I've been a BT Broadband user for a year or two and have been
reasonably happy with the speed. Since installing my new (much faster)
PC I haven't done any tests until today. But with symptoms of sluggish
downloads I just went to http://www.testmy.net/d_load.php and got a
consistent rating over several tests of only 0.8 Mbps.

Am I right that I should expect 3-4 Mbps? Any advice on practical
steps I should take to isolate the cause and get it fixed would be
appreciated please.

(Just checked speed of the Pipex Broadband connection my wife uses,
with same tests, and that was 2.1 Mbps.)

-- 
Terry, East Grinstead, UK

Terry Pinnell wrote:

> I've been a BT Broadband user for a year or two and have been
> reasonably happy with the speed. Since installing my new (much faster)
> PC I haven't done any tests until today. But with symptoms of sluggish
> downloads I just went to http://www.testmy.net/d_load.php and got a
> consistent rating over several tests of only 0.8 Mbps.
>
> Am I right that I should expect 3-4 Mbps? Any advice on practical
> steps I should take to isolate the cause and get it fixed would be
> appreciated please.
>
> (Just checked speed of the Pipex Broadband connection my wife uses,
> with same tests, and that was 2.1 Mbps.)

Well, if you insist on using SHIT ISPs (both of them) what do you expect ?

I get > 6Mbps day in day out.

Graham

Terry Pinnell wrote:

> (Just checked speed of the Pipex Broadband connection my wife uses,
> with same tests, and that was 2.1 Mbps.)

http://www.speedtest.bbmax.co.uk/results.php?t=1212696221&v=4426374

100% predictable and probably only costs a few more folding per month than
yours does.

ISP ? Idnet. One of the very best in the UK. Maybe even THE best. NO
Indian call centres, totally British staff who know what they're talking
about you can call on an free 0800 number. Faults ? What faults ? If you
do get one it's rare it takes more than 2 hours before it's sorted wheras
Tiscali (Pipex) will hapilly take 2 MONTHS like they did with my
neighbour.

Fancy trying it ? There's no migration cost and just a one month contract.
They work on the basis that the best way to keep customers is to provide a
top-notch service instead of tying them into nasty contracts.

Email me on the address in my headers, move to Idnet mentioning my details
and we both get a £10 pressie.

Graham

> I've been a BT Broadband user for a year or two and have been
> reasonably happy with the speed. Since installing my new (much faster)
> PC I haven't done any tests until today. But with symptoms of sluggish
> downloads I just went to http://www.testmy.net/d_load.php and got a
> consistent rating over several tests of only 0.8 Mbps.
>
> Am I right that I should expect 3-4 Mbps? Any advice on practical
> steps I should take to isolate the cause and get it fixed would be
> appreciated please.
>
> (Just checked speed of the Pipex Broadband connection my wife uses,
> with same tests, and that was 2.1 Mbps.)

The speed you get depends on a variety of factors such as the line length 
and how noisy the line is. All sorts of other factors can mak a significant 
difference. The first thing to do is to check the wiring and equipment.

This is a good place to start and explains the basic steps.

http://www.dslzoneuk.net/socket.php

Follow the steps carefully and if need be make the changes. Any suggestion 
that just changing ISP is a cure for all broadband ills is ludicrous and 
should be ignored.

Peter Crosland

Peter Crosland wrote:

> Follow the steps carefully and if need be make the changes. Any suggestion
> that just changing ISP is a cure for all broadband ills is ludicrous and
> should be ignored.

Naturally. The likes of BT don't score badly at all - it's just a conspiracy.

Graham

On Thursday 05 June 2008 8:15 pm, in MID ,
Eeyore (rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com) wrote:
> Terry Pinnell wrote:
 
>> I've been a BT Broadband user for a year or two and have been
>> reasonably happy with the speed. Since installing my new (much faster)
>> PC I haven't done any tests until today. But with symptoms of sluggish
>> downloads I just went to http://www.testmy.net/d_load.php and got a
>> consistent rating over several tests of only 0.8 Mbps.

That test site consistently give me results of about half (or worse) the
speed that I get from other speedtest sites, and from real-world downloads.

>> Am I right that I should expect 3-4 Mbps? 

Who knows ?  

>> Any advice on practical 
>> steps I should take to isolate the cause and get it fixed would be
>> appreciated please.

What's your sync speed ?

>> (Just checked speed of the Pipex Broadband connection my wife uses,
>> with same tests, and that was 2.1 Mbps.)
> 
> Well, if you insist on using SHIT ISPs (both of them) what do you expect ?
> 
> I get > 6Mbps day in day out.

Me too.

http://www.speedtest.bbmax.co.uk/results.php?t=1212701329&v=4427220

-- 
Ian...

Eeyore  wrote:

>
>
>Terry Pinnell wrote:
>
>> (Just checked speed of the Pipex Broadband connection my wife uses,
>> with same tests, and that was 2.1 Mbps.)
>
>http://www.speedtest.bbmax.co.uk/results.php?t=1212696221&v=4426374
>
>100% predictable and probably only costs a few more folding per month than
>yours does.
>
>ISP ? Idnet. One of the very best in the UK. Maybe even THE best. NO
>Indian call centres, totally British staff who know what they're talking
>about you can call on an free 0800 number. Faults ? What faults ? If you
>do get one it's rare it takes more than 2 hours before it's sorted wheras
>Tiscali (Pipex) will hapilly take 2 MONTHS like they did with my
>neighbour.
>
>Fancy trying it ? There's no migration cost and just a one month contract.
>They work on the basis that the best way to keep customers is to provide a
>top-notch service instead of tying them into nasty contracts.
>
>Email me on the address in my headers, move to Idnet mentioning my details
>and we both get a £10 pressie.
>
>Graham

Graham: Thanks. That test reported a very great improvement, to 3.4
Mbps download and 381 Kbps upload. I'm not averse to changing ISP as a
last resort, but I'd like to avoid the hassle if at all possible. So
I'll first do some more research and experimenting.

Peter: Thanks. Will study that as suggested.

---------

Just had a long conversation with BT Support, a pleasant and patient
chap in India. But although he is convinced from tests we conducted
together that I am "getting 4.4 Mbps; and that would be 6 Mbps if you
moved the Prestige router to your main phone socket downstairs", I am
so far unable to square that with *my* tests. The only test he appears
to regard as authentic/reliable is the one at
http://www.speedtester.bt.com/
I found that myself before phoning BT, but it fThat failed to work for
me. And during my phone session, on repeating the attempt I get a
message that I must wait 3 hours! Not a very useful test IMO.

BTW, in case it has any bearing, although I have successfully had a
Remote Assistance session with BT two months ago from this PC (over a
username/password issue) unfortunately it failed to work tonight.

Any further help would be welcomed, as I'm rather out of my depth on
this stuff.

-- 
Terry, East Grinstead, UK

> > Am I right that I should expect 3-4 Mbps? Any advice on practical
> > steps I should take to isolate the cause and get it fixed would be
> > appreciated please.

As you are with BT use BT's speedtester.
Look in your routers control panel to determine your sync
speed, attenuation and SNR (Signal Noise Ratio).
Try the same speedtest with all phones stuff and
ADSL filter removed, plugging straight into BT's
master incoming line jack. Which will give the
fastest sync speed for the line and modem
combination.
Take the same measurements with and without
the phones and compare.
I trust that there is no long extension wiring
or other fancy wiring of phones, extensions,
fax machines, caller ID units, extesion ringers
involved, and that if you have extension wiring
it isn't running parallel to mains wiring, and that
your above quoted speed doesn't involve a
wirelees link to your router.
Report back, so we can comment on the
results of your tests.

> Graham: Thanks. That test reported a very great improvement, to 3.4
> Mbps download and 381 Kbps upload. I'm not averse to changing ISP as a
> last resort, but I'd like to avoid the hassle if at all possible. So
> I'll first do some more research and experimenting.
>
> Peter: Thanks. Will study that as suggested.
>
> ---------
>
> Just had a long conversation with BT Support, a pleasant and patient
> chap in India. But although he is convinced from tests we conducted
> together that I am "getting 4.4 Mbps; and that would be 6 Mbps if you
> moved the Prestige router to your main phone socket downstairs", I am
> so far unable to square that with *my* tests. The only test he appears
> to regard as authentic/reliable is the one at
> http://www.speedtester.bt.com/
> I found that myself before phoning BT, but it fThat failed to work for
> me. And during my phone session, on repeating the attempt I get a
> message that I must wait 3 hours! Not a very useful test IMO.

The BT test is very specific and is intended to establish if the speed 
problem is in the BT part of the network. For most other purposes it is, as 
you have found out, useless. This is a much more useful tester

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest.html

Remember that the test results are only a snapshot at the time of the test. 
A test at a busy time may not give a true picture of the line speed.

In order to eliminate any wiring faults it is normal to conduct the tests 
using the test socket behind the reoveable faceplate but that does NOT 
guarantee an increase in speed.

> BTW, in case it has any bearing, although I have successfully had a
> Remote Assistance session with BT two months ago from this PC (over a
> username/password issue) unfortunately it failed to work tonight.
>
> Any further help would be welcomed, as I'm rather out of my depth on
> this stuff.

Be aware that changing ISP is a very last resort and quite pointless unless, 
and until, you have eliminated any hardware/wiring issues. Also remember 
that unless you move to a cable ISP the line to the exchange will be the 
same regardless of which ISP you use though some ISPs have their own 
equipment in the exchange. However, you do need to do the basic things 
first!

