Kitz Forum
Broadband Related => Telephony Wiring + Equipment => Topic started by: Frogparty on May 18, 2015, 06:57:35 PM
-
The voice on my BT landline is too quiet (my hearing is fine) and callers complain that I am faint. It has been that way for over a year since the line was installed, regardless what handset I use. Had OR engineers out a couple of times and the line is "within parameters if a little on the low side", but I am fed up of having to jamb the receiver against my ear, asking people to repeat themselves, and having to shout.
I am in a rural loaction in Cornwall, over a mile from the cabinet (FTTC delivers 8Mbps internet perhaps indicative of line distance and quality). The cabinet is even further from the exchange. The line sounds clear enough, no rattles or hums, but the voices are very quiet. Unplugging BB makes no difference. Master socket (NTE5) test point is same as any others. Tried different handsets.
Raised this issue at the Bt community
https://community.bt.com/t5/Phones/Faint-Phone-land-line-too-quiet-to-hear-voices/td-p/1484049
(https://community.bt.com/t5/Phones/Faint-Phone-land-line-too-quiet-to-hear-voices/td-p/1484049) where someone suggested I need them to increase the line gain at the exchange. That sounds reasonable, but still waiting for BT moderator to get back to me, been days. Meanwhile I had a futile conversation with India, they could send an engineer again (and risk £129) but not do anything about line gain at the exchange.
Does line gain sound the way to go? More importantly how do I get BT to try it?
-
I would be surprised if BT could raise your speech level at the exchange. But, if they can't, you could always run a V.O.I.P. phone line over your internet connection. You might even save money on call charges. I myself use SIPGATE, as my internet phone provider, and their line rental charge is nil, phone number is free, and their call charges are just over one pence per minute on normal dialed numbers. I have plugged a normal phone into a GRANDSTREAM ATA box. In this way I don't need a computer turned on to make or receive calls. Details on the Sipgate site........
-
Hello Frogparty and welcome to the Kitz forum.
Will you confirm a few points, please?
- The circuit was a new provision to a newly built property?
- You have an active broadband service: Is it legacy xDSL from the exchange? Or is it a VDSL2 (FTTC) service?
- Who is the provider of your telephony service?
- Who is the provider of your broadband service?
It does appear to be an obscure fault but, as it is a fault with a telephony service, Openreach are obliged to rectify it under the universal service commitment.
I am uncertain about the possibility of adjusting the circuit's gain via configuration of the exchange equipment and hope that Black Sheep will be able to give some advice regarding that possibility. :-\
-
Gain can indeed be increased remotely on the PSTN service, (Used to be the domain of our OMC duty, but who knows these days ?). If memory serves there are settings 1 to 4 ........ I'm not sure which is low gain/high gain and vice-versa. I'm pretty sure this may fall under BT Operates jurisdiction ???
Of course, I can only pass comment on BT PSTN equipment as I'm not sure how the OLO's equipment works ?.
The kind of fault you describe, is what would generally fall under our 'One-way transmission' category. 99% of the time this will either be the EU's equipment, or the PSTN Exchange port itself. :)
-
Thanks all for your contributions.
- The circuit was a new provision to a newly built property?
- You have an active broadband service: Is it legacy xDSL from the exchange? Or is it a VDSL2 (FTTC) service?
- Who is the provider of your telephony service?
- Who is the provider of your broadband service?
It does appear to be an obscure fault but, as it is a fault with a telephony service, Openreach are obliged to rectify it under the universal service commitment.
1) Yes new property, built on a site that once had a phone but had OR planner out. Historic line went to a pole just outside the boundary. We laid line underground to house from pole, when activation day came OR replaced some of the overhead line on route to cabinet to get things working.
2) Yes active BB. VDSL2 since April (not "BT Infinity" as couldn't promise 20Mbps but FTTC).
3) BT phone
4) BT broadband.
Yes obscure. Driving me nuts. Mobile is so much clearer, had not thought of VOIP but would like land line to function if possible.
Gain can indeed be increased remotely on the PSTN service, (Used to be the domain of our OMC duty, but who knows these days ?). If memory serves there are settings 1 to 4 ........ I'm not sure which is low gain/high gain and vice-versa. I'm pretty sure this may fall under BT Operates jurisdiction ???
Not sure I understand what you are saying, but can I try this on BT? Just how do I contact the bit of BT or BTOR that might understand?
Left wondering if the faint phone is down to a line issue in addition to distance. That would also deminish my BB, currently getting 38Db attenuation and 8Mbps, is that reasonable for my distance from the cabinet? They predicted 15Mbps (from 1.5Mbps ADSL2), and yet I am half that.
-
What I was trying to convey is that if your landline (PSTN) is a BT circuit, then gain can be tweaked. I don't know if this can be done on other circuits such as SKY, AOL etc etc ???
I would suggest that this should be attempted before any suspected 'Line-fault' is raised (For possible charges etc).
PSTN circuits are usually ok up to approx. 13/14Km ............. dependant on cable make-up and poundage. Forget the Cab, as your dial-tone comes from the Exchange as is just muddying the waters so to speak. How far do you think you are from your Exchange ??
-
What I was trying to convey is that if your landline (PSTN) is a BT circuit, then gain can be tweaked. I don't know if this can be done on other circuits such as SKY, AOL etc etc ???
I would suggest that this should be attempted before any suspected 'Line-fault' is raised (For possible charges etc).
Thanks for clarifying. Landline and service is all BT, but how do I actually get them to tweek the line gain? Seems that all I can report is "line faults", and I know that the line is "within parameters" so not considered faulty. Where can I call and speak quietly?
PSTN circuits are usually ok up to approx. 13/14Km ............. dependant on cable make-up and poundage. Forget the Cab, as your dial-tone comes from the Exchange as is just muddying the waters so to speak. How far do you think you are from your Exchange ??
As the crow flies the Mullion exchange is 4km away, but I know that the line route is very indirect. I have tried to follow the line overground along the road and across fields etc. to get a more acurate distance but lose it because it is underground in places. The PCP cab is about half way, over 2 miles away by road but line does not follow road all the way. Wish that OR would publish their infrastructure! Any way I can get them to tell me the route or distance?
