Poor Throughput

[Nitz]

(This is a continuation of the problem outlined in this thread)

Since migrating to IDNet, I got in touch with Support who told me that BT was aware of the need for a Capacity Upgrade at my exchange and one was scheduled to be done within the next 10 days.
Those 10 days have passed and I am miffed to say that my speeds have not noticeably improved (for this time of the morning, I was getting anything up to 1Mb which slowly dropped as the day progressed to 98 Kbps from about 3pm onwards until the wee hours in the morning).

I have just ran a SpeedTest and also a pingtest, and here are the results

SpeedTest


PingTest


Unfortunately, BT Speedtester refused to work for me, so I will have to try doing that again when I return home.

My router stats:
ADSL Link   Downstream   Upstream
Connection Speed   8064 kbps   448 kbps
Line Attenuation   27.0 db   15.5 db
Noise Margin   5.9 db   29.0 db

Anyone have any idea how I can kick BT into actually doing some work?!

[zappaDPJ]

As a matter of interest what results do you get if you ping idnet.net?

[Steve]

It easy to be cynical about BT but 10 days to me is 2 weeks,unfortunately BT seem to  regard it as some unknown date in the future

[Nitz]

Hi zappa,

The results are rather interesting; notice the fluctuation:

Pinging idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=94ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=74ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=69ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=64ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=73ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=99ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=68ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=124ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=64ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=350ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=68ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=365ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=58ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=233ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=185ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=242ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=170ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=109ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=92ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=323ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=298ms TTL=59

Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
   Packets: Sent = 24, Received = 24, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
   Minimum = 58ms, Maximum = 365ms, Average = 143ms
Control-C

Here's the results of a pathping to the same host:

Tracing route to idnet.net [212.69.36.10]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
 0  192.168.0.3
 1  192.168.0.1
 2  telehouse-gw2-lo1.idnet.net [212.69.63.51]
 3  telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
 4  telehouse-gw5-e4-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.245]
 5  redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
 6  redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
 7  www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]

Computing statistics for 175 seconds...
           Source to Here   This Node/Link
Hop  RTT    Lost/Sent = Pct  Lost/Sent = Pct  Address
 0                                                        192.168.0.3
                               0/ 100 =  0%   |
 1  <1ms     0/ 100 =  0%     0/ 100 =  0%  192.168.0.1
                               0/ 100 =  0%   |
 2  133ms     0/ 100 =  0%     0/ 100 =  0%  telehouse-gw2-lo1.idnet.net [212.69.63.51]
                               0/ 100 =  0%   |
 3  128ms     0/ 100 =  0%     0/ 100 =  0%  telehouse-gw3-g0-1-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.243]
                               0/ 100 =  0%   |
 4  122ms     0/ 100 =  0%     0/ 100 =  0%  telehouse-gw5-e4-400.idnet.net [212.69.63.245]
                               0/ 100 =  0%   |
 5  159ms     0/ 100 =  0%     0/ 100 =  0%  redbus-gw2-g0-1-331.idnet.net [212.69.63.5]
                               0/ 100 =  0%   |
 6  139ms     0/ 100 =  0%     0/ 100 =  0%  redbus-gw1-fa2-0-300.idnet.net [212.69.63.225]
                               0/ 100 =  0%   |
 7  117ms     0/ 100 =  0%     0/ 100 =  0%  www.idnet.net [212.69.36.10]

Trace complete.

This is my exchange (back-end of nowhere). I've just noticed that TalkTalk have enabled LLU recently, but their website checker doesn't seem to offer it. Which is good, considering that it is Talk Talk

Edit:
Managed to get a BT Speedtest done:
Download speedachieved during the test was - 342 Kbps

For your connection, the acceptable range of speeds is 600-7150 Kbps.
Additional Information:
Your DSL Connection Rate :0 Kbps(DOWN-STREAM), 0 Kbps(UP-STREAM)
IP Profile for your line is - 7000 Kbps

Yahoo! I'm flying. Seriously, this is double the speed that I have been getting for the past 2 months (been averaging 100 Kbps).

Steve, I'm cynical for a good reason. Since this line was activated early 2009, I have experienced constant speeds around the above mark. With the exception for 1 pushing 2 months at a time (which has happened 3 times, Summer 2009, Christmas 2009 and now Summer 2010) when the speed jumps to the maximum that the line can support.

