Kitz Forum

Announcements => News Articles => Topic started by: Black Sheep on January 31, 2017, 07:31:51 AM

Title: TalkTalk's DLM for G.992.1/G.992.3/G.992.5 Circuits
Post by: Black Sheep on January 31, 2017, 07:31:51 AM
New TalkTalk dynamic line management (DLM) tool to be introduced for February

TalkTalk has introduced a new DLM tool for its copper broadband lines which will be in place between now and the end of February. If you're an engineer working on a TalkTalk copper broadband line and a fault is found this is what you need to do.

Contact the TalkTalk agent for a co-op requiring a DLM action as before. The TalkTalk agent will determine which DLM system the line is on and carry out the necessary action. The agent will then take actions on the new DLM which will be slightly different but will enable the line to be optimised (opposed to reset) within one minute if the fault has been resolved.
Title: Re: TalkTalk's DLM for G.992.1/G.992.3/G.992.5 Circuits
Post by: broadstairs on January 31, 2017, 08:09:52 AM
One question here, since TT will be able to action DLM does this mean that should a line have issues they will be able to action DLM without intervention of BTOR?

Stuart
Title: Re: TalkTalk's DLM for G.992.1/G.992.3/G.992.5 Circuits
Post by: Black Sheep on January 31, 2017, 09:16:38 AM
That has always been the case with ISP owned DLM's.
Title: Re: TalkTalk's DLM for G.992.1/G.992.3/G.992.5 Circuits
Post by: broadstairs on January 31, 2017, 09:23:00 AM
So just to clarify TT own both the current and new DLM so they can do with it what they want when they want without reference to BTOR and this could include any action at all? Could they for example remove a cap/band or implement one?

This is an important point considering what TT have told me in the past and the likely argument I am about to have with them.

Stuart
Title: Re: TalkTalk's DLM for G.992.1/G.992.3/G.992.5 Circuits
Post by: atkinsong on January 31, 2017, 09:43:38 AM
This specifically states COPPER broadband, i.e. ADSL.
Title: Re: TalkTalk's DLM for G.992.1/G.992.3/G.992.5 Circuits
Post by: Dray on January 31, 2017, 09:55:18 AM
FTTC is delivered over copper though
Title: Re: TalkTalk's DLM for G.992.1/G.992.3/G.992.5 Circuits
Post by: broadstairs on January 31, 2017, 10:20:08 AM
Yes my assumption was that when they say copper broadband it means anything delivered over the copper from the cabinet, both all flavours of ADSL and FTTC which is over copper for the last part. So this needs clarifying as well.

Stuart
Title: Re: TalkTalk's DLM for G.992.1/G.992.3/G.992.5 Circuits
Post by: atkinsong on January 31, 2017, 10:31:58 AM
Without getting bogged down in semantics, the term "copper" is generally accepted as ADSL, just as the term "fibre" is generally accepted as FTTC.
Title: Re: TalkTalk's DLM for G.992.1/G.992.3/G.992.5 Circuits
Post by: broadstairs on January 31, 2017, 10:34:52 AM
Without getting bogged down in semantics, the term "copper" is generally accepted as ADSL, just as the term "fibre" is generally accepted as FTTC.

Whilst I agree that is indeed the norm I need to be 100% sure of my ground before talking to TT hence asking the question.

Stuart
Title: Re: TalkTalk's DLM for G.992.1/G.992.3/G.992.5 Circuits
Post by: niemand on January 31, 2017, 10:39:43 AM
Be 100% sure - copper refers to exchange-based ADSL only. Fibre refers to FTTC/P.

Reading your signature this doesn't change your situation in any way.
Title: Re: TalkTalk's DLM for G.992.1/G.992.3/G.992.5 Circuits
Post by: Black Sheep on January 31, 2017, 11:20:40 AM
Without getting bogged down in semantics, the term "copper" is generally accepted as ADSL, just as the term "fibre" is generally accepted as FTTC.

He knows ^^^^  :)
Title: Re: TalkTalk's DLM for G.992.1/G.992.3/G.992.5 Circuits
Post by: j0hn on January 31, 2017, 11:34:25 AM
Indeed, Talktalk have always run their own LLU ADSL DLM system. It's much better than the BTw system in that you can turn the bloody thing off.

