Print

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

[j0hn]

Can you enter your details on to the BT Wholesale Broadband Availability Checker and post the results.

[Reaps]

Sure can.

[j0hn]

As I thought when you mentioned the 130Mb estimate from Zen.
Look at the upstream difference to what you get now...

As the minimum downstream estimate is below 100Mb this marks the service as "Amber" instead of "Available".

You're at the very end of the G.Fast range and the Amber may mean they won't allow the order to progress.
Possibly why BT say no.

It will almost certainly mean a slower upstream.

[Reaps]

I live about 100m away from my cabinet, is that far?
I read it was a max of around 350m.

I guess it matters how they laid the cable in my area, rather than it being straight down the road.

Amber means it's on the limit? or simply not yet available for resale?

I see the the range is listed as: 6-17Mbps, rather than the 18-19 i'm getting now. I wouldn't mind having 10Mbps up instead of 20, which may be close to reality? What do you think?

[j0hn]

Amber means it's on the limit? or simply not yet available for resale?

Any estimate that drops below 100Mb is marked as Amber.
I believe they won't sell the service below 100Mb.

I read it was a max of around 350m.

The maximum 350m is line length with 0.5mm copper, even then 350m is on the outer edges.
You may have lower gauge copper, aluminium on the line, or the line takes a long route to the cabinet.

Amber means it's on the limit? or simply not yet available for resale?

I've seen Amber orders progress successfully.
Amber indicates a range of potential issues. In your case it's the low estimates.
I've seen these also progress successfully.

Check your immediate neighbours on both sides and see if their estimates are way above yours. Occasionally there's random database mistakes.

I see the the range is listed as: 6-17Mbps, rather than the 18-19 i'm getting now. I wouldn't mind having 10Mbps up instead of 20, which may be close to reality? What do you think?

If you wouldn't mind halving your upstream for a small increase in downstream then go ahead and order it!

Personally I'd rather have 80/20 than 120/10 but everyone's usage is different.

I'm not a fan of G.Farce. It's essentially only available to those who already receive the full 80/20 and even then some will see a big drop in upstream at the outer edges.

[Reaps]

Thanks for answering pretty much all my questions!!
Very helpful.

When I first moved in roughly 2.5 years ago, I was getting 74Mbps down, with a full 20 up, but over time - I'm guessing the congestion is slowing me down.
I guess that could go towards saying my line is (was) pretty clean and some high speeds though be attainable.

I'd be interested to hear why you don't like g.fast. Is it simply because of the lower uploads?
I like to be the most informed with regards to a purchase like this, especially when being something I use so regularly and rely upon.

Thanks again.

[johnson]

Hopefully, this will mean they will have to move me on the infrastructure to somewhere new, especially as they will need an engineer visit to do it - which should mean they can physically test my line while they are there, to get max speed, low latency.

I know next to nothing about g.fast, but it sounds like your only reason for upgrading is to fix these latency issues that have occurred recently.

Firstly I doubt the engineer installing it will be of the kind that could diagnose such an issue. Secondly unless the issue is a faulty port/line card in the cabinet I would assume all other factors will remain the same, if the issue is congestion at some point in BTs network (or possibly something in your premises) you will get the same results.

I await input from a more knowledgeable members, but my understanding is g.fast is unlikely to solve your problem.

[j0hn]

[rant]
They could have went with a technology (VDSL2 profile 35b) that that was fully compatible with the existing FTTC spectrum and would have (pretty much) doubled the speed and range of FTTC for most.
It would likely have given you over 160/40.

Even those who didn't receive the full 80/20 could have seen a considerable upgrade on both upstream/downstream.

They picked G.Farce instead which has a very limited range.
It also isn't compatible with the existing FTTC spectrum so they had to modify G.Farce to drop the initial 20% of available spectrum (used by FTTC) reducing its range further.

In its current form G.Farce only helps those who already get the fastest speeds.
It's a waste of time and will probably cost more than it makes.

It's a box ticking exercise so they can quickly claim Ultrafast coverage to millions of properties.
It kept the marketing department happy also.
[/rant]

To even out my comments...

Rolling out VDSL2 profile 35b wouldn't have been the easiest. It would require ECI DSLAMs be replaced or left as is leaving those connected to them unable to be upgraded.
It would require upgrades on the Huawei cabinets.

The original intention for G.Farce was for it to be deployed between homes and the PCP, meaning the range would have mattered less.
They then decided to deploy it from the cabinet instead.

IMO they should have gone with (in order of my entirely uneducated preference);

1. None of the above, with a bigger push of FTTP.
2. VDSL2 profile 35b
3. G.Fast deeper in the network.

but they went with the current G.Farce rollout from the cabinet.

edit: I agree with Johnson's comment advice regarding the latency. The lower upstream may even make it worse.

If it's for higher downstream then go for it. If it's for fixing your latency issues I don't see it helping.

[Reaps]

Ah

Ok.

So my hope of them doing 'something' as part of the g.fast switch is very unlikely?
Would they not move me from 1 switchport to another, to use g.fast?
Perhaps to a less congested one?

Or is it likely that they are just enabling at my currently connected (congested) port?
I half expected that if they were pushing out g.fast, they would have newer equipment at the backend for it, which means I'd get moved to it?

If none of that is accurate, i'll stick to what I've got.

[j0hn]

The switch to Zen may indeed help.
The switch to G.Fast alone probably won't.

The latency isn't a problem with the xDSL link so not something an OpenReach engineer would be able to help with.
That's the ISP's realm.

edit: I'll add, there's no congestion at the line card (what you call the switch port).
The cabinet to exchange links are also good.

[boost]

So what's the most objective way Reaps can test the latency on his line, I wonder?

If memory serves, he was getting tbbx1 results of 5Mb/s at one point. I have to be trying quite hard to get mine below 40. His BQM was a right state, too.

What should the latency / throughput curve look like, typically, for an 80:20 line? There's a few of us here with identical cabs, CPEs and sync speeds so we could quite easily baseline it?

[Reaps]

Thanks Boost, appreciate that.

As a question - if this was specific to BT, would you expect others in the local area? eg. within 2 miles of my home to have the same latency issues if there is something wrong at the ISP end?

I know a bunch of BT Fibre users in my area, who are not seeing this issue.

[boost]

I would start with anyone off the same cab as you. There's quite a few off that main roundabout, I think?

Same cab + same ISP would be a great start?

[Reaps]

It would be, but I don't know any of my neighbours well enough to start asking about their Internet.

We take each others postal deliveries from time to time, but thats about it!

[JordanBlack68]

This same issue is happening to me, fibre connection, 80/20 connection and using XR500 anti bufferbloat settings and the smallest download on another device is causing lag spikes, tried wired, different routers, different combos and still is happening.