly Delayed
« Reply #108 on: September 14, 2017, 09:39:02 AM »

Just a note here to say the situation is not as bad as feared, will leave it at that.

You mean we may still see G.INP on ECI before the year is up? :P
Logged

ktz392837

  • Reg Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 231
Re: G.Inp on ECI Possibly Delayed
« Reply #109 on: September 14, 2017, 12:05:24 PM »

I really hope both ginp and 3db is not dead for eci cabinets.  If ginp isn't possible I hope that 3db will still be on the cards.

I estimate I would gain around 5mb for Ginp and perhaps 10mb for 3db (possibly 7.5mb without ginp) either way both worthwhile.

I hope further details will be made available on new timescales and what the problem actually is this time. 
Logged

kitz

  • Administrator
  • Senior Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 30331
  • Trinity: Most guys do.
    • http://www.kitz.co.uk
Re: G.Inp on ECI Possibly Delayed
« Reply #110 on: September 14, 2017, 01:12:16 PM »

BlackSheep had G.INP applied to the upstream of his HH5A. He said it made his line unstable and he had to perform a DLM reset.

iirc it was the Target SNRM of 3dB that he had issues with, rather than G.INP ?

Quote
I thought the ECI DSLAM's were only capable of G.INP on the downstream though. Is that correct?

That should make the recent HH5A firmware update irrelevant unless it also targeted downstream G.INP compatibility with ECI DSLAM's.

Supposedly so.   
An update would be beneficial though to those on Huawei cabs so they could take advantage if DLM decides the line needs it.
If DLM does decide the line needs some action to stabilise upstream and the modem is incapable of upstream retransmission, its alternative is putting on quite a high rate of INP on the upstream..  which also appears to impact downstream speeds.  So in theory it would be much better for those on Huawei cabs if both the HH5A and ECI modems were capable of upstream G.INP.
Logged
Please do not PM me with queries for broadband help as I may not be able to respond.
-----
How to get your router line stats :: ADSL Exchange Checker

skyeci

  • Reg Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 971
Re: G.Inp on ECI Possibly Delayed
« Reply #111 on: September 14, 2017, 01:28:55 PM »

I really hope both ginp and 3db is not dead for eci cabinets.  If ginp isn't possible I hope that 3db will still be on the cards.

I estimate I would gain around 5mb for Ginp and perhaps 10mb for 3db (possibly 7.5mb without ginp) either way both worthwhile.

I hope further details will be made available on new timescales and what the problem actually is this time.

Pretty sure you would need g.inp before getting the lower snr profiles.. only 17 months have passed since since it was removed from my line.... it's not looking good really....
Logged
Sky Fibre Pro -  billion 8800nl v1 (bridge mode) + PFSENSE (APU2C4) 2.4.0 with ipv6 , AC-88U WAP- ECI cab, G.INP disabled as of 8th April 2016

http://www.mydslwebstats.co.uk user upload ID skyECI (using a pi3)

kitz

  • Administrator
  • Senior Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 30331
  • Trinity: Most guys do.
    • http://www.kitz.co.uk
Re: G.Inp on ECI Possibly Delayed
« Reply #112 on: September 14, 2017, 03:13:00 PM »

It appears so.   
Which is as you say a shame, but I can perhaps understand why.    My line sat quite happily at 3.2dB for a few weeks after I resync'd before one of my x-talkers.  I know Im far from the only one whose line manages fine at the lower SNRm
Logged
Please do not PM me with queries for broadband help as I may not be able to respond.
-----
How to get your router line stats :: ADSL Exchange Checker

Chrysalis

  • Content Team
  • Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 4984
Re: G.Inp on ECI Possibly Delayed
« Reply #113 on: September 14, 2017, 03:18:06 PM »

I find myself lucky right now, after my last fault my line has a healthy margin which should hopefully keep any external noise at bay, although still the usual errors caused by crosstalk.
Logged
Sky Fiber Pro - Billion 8800NL bridge & PFSense BOX running PFSense 2.4 - ECI Cab

ktz392837

  • Reg Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 231
Re: G.Inp on ECI Possibly Delayed
« Reply #114 on: September 14, 2017, 04:52:57 PM »

Pretty sure you would need g.inp before getting the lower snr profiles.. only 17 months have passed since since it was removed from my line.... it's not looking good really....
I agree it makes sense to have ginp before 3db but my line last held on at 1.5db for 27 days and apart from a car passing the cabinet in a way the cabinet didn't like that reset me back to 6db I suspect I could hold on to the 1.5db again for multiple weeks until the same car passes again.

I am trying to avoid saying it but these eci cabs were a very poor decision.  They should be replaced.

Trying to stay positive but the usual let's keep the problems secret and the public are stupid attitude from BT really annoys me.

I guess BT is just hoping that I will pay double for Gfast to get the speed I should be getting on a cabinet that works well - I won't be.  I will be focusing my effort to ensure no one gets gfast that's if we get gfast in the first place. 

Basically the opposite of when fttc arrived but before it took them 2+ years to connect the power to the cabinet that we now find does not actually work!
Logged

PhilipD

  • Reg Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 338
Re: G.Inp on ECI Possibly Delayed
« Reply #115 on: September 14, 2017, 05:56:27 PM »

Hi

I guess BT is just hoping that I will pay double for Gfast to get the speed I should be getting on a cabinet that works well - I won't be.  I will be focusing my effort to ensure no one gets gfast that's if we get gfast in the first place. 