Peter Crosland

ato_zee@hotmail.com wrote:

>
>> > Am I right that I should expect 3-4 Mbps? Any advice on practical
>> > steps I should take to isolate the cause and get it fixed would be
>> > appreciated please.
>
>As you are with BT use BT's speedtester.
>Look in your routers control panel to determine your sync
>speed, attenuation and SNR (Signal Noise Ratio).
>Try the same speedtest with all phones stuff and
>ADSL filter removed, plugging straight into BT's
>master incoming line jack. Which will give the
>fastest sync speed for the line and modem
>combination.
>Take the same measurements with and without
>the phones and compare.
>I trust that there is no long extension wiring
>or other fancy wiring of phones, extensions,
>fax machines, caller ID units, extesion ringers
>involved, and that if you have extension wiring
>it isn't running parallel to mains wiring, and that
>your above quoted speed doesn't involve a
>wirelees link to your router.
>Report back, so we can comment on the
>results of your tests.

Thanks a lot, very helpful. I'll experiment along those lines and
report back.

The Prestige 600 Series router is connected by cable to my PC and the
phone extension socket here upstairs in my office. The master incoming
socket is downstairs. The connecting cable doesn't run closely to the
mains as far as I know.

I take it from your suggestion that the broadband connection will work
if I remove the ADSL filter, Is it just the voice line that will
suffer?

See also my later reply when I reported my discussion with BT, and the
failure of the BT speedtester. I'm unable to try it again yet, because
of the inflexible 3 hour wait ;-(

-- 
Terry, East Grinstead, UK

"Peter Crosland"  wrote:

>> Graham: Thanks. That test reported a very great improvement, to 3.4
>> Mbps download and 381 Kbps upload. I'm not averse to changing ISP as a
>> last resort, but I'd like to avoid the hassle if at all possible. So
>> I'll first do some more research and experimenting.
>>
>> Peter: Thanks. Will study that as suggested.
>>
>> ---------
>>
>> Just had a long conversation with BT Support, a pleasant and patient
>> chap in India. But although he is convinced from tests we conducted
>> together that I am "getting 4.4 Mbps; and that would be 6 Mbps if you
>> moved the Prestige router to your main phone socket downstairs", I am
>> so far unable to square that with *my* tests. The only test he appears
>> to regard as authentic/reliable is the one at
>> http://www.speedtester.bt.com/
>> I found that myself before phoning BT, but it fThat failed to work for
>> me. And during my phone session, on repeating the attempt I get a
>> message that I must wait 3 hours! Not a very useful test IMO.
>
>The BT test is very specific and is intended to establish if the speed 
>problem is in the BT part of the network. For most other purposes it is, as 
>you have found out, useless. This is a much more useful tester
>
>http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest.html

Thanks, appreciate the follow-up. That gave me a result of 	'3284.86
Kbps ( 3.2 Mbps )' which closely matches what I got earlier from
http://www.speedtest.bbmax.co.uk/results.php?t=1212696221&v=4426374

I just repeated the bbmax test and again got about 3.3 Mbps.
So, conclusions so far:

1) The test at http://www.testmy.net/d_load.php seems to read low. Now
showing 1.0. And Pipex on wife's PC, on different phone line (direct
connection) = 2.3. (So it does have merit as a *comparative* test. My
wife is getting more than twice my speed. Which also squares with the
fact that when you hover over her internet tray icon it reports
7.something. (My icon doesn't perform that function at all.) Is Pipex
generally regarded as faster than BT?

2) I'm not too unhappy with 3.2 if that's a realistic measure, but my
potential with current setup via extension is apparently 6.something
according to the BT guy. And he reckons I should get 4.4.

>Remember that the test results are only a snapshot at the time of the test. 
>A test at a busy time may not give a true picture of the line speed.
>
>In order to eliminate any wiring faults it is normal to conduct the tests 
>using the test socket behind the reoveable faceplate but that does NOT 
>guarantee an increase in speed.
>
>> BTW, in case it has any bearing, although I have successfully had a
>> Remote Assistance session with BT two months ago from this PC (over a
>> username/password issue) unfortunately it failed to work tonight.
>>
>> Any further help would be welcomed, as I'm rather out of my depth on
>> this stuff.
>
>Be aware that changing ISP is a very last resort and quite pointless unless, 
>and until, you have eliminated any hardware/wiring issues. Also remember 
>that unless you move to a cable ISP the line to the exchange will be the 
>same regardless of which ISP you use though some ISPs have their own 
>equipment in the exchange. However, you do need to do the basic things 
>first!

Understood. As per my earlier reply, it would definitely be a last
resort.

BTW, no one's mentioned settings on my PC. Can I assume that the
'default' settings that came with the PC, with XP Pro installed, are
unlikely to benefit from 'tweaking', either manually or via one of the
several tools I see mentioned on various sites?

-- 
Terry, East Grinstead, UK

ian  wrote:

>On Thursday 05 June 2008 8:15 pm, in MID ,
>Eeyore (rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com) wrote:
>> Terry Pinnell wrote:
> 
>>> I've been a BT Broadband user for a year or two and have been
>>> reasonably happy with the speed. Since installing my new (much faster)
>>> PC I haven't done any tests until today. But with symptoms of sluggish
>>> downloads I just went to http://www.testmy.net/d_load.php and got a
>>> consistent rating over several tests of only 0.8 Mbps.
>
>That test site consistently give me results of about half (or worse) the
>speed that I get from other speedtest sites, and from real-world downloads.
>
>>> Am I right that I should expect 3-4 Mbps? 
>
>Who knows ?  
>
>>> Any advice on practical 
>>> steps I should take to isolate the cause and get it fixed would be
>>> appreciated please.
>
>What's your sync speed ?

Can you explain what that is, and how I measure it please?


>>> (Just checked speed of the Pipex Broadband connection my wife uses,
>>> with same tests, and that was 2.1 Mbps.)
>> 
>> Well, if you insist on using SHIT ISPs (both of them) what do you expect ?
>> 
>> I get > 6Mbps day in day out.
>
>Me too.
>
>http://www.speedtest.bbmax.co.uk/results.php?t=1212701329&v=4427220

Thanks. Yes, now using that, following Graham's recommendation.

-- 
Terry, East Grinstead, UK

> I take it from your suggestion that the broadband connection will work
> if I remove the ADSL filter, Is it just the voice line that will
> suffer?

You disconnect all the phone stuff, and plug your router directly
into the BT incoming line master socket.
This will give you your best speed.
If your filter/filtering is sub-standard then stuff on the phone side
can shunt off some of the ADSL frequencies. By removing
the phone stuff you eliminate the phone side affecting the ADSL.
Wiring on the phone side, including extensions, can act as
an aerial and pick up noise, which degrades the ADSL signal,
lowering the speed, so for the purpose of testing disconnect by
unplugging the phone side.
Running an extension cable to your router, particularly if it
runs alongside a mains cable can also pick up noise from the
mains cable, since extension cables are not normally
twisted pair to reduce noise pickup.
Putting the router next to the incoming BT socket will eliminate
the effect of an extension cable.
Once you have established your fastest speed, no phones
connected, no extension cable, router plugged into the
BT master socket, you can record the speed and router
control panel readings for sync speed, attenuation, SNR.
Now when you put things back as you normally have
them you can see from taking the same measurements if
you normal way of connecting is degrading the ADSL
and reducing your speed.
I found I got a significant increase in speed by moving my
router next to the phone socket and connecting my PC's
with CAT5 ethernet instead of an extension cable, I also
improved my filtering, which may have helped.
I suspect from experiments that the original extension
cable running next to the mains, was picking up noise
from low energy lamps, which I find contain two
switching power transistors, just what is needed to
generate noise, though anything in the
house with a switch mode PSU would probably
generate noise.

Beware trying to change more than one variable at a time. The standard 
settings in XP should be fine. At this point concentrate on the 
hardware/wiring. The sync speed is the speed at which you are connected to 
the BT network. The actual throughput achieved will be less than that 
depending on the amount of traffic on the network at the time of the test. 
Comparisons of throughput are potentially misleading so just concentrate on 
you sync speed for the time being. It would be helpful to know what 
make/model of modem/router you are using.

Peter Crosland

Eeyore wrote:
> Peter Crosland wrote:
>
>> Follow the steps carefully and if need be make the changes. Any
>> suggestion that just changing ISP is a cure for all broadband ills
>> is ludicrous and should be ignored.
>
> Naturally. The likes of BT don't score badly at all - it's just a
> conspiracy.
>
> Graham

Id say Peters statement is correct and incorrect at the same time.  Changing 
ISP will not fix any physical problems you have with your hardware or the BT 
line - it won't increase your sync or IP profile.  I've assumed here that 
you will remain on BT kit in the exchange.  Going LLU may increase sync but 
if the BT line has problems it won't fix that.  Changing ISP will fix issues 
with traffic shaping and general throughput depending on which ISP you go 
to.

-- 

WCZ

Terry Pinnell wrote:

> BTW, no one's mentioned settings on my PC. Can I assume that the
> 'default' settings that came with the PC, with XP Pro installed, are
> unlikely to benefit from 'tweaking', either manually or via one of the
> several tools I see mentioned on various sites?

Pretty much. I've never needed to. Some people talk of tweating MTUs or whatever
but I think maybe that's more relevant to cable modems.

Graham

Peter Crosland wrote:

> Beware trying to change more than one variable at a time. The standard
> settings in XP should be fine. At this point concentrate on the
> hardware/wiring. The sync speed is the speed at which you are connected to
> the BT network. The actual throughput achieved will be less than that
> depending on the amount of traffic on the network at the time of the test.