My nearest neighbour is 500m away. When our line was activated they replaced som of the old line that hung along the road between properties to get it working, it had not been used for over 15 years. I suspect that they did as much as needed to get the signal within parameters and no more. Very possible that other sections of line or junctions are degraded but still functioning, but they are not going to look while it is within parameters unless I can make a case for it. So line gain seems my only hope at the moment.
-
You can dial 151 (or 0800 800 151 from a different line) or go here: https://www.bt.com/consumerFaultTracking/public/faults/tracking.do?pageId=2&s_cid=con_FURL_faults&utm_source=ATL&utm_medium=FURL&utm_content=R&utm_campaign=faults
-
You can dial 151 (or 0800 800 151 from a different line) or go here: https://www.bt.com/consumerFaultTracking/public/faults/tracking.do?pageId=2&s_cid=con_FURL_faults&utm_source=ATL&utm_medium=FURL&utm_content=R&utm_campaign=faults
If only it was that easy. I have tried and I can only report a "line fault", and the engineer comes to my propety, slaps a meter on and says "within parameters if a little low". They do not try to use the phone, they do not know about line gain or other things set at the exchange, they just measure the line say good enough and go away.
Who can I talk to about line gain? It may not help, it may be maxed out already, but I just want to have an intelligent conversation with someone that can at least try it.
-
Who can I talk to about line gain? It may not help, it may be maxed out already, but I just want to have an intelligent conversation with someone that can at least try it.
Well it took nearly a week but my post in the BT Community forum resulted in a call from someone to say that they had raised the line gain!!! Things are less faint, but unfortunately the improvement is not as dramatic as I had hoped, depending on caller it is still not always that great. There are also more noticeable cracks and pops on the line, which I was warned could happen, but they are not intrusive. I guess that we have done what we can with gain.
However I now have a BT mod on the case, and given my disappointment with the phone line and the lower performance of BB than predicted, he is sending an engineer to look at the line again. Although signal gets through, I suspect that the condition of the line is far from optimum and both phone and BB performance is consequently deminished. If nothing else I will try and get a map of the line route and cab locations from him. If I know actual line distance it could show that the attenuation is disproportionate. This end things are fine, but what about further along the line?
-
Just keep whinging about the poor audio quality and wait for the magic to happen :)
-
Just keep whinging about the poor audio quality and wait for the magic to happen :)
Well I will try. I suspect the issue is down to legacy Aluminium line deteriorating, and as I have read elsewhere BTOR are not replacing it with Cu unless it actually breaks or gives readings outside generous parameters. Boo hoo! :sob:
-
We accept all sorts of excuses for poor quality broadband. Half of the time it's sheer ineptitude and not down to any technical limitation. We still accept them. Nobody's perfect!
Should we accept a bunch of excuses for PSTN voice too? Arguably, the simplest product to ever grace the telecommunications product catalogue? :P
Should we don the technicolour dreamcoat of excuses because Goliath deems our section of copper commercially worthless? :P
'Get it fixed ASAP' would be my 'naive' and unrelenting attitude in this case but then my attitude often gets me into trouble! :)
Best of luck!
-
Ha ha, bit overly-dramatic Boost. :)
The problem with this type of fault is, and always is, whether to report it as a PSTN (Phone) fault or a DSL (Broadband fault) ?? Both products have set-in-stone test processes that have been agreed with ALL parties. when BT was separated and Openreach formed.
Aluminium in the circuit ?? To use a technical term ..... tough tators ..... we know it's not ideal for DSL transmission but when it was lain decades ago and high frequency DSL was a pipe dream, it was fit-for-purpose. DSL is a 'best-efforts' product as a result of this legacy cable.
With the advent of G.FAST, no business worth its salt is going to invest heavily in the legacy network. BT are however fully committed to reducing high-fault nodes and have upped their budget for the FVR (Fault Volume Reduction) teams to continue with their good work.
I've seen this kind of issue Frogparty is experiencing many, many times. No matter what tests, or stresses you put on the circuit ...... if they all pass and the fault condition isn't there to 'see', what would you have us do ?? That's why the term 'Intermittency' is used quite a lot in telecoms faulting.
To put the readerships minds at rest, engineers get monitored to death on their 'Stats' ......... two of which are 'Early Life Failures' (For provisioning faults within 28 days of going 'Live'), and 'Repeat Reports' (For repair faults reported within 28 days of last engineering visit).
No-one wants an ELF or RR, not the engineer ..... not his/her Operations Manager ...... not their Senior Operations Manager ...... and certainly not the EU. But, the hierarchy do understand that there will be times were instances like Frogparty's will occur, and certain percentages are allowed.
Lets not get into another 'Engineers are inept' session ....... or, 'BTOR don't care' ................ until you actually witness what really happens it's just another whinge with no substance. ;) :) :)
-
Black Sheep! You're right but I can't seem to help myself sometimes! lol :D
I realise I am sometimes often outspoken and I am truly sorry if anyone gets caught in one of my holier-than-thou moments!
Without the experience you freely share on here, most of us would be up p00 creek without a paddle! Sorry for being a pain, BS, because you are truly a gent :cool:
My inept comment was directed, generally, at system designers, who build to a budget and a template, without expending any real effort and without any real thought for the BAU guys who get handed a turd on a plate. Field engineers, for example. It was definitely not a slight towards BTOR field techs but my apologies for not making that clear. You may refer to me henceforth as Captain Poutfacer! :)
I imagine people must try and pull the wool a bit to eek every last drop out of their, in some cases, more than adequately performing broadband lines. I imagine this is a PITA for BTOR and I sympathise. The expectations of some are wholly unrealistic, IMHO.
I do worry, sometimes, that advice for an individual issue becomes gospel for all. No doubt I am guilty of this too. It would be a shame if people felt they weren't able to progress their genuine voice issues because of their perception from a single thread they happened upon?
Complacency is rife in most industries and IT is no different. It costs us all dearly. When I come across something with even a hint of complacency, rightly or wrongly, I try and stamp it out. In this instance, I imagined some dood with a crap p00 line that nobody gives a toss about. I also read it to be a permanent issue but my thread scanning skills may need recalibrating! :)
Anyway, sorry for getting all preachy. Again!!
