If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Router
Mike S wrote:
On 4/22/2018 2:42 AM, Paul wrote: Mike S wrote: On 4/21/2018 7:19 PM, Brian Gregory wrote: On 18/04/2018 20:45, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: In message , Brian Gregory writes: [] A DSL modem that's switched on during daylight hours will often have trouble continuing to work after dark. Switching it off and on will get it going again. Quite why they seem to be unable to make them so that they can tell when the error rates are getting alarmingly high and automatically recover on their own I don't know. But I've never owned one that wasn't quite happy to just sit there for hours reporting that it couldn't decode anything because there was too much line noise for the speed it had initially negotiated when conditions were better. Even once a DSL modem has adjusted to the worst conditions (usually night time) (by being switched off and on late at night) it's likely it'll occasionally need switching off and on again, maybe about once a week. My cheap dynamode one, plugs away, day and night, very rarely requiring any action on my part, and has for many years. The ISP can limit the speed of the connection to make it more reliable, or you can be so close to the exchange that you connect at the max speed with lots of noise margin every time, or maybe you are a long way from the exchange so that the troublesome higher frequencies are virtually unused by the modem. Exactly right, I worked for an ISP and we 'capped' (limited the higher frequencies used by the connection) on problematic lines. In our spare time we'd look for really slow connections (using a google map that showed the connection speeds with different color markers for speed ranges) and tried optimizing them for speed and stability. That's a function of architecture though. The old system used 18000 feet (or optionally 36000 feet) of wire, to connect subscribers all the way back to the CO. On large operations, the operator simply applied a "blanket cap" and didn't give a crap. They took 8Mbit/sec max ADSL1 and sold a service advertising 5Mbit/sec, and then capped it at 3Mbit/sec without ever examining the statistics. They had the option of selling it as 3Mbit/sec service, but they didn't, and... they got away with it too. The new system uses fiber-to-the-corner, the wire length (final hop) is closer to 500 feet, as the wire runs from the box on the corner of your street, to your house. And when they sell you a service at "X", they actually deliver "X". Shurely a miracle. No more cap, except for the cap of the advertised service of X. No more laddling SNR margin randomly and at their discretion, on top. Some customers here, used to use DMT and file a trouble ticket with the ISP, to "fix" the first case. And actually have the link adjusted properly. Some of those people, hanging out at DSLReport :-) There are still areas of the country operating the old way. And the operator in that case, has absolutely no plan to fix any infrastructure. It'll take a slap from the government to keep the physical plant functional. There's a guy in the WinXP group who is getting the old fashioned "service", complete with "horse, buggy, and excuses". Paul We're getting fiber installed (Santa Cruz, CA) in the city center areas now. I stopped using DSL because where I live, even though I'm less than .75 mile from the CO and got great DSL speeds, the phone wiring is so old that when it rained I saw frequent slowdowns, lost conn's, or loss of service, no problems with cable. The fiber will be a lot faster for the same cost with much lower latency, something like 2 mS if I understand it correctly, so that will be great and probably feel more responsive, click and stuff happens faster. The ISP includes a required fiber-modem rental service where they can monitor or control the modem. The typical last-hop on some of this fiber stuff, is "PON". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_optical_network At the head end, one laser is split 32 ways, by a fiber splitter. Two colors of light are used, for TX and RX. And this allows each subscriber to only need one screw-in optical connector in the garage. Since the two colors of light are independent, it operates full duplex. When they share like that, some protocol has to decide which unit transmits next. Using schemes like that is cheaper, for the access device at the end of the street, but as you'd imagine, there are some fault scenarios where 32 customers will lose service at the same time. I had a problem with a scheme like that, at work. A shared media network, where I hadn't put a lot of thought into the reliability aspects. Then one day, a client unit goes nuts, and stops following the access protocol. Which causes the whole network to go down. That's when it occurred to me, exactly how many silicon chips were in a single fault group. Doh! :-) I don't think anyone in the chain of command was surprised by the result, probably