Print

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

[NewtronStar]

I am on TT and sadly I am still banded, plus now hit with interleaving because the stupid DLM did not know about a huge thunderstorm which covered the whole of Kent and part of Sussex and Essex.

Stuart

To be honest when looking at your stats Stuart you would be better off with an ISP that uses the Speed profile than TT who use the standard profile the difference is an allowance of 2880 ES per day (Speed) vs 1440 per day (standard) only Interleaving or G.INP would keep those errors below 1440 on TT

[kitz]

Just a point re Wide Area Events.   Most DLM systems do not have anything and afaik monitoring for wide area events is a BT specific thing.

TBH when I first read about it, I thought what a brilliant idea.    Without it, all lines would be clobbered during thunderstorms once they'd reached the MTBE threshold.  I agree its not perfect and relies on 'x'% of users seeing a resync...  but it is better than not being in place at all.

[broadstairs]

My issue with Wide Area Events monitoring is that it seems likely that it only works where a large number of users have issues and this is far less likely during the night as was my case with the storm being between 0200 and 0430 and I guess a large number of users probably turn off their routers at night or their traffic is so low it keeps the error rates down.

For thunderstorms there are loads of ways of monitoring them and to be honest BT would be better off using this perhaps in conjunction with the existing design to determine what is going on. What happened to me is simply not acceptable as turning off the router is not an option as my connection is used 24x7 by my weather station.

Stuart

[renluop]

May be, as it's from me, it's a silly question, but could DLM for wide area events have had included something like  standard and a low users' activity parameters, where the MBTE for one could be larger than the other? I'm thinking were something like that implementable it could be good for folks like our friend, who must be on the increase.

Priorities, cost and willingness allowed for naturally!

[sevenlayermuddle]

or their traffic is so low it keeps the error rates down.

Happy to stand corrected, but I thought DSL error monitoring continued just as effectively on a quiescent line as a busy one?  Agreed though, some folks do probably switch off modems overnight.

Per monitoring lightning strike data, I would imagine the data providers expect handsome payment when the data was to be used for commercial gain.  That would be one disincentive against its use.

Per DLM wide area events in general, the first place I ever saw it mentioned was in a BT patent.  If BT hold the patent, it might explain why nobody else can do it, or at least not without paying BT for license.

Ps, edited to remove accidental irrelevant smiley.   Darned, fiddly, mobile phone keyboard.   

[j0hn]

As i said further up this thread, the Wide Area Event checking ignores users who have disconnected. It also makes absolutely no difference if your connection is sitting idle or if you are heavily downloading when a thunderstorm hits the area. If you are connected, you will get a very large spike in errors. The only way to avoid an increase in errors is to disconnect the modem for the entire storm.

[ejs]

If the end user's modem is disconnected, then they'll be no DSL signal and therefore no data for the DLM to gather, all it needs to do is not treat the no data as there being zero errors.