Slow ADSL - how to get a new phone socket

"The Natural Philosopher" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:jg5p1b$pj9$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Phil W Lee wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher <(E-Mail Removed)> considered Mon, 30 Jan
>> 2012 00:30:22 +0000 the perfect time to write:
>>
>>> Phil W Lee wrote:
>>>> David Woodhouse <(E-Mail Removed)> considered Sun, 29 Jan 2012
>>>> 11:12:36 +0000 the perfect time to write:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 2012-01-28 at 19:39 +0000, Phil W Lee wrote:
>>>>>> It SHOULD be directly related to the synch speed according to the
>>>>>> following table. (view in a fixed width font)
>>>>> I think they've improved this recently, haven't they? It was always
>>>>> entirely crap that if your line synced at 1120kb/s instead of the
>>>>> 1152Kb/s that's required for a 1Mb BRAS rate, you would lost almost a
>>>>> quarter of your capacity and be limited to 'adsl750'.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think they've *finally* introduced slightly better granularity so
>>>>> you
>>>>> don't lose quite so much; my lines are now at 848kb/s and 1130kb/s
>>>>> (with
>>>>> sync rates of 1056kb/s and 1376kb/s respectively, so even allowing for
>>>>> the ATM overhead there's still a lot being lost to BT's substandard
>>>>> systems; it's just a *bit* better than it was before).
>>>>>
>>>>> This is 20CN. I think they still have the same BRAS rate issues on on
>>>>> 21CN even though it's completely gratuitous there because they don't
>>>>> *need* to do IP rate limiting in a separate place. Not entirely sure
>>>>> though; I pay little attention to 21CN because there isn't even any
>>>>> *hint* yet on when it might reach this part of the world.
>>>>>
>>>> Yeah, I'm stuck firmly in the world of adsl2 (20CN) rather than adsl2+
>>>> (21CN), and now all the work is going into upgrading the lucky winners
>>>> of the 21CN lottery (who already have decent speed) to the even higher
>>>> speeds available with FTTC, we're being left behind again.
>>>> They should be allowed to start rolling out faster products until
>>>> they've finished upgrading exchanges to existing ones, IMO - it just
>>>> encourages "cherry-picking".
>>>> But sadly, we don't have a regulator worthy of the description, so
>>>> they are allowed to cherry pick to their hearts (or shareholder's)
>>>> content.
>>> Phil its called return on investment.
>>>
>>> If it were not for profit then we would all be on fixed 256k services..
>>>
>> Hmm, that'll be why they just keep speeding up the areas with cable
>> competition, and ignoring the ones where they have the monopoly.
>>
>> You'd think they would have the sense to make the most of a monopoly,
>> and sell into it (they are even allowed to charge more at exchanges
>> where they have a monopoly).
>> But apparently they'd rather plough money into upgrading areas with
>> cable competition which they will never beat, unless they adopt a
>> better technology. And they have to accept a lower rate in those
>> areas.
>> If they hadn't been allowed to start on FTTC until they had every
>> exchange on 21CN, the whole country would have been converted by now.
>> And BT would be reaping the benefit of the higher (wholesale) prices
>> they can charge in monopoly exchanges.
>>
>> That's called a better return on investment.
>
> unfortunately it isn't.

And unfortunately the whole argument is completely untrue as well...

On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 13:22:40 -0000, "kraftee"
<kraftee:b&e-cottee.me.uk> wrote:

>
>"AnthonyL" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 21:50:05 +0000, Roger Mills <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On 27/01/2012 15:42, AnthonyL wrote:
>>>> So it is a master socket but not a new one?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, that an old-type *double* master - for two lines.
>>>
>>>
>>>> I did have two lines but cancelled one so the active connection is the
>>>> Orange pair. Wonder if it is worth swapping them over - or should I
>>>> just get one of the modern master sockets?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Either of those things would only really be swapping like for like,
>>>electrically, and wouldn't make any difference to your line speed.
>>>
>>>> I have a nagging feeling about what is going on up in the loft - I'll
>>>> bring a torch in on Monday.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>It would be worth tracing the wiring from where it first enters the
>>>building, and re-making the connections in each intermediate junction box.
>>
>> But isn't everything exchange side of the master socket BT's
>> responsibility?
>>
>> Or is it just to point of entry?
>
>Depends on where you live and whether the areas manager is desperate to keep
>their jobs. The official line is anything inside the property is the
>property owners responsibility, hence the rollout of the external NTE's
>(which aren't really compatible with DSL services, so the first thing the
>DSL trained engineer will do is remove it/bypass it). Even outside the
>property is a little grey as well, so if you _know_ what you are doing the
>actula engineer who visits will probably turn a blind eye to anything not
>quite the BT/Openreach way).
>

