BT refuse to try 256k

On June 13 I asked if anyone had tried a 256kb/s ADSL service on a long line
where 512k was marginal. Noone had, though I got some useful advice. We
are about 10 km by road from the exchange, and the 512kb/s service from Zen
initially worked for several hours at a time. However, when BT provided a
filtered faceplate, ADSL syncing became even less reliable, and my dial-up
speed went down from the usual 44 - 45k to 31k. (I have gone back to the
original face-plate and external filter, but ADSL is still not really
usable). I asked about stepping down to Zen's "Home 250" service, which
might work better on a long line (especially if it uses 8-bit G.Lite
encoding?), but BT refuse to try that as part of a fault-finding procedure,
saying their criteria are the same for both services, and offering a refund
if I decide within 5 days (i.e. take it or leave it, PDQ!). So, does anyone
want a Netgear DG834?

Trevor Morris

"Trevor Morris" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
message news:GZTte.40156$(E-Mail Removed)...
> On June 13 I asked if anyone had tried a 256kb/s ADSL service on a long
> line where 512k was marginal. Noone had, though I got some useful advice.
> We are about 10 km by road from the exchange, and the 512kb/s service from
> Zen initially worked for several hours at a time. However, when BT
> provided a filtered faceplate, ADSL syncing became even less reliable, and
> my dial-up speed went down from the usual 44 - 45k to 31k. (I have gone
> back to the original face-plate and external filter, but ADSL is still not
> really usable). I asked about stepping down to Zen's "Home 250" service,
> which might work better on a long line (especially if it uses 8-bit G.Lite
> encoding?), but BT refuse to try that as part of a fault-finding
> procedure, saying their criteria are the same for both services, and
> offering a refund if I decide within 5 days (i.e. take it or leave it,
> PDQ!). So, does anyone want a Netgear DG834?
>
> Trevor Morris
>

For information, on the rare occasions ADSL worked, downstream attenuation
was always 63 dB, Noise Margin slowly varying between 6 and 0 dB (0 just
before it used to crash!): upstream attenuation 31.5 dB and NM 16 - 17 dB.

TM

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 12:55:52 GMT, "Trevor Morris"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>For information, on the rare occasions ADSL worked, downstream attenuation
>was always 63 dB, Noise Margin slowly varying between 6 and 0 dB (0 just
>before it used to crash!):

sounds like a GUI restriction only showing attenuation to a limited
nujmber of bits hence the 63 dB reported when it could have been 70 or
more. What did the BT engineer's kit say the attenuation was ?

the advice usually given is to start with 256k. Presumably Zen
couldn't persuade BT to drop to 256k. In which case let it drop and
the sign up again for 256k but ensure they don't mark it as a Red "not
available" line.

to get the best possible signal to the router use a BT-RJ11 adapter in
the test socket with no filters and phones and see what it does then.

Phil
--
Tiscali - dialup speeds at Broadband prices, see
http://bbs.adslguide.org.uk/postlist...&Board=tiscali

AOL - the unlimited ISP of choice for heavy downloaders.

Trevor Morris wrote:

> On June 13 I asked if anyone had tried a 256kb/s ADSL service on a long
> line
> where 512k was marginal. Noone had, though I got some useful advice. We
> are about 10 km by road from the exchange, and the 512kb/s service from
> Zen
> initially worked for several hours at a time. However, when BT provided a
> filtered faceplate, ADSL syncing became even less reliable, and my dial-up
> speed went down from the usual 44 - 45k to 31k. (I have gone back to the
> original face-plate and external filter, but ADSL is still not really
> usable). I asked about stepping down to Zen's "Home 250" service, which
> might work better on a long line (especially if it uses 8-bit G.Lite
> encoding?), but BT refuse to try that as part of a fault-finding
> procedure, saying their criteria are the same for both services, and
> offering a refund
> if I decide within 5 days (i.e. take it or leave it, PDQ!). So, does
> anyone want a Netgear DG834?
>
> Trevor Morris


Your best bet is to pray some LLU operator
takes over and give you a better service than
dopey BT$

"Phil Thompson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 12:55:52 GMT, "Trevor Morris"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>For information, on the rare occasions ADSL worked, downstream attenuation
>>was always 63 dB, Noise Margin slowly varying between 6 and 0 dB (0 just
>>before it used to crash!):
>
> sounds like a GUI restriction only showing attenuation to a limited
> nujmber of bits hence the 63 dB reported when it could have been 70 or
> more.

Interesting point.

> What did the BT engineer's kit say the attenuation was ?

His Voyager USB modem / laptop combination didn't sync at all, so no stats.

> the advice usually given is to start with 256k.

Indeed.

> Presumably Zen
> couldn't persuade BT to drop to 256k. In which case let it drop and
> the sign up again for 256k but ensure they don't mark it as a Red "not
> available" line.

I think it's that already: according to the BT availability checker ADSL is
not available on my line, "in spite of an engineer's visit" ...

> to get the best possible signal to the router use a BT-RJ11 adapter in
> the test socket with no filters and phones and see what it does then.

Tried various filters, no filters, no phones etc - no effect on ADSL (except
I think the BT faceplate may have been a dB or two worse in terms of noise
margin) - but dial-up works at ~45k without filter, 31k with...

Still waiting to hear about a refund...

>
> Phil

Thanks for the thoughts!
TM

"7" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:wZYte.54150$(E-Mail Removed). uk...

[...]

>
> Your best bet is to pray some LLU operator
> takes over and give you a better service than
> dopey BT$
>

Unlikely to attract anyone, given the small population here, but it may be
time to look into a satellite service on a village basis... ?

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 18:34:50 GMT, "Trevor Morris"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> but dial-up works at ~45k without filter, 31k with...

something odd there, I get virtually no impact on dialup with a filter
and ADSL active on the line. Prob not your issue as the test socket
didn't work either.

Phil
--
Tiscali - dialup speeds at Broadband prices, see
http://bbs.adslguide.org.uk/postlist...&Board=tiscali

AOL - the unlimited ISP of choice for heavy downloaders.

- but dial-up works at ~45k without filter, 31k with...
>

For dial-up you could try a priority switch which should give complete
isolation for your modem and hence faster connection speeds. Worked for me.
50.666k with a US Robotics modem.

STeve

"Stevie Boy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> - but dial-up works at ~45k without filter, 31k with...
>>
>
> For dial-up you could try a priority switch which should give complete
> isolation for your modem and hence faster connection speeds. Worked for
> me. 50.666k with a US Robotics modem.
>
> STeve
>

Thanks for the suggestion: I didn't know such things existed, but since ADSL
doesn't work I have ditched the filter and dial-up works OK at 45.2 kbps.

TM

"Phil Thompson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 18:34:50 GMT, "Trevor Morris"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> but dial-up works at ~45k without filter, 31k with...
>
> something odd there, I get virtually no impact on dialup with a filter
> and ADSL active on the line. Prob not your issue as the test socket
> didn't work either.
>
> Phil

That's interesting. Apparently it's not unusual to get a slow-down of
dial-up on the filtered side of ADSL - e.g. see
http://www.adeptinternet.co.uk/faq.html - probably due to the filter
beginning to attenuate within the voice frequency band?

From that faq, it also seems that BT do not use G.Lite encoding for Home 250
ADSL, so they are probably right in saying that it would not work any better
over a long line than Home 500.

Trevor Morris