more surprised that the Devils Dice had been thrown to give them a demo of such :-) Your fiber device is likely to be *much* more reliable than that :-) (Crosses fingers, etc.) They shouldn't be running "private" fiber to each subscriber, because that would raise the installed per-channel cost. And make the box at the end of the street, that much bigger. They might do it that way some day, but individual fibers is pretty expensive per channel. And why did they pick 32 ? The optical loss goes up as the number of channels increases. Notice how in the Specification table for this device, for each doubling in subscribers, there's 3dB more loss. Eventually, the laser "won't make its way to the other end" through that thing. The light is split equally from the head end, into the fibers. There is likely to be more loss through the splitter, than through any other component leading to your house. The splitter is inside the box at the end of your street. https://www.fs.com/products/11948.html 1X2 1X4 1X8 1X16 1X32 1X64 4.1 7.2 10.4 13.4 16.4 19.9 dB insertion loss And I have no idea what they're telling you in terms of "available" or "guaranteed" bandwidth with such solutions. The incoming fiber is being split 32 ways, so you get 1/32 of whatever rate that fiber runs at (worst case). As you can tell, I'd be "full of questions" when the installer shows up :-) I love stuff like this. Especially when it's cheaply made and so clever. Customers absolutely hate statistical multiplexing. I'll never forget the "angry mob" around the Rogers booth at the Mall, when the first cable system failed to deliver on speed. And that's because the provider didn't have nearly enough equipment in the core of the network, for the number of subscribers. The mob was so angry, Rogers closed the booth :-) So people wouldn't mill about like angry bees. That's fixed now, and the cable network here is every bit as competitive as any other provider. No more angry mobs need be formed. The lesson to be learned from this, is if you want to be a "slimeball ISP", *don't* set up a booth at the Mall :-) Just some friendly advice. Paul |
Ads |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Router
On 22/04/2018 03:19, Brian Gregory wrote:
snip The ISP can limit the speed of the connection to make it more reliable, or you can be so close to the exchange that you connect at the max speed with lots of noise margin every time, or maybe you are a long way from the exchange so that the troublesome higher frequencies are virtually unused by the modem. What speed do you get? I should add that it also makes a big difference if your line runs most of the way back to the exchange underground, or if it's up on when we in the UK call telegraph poles some of the way. Underground is probably typically best but proximity to lots of other lines in a multicore underground cable can also be source of interference. -- Brian Gregory (in England). |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Router
On 4/22/2018 5:07 AM, Paul wrote:
Mike S wrote: On 4/22/2018 2:42 AM, Paul wrote: Mike S wrote: On 4/21/2018 7:19 PM, Brian Gregory wrote: On 18/04/2018 20:45, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: In message , Brian Gregory writes: [] A DSL modem that's switched on during daylight hours will often have trouble continuing to work after dark. Switching it off and on will get it going again. Quite why they seem to be unable to make them so that they can tell when the error rates are getting alarmingly high and automatically recover on their own I don't know. But I've never owned one that wasn't quite happy to just sit there for hours reporting that it couldn't decode anything because there was too much line noise for the speed it had initially negotiated when conditions were better. Even once a DSL modem has adjusted to the worst conditions (usually night time) (by being switched off and on late at night) it's likely it'll occasionally need switching off and on again, maybe about once a week. My cheap dynamode one, plugs away, day and night, very rarely requiring any action on my part, and has for many years. The ISP can limit the speed of the connection to make it more reliable, or you can be so close to the exchange that you connect at the max speed with lots of noise margin every time, or maybe you are a long way from the exchange so that the troublesome higher frequencies are virtually unused by the modem. Exactly right, I worked for an ISP and we 'capped' (limited the higher frequencies used by the connection) on problematic lines. In our spare time we'd look for really slow connections (using a google map that showed the connection speeds with different color markers for speed ranges) and tried optimizing them for speed and stability. That's a function of architecture though. The old system used 18000 feet (or optionally 36000 feet) of wire, to connect subscribers all the way back to the CO. On large operations, the operator simply applied