I live in a University City, so I'm guessing that the speed improvement is due to the Students going back home. Or so the pattern seems to be.

[zappaDPJ]

Your ping is certainly extremely high and variable. I wonder what is causing that.

[Nitz]

[edit]

Fail on my behalf.
I just noticed that the Blizzard Downloader was running on my partner's PC. I wondered why it was left on

Here's an untainted ping result:

Pinging idnet.net [212.69.36.10] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=56ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=71ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=70ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=83ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=74ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=72ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=81ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=122ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=92ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=86ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=95ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=65ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=68ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=76ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=67ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=78ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=99ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=68ms TTL=59
Reply from 212.69.36.10: bytes=32 time=105ms TTL=59

Ping statistics for 212.69.36.10:
    Packets: Sent = 20, Received = 20, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 56ms, Maximum = 122ms, Average = 79ms
Control-C

Ping is still slightly high

[Ted]

Shame you don't live a few miles up the road. 
http://top10.com/broadband/news/2010/10/wireless_and_fibre_optic_broadband_trial_for_rural_anglesey/

[Steve]

It 's a disgrace really with a profile as high as that.

[Nitz]

Shame you don't live a few miles up the road. 
http://top10.com/broadband/news/2010/10/wireless_and_fibre_optic_broadband_trial_for_rural_anglesey/

Aberffraw, Llanfair-yn-Neubwll and Bryngwran have been selected to participate in the trial

Wow, those places really are out in the sticks.

Steve, yeah it's a shame as when it works, it's beautiful. Keeps the girlfriend quiet with the BBC IPlayer, FaceBook and her games.
Unfortunately, I'm at the mercy of BT and with 3G reception being spotty at best (some times I get it, other times I don't with T-Mobile) so I really have no other options.

I've been considering setting up WiFi extenders from the Wireless AP (I only live about a mile away from work) but because Bangor Mountain is in the way, I'd have to install a pretty large pole on the building's roof, which I don't think the owners would be too pleased about

Nah. It wouldn't work lol

[zappaDPJ]

[edit]

Fail on my behalf.
I just noticed that the Blizzard Downloader was running on my partner's PC. I wondered why it was left on

Probably because yesterday was a bazzillion gigabytes patch day and I'd imagine she's still being served the patch with those download speeds

The only reason I mentioned your ping is that it seems extremely high on some of the speed tests you've done (583ms in one case). It's also obviously highly irregular. It might be worth testing with one device (everything else switched off) booted to safe mode and plugged directly into the test socket if you have one. If nothing else it should confirm the ping issue or alternatively highlight something running in the background that's eating your available bandwidth.

[sof2er]

If you don't get constant pings then yeah something else is interefering, it could be either wireless connection which causes it or someone using above 90% download/upload speed available. Looking at your pings above it seems you should at the very least get 56 ms.

Check your bandwidth usage for every day and see if it matches to what you have downloaded/uploaded (you can check it up via local area connection status if you don't turn PC off or TBB monitor/etc)

[Nitz]

Probably because yesterday was a bazzillion gigabytes patch day and I'd imagine she's still being served the patch with those download speeds

The only reason I mentioned your ping is that it seems extremely high on some of the speed tests you've done (583ms in one case). It's also obviously highly irregular. It might be worth testing with one device (everything else switched off) booted to safe mode and plugged directly into the test socket if you have one. If nothing else it should confirm the ping issue or alternatively highlight something running in the background that's eating your available bandwidth.

After I temporarily disabled the Blizzard Updater, the pings lowered to 79ms average, so I believe the high variance was due to that.
The Wireless setup only involves an XBox 360, 2 Laptops and my mobile with 1 wired PC connection. I don't have any other telephony equipment and the Router is perma-plugged into the Test Socket (no extensions) with the ring wire removed. I don't think it could be due to interference. IDNet have confirmed that the VP is running to capacity and an upgrade was supposed to have been completed by yesterday (10 working days or 2 weeks) but I am still waiting on Support to confirm with BT if the work has actually been completed.

If you don't get constant pings then yeah something else is interefering, it could be either wireless connection which causes it or someone using above 90% download/upload speed available. Looking at your pings above it seems you should at the very least get 56 ms.

