BT Voyager SNR figures

Any idea how accurate the Attenuation/Noise figures off a BT Voyager
2100 are? I'm getting;

Statistics Downstream Upstream
Line Rate 1152 288
Noise Margin 28.8 dB 24.0 dB
Line Attenuation 40.0 dB 24.5 dB
Output Power 12.0 dBm 18.7 dBm

and would like to try for a faster connection, but if the figures are
known to be inaccurate, obviously it's not worth the bother. The BT
checker currently says I'd struggle to get 1Mbps but, fairly obviously,
from the figures above, I have no problems.
--
Clint Sharp

"Clint Sharp" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Any idea how accurate the Attenuation/Noise figures off a BT Voyager 2100
> are? I'm getting;
>
> Statistics Downstream Upstream
> Line Rate 1152 288
> Noise Margin 28.8 dB 24.0 dB
> Line Attenuation 40.0 dB 24.5 dB
> Output Power 12.0 dBm 18.7 dBm
>
> and would like to try for a faster connection, but if the figures are
> known to be inaccurate, obviously it's not worth the bother. The BT
> checker currently says I'd struggle to get 1Mbps but, fairly obviously,
> from the figures above, I have no problems.

No router will be 100% accurate but most of them will give you a pretty good
indication of your stats

Your line attenuation is the bad reading in your figures.

Here are my stats on a 2meg line with the same 2100 Voyager:

Line Rate 2272 288
Noise Margin 30.5 dB 30.0 dB
Line Attenuation 13.5 dB 9.0 dB
Output Power 12.6 dBm 19.8 dBm

Notice my attenuation figures are a lot lower than yours even on a 2meg
line.

Clint Sharp wrote:
> Any idea how accurate the Attenuation/Noise figures off a BT Voyager
> 2100 are? I'm getting;
>
> Statistics Downstream Upstream
> Line Rate 1152 288
> Noise Margin 28.8 dB 24.0 dB
> Line Attenuation 40.0 dB 24.5 dB
> Output Power 12.0 dBm 18.7 dBm
>
> and would like to try for a faster connection, but if the figures
> are
> known to be inaccurate, obviously it's not worth the bother. The BT
> checker currently says I'd struggle to get 1Mbps but, fairly
> obviously, from the figures above, I have no problems.

All routers give different results, even between 2 of the same make &
model. What you've got is the best you are going to get without
resorting to a visit as Openreach engineers use software to measure
the loop/snr, using a Voyager 105 as an interface

If the figures are correct (I'm not saying you are misreading what the
router is reporting, it's the fact that the router may be giving you
false readings) you should be ok for 2Meg line attenuation is 3dB
inside limits & your SNR is good as well.

The BT checker is renown for it's inaccurracies so push it thru,
quoting your figures & see what happens

In message <43e8b1c3$0$1494$(E-Mail Removed)>,
Kraftee <kraftee@pleasedon'tspam.?.plus.com.invalid> writes
>
>All routers give different results, even between 2 of the same make &
>model.
Well, I've got four of the 2100 Voyagers and they all give the same
results +/- 0.2dB so I suspect that the repeatability is fairly good,
what I'm looking for is any kind of experience of these particular
routers being wildly inaccurate or spot on etc..
>What you've got is the best you are going to get without
>resorting to a visit as Openreach engineers use software to measure
>the loop/snr, using a Voyager 105 as an interface
Is the Voyager 105 used with special software or is the software used a
part of the end user package (or downloadable)? Might try hijacking the
next Openreach van I see...
>
>If the figures are correct (I'm not saying you are misreading what the
>router is reporting, it's the fact that the router may be giving you
>false readings) you should be ok for 2Meg line attenuation is 3dB
>inside limits & your SNR is good as well.
Yeah the figures looked good to me, it was the accuracy of the router I
was wondering about, I'm happy to try and bludgeon BT into changing the
checker database and then my ISP into re-grading my connection but I'd
rather not flog a dead horse if the router is one that's known to be
optimistic.
>
>The BT checker is renown for it's inaccurracies so push it thru,
>quoting your figures & see what happens
I'll try but I suspect that Demon won't listen, I've had a short
discussion with them an it seems they only believe the checker, so I
need to fix that first.
>
>

--
Clint Sharp

On 07/02/06 Clint Sharp wrote:
> > >The BT checker is renown for it's inaccurracies so push it thru,
> > >quoting your figures & see what happens
> I'll try but I suspect that Demon won't listen, I've had a short
> discussion with them an it seems they only believe the checker, so I
> need to fix that first.
>

Have a look at ADSLGuide forums and search for how to get the checker
details amended. You'll need to email Mr Saffron (user name), you can
find out how in the same post.

--

Brian Morrison

please observe reply-to address

On 07/02/06 Pete M Williams wrote:
> Your line attenuation is the bad reading in your figures.