If the network has enough capacity (unlikely for BT's retail ISP offering) and
there's no other congestion in the way (never noticed any worth talking of for
the bbmax speed test) the data speed should be about 85% of the sync speed.

Graham

WCZ wrote:

> Changing ISP will fix issues with traffic shaping and general throughput
> depending on which ISP you go to.

Whuch is why Idnet is so good.

And it may regularly fix issues relating to incompetent customer support. which
is the problem 90 + % of the time IME.

Graham

>> Peter Crosland wrote:
>>
>>> Follow the steps carefully and if need be make the changes. Any
>>> suggestion that just changing ISP is a cure for all broadband ills
>>> is ludicrous and should be ignored.
>>
>> Naturally. The likes of BT don't score badly at all - it's just a
>> conspiracy.
>>
>> Graham
>
> Id say Peters statement is correct and incorrect at the same time. 
> Changing ISP will not fix any physical problems you have with your 
> hardware or the BT line - it won't increase your sync or IP profile.  I've 
> assumed here that you will remain on BT kit in the exchange.  Going LLU 
> may increase sync but if the BT line has problems it won't fix that. 
> Changing ISP will fix issues with traffic shaping and general throughput 
> depending on which ISP you go to.


You are both correct and incorrect. The problem is that before gettingn into 
the hypothetical advantages of LLU the OP needs to concentrate on the 
basics. Given that the OP is not au fait with ADSL introducing more detail 
before he has even sorted the basics is likely to be counterproductive.


Peter Crosland

"Peter Crosland"  wrote:

>> I've been a BT Broadband user for a year or two and have been
>> reasonably happy with the speed. Since installing my new (much faster)
>> PC I haven't done any tests until today. But with symptoms of sluggish
>> downloads I just went to http://www.testmy.net/d_load.php and got a
>> consistent rating over several tests of only 0.8 Mbps.
>>
>> Am I right that I should expect 3-4 Mbps? Any advice on practical
>> steps I should take to isolate the cause and get it fixed would be
>> appreciated please.
>>
>> (Just checked speed of the Pipex Broadband connection my wife uses,
>> with same tests, and that was 2.1 Mbps.)
>
>The speed you get depends on a variety of factors such as the line length 
>and how noisy the line is. All sorts of other factors can mak a significant 
>difference. The first thing to do is to check the wiring and equipment.
>
>This is a good place to start and explains the basic steps.
>
>http://www.dslzoneuk.net/socket.php
>
>Follow the steps carefully and if need be make the changes. Any suggestion 
>that just changing ISP is a cure for all broadband ills is ludicrous and 
>should be ignored.
>
>Peter Crosland 
>

I'm reporting back after following the steps recommended. Bottom line
is that direct connection to BT master socket with all phones
disconnected made no difference to speed. But I have discovered that
it seems 'capped' or 'configured' to 3.5 Mbps, whatever that means.
Here's the detail:

1) 08:00 Using current configuration, bbmax reported 3395 Kbps
2) 08:10 With both phones removed and a long extension to my
shed/workshop (with no phone currently at its other end) also removed:
bbmax = 3386
3) 08:12 Comparative test on wife's PC/Pipex/separate phone line:
bbmax = 6303
4) 08:50-08:53 No phones connected, and router direct to main socket
using long extension cable: bbmax = 3393, 3399, 3389
[Note: I say 'direct', but the router cable plug is not the type that
can fit into a phone socket. So I kept it connected via the filter,
but I assume that's a straight-through connection.]
5) 08:57 As #4, but with BT cover removed and extension connected
directly to socket inside (although I don't see why that *should* make
any difference?): bbmax = 3395
6) 09:25 As #5: BT Speedtest http://www.speedtester.bt.com/  now
worked, as it has been more than 3 hours since I last used it. First
gave this message:
"Your configured download throughput speed for this service is 3500
Kbps"
Then it ran the test and gave this result:
"Test1 comprises of Best Effort Test:  -provides background
information.
    IP profile for your line is - 3500 kbps
    DSL connection rate: 448 kbps(UP-STREAM)  7616 kbps(DOWN-STREAM)
    Actual IP throughput achieved during the test was - 3263 kbps"

Can someone explain that please, and advise what I do next?

7) 09:40 With everything restored to as it was: bbmax = 3394, 3385,
3368
8) 10:49 Repeated the above to see if the later hour made any
difference: bbmax = 2923

Note: I haven't reported 'Sync Speed' as I don't know how.

To remind you, my router is ZyXEL Prestige Series 600. When I open its
'Configurator' from the shortcut on my desktop I see:
http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/5/prestigeconfigurator1wc4.jpg

Happy to provide any further information to help diagnose the problem
and improve this mediocre speed.

-- 
Terry, East Grinstead, UK

"WCZ"  wrote:

>Eeyore wrote:
>> Peter Crosland wrote:
>>
>>> Follow the steps carefully and if need be make the changes. Any
>>> suggestion that just changing ISP is a cure for all broadband ills
>>> is ludicrous and should be ignored.
>>
>> Naturally. The likes of BT don't score badly at all - it's just a
>> conspiracy.
>>
>> Graham
>
>Id say Peters statement is correct and incorrect at the same time.  Changing 
>ISP will not fix any physical problems you have with your hardware or the BT 
>line - it won't increase your sync or IP profile.  I've assumed here that 
>you will remain on BT kit in the exchange.  Going LLU may increase sync but 
>if the BT line has problems it won't fix that.  Changing ISP will fix issues 
>with traffic shaping and general throughput depending on which ISP you go 
>to.

Help! As you've probably now seen from my latest report, I'm way
behind you guys on the technicalities of this subject. This 'IP
profile' seems key to my issue. What is it and how do I change it
please? What's 'LLU'? What's 'traffic shaping'?

-- 
Terry, East Grinstead, UK

> Note: I haven't reported 'Sync Speed' as I don't know how.
>
> To remind you, my router is ZyXEL Prestige Series 600. When I open its
> 'Configurator' from the shortcut on my desktop I see:
> http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/5/prestigeconfigurator1wc4.jpg

System staus should show your sync speed and other data like
attenuation an SNR. You migh also look in diagnostic to see what
that offers.
It would appear that your line is limited to 3500 which includes
overheads, which is similar to ADSL.
Your wife's line may be ADSL+ accounting for the higher speed.

Terry Pinnell wrote:
> "Peter Crosland"  wrote:
> 
>>> I've been a BT Broadband user for a year or two and have been
>>> reasonably happy with the speed. Since installing my new (much faster)
>>> PC I haven't done any tests until today. But with symptoms of sluggish
>>> downloads I just went to http://www.testmy.net/d_load.php and got a
>>> consistent rating over several tests of only 0.8 Mbps.
>>>
>>> Am I right that I should expect 3-4 Mbps? Any advice on practical
>>> steps I should take to isolate the cause and get it fixed would be
>>> appreciated please.
>>>
>>> (Just checked speed of the Pipex Broadband connection my wife uses,
>>> with same tests, and that was 2.1 Mbps.)
>> The speed you get depends on a variety of factors such as the line length 
>> and how noisy the line is. All sorts of other factors can mak a significant 
>> difference. The first thing to do is to check the wiring and equipment.
>>
>> This is a good place to start and explains the basic steps.
>>
>> http://www.dslzoneuk.net/socket.php
>>
>> Follow the steps carefully and if need be make the changes. Any suggestion 
>> that just changing ISP is a cure for all broadband ills is ludicrous and 
>> should be ignored.
>>
>> Peter Crosland 
>>
> 
> I'm reporting back after following the steps recommended. Bottom line
> is that direct connection to BT master socket with all phones
> disconnected made no difference to speed. But I have discovered that
> it seems 'capped' or 'configured' to 3.5 Mbps, whatever that means.
> Here's the detail:
> 
> 1) 08:00 Using current configuration, bbmax reported 3395 Kbps
> 2) 08:10 With both phones removed and a long extension to my
> shed/workshop (with no phone currently at its other end) also removed:
> bbmax = 3386
> 3) 08:12 Comparative test on wife's PC/Pipex/separate phone line:
> bbmax = 6303
> 4) 08:50-08:53 No phones connected, and router direct to main socket
> using long extension cable: bbmax = 3393, 3399, 3389
> [Note: I say 'direct', but the router cable plug is not the type that
> can fit into a phone socket. So I kept it connected via the filter,
> but I assume that's a straight-through connection.]
> 5) 08:57 As #4, but with BT cover removed and extension connected
> directly to socket inside (although I don't see why that *should* make
> any difference?): bbmax = 3395
> 6) 09:25 As #5: BT Speedtest http://www.speedtester.bt.com/  now
> worked, as it has been more than 3 hours since I last used it. First
> gave this message:
> "Your configured download throughput speed for this service is 3500
> Kbps"
> Then it ran the test and gave this result:
> "Test1 comprises of Best Effort Test:  -provides background
> information.
>     IP profile for your line is - 3500 kbps
>     DSL connection rate: 448 kbps(UP-STREAM)  7616 kbps(DOWN-STREAM)
>     Actual IP throughput achieved during the test was - 3263 kbps"
> 
> Can someone explain that please, and advise what I do next?
> 

If its your BRAS that has dropped because of a period of bad synching, 
wait about a week and it should go up to nearer the 7Mbps you are seeng 
on the raw link.

OTOH if yor ISP has deliberately capped transfer rates or BT has, take 
it up with them.


