Print

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

[Black Sheep]

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. 

PS ..... that is definitely not in the engineers remit. 

[Frogparty]

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.

[Black Sheep]

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  . 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). 

[boost]

PS ..... that is definitely not in the engineers remit. 

I think we *all* know this is what the TRC box is for

[Black Sheep]

  ha ha …… services rendered.

[Frogparty]

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.

[Black Sheep]

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. 

[Frogparty]

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.

[boost]

I'm confused. It doesn't take much, I admit

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?

[Black Sheep]

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 ?? 

[Black Sheep]

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. 

[Frogparty]

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 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.

[Black Sheep]

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 ......... 

[Frogparty]

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.

[boost]

No need to mention broadband, or long line etc, to the call-centre advisor or the visiting engineer.

This seems apt:



4/5ths of progressing anything with a carrier is filtering. Don't allow yourself to be incorrectly filtered, if at all possible