Print

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

[kitz]

OK youre going to have to be quick about this and ask before tomorrow morning....

BUT are there any sensible questions or concerns about the g.inp rollout that you still need to know which havent already been answered so far in the other thread.
You now have a bit longer - had to reschedule.

---
ETA 18/06/2015
Question time now closed ty.

[Dray]

Is it being removed on the upstream?

[NewtronStar]

Will this MK2 G.INP Upstream as it stands be moved onto a G.INP profile when the errored seconds has gone above the US DLM threshold when using a Modem that is capable of both G.INP US and DS on the Huawei cabinet ?

[ktz392837]

What is happening with ECI cabs? GINP, vectoring support? Replaced with Huawei cabinets?  Will there be a two tired fibre network? The ones on Huawei and the unfortunate on ECI cabinets?

[simoncraddock]

What is happening with ECI cabs? GINP, vectoring support? Replaced with Huawei cabinets?  Will there be a two tired fibre network? The ones on Huawei and the unfortunate on ECI cabinets?

Only BT can answer this right now and probably won't tell us till later in the year.

[WWWombat]

1) Is the current fix (for upstream) perceived as a workaround, with a more complete solution due later? If so, any idea what might change?

2) G.INP was reportedly tested alongside SRA. Are there any plans to deploy SRA?

3) Is there anything to show improved error performance, after introduction of G.INP, across the whole subscriber base? Even a non-blurry version of the last graph

4a) Can we see statistics for how the subscriber base is distributed across the line profiles (eg percentage split between Retx low, Retx high, Interleaving low, Interleaving high)?
4b) Can we see how that has changed?

5) Can I find more time so I can actually catch up on reading the other G.INP thread? Then I can get back to posting sensible stuff on there...

[simoncraddock]

Will end users supplied with BT supplied ECI equipment be offered replacement modems?

[lemzip]

What is happening with end users who dont have any form of G.INP on their service?

ie once the issue with the GINP MK1 was noticed, no lines got it?

[kitz]

Thanks guys for the questions. 
I will see what I can do and will get back to you as soon as I can.  However, I think anything on the vectoring front is going to be very slim pickings.

[Chrysalis]

kitz check the eci g.inp thread I put my 3 day montage in there, you can see a difference in behaviour since the early dusk resync event.

[kitz]

The delay on this is my fault.   Because it was a verbal convo I have nothing in writing.. so nothing to back up anything. 
 
Ive had a manic past week (hey what else is new ) but I'm hoping on Sunday to get time to put something together and see if I can get something  more formal that BT is willing to be published.

I'll warn you now that BT wont be drawn on anything about the ECI cabs and vectoring or capabilities of what their hardware is/isnt capable of ... so dont get any hopes up on that front 

@wombat - that graph - I know you posted it but cant find it again to ask what figures Im looking for.     

[WWWombat]

I think this was the one...

[WWWombat]

By the way, I suspect what that graph tells us is that G.INP improves lines which are getting up to 1000-1200 ES's per day, but doesn't help beyond that.

Edit: And that it seems to help 95%+ of lines.

If we get answers in this area, it would be good to confirm that this is a reasonable conclusion to draw.

[kitz]

Is it being removed on the upstream?

I will answer this one in advance because its easy.   

G.INP has been removed from the default upstream profile.  Regardless or not if the modem is g.inp compatible or not. 
As has been previously said on this forum - it is still there available as a profile though if DLM thinks the line needs it. ie if DLM detects stability issues, then in the usual way then DLM will go through the usual steps of adding Interleaving and G.INP.   The only difference is that it now adds G.INP where it would have applied INP. 
This applies to upstream only.

After the roll out is complete on your line, then G.INP is applied by default to the downstream.  If the line continues to be unstable, then in the traditional way it will go through various steps of increasing G.INP and interleaving.

[kitz]

Will end users supplied with BT supplied ECI equipment be offered replacement modems?

I'll also answer this one as I know you wont ever get anything in writing.

Nope - Mk.II g.inp should provide a satisfactory and much fairer solution.
 
The way the new upstream profiles have been amended should ensure that both equipment which is fully g.inp compatible and that which isn't should get a fair crack of the whip.   G.INP/Error Protection will still be there if your line needs it and if your modem is compatible.   If you have an ECI then performance should now not be any worse than prior to G.INP and far better than Mk.I G.INP.    If the line is unstable then there are other options that the DLM can still use to aid stability.   Much of the issues with the ECI's revolved around the DLM parameters set for Mk.I G.INP which were too harsh for lines which needed little or no DLM intervention. 

What I'm not certain about and what wasnt clarified with the ECI's, is if the DLM kicks in whether the levels of Error Protection will be as harsh as g.inp Mk.I