:)
-
Woa, my friend ........... I really wasn't angling for an apology, you have an opinion and a damned right to voice it ...... where I tend to leap in is when I see what I would term 'sweeping statements', and feel somewhat obliged to get my soap-box out to add balance to the debate.
We've exchanged enough times on Kitz for me to know you're not Captain Poutfacer, you are a helpful soul that just needs a cuddle from time-to-time, like we all do. ;) ;D ;D ;D
PS ..... that is definitely not in the engineers remit. :)
-
The problem with this type of fault is, and always is, whether to report it as a PSTN (Phone) fault or a DSL (Broadband fault) ?? Both products have set-in-stone test processes that have been agreed with ALL parties. when BT was separated and Openreach formed.
Well I'm with BT for both phone and BB so hoping this simplifies things. Can the OR tech not apply both test processes? Due to rural location both phone and BB travel down a significant amount of the same Al/Cu line, so if the line quality is poor both suffer.
Aluminium in the circuit ?? To use a technical term ..... tough tators ..... we know it's not ideal for DSL transmission but when it was lain decades ago and high frequency DSL was a pipe dream, it was fit-for-purpose. DSL is a 'best-efforts' product as a result of this legacy cable.
With the advent of G.FAST, no business worth its salt is going to invest heavily in the legacy network.
I can see that, but G.FAST is for 500m or less while I am 4km from the exchange as the crow flies, over 1km to cab. Not going to get G.FAST. Sadly it seems that I am unlikely to get Cu either unless the wind takes out the line or someone sticks a digger through it!
BT are however fully committed to reducing high-fault nodes and have upped their budget for the FVR (Fault Volume Reduction) teams to continue with their good work.
Sadly being rural means that there are not enough of us on the line for it to be considered "high-fault", no criticism of the work of the linesmen.
I've seen this kind of issue Frogparty is experiencing many, many times. No matter what tests, or stresses you put on the circuit ...... if they all pass and the fault condition isn't there to 'see', what would you have us do ?? That's why the term 'Intermittency' is used quite a lot in telecoms faulting.
Not sure my issue is intermittent as borderline. I would have BTOR apply less generous parameters for when line quality is "good enough". Then the engineers could work along the route until they find the weakness (joint, Alu line whatever) and fix it. Boarderline test results mean that the engineer has to report "no further action required", while in practice the phone is faint and the BB slow for the distance (I think, but what to be able to confirm that). Not the engineers fault at all, just the criteria he is told to apply.
Lets not get into another 'Engineers are inept' session ....... or, 'BTOR don't care' ................ until you actually witness what really happens it's just another whinge with no substance. ;) :) :)
No bashing here! I am hopeful for an excellent tech with some spare time on his schedule to track down what is contributing to the poor line quality. I fear the criteria he works with will not allow him/her to do this, and that BT do not think my bit of line commerically worth the attention I would like. Lets see what happens.
-
The problem with this type of fault is, and always is, whether to report it as a PSTN (Phone) fault or a DSL (Broadband fault) ?? Both products have set-in-stone test processes that have been agreed with ALL parties. when BT was separated and Openreach formed.
Well I'm with BT for both phone and BB so hoping this simplifies things. Can the OR tech not apply both test processes? Due to rural location both phone and BB travel down a significant amount of the same Al/Cu line, so if the line quality is poor both suffer.
Aluminium in the circuit ?? To use a technical term ..... tough tators ..... we know it's not ideal for DSL transmission but when it was lain decades ago and high frequency DSL was a pipe dream, it was fit-for-purpose. DSL is a 'best-efforts' product as a result of this legacy cable.
With the advent of G.FAST, no business worth its salt is going to invest heavily in the legacy network.
I can see that, but G.FAST is for 500m or less while I am 4km from the exchange as the crow flies, over 1km to cab. Not going to get G.FAST. Sadly it seems that I am unlikely to get Cu either unless the wind takes out the line or someone sticks a digger through it!
BT are however fully committed to reducing high-fault nodes and have upped their budget for the FVR (Fault Volume Reduction) teams to continue with their good work.
Sadly being rural means that there are not enough of us on the line for it to be considered "high-fault", no criticism of the work of the linesmen.
I've seen this kind of issue Frogparty is experiencing many, many times. No matter what tests, or stresses you put on the circuit ...... if they all pass and the fault condition isn't there to 'see', what would you have us do ?? That's why the term 'Intermittency' is used quite a lot in telecoms faulting.
Not sure my issue is intermittent as borderline. I would have BTOR apply less generous parameters for when line quality is "good enough". Then the engineers could work along the route until they find the weakness (joint, Alu line whatever) and fix it. Boarderline test results mean that the engineer has to report "no further action required", while in practice the phone is faint and the BB slow for the distance (I think, but what to be able to confirm that). Not the engineers fault at all, just the criteria he is told to apply.
Lets not get into another 'Engineers are inept' session ....... or, 'BTOR don't care' ................ until you actually witness what really happens it's just another whinge with no substance. ;) :) :)
No bashing here! I am hopeful for an excellent tech with some spare time on his schedule to track down what is contributing to the poor line quality. I fear the criteria he works with will not allow him/her to do this, and that BT do not think my bit of line commerically worth the attention I would like. Lets see what happens.
1) Alas, there are many different skill-sets within OR engineering (A large debate in itself), it hinges on which way the fault is progressed. I'm not knocking the engineers, but personally I think the broadband-skilled lads and lasses can fault to a higher level as a whole.
2) With G.FAST, it will be the distance to the DP that will be the deciding factor, not distance to Cab or Exchange. Basically, OR will be running fibre cable to the DP. this is still in its infancy and not everyone will get it.
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2015/01/bt-confirm-uk-rollout-1000mbps-g-fast-ultrafast-broadband-2020.html
3) High-fault nodes are not determined by EU connections, but by actual fault-churn. Most DP's only have approx. 20 or less EU's connected to them.
4) That's why I think a Broadband engineer will be best suited to visit your premises. A PSTN (Phone only) engineer would not be expected to look for error-counts, initialisations, SNR swings, attenuation swings etc etc .............. all of which the broadband engineer would have access to, via our WHOOSH systems.