> 7) 09:40 With everything restored to as it was: bbmax = 3394, 3385,
> 3368
> 8) 10:49 Repeated the above to see if the later hour made any
> difference: bbmax = 2923
> 
> Note: I haven't reported 'Sync Speed' as I don't know how.

That's 'ADSL connection rate' to you.
> 
> To remind you, my router is ZyXEL Prestige Series 600. When I open its
> 'Configurator' from the shortcut on my desktop I see:
> http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/5/prestigeconfigurator1wc4.jpg
> 
> Happy to provide any further information to help diagnose the problem
> and improve this mediocre speed.
>

Terry Pinnell wrote:
> "WCZ"  wrote:
> 
>> Eeyore wrote:
>>> Peter Crosland wrote:
>>>
>>>> Follow the steps carefully and if need be make the changes. Any
>>>> suggestion that just changing ISP is a cure for all broadband ills
>>>> is ludicrous and should be ignored.
>>> Naturally. The likes of BT don't score badly at all - it's just a
>>> conspiracy.
>>>
>>> Graham
>> Id say Peters statement is correct and incorrect at the same time.  Changing 
>> ISP will not fix any physical problems you have with your hardware or the BT 
>> line - it won't increase your sync or IP profile.  I've assumed here that 
>> you will remain on BT kit in the exchange.  Going LLU may increase sync but 
>> if the BT line has problems it won't fix that.  Changing ISP will fix issues 
>> with traffic shaping and general throughput depending on which ISP you go 
>> to.
> 
> Help! As you've probably now seen from my latest report, I'm way
> behind you guys on the technicalities of this subject. This 'IP
> profile' seems key to my issue. What is it and how do I change it
> please? What's 'LLU'? What's 'traffic shaping'?
> 
see www.kitz.co.uk for answres to all this. Get a rapid education there 
and you will know what the buzz words mean.

Terry Pinnell wrote:
> "Peter Crosland"  wrote:
>
>>> I've been a BT Broadband user for a year or two and have been
>>> reasonably happy with the speed. Since installing my new (much
>>> faster) PC I haven't done any tests until today. But with symptoms
>>> of sluggish downloads I just went to
>>> http://www.testmy.net/d_load.php and got a consistent rating over
>>> several tests of only 0.8 Mbps.
>>>
>>> Am I right that I should expect 3-4 Mbps? Any advice on practical
>>> steps I should take to isolate the cause and get it fixed would be
>>> appreciated please.
>>>
>>> (Just checked speed of the Pipex Broadband connection my wife uses,
>>> with same tests, and that was 2.1 Mbps.)
>>
>> The speed you get depends on a variety of factors such as the line
>> length and how noisy the line is. All sorts of other factors can mak
>> a significant difference. The first thing to do is to check the
>> wiring and equipment.
>>
>> This is a good place to start and explains the basic steps.
>>
>> http://www.dslzoneuk.net/socket.php
>>
>> Follow the steps carefully and if need be make the changes. Any
>> suggestion that just changing ISP is a cure for all broadband ills
>> is ludicrous and should be ignored.
>>
>> Peter Crosland
>>
>
> I'm reporting back after following the steps recommended. Bottom line
> is that direct connection to BT master socket with all phones
> disconnected made no difference to speed. But I have discovered that
> it seems 'capped' or 'configured' to 3.5 Mbps, whatever that means.
> Here's the detail:
>
> 1) 08:00 Using current configuration, bbmax reported 3395 Kbps
> 2) 08:10 With both phones removed and a long extension to my
> shed/workshop (with no phone currently at its other end) also removed:
> bbmax = 3386
> 3) 08:12 Comparative test on wife's PC/Pipex/separate phone line:
> bbmax = 6303
> 4) 08:50-08:53 No phones connected, and router direct to main socket
> using long extension cable: bbmax = 3393, 3399, 3389
> [Note: I say 'direct', but the router cable plug is not the type that
> can fit into a phone socket. So I kept it connected via the filter,
> but I assume that's a straight-through connection.]
> 5) 08:57 As #4, but with BT cover removed and extension connected
> directly to socket inside (although I don't see why that *should* make
> any difference?): bbmax = 3395
> 6) 09:25 As #5: BT Speedtest http://www.speedtester.bt.com/  now
> worked, as it has been more than 3 hours since I last used it. First
> gave this message:
> "Your configured download throughput speed for this service is 3500
> Kbps"
> Then it ran the test and gave this result:
> "Test1 comprises of Best Effort Test:  -provides background
> information.
>    IP profile for your line is - 3500 kbps
>    DSL connection rate: 448 kbps(UP-STREAM)  7616 kbps(DOWN-STREAM)
>    Actual IP throughput achieved during the test was - 3263 kbps"
>

OK.  Your router is connected at 7616kbps.  Thats the maximum you'll get.

Your IP profile is much less than that.  Unfortunately the IP profile tends 
to lag the router connection speed.  You'll need to leave it connected for 
up to 5 days in order for the IP profile to rise.

> Can someone explain that please, and advise what I do next?
>
> 7) 09:40 With everything restored to as it was: bbmax = 3394, 3385,
> 3368
> 8) 10:49 Repeated the above to see if the later hour made any
> difference: bbmax = 2923
>

That all sounds about right for an IP profile of 3500.  The 2923 is a bit 
low but not too bad.

> Note: I haven't reported 'Sync Speed' as I don't know how.

You have!  Thats the 7616 from the speed test page.  You can also get it 
from the router.  I don't have a Zyxel but the user guide should explain how 
to access the statistics page.

>
> To remind you, my router is ZyXEL Prestige Series 600. When I open its
> 'Configurator' from the shortcut on my desktop I see:
> http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/5/prestigeconfigurator1wc4.jpg
>
> Happy to provide any further information to help diagnose the problem
> and improve this mediocre speed.

You need to leave the router switched on and connected for 5 days and see if 
the IP profile improves.  In an ideal world you would connect the router to 
the master socket and leave it there.  You are better off running a network 
cable from the router to your PC than running a long telephone extension to 
the router.

Hope this helps.

-- 

WCZ

On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 11:29:40 +0100, Terry Pinnell wrote:

>6) 09:25 As #5: BT Speedtest http://www.speedtester.bt.com/  now
>worked, as it has been more than 3 hours since I last used it. First
>gave this message:
>"Your configured download throughput speed for this service is 3500
>Kbps"
>Then it ran the test and gave this result:
>"Test1 comprises of Best Effort Test:  -provides background
>information.
>    IP profile for your line is - 3500 kbps
>    DSL connection rate: 448 kbps(UP-STREAM)  7616 kbps(DOWN-STREAM)
>    Actual IP throughput achieved during the test was - 3263 kbps"

Repeat that for us then with everything connected as normal. The IP
profile is the max IP rate that is set for your line but the DSL
connection rate is what we are interested in, it's the speed of the
line between you and the exchange.

If you have a problem internally it will be lower when connected as you
normally have it but go higher once you connect to the test socket.
Using the filter to connect your adsl line is fine provided it's a good
filter (not faulty) and at 7616 it looks to be fine.

If you get a lower rate when all of the house equipment is connected
(as it is normally) then the IP profile will be set at that. It won't
change to a higher rate as soon as you connect at the test socket. It's
set at a rate that has proven reliable over a period of time. If you
are subject to a lot of noise at night for instance it will force it to
set to a rate that can be sustained at that time.

If you get a lower rate when connected normally than when connected to
the test socket put the cover back on and try it plugged into that. If
that is lower the problem is in your cabling, equipment connected or a
filter on another piece of equipment, unplug things at your extensions
one at a time and resync until it goes higher when you are connected at
the master socket. If it's high, as when connected to the test socket
it's likely to be the cable for the extension you are using normally or
the filter you are using or the phone connected to it (if one is) at
that extension.

There are a lot of steps in there and if you are lost just do the first
one, ie the test readings when connected normally, and report those
back.

-- 
Regards - Rodney Pont
The from address exists but is mostly dumped,
please send any emails to the address below
e-mail	ngpsm4 (at) infohitsystems (dot) ltd (dot) uk

On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 11:32:37 +0100, Terry Pinnell wrote:

>Help! As you've probably now seen from my latest report, I'm way
>behind you guys on the technicalities of this subject. This 'IP
>profile' seems key to my issue. What is it and how do I change it
>please? What's 'LLU'? What's 'traffic shaping'?

See my previous post, hopefully it will simplify things for you.

LLU is Local Loop Unbundling and means that another supplier has
equipment in the exchange - not relevent to you at the moment.

Traffic shaping is when the ISP restricts the flow of data for certain
things, again not relevent to you atm.