Check your bandwidth usage for every day and see if it matches to what you have downloaded/uploaded (you can check it up via local area connection status if you don't turn PC off or TBB monitor/etc)

My bandwidth usage since the beginning of the month is very low (2GB peak and approx 4GB off-peak) and the Router Logs don't show that a device outside of the ones that I use has connected. Thanks for your input

[Nitz]

I typed up my fault history & all previous support actions for IDNet support, so I thought that you guys may like to read it.

Just a warning though, I've been experiencing Slow Throughput since October 2009, so there is a lot of information. Anyway, here it is:

Hi <name>,

I cold rebooted my Router as per your suggestion but unfortunately, the throughput is still the same.

Please find a BT SpeedTest done at 17:10 15/10/2010:
Download speed achieved during the test was - 177 Kbps
For your connection, the acceptable range of speeds  is 600-7150 Kbps.
Additional Information:
Your DSL Connection Rate :8032 Kbps(DOWN-STREAM), 448 Kbps(UP-STREAM)
IP Profile for your line is - 7000 Kbps

I called at 17:10 15/10/2010 and spoke to <name>, who asked me to include some additional information into this email so that you guys are better able to rectify this issue.

Please find attached the following files:-
1.   Historical record of BT Speedtests done since October 2009 (there are some gaps, I apologise)
2.   All previous correspondence with ADSL24 regarding this ongoing issue

I will attempt to summarise (it will still be a long read, for which I can only apologise) the ongoing fault as best I can:

I have had a poor performing broadband account (download speeds range from 81 Kbps to 443 Kbps) since my line was activated for ADSL Max on October 2009.
My previous ISP was ADSL24 (MurphX platform) and I was a customer from 9th October 2009 onwards until I migrated onto your infrastructure. I initially started on the Entanet platform and right from the get-go, my speeds were unacceptable in the range of 150 Kbps - 350 Kbps. My line sync was at the maximum of 8128 kbps with an IP Profile of 7000 Kbps, so it meant that in theory I should have been receiving the maximum speed that my line could support (discounting other factors such as attentuation e.t.c).

Immediately, I raised a ticket with Entanet's Support Department and was told to perform the following diagnostic tests (I eventually repeated these actions every time I was in contact with them):-
1.   Providing BT SpeedTester, thinkbroadband.com & speedtest.net Results
2.   Providing tracert, pathping and ping results to bbc.co.uk and google.co.uk
3.   Re-affirming of my Setup; ADSL Modem/ Router (Netgear DG834N) -> Master Test Socket. There are no other telephony equipment installed.
4.   Purchasing 5 different Microfilters (from ADSL Nation) and trying them all
5.   ... and other requests too numerous to list

After getting me to perform the above several times, it was requested that I log a fault with BT on 150 against the Voice Line. Naturally, they were unable to help with my broadband problem but identified noise on the line, to which a BT Engineer was booked to attend to resolve. Eventually, I managed to convince ADSL Support that the problem was not with my equipment, but rather an issue on BT's side. After a brief investigation from them, they concurred and as time went on, BT supposedly increased capacity 3 times and performed 2 Twisted Pair Modification's (TPM) to no success.
I live in a University City, and I have identified a trend that whenever academic holidays started, my line speed shot up to perfectly acceptable speeds of 5.24 Mb/s +. So I reported this.

For a period of approximately 3 months, no action was seemingly being taken. Every time I called for an update I was told "We're looking into it", "It's with our Network guys" or "BT are investigating". As you can no doubt imagine, this was a very frustrating time for me.

On 18th March 2010, I was migrated over to the MurphX platform with the congestion issue still unresolved. I was assured by the Manager of ADSL24 that I would NOT have to perform all the broadband fault steps above, that I had done previously as the issue is (what I thought) obvious, and in all likelihood the problem would go away when I was migrated, as Entanet didn't have enough capacity. Since It seemed that my fault was not getting closer to resolution, I was willing to try anthing, so I thanked him for the re-assurance and waited for the migration occur.