It's 3dB inside the maximum limit for 2Mbps service on a BT line, so it
isn't "bad" in absolute terms. The SNR margin is easily sufficient for
2Mbps as well.

--

Brian Morrison

please observe reply-to address

Clint Sharp wrote:
> In message <43e8b1c3$0$1494$(E-Mail Removed)>,
> Kraftee <kraftee@pleasedon'tspam.?.plus.com.invalid> writes
>>
>> All routers give different results, even between 2 of the same make
>> &
>> model.
> Well, I've got four of the 2100 Voyagers and they all give the same
> results +/- 0.2dB so I suspect that the repeatability is fairly
> good,
> what I'm looking for is any kind of experience of these particular
> routers being wildly inaccurate or spot on etc..
>> What you've got is the best you are going to get without
>> resorting to a visit as Openreach engineers use software to measure
>> the loop/snr, using a Voyager 105 as an interface
> Is the Voyager 105 used with special software or is the software
> used
> a part of the end user package (or downloadable)? Might try
> hijacking
> the next Openreach van I see...


Sorry the software is in house only, even if you did get a copy you
wouldn't be able to licence/activate it as it is checked against
engineers ID's, serial numbers (yes we are numbers not free men
anymore), workgroups & BT .com email adresses..

>> The BT checker is renown for it's inaccurracies so push it thru,
>> quoting your figures & see what happens
> I'll try but I suspect that Demon won't listen, I've had a short
> discussion with them an it seems they only believe the checker, so I
> need to fix that first.

Many have tried & not quite so many have failed, one thing you do need
is a ISP which will push thru a manual upgrade which, apparently,
Demon don't or won't do..

In message <43e9234f$0$1455$(E-Mail Removed)>,
Kraftee <kraftee@pleasedon'tspam.?.plus.com.invalid> writes
>Sorry the software is in house only, even if you did get a copy you
>wouldn't be able to licence/activate it as it is checked against
>engineers ID's, serial numbers (yes we are numbers not free men
>anymore), workgroups & BT .com email adresses..
Ahh well, shame about the software. Know the feeling, just filled out a
self certifying sickness form, it asks for my employee number before my
name, same with the monthly fuel report and, I'm led to believe, many
other forms too. Still, if you're only a number it's unlikely that
anyone would recognise which does have some advantages for a quiet life.
>
>Many have tried & not quite so many have failed, one thing you do need
>is a ISP which will push thru a manual upgrade which, apparently,
>Demon don't or won't do..
Yeah, it seems Demon aren't too helpful in that respect. Shame, I've
quite liked them for the last ten years but am rapidly going off them
now.
>
>

--
Clint Sharp

"Brian Morrison" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:06udnZ8qs6-(E-Mail Removed)...
> On 07/02/06 Pete M Williams wrote:
>> Your line attenuation is the bad reading in your figures.
>
> It's 3dB inside the maximum limit for 2Mbps service on a BT line, so it
> isn't "bad" in absolute terms. The SNR margin is easily sufficient for
> 2Mbps as well.


But you missed the first part of my post out.

I said: "No router will be 100% accurate"

Because of this you cannot say that the line is 3dB inside the limit for the
2meg service. In fact it could well be 3dB outside the limit!
Only BT can tell you the answer as it is their own figures that are used in
the decision and not your own readings unfortunately.

Clint Sharp wrote:
> In message <43e9234f$0$1455$(E-Mail Removed)>,
> Kraftee <kraftee@pleasedon'tspam.?.plus.com.invalid> writes
>> Sorry the software is in house only, even if you did get a copy you
>> wouldn't be able to licence/activate it as it is checked against
>> engineers ID's, serial numbers (yes we are numbers not free men
>> anymore), workgroups & BT .com email adresses..
> Ahh well, shame about the software. Know the feeling, just filled
> out
> a self certifying sickness form, it asks for my employee number
> before my name, same with the monthly fuel report and, I'm led to
> believe, many other forms too. Still, if you're only a number it's
> unlikely that anyone would recognise which does have some advantages
> for a quiet life.

If only........I've edited out all the rest & leave it at that. If
only..... (got mug written across the front of my head & a target on
the back)

>>
>> Many have tried & not quite so many have failed, one thing you do
>> need is a ISP which will push thru a manual upgrade which,
>> apparently, Demon don't or won't do..
> Yeah, it seems Demon aren't too helpful in that respect. Shame, I've
> quite liked them for the last ten years but am rapidly going off
> them
> now.

There is a lot of change going on, which is one of the reasons I
haven't jumped ship _yet_ from my ISP. Don't know where it's all
going to end up & where it's going to leave us the user (& before
anybody asks, no I don't get an inside track & normally I find out
things on this group before I get told officially) so I'm sitting back
& trying to enjoy (if that's the right word) the ride (ok I admit it
I'm a masochist).