If you have a typical 'HR' (High resistance fault) which appears to being alluded to, then by having the phone 'Off-hook' (As if you are making a call) whilst monitoring the CRC/FEC, the count will start rising steadily. As is always the case, it really depends on the severity of the HR ??
5) The bashing comment wasn't aimed at you in any way, Mr Frog ;D. I too hope you get a broadband engineer and that the fault is intense enough to get a measure on it ? We don't get 'Spare time' on any task I'm afraid ...... all task-times are derived from looking at historic task-times from engineers nationwide.
Hope you get a result sooner rather than later, but please keep the faith (To quote a popular Northern Soul saying). :)
-
PS ..... that is definitely not in the engineers remit. :)
I think we *all* know this is what the TRC box is for :P
-
:lol: :lol: ha ha …… services rendered.
-
3) High-fault nodes are not determined by EU connections, but by actual fault-churn. Most DP's only have approx. 20 or less EU's connected to them.
So although there are few of us, if we complain lots (with valid complaints of course) then something might happen. I'll ralley the locals!!
4) That's why I think a Broadband engineer will be best suited to visit your premises. A PSTN (Phone only) engineer would not be expected to look for error-counts, initialisations, SNR swings, attenuation swings etc etc .............. all of which the broadband engineer would have access to, via our WHOOSH systems.
If you have a typical 'HR' (High resistance fault) which appears to being alluded to, then by having the phone 'Off-hook' (As if you are making a call) whilst monitoring the CRC/FEC, the count will start rising steadily. As is always the case, it really depends on the severity of the HR ??
Here's hoping for someone from the BB team then.
We don't get 'Spare time' on any task I'm afraid ...... all task-times are derived from looking at historic task-times from engineers nationwide.
Well some engineers do get spare time. The chap that did the initial install (connected internal wires to NTE5) was from up country, parachuted in for a few weeks to ease the backlog after lots of storm damage, asked for directions to the best local beach to spend his spare hours between jobs. I don't begrudge him, our job was done and I'm sure he had been caught other times with overrunning tasks. I just hope the next chap has time to do the best job rather than feeling chased.
Hope you get a result sooner rather than later, but please keep the faith (To quote a popular Northern Soul saying). :)
I take it as confirmation that I am being reasonable to request this investigated rather than just put up with it. I know I am not a commercial priority for BT, I am glad I have phone and BB at all, but I would like it to be as good as it can get within the distance limitations.
-
3) High-fault nodes are not determined by EU connections, but by actual fault-churn. Most DP's only have approx. 20 or less EU's connected to them.
So although there are few of us, if we complain lots (with valid complaints of course) then something might happen. I'll ralley the locals!!
4) That's why I think a Broadband engineer will be best suited to visit your premises. A PSTN (Phone only) engineer would not be expected to look for error-counts, initialisations, SNR swings, attenuation swings etc etc .............. all of which the broadband engineer would have access to, via our WHOOSH systems.
If you have a typical 'HR' (High resistance fault) which appears to being alluded to, then by having the phone 'Off-hook' (As if you are making a call) whilst monitoring the CRC/FEC, the count will start rising steadily. As is always the case, it really depends on the severity of the HR ??
Here's hoping for someone from the BB team then.
We don't get 'Spare time' on any task I'm afraid ...... all task-times are derived from looking at historic task-times from engineers nationwide.
Well some engineers do get spare time. The chap that did the initial install (connected internal wires to NTE5) was from up country, parachuted in for a few weeks to ease the backlog after lots of storm damage, asked for directions to the best local beach to spend his spare hours between jobs. I don't begrudge him, our job was done and I'm sure he had been caught other times with overrunning tasks. I just hope the next chap has time to do the best job rather than feeling chased.
Hope you get a result sooner rather than later, but please keep the faith (To quote a popular Northern Soul saying). :)
I take it as confirmation that I am being reasonable to request this investigated rather than just put up with it. I know I am not a commercial priority for BT, I am glad I have phone and BB at all, but I would like it to be as good as it can get within the distance limitations.
1) They would absolutely have to be valid. You know yourself that TRC (Charges) are mentioned every time you ring.
2) Yup ..... with you on that.
3) No, they don't get 'Spare time' ........ they get what's left of their 'Task time'. Your original comment stated that you hoped the engineer has enough spare time to look at your fault in depth. This is the point I'm labouring to make, he/she will have a certain amount of task-time. If the fault has been identified, and it will run-over the task-time allotted ................... we will generally carry on fault-finding until resolution.
4) Only you can answer that question, based on what you know/suspect to be happening to your circuit. Yours does indeed sound like there's an underlying fault, but there are others out there who will ring if their SNR swings by 0.008 dB, or they may have had an outage for 4/5mins. These are the ones likely to be the recipient of a bill. :)
-
Well the OR engineer has been, spent his full task time with me, a BB tech helpfull and interested as can be. But the bottom line is that the line tests out OK so nothing for him to fix. :(
Not a total surprize. He did observe that voice was faint on the phone (he did actually listen to it!) but said it was not a problem he had experienced before. Nor did he know about setting line gain (not something that he could do), but doubted even more gain would help. He did phone an experienced mate that said he had only met faintness very rarely, and that it was on a distant line. Well yes rare problem and we are a long way from the exchange.... Sadly no solution offered, it is just how it is. Faint phone is not a measured criteria, they have no procedure to follow for it.
Did get some more information. The phone line comes 6.8km from the exchange. I think he said that it is direct, there is no PCP only a FTTC cabinet, but I may have misunderstod. Is that a possible configuration? If it is how does the fibre connect to the d-side cable, only one line comes to my house?
Is 6.8km a long run for a phone signal? It would seem so.
As for my 8Mbps BB (excuse the wrong forum), well we are ~3km from the FTTC so should not expect more. The predicted figure of 15Mbps is at the DP, and we are over 1km [edit] of overhead line from there. Oh well, healthy line after all just darn remote.
-
I'm confused. It doesn't take much, I admit :D
My understanding is (was?) that the PQT is the baseline assessment for a broadband line. It's a set of parameters that can be used to gauge quality because there's a billion modems on the market and about 10 DSLAMs, etc etc etc.