It's the DSL speed we are interested in. This is available from your
router but that test you ran also gave it and you can run that so let's
take it that way and not confuse you even more :-)

-- 
Regards - Rodney Pont
The from address exists but is mostly dumped,
please send any emails to the address below
e-mail	ngpsm4 (at) infohitsystems (dot) ltd (dot) uk

"WCZ"  wrote:

>Terry Pinnell wrote:
>> "Peter Crosland"  wrote:
>>
>>>> I've been a BT Broadband user for a year or two and have been
>>>> reasonably happy with the speed. Since installing my new (much
>>>> faster) PC I haven't done any tests until today. But with symptoms
>>>> of sluggish downloads I just went to
>>>> http://www.testmy.net/d_load.php and got a consistent rating over
>>>> several tests of only 0.8 Mbps.
>>>>
>>>> Am I right that I should expect 3-4 Mbps? Any advice on practical
>>>> steps I should take to isolate the cause and get it fixed would be
>>>> appreciated please.
>>>>
>>>> (Just checked speed of the Pipex Broadband connection my wife uses,
>>>> with same tests, and that was 2.1 Mbps.)
>>>
>>> The speed you get depends on a variety of factors such as the line
>>> length and how noisy the line is. All sorts of other factors can mak
>>> a significant difference. The first thing to do is to check the
>>> wiring and equipment.
>>>
>>> This is a good place to start and explains the basic steps.
>>>
>>> http://www.dslzoneuk.net/socket.php
>>>
>>> Follow the steps carefully and if need be make the changes. Any
>>> suggestion that just changing ISP is a cure for all broadband ills
>>> is ludicrous and should be ignored.
>>>
>>> Peter Crosland
>>>
>>
>> I'm reporting back after following the steps recommended. Bottom line
>> is that direct connection to BT master socket with all phones
>> disconnected made no difference to speed. But I have discovered that
>> it seems 'capped' or 'configured' to 3.5 Mbps, whatever that means.
>> Here's the detail:
>>
>> 1) 08:00 Using current configuration, bbmax reported 3395 Kbps
>> 2) 08:10 With both phones removed and a long extension to my
>> shed/workshop (with no phone currently at its other end) also removed:
>> bbmax = 3386
>> 3) 08:12 Comparative test on wife's PC/Pipex/separate phone line:
>> bbmax = 6303
>> 4) 08:50-08:53 No phones connected, and router direct to main socket
>> using long extension cable: bbmax = 3393, 3399, 3389
>> [Note: I say 'direct', but the router cable plug is not the type that
>> can fit into a phone socket. So I kept it connected via the filter,
>> but I assume that's a straight-through connection.]
>> 5) 08:57 As #4, but with BT cover removed and extension connected
>> directly to socket inside (although I don't see why that *should* make
>> any difference?): bbmax = 3395
>> 6) 09:25 As #5: BT Speedtest http://www.speedtester.bt.com/  now
>> worked, as it has been more than 3 hours since I last used it. First
>> gave this message:
>> "Your configured download throughput speed for this service is 3500
>> Kbps"
>> Then it ran the test and gave this result:
>> "Test1 comprises of Best Effort Test:  -provides background
>> information.
>>    IP profile for your line is - 3500 kbps
>>    DSL connection rate: 448 kbps(UP-STREAM)  7616 kbps(DOWN-STREAM)
>>    Actual IP throughput achieved during the test was - 3263 kbps"
>>
>
>OK.  Your router is connected at 7616kbps.  Thats the maximum you'll get.
>
>Your IP profile is much less than that.  Unfortunately the IP profile tends 
>to lag the router connection speed.  You'll need to leave it connected for 
>up to 5 days in order for the IP profile to rise.
>
>> Can someone explain that please, and advise what I do next?
>>
>> 7) 09:40 With everything restored to as it was: bbmax = 3394, 3385,
>> 3368
>> 8) 10:49 Repeated the above to see if the later hour made any
>> difference: bbmax = 2923
>>
>
>That all sounds about right for an IP profile of 3500.  The 2923 is a bit 
>low but not too bad.
>
>> Note: I haven't reported 'Sync Speed' as I don't know how.
>
>You have!  Thats the 7616 from the speed test page.  You can also get it 
>from the router.  I don't have a Zyxel but the user guide should explain how 
>to access the statistics page.
>
>>
>> To remind you, my router is ZyXEL Prestige Series 600. When I open its
>> 'Configurator' from the shortcut on my desktop I see:
>> http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/5/prestigeconfigurator1wc4.jpg
>>
>> Happy to provide any further information to help diagnose the problem
>> and improve this mediocre speed.
>
>You need to leave the router switched on and connected for 5 days and see if 
>the IP profile improves.  In an ideal world you would connect the router to 
>the master socket and leave it there.  You are better off running a network 
>cable from the router to your PC than running a long telephone extension to 
>the router.
>
>Hope this helps.

Thanks for all the prompt responses so far. Lot to study there! But
meanwhile a couple of key points please. If I go to the inconvenience
of trailing an extension reel cable downstairs to the hall and plug it
in directly to the BT master socket inside the cover:
1) Wouldn't that mean I can't use the phones on that line? If so, that
would effectively rule that out as a practical measure here.

2) If I *did* do that over 5 days, and happily get a new 'IP' rating
of 5 or 6 Mbps, what happens afterwards when I restore things to
normal please? Or is it being suggested I must make these major
changes permanent? IOW, get my main BT socket moved from downstairs to
up here? How do I proceed to get that done if so?

BTW, I just tried repeating the BT Speedster test now that I have
things back to normal. It gave me the preliminary message that my IP
speed was 3000 (not 3500). But it failed to do the actual test, with
some obscure Java error.

-- 
Terry, East Grinstead, UK

"Rodney Pont"  wrote:

>On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 11:29:40 +0100, Terry Pinnell wrote:
>
>>6) 09:25 As #5: BT Speedtest http://www.speedtester.bt.com/  now
>>worked, as it has been more than 3 hours since I last used it. First
>>gave this message:
>>"Your configured download throughput speed for this service is 3500
>>Kbps"
>>Then it ran the test and gave this result:
>>"Test1 comprises of Best Effort Test:  -provides background
>>information.
>>    IP profile for your line is - 3500 kbps
>>    DSL connection rate: 448 kbps(UP-STREAM)  7616 kbps(DOWN-STREAM)
>>    Actual IP throughput achieved during the test was - 3263 kbps"
>
>Repeat that for us then with everything connected as normal. The IP
>profile is the max IP rate that is set for your line but the DSL
>connection rate is what we are interested in, it's the speed of the
>line between you and the exchange.

With everything back to normal I get an initial message from the BT
Speedtest:
"The Performance Tester is now testing Broadband connection. Your
configured download throughput speed for this service is 3000 k"

(Compared with 3500 I got with the cover-off connection.)
But the test hangs with the incomprehensible message
"Exception::access denied (java.net.SocketPermission
217.32.105.42:50301 connect,resolv"

However, I now gather that similar information is accessible in my
Prestige Configurator. Using System Status > Statistics I see lots of
numbers, including:
Upstream Speed: 448 kbps
Downstream Speed: 7616 kbps

I understand that 7616 is my Sync Speed.

I also see Errors = 0, Collisions = 0 and some large numbers on TxPkts
and RxPkts, plus "10M/Half Duplex".

I've continued to run the speed test at 
http://www.speedtest.bbmax.co.uk/results.php?t=1212696221&v=4426374
and recent results were 2892, 2886, 2882, 2862, 2890.
By comparison, my wife's connection (different phone number but using
same exchange at East Grinstead, and Pipex not BT) reports 6306, 6431,
etc.

BT Support told me on the phone this morning that I should connect
direct to the master socket (not easy!) and leave it like that for 72
hours. But they weren't clear about what would happen, or what
practical steps I should then take.

To my mind, it seems I should be able to get similar speed to my wife.
I just don't know how!

-- 
Terry, East Grinstead, UK

"Rodney Pont"  wrote:

>On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 11:32:37 +0100, Terry Pinnell wrote:
>
>>Help! As you've probably now seen from my latest report, I'm way
>>behind you guys on the technicalities of this subject. This 'IP
>>profile' seems key to my issue. What is it and how do I change it
>>please? What's 'LLU'? What's 'traffic shaping'?
>
>See my previous post, hopefully it will simplify things for you.
>
>LLU is Local Loop Unbundling and means that another supplier has
>equipment in the exchange - not relevent to you at the moment.
>
>Traffic shaping is when the ISP restricts the flow of data for certain
>things, again not relevent to you atm.
>
>It's the DSL speed we are interested in. This is available from your
>router but that test you ran also gave it and you can run that so let's
>take it that way and not confuse you even more :-)

Your succinct replies are happily reducing my confusion, thank you!

See also my reply about the Router Statistics. As Peter said
up-thread, that BT test is a PITA. It's fine when it works, but
- I can only use it at 3 hour intervals
- I get the obscure error I described.

So, although I'll continue to use that sparingly, I'd like to monitor
progress with the two tools:
1) Prestige Configurator > System Status > Statistics
2) http://www.speedtest.bbmax.co.uk/results.php?t=1212696221&v=4426374

As you see, the latter shows I continue to get less than half the
speed of my wife's connection.