a "blanket cap" and didn't give a crap. They took 8Mbit/sec max ADSL1 and sold a service advertising 5Mbit/sec, and then capped it at 3Mbit/sec without ever examining the statistics. They had the option of selling it as 3Mbit/sec service, but they didn't, and... they got away with it too. The new system uses fiber-to-the-corner, the wire length (final hop) is closer to 500 feet, as the wire runs from the box on the corner of your street, to your house. And when they sell you a service at "X", they actually deliver "X". Shurely a miracle. No more cap, except for the cap of the advertised service of X. No more laddling SNR margin randomly and at their discretion, on top. Some customers here, used to use DMT and file a trouble ticket with the ISP, to "fix" the first case. And actually have the link adjusted properly. Some of those people, hanging out at DSLReport :-) There are still areas of the country operating the old way. And the operator in that case, has absolutely no plan to fix any infrastructure. It'll take a slap from the government to keep the physical plant functional. There's a guy in the WinXP group who is getting the old fashioned "service", complete with "horse, buggy, and excuses". Â*Â*Â* Paul We're getting fiber installed (Santa Cruz, CA) in the city center areas now. I stopped using DSL because where I live, even though I'm less than .75 mile from the CO and got great DSL speeds, the phone wiring is so old that when it rained I saw frequent slowdowns, lost conn's, or loss of service, no problems with cable. The fiber will be a lot faster for the same cost with much lower latency, something like 2 mS if I understand it correctly, so that will be great and probably feel more responsive, click and stuff happens faster. The ISP includes a required fiber-modem rental service where they can monitor or control the modem. The typical last-hop on some of this fiber stuff, is "PON". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_optical_network At the head end, one laser is split 32 ways, by a fiber splitter. Two colors of light are used, for TX and RX. And this allows each subscriber to only need one screw-in optical connector in the garage. Since the two colors of light are independent, it operates full duplex. When they share like that, some protocol has to decide which unit transmits next. Using schemes like that is cheaper, for the access device at the end of the street, but as you'd imagine, there are some fault scenarios where 32 customers will lose service at the same time. I had a problem with a scheme like that, at work. A shared media network, where I hadn't put a lot of thought into the reliability aspects. Then one day, a client unit goes nuts, and stops following the access protocol. Which causes the whole network to go down. That's when it occurred to me, exactly how many silicon chips were in a single fault group. Doh! :-) I don't think anyone in the chain of command was surprised by the result, probably more surprised that the Devils Dice had been thrown to give them a demo of such :-) Your fiber device is likely to be *much* more reliable than that :-) (Crosses fingers, etc.) They shouldn't be running "private" fiber to each subscriber, because that would raise the installed per-channel cost. And make the box at the end of the street, that much bigger. They might do it that way some day, but individual fibers is pretty expensive per channel. And why did they pick 32 ? The optical loss goes up as the number of channels increases. Notice how in the Specification table for this device, for each doubling in subscribers, there's 3dB more loss. Eventually, the laser "won't make its way to the other end" through that thing. The light is split equally from the head end, into the fibers. There is likely to be more loss through the splitter, than through any other component leading to your house. The splitter is inside the box at the end of your street. https://www.fs.com/products/11948.html Â*Â* 1X2Â*Â* 1X4Â*Â* 1X8Â*Â*Â* 1X16Â*Â* 1X32Â*Â* 1X64 Â*Â* 4.1Â*Â* 7.2Â*Â* 10.4Â*Â* 13.4Â*Â* 16.4Â*Â* 19.9Â*Â* dB insertion loss And I have no idea what they're telling you in terms of "available" or "guaranteed" bandwidth with such solutions. The incoming fiber is being split 32 ways, so you get 1/32 of whatever rate that fiber runs at (worst case). As you can tell, I'd be "full of questions" when the installer shows up :-) I love stuff like this. Especially when it's cheaply made and so clever. Customers absolutely hate statistical multiplexing. I'll never forget the "angry mob" around the Rogers booth at the Mall, when the first cable system failed to deliver on speed. And that's because the provider didn't have nearly enough equipment in the core of the network, for the number of subscribers. The mob was so angry, Rogers closed the booth :-) So people wouldn't mill about like angry bees. That's fixed now, and the cable network here is every bit as competitive as any other provider. No more angry mobs need be formed. The lesson to be learned from this, is if you want to be a "slimeball ISP", *don't* set up a booth at the Mall :-) Just some friendly advice. Â*Â* Paul Very interesting Paul, I had no idea how the network worked and I had wondered about how they'd set it up, thanks. I no longer work for the ISP so here's hoping, lol. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Router
