Kitz ADSL Broadband Information
adsl spacer  
Support this site
Home Broadband ISPs Tech Routers Wiki Forum
 
     
   Compare ISP   Rate your ISP
   Glossary   Glossary
 
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic: proof of fault?  (Read 6262 times)

Chrysalis

  • Content Team
  • Addicted Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 7405
  • VM Gig1 - AAISP CF
proof of fault?
« on: December 01, 2013, 08:25:10 PM »

BT have updated their wholeslae checker to give 2 results.

One for impacted, which supposedbly fits if is a bridge tap issue or not.
One for clean.

My previous estimates were.

on signup 65.9 down
after they updated earlier in year, 59 down.

Now it gets interesting.

My new estimate then changed to.

clean 78 down - WOW
impacted 59 down - ok this matches the above. interesting right?

Sadly I did no screenshot.

Its now changed again to

clean 72 down - still way higher
impacted 59 down - screenshot incoming.

thoughts?  especially from BT staff if possible like BS
Logged

Chrysalis

  • Content Team
  • Addicted Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 7405
  • VM Gig1 - AAISP CF
Re: proof of fault?
« Reply #1 on: December 02, 2013, 10:23:13 PM »

I may have overeacted, I am curious if other people have the same data, their new impacted low been the same as old estimates, maybe BT did this for every line?
Logged

NewtronStar

  • Kitizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4898
Re: proof of fault?
« Reply #2 on: December 02, 2013, 10:37:23 PM »

Yes same for me, I am at the Range A Clean side of Low  :ouch:
Logged

BritBrat

  • Kitizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1359
Re: proof of fault?
« Reply #3 on: December 03, 2013, 09:22:53 AM »

Mine has change too.


« Last Edit: December 03, 2013, 09:27:18 AM by BritBrat »
Logged

Chrysalis

  • Content Team
  • Addicted Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 7405
  • VM Gig1 - AAISP CF
Re: proof of fault?
« Reply #4 on: December 03, 2013, 01:46:40 PM »

guys I am interested in your old values not that they just changed.

Was your old estimate (prior to clean/impacted addition) the same as the new impacted low value?
Logged

Bald_Eagle1

  • Helpful
  • Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 2721
Re: proof of fault?
« Reply #5 on: December 03, 2013, 06:20:54 PM »

Old estimate prior to clean/impacted addition & new estimates attached.

I don't have a screenshot, but until January 2013, my estimates were 30 Mbps down & 7 Mbps up.
Actual sync speeds were quite close to those estimates too.


My connection currently achieves sync speeds of 20.7 Mbps down & 4.9 Mbps up.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2013, 06:25:02 PM by Bald_Eagle1 »
Logged

Chrysalis

  • Content Team
  • Addicted Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 7405
  • VM Gig1 - AAISP CF
Re: proof of fault?
« Reply #6 on: December 03, 2013, 07:38:27 PM »

right so your old estimate BE is the same as your new clean low.

do you find odd mine is the same as my impacted low?
Logged

Greybeard33

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 56
Re: proof of fault?
« Reply #7 on: December 03, 2013, 09:09:21 PM »

My old estimate was similar to my new Clean Low. My actual rates are in line with the Clean High. When I was previously on ADSL Max then ADSL2+, in each case my rates were at the upper end of the ranges now estimated.
Logged

NewtronStar

  • Kitizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4898
Re: proof of fault?
« Reply #8 on: December 03, 2013, 09:27:25 PM »

guys I am interested in your old values not that they just changed.

Was your old estimate (prior to clean/impacted addition) the same as the new impacted low value?

Ok here is old and new ->

Logged

jjpearce05

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 13
Re: proof of fault?
« Reply #9 on: December 03, 2013, 09:45:15 PM »

Here are my stats - at the time of order (15-Oct-2013) - download 16600Kbps. Upload 3800Kbps.

Currently synching at 19812/3164Kbps
Logged

guest

  • Guest
Re: proof of fault?
« Reply #10 on: December 06, 2013, 12:51:14 PM »

Slight derail - I'd like to give BT some credit for the new format.

It has allowed me to sign up for FTTC as the clean/impacted downstream now shows 80/70.5 rather than the single 62Mbps figure shown before. Wasn't signing up to a 12 month contract on 62Mbps on 80/20 pricing and 40/10 is a bit pointless (pricing-wise) when you already have 21/1.3 for £7.50/month.

Now ultimately none of this may make any difference fault/speed-wise but 80/70.5 is a lot better place to start from than 62 as the only way is down from there as the cabinet fills up.

Would be interesting to know if "impacted", which mentions "copper conditions" actually takes into account crosstalk problems as the cab fills up. BT ought to have enough data on full cabs and cabling gauge/density etc to have a decent guess now.
Logged

Chrysalis

  • Content Team
  • Addicted Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 7405
  • VM Gig1 - AAISP CF
Re: proof of fault?
« Reply #11 on: December 06, 2013, 04:55:55 PM »

rizla is also a reason why I am going to jump ship to plusnet, unless a miracle happens I will start off below the estimate (plusnet telling me 73mbps) so it should make it nice and easy to raise a fault.
Logged

guest

  • Guest
Re: proof of fault?
« Reply #12 on: December 06, 2013, 05:56:33 PM »

Nice and easy to raise a fault perhaps but its unlikely to get "fixed" IMHO.

Your area - and all along Fosse Rd - is a classic case for what happens in dense linear housing areas (mainly terraces) with VDSL IMHO. I think your only long-term hope is vectoring because there is no way anyone will pay the costs of anything else in that area as it would bring Leicester to even more of a standstill while it was done.

Might just be a case of "this is what you get" and your speeds aren't limiting you in any way as far as I can tell?

I just wanted hard figures as I'm with Sky and the guy had to both read the figures out and send them by email (someone been naughty, surely not) so I can bin the service in the first 3 months if its rubbish (another bit they have to tell you now).
Logged

Chrysalis

  • Content Team
  • Addicted Kitizen
  • *
  • Posts: 7405
  • VM Gig1 - AAISP CF
Re: proof of fault?
« Reply #13 on: December 06, 2013, 06:10:12 PM »

Nice and easy to raise a fault perhaps but its unlikely to get "fixed" IMHO.

Your area - and all along Fosse Rd - is a classic case for what happens in dense linear housing areas (mainly terraces) with VDSL IMHO. I think your only long-term hope is vectoring because there is no way anyone will pay the costs of anything else in that area as it would bring Leicester to even more of a standstill while it was done.

Might just be a case of "this is what you get" and your speeds aren't limiting you in any way as far as I can tell?

I just wanted hard figures as I'm with Sky and the guy had to both read the figures out and send them by email (someone been naughty, surely not) so I can bin the service in the first 3 months if its rubbish (another bit they have to tell you now).

cant be sure yet its all crosstalk, the plusnet trials indicate something else is at play with dropping of speeds.

There is also a reason why my old estimate matched the 'impacted' state, since it seems barely any other lines have that match.

Also I am concerned about plusnets performance, they manage traffic, use seperate peering to BT, me been below the estimate if that side of things isnt up to par could be a way out the contract penalty free.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2013, 06:15:48 PM by Chrysalis »
Logged

guest

  • Guest
Re: proof of fault?
« Reply #14 on: December 06, 2013, 06:25:51 PM »

If you're going to try to measure throughput then Plusnet isn't the way as everything passes though the traffic shapers and hence depends on total load. No way for you to tell that.

Having said that it remains to be seen how badly Sky's "Broadband Shield" screws up the network.

Logged
Pages: [1] 2