Print

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

[atkinsong]

Never doubted for one minute it would get implemented.

Indeed. Apart from the above post back in early March I notice B.S. has been unusually quiet lately!

[Chrysalis]

seems to look like me never been activated is a blessing in disguise.

[NewtronStar]

Chrysalis I think your line would have enjoyed it without any issues at all, going to call the next ECI G.INP rollout MK4 as MK1/2 was on huawie's MK3 was the first rollout of G.INP to ECI cabinets so G.INP MK4 sounds right 

[Dave2150]

Chrysalis I think your line would have enjoyed it without any issues at all, going to call the next ECI G.INP rollout MK4 as MK1/2 was on huawie's MK3 was the first rollout of G.INP to ECI cabinets so G.INP MK4 sounds right 

I think it's far more likely BT will abandon G.INP on ECI cabinets- it's obviously more hassle for them than it's worth. It can't be cheap trying to diagnose these lingering issues with the vendor, having hundreds of support calls and having to commit the manhours to rollout then remove G.INP.

[stevebrass]

Having spent an entire career applying logical thought in a problem solving role, trying to understand what is going on here has me beaten.

Before G.INP I had almost 4 years of fastpath connection with 70 to 80 error seconds per day. The broadcom based HG612 gave a consistently higher sync than anything Lantiq based, by about 3 Mb or so.

G.INP is rolled out and the HG612 takes a 3Mb hit, whilst Lantiq based kit does the opposite. Still on fastpath, but now zero error seconds. So I switch from having the HG612 in front of the Draytek to using the VDSL connection on the Draytek itself. Net result is more or less same speed but lose the 70 to 80 error secs - so really no difference either way.

Now I see all these reports of people with high error rates losing G.INP that has greatly improved their connection, whilst G.INP remains steadfastly active on my line when really it isn't doing much at all.

Go figure!

Indeed go figure. Given the problems with the roll out last year I fondly thought OR would do better with this. Oh well see what they come up with next.

[MikeZ]

Just been reading this thread with interest. I'm on an ECI cabinet with 206 firmware and using an HG612 - still have G.INP (for the moment).

I'm not particularly looking forward to losing it - it's been very effective on my line. No resyncs since it was applied on the 18th March, increased DS sync, 9ms to my ISP and hardly any ES.

[NewtronStar]

I think it's far more likely BT will abandon G.INP on ECI cabinets- it's obviously more hassle for them than it's worth.

If they have invested time and money into getting G.INP to work on ECI cabinets they won't just pull the plug on this, It looks like a cabinet firmware upgrade is needed across the whole ECI network (DLM) again there must be like hundreds of thousand of VDSL2 modems out there that can't even handle G.INP on the downstream correctly.

So if a VDSL2 modem cannot work with G.INP on the downstream then it needs a fallback scenario be it interleaving and then onto fastpath while compatible modems will get G.INP.

This is just my own theoretically input into whats going own

[skyeci]

Lets hope they fix eci cabinets!!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/05/05/bt-to-plug-6bn-in-superfast-broadband-and-mobile-as-it-unveils-p/

[les-70]

  It is all very disappointing and I feel for any who may be left with interleaving after things has settled down.  I was interleaved for 5-6 days after interleaving was removed. Now back to fastpath after a resync at about 3pm yesterday.    It may be a coincidence put there were two engineers around the CAB at roughly that time.  After 3 days with interleaving the line had a never seen before event with 10 secs of LOM and many SES, this looked more than enough to fix interleaving in place but I am glad to say that it seems to have not have had that effect. 

  The loss of speed is not an issue for me, I don't like interleaving but I can't tell the difference between say 40 and 70 Mb/s except via speed test.  I guess that if I had a sync less than 30 I might not be so insensitive to speed.

[kitz]

Quick favour as I have to go out.   This is so that someone else can perhaps pick up the info.   

IF you previously had G.INP on an ECI cab then it was removed AND you are still what appears to be on open profile, but your line needs Interleaving can you put your stats below.   

I know there was a couple of you early on in the thread which had this problem, but not sure if DLM has now sorted it for you.

Also is there anyone still stuck with Interleaving... who wasn't interleaved before G.INP and whose line doesn't need it.   

[Ronski]

I'd say both my lines are back to normal,  works line was always interleaved, home often used to be interleaved for long periods then fast path for periods.

[broadstairs]

I thought I read in one of these G.INP/ECI threads that the roll-back should be completed by the 4th May. However my line still has G.INP active, been up now 37 days straight, still with high upstream FECs though all day. Probably now I've said that it will be removed today 

Stuart

[Adam86]

Quick favour as I have to go out.   This is so that someone else can perhaps pick up the info.   

IF you previously had G.INP on an ECI cab then it was removed AND you are still what appears to be on open profile, but your line needs Interleaving can you put your stats below.   

I know there was a couple of you early on in the thread which had this problem, but not sure if DLM has now sorted it for you.

Also is there anyone still stuck with Interleaving... who wasn't interleaved before G.INP and whose line doesn't need it.

I have a HG612 and an ECI Cabinet, G.INP was removed a couple of days ago.  Interleaving now applied on my line and don't need it.  Think only ever been interleaved about 18 months ago before as had some power issues in the area.

[atkinsong]

G.INP removed yesterday, interleaving applied for the first time ever.

Attainable 52464 Actual 46353. Loss of over 6Mb compared to pre-G.INP

[rd350ypvs1972]

last week g.inp was turned off, went from 73999 back down to 69540, no errors at all and it was rapid