Is the PQT also used for voice faults? If so, why? Who cares if it passes if your line is demonstrably faint?
PQT is the numpty test to avoid having to explain how broadband works to end users. I don't see where this fits for a PSTN audio fault? :)
-
If the engineer was there for BB, then he would NOT work on the 'Voice' side of the issue. Reason being, the circuit could have been a SMPF (Shared circuit).
For example, the EU may have BB from SKY ......... but 'Voice' from BT. If SKY have paid OR for an engineer to look at the circuit in regards to BB, they would be a little bit miffed to read the engineer spent most of his time correcting BT's side of the fence.
This is why I mentioned the difficulty in which way to report the fault ?.
I think you must have misunderstood the Cab/FTTC conversation, unless there's something out there I don't know about ??
In fact, I think there's more confusion in this saga ...................... for a start, 6.8Km is nothing is 'Voice transmission' terms. So lets leave that one there to avoid muddying the waters.
But your BB speeds don't add up ?? You say you are 3Km from the Cab, the DP is 1Km from the Cab, which leaves the 2Km from the DP to your premises.
If you are on the basic 40Meg package ...... then you are losing 25Meg from the FTTC Cab to the DP (1Km in length) ..... but only losing another 7Meg from DP to premises (Over 2Km in length) ....... as the predicted is 15Meg at the DP ??
If you're on the 80Meg product, the figures are even stranger ??
May I ask, what is the real gripe you are getting at, the bit you want fixed ?? I'm assuming it's the 'Faint transmission' bit on the 'Voice' side of the circuit ??
If so, you have had a PQT performed as part of the BB engineers visit. This tests the circuit at 100Khz, a far greater frequency than the 1.6Khz we test 'Voice' services at. In layman's terms, the higher the frequency pushed down the wires, the more susceptible to 'background issues' they become. If the PQT test of your pair of wires passed at 100Khz, then 1.6Khz should be no problem going down the very same wires ??
You are with BT, so we know you can have your line 'Gain' tweaked, and this has been done. For a 6.8Km 'Voice' circuit, it shouldn't need doing anyway as Sys X and AXE10 (Voice delivery platforms) both have AGC (Auto Gain Control). But, the next logical step would be to request a 'Voice' engineer, or an 'Exchange Engineer' to perform an Exchange Equipment swop ??
Whether they will entertain you, or quote the necessary charges and let you make the decision, I wouldn't even try to 2nd guess ??
-
PS .............. I know you are with BT for both services ........... the opening point in the post above is a generalisation but also applies to your circuit. :)
-
In talking to the BT Community mod that is taking my case I reported faults with both BB and voice on my one line, bit disappionted if one engineer visit did not cover both. Also the chap today didn't so "oh a voice issue have to come again, send different man etc."
Is there a test for voice faintness that someone could do and then process? Would help to know what to ask for, otherwise I will just get more of the same (and pay as a time waster).
I think you must have misunderstood the Cab/FTTC conversation, unless there's something out there I don't know about ??
Misunderstanding on my part is possible, but I have been digging. There is such a thing historically as a direct connection to the exchange, and the previous engineer also seemed not to understand my question about 2 "street" cabinets. The database describes the FTTC as ECI (cab 81), and I have only seen 1 box at the location, I would like to understand too.
In fact, I think there's more confusion in this saga ...................... for a start, 6.8Km is nothing is 'Voice transmission' terms.
Really? Engineer that gave me that distance from his tests seemed to think it was a long way. It makes sense on the map, guessing where the underground route goes.
So lets leave that one there to avoid muddying the waters.
But I think line distance is quite key to this.
But your BB speeds don't add up ?? You say you are 3Km from the Cab, the DP is 1Km from the Cab, which leaves the 2Km from the DP to your premises....
Sorry I got my distances and DP location mixed. Looking at the FTTC distance to speed table here http://www.increasebroadbandspeed.co.uk/2013/chart-bt-fttc-vdsl2-speed-against-distance (http://www.increasebroadbandspeed.co.uk/2013/chart-bt-fttc-vdsl2-speed-against-distance) 3km relates to 8.7Mbps which is around what I get, 2.1km does 15.5Mbps and fits the location of the DP. It all makes sense now I know that they quote DP figures as the expected speeds without allowing for the distance from there, this case it is approx another 1.3km but not easy to measure.
May I ask, what is the real gripe you are getting at, the bit you want fixed ?? I'm assuming it's the 'Faint transmission' bit on the 'Voice' side of the circuit ??
Yes, reassured that my BB speed relates to the distance to FTTC, my issue is an audio fault. I would like the voice transmission both ways to be louder.
If the PQT test of your pair of wires passed at 100Khz, then 1.6Khz should be no problem going down the very same wires ??
Is that true? I have no idea, just a faint phone no matter what handset, test socket, etc. and extra line gain has not helped much.
You are with BT, so we know you can have your line 'Gain' tweaked, and this has been done. For a 6.8Km 'Voice' circuit, it shouldn't need doing anyway as Sys X and AXE10 (Voice delivery platforms) both have AGC (Auto Gain Control). But, the next logical step would be to request a 'Voice' engineer, or an 'Exchange Engineer' to perform an Exchange Equipment swop ??
Whether they will entertain you, or quote the necessary charges and let you make the decision, I wouldn't even try to 2nd guess ??
Well the BT Community guy is back to me next week, so we will see what he says.
Not holding much hope, and looking at VOIP options.
-
Right, firstly I'm going to have to ask that you forget what other engineers have said. I wasn't there, and so don't know what context it was said in, or whether you have inadvertently got what was said wrong.
Not a pop at you, but if I'm to give advice, I have to as if I am approaching the task myself for the first time, without any other input from 3rd parties.
Then, you can take what you want from it, and make an informed decision as to how to progress ?.
To clear up the FTTC confusion first. Generally, there will be two Cabs where FTTC service is provided ..... the original where all the wires from various DP's meet the wires from the Exchange ..... and a newer secondary one that houses the Fibre BB equipment. They are supposed to be within 50mtrs of one another, but can be more if required to, so have a look around. Failing that, you may belong to an extremely rare beast known as a 'Combined Cab' the clue's in the wording.
