Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[kitz]

All this stuff is in the public domain though. The ECI DSLAMs do not support upstream retransmission, they do support downstream,

That would be in respect to this statement from BT Openreach

"Retransmission can operate in both downstream and upstream channels simultaneously, although ECI equipment (either modems or DSLAMS) doesn’t currently support upstream retransmission"

That is something which I have asked for clarification on from Openreach, but my question so far remains unanswered.. and that is Upstream on the DSLAM would be the EU downstream?

[kitz]

You are going to have a PM in the near future not entirely unrelated to another matter you raised in here. That is not for public consumption.

Hmmmm.   

I think you'll find that BS often knows of certain things but doesn't release info until it becomes publicly available elsewhere. 

We are not like certain other forums and we dont ever go in for the willy waving that you often see on other forums or that is frequently seen in the world of IT. Generally speaking things are a lot more polite over here and we tend to respect others regardless of who they are. 

Im not sure if there was any need to say that in that manner.  If you were going to PM him, then just do so, rather than put that too which comes across as berating a naughty school boy        

[Chrysalis]

apart from some operational information is definitely not the case. Were Openreach to keep such things to themselves CPs would have them strung up.

You are going to have a PM in the near future not entirely unrelated to another matter you raised in here. That is not for public consumption.

So if openreach withold information from CPs its a big issue? but if CPs withold information from their customers its fine? double standards?

If openreach add/remove kit in a cabinet but it has no affect on the end user's service why would they need to inform CPs?

[niemand]

Yeah bad use of words on my part. Didn't mean to come across so aggressive or patronising. Sorry about that, I meant to emphasise that it was private, and it doesn't relate to technical stuff.

Perhaps that 4th red wine wasn't such a good plan.

[niemand]

So if openreach withold information from CPs its a big issue? but if CPs withold information from their customers its fine? double standards?

If openreach add/remove kit in a cabinet but it has no affect on the end user's service why would they need to inform CPs?

Given CPs sign non-disclosure agreements it's more than fine, it's required.

When Openreach do large plans of work that may increase fault rate or put cabinets at risk CPs have every right to expect to be informed.

Also Openreach do engage CPs as part of working groups in order to better serve them. An odd concept I know given the public perception of Openreach. As part of these working groups they can and do share plans with CPs.

Looking at BT Wholesale they do share with information they receive from Openreach with their customers regularly through briefings.

If you are referring to end users yes, it's absolutely fine not to share information. There are no double standards. Some of the information is commercially sensitive, the overwhelming majority of the rest 99.99% of people couldn't care less about as long as it doesn't break their Internet connection.

[Black Sheep]

Yeah bad use of words on my part. Didn't mean to come across so aggressive or patronising. Sorry about that, I meant to emphasise that it was private, and it doesn't relate to technical stuff.

Perhaps that 4th red wine wasn't such a good plan.

Ha ha ...... as you'll read in your PM, vino has the same effect on me  .

For info purposes, I personally didn't see Ignitionnets posting as aggressive or patronising. I have first-hand experience of others misinterpreting the emotion in my posts, and vice-versa. As such I can't, nor want to judge anyone else.

I do however fully appreciate other posters kind words, as everyone will see the situation differently. Cheers everyone.   

[niemand]

That is something which I have asked for clarification on from Openreach, but my question so far remains unanswered.. and that is Upstream on the DSLAM would be the EU downstream?

Missed this, sorry.

In common with everyone else I'm aware of Openreach always refer to upstream and downstream in the context of the CPE. The trials that are being done are around enabling G.inp downstream while placing or keeping upstream on fast path.

Issue previously was that as the ECI modem didn't support upstream retransmission both paths fell back to interleave. This is a DLM and profile programming change rather than anything else if you see what I mean?

[niemand]

Also the vectoring stuff - I should mention that those are the near-term plans.

Of course it could be perfectly possible that Openreach will begin a deployment of vectoring later on once they've carried out the further trials they are planning, alongside having a more complete costing of the components.