Even if they wanted to, Talktalk can't just make their own DLM for FTTC. OpenReach own and run the FTTC network very differently. There's just not the flexibility for an ISP to customise GEA-FTTC. It's OpenReach's DSLAM (Fibre cabinet) unlike LLU ADSL where the ISP owns their own equipment in the exchange.
Title: Re: TalkTalk's DLM for G.992.1/G.992.3/G.992.5 Circuits
Post by: broadstairs on January 31, 2017, 12:05:14 PM
End of discussion now folks as we have a definitive answer. Shame though not the one I wanted  ;)

Stuart
Title: Re: TalkTalk's DLM for G.992.1/G.992.3/G.992.5 Circuits
Post by: Ronski on January 31, 2017, 01:23:54 PM
A bit late to the party, but if you think about it you can only have one DLM system in the street cabinet.
Title: Re: TalkTalk's DLM for G.992.1/G.992.3/G.992.5 Circuits
Post by: ejs on January 31, 2017, 04:30:30 PM
I thought it is possible to switch off the BTWholesale ADSL2+ DLM. The old way was with custom thresholds, and I think there's a newer way now to just turn it off.
Title: Re: TalkTalk's DLM for G.992.1/G.992.3/G.992.5 Circuits
Post by: Chrysalis on January 31, 2017, 08:09:24 PM
glad the topic has been edited, as otherwise many will think its about BT DLM before reading posts. :)
Title: Re: TalkTalk's DLM for G.992.1/G.992.3/G.992.5 Circuits
Post by: tommy45 on February 03, 2017, 01:04:26 AM
I thought it is possible to switch off the BTWholesale ADSL2+ DLM. The old way was with custom thresholds, and I think there's a newer way now to just turn it off.
yes isp's do have some degree of control over BTW ADSL services, via BT systems, ie control panel, though it probably isn't as flexible as LLU operators have on their own network it think they can override DLM and set noise margins, were as on llu  the owners can choose not to even run dlm and allow variable target noise margins, and other things like SRA
Title: Re: TalkTalk's DLM for G.992.1/G.992.3/G.992.5 Circuits
Post by: j0hn on February 03, 2017, 02:28:09 AM
I thought it is possible to switch off the BTWholesale ADSL2+ DLM. The old way was with custom thresholds, and I think there's a newer way now to just turn it off.
yes, "a DSLAM override is in place". The thing doesn't work though. I had to lie, beg and bribe to order a DSLAM override and within a fortnight it was pushing my SNRM back up off 6dB, and the override was no longer showing. That happened 3 times in a row.

The 1st time I asked Talktalk to set a 6dB SNRM and turn off DLM they did it. Till the day I moved off from their ADSL it remained that way.
Title: Re: TalkTalk's DLM for G.992.1/G.992.3/G.992.5 Circuits
Post by: Sheepie on March 04, 2017, 05:01:44 PM
TalkTalk's new DLM is on their ADSL only.

I have an ADSL line with them and it's been pretty stable for years, they were able to set a 6db margin, fastpath, and disable the DLM on it..... until the new DLM was put in place.

Now I have gone from 15ms ping to 38ms, reduced sync, etc. etc. honestly the DLM has really screwed me over.

The only reason I kept with talktalk was due to the fact that I could get DLM disabled - now they are unable to do that I will be moving this line as soon as my contract is up. 

The other odd thing is that since they put this new DLM in place I am unable to upgrade to fttc with talktalk, even though it's available with every other ISP (and my main line is infact FTTC already). 
Title: Re: TalkTalk's DLM for G.992.1/G.992.3/G.992.5 Circuits
Post by: ejs on March 04, 2017, 05:43:30 PM
If the line was stable, why did you need to have the DLM disabled?

Presumably the new DLM does not think your line is stable. Or the new DLM is broken / useless / the worst thing ever etc.
Title: Re: TalkTalk's DLM for G.992.1/G.992.3/G.992.5 Circuits
Post by: Sheepie on March 04, 2017, 05:47:55 PM
I got it disabled because I wanted to monitor it myself and set ADSL mode, SNR margin etc myself.

I had 34 ES in a day on fastpath and the DLM kicked in and made me interleave both DS and US.  (Sheepie on MDWS)

OK so the days before that the ES were quite high but I was messing about with it - I know ADSL2+ mode and 6db margin caused borderline errors which DLM would have noticed, but I didn't know DLM was enabled then, and it may not have been.