In message , Brian
Gregory writes: On 18/04/2018 20:45, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: In message , Brian Gregory writes: [] A DSL modem that's switched on during daylight hours will often have trouble continuing to work after dark. Switching it off and on will get it going again. Quite why they seem to be unable to make them so that they can tell when the error rates are getting alarmingly high and automatically recover on their own I don't know. But I've never owned one that wasn't quite happy to just sit there for hours reporting that it couldn't decode anything because there was too much line noise for the speed it had initially negotiated when conditions were better. Even once a DSL modem has adjusted to the worst conditions (usually night time) (by being switched off and on late at night) it's likely it'll occasionally need switching off and on again, maybe about once My cheap dynamode one, plugs away, day and night, very rarely requiring any action on my part, and has for many years. The ISP can limit the speed of the connection to make it more reliable, or you can be so close to the exchange that you connect at the max speed with lots of noise margin every time, or maybe you are a long way from the exchange so that the troublesome higher frequencies are virtually unused by the modem. About 1.2 miles https://goo.gl/maps/go9J6ZJXyjF2, I _think_ with no cabinets in between. (I've just googlewalked it, though they could be hidden under/behind something.) What speed do you get? Around 11 down, 1 up, according to https://www.broadbandspeedchecker.co.uk/?&again. More than adequate for my needs: YouTube and other videos, even HD, download faster than I can view them, and there's only me in this household, so I can't think of other things I might want that needs more. (OK, _huge_ downloads - i. e. in the several G - would take a long time, but I very rarely do those. And could leave them running while I do something else.) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Wisdom is the ability to cope. - the late (AB of C) Michael Ramsey, quoted by Stephen Fry (RT 24-30 August 2013) |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Router
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Brian Gregory writes: On 18/04/2018 20:45, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: In message , Brian Gregory writes: [] A DSL modem that's switched on during daylight hours will often have trouble continuing to work after dark. Switching it off and on will get it going again. Quite why they seem to be unable to make them so that they can tell when the error rates are getting alarmingly high and automatically recover on their own I don't know. But I've never owned one that wasn't quite happy to just sit there for hours reporting that it couldn't decode anything because there was too much line noise for the speed it had initially negotiated when conditions were better. Even once a DSL modem has adjusted to the worst conditions (usually night time) (by being switched off and on late at night) it's likely it'll occasionally need switching off and on again, maybe about once My cheap dynamode one, plugs away, day and night, very rarely requiring any action on my part, and has for many years. The ISP can limit the speed of the connection to make it more reliable, or you can be so close to the exchange that you connect at the max speed with lots of noise margin every time, or maybe you are a long way from the exchange so that the troublesome higher frequencies are virtually unused by the modem. About 1.2 miles https://goo.gl/maps/go9J6ZJXyjF2, I _think_ with no cabinets in between. (I've just googlewalked it, though they could be hidden under/behind something.) What speed do you get? Around 11 down, 1 up, according to https://www.broadbandspeedchecker.co.uk/?&again. More than adequate for my needs: YouTube and other videos, even HD, download faster than I can view them, and there's only me in this household, so I can't think of other things I might want that needs more. (OK, _huge_ downloads - i. e. in the several G - would take a long time, but I very rarely do those. And could leave them running while I do something else.) And what "plan" did they sell you ? Is it a plan for 11 that delivers 11 ? There's a curve on this page, that shows what a typical result should be. 1930 meters is "18000Kbps down" on ADSL2+. That's if there were no other constraints in place. Since that is a line rate, the "Goodput" is the rate that results when the PPPOE overhead is removed. https://www.internode.on.net/residen...d/performance/ https://www.internode.on.net/media/i...sl2-dist07.jpg Paul |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Router
