Ping Peter Crosland or 2WIRE users

I was recently given a BT/2WIRE router, unfortunately (I think?) it has
the latest BT firmware

Hardware Version: 2701-100589-005
Firmware Version: 6.1.1.48.1-enh.tm

The broadband status information shows

Down Up
Rate: 2271 kbs 770 kbs
Max Rate: 3265 kbs 1047 kbs
Noise Margin: 7.0 dB 5.7 dB
Attenuation: 62.1 dB 33.6 dB
Output Power: 18.8 dBm -31.0 dBm
Protocol: G.DMT2+ Annex A
Channel: Interleaved
DSLAM Vendor Information Country: {46336}
Vendor: {TSTC}
Specific: {4101 }
ATM PVC: 0/38
Rate Cap: 3265 kbs
Attenuation @ 300kHz: 62.1 dB
Uncanceled Echo: -13.0 dB Ok
VCXO Frequency Offset: -1.5 ppm Ok
Final Receive Gain: 34.5 dB Ok
Impulse Noise Comp. Tones: 0 Ok
Excessive Impulse Noise: 0 Ok

The download speeds is no faster than my ADSL1 Cisco 770, upstream is
marginally faster, are these likely to rise towards the cap values, or
are the cap values theoretical maximums that will never be reached in
practice?

Is there any point asking my ISP (plusnet) to reset the training data
for my line to give the new router a chance?

For completeness, the DSL diagnostics are as follows (unfortunately the
training status will wrap).

DSL Line (Wire Pair): Line 1 (inner pair)
Downstream Rate Cap: 2272 kbps
Downstream Atten. at 300kHz: 55.0 dB
Uncancelled Echo: -13.0 dB Ok
VCXO Frequency Offset: -1.5 ppm Ok
Final Rx Gain: 34.5 dB Ok
Impulse Noise Comp. Tones: 0 Ok
Excessive Impulse Noise: 0 Ok
Impulse noise protection: 5.25
Delay of latency path: 7.66 ms

Training History

Downstream Upstream
Time Line Rate Max1 Max2 Max3 Mgn1 Mgn2 Attn Pwr CRCs
FECs INP DLY Rate Max Mgn Attn Pwr CRCs FECs Mode Vendor
State Exit Code Echo VCXO Rx Gain INC Tones
2011/05/07 16:15:03 BST 1 2271 3285 3285 3285 7.2 7.1 61.9
18.8 0 73 5.25 7.66 770 1051 6.0 33.6 -214748360.0 0 47
G.DMT2+ Annex A TI 237/104 IDLE_REQUEST -12.0 0.9 34.5 0
2011/05/07 17:30:52 BST 1 2271 3285 3265 3265 7.2 7.0 62.1
18.8 0 442 5.25 7.66 770 1047 5.7 33.6 -214748360.0 0 227
G.DMT2+ Annex A TI 236/104 N/A -13.0 -1.5 34.5 0

"Andy Burns" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) o.uk...
>I was recently given a BT/2WIRE router, unfortunately (I think?) it has
> the latest BT firmware
>
> Hardware Version: 2701-100589-005
> Firmware Version: 6.1.1.48.1-enh.tm
>
> The broadband status information shows
>
> Down Up
> Rate: 2271 kbs 770 kbs
> Max Rate: 3265 kbs 1047 kbs
> Noise Margin: 7.0 dB 5.7 dB
> Attenuation: 62.1 dB 33.6 dB


My BT 2700 (Firmware Version 5, same hardware) can hold 4400kbps sync on a
53dB attenuation line, so you are not getting a bad rate for a 62dB line.
If you ask for a reset, the target Noise Margin will be reset to 6dB, and
from your reported 7dB it might be deduced that you are already on a 6dB
target. I'm a great believer in the "time-of-day" method. Try powering
down-pausing-powering up your modem at, say, 10AM and 10PM. The diagnostic
data will give you some measure of your diurnal sync speed swing. Then try
to deduce the best time of day to do the p-p-p. Too near 10AM and your
system may crash in the following 24 hours; too near 10PM and you'll get too
conservative a connection. In doing this, also consider the IP Profile
steps. My connection can sustain 4400kbps sync, but why struggle for 4400
when one can achieve the same IP Profile for any sync speed above 4000kbps?

PA

Peter Able wrote:

> My BT 2700 (Firmware Version 5, same hardware) can hold 4400kbps sync on a
> 53dB attenuation line, so you are not getting a bad rate for a 62dB line.

