My FTTC

[zappaDPJ]

I thought I'd better give it time to bed in before making any judgements. Now I have my opinion of it is that in my case, it's abysmal. My ping was at first a little erratic but seems to have settled to sub 10ms levels, about the same as I was getting on ADSL. Upload speeds are fantastic, rock solid at just under 8 Mbp/s. Download speeds are somewhat erratic. They veer from blindingly fast to almost nothing. If a progress bar is anything to go by, downloads appear to often drop away to nothing and they do so on infrastructure that I have almost full control of e.g. my dedicated servers at a remote location.

I could live with the problematic download speeds but what I can't live with is the continual disconnections. I do a huge amount of work on remote servers which requires me to communicate with those servers constantly, sometime many times a minute. I'm forever waiting for a response which often times out. It's the same with general web browsing. Quite often it can take literally minutes to connect to web page or the connection times out.

My tbb broadband quality monitors look abysmal, huge slabs in the red with sporadic packet loss the rest of the time (I rarely if ever turn my modem off).



My router log shows the frequency of disconnections.

[Admin login] from source 192.168.1.2, Saturday, Sep 18,2010 00:42:02
[Internet disconnected] Saturday, Sep 18,2010 00:20:17
[Internet idle-timeout] Saturday, Sep 18,2010 00:20:17
[Internet connected] IP address: 91.135.7.215, Saturday, Sep 18,2010 00:00:04
[Internet disconnected] Friday, Sep 17,2010 23:59:24
[Internet idle-timeout] Friday, Sep 17,2010 23:59:24
[Internet connected] IP address: 91.135.7.215, Friday, Sep 17,2010 22:41:52
[Internet disconnected] Friday, Sep 17,2010 22:38:09
[Internet idle-timeout] Friday, Sep 17,2010 22:38:09
[Internet connected] IP address: 91.135.7.215, Friday, Sep 17,2010 22:31:54
[Internet disconnected] Friday, Sep 17,2010 22:28:25
[Internet idle-timeout] Friday, Sep 17,2010 22:28:25
[Internet connected] IP address: 91.135.7.215, Friday, Sep 17,2010 22:22:09
[Internet disconnected] Friday, Sep 17,2010 22:18:21
[Internet idle-timeout] Friday, Sep 17,2010 22:18:21
[Internet connected] IP address: 91.135.7.215, Friday, Sep 17,2010 22:12:07
[Internet disconnected] Friday, Sep 17,2010 22:07:54
[Internet idle-timeout] Friday, Sep 17,2010 22:07:54
[DHCP IP: (192.168.1.3)] to MAC address 7C:C5:37:43:46:64, Friday, Sep 17,2010 21:53:42
[Internet connected] IP address: 91.135.7.215, Friday, Sep 17,2010 21:52:07
[Internet disconnected] Friday, Sep 17,2010 21:48:09
[Internet idle-timeout] Friday, Sep 17,2010 21:48:09
[Internet connected] IP address: 91.135.7.215, Friday, Sep 17,2010 21:41:54
[Internet disconnected] Friday, Sep 17,2010 21:37:52
[Internet idle-timeout] Friday, Sep 17,2010 21:37:52

In retrospect I should have had FTTC enabled on my second line but it was decided that FTTC should remove any issues on the line it was installed on. This is the same line that wouldn't support a WBC connection. The line tests as fine from a BT engineer's perspective and I was even switched to another pair last year.

I'll speak to support next week but I'm not sure what can be done about it. I need to abandon FTTC and stick with ADSL on the other line. The problem is the year's contract, I don't really know where I stand with that.

[Rik]

I think you're stuck with it, Zap. BT impose it on IDNet, so they have no room to manoeuvre. It's a bit like paying for the WBC upgrade and finding it doesn't work for you. You've got to get support to bombard BT until they fix the product. I've never known BT launch a new product without teething problems, so I think it's time to apply pressure.

[esh]

That looks like some god awful packet loss. I'm on a fairly quiet exchange and even I get packet loss in the evenings and weekends, just nowhere near that level (hell, I'm not even on ADSL2). Do you know if it's specifically outgoing or ingoing packets that are dropped or is it just entirely random?

[DorsetBoy]

If they can't supply a stable connection they are in breach of contract pure and simple.

[Rik]

It becomes sue IDNet and let them sue BT... However, check the small print.

[pctech]

Interesting info Zap as I've been looking into FTTC too in the event it becomes available near me and is cheaper.

[DorsetBoy]

There are way too many cases where connections are useless and/or worse than the previous ADSL Max line. It is clear they are rushing out a product they can't cope with.