-- 
Terry, East Grinstead, UK

Terry Pinnell wrote:
> "WCZ"  wrote:
>
>> Terry Pinnell wrote:
>>> "Peter Crosland"  wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I've been a BT Broadband user for a year or two and have been
>>>>> reasonably happy with the speed. Since installing my new (much
>>>>> faster) PC I haven't done any tests until today. But with symptoms
>>>>> of sluggish downloads I just went to
>>>>> http://www.testmy.net/d_load.php and got a consistent rating over
>>>>> several tests of only 0.8 Mbps.
>>>>>
>>>>> Am I right that I should expect 3-4 Mbps? Any advice on practical
>>>>> steps I should take to isolate the cause and get it fixed would be
>>>>> appreciated please.
>>>>>
>>>>> (Just checked speed of the Pipex Broadband connection my wife
>>>>> uses, with same tests, and that was 2.1 Mbps.)
>>>>
>>>> The speed you get depends on a variety of factors such as the line
>>>> length and how noisy the line is. All sorts of other factors can
>>>> mak a significant difference. The first thing to do is to check the
>>>> wiring and equipment.
>>>>
>>>> This is a good place to start and explains the basic steps.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.dslzoneuk.net/socket.php
>>>>
>>>> Follow the steps carefully and if need be make the changes. Any
>>>> suggestion that just changing ISP is a cure for all broadband ills
>>>> is ludicrous and should be ignored.
>>>>
>>>> Peter Crosland
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm reporting back after following the steps recommended. Bottom
>>> line is that direct connection to BT master socket with all phones
>>> disconnected made no difference to speed. But I have discovered that
>>> it seems 'capped' or 'configured' to 3.5 Mbps, whatever that means.
>>> Here's the detail:
>>>
>>> 1) 08:00 Using current configuration, bbmax reported 3395 Kbps
>>> 2) 08:10 With both phones removed and a long extension to my
>>> shed/workshop (with no phone currently at its other end) also
>>> removed: bbmax = 3386
>>> 3) 08:12 Comparative test on wife's PC/Pipex/separate phone line:
>>> bbmax = 6303
>>> 4) 08:50-08:53 No phones connected, and router direct to main socket
>>> using long extension cable: bbmax = 3393, 3399, 3389
>>> [Note: I say 'direct', but the router cable plug is not the type
>>> that can fit into a phone socket. So I kept it connected via the
>>> filter, but I assume that's a straight-through connection.]
>>> 5) 08:57 As #4, but with BT cover removed and extension connected
>>> directly to socket inside (although I don't see why that *should*
>>> make any difference?): bbmax = 3395
>>> 6) 09:25 As #5: BT Speedtest http://www.speedtester.bt.com/  now
>>> worked, as it has been more than 3 hours since I last used it. First
>>> gave this message:
>>> "Your configured download throughput speed for this service is 3500
>>> Kbps"
>>> Then it ran the test and gave this result:
>>> "Test1 comprises of Best Effort Test:  -provides background
>>> information.
>>>    IP profile for your line is - 3500 kbps
>>>    DSL connection rate: 448 kbps(UP-STREAM)  7616 kbps(DOWN-STREAM)
>>>    Actual IP throughput achieved during the test was - 3263 kbps"
>>>
>>
>> OK.  Your router is connected at 7616kbps.  Thats the maximum you'll
>> get.
>>
>> Your IP profile is much less than that.  Unfortunately the IP
>> profile tends to lag the router connection speed.  You'll need to
>> leave it connected for up to 5 days in order for the IP profile to
>> rise.
>>
>>> Can someone explain that please, and advise what I do next?
>>>
>>> 7) 09:40 With everything restored to as it was: bbmax = 3394, 3385,
>>> 3368
>>> 8) 10:49 Repeated the above to see if the later hour made any
>>> difference: bbmax = 2923
>>>
>>
>> That all sounds about right for an IP profile of 3500.  The 2923 is
>> a bit low but not too bad.
>>
>>> Note: I haven't reported 'Sync Speed' as I don't know how.
>>
>> You have!  Thats the 7616 from the speed test page.  You can also
>> get it from the router.  I don't have a Zyxel but the user guide
>> should explain how to access the statistics page.
>>
>>>
>>> To remind you, my router is ZyXEL Prestige Series 600. When I open
>>> its 'Configurator' from the shortcut on my desktop I see:
>>> http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/5/prestigeconfigurator1wc4.jpg
>>>
>>> Happy to provide any further information to help diagnose the
>>> problem and improve this mediocre speed.
>>
>> You need to leave the router switched on and connected for 5 days
>> and see if the IP profile improves.  In an ideal world you would
>> connect the router to the master socket and leave it there.  You are
>> better off running a network cable from the router to your PC than
>> running a long telephone extension to the router.
>>
>> Hope this helps.
>
> Thanks for all the prompt responses so far. Lot to study there! But
> meanwhile a couple of key points please. If I go to the inconvenience
> of trailing an extension reel cable downstairs to the hall and plug it
> in directly to the BT master socket inside the cover:
> 1) Wouldn't that mean I can't use the phones on that line? If so, that
> would effectively rule that out as a practical measure here.

If you are using the test socket behind the cover then, yes, this would 
disconnect all phones.  I would just plug the router into the front of the 
master socket with the cover in place using a filter.  That will enable all 
of your phones to continue working.

A better solution would be to replace the front of the master socket with a 
filtered faceplate.  www.adslnation.co.uk sell these for £13.

Having the router connected to the master socket is generally the best plan. 
Is it feasible to leave it there?  Could you run a network cable rather than 
the long extension?

>
> 2) If I *did* do that over 5 days, and happily get a new 'IP' rating
> of 5 or 6 Mbps, what happens afterwards when I restore things to
> normal please? Or is it being suggested I must make these major
> changes permanent? IOW, get my main BT socket moved from downstairs to
> up here? How do I proceed to get that done if so?

Providing your sync speed always connects at 7616 then the IP rating will 
stick.  If something happens and you sync slower then the IP rating will 
drop down again.  With ADSL Max the best thing is to have the router at the 
master socket and to just leave it on.

When something happens and you sync drops, the IP rating drops very quickly. 
If you spot this and resync the router so it goes back to the high sync it 
will take time for the IP profile to catch up.

>
> BTW, I just tried repeating the BT Speedster test now that I have
> things back to normal. It gave me the preliminary message that my IP
> speed was 3000 (not 3500). But it failed to do the actual test, with
> some obscure Java error.


-- 

WCZ

"Terry Pinnell"  wrote in message 
news:5tei44909qjd6isjo6lot3lj28ad1mimqj@4ax.com...
> "Rodney Pont"  wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 11:29:40 +0100, Terry Pinnell wrote:
>>
>>>6) 09:25 As #5: BT Speedtest http://www.speedtester.bt.com/  now
>>>worked, as it has been more than 3 hours since I last used it. First
>>>gave this message:
>>>"Your configured download throughput speed for this service is 3500
>>>Kbps"
>>>Then it ran the test and gave this result:
>>>"Test1 comprises of Best Effort Test:  -provides background
>>>information.
>>>    IP profile for your line is - 3500 kbps
>>>    DSL connection rate: 448 kbps(UP-STREAM)  7616 kbps(DOWN-STREAM)
>>>    Actual IP throughput achieved during the test was - 3263 kbps"
>>
>>Repeat that for us then with everything connected as normal. The IP
>>profile is the max IP rate that is set for your line but the DSL
>>connection rate is what we are interested in, it's the speed of the
>>line between you and the exchange.
>
> With everything back to normal I get an initial message from the BT
> Speedtest:
> "The Performance Tester is now testing Broadband connection. Your
> configured download throughput speed for this service is 3000 k"
>
> (Compared with 3500 I got with the cover-off connection.)
> But the test hangs with the incomprehensible message
> "Exception::access denied (java.net.SocketPermission
> 217.32.105.42:50301 connect,resolv"
>
> However, I now gather that similar information is accessible in my
> Prestige Configurator. Using System Status > Statistics I see lots of
> numbers, including:
> Upstream Speed: 448 kbps
> Downstream Speed: 7616 kbps
>
> I understand that 7616 is my Sync Speed.
>
> I also see Errors = 0, Collisions = 0 and ...
[snip]

Monitor this.  Provided that the sync speed stays near 7616 and the error 
count remains low there is nothing wrong with the ADSL service between you 
and the exchange.

The bandwidth reported by the other tests indicates the capability of your 
ISP (i.e. BT) to deliver data to you.  If you feel this is indadequate you 
should change your ISP. Others here will report that Pipex is often no 
better than BT, so your wife's experience may be unusual.  Go for a 
professional ISP.  Others here have recommended A&A, Idnet, and Zen.

-- 
Graham J

In article <g2bi8r$438$1@aioe.org>, Dav123456@willnotwork.com says...

> If you are using the test socket behind the cover then, yes, this would 
> disconnect all phones.  I would just plug the router into the front of the 
> master socket with the cover in place using a filter.  That will enable all 
> of your phones to continue working.

That will give poor speeds.  With what you suggest, the plug-in ADSL 
filter will come AFTER any phone wiring connected to the back of the 
faceplate, assuming there is other house wiring.  Hence, the ADSL signal 
will still be sent all over the house wiring. Don't forget that the 
filter does nothing for the ADSL side, other than provide the RJ11. The 
filtration is between the incoming connection and the outgoing BT socket 
for the phones.
 
> A better solution would be to replace the front of the master socket with a 
> filtered faceplate.  www.adslnation.co.uk sell these for £13.

Agreed.  This also provides filtered phone connections on the back for 
the house telephone wires AND a couple of unfiltered ADSL connections. 
These can be used to extend the ADSL to a remote modem/router using a 
separate, twisted-pair cable, not carrying house phone connections. If 
the OP also wants to use this remote site for phones also, he'll need a 
filter there also. (e.g. http://www.adslnation.com/products/xtf.php)
> 
> Having the router connected to the master socket is generally the best plan. 
> Is it feasible to leave it there?  Could you run a network cable rather than 
> the long extension?
> 

-- 
John W
To mail me replace the obvious with co.uk twice

Eeyore wrote:
> Terry Pinnell wrote:
>
>> I've been a BT Broadband user for a year or two and have been
>> reasonably happy with the speed. Since installing my new (much
>> faster) PC I haven't done any tests until today. But with symptoms
>> of sluggish downloads I just went to
>> http://www.testmy.net/d_load.php and got a consistent rating over
>> several tests of only 0.8 Mbps.
>>
>> Am I right that I should expect 3-4 Mbps? Any advice on practical
>> steps I should take to isolate the cause and get it fixed would be
>> appreciated please.
>>
>> (Just checked speed of the Pipex Broadband connection my wife uses,
>> with same tests, and that was 2.1 Mbps.)
>
> Well, if you insist on using SHIT ISPs (both of them) what do you
> expect ?
>
> I get > 6Mbps day in day out.
>
> Graham

Now be honest Graham that is just your knee jerk reaction against your 
chosen enemies at the moment.