I've now been able to trace the cabling. My office backs onto the
street and there is a manhole. Armoured cable comes in, up through
the wall into the roof space, and runs along the whole length of my
office into the adjacent landlord's workshop office, approx 30m. It
terminates into a box high on the wall labelled DP127. A white cable
(what I would call normal 10 or 12 pair) is clipped to the armoured
cable and runs all the way back to my master point against the end
wall.

There is a disused socket in the landlord's workshop office as he no
longer has an active BT line. That point and my line(s) are the only
connections from DP127.

The landlord has been fiddling with his connection in the past few
weeks (apart from the fact he's been away for the past couple). I
haven't ascertained why but he's not touched the DP127 so presumably
it should all have no effect on my lines.

However, whether all by coincidence or what I don't know but today I
have seen speeds >2.5x that ever previously encountered, a whopping
2.43Mb/s compared to at best .7Mb/s. I did put in an ADSLNation
filter yesterday morning at my ISP's recommendation. I struggle to
believe that this is responsible for such a massive jump.

As part of some tests yesterday I swapped out equipment at both ends
with my neighbour who is getting what I then thought a good 1.24Mb/s.
Swapping out the equipment made no immediate change and everything
(bar the filter) is back as it was.

BT have not been out to the premises.

Anyone any insights?



--
AnthonyL

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, AnthonyL
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes

>I did put in an ADSLNation
>filter yesterday morning at my ISP's recommendation. I struggle to
>believe that this is responsible for such a massive jump.

I don't (struggle to believe it).

>Anyone any insights?

If it were me, I'd run a new cable - Cat 5 networking cable will be fine
- from the DP127 to a new single NTE5 master socket, re-using your ADSL
Nation faceplate and leave the existing cable disconnected at the DP127
end.

But this is strictly not kosher and Openworld won't be happy if they
find out you have done it, especially if it causes a line fault. Do it
on the q.t.

--
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

AnthonyL wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 13:22:40 -0000, "kraftee"
> <kraftee:b&e-cottee.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> "AnthonyL" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 21:50:05 +0000, Roger Mills <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 27/01/2012 15:42, AnthonyL wrote:
>>>>> So it is a master socket but not a new one?
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, that an old-type *double* master - for two lines.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I did have two lines but cancelled one so the active connection is the
>>>>> Orange pair. Wonder if it is worth swapping them over - or should I
>>>>> just get one of the modern master sockets?
>>>>>
>>>> Either of those things would only really be swapping like for like,
>>>> electrically, and wouldn't make any difference to your line speed.
>>>>
>>>>> I have a nagging feeling about what is going on up in the loft - I'll
>>>>> bring a torch in on Monday.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>> It would be worth tracing the wiring from where it first enters the
>>>> building, and re-making the connections in each intermediate junction box.
>>> But isn't everything exchange side of the master socket BT's
>>> responsibility?
>>>
>>> Or is it just to point of entry?
>> Depends on where you live and whether the areas manager is desperate to keep
>> their jobs. The official line is anything inside the property is the
>> property owners responsibility, hence the rollout of the external NTE's
>> (which aren't really compatible with DSL services, so the first thing the
>> DSL trained engineer will do is remove it/bypass it). Even outside the
>> property is a little grey as well, so if you _know_ what you are doing the
>> actula engineer who visits will probably turn a blind eye to anything not
>> quite the BT/Openreach way).
>>
>
> I've now been able to trace the cabling. My office backs onto the
> street and there is a manhole. Armoured cable comes in, up through
> the wall into the roof space, and runs along the whole length of my
> office into the adjacent landlord's workshop office, approx 30m. It
> terminates into a box high on the wall labelled DP127. A white cable
> (what I would call normal 10 or 12 pair) is clipped to the armoured
> cable and runs all the way back to my master point against the end
> wall.
>
> There is a disused socket in the landlord's workshop office as he no
> longer has an active BT line. That point and my line(s) are the only
> connections from DP127.
>
> The landlord has been fiddling with his connection in the past few
> weeks (apart from the fact he's been away for the past couple). I
> haven't ascertained why but he's not touched the DP127 so presumably
> it should all have no effect on my lines.
>
> However, whether all by coincidence or what I don't know but today I
> have seen speeds >2.5x that ever previously encountered, a whopping
> 2.43Mb/s compared to at best .7Mb/s. I did put in an ADSLNation
> filter yesterday morning at my ISP's recommendation. I struggle to
> believe that this is responsible for such a massive jump.
>