Why are we using FTTC anyway, it should be fibre to home and do away with all the wires that cause issues.

[Rik]

I was wary of making the move to WBC immediately, I'm increasingly feeling the same about fibre, especially as I'm a light user who doesn't often need high speeds.

[Technical Ben]

It's a real pity this may reflect badly on IDNet. It's like if the road outside your shop has roadworks or pot holes. It's your customers who suffer, but you cannot do anything about it. I'm sure if IDNet put in the cable, they'd get it right first time, or not go to the trouble in the first place. By that, I mean they would give you a Chopper with flags and everything, and not a chocolate bicycle!

[zappaDPJ]

That looks like some god awful packet loss. I'm on a fairly quiet exchange and even I get packet loss in the evenings and weekends, just nowhere near that level (hell, I'm not even on ADSL2). Do you know if it's specifically outgoing or ingoing packets that are dropped or is it just entirely random?

I'm not 100% sure but IDNet don't see any packet loss if they ping my modem. This is what I'm getting from my end:

Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7600]
Copyright (c) 2009 Microsoft Corporation.  All rights reserved.

C:\Users\zappaDPJ>ping idnet.net -n 100

Pinging idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=59
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=59
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=9ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=59
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=59
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=59
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=8ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=7ms TTL=59
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.

Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
   Packets: Sent = 100, Received = 25, Lost = 75 (75% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
   Minimum = 7ms, Maximum = 9ms, Average = 7ms

C:\Users\zappaDPJ>

[esh]

So it's outgoing packet loss. What about the gateway (first hop)? I guess that gets loss too. 75% loss is entirely unuseable. As I remember you don't get statistics from the dodgy BT supplied modem, is that right?

[DorsetBoy]

Is that modem still hot Zap?

[Rik]

Just thinking aloud, and probably even more rubbish than usual, but the ping is sent out on the upstream link, and returned on the downstream I think. So could that indicate an issue with one half of your link, so it's invisible to IDNet, but causing you problems?

[Rik]

I've just run 100 pings to you, Zap:

Ping statistics for xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx
    Packets: Sent = 100, Received = 100, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 19ms, Maximum = 53ms, Average = 20ms

No packet loss at all.

[zappaDPJ]

So it's outgoing packet loss. What about the gateway (first hop)? I guess that gets loss too.

They get insanely hot unless positioned to sit vertically which is what I've done. Oh and never put one on top of a router, you could literally burn you hand on it  

[EDIT] Damn, Things are so bad at the moment I'm having to c&p into forums from Word or risk losing everything on a time out

[zappaDPJ]

I've just run 100 pings to you, Zap:

Ping statistics for xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx
    Packets: Sent = 100, Received = 100, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 19ms, Maximum = 53ms, Average = 20ms

No packet loss at all.

That's what IDNet see Rik but look at the ttb log. Perhaps it's due to the sporadic nature of it?

[Rik]

I know, it's confusing isn't it. Perhaps IDNet could leave a machine pinging you for 24 hours, which would remove any problems with the TBB tester from the equation?

[zappaDPJ]

That sounds like a good idea. Do you know if they able to see the dropped connections with FTTC?

[DorsetBoy]

No domestic use appliance should be getting that hot.

I had a Billion router for a week, it got red hot and kept dropping connection, I pointed a desk fan at it and when cooled it reconnected.  I got a refund as it was unfit for purpose. I would be seriously worried about having a modem left on that could potentially catch fire.

[Rik]

That sounds like a good idea. Do you know if they able to see the dropped connections with FTTC?

I'm sure they can, I think.

[Simon]

Might be a silly suggestion, but do you have another PSU you could try with the router, Zap?

[zappaDPJ]

Might be a silly suggestion, but do you have another PSU you could try with the router, Zap?

I'm sure I do Simon, I can give it a try. I'm not so worried about now that I have it sitting vertically on its own. It's still hot but nothing like it was when it was on top of the router.

[pctech]

There are way too many cases where connections are useless and/or worse than the previous ADSL Max line. It is clear they are rushing out a product they can't cope with.

Why are we using FTTC anyway, it should be fibre to home and do away with all the wires that cause issues.

BT are supposed to be rolling out FTTP near me Dorset but trying to get any solid info about when I can subscribe is like getting blood from a stone.

[Rik]

Actually, I think it's harder, Mitch.

[pctech]

A Manager from Zen responded to me on tbb and asked me to PM my user ID and he said he was going to pass it to the Fibre Broadband Product Manager but heard nothing, I expect they are keeping until they launch FTTC in 11 days so their website says.