How can you tell how good or bad that thru put is with out seeing the synch 
speeds & as for comparing them to yours it doesn't hold water either until 
you actually get to the proper information, sync speeds, line attenuation 
etc.  we can all go on about how great our connections are but with out the 
relevant information it's all just blowing in the wind & about as useful.

On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 14:56:08 +0100, Terry Pinnell wrote:

>"Rodney Pont"  wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 11:32:37 +0100, Terry Pinnell wrote:

>See also my reply about the Router Statistics. As Peter said
>up-thread, that BT test is a PITA. It's fine when it works, but
>- I can only use it at 3 hour intervals
>- I get the obscure error I described.

I think it's the only test that gives you your IP profile though. There
isn't much point in running it more than once a day though since it
will take several days for that to rise.

>So, although I'll continue to use that sparingly, I'd like to monitor
>progress with the two tools:
>1) Prestige Configurator > System Status > Statistics

The stats from your modem are what I'd keep checking on. At some time
in the recent past I suspect your downstream rate has dropped and that
will lower the IP profile fairly quickly. Since you are still getting
7616 with your usual setup I'd stick with that for now but keep an eye
on it.

Think of the internet as a road system and the link from you to the
exchange is a 'B' road. The links through and between the ISP's are
motorways and when they are really busy imagine a traffic jam and the
data can't get through to your 'B' road as quickly so your road is
pretty much empty even though there is no problem with it. It's not an
exact analogy since the traffic always moves at the same speed but
there is only so much that can be put on it. That's why you can get
different results from speeds tests even though your sync (DSL) rate
hasn't changed.

Something has forced your DSL rate down and that has caused your IP
profile to fall, it may simply have been a one off that you will
recover from over the next few days but it could also be something that
happens regularly. It's for that reason I suggest checking your modem
statistics, especially after using a piece of telephone equipment.
Telephone signals go along your line without affecting the ADSL signal,
once they have passed through the filters, but something could be
faulty and put excess loading on the line when it's in use. If you find
your DSL rate has dropped after using a phone for instance it could be
that the phone or filter are faulty. If that happens I'd disconnect the
modem and reconnect and then check that it has a DSL rate of 7616
again, then go and try the phone again and see if it happens again. If
so try a different filter and repeat. If using that phone then forces a
fall in DSL rate it's the problem.

>2) http://www.speedtest.bbmax.co.uk/results.php?t=1212696221&v=4426374
>
>As you see, the latter shows I continue to get less than half the
>speed of my wife's connection.

You are not going to get any faster speed until your IP profile rises.
That is always lower than your connect rate and caps your line so that
only data that your line can handle is sent, that's good since you
don't want your data crashing into itself as it comes down your 'B'
road. There is some overhead as well so even if it wasn't capped you
could never get 7616k download speed.

ADSL MAX does move the DSL rate up and down automatically depending on
line conditions. It going down forces the IP profile to be lowered very
quickly but the rate going up isn't reflected in a rise of the IP rate
so quickly. It's all designed to settle at an IP rate that your line
can handle under the worst conditions in the hope that your DSL rate
doesn't fall below your IP profile ever and you then loose data. It's
done this way because you can never predict what the line is going to
be like in the next tenth of a second and then it should ensure that
you don't loose any data.

Be aware that repeated disconnection of your modem can look like a
problem to the exchange equipment so your IP rate could go even lower
while you are trying to track down a faulty phone. Once you do find a
faulty one, if you have one, it will rise again once the problem is
fixed.

Have you plugged anything new into a phone socket recently even if it's
not connected at the moment?

-- 
Regards - Rodney Pont
The from address exists but is mostly dumped,
please send any emails to the address below
e-mail	ngpsm4 (at) infohitsystems (dot) ltd (dot) uk

kraftee wrote:

> Eeyore wrote:
> > Terry Pinnell wrote:
> >
> >> I've been a BT Broadband user for a year or two and have been
> >> reasonably happy with the speed. Since installing my new (much
> >> faster) PC I haven't done any tests until today. But with symptoms
> >> of sluggish downloads I just went to
> >> http://www.testmy.net/d_load.php and got a consistent rating over
> >> several tests of only 0.8 Mbps.
> >>
> >> Am I right that I should expect 3-4 Mbps? Any advice on practical
> >> steps I should take to isolate the cause and get it fixed would be
> >> appreciated please.
> >>
> >> (Just checked speed of the Pipex Broadband connection my wife uses,
> >> with same tests, and that was 2.1 Mbps.)
> >
> > Well, if you insist on using SHIT ISPs (both of them) what do you
> > expect ?
> >
> > I get > 6Mbps day in day out.
> >
> > Graham
>
> Now be honest Graham that is just your knee jerk reaction against your
> chosen enemies at the moment.

What enemy ? BT ?

It is fact I get that speed though.


> How can you tell how good or bad that thru put is with out seeing the synch
> speeds & as for comparing them to yours it doesn't hold water either until
> you actually get to the proper information, sync speeds, line attenuation
> etc.  we can all go on about how great our connections are but with out the
> relevant information it's all just blowing in the wind & about as useful.

See my later post.

Graham

Eeyore wrote:
> kraftee wrote:
>
>> Eeyore wrote:
>>> Terry Pinnell wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've been a BT Broadband user for a year or two and have been
>>>> reasonably happy with the speed. Since installing my new (much
>>>> faster) PC I haven't done any tests until today. But with
>>>> symptoms of sluggish downloads I just went to
>>>> http://www.testmy.net/d_load.php and got a consistent rating over
>>>> several tests of only 0.8 Mbps.
>>>>
>>>> Am I right that I should expect 3-4 Mbps? Any advice on practical
>>>> steps I should take to isolate the cause and get it fixed would
>>>> be appreciated please.
>>>>
>>>> (Just checked speed of the Pipex Broadband connection my wife
>>>> uses, with same tests, and that was 2.1 Mbps.)
>>>
>>> Well, if you insist on using SHIT ISPs (both of them) what do you
>>> expect ?
>>>
>>> I get > 6Mbps day in day out.
>>>
>>> Graham
>>
>> Now be honest Graham that is just your knee jerk reaction against
>> your chosen enemies at the moment.
>
> What enemy ? BT ?
>
> It is fact I get that speed though.
>
>
>> How can you tell how good or bad that thru put is with out seeing
>> the synch speeds & as for comparing them to yours it doesn't hold
>> water either until you actually get to the proper information,
>> sync speeds, line attenuation etc.  we can all go on about how
>> great our connections are but with out the relevant information
>> it's all just blowing in the wind & about as useful.
>
> See my later post.
>
> Graham

Argh but that was later, possibly you should have hung back & not dived in 
that way you may have got all the information required before opening mouth 
& fitting various parts of your body in.  I am posting a reply to what you 
said in that post not one which came later after you had time to think about 
it.

.8Mbps isn't bad for some users, hell I was at one last week who was happy 
to get 15 minutes sync then a down time of 30 seconds & then back in sync 
again.  Personally I thought it was rubbish  but seeing as the LLU CP had 
raised yet another line fault instead of a DSL fault there was little I 
could do but wish them luck.

It's all amatter of perspective & just because you get 6Mbps day in & day 
out doesn't mean that someone who may be getting less ( even a lot less) is 
getting a rubbish service & until the powers that be decide that they are 
going to run fibre to the kerb/corner we are going have these differences, 
which will be a long time in solving.

"Rodney Pont"  wrote:

>On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 14:56:08 +0100, Terry Pinnell wrote:
>
>>"Rodney Pont"  wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 11:32:37 +0100, Terry Pinnell wrote:
>
>>See also my reply about the Router Statistics. As Peter said
>>up-thread, that BT test is a PITA. It's fine when it works, but
>>- I can only use it at 3 hour intervals
>>- I get the obscure error I described.
>
>I think it's the only test that gives you your IP profile though. There
>isn't much point in running it more than once a day though since it
>will take several days for that to rise.
>
>>So, although I'll continue to use that sparingly, I'd like to monitor
>>progress with the two tools:
>>1) Prestige Configurator > System Status > Statistics
>
>The stats from your modem are what I'd keep checking on. At some time
>in the recent past I suspect your downstream rate has dropped and that
>will lower the IP profile fairly quickly. Since you are still getting
>7616 with your usual setup I'd stick with that for now but keep an eye
>on it.
>
>Think of the internet as a road system and the link from you to the
>exchange is a 'B' road. The links through and between the ISP's are
>motorways and when they are really busy imagine a traffic jam and the
>data can't get through to your 'B' road as quickly so your road is
>pretty much empty even though there is no problem with it. It's not an
>exact analogy since the traffic always moves at the same speed but
>there is only so much that can be put on it. That's why you can get
>different results from speeds tests even though your sync (DSL) rate
>hasn't changed.
>
>Something has forced your DSL rate down and that has caused your IP
>profile to fall, it may simply have been a one off that you will
>recover from over the next few days but it could also be something that
>happens regularly. It's for that reason I suggest checking your modem
>statistics, especially after using a piece of telephone equipment.
>Telephone signals go along your line without affecting the ADSL signal,
>once they have passed through the filters, but something could be
>faulty and put excess loading on the line when it's in use. If you find
>your DSL rate has dropped after using a phone for instance it could be
>that the phone or filter are faulty. If that happens I'd disconnect the
>modem and reconnect and then check that it has a DSL rate of 7616
>again, then go and try the phone again and see if it happens again. If
>so try a different filter and repeat. If using that phone then forces a
>fall in DSL rate it's the problem.
>
>>2) http://www.speedtest.bbmax.co.uk/results.php?t=1212696221&v=4426374
>>
>>As you see, the latter shows I continue to get less than half the
>>speed of my wife's connection.
>
>You are not going to get any faster speed until your IP profile rises.
>That is always lower than your connect rate and caps your line so that
>only data that your line can handle is sent, that's good since you
>don't want your data crashing into itself as it comes down your 'B'
>road. There is some overhead as well so even if it wasn't capped you
>could never get 7616k download speed.
>
>ADSL MAX does move the DSL rate up and down automatically depending on
>line conditions. It going down forces the IP profile to be lowered very
>quickly but the rate going up isn't reflected in a rise of the IP rate
>so quickly. It's all designed to settle at an IP rate that your line
>can handle under the worst conditions in the hope that your DSL rate
>doesn't fall below your IP profile ever and you then loose data. It's
>done this way because you can never predict what the line is going to
>be like in the next tenth of a second and then it should ensure that
>you don't loose any data.
>
>Be aware that repeated disconnection of your modem can look like a
>problem to the exchange equipment so your IP rate could go even lower
>while you are trying to track down a faulty phone. Once you do find a
>faulty one, if you have one, it will rise again once the problem is
>fixed.
>
>Have you plugged anything new into a phone socket recently even if it's
>not connected at the moment?

