Can moving ISP improve your BT line?

A mate of mine has been plagued with poor line speed on his BT line, he
regularly syncs at around 300kbps downstream. Download speed is around 15
to 20k a second. this is with BT broadband. Now today he has signed up
with TalkTalk, who told him that they can offer him 4mbit speeds because
they use fibre optics. What is this all about? I thought TalkTalk used the
standard BT line? There are no fibre optics running in his area anyway, so
how are they going to improve his poor BT line and give him 4meg?

Can they really give him a 4meg speed, even when his BT line is really bad?
As far as I know TalkTalk use the BT line? Or am I mistaken?

James

James wrote:
> A mate of mine has been plagued with poor line speed on his BT line, he
> regularly syncs at around 300kbps downstream. Download speed is around 15
> to 20k a second. this is with BT broadband. Now today he has signed up
> with TalkTalk, who told him that they can offer him 4mbit speeds because
> they use fibre optics. What is this all about? I thought TalkTalk used the
> standard BT line? There are no fibre optics running in his area anyway, so
> how are they going to improve his poor BT line and give him 4meg?
>
> Can they really give him a 4meg speed, even when his BT line is really bad?
> As far as I know TalkTalk use the BT line? Or am I mistaken?
>

Almost certainly you are correct.
If the basic bottleneck is in the exchange line, no ISP change will
solve it.


> James
>
>

In article <i7a18a$etj$(E-Mail Removed)>, The Natural Philosopher
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


> Almost certainly you are correct.
> If the basic bottleneck is in the exchange line, no ISP change will
> solve it.
>

Yes, that is certainly true, but sometimes an ISP might blame exchange
congestion when it isn't true.

For several months I complained to my then ISP that my speeds had
dramatically decreased from 6 Mbps to barely better than dialup speeds.
They always claimed it was congestion at my exchange. Eventually I
decided to change to a (cheaper) ISP on the grounds that even if my
speeds didn't increase at least I'd be saving money.

Lo and behold, a few mins before the switchover I was getting under
500Kbps and immediately after the switchover I was getting almost 6
Mbps. Ever since then I almost always got well over 5 Mbps and never
ever less than 3.5 Mbps.

I think it's highly unlikely that on the very same afternoon I switched
ISPs there was a sudden, dramatic and permanent removal of congestion
at the exchange.

So personally if I had speed problems I'd look for a different ISP who
is cheaper, or gives more bandwidth allowance, or gives better support,
or is in some other way better. That way even if speeds don't improve
at least you get a cheaper and/or better deal.

Kit

Kit wrote:
> In article <i7a18a$etj$(E-Mail Removed)>, The Natural Philosopher
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>> Almost certainly you are correct.
>> If the basic bottleneck is in the exchange line, no ISP change will
>> solve it.
>>
>
> Yes, that is certainly true, but sometimes an ISP might blame exchange
> congestion when it isn't true.
>
> For several months I complained to my then ISP that my speeds had
> dramatically decreased from 6 Mbps to barely better than dialup speeds.
> They always claimed it was congestion at my exchange. Eventually I
> decided to change to a (cheaper) ISP on the grounds that even if my
> speeds didn't increase at least I'd be saving money.
>
> Lo and behold, a few mins before the switchover I was getting under
> 500Kbps and immediately after the switchover I was getting almost 6
> Mbps. Ever since then I almost always got well over 5 Mbps and never
> ever less than 3.5 Mbps.
>
> I think it's highly unlikely that on the very same afternoon I switched
> ISPs there was a sudden, dramatic and permanent removal of congestion
> at the exchange.
>
> So personally if I had speed problems I'd look for a different ISP who
> is cheaper, or gives more bandwidth allowance, or gives better support,
> or is in some other way better. That way even if speeds don't improve
> at least you get a cheaper and/or better deal.
>
> Kit

When you are saying 'getting better than X' it helps if you say that you
mean actual download speeds, or synch speeds.

I expect to get 90% of my BRAS, and I do, and my BRAS is about 800K less
than my synch speed. So I synch at 3500-4000, get a 3000 BRAS and get
transfer speeds around 300KBytes/sec.

If I synch at 3000+ and get less than 2000 actual transfer, THEN I blame
the ISP.