To put the distance issue to bed once and for all. You are on a long-line but only where Copper Broadband (ADSL) is concerned. ADSL sees the broadband equipment housed at the actual Telephone Exchange, so 6.8Km is a long way to travel for the frequencies this type of circuit utilises ....................... but, it is NOT a long way for the far, far lesser telephony (Voice) frequency.
As an aside, I've calculated that your circuit equates to roughly 11.7dB attenuation at 1.6khz (Voice), that said, I have no idea of your circuit make-up in relation to type and size of cable ?. Automatic 'Gain' on the telephony equipment only generally works up to approx. 10dB, so you will have been put onto one of the manual gain settings, of which your circuit would fall into the lowest of these settings. I can only assume that the OMC (Operations Maintenance Centre) may have tweaked the gain up to one of the other manual settings, designed for much longer lines ...... but to no avail ??
So, all-in-all you are simply stuck at present with a (To use your own deduction) ...... 'Both-ways faint transmission circuit'. No need to mention broadband, or long line etc, to the call-centre advisor or the visiting engineer. As I say, it only serves to throw spanners into the works.
If, as we assume, the pair-of-wires from the Exchange to your house test perfect (via the PQT) ....... then to my mind it can only be something 'Plugged in' at either end .......... ie: The phone or the actual Exchange telephony equipment ?? You say you have ruled out the phone ........ so ......... ;) :)
-
OK, back to deductive reasoning and the facts!
Problem: Audio transmission is faint in both directions.
- Different handsets tried and make it worse if any change at all.
- Still faint using test socket, disconnecting BB etc.
- Line gain increased at exchange to 3, only small volume improvement and more noise.
- Line passses PQT test.
Additionally:- Current VDSL speed relates to the distance from the FTTC suggests d-side line is fine.
- ADSL (not sure what version) speed before fibre was ~1Mbps which seems good for the 6.8km line distance to exchange suggesting that the e-side line is OK too.
This supports the PQT result.
So what is left as the source of the problem? As 6.8km is not a long way for telephony signals, and therefore I have every reason to expect a normal volume, it would seem that something at the exchange is the issue.
Elementary my dear Blacksheep......... :)
Could the line be fine at high frequencies but have a problem at voice level? Seems counter-intutive, but just wondering, or would 1.6khz have been tested as part of PQT?
It seems if I am to have any hope of progressing this and getting an investigation of exchange equipment, then I need to be able to measure the faintness I am experiencing. Is there any way I can do this? It is all too subjective at the moment, perhaps I am suffering situational deafness!!! Perhaps the 5 different makes of handsets I have tried have all been duff?
There is a "quiet line" test, but is there an audio volume test? Something I can try on installations elsewhere and compare to results here, or some sort of meter I can buy.
-
No need to mention broadband, or long line etc, to the call-centre advisor or the visiting engineer.
This seems apt:
(https://forum.kitz.co.uk/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcf.chucklesnetwork.com%2Fitems%2F3%2F7%2F3%2F2%2F6%2Foriginal%2Fi-dont-always-voice-my-opinion-but-when-i-do-im-right.jpg&hash=363518498d34a938e208ef26656c35c742b4919f)
4/5ths of progressing anything with a carrier is filtering. Don't allow yourself to be incorrectly filtered, if at all possible :)
-
I think you have more or less pointed at what is the probable issue, Frog ...... (the Exchange equipment) via your astute deductions. ;) :) Of course, nothing is ever guaranteed ..... one can only use the info provided and experience, to try and give a ball-park solution. :)
The higher-frequency circuits (ADSL, VDSL, Private Wires, ISDN30 etc), tend to use the outer circumference of the wire, sometimes termed 'Skin-effect'. Whereby the phone will transmitting nearer the centre of the wire. So if you can imagine, any kind of physical fault on the wiring (such as corrosion) will obviously occur on the outer circumference first, thus affecting 'BB' services before 'Voice' services.
So, it is highly-unlikely to have a network fault on the wires, that only affects 'Voice' ..... and not 'BB'.
Regarding the question about "checking at 1.6Khz during the PQT" ?? Yes it does, it's actually one of the first checks carried out, after first checking for high voltage on the line.
It is portrayed on the hand-held testers that we use when performing a PQT as 'Insertion Loss'. An average loss when testing from the master socket towards the Main Frame in the Exchange (MDF) is 2dB per km of pair length @ 1.6kHz. The engineer won't need to do any calculations as it is all done for him and like all the other tests performed within the PQT ...... will present itself as a pass or a fail.
The only other thing we are skirting around, but which you have touched upon in your last post, is the fact that everyone's hearing is at differing levels. One man's 'Quiet line' is another man's 'Normal line'. Of course, I'm not suggesting you are 'Mutton' ........ :P ;D
-
No need to mention broadband, or long line etc, to the call-centre advisor or the visiting engineer.
This seems apt:
(https://forum.kitz.co.uk/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcf.chucklesnetwork.com%2Fitems%2F3%2F7%2F3%2F2%2F6%2Foriginal%2Fi-dont-always-voice-my-opinion-but-when-i-do-im-right.jpg&hash=363518498d34a938e208ef26656c35c742b4919f)
4/5ths of progressing anything with a carrier is filtering. Don't allow yourself to be incorrectly filtered, if at all possible :)
Exactly the point I'm trying to make, not just for Frog but anyone reading in interest ?? Well played, Boost. :)
-
Thank you, Sir! :D
-
4/5ths of progressing anything with a carrier is filtering. Don't allow yourself to be incorrectly filtered, if at all possible :)
Not sure how to stop it. I pressume that unless I can provide some measurements, or have something that BTOR can measure, I am going to be put in the "going deaf but in denial" or "time wasting" category. :(
The only other thing we are skirting around, but which you have touched upon in your last post, is the fact that everyone's hearing is at differing levels. One man's 'Quiet line' is another man's 'Normal line'. Of course, I'm not suggesting you are 'Mutton' ........ :P ;D
What highlights the issue is that for several days a month I am in a different location. Same handset (yes I have carried them with me) but audible conversations, when I call friends they know where I am because of the faint audio or lack of it. Without this regular contrasting experience to compare with I could begin to think I was mutton!
