Increasing consistent small packet loss

[mervl]

The sad anomaly is that (for political reasons I suppose) Greater London (and perhaps other large conurbations and a few residual larger urban post-war housing estates) are outside the BDUK subsidy, so are the new poor relations for broadband. During the great post-war housing expansion much telecomms infrastructure was put in on the cheap and with negligible quality control - up to the late 1980s, and I suspect it's still happening with quite a lot of Developers. The stuff you don't see doesn't sell. I think locally the next best thing that ever happened to telecomms was the late 1980s gale - so much of it blew down that it had to be replaced. The underground stuff is just patched up endlessly - here that eventually got to a virtually replacement network after 25 years, but with so many joints that half the data escapes.

I think the best hope is to get somewhere with at least the prospect of major new builds, when BT have the incentive (and probably the developer payments) to improve capacity. We've gone back to the nineteenth century: make money to spend money (and not the other way round).

[Technical Ben]

I wish, although we have quite a number of friends who live in that area. One couple just sold their four bedroomed semi, close to Alexandria Park Road for 1.6 million Here's another one for sale in the same road: http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-44692079.html?premiumA=true They were clearly robbed!

I'm nearer Barnet, so further north.

Wow, I know places where it would not reach 185k... (Off topic I know ).

[joe]

Since 8.00am Saturday I have had no sign of packet loss, even my regular half-hourly blip has gone. What happened at 8.00?



Still loosing speed on weekday afternoons though.

[Gary]

Just lost ppp here, no idea why but back up and blazing along now. Most impressed.

[Gary]

Guess I spoke to soon, speeds a bit all over the show tonight and some nice red marks on the TBBQM's have been appearing as well.   

[colirv]

My red marks (the TBBQM ones!) have all but gone.

[Steve]

It difficult to determine cause with the evening packet loss however we've at least 2 users here who have local exchange congestion, but I think late afternoon seems to have been solved at present.

[Gary]

It difficult to determine cause with the evening packet loss however we've at least 2 users here who have local exchange congestion, but I think late afternoon seems to have been solved at present.

They moved it to late evening instead, Steve. 

[Gary]

My red marks (the TBBQM ones!) have all but gone.

Even IDNets dedicated one shows last nights blip at 9:30pm ish.

[colirv]

Mine, to be fair, showed a small blip 9:30ish. But overall it's still better than it was.

[Gary]

Mine, to be fair, showed a small blip 9:30ish. But overall it's still better than it was.

Agreed but its still not right, if it effects internet usage that's bad. The fact the speeds were varying from 53-67 constantly meant it knocked me off online gaming and off video chat with my wife, for that I'm not impressed, especially when at weekends its fine...

[colirv]

Just as a matter of interest, if you're sync'ed at, say, 71, what sort of minimum speed would you expect to see?

[Gary]

Just as a matter of interest, if you're sync'ed at, say, 71, what sort of minimum speed would you expect to see?

Before the weirdness started if my profile was 71 I would see say 69Mbps at the moment my profile is 69.5 and I get 67-68Mbps ish that will remain steady all weekend and most of the day, but when these red stalactites grow it can yoyo down to 50Mbps at present, with my sync still at 69.5. 

[Bill]

Just as a matter of interest, if you're sync'ed at, say, 71, what sort of minimum speed would you expect to see?

If you're sync'd at exactly 71Mbps then your IP profile will be 96.2% of that, ie 68.3Mbps and that's your maximum speed.

The minimum acceptable (by BT) speed is 80% of IP, ie 54.64Mbps.

The minimum that you might expect to see is very much down to personal opinion ( ), but before this current kerfuffle I found IDNet could usually maintain more than 90% of IP.

[Gary]

If you're sync'd at exactly 71Mbps then your IP profile will be 96.2% of that, ie 68.3Mbps and that's your maximum speed.

The minimum acceptable (by BT) speed is 80% of IP, ie 54.64Mbps.

The minimum that you might expect to see is very much down to personal opinion ( ), but before this current kerfuffle I found IDNet could usually maintain more than 90% of IP.

If you multiply the profile sync you get on the BT speed test by 1.0.33 you get the sync rate that BTOR see as your maximum sync to the cab. so for me thats 71.7 so 72Mbps which is what it was when they installed it, 92.6% of that is 66.6 or 67 rounding up which is spot on pretty much. 

[colirv]

If you're sync'd at exactly 71Mbps then your IP profile will be 96.2% of that, ie 68.3Mbps and that's your maximum speed.

The minimum acceptable (by BT) speed is 80% of IP, ie 54.64Mbps.

Now that's interesting. I did a BT test a few days ago. IP profile was 71.18, speed was 62.77 (via wifi) and the acceptable range was 40-71.18 - i.e. down to 56% of IP. Why might that be?

[Bill]

... the acceptable range was 40-71.18 - i.e. down to 56% of IP. Why might that be?

Simple answer- dunno

There are sometimes some oddities with that value- for a long time my minimum was 12Mbps, which was a hangover from the (fairly arbitrary) setting I had from the early days with a 40/10 service. Not sure when it changed.

40Mbps is suspicious... it sounds as though somebody thought "If he's getting a higher speed on 80/20 than he would have got on 40/10 then he shouldn't complain"

[colirv]

40Mbps is suspicious... it sounds as though somebody thought "If he's getting a higher speed on 80/20 than he would have got on 40/10 then he shouldn't complain".

As it happens, I was on 40/2 for 9 months before upgrading just before Xmas! I shall test again when I have a quiet moment and see what happens.

[Gary]

Now that's interesting. I did a BT test a few days ago. IP profile was 71.18, speed was 62.77 (via wifi) and the acceptable range was 40-71.18 - i.e. down to 56% of IP. Why might that be?

Speeds test via wifi are never a good move, you can get odd results sometimes, its always best to do them via a physical connection if possible.

[colirv]

I realise that, but TBH as long as the speed's above 60 and my allowance is 100GB my needs are met! I was just puzzled why 40 was deemed acceptable.

[Steve]

I think it just gives enough range for OpenReach either not to declare a fault or upgrade congested equipment

[Glenn]

Put your details in here http://www.dslchecker.bt.com/

[colirv]

I did, and this was the result. It was an engineer install, so I assume the "Clean" figures apply. I'm none the wiser!

[Glenn]

http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2013/11/bt-wholesale-broadband-checker-adds-detail-fttc-speeds.html gives an explanation

According to BT, the term "Clean" relates to a line which is free from any wiring issues (i.e. in good condition) and the term "Impacted" relates to a line which may have wiring problems (e.g. poor extension wiring etc.).

[colirv]

Yes, the Thinkbroadband web site said exactly the same thing, and explained that the "Impacted" was really designed for the self-installs which are coming along - hence my assumption that the clean figures would apply in my case. I'm still none the wiser where the 40 Mbs came from.