Router Re-Synchs

[Ardua]

Best I start a new topic on this one. Reported a fault to IDNet last night and the replies were mixed: initially, 'keep trying' and secondly 'we will log the fault'. At 6.20pm last night my router went into an almost continuous re-synch loop. I gave up at 9pm and switched the router off. Switched on again this morning, and the router re-connected at 18.3MBps with a downstream SNR of 3 (about 1MBps higher than it was when problems started last night) and then immediately it started the cycle of re-synchs again. Lat time that I looked I was well over 50 resyncs in about an hour and a half. After speaking to Miriam, I have adjusted the line stability controls on my Fritz!Box router and I now have a semi stable synch at 16.8MBps with a downstream SNR of 5. The downstream error rate is very high with 1238 Error Seconds in 22 mins uptime and 6742 CRCs in 15 mins. I have never seen such high error figures before. Miriam says that the line tests OK but she is trying to get BT to run some more tests. Any thoughts? I would have assumed that DLM would have kicked in to make some form of adjustment. This hasn't happened: the high connection rate (a figure never seen before) is a mystery.

[Rik]

Do you have a spare router you could try? Is the router connected to the master socket?

[Ardua]

No and no. There is no reason to suspect the router just yet. Downstream SNR is now stable at 5 with a CR of 16.3Mbps but the downstream error rate is horrendous. I think that the router is doing well to hold synch. My guess is that the DLM is not working as it should as with over 60 resyncs since 07.15, it should be cranking up the SNR if there is noise on the line. The only reason that the SNR has risen is because I have adjusted the router settings and traded off speed for stability. This hasn't been necessary for 9 months so my guess is that something has changed between the router and the exchange.

For what it is worth, I think that IDNet needs to come clear on what the Out of Hours support offer is. I thought that I was talking to IDNet last night not a 'receptionist' in Ipswich.

[Rik]

I'll make sure your point is heard, I've always known it was handled by an outside firm as a 'level one' support operation, and assumed everyone else did.

[Ardua]

Thanks Rik. I now understand why the first call to o-o-h support was so dismissive. My second call did at least elicit an offer to log the fault etc. My router continues to hold a synchronised connection but 6473 ES and 691 SES with an error rate of 509 CRCs per minute downstream after 1 hour 20 mins of connection indicates to me that something is not working as it should. I can recall seeing a downstream SES of 4 previously but that was after 7 days of synchronisation. I just hope that IDNet can come up with a resolution that doesn't require me to rip the house apart or buy yet another router.

[Rik]

What's connected to the phone line?

[Ardua]

What's connected to the phone line?

Nothing. The Fritz!Box has built in DECT so all phones are connected to the router. The router is connected directly to the Master Socket via a new ADSL Nation filtered faceplate. I put an additional filter on the phone line. The cable to the router is a single cable with 2 plugs for ADSL and phone. What is happening here is pretty similar to what occurred 8 months ago when my line was upgraded to ADSL2+. IDNet believe that it is a BT issue but they want me to take on engineer costs if they occur. Downstream SNR remains stable at 5 as does the connection but the error rate of 12 minutes of errors in 2 hours is off the clock. I have e-mailed Germany with a router log and am seeking advice. If IDNet cannot come up with a solution that recognises over 5 years of customer loyalty then I may take the problem to A N Other. I should add that the only reason that the SNR has risen is because I forced it to do so via the router settings. What is DLM supposed to do as in my case it appears to be doing nothing. Why would the connection rate increase by 1MBps after 30 rapid fire disconnections?

[Tacitus]

......I've always known it was handled by an outside firm as a 'level one' support operation, and assumed everyone else did.

News to me Rik and probably to most others as well.  I thought iDNet were operating a rota system for the night shift, although I've always accepted there's little they can do during the night, especially if it involves BT.

[.Griff.]

I'll make sure your point is heard, I've always known it was handled by an outside firm as a 'level one' support operation, and assumed everyone else did.

I only found that out yesterday when Steve (I think it was Steve) told me.

Like everyone else I assumed it was Idnet staff working some sort of rota during out of hours.

[Ardua]

I got fed up watching the exponential downstream increase in line errors so I decided to take my OH out for lunch. With some trepidation I have just opened my router log  to find that the CRC rate has fallen from 3079 in the last 15 minutes before lunch to 7 now. This confirms my view, but I am happy to be told otherwise, that the issue was external.