But I need a measurement. Not in a rush to spring for an expensive decibel meter, but might try with an app on my Nexus 10 - a simple comparison with output from same handset here and elsewhere. Hope it is sensitive to pick up the output from the handset. Any other suggestion?
-
Not me personally, I'm afraid. 'Faint Transmission' on 'Voice' does exist ……. granted not a lot ….. but it does happen. I would be pressing your CP to request a LIC/EN change. It depends on which type of digital system your 'Voice' is fed over as to whether it's a LIC (AXE10/System Y) …. or EN (System X) ??.
I understand your predicament, but you shouldn't have to be purchasing audio-level meters to have a simple fault repaired, in my humble opinion !!
-
[somewhat off topic]
If only something like an Oscar (http://forum.kitz.co.uk/index.php/topic,13306.0.html) (or a similar Oscillator/LMS pair) could be deployed at the MDF and another at the NTE5/A . . . :-\
[/somewhat off topic]
With regards to the DP and cabinets, perhaps you could take pictures of all the relevant "gubbins" and arrange for the images to be viewable? I'm thinking down the route that there may be something non-standard (or perhaps less of the everyday set-up) and by viewing the images one of us may have a sudden "light bulb switched on" moment. :)
-
I've had another OR engineer site visit, this time a PSTN guy (rather than BB). I expalined our deductions that the faint transmission was possibly an exchange related fault. He repeated the PQT and, just as before, my line was within parameters. In frustration I phoned a friend and got the engineer to have a chat - yes it was initially OK if a little faint but it got fainter as they talked. So yes, he could see there was problem!! But could he find the cause and fix it?
How does OR go about finding the cause of an issue the test equipment does not register? Contractually (BTOR to BT) the line passes the tests (big green tick on test kit) so there is nothing to be done. But thankfully the OR engineer liked challenges and helping people, and I do hope his boss is OK with the 4 hours he spent on my "unmeasurable" but very real problem.
First he replaced the NTE5, 2 measurements had been boarderline and they improved a tadge - A/c Balance = 57, Dis Capa = 470nF. Then he went out along the line to cab etc. testing and recrimping some of the contacts. No measurable problems on the line were detected at any point. That kind of seems obvious to me, but I hope I have benifited from the tidy-up. Finally he left saying there was nothing more he could do but if something ever came to him he would come back.
I appreciate his efforts, but I wish he had looked at the exchange equipment rather than the line. Are linesmen allowed into the exchange? Who maintains that kit? Sadly it seems that there is no way forward with this fault. It is not the line, it does not show on a PQT, but use the connection for conversation across the PSTN and it is faint.
I am exploring an alternative - BT SmartTalk. Turns out they offer a free Andriod app, intended for use on 3G phones, that enables you to make VoIP calls at your land line tariff from an Andriod device. Caller ID shows an associated mobile number, but the app does not have to be on that device. I registered and made a call using it on my Nexus 10 - audible conversation, oh joy! The mic is crap so will get something to plug in, but it seems a way forward.
And finally an apology. I may not be deaf, but I could be going blind! Turns out that the FTTC ECI cab is next to the orginal cab. :-[
-
Sorry to hear about your continued strife on this!
I wonder if someone can clarify something for me.
21CN = let's send everything over a broadband line. Voice. Data. The works!
Do we know if what we presume to be a stone age voice switch that your PSTN handset attaches to, is actually a stone age style voice switch/PBX or a new fangled 21CN style device?
Let's assume stone age voice switch. How are voice calls currently being 'back hauled' across ze network? Actually, how was it done 20 years ago? How do I get a voice call from Lands end to John o Groats? :)
Is there a test for voice faintness that someone could do and then process? Would help to know what to ask for, otherwise I will just get more of the same (and pay as a time waster).
Funny you should mention it. Yes there is. There's a catch though... voip traffic only OR native PSTN audio converted to some digital format and transported across ze internetz?
Mean Opinion Scores (MOS)
The quality of transmitted speech is a subjective response of the listener. Each codec used for transmission of Voice over IP provides a certain level of quality. A common benchmark used to determine the quality of sound produced by specific codecs is MOS. With MOS, a wide range of listeners have judged the quality of voice samples sent using particular codecs, on a scale of 1 (poor quality) to 5 (excellent quality). The opinion scores are averaged to provide the mean for each sample. The table below shows MOS ratings and the corresponding description of quality for each value.
Table 2 MOS Ratings
Score
Quality
Description of Quality Impairment
5
Excellent
Imperceptible
4
Good
Just perceptible, but not annoying
3
Fair
Perceptible and slightly annoying
2
Poor
Annoying but not objectionable
1
Bad
Very annoying and objectionable
From: http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios-xml/ios/ipsla/configuration/15-mt/sla-15-mt-book/sla_udp_jitter_voip.html#GUID-6507B56A-F809-46D6-BC51-780E325A3782
What do I mean?
http://www.broadbandbuyer.co.uk/store/voip-adapters/
Devices have been available for donkeys to auto-convert your voice calls into an RTP stream to be sent over the internet. I am making the wild assumption that this is what BT do, on a grand scale, for any exchanges that don't satisfy the commercials for a rip and replace to a shiny MSAN etc?
Where am I going with this?
There is a tiny chance, this is not a voice port issue at all but the transport network making a pigs ear of sending your voice traffic across it. Voice traffic is always top priority, assuming the source device is applying the correct markings to ensure it gets the red carpet treatment across the entire network.
Anyway, you can probably ignore this post completely because we're going to find out you actually have a stone age switch coupled to stone age backhaul :P
Still, it's always good to consider alternatives? :)
It's always worth remembering why VoIP will never replace PSTN completely.
Emergency services.
You may want to pursue this angle when you relog the fault for the 14th time :P
-
Hi
I hope you don't mind, but we had a client who had similar issue, voice fading etc and it was resolved by a new phone.
However, they were using wireless phones, so not sure if it applies here or if another phone has been tried.
Many thanks
John
-
I forgot to mention on my last, largely pointless, post that choosing an inferior target codec is more likely to produce quiet and crap audio.
The markings thing is usually associated with choppy voice calls.
-
There is a tiny chance, this is not a voice port issue at all but the transport network making a pigs ear of sending your voice traffic across it.
