How does ADSL MAX differ from regular 512Kb, 1Mb or 2Mb broadband ?

How does ADSL MAX differ from regular 1Mb or 2Mb broadband ?

Other than the obvious speed difference.

Is it as reliable as regular broadband if used to underpin a hardware
site to site VPN ?

Does the ISP make much difference ? especially if used as a site to
site VPN transport ?

Techincally how does it differ from regular broadband back at the
Exchange ?

We have had differing experiences with ADSL MAX recently, having
changed several customers over they appear to be experiencing much
worse performance than they did previously on the regular broadband
lines, with ever decreasing upload and doanload speeds and frequent
disconnections.

We've seen this at various locations.

We've hooked some of our customers back up to their original regular
broadband to overcome some of these issues.

We have had reports back from the ISP that BT have replaced 'jumpers'
at the Exchange in an effort to try and resolve these issues.

Bottom line is: Customers have a perfectly good working reliable 512Kb/
1Mb/2Mb broadband before they are upgraded to ADSL MAX, upgrades were
undertaken to try to take advantage of higher upload speeds, in some
caes this has dramatically backfired on us, why ?

Is this just an issue at the Exchange ?

We've swapped out routers and other hardware and it's made no
difference at all.

That said in other locations we have not had any of the above problems
or issues.

The locations are in small towns, where the customers with the poorly
performing ADSL MAX are not that far away from the Exchange.

Could this be an ISP issues or is it more likey to be the Exchange or
route to the Exchange ?

Jim.

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:

> How does ADSL MAX differ from regular 1Mb or 2Mb broadband ?
>
> Other than the obvious speed difference.

Precious little.

Google 'rate adaptive DSL'. That's basically what it is (plus some BT inspired
tweaks).

Graham

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:

> Bottom line is: Customers have a perfectly good working reliable 512Kb/
> 1Mb/2Mb broadband before they are upgraded to ADSL MAX, upgrades were
> undertaken to try to take advantage of higher upload speeds, in some
> caes this has dramatically backfired on us, why ?
>
> Is this just an issue at the Exchange ?
>
> We've swapped out routers and other hardware and it's made no
> difference at all.

There are so many possible factors involved that a complete answer would go on
forever.

Graham

"Eeyore" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>
> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>
>> Bottom line is: Customers have a perfectly good working reliable 512Kb/
>> 1Mb/2Mb broadband before they are upgraded to ADSL MAX, upgrades were
>> undertaken to try to take advantage of higher upload speeds, in some
>> caes this has dramatically backfired on us, why ?
>>
>> Is this just an issue at the Exchange ?
>>
>> We've swapped out routers and other hardware and it's made no
>> difference at all.
>
> There are so many possible factors involved that a complete answer would
> go on
> forever.
>
> Graham
>

Have a look around this site:

http://www.kitz.co.uk/adsl/lowSNR.htm

Eeyore <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> Precious little.
>
> Google 'rate adaptive DSL'. That's basically what it is (plus some BT inspired
> tweaks).

Then why do we hear of so many cases where someone had a 'rock solid'
fixed speed link but after 'upgrading' to ADSL Max the performance and
reliability get worse? There *should* be no reason why a rate adaptive
system should ever rate-adapt to a lower speed than the previously
reliable fixed rate connection[1]. If it rate-adapts to a higher speed
than the previous fixed rate then it is understandable that the
reliability might not be so good, but (unless there have co-incidentally
been other changes which affect the line quality) it should *never* give
a worse performance than the fixed rate line.

[1] And if it does rate-adapt to the same speed as the previous fixed
rate connection then it should be just as reliable.

Graham Murray wrote:

> Eeyore <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>
> > Precious little.
> >
> > Google 'rate adaptive DSL'. That's basically what it is (plus some BT inspired
> > tweaks).
>
> Then why do we hear of so many cases where someone had a 'rock solid'
> fixed speed link but after 'upgrading' to ADSL Max the performance and
> reliability get worse? There *should* be no reason why a rate adaptive
> system should ever rate-adapt to a lower speed than the previously
> reliable fixed rate connection[1]. If it rate-adapts to a higher speed
> than the previous fixed rate then it is understandable that the
> reliability might not be so good, but (unless there have co-incidentally
> been other changes which affect the line quality) it should *never* give
> a worse performance than the fixed rate line.
>
> [1] And if it does rate-adapt to the same speed as the previous fixed
> rate connection then it should be just as reliable.

In a simple world what you say would make sense.

It's not that simple though. RADSL is jumping through so many technical hoops that
it's a miracle it works as well as it does. Add in very variable and inconsistent
line quality, environmental factors, any number of possibilities associated with the
end user's telephone wiring inside their home and a host of unknowns that accompany
100 or more brands of routers with various chip sets and firmware and what do you
expect ?

Time was when if you had a modem , it came from BT - Post Office Telephones actually
(and they were confident about its performance since it was made to their spec) and
that was that.