If your line is such that you aren't getting 80/20 on FTTC then the likelihood is Long Range G.Fast will not be any faster, likely slower, if offered to you at all.

Why we are still messing around in 2017 trying to send data down decades old audio only telephone cable, that was never that good at audio let alone data, beggars belief.

Regards

Phil





Logged

kitz

  • Administrator
  • Senior Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 30331
  • Trinity: Most guys do.
    • http://www.kitz.co.uk
Re: G.Inp on ECI Possibly Delayed
« Reply #116 on: September 14, 2017, 07:53:01 PM »

Quote
I am trying to avoid saying it but these eci cabs were a very poor decision.  They should be replaced.

With respect (and remember I'm on an ECI cab knowing that I would fare much better on a Huawei cab & getting higher speeds), I really don't know where the blame lies on this.

1) BT has always gone for diversity.  For a company of their size it makes business sense not to rely on one manufacturer.  Going right back to the days when ADSL very first started they used different manufacturers.  Ive been around long enough to know that at one time the Juniper DSLAMs were better than many of the others and less problematic when 2Mbps adsl was introduced.
Moving on to maxdsl and adsl2+, all of a sudden there were issues with the Marconi MSANs in that they couldn't cope with the higher upstream speeds- yet previously the Marconi MSANs were cutting edge for rate adaptive dsl.  Go back in time and they also had system X and system Y for telephony.

2) Ironically ECI was cutting edge when it came to VDSL.  In 2012 they were considered the better VDSL dslams.  iirc ECI made a lot of progress in vectoring dslams.  Problem being they weren't on the M41's. 
Huawei late had the edge in that they were bigger units and therefore the backplanes could be upgraded to install a vectoring unit.  ECI had gone for try make the cabs as small as possible for the M41's which as the time was a good thing as they could hold more users floorspace wise.. which was also good when you had several districts complaining how ugly VDSL cabs were.

3) BT were not the only telco caught up in the ECI problem, Duetche Telekom was another, but there were more.  iirc Duetche Telecom had to upgade many of their cabs to V41s.   


Finally Im not chuffed that Im on an ECI, so I really have no reason to defend them just trying to explain some of the history and that 5+yrs ago then ordering ECI wasn't so stupid as what it seems without the benefit of hindsight.  I'm really struggling this week, I still have to do a LOT of admin behind the scenes that no-one sees so I'm just typing whilst I can which is very slow.  I'm sure ejs will correct anything I remember incorrectly and can add links if need be as Ive just blurbed.
Logged
Please do not PM me with queries for broadband help as I may not be able to respond.
-----
How to get your router line stats :: ADSL Exchange Checker

burakkucat

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 20144
  • Over the Rainbow
    • The ELRepo Project
Re: G.Inp on ECI Possibly Delayed
« Reply #117 on: September 14, 2017, 09:37:54 PM »

ECI had gone for try make the cabs as small as possible for the M41's which as the time was a good thing as they could hold more users floorspace wise..

For posterity, I'll document the official ECI name of the product in question --

Hi-FOCuSTM M41 Mini-Shelf

Notice the last two words, conjoined with a hyphen.

Quote from: ECI Telecom
The M41 Mini-Shelf provides a full range of triple play services in a compact, durable, and user-friendly shelf. Specifically designed to fit in cramped areas with harsh environmental conditions, such as street cabinets, communications rooms, and basements, the M41 Mini-Shelf is highly flexible and versatile, minimizing deployment costs.

I have a few documents available --
  • Hi-FOCuS M41 Mini-Shelf Data Sheet (dated 2006)
  • Hi-FOCuS M41 Mini-Shelf General Description (dated 2006)
  • Hi-FOCuS M41 Mini-Shelf Product Note (dated 2010)
  • Hi-FOCuS V41 Vectoring Shelf Product Note (dated 2012)
If anyone would like a copy of a ZIP format file, containing the above, please send me a PM specifying a valid e-mail address which I may use.
Logged
:cat:  100% Linux and, previously, Unix. Co-founder of the ELRepo Project.

Please consider making a donation to support the running of this site.

smallal

  • Just arrived
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: G.Inp on ECI Possibly Delayed
« Reply #118 on: October 02, 2017, 11:19:56 AM »

Looks like BT Openreach are going to start testing the ECI fix, along with a 3db SNR profile, from Oct 20th.
Article here: https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2017/09/openreach-test-xdb-speed-boost-eci-fttc-fibre-broadband-lines.html
Logged

j0hn

  • Kitizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1041
Re: G.Inp on ECI Possibly Delayed
« Reply #119 on: October 02, 2017, 12:35:28 PM »

Looks like BT Openreach are going to start testing the ECI fix, along with a 3db SNR profile, from Oct 20th.
Article here: https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2017/09/openreach-test-xdb-speed-boost-eci-fttc-fibre-broadband-lines.html

That article came from this thread
http://forum.kitz.co.uk/index.php/topic,20346.0.html

Also, the article doesn't say anything about g.inp.
This lower margin trial is unrelated to g.inp, and definitely not run along with each other
« Last Edit: October 02, 2017, 12:38:05 PM by j0hn »
Logged
BT FTTC 55/10 ECI Huawei Cab - Zyxel VMG1312-B10A bridge mode + Asus RT-AC68U running Asuswrt-Merlin - minted on MDWS via DslStats
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9