Print

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

[Weaver]

Engineer has arrived at the house just now, same, nice guy. He confirms there’s no signal at the house, has set off to NSBFD or out onto the wild moor


15:46
Modem is now showing 3026 kbps downstream, 532 kbps upstream.    Our friendly engineer has not reappeared yet and the light is going down. Not a nice day to be out on the tops at all.

Engineer reappeared at the house, making final checks. Nice guy. Literally wires crossed - lying touching another wire in a manhole, I think that’s what he said to Janet.

[burakkucat]

The DS looks good, whereas the US seems to be a bit low? 

But at least the circuit is now operational.

[Weaver]

@ Burakkucat- indeed, the upstream is a bit lower than it has been. This is because the upstream SNRM is currently 8.2 dB and line 2’s upstream has always gone up and down in an irregular square wave pattern, so the speed depends in where you are in the cycle when we resynch.

[burakkucat]

I had forgotten about the cyclic "capabilities" of the line.   

[Weaver]

Yes, I keep forgetting. This is the only line showing this odd behaviour now. I can force a resynch and then it will be dropping from 6dB to 4dB upstream on the low part if the duty cycle. I might try that and see what the upstream error rate is like ?


After resynch: 3001 @3.1 dB downstream / 579 kbps @ 5.9 dB upstream. The SNRM-vs-tones graph looks perfect- no hollow, not even a hint of one.

[Weaver]

Engineer’s notes:
—
10/12/2020 16:46:00
------------------------
(No manually entered closure notes)

- Plant affected: JNT100
- Plant type: UCJ
Multiple Intervention?: N 2020-12-10T16:46:00 -
(no closure notes!)
What was the result of the initial pair quality test ? - Fail
Did you complete the Base module ? - Yes
Did you complete the Network module ? - Yes
Did you complete the Frames module ? - No
Did you complete the end customer Premises Wiring Module ? - No
Did you complete the end customer Premises Equipment Module ? - No
Have you successfully demonstrated connectivity to the NTE ? - Yes
Did all the connections, extensions and DSL filters meet the minimum standards ? - Yes
Have you conducted a sync test (modem light on) ? - Yes
===QBC Summary Start===
Customer Report: End customer informed us there is no broadband connection.
Initial test results: PQT test performed at NTE back plate. The test passed on 2020-12-10T11:46:19.
What was found: Crossed line identified.
Actions to resolve: Fault located in the D side underground network. This was caused by general wear and tear. The fault was fixed by re-terminating pair in joint.
Final test results: Final PQT performed at the NTE back plate. The test passed on 2020-12-10T16:14:08. Final FastTest completed. The test passed on 10/12/2020 16:44:57.
===QBC Summary End===
—

[burakkucat]

There are six interesting lines in those notes --

<snip>
- Plant affected: JNT100
- Plant type: UCJ
<snip>
Customer Report: End customer informed us there is no broadband connection.
Initial test results: PQT test performed at NTE back plate. The test passed on 2020-12-10T11:46:19.
What was found: Crossed line identified.
Actions to resolve: Fault located in the D side underground network. This was caused by general wear and tear. The fault was fixed by re-terminating pair in joint.
<snip>

[Weaver]

What do you make from that little lot?

[burakkucat]

Until such time as I am told otherwise, I'll hazard a guess that UCJ is an abbreviation for "underground closure joint" and JNT100 is the specific type.

"Crossed line [was] identified." So there was an incorrect electrical pathway through the joint. It was corrected by disconnecting the pairs and then making the correct connection to link you through to NSBFD.

"This was caused by general wear and tear." I am having trouble trying to picture a scenario which matches that description and the stated "crossed line identified".

[Weaver]

No sounds very odd. He was talking to Janet about vermin getting into boxes and biting the cables to get a 50 V high, Janet’s words from him. I don’t see how vermin or haggis on the loose or whatever could cross wires? Wouldn’t crazed OR staff doing things wrong be an equally plausible explanation? The question is "was anyone doing any work on those lines when my line 2 went down?" answer, yes - this same engineer had come out and restored the speed of line #2 which had been down to less than half of what it should be, and during this, it cut out completely. All very odd.

[burakkucat]

He was talking to Janet about vermin getting into boxes and biting the cables to get a 50 V high, Janet’s words from him. I don’t see how vermin or haggis on the loose or whatever could cross wires?

If the wee-beasties had gained access to the joint, and had developed a taste for the PVC insulation, I could just about believe that contact between two adjacent pairs might be possible. As the sharp incisors, whilst stripping off some PVC, might have pushed two wires into intimate contact.

Wouldn’t crazed OR staff doing things wrong be an equally plausible explanation?

I could not possibly  say . . . 

The important point is that the service has been restored.

[Weaver]

Indeed, quite so.

[Weaver]

 

Today at 2020-12-25 13:59 my line #4 has failed again ! Downstream sync rate drops, a lot, and the SNRM-vs-tones graph had the usual hollow curve shape. I ran a ‘copper line test’ which failed with the error message:
    BT Test xDSL Copper Test:Pass Line test failed report fault to OR. Appointment advised. Pass Line test failed report fault to OR.
    Appointment advised. T107:FAULT - Dis In Network

I can’t remember what the error code means but it seems familiar

So here we go again. And unfortunately A&A staff aren’t at work this weekend so nothing is going to happen until Tuesday.

[Weaver]

I found this old reference to the error code https://forum.kitz.co.uk/index.php/topic,23742.msg401638.html#msg401638

[mofa2020]

Merry Christmas Weaver 🎄

DIS means a disconnection in the line somewhere,, unfortunately