Graham

"Graham Murray" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Eeyore <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>
>> Precious little.
>>
>> Google 'rate adaptive DSL'. That's basically what it is (plus some BT
>> inspired
>> tweaks).
>
> Then why do we hear of so many cases where someone had a 'rock solid'
> fixed speed link but after 'upgrading' to ADSL Max the performance and
> reliability get worse? There *should* be no reason why a rate adaptive
> system should ever rate-adapt to a lower speed than the previously
> reliable fixed rate connection[1]. If it rate-adapts to a higher speed
> than the previous fixed rate then it is understandable that the
> reliability might not be so good, but (unless there have co-incidentally
> been other changes which affect the line quality) it should *never* give
> a worse performance than the fixed rate line.
>
> [1] And if it does rate-adapt to the same speed as the previous fixed
> rate connection then it should be just as reliable.

Yeah-but-no-but-yeah...
My previous fixed rate broadband was 512K with "no improvement possible"
(BT) - I'm on a long rural line. Admittedly, it was stable at that speed.
I then went to ADSL Max and my connection immediately shot up to 2.4-to-3.2
Gig (variable).
Disadvantages: occasional drop-outs/re-synchs, depending on time of day,
rain, thunderstorms, etc.
Advantages: up to 6 times faster, dependant on the variables above (I can
live with the variables).
No, it's not so reliable but it's a hell of a lot faster.
It's all down to BT realising that the demand is there for faster Broadband
and realising that the only way that they could economically meet it would
be by electronical trickery, if you will. However, when it comes down to it,
it's still the same old copper pair to your house/business.
You'll probably only get completely stable/reliable speeds if you go back to
fixed-speed Broadband (if your ISP lets you do that - and they probably
won't, 'cos BT won't let them) or if/when cable/fibre becomes available in
your local area, which again it probably won't.
Or if you have access to Be - and that's another story altogether - see
other threads....

George

Graham Murray wrote:
> Eeyore <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>
>> Precious little.
>>
>> Google 'rate adaptive DSL'. That's basically what it is (plus some BT inspired
>> tweaks).
>
> Then why do we hear of so many cases where someone had a 'rock solid'
> fixed speed link but after 'upgrading' to ADSL Max the performance and
> reliability get worse? There *should* be no reason why a rate adaptive
> system should ever rate-adapt to a lower speed than the previously
> reliable fixed rate connection[1].

This is, in fact, a "should". I believe that BTwholesale still consider
it a fault condition if a line is regraded to MAX and you get a lower
sync/line rate as a direct result - check with your ISP to see if they
will get BTwholesale to investigate any such instance.

Using a decent router and decent filters, and connecting to the master
socket or using a faceplate helps. Also, google for 'dslmaxv4.wmv' to
get some tips on what to check.

George Weston wrote:

> "Graham Murray" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Eeyore <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> >
> >> Precious little.
> >>
> >> Google 'rate adaptive DSL'. That's basically what it is (plus some BT
> >> inspired
> >> tweaks).
> >
> > Then why do we hear of so many cases where someone had a 'rock solid'
> > fixed speed link but after 'upgrading' to ADSL Max the performance and
> > reliability get worse? There *should* be no reason why a rate adaptive
> > system should ever rate-adapt to a lower speed than the previously
> > reliable fixed rate connection[1]. If it rate-adapts to a higher speed
> > than the previous fixed rate then it is understandable that the
> > reliability might not be so good, but (unless there have co-incidentally
> > been other changes which affect the line quality) it should *never* give
> > a worse performance than the fixed rate line.
> >
> > [1] And if it does rate-adapt to the same speed as the previous fixed
> > rate connection then it should be just as reliable.
>
> Yeah-but-no-but-yeah...
> My previous fixed rate broadband was 512K with "no improvement possible"
> (BT) - I'm on a long rural line. Admittedly, it was stable at that speed.
> I then went to ADSL Max and my connection immediately shot up to 2.4-to-3.2
> Gig (variable).
> Disadvantages: occasional drop-outs/re-synchs, depending on time of day,
> rain, thunderstorms, etc.
> Advantages: up to 6 times faster, dependant on the variables above (I can
> live with the variables).
> No, it's not so reliable but it's a hell of a lot faster.
> It's all down to BT realising that the demand is there for faster Broadband
> and realising that the only way that they could economically meet it would
> be by electronical trickery, if you will. However, when it comes down to it,
> it's still the same old copper pair to your house/business.
> You'll probably only get completely stable/reliable speeds if you go back to
> fixed-speed Broadband (if your ISP lets you do that - and they probably
> won't, 'cos BT won't let them) or if/when cable/fibre becomes available in
> your local area, which again it probably won't.
> Or if you have access to Be - and that's another story altogether - see
> other threads....

Sensible and very informative post George.

As for Be and the other ADSL2+ ISPs, you only see a useful advantage if you're
reasonably near to the exchange. They reckoned I'd be good for ~ 15Mbps for
example ( I currently get 'full bore' MaxDSL) and I'm about 900m from the
exchange as the crow flies (about 1500m of actual twisted pair apparently).

Graham

"George Weston" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...

> My previous fixed rate broadband was 512K with "no improvement possible"
> (BT) - I'm on a long rural line. Admittedly, it was stable at that speed.
> I then went to ADSL Max and my connection immediately shot up to
2.4-to-3.2
> Gig (variable).

Wow! Thats one hell of an improvement. 512k to 3.2 Gig !

Are you sure about that?