well at te limit a very small difference in attentuuation and
intermodulation can make a huge difference in available DSL 'slots'

One corroded joint is all it takes to ruin the HF end of the spectrum.


> As part of some tests yesterday I swapped out equipment at both ends
> with my neighbour who is getting what I then thought a good 1.24Mb/s.
> Swapping out the equipment made no immediate change and everything
> (bar the filter) is back as it was.
>
> BT have not been out to the premises.
>
> Anyone any insights?
>

I think you MAY have simply disturbed and slightly remade a bad joint. 2
and a bit Megs would be what I expect from that sort of attenuation.

Maybe you simply have a better link to the faceplate than you used to.

If the attentuation is the high 50s (which I think you said it was) then
you are close to 'as good as it gets'

>
>

Mike Tomlinson wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, AnthonyL
> <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>
>> I did put in an ADSLNation
>> filter yesterday morning at my ISP's recommendation. I struggle to
>> believe that this is responsible for such a massive jump.
>
> I don't (struggle to believe it).
>
>> Anyone any insights?
>
> If it were me, I'd run a new cable - Cat 5 networking cable will be fine
> - from the DP127 to a new single NTE5 master socket, re-using your ADSL
> Nation faceplate and leave the existing cable disconnected at the DP127
> end.
>
> But this is strictly not kosher and Openworld won't be happy if they
> find out you have done it, especially if it causes a line fault. Do it
> on the q.t.
>
Agreed, except IME Openreach don't give a toss as long as its done
neatly and well.

Although they seem to prefer the proper BT twisted pair to cat 5, as it
has the 'expected' colours behind the faceplate.

The Natural Philosopher <(E-Mail Removed)> considered Fri, 03 Feb
2012 16:24:26 +0000 the perfect time to write:

>Mike Tomlinson wrote:
>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, AnthonyL
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>>
>>> I did put in an ADSLNation
>>> filter yesterday morning at my ISP's recommendation. I struggle to
>>> believe that this is responsible for such a massive jump.
>>
>> I don't (struggle to believe it).
>>
>>> Anyone any insights?
>>
>> If it were me, I'd run a new cable - Cat 5 networking cable will be fine
>> - from the DP127 to a new single NTE5 master socket, re-using your ADSL
>> Nation faceplate and leave the existing cable disconnected at the DP127
>> end.
>>
>> But this is strictly not kosher and Openworld won't be happy if they
>> find out you have done it, especially if it causes a line fault. Do it
>> on the q.t.
>>
>Agreed, except IME Openreach don't give a toss as long as its done
>neatly and well.
>
>Although they seem to prefer the proper BT twisted pair to cat 5, as it
>has the 'expected' colours behind the faceplate.
>
The BT engineer who installed my fixed line was perfectly happy to use
the length of cat5E that I installed in advance for him, from the
point of entry into the house to the site where I wanted the master
socket.

I reckon there's a good chance that is the reason for my
synchronisation speed being 15-20% higher than any of my neighbours.

En el artículo <jgh1nq$a9d$(E-Mail Removed)>, The Natural Philosopher
<(E-Mail Removed)> escribió:

>Although they seem to prefer the proper BT twisted pair to cat 5, as it
>has the 'expected' colours behind the faceplate.