In article <i7au9a$soo$(E-Mail Removed)>, The Natural Philosopher
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Kit wrote:
> > In article <i7a18a$etj$(E-Mail Removed)>, The Natural Philosopher
> > <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Almost certainly you are correct.
> >> If the basic bottleneck is in the exchange line, no ISP change will
> >> solve it.
> >>
> >
> > Yes, that is certainly true, but sometimes an ISP might blame exchange
> > congestion when it isn't true.
> >
> > For several months I complained to my then ISP that my speeds had
> > dramatically decreased from 6 Mbps to barely better than dialup speeds.
> > They always claimed it was congestion at my exchange. Eventually I
> > decided to change to a (cheaper) ISP on the grounds that even if my
> > speeds didn't increase at least I'd be saving money.
> >
> > Lo and behold, a few mins before the switchover I was getting under
> > 500Kbps and immediately after the switchover I was getting almost 6
> > Mbps. Ever since then I almost always got well over 5 Mbps and never
> > ever less than 3.5 Mbps.
> >
> > I think it's highly unlikely that on the very same afternoon I switched
> > ISPs there was a sudden, dramatic and permanent removal of congestion
> > at the exchange.
> >
> > So personally if I had speed problems I'd look for a different ISP who
> > is cheaper, or gives more bandwidth allowance, or gives better support,
> > or is in some other way better. That way even if speeds don't improve
> > at least you get a cheaper and/or better deal.
> >
> > Kit
>
> When you are saying 'getting better than X' it helps if you say that you
> mean actual download speeds, or synch speeds.
>
> I expect to get 90% of my BRAS, and I do, and my BRAS is about 800K less
> than my synch speed. So I synch at 3500-4000, get a 3000 BRAS and get
> transfer speeds around 300KBytes/sec.
>
> If I synch at 3000+ and get less than 2000 actual transfer, THEN I blame
> the ISP.

Sorry for not being specific. All the numbers I gave above were
throughput speeds.

My synch rates were rock solid constant at all the times mentioned
above were at 8128 Kbps and that was regardlees of whether my
throughput was 100 Kbps or 5000 Kbps. (yes, I still have all the
records of the BT speedtester results during my long dispute with the
ISP over my massively throughput decrease).

So you can see why I was blaming the ISP when I was getting throughputs
often under 500 Kbps and sometimes under 100 Kbps. The ISP's claim that
it was exchange congestion was (at least to my satisfaction) proved
false by the immediate huge and sustained increase in throughput (still
with the same synch rates) as soon as I switched ISP.

I have an excellent line (put in specifically for my ADSL connection)
and short distance to the exchange. Typical router stats were (and
still are) SNR of 5dB-6dB and Loop Att of 23dB-27dB.

As an idea of the line quality, currently I'm on ADSL2+ synching at
19544 Kbps and throughput of around 16500 - 16900 Kbps.

Kit

Kit wrote:
> In article <i7au9a$soo$(E-Mail Removed)>, The Natural Philosopher
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Kit wrote:
>>> In article <i7a18a$etj$(E-Mail Removed)>, The Natural Philosopher
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Almost certainly you are correct.
>>>> If the basic bottleneck is in the exchange line, no ISP change will
>>>> solve it.
>>>>
>>> Yes, that is certainly true, but sometimes an ISP might blame exchange
>>> congestion when it isn't true.
>>>
>>> For several months I complained to my then ISP that my speeds had
>>> dramatically decreased from 6 Mbps to barely better than dialup speeds.
>>> They always claimed it was congestion at my exchange. Eventually I
>>> decided to change to a (cheaper) ISP on the grounds that even if my
>>> speeds didn't increase at least I'd be saving money.
>>>
>>> Lo and behold, a few mins before the switchover I was getting under
>>> 500Kbps and immediately after the switchover I was getting almost 6
>>> Mbps. Ever since then I almost always got well over 5 Mbps and never
>>> ever less than 3.5 Mbps.
>>>
>>> I think it's highly unlikely that on the very same afternoon I switched
>>> ISPs there was a sudden, dramatic and permanent removal of congestion
>>> at the exchange.
>>>
>>> So personally if I had speed problems I'd look for a different ISP who
>>> is cheaper, or gives more bandwidth allowance, or gives better support,
>>> or is in some other way better. That way even if speeds don't improve
>>> at least you get a cheaper and/or better deal.
>>>
>>> Kit
>> When you are saying 'getting better than X' it helps if you say that you
>> mean actual download speeds, or synch speeds.
>>
>> I expect to get 90% of my BRAS, and I do, and my BRAS is about 800K less
>> than my synch speed. So I synch at 3500-4000, get a 3000 BRAS and get
>> transfer speeds around 300KBytes/sec.
>>
>> If I synch at 3000+ and get less than 2000 actual transfer, THEN I blame
>> the ISP.
>
> Sorry for not being specific. All the numbers I gave above were
> throughput speeds.
>
> My synch rates were rock solid constant at all the times mentioned
> above were at 8128 Kbps and that was regardlees of whether my
> throughput was 100 Kbps or 5000 Kbps. (yes, I still have all the
> records of the BT speedtester results during my long dispute with the
> ISP over my massively throughput decrease).
>
> So you can see why I was blaming the ISP when I was getting throughputs
> often under 500 Kbps and sometimes under 100 Kbps. The ISP's claim that
> it was exchange congestion was (at least to my satisfaction) proved
> false by the immediate huge and sustained increase in throughput (still
> with the same synch rates) as soon as I switched ISP.
>

fair enough then.