Good news! With the help here and supplemented with emails from Peter,
we seem to have sorted it, so I'm obviously a happy bunny this
morning.

My PC has remained powered up all night as usual and first thing I did
this morning was to study a site recommended by Peter
http://www.dslzoneuk.net/socket.php?type=html
I was about to go down to the hall master socket with screwdriver and
wire cutters to remove any redundant and potentially problem-causing
bell wires. But then I thought I'd first just run the
http://www.speedtest.bbmax.co.uk/ test, partly as a base measure for
today and partly in the slight hope that it had improved.

And it sure has: 6201 Kbps ;-)

To remind you, the status now (and as it was overnight) is with
everything as it was except for those two extensions from my office
extension socket (the same BT socket used for router):
1) A 5 metre extension for an extra phone I used to have on another
desk. 

2) A very long extension to my shed/workshop in garden.

Although as I said earlier neither actually had a phone connected at
their ends, perhaps one or both contributed to the deterioration?

The only other thing that may be different from the original 'poor
status' is that I swapped the filter with an apparently identical
spare, looking for miracles. I saw no change directly after, so don't
see it could have contributed. 

Anyway, having spent a solid day and a half on this I'm going to give
it a rest and capitalise on the speed for a while. In any case, I can
cheerfully leave both of those extensions disconnected for now.

Thanks a bunch for all the help. I'll be back if the scene changes for
the worse!

6156 ;-)

-- 
Terry, East Grinstead, UK

On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 10:12:05 +0100, Terry Pinnell wrote:

>The only other thing that may be different from the original 'poor
>status' is that I swapped the filter with an apparently identical
>spare, looking for miracles. I saw no change directly after, so don't
>see it could have contributed. 

Was that before or after you found your DSL rate at 7106? If it was
before you found the DSL rate it could have been that filter faulty.

>Anyway, having spent a solid day and a half on this I'm going to give
>it a rest and capitalise on the speed for a while. In any case, I can
>cheerfully leave both of those extensions disconnected for now.

I don't blame you. That long extension to the shed could cause
problems. I'd make sure the bell wire was disconnected. Check the phone
rings on it though, most modern phones don't need the bell wire but you
will want to make sure it rings. If it's proper telephone cable it will
be twisted so should dampen out any pickup. If it's the cheap flat
cable it's not twisted and causes all sorts of problems with DSL. The
same applies to all of the extension wires.

I'm glad it's ok now though and I'll keep my fingers crossed :-)

-- 
Regards - Rodney Pont
The from address exists but is mostly dumped,
please send any emails to the address below
e-mail	ngpsm4 (at) infohitsystems (dot) ltd (dot) uk

Rodney Pont wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 10:12:05 +0100, Terry Pinnell wrote:
> 
>> The only other thing that may be different from the original 'poor
>> status' is that I swapped the filter with an apparently identical
>> spare, looking for miracles. I saw no change directly after, so don't
>> see it could have contributed. 
> 
> Was that before or after you found your DSL rate at 7106? If it was
> before you found the DSL rate it could have been that filter faulty.
> 
>> Anyway, having spent a solid day and a half on this I'm going to give
>> it a rest and capitalise on the speed for a while. In any case, I can
>> cheerfully leave both of those extensions disconnected for now.
> 
> I don't blame you. That long extension to the shed could cause
> problems. I'd make sure the bell wire was disconnected. Check the phone
> rings on it though, most modern phones don't need the bell wire but you
> will want to make sure it rings. If it's proper telephone cable it will
> be twisted so should dampen out any pickup. If it's the cheap flat
> cable it's not twisted and causes all sorts of problems with DSL. The
> same applies to all of the extension wires.
> 
> I'm glad it's ok now though and I'll keep my fingers crossed :-)
> 
If the filter does its job, the extension length should have (almost) no 
effect on broadband plugged into the master socket or thereabouts.

> I'm glad it's ok now though and I'll keep my fingers crossed :-)

And make a note of, or better still screen capture, and/or
print off the relevant figures from your router, then you will
have a hard copy of how it was if it goes pear shaped again.
A digi camera is useful for things like that.
If there is any argument you can send a .jpg (probably not
relevant to BT) but many ISP's have email support, though
the shiddy ones don't reply.

ato_zee@hotmail.com wrote:

>
>> I'm glad it's ok now though and I'll keep my fingers crossed :-)
>
>And make a note of, or better still screen capture, and/or
>print off the relevant figures from your router, then you will
>have a hard copy of how it was if it goes pear shaped again.
>A digi camera is useful for things like that.
>If there is any argument you can send a .jpg (probably not
>relevant to BT) but many ISP's have email support, though
>the shiddy ones don't reply.

Good idea. Duly captured.
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/941/broadbandspeedprestigestq1.jpg

-- 
Terry, East Grinstead, UK

"Rodney Pont"  wrote:

>On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 10:12:05 +0100, Terry Pinnell wrote:
>
>>The only other thing that may be different from the original 'poor
>>status' is that I swapped the filter with an apparently identical
>>spare, looking for miracles. I saw no change directly after, so don't
>>see it could have contributed. 
>
>Was that before or after you found your DSL rate at 7106? If it was
>before you found the DSL rate it could have been that filter faulty.

Not exactly sure now.

>>Anyway, having spent a solid day and a half on this I'm going to give
>>it a rest and capitalise on the speed for a while. In any case, I can
>>cheerfully leave both of those extensions disconnected for now.

>I don't blame you. That long extension to the shed could cause
>problems. I'd make sure the bell wire was disconnected. Check the phone
>rings on it though, most modern phones don't need the bell wire but you
>will want to make sure it rings. If it's proper telephone cable it will
>be twisted so should dampen out any pickup. If it's the cheap flat
>cable it's not twisted and causes all sorts of problems with DSL. The
>same applies to all of the extension wires.
>
>I'm glad it's ok now though and I'll keep my fingers crossed :-)

Thanks. Major new things I've learned from this exercise are that
- my 'line quality' is being monitored constantly and that limits my
speed
- physical changes do not necessarily have an immediate impact on
that, but take hours/days to be reflected in the new 'assessment' and
hence in the speed.

-- 
Terry, East Grinstead, UK

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> Rodney Pont wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 10:12:05 +0100, Terry Pinnell wrote:
>>
>>> The only other thing that may be different from the original 'poor
>>> status' is that I swapped the filter with an apparently identical
>>> spare, looking for miracles. I saw no change directly after, so
>>> don't see it could have contributed.
>>
>> Was that before or after you found your DSL rate at 7106? If it was
>> before you found the DSL rate it could have been that filter
>> faulty.
>>> Anyway, having spent a solid day and a half on this I'm going to
>>> give it a rest and capitalise on the speed for a while. In any
>>> case, I can cheerfully leave both of those extensions
>>> disconnected for now.
>>
>> I don't blame you. That long extension to the shed could cause
>> problems. I'd make sure the bell wire was disconnected. Check the
>> phone rings on it though, most modern phones don't need the bell
>> wire but you will want to make sure it rings. If it's proper
>> telephone cable it will be twisted so should dampen out any
>> pickup. If it's the cheap flat cable it's not twisted and causes
>> all sorts of problems with DSL. The same applies to all of the
>> extension wires. I'm glad it's ok now though and I'll keep my fingers 
>> crossed :-)
>>
> If the filter does its job, the extension length should have
> (almost) no effect on broadband plugged into the master socket or
> thereabouts.

Now that would depend on where it is filtered.  If, as so many users do, you 
filter it at the far end then you could/would have problems, if you filtered 
as near as possible to the NTE that is another matter.  This has proved to 
be the case with cables going to alarm panels as well.

ato_zee@hotmail.com wrote:

> > I'm glad it's ok now though and I'll keep my fingers crossed :-)
>
> And make a note of, or better still screen capture

That Print Screen button is damn useful.

Then open an image editor etc and go Edit Paste.

Grahama