[Rik]

It certainly sounds external.

[Rik]

I only found that out yesterday when Steve (I think it was Steve) told me.

Like everyone else I assumed it was Idnet staff working some sort of rota during out of hours.

News to me Rik and probably to most others as well.  I thought iDNet were operating a rota system for the night shift, although I've always accepted there's little they can do during the night, especially if it involves BT.

Sorry, perhaps we should have passed on our knowledge - it's so easy to assume everyone knows because we do.

The economics of employing an extra member of staff to handle OOH calls was considered unsustainable for the relatively few calls normally received, especially as, in most cases, there is nothing that can be done out of hours as most customers don't have enhanced care.

TBH, people are as well off coming here for advice if they can get online.

[Ardua]

TBH, people are as well off coming here for advice if they can get online.

Fine if it is possible to get online which with constant router re-synchs I couldn't do last night. Even 3G was very slow. If IDNet is offering an OOH support service then surely it should actually offer some support. As I said earlier, I made 2 calls last night and I was told initially that IDNet were still dealing with the previous night's problems and 'I should keep trying'. The lady that I spoke to didn't seem interested in taking any details. The 2nd lady that I spoke to about an hour later was extremely polite took down details and said that she would pass the problem on to the engineers and 'someone would call me back'. When I asked whether I should power down my router in the meantime, she seemed genuinely non-plussed - 'I am only a receptionist' was the response. Until I looked through the forums this morning I genuinely thought that I was talking to IDNet Support. In my view, IDNet needs to be clear what their Support offer actually is. Talking to a 3rd party who will pass on a message to someone in Support the next day is not my idea of 24/7 support. It is no better than the answer machine of days of yore.

All that said, even the support offered in working hours is extremely limited. Simple line tests and then the problem is bounced back to the end user.  My CRCs are now down to 12 to 16 an hour which is a big change from 12000 plus an hour earlier today. No re-synchs since 9.30: slightly better than the 68 in the period from 7.20 to 9.30. How much more evidence does IDNet need to progress an issue with BT without raising the flag of 'costs lie with the end user if no fault is found'?

You will have probably gathered by now that after a frustrating 24 hours, IDNet is not at the top of my Christmas Card list.

[esh]

How much more evidence does IDNet need to progress an issue with BT without raising the flag of 'costs lie with the end user if no fault is found'?

I think if you push hard enough they will send the engineer out, but they'll obviously want to have made sure you have checked everything your end first as the charge is pretty high for the customer.

I had a massive burst of CRC errors recently to the point where I couldn't stay online for more than a minute or so at a time, and that was the modem. More likely the exchange in your case though.

[Rik]

1) Maybe IDNet should have made it clearer that OOH support was out-sourced. They introduced the additional service because people wanted to be able to talk to someone, not email or leave a message. The basic problem remains, though, that they cannot do anything about BT-related problems outside the hours of 9-5, Monday to Friday, unless the customer is paying for enhanced care. Cases that fell into this 'camp' would not have received a callback until the next working day. There does seem to be a problem with the call centre promising call backs when they shouldn't, and IDNet are aware of this and having words. So, in your case, the call centre becomes a replacement for the answer-machine I'm afraid. If you want full 24/7 support, you'd have to be prepared to pay more for it.

2) BT reduced the ISPs' tools earlier this year. Where previously they had detailed diagnostics available to them, now they get a simple pass/fail result. They can check for BT congestion or engineering works, but constant resyncs are almost always an issue between the user's router and the exchange. They will, therefore, ask you to perform certain checks, eg connect to the test socket, try another router etc. Their aim in doing this is to try and eliminate the risk of BT charges.

3) Support will generally have a good feel for what the problem may be from looking at the tests and your router resync patterns. Unless they can be absolutely sure that your equipment has been eliminated from the possible cause, they will warn of the possibility of charges - because there is no way they can book an engineer without agreeing to accept the charges, which are then passed on to the user. If the engineer finds a fault on the BT side of the test socket, no charge is made. OTOH, if he tests at the socket and finds no fault, the charge will be made. If a customer is prepared to risk that, then IDNet will get an engineer out asap.