Doesn't really matter, does it? The blue pair is used for the line, and
one orange if the bell wire is connected. Both those colours are
available in CW1308 and cat5.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

"The Natural Philosopher" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:jgh1nq$a9d$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Mike Tomlinson wrote:
>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, AnthonyL
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>>
>>> I did put in an ADSLNation
>>> filter yesterday morning at my ISP's recommendation. I struggle to
>>> believe that this is responsible for such a massive jump.
>>
>> I don't (struggle to believe it).
>>
>>> Anyone any insights?
>>
>> If it were me, I'd run a new cable - Cat 5 networking cable will be fine
>> - from the DP127 to a new single NTE5 master socket, re-using your ADSL
>> Nation faceplate and leave the existing cable disconnected at the DP127
>> end.
>>
>> But this is strictly not kosher and Openworld won't be happy if they
>> find out you have done it, especially if it causes a line fault. Do it
>> on the q.t.
>>
> Agreed, except IME Openreach don't give a toss as long as its done neatly
> and well.
>
> Although they seem to prefer the proper BT twisted pair to cat 5, as it
> has the 'expected' colours behind the faceplate.
>
>

The colour coding is the same if proper cat 5 is used...

Phil W Lee <(E-Mail Removed)> considered Sun, 29 Jan 2012
20:03:11 +0000 the perfect time to write:

>David Woodhouse <(E-Mail Removed)> considered Sun, 29 Jan 2012
>11:12:36 +0000 the perfect time to write:
>
>>On Sat, 2012-01-28 at 19:39 +0000, Phil W Lee wrote:
>>> It SHOULD be directly related to the synch speed according to the
>>> following table. (view in a fixed width font)
>>
>>I think they've improved this recently, haven't they? It was always
>>entirely crap that if your line synced at 1120kb/s instead of the
>>1152Kb/s that's required for a 1Mb BRAS rate, you would lost almost a
>>quarter of your capacity and be limited to 'adsl750'.
>>
>>I think they've *finally* introduced slightly better granularity so you
>>don't lose quite so much; my lines are now at 848kb/s and 1130kb/s (with
>>sync rates of 1056kb/s and 1376kb/s respectively, so even allowing for
>>the ATM overhead there's still a lot being lost to BT's substandard
>>systems; it's just a *bit* better than it was before).
>>
>>This is 20CN. I think they still have the same BRAS rate issues on on
>>21CN even though it's completely gratuitous there because they don't
>>*need* to do IP rate limiting in a separate place. Not entirely sure
>>though; I pay little attention to 21CN because there isn't even any
>>*hint* yet on when it might reach this part of the world.
>>
>Yeah, I'm stuck firmly in the world of adsl2 (20CN) rather than adsl2+
>(21CN), and now all the work is going into upgrading the lucky winners
>of the 21CN lottery (who already have decent speed) to the even higher
>speeds available with FTTC, we're being left behind again.

It looks like I'm going to have to eat my words on that one!
We've been given a date for 21CN upgrade of 2nd March 2012.
And with my synchronisation speed of 8192kbps, I should get lots of
benefit from the increase in provision from "up to 8Mbps" to "up to
20Mbps"
Even better, it's a free upgrade )

The only worry is how to keep the household download use below the
monthly allowance. 6 internet junkies keep the wires pretty warm.

Sadly, my ancient Solwise SAR715+ router will need replacement, as it
dates from before even 8Mb DSL. It was fixed 2Mb vanilla ADSL when we
got it, and I was surprised enough that it could even manage the "up
to 8Mb" of ADSL2 - I've confirmed that no firmware upgrade can take it
up to ADSL2+ capability.
It was interesting trying to read through all the marketing crap to
find out which of the available ADSL2+ wired (I neither want nor need
wireless) routers can manage to route a /29 subnet of public IPv4
addresses, as the product information concentrates entirely on NAT
capabilities and how cuddly the web management interface is.
I'm sure most of them can do it, but it doesn't seem to be a well
supported feature.
Most of the pre-sales support people I spoke to didn't even understand
the concept of routing with anything other than NAT, with Billion and
Draytek being the honourable exceptions.
I'm sure that Cisco could have provided something suitable in
capability, but not in price.
I've settled on a Billion BiPAC 5200 RC, after confirming with the
maker that it will do what I need.