Interesting idea. I presume that my phone call transmission gets digitised at some point? How does a standard PSTN voice call get around the country?
It still leaves me with the problem of getting BTOR to investigate a rare problem that does not show on a PQT, and is not a line or user equipment issue. It seems that there is no obligation for them to do anything line related or otherwise if the line tests within parameters. Aggh!! :wall:
Oh yes John, not a handset problem, I have tried several as it was the first thing I thought could be the cause. In fact the engineer experienced the faintness on his test handset. But always happy for input and this thread is getting long to read all the details.
Even if BT SmartTalk via Android tablet, home BB and phone tariff enables me to make (outgoing) audible VoIP calls for no extra cost, I still want to pursue this issue if I can find a way to do it. When I get the chance I intend to trace every line from the DP and ask the all the houses on the same pole if they have a faintness issue. One way to meet the neighbours - nearest is 400m away and others further, so it is not that I have been unsociable not talking to them yet.
It's always worth remembering why VoIP will never replace PSTN completely.
Emergency services.
You may want to pursue this angle when you relog the fault for the 14th time.
In an emergency rest assured I would make myself heard!! I have had cause to call each of the emergency services at some time or other, in all cases I used a phone box. The last couple were in the mobile phone era but in locations without signal. Rural call boxes do have an essential use even if they are a loss maker for BT. But that is another topic.
-
Perhaps Black Sheep will be able to assist with further comments but, as I understand things, Openreach deal with the local network from the EU's NTE5/A to the exchange MDF, inclusive. Operate deal with everything exchange based, past the MDF deeper into the system (and also the fibre cabinets out in the streets).
The local network (the "first mile" or "last mile", which ever way you care to view it) for telephony is purely analogue. Once beyond the MDF, it finally meets an ADC in the System X or System Y exchange equipment. The analogue telephony signal is now a PCM "signal" and remains in that format either across a junction to another local exchange or to a GSC/SSC and then onto the trunk network. Eventually that PCM "signal" arrives at the destination exchange (System X or System Y) and a DAC finally converts it back to analogue. The analogue signal then travels through the MDF, the local network and reaches the NTE5/A of the called EU.
-
Interesting b*kat!
Not familiar with PCM but a quick Google reveals it is just G711 :)
I did have a dabble with transcoding G711 to G729 once. I was not impressed with the audio quality, though.
If you look at this table:
http://www.en.voipforo.com/codec/codecs.php
Some of the codecs have MOS scores attached to them. Lower = worse audio quality, I believe.
-
My brain does not retain Gnumbers. Hence the reason why I always refer to G.DMT, ADSL2, ADSL2+, VDSL2, PCM, etc, etc.
If you are right re: MOS numbers (and I see no reason why not to believe you ;) ), then going from PCM (G711) (with MOS 4.1) to G729 (with MOS 3.92) will cause some degradation is audio quality.
The bandwidth of PCM is 3.1 kHz (300 Hz the lower limit and 3.4 kHz the upper limit) and the sampling rate is 8 kHz. So definitely not Hi-Fi, just ordinary telephony. ;D
-
Just to clarify?
'Skin-effect'. Whereby the phone will transmitting nearer the centre of the wire. So if you can imagine, any kind of physical fault on the wiring (such as corrosion) will obviously occur on the outer circumference first, thus affecting 'BB' services before 'Voice' services.
So, it is highly-unlikely to have a network fault on the wires, that only affects 'Voice'
Makes sense but the way I read this staement it assumes no joints or connections.
Where theres a joint/connection there is impedance and if dis similar metals are involved corrosion both these factors, where joint/connection are present, could surely effect higher and lower frequencies in different ways. IE little or no apparent effect on the BB whilst attenuating voice?
-
Where theres a joint/connection there is impedance and if dis similar metals are involved corrosion both these factors, where joint/connection are present, could surely effect higher and lower frequencies in different ways. IE little or no apparent effect on the BB whilst attenuating voice?
Well I do have lots of junctions - there is a joint box on every pole I have seen. This could make detecting a line fault and repair easier, but also adds to the potential HR problems.
But if line or joint corrosion was attenuating just voice then wouldn't this show on the PQT? That measured attenuation as 12.4dB (@ 1.6kHz I pressume), is that boarderline? Seems to me that the telephony is being attenuated at the exchange before/after it gets on my line or equipment. No one has tested that - the volume of a real conversation as it leaves the exchange. Incomming VoIP (call centre) and mobile calls are generally more audible than other land lines.
Having said that things have seemed a little better since some of the joints were recrimped etc. :-\
-
Just to clarify?
'Skin-effect'. Whereby the phone will transmitting nearer the centre of the wire. So if you can imagine, any kind of physical fault on the wiring (such as corrosion) will obviously occur on the outer circumference first, thus affecting 'BB' services before 'Voice' services.
So, it is highly-unlikely to have a network fault on the wires, that only affects 'Voice'
Makes sense but the way I read this staement it assumes no joints or connections.
Where theres a joint/connection there is impedance and if dis similar metals are involved corrosion both these factors, where joint/connection are present, could surely effect higher and lower frequencies in different ways. IE little or no apparent effect on the BB whilst attenuating voice?
Yup, absolutely a fair point Berrick. :)
-
Incomming VoIP (call centre) and mobile calls are generally more audible than other land lines.
Now that rings my bells during conversations over the phone to two different ISP Broadband helplines they both said my telephony voice has a low rumble noise they both asked me for my mobile number and called me back they could here me much better.
Could this be down to the Dect phone as the last OR engineer on the 13th of Feb did a thorough job on my line the pairs were 0.1 ohms out.
-
Just to clarify ....... methinks you probably mean 1.0 ohms difference each leg, NS sir ?? The read-outs on the HHT's don't go into 'divisions' of whole numbers. :)
-
Just to clarify ....... methinks you probably mean 1.0 ohms difference each leg, NS sir ?? The read-outs on the HHT's don't go into 'divisions' of whole numbers. :)
That's probably what i meant to type :blush: but the engineer said that's quite good the rumbling noise must come from the DECT phone i don't hear it during the QLT it seems the recipient does that could be the microphone (mouth piece) part of the phone :-\