> I have an excellent line (put in specifically for my ADSL connection)
> and short distance to the exchange. Typical router stats were (and
> still are) SNR of 5dB-6dB and Loop Att of 23dB-27dB.
>
> As an idea of the line quality, currently I'm on ADSL2+ synching at
> 19544 Kbps and throughput of around 16500 - 16900 Kbps.
>

If you tell me that I have to kill you :-)
> Kit

"Andy Champ" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:(E-Mail Removed). uk...
> On 21/09/2010 20:37, Kit wrote:
>>
>> Sorry for not being specific. All the numbers I gave above were
>> throughput speeds.
>>
>> My synch rates were rock solid constant at all the times mentioned
>> above were at 8128 Kbps and that was regardlees of whether my
>> throughput was 100 Kbps or 5000 Kbps. (yes, I still have all the
>> records of the BT speedtester results during my long dispute with the
>> ISP over my massively throughput decrease).
>>
>> So you can see why I was blaming the ISP when I was getting throughputs
>> often under 500 Kbps and sometimes under 100 Kbps. The ISP's claim that
>> it was exchange congestion was (at least to my satisfaction) proved
>> false by the immediate huge and sustained increase in throughput (still
>> with the same synch rates) as soon as I switched ISP.
>>
> The new ISP may have their own equipment at the exchange. I too would have switched - usually the limit is the bit of copper
> between you and the exchange.
>
>> I have an excellent line (put in specifically for my ADSL connection)
>> and short distance to the exchange. Typical router stats were (and
>> still are) SNR of 5dB-6dB and Loop Att of 23dB-27dB.
>>
>> As an idea of the line quality, currently I'm on ADSL2+ synching at
>> 19544 Kbps and throughput of around 16500 - 16900 Kbps.
>>
>
> ... and now I hate you. :/ I _do_ have a line quality problem and get just over 2 megs. It's not even copper - aluminium wire
> here!
>
> Andy

Look on the bright side, it's more conductive than a glass fibre ;-)

--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

"Kit" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:210920101758142340%(E-Mail Removed)...
> In article <i7a18a$etj$(E-Mail Removed)>, The Natural Philosopher
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
> > Almost certainly you are correct.
> > If the basic bottleneck is in the exchange line, no ISP change will
> > solve it.
> >
>
> Yes, that is certainly true, but sometimes an ISP might blame exchange
> congestion when it isn't true.
>
> For several months I complained to my then ISP that my speeds had
> dramatically decreased from 6 Mbps to barely better than dialup speeds.
> They always claimed it was congestion at my exchange. Eventually I
> decided to change to a (cheaper) ISP on the grounds that even if my
> speeds didn't increase at least I'd be saving money.
>
> Lo and behold, a few mins before the switchover I was getting under
> 500Kbps and immediately after the switchover I was getting almost 6
> Mbps. Ever since then I almost always got well over 5 Mbps and never
> ever less than 3.5 Mbps.
>
> I think it's highly unlikely that on the very same afternoon I switched
> ISPs there was a sudden, dramatic and permanent removal of congestion
> at the exchange.
>
> So personally if I had speed problems I'd look for a different ISP who
> is cheaper, or gives more bandwidth allowance, or gives better support,
> or is in some other way better. That way even if speeds don't improve
> at least you get a cheaper and/or better deal.
>
> Kit

All noted Kit, but what was your sync speed? Not the download speed, but
the speed at which your broadband syncs? I have just been to BT ADSL
Wholesale site and entered the phone number in question and this is what
they say about his line:

'Your exchange is ADSL enabled, and our initial test on your line indicates
that it is VERY UNLIKELY you will be able to receive fixed 512Kbps or
256Kbps broadband service due to the very long length of your telephone
line. However, your order will be accepted if you still wish to order. An
engineer may need to visit who will, where possible, supply the broadband
service.'

Last time I went round there his router was syncing at 194 kpbs.... a
router reboot got it up to 206kbps downstream but it was unreliable. I very
much doubt that a move to Talk Talk (who is claiming he is going to get
4000kbps is actually going to be successful)..... Do you???, after all they
are not going to replace or improve his line are they???

In article <i7csem$ggm$(E-Mail Removed)>, James
<986675343436466787980@00676100.00> wrote:

> "Kit" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:210920101758142340%(E-Mail Removed)...
> > In article <i7a18a$etj$(E-Mail Removed)>, The Natural Philosopher
> > <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Almost certainly you are correct.
> > > If the basic bottleneck is in the exchange line, no ISP change will
> > > solve it.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, that is certainly true, but sometimes an ISP might blame exchange
> > congestion when it isn't true.
>
> All noted Kit, but what was your sync speed? Not the download speed, but
> the speed at which your broadband syncs?

At the time my sync rates on ADSL were always over 8000 Kbps.

My post was a response to The Natural Philosopher's comment about
exchange congestion (which is why I quoted his post) and so wasn't
directly relevant to your friend's problem.

As others have said, if the phone line is too long or otherwise not
good enough then no ISP can can give a better service along that line,
though maybe they could provide it by cable or optical fibre.

Kit

Andy Burns wrote:
> Kit wrote:
>
>> As others have said, if the phone line is too long or otherwise not
>> good enough then no ISP can can give a better service along that line,
>
> Although it's common for BT's DSLAM settings to be far more conservative
> than the LLU operators, so you might get a higher speed link (at the
> possible risk of being less reliable).
>


I haven't found that to be particularly the case really. If you go too
aggressive you get loads of resynchs anyway. Which is more of a pain
than a higher sync speed gains - especially if it nets you no more BRAS.