In message , Paul
writes: J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: In message , Brian Gregory writes: On 18/04/2018 20:45, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: In message , Brian Gregory writes: [] A DSL modem that's switched on during daylight hours will often have trouble continuing to work after dark. Switching it off and on will get it going again. Quite why they seem to be unable to make them so that they can tell when the error rates are getting alarmingly high and automatically recover on their own I don't know. But I've never owned one that wasn't quite happy to just sit there for hours reporting that it couldn't decode anything because there was too much line noise for the speed it had initially negotiated when conditions were better. Even once a DSL modem has adjusted to the worst conditions (usually night time) (by being switched off and on late at night) it's likely it'll occasionally need switching off and on again, maybe about once My cheap dynamode one, plugs away, day and night, very rarely requiring any action on my part, and has for many years. The ISP can limit the speed of the connection to make it more reliable, or you can be so close to the exchange that you connect at the max speed with lots of noise margin every time, or maybe you are a long way from the exchange so that the troublesome higher frequencies are virtually unused by the modem. About 1.2 miles https://goo.gl/maps/go9J6ZJXyjF2, I _think_ with no cabinets in between. (I've just googlewalked it, though they could be hidden under/behind something.) What speed do you get? Around 11 down, 1 up, according to https://www.broadbandspeedchecker.co.uk/?&again. More than adequate for my needs: YouTube and other videos, even HD, download faster than I can view them, and there's only me in this household, so I can't think of other things I might want that needs more. (OK, _huge_ downloads - i. e. in the several G - would take a long time, but I very rarely do those. And could leave them running while I do something else.) And what "plan" did they sell you ? Is it a plan for 11 that delivers 11 ? I think it was "up to 8" when I first took it; when I first measured it, it was 5-6, which was good then. I don't know when it went up - possibly when they went from ADSL to ADSL+ (or is it ADSL2+). I don't remember being conscious of them specifically saying they'd raised it, but since even 5 was enough for me, I probably wouldn't have noticed. I was slightly surprised when I measured it sometime in the last week or so (a regular correspondent asked me) and found it had gone up to 11. [] -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder... |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Router
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
I think it was "up to 8" when I first took it; when I first measured it, it was 5-6, which was good then. I don't know when it went up - possibly when they went from ADSL to ADSL+ (or is it ADSL2+). I don't remember being conscious of them specifically saying they'd raised it, but since even 5 was enough for me, I probably wouldn't have noticed. I was slightly surprised when I measured it sometime in the last week or so (a regular correspondent asked me) and found it had gone up to 11. Whatever you do, don't phone up and ask :-) Or they'll turn it down again. Paul |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Router
In message , Paul
writes: J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: I think it was "up to 8" when I first took it; when I first measured it, it was 5-6, which was good then. I don't know when it went up - possibly when they went from ADSL to ADSL+ (or is it ADSL2+). I don't remember being conscious of them specifically saying they'd raised it, but since even 5 was enough for me, I probably wouldn't have noticed. I was slightly surprised when I measured it sometime in the last week or so (a regular correspondent asked me) and found it had gone up to 11. Whatever you do, don't phone up and ask :-) Or they'll turn it down again. Paul (-: I've just had connection fail two or three times in a row, so I've switched from my trusty dynamode MoDem/router/wifi to the (second-hand) Netgear one I acquired recently (a 3300, I think). Checking with that, the speed is the same, ~11 down 1 up (wifi or cable-connected, made no difference). I _suspect_ there's nothing wrong with the dynamode, since I had a similar failure the other day - I think it's the line or exchange. I'll stay on the Netgear for a few days. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Never. For me, there has to be a meaning. There's not much meaning in eating bugs. - Darcey Bussell (on whether she'd appear on /I'm a Celebrity/), in RT 2015/11/28-12/4 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|