wombat and kitz any comment on my opinion?
I think it may be a personal preference.
- Some people don't notice or mind the higher latency that comes with INP.
- Others may prefer to lose a bit of speed rather than incur longer ping times.
>> I dont think a DLM that keeps flipping between 2 profiles is good,
In theory it shouldn't - each subsequent action should require a longer ILQ green status before DLM takes any backwards steps in order to prevent flapping profiles.
>> openreach want to maintain full control of DLM
They have probably made a rod for their own back with this approach. I don't see why they couldn't give some control to the SPs. There was talk a few years back that they were looking into it or considering it, but it all seems to have gone quiet.
>> they know that DLM will 'mask' problems, so by removing DLM's actions then the problems become visible again and a net result will be higher fault reports.
Agreed - it masks certain faults quite well. Conversely some issues could perhaps be resolved with a reset. The thing is there are some sensible ISPs, but some who would just push the button and hope that it fixes things.
>> how long people are expected to wait for g.inp is clearly way too excessive
Couldn't agree more. As mentioned above with wombat, the whole DLM structure needs a rework.
>> I dont know why openreach have done that config change as DLM wasnt like that at the start of g.inp rollout.
As mentioned, it was a botch job - a 'quick' fix to sort out the problem with the g.inp incompatible modems. IMHO they vastly under-estimated the amount of users that had eci modems and HH5A's etc.
>> I respect not everyone agrees with me there, and for that reason banding should not be permanent.
The problem is that it seems almost permanent and does cut in too soon. People wait for months and nothing seems to shift even if the line has improved.