Thanks,

That's one confusing aspect of the 2WIRE, on one page it reports 63dB on
another page it reports 55dB, the latter is closer to what other routers
report on my line.

The line used to get nearly 4Mbps when first upgraded from 1Mbps fixed
rate service to DSLMax, it slowly dwindled to 2.xMbps over the years,
got quite upset when the copper phone lines were stolen (twice!) and
then after being upgraded (accidentally) to ADSL2+ it got 3.8Mbps for a
couple of weeks, which then dropped back to 2.xMbps

Obviously I do have a long line, and hoped the 2WIRE would live up to
its reputation ... I'll see how it goes ...

Mine is similar apart from the channel setting - mine went to
"interleaved" when I used to use an older router but got my ISP to
change it back to "fast" when I got the 2700 - could be worht asking
Plusnet to do this when you call them:

Protocol:

G.DMT Annex A



Channel:

Fast



DSLAM Vendor Information

Country: {46336} Vendor: {IFTN} Specific: {48753 }



ATM PVC:

0/38

Jasper



On Sat, 07 May 2011 17:39:05 +0100, Andy Burns
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I was recently given a BT/2WIRE router, unfortunately (I think?) it has
>the latest BT firmware
>
>Hardware Version: 2701-100589-005
>Firmware Version: 6.1.1.48.1-enh.tm
>
>The broadband status information shows
>
> Down Up
>Rate: 2271 kbs 770 kbs
>Max Rate: 3265 kbs 1047 kbs
>Noise Margin: 7.0 dB 5.7 dB
>Attenuation: 62.1 dB 33.6 dB
>Output Power: 18.8 dBm -31.0 dBm
>Protocol: G.DMT2+ Annex A
>Channel: Interleaved
>DSLAM Vendor Information Country: {46336}
> Vendor: {TSTC}
> Specific: {4101 }
>ATM PVC: 0/38
>Rate Cap: 3265 kbs
>Attenuation @ 300kHz: 62.1 dB
>Uncanceled Echo: -13.0 dB Ok
>VCXO Frequency Offset: -1.5 ppm Ok
>Final Receive Gain: 34.5 dB Ok
>Impulse Noise Comp. Tones: 0 Ok
>Excessive Impulse Noise: 0 Ok
>
>The download speeds is no faster than my ADSL1 Cisco 770, upstream is
>marginally faster, are these likely to rise towards the cap values, or
>are the cap values theoretical maximums that will never be reached in
>practice?
>
>Is there any point asking my ISP (plusnet) to reset the training data
>for my line to give the new router a chance?
>
>For completeness, the DSL diagnostics are as follows (unfortunately the
>training status will wrap).
>
>DSL Line (Wire Pair): Line 1 (inner pair)
>Downstream Rate Cap: 2272 kbps
>Downstream Atten. at 300kHz: 55.0 dB
>Uncancelled Echo: -13.0 dB Ok
>VCXO Frequency Offset: -1.5 ppm Ok
>Final Rx Gain: 34.5 dB Ok
>Impulse Noise Comp. Tones: 0 Ok
>Excessive Impulse Noise: 0 Ok
>Impulse noise protection: 5.25
>Delay of latency path: 7.66 ms
>
>Training History
>
> Downstream Upstream
>Time Line Rate Max1 Max2 Max3 Mgn1 Mgn2 Attn Pwr CRCs
>FECs INP DLY Rate Max Mgn Attn Pwr CRCs FECs Mode Vendor
>State Exit Code Echo VCXO Rx Gain INC Tones
>2011/05/07 16:15:03 BST 1 2271 3285 3285 3285 7.2 7.1 61.9
>18.8 0 73 5.25 7.66 770 1051 6.0 33.6 -214748360.0 0 47
>G.DMT2+ Annex A TI 237/104 IDLE_REQUEST -12.0 0.9 34.5 0
>2011/05/07 17:30:52 BST 1 2271 3285 3265 3265 7.2 7.0 62.1
>18.8 0 442 5.25 7.66 770 1047 5.7 33.6 -214748360.0 0 227
>G.DMT2+ Annex A TI 236/104 N/A -13.0 -1.5 34.5 0

"Andy Burns" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) o.uk...
> Peter Able wrote:
>
>> My BT 2700 (Firmware Version 5, same hardware) can hold 4400kbps sync on
>> a
>> 53dB attenuation line, so you are not getting a bad rate for a 62dB line.
>
> Thanks,
>
> That's one confusing aspect of the 2WIRE, on one page it reports 63dB on
> another page it reports 55dB, the latter is closer to what other routers
> report on my line.
>
> The line used to get nearly 4Mbps when first upgraded from 1Mbps fixed
> rate service to DSLMax, it slowly dwindled to 2.xMbps over the years,
> got quite upset when the copper phone lines were stolen (twice!) and
> then after being upgraded (accidentally) to ADSL2+ it got 3.8Mbps for a
> couple of weeks, which then dropped back to 2.xMbps
>
> Obviously I do have a long line, and hoped the 2WIRE would live up to
> its reputation ... I'll see how it goes ...