The migration happened and I was still seeing a poor performing line. I reported this and was told by ADSL24's Helpdesk that I have to wait 10-days for the line training period to complete and to check my equipment once more (!). I did all that was asked, and yet again, the poor throughput was still there. I reported this back to ADSL24's helpdesk and was then told to provide repeat the steps above once more.
I obliged every single request in the hope that it would expedite a resolution - all the while reporting that the underlying issue was congestion (I even provided ADSL24 with my exchange's capacity history that was available from the Plus Net user-tool); to which I was told to re-raise a fault with BT on 150 as there was a "copper line test has failed stating earth contact" fault. Nothing came of it, as BT's 150 support naturally could only find an inconclusive fault.

It was at this point that I resubmitted my exchange capacity history along with my observational notes of the congestion trend that I was seeing, whilst re-assuring that my equipment is capable and in good working order. Some success came from this, as on the 14th April, I was told that ADSL24's suppliers have advised that BT are looking to increase capacity on the 16th April. That day came and my speed didn't change, even after forcing a re-sync. I waited until the 17th before reporting this and was then told on the 20th April that the work was completed but BT are reporting that congestion is still present. The next update for "Capacity Review" was the 25th April.

Some success was achieved here, as from the 12th May until around the end of the month the speed achieved was more than acceptable. Again, I reported the slow speed and the cycle of Support repeated with nothing seemingly being done until early July when the speed improved of its own accord. All through July the speed was good until early September 2010, when the speed plummeted to what I am experiencing now, a measly 120 Kbps average. When I reported this once more, they asked me to rpeat the above steps and it was at this point that I started a search for another ISP and IDNet was repeatedly suggested to me for your competent Support Desk and exceptional Network performance.

Aaaand, You can find attached my historical BT Speed Tests for kicks...

Do you guys reckon that I have a case to make a complaint to Ofcom regarding BT? Would that help at all?

[cavillas]

Do you guys reckon that I have a case to make a complaint to Ofcom regarding BT? Would that help at all?

Chocolate teapot etc.      That's about the result of complaining to Ofcom about BT.

The only way would be to dismantle BT as it is at the moment and change it into a co-operative of all the isp's and also get Government to invest a few Billion into upgrading the whole infrastructure.

The Government want everyone to have a fast internet connection, then the Government should make it happen by investing, if they can spend Billionson Olympic games then they can invest into our own countries infrastructure which would benefit everyone for along time.

[Simon]

Before getting yourself embroiled in more time consuming, and possibly wasteful, exchanges with Ofcom, I would, frustrating as I can understand it is, give IDNet one last shot at sorting things out for you.  As they now have all the information and history, they do have some good contacts within BT, and can often get things moving.  

Oh, and talking of Ofcom, it looks like they are about to be "amended" by the government...

http://www.idnetters.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=22579

[davej99]

.... it looks like they are about to be "amended" by the government...

... and it is to be renamed Ofs*d in line with the response most consumers get from it.

[pctech]

The Government want everyone to have a fast internet connection, then the Government should make it happen by investing, if they can spend Billionson Olympic games then they can invest into our own countries infrastructure which would benefit everyone for along time.

I agtree Alf, I'd much rather pay for that than the chocolate teapot event that is the Olympics

[armadillo]

Just an off-the-wall idea here. What OS is your PC on? If it is XP, have you set RWIN? I did on mine and it made an absolutely enormous difference to throughput (from never more than 2Mbps to usually over 6Mbps). Vista and Windows 7 have their own means of setting RWIN and I don't think you can control it.

Broadband reports tweak test link here

[Nitz]

Point noted on the Ofcom complaint idea - thanks all for the input 

Just an off-the-wall idea here. What OS is your PC on? If it is XP, have you set RWIN? I did on mine and it made an absolutely enormous difference to throughput (from never more than 2Mbps to usually over 6Mbps). Vista and Windows 7 have their own means of setting RWIN and I don't think you can control it.

Broadband reports tweak test link here

Thanks for that link, it has made for some interesting reading.
My desktop PC is running Windows 7 but my work Laptop is running XP with differing OS' (such as flavours of Linux, Vista e.t.c) using VirtualBox (<3) and my Android phone. I unfortunately experience the slowness on all operating systems
I like your thinking outside the box. Thanks

[armadillo]

I like your thinking outside the box. Thanks

Pity it isn't the answer though

I didn't read every word of both your threads but it did look like all the concentration had been on external factors, probably rightly.