[Ardua]

Rik - you are undoubtedly IDNet's biggest asset. Support is not a receptionist taking a message. I am now much wiser than I was this time last night. Answer me this simple question if you will. Assuming that the customer is prepared to take the risk that an OR engineer finds a fault with the equipment on the 'house' side of the test socket who will pay the OR fee if an engineer is called out and no fault is found on either the premises or on the line from the exchange to the premises? My understanding is that this risk sits entirely with the customer if the fault has cleared between the time of the report and that of the tests. I remain to be convinced that IDNet has either the will or the technical information to defend a customer from a NFF charge. If my understanding of the pass through charge is wrong then please say so.

Why, for example, won't IDNet look at some active form of line monitoring as a way of demonstrating issues with a BT line? I confess that after 2 major line issues in 9 months I am deliberating whether IDNet now offers me anything more than most other ISPs? The arrival of FTTC next month (hopefully) may well prove to be a tipping point.

[Rik]

They might not agree with you Ardua.

Your understanding is correct, a no fault found is charged in the same way as a fault found on your side of the test socket. It didn't use to be this way, but BT write the rules, and that's how they now do things unfortunately. IDNet will fight for their customers - I have heard Brian laying into Bangalore frequently, but BT are judge and jury. IMO, Ofcom has completely failed the consumer when it comes to ADSL.

Active line monitoring costs money, the question for IDNet is 'will customers be prepared to pay extra to meet the costs'. Given the fact that they haven't implemented it, my guess is that their soundings tell them it's not viable.

[Ardua]

Thanks Rik. I think that we will have to agree to disagree. Sixty Nine re-synchs yesterday and 3 so far today. In the past 36 hours, my attainable throughput has risen by 1Mbps to 18.5Mbps; by tweaking the router settings I am holding actual throughput down to 17.2Mbps. At this connection speed, the errors are not big enough to trigger a re-synch (up now for over 3 hours). My point is simply is 'what has led to the increase in attainable throughput and why is the DLM not sensing the instability resulting from it'? Support has not offered an opinion on this. I am happy to leave the debate here. My router is doing what AVM intended and it is managing the instability. FTTC has a different DLM so, hopefully, in six weeks or so I have two options: one, use the VSDL function in the FB or, two, use the FB as a router/DECT station.

[Rik]

I didn't think I was disagreeing, just explaining things as I knew them. I have asked about line monitoring, but BT won't accept the results from IDNet, only their own diagnostics count, so it's pointless them doing it.

[esh]

I have asked about line monitoring, but BT won't accept the results from IDNet, only their own diagnostics count, so it's pointless them doing it.

I assume this is after A&A reported a fault for each of the 6,000 or so lines they detected showing packet loss

So is the problem here that the BT profile system is not changing the SNR margin to keep the line stable? Usually that thing is on a hair-trigger.

[Ardua]

I assume this is after A&A reported a fault for each of the 6,000 or so lines they detected showing packet loss

So is the problem here that the BT profile system is not changing the SNR margin to keep the line stable? Usually that thing is on a hair-trigger.

Yes and no. I am told by a Fritz!Box expert in the Netherlands that the 7390 is designed primarily for German VDSL lines and long and noisy ADSL lines, and the router is performing as it was designed to do. The clue to the 69 resynchs yesterday is in the increase in the attainable throughput which has increased by nearly 1Mbps in the past few days. Despite its best efforts, the router cannot hold synch at this very high ADSL2+ speed with my line attenuation of 18 because of cross-talk errors from other ADSL lines. Apparently, the DLM does not always recognise these types of disconnects which is why AVM has given the user 3 firmware tools: Intended SNR, Impulse Noise Protection and Identification of RFI. When issues arise these sliders can be moved from Performance towards Stability. I have moved the SNR 2 stops towards Stability and I now seem to be back where I was 2 days ago. I have an increased attainable throughput speed of 18.45Mbps but the router stability setting is restraining it to 17.2Mbps with a downstream SNR of between 3 and 5. The router has held synch now for over 9 hours. If I move the SNR slider back towards max performance then the throughput rises immediately to 18.45Mbps and the errors increase (presumably because SNR goes through the floor) and the router re-synchs. Very clever these Germans. Sadly, the router manual is very thin on detail and all the Idiot's Guides are in German!

There may well be a DLM issue on my line but I am not inclined to risk over £200 to set BT off on a hunt when I can maintain reasonable stability through my router settings