[Ragnarok]

All this stuff is in the public domain though. The ECI DSLAMs do not support upstream retransmission, they do support downstream,

That would be in respect to this statement from BT Openreach

"Retransmission can operate in both downstream and upstream channels simultaneously, although ECI equipment (either modems or DSLAMS) doesn’t currently support upstream retransmission"

That is something which I have asked for clarification on from Openreach, but my question so far remains unanswered.. and that is Upstream on the DSLAM would be the EU downstream?

So no idea yet if it's a Lantiq hardware limitation or Firmware/driver issue? So no idea if it's fully fixable by firmware update or not. Seems to be the case with both cab's and modems. Also no idea or if retransmission can be use at all on hardware configs with lantiq devices operating on both ends of a VDSL2 line???

Seems to me to be a Lantiq issue that yet to be sorted ( judging by TP link, Draytek and other hardware providers using Lantiq hardware ) and Openreach have no idea what to say seeing as they have to go through  and rely on their supplier ECI to do the communicating with Lantiq. Bit like us customers have to rely our ISP's to communicate our issue to openreach..

What a bureaucratic mess.

[kitz]

I'm not sure whats happening.  I saw someone suggest it may be a configuration issue with the TP-links rather than a software issue, but if that was the case why would TP_link need to have got Lantiq involved? 

Obviously because of the way g.inp works it will require a lot of additional resources by the modem as it will have to store a lot of additional data for re-tx to be able to work, so there is the possibility that although it can be enabled in the software the modem/router does not have sufficient processing power and/or memory to store the re-tx data.  This is why it will only be Upstream, because its the upstream re-tx data that the modem has to process and store.  This may also be way they state on some modems it may affect the data rate.   

The fact that TP-Link has been able to fix it means that the TD-W9980 has sufficient hardware resources to be able to deal with retransmission data, but we dont know if its lack of resources that mean the ECI cant.   Draytek have a g.inp beta version for the 2860 series, but last I heard they have no plans for a fix for the 2850 series.

Also, for some reason BT also appear to be oblivious (or at least from the above statement)  that on non-g.inp modems it is affecting the upstream and downstream.

[Ragnarok]

Umm, who knows for sure? I just hope OpenReach didn't make a huge mistake using ECI. Between Open Reach, ECI and lantiq I hope they come up with the goods.

[Dray]

From here, it looks like it was a HUGE mistake. I feel they should be replacing all the ECI cabs with Huawei and skipping the ECI modems and HH5A's.

[simoncraddock]

From here, it looks like it was a HUGE mistake. I feel they should be replacing all the ECI cabs with Huawei and skipping the ECI modems and HH5A's.

I doubt that will ever happen. Best scenario surely would be to enable ECI's own take on PHYR on ECI cabs and supply suitable modems for those connected to them.

To replace all the ECI cabs would be a monumental task and cost BT dearly.

[ktz392837]

From here, it looks like it was a HUGE mistake. I feel they should be replacing all the ECI cabs with Huawei and skipping the ECI modems and HH5A's.

I agree - they should also be digging out their contract with the suppliers and telling them it does not meet the specification.

I have ECI cabinet and supplied ECI modem (but using bought HG612 for stats) it is a joke that they have made such a mess out of this and taken so long to make it.

It is even more annoying that they are saying nothing and all the end user gets is rumours and the odd bit of leaked information that can be read both ways.

[simoncraddock]

I agree - they should also be digging out their contract with the suppliers and telling them it does not meet the specification.

The only problem is at the time it probably did meet requirements. BT would have tested the DSLAM equipment rigorously and known it's full capabilities at time of purchase. Standards change over time hence why Broadcom and Infineon both have different PHYR specifications.

It is even more annoying that they are saying nothing and all the end user gets is rumours and the odd bit of leaked information that can be read both ways.

They're supplying you what you ordered, VDSL at either up to 80/20 or 40/20 anything else is out of our control and they are under no obligation to tell the end user of technical issues that don't significantly change the service.