Looking at the figures the performance you are getting sounds about right.
Which pages are the two different attenuation are shown?

Peter Crosland

Peter Crosland wrote:

> Looking at the figures the performance you are getting sounds about right.
> Which pages are the two different attenuation are shown?

http://192.168.1.254/xslt?PAGE=C_5_3 (Settings/Diagnostics/DSL)

Downstream Rate Cap: 2272 kbps
Downstream Atten. at 300kHz: 55.0 dB


http://192.168.1.254/xslt?PAGE=C_1_0 (Settings/Broadband/Status)

Rate Cap: 3133 kbs
Attenuation @ 300kHz: 62.1 dB

"Jasper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Mine is similar apart from the channel setting - mine went to
> "interleaved" when I used to use an older router but got my ISP to
> change it back to "fast" when I got the 2700 - could be worht asking
> Plusnet to do this when you call them:


Unless the OP is a gamer then that is bad advice. Removing interleaving also
removes error checking. This just reduces the effective line capacity
because every error has to be repeated.

Peter Crosland

Andy Burns wrote:
> Peter Crosland wrote:
>
>> Looking at the figures the performance you are getting sounds about right.
>> Which pages are the two different attenuation are shown?
>
> http://192.168.1.254/xslt?PAGE=C_5_3 (Settings/Diagnostics/DSL)
>
> Downstream Rate Cap: 2272 kbps
> Downstream Atten. at 300kHz: 55.0 dB
>
>
> http://192.168.1.254/xslt?PAGE=C_1_0 (Settings/Broadband/Status)
>
> Rate Cap: 3133 kbs
> Attenuation @ 300kHz: 62.1 dB

Seems cock-eyed that the page reporting the highesr attenuation shows a
higher rate cap

Also the training history from further down the "PAGE=C_5_3" page

Rate Max1 Max2 Max3 Mgn1 Mgn2 Attn Pwr
2271 3285 3285 3285 7.2 7.1 61.9 18.8

Peter Crosland wrote:

> Unless the OP is a gamer then that is bad advice. Removing interleaving also
> removes error checking. This just reduces the effective line capacity
> because every error has to be repeated.

I though non-interlaced mode reduced the effectiveness of error
detection/correction, rather than removed it completely, so I've never
asked for interleave to be turned off.

I'm seeing a fair few corrected errors (18000) but few uncorrectable
ones (13) in over 4 hours

The bit loading graph seems to tail off quite smoothly as expected,
conking out at bin 199 x 4.3125 = 858kHz with a notch centred around bin
160 = 690kHz ~= R5live.

Also seems to be doing almost constant bit-swapping in the range of bins
132 to 144 (569 to 620 kHz), maybe that's just 'cos it's getting dark.

"Andy Burns" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Zp-(E-Mail Removed)...
> Peter Crosland wrote:
>
>> Unless the OP is a gamer then that is bad advice. Removing interleaving
>> also
>> removes error checking. This just reduces the effective line capacity
>> because every error has to be repeated.
>
> I though non-interlaced mode reduced the effectiveness of error
> detection/correction, rather than removed it completely, so I've never
> asked for interleave to be turned off.
>
> I'm seeing a fair few corrected errors (18000) but few uncorrectable
> ones (13) in over 4 hours
>
> The bit loading graph seems to tail off quite smoothly as expected,
> conking out at bin 199 x 4.3125 = 858kHz with a notch centred around bin
> 160 = 690kHz ~= R5live.
>
> Also seems to be doing almost constant bit-swapping in the range of bins
> 132 to 144 (569 to 620 kHz), maybe that's just 'cos it's getting dark.


Turning interleaving off stops Forward Error Correction (FEC) working
altogether. Don't worry about FEC errors because they have all been
corrected without any impact on the line throughput. Interference from radio
frequency (RF) is very common and particularly from Medium Wave (MW)
stations like R5 Live and notches in the bit pattern from this just have to
be lived with.. 13 uncorrectable errors in four hours is of no consequence.
I quite often get hundreds of uncorrectable errors per hour without any
problem.

Peter Crosland