dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
2323
share rss forum feed

Ukiah Jim

join:2011-04-21
Ukiah, CA

Can I get some opinions on my 2WIRE training history.

Click for full size
I had a 5 month fiasco with AT&T last year
»IP-DSLAM 3.0 and continuing loss of sync issue..
that finally seemed to be resolved, and has behaved for quite some time, but recently feels like it's starting up again.

A U-verse care person that I've been emailing back and forth with first changed me to interleaving, then put it back to fast path, but had to upgrade it the next speed to change it back, and it's been a 6mbps since. It seems I'm getting more drops in the signal now, and the U-verse care guys has seen some of them, but this morning I emailed him right after it had lost the signal, and he emailed back he said "When you sent this last email I ran my tests to see if I could pick up anything and nothing showed up in the tests", but I see a bunch of drops in the training log, so I can't understand why he isn't seeing the same thing.

Just curious what some of you think about my bit loading graph and training log.
They are sending me a Motorola NVG510, but I don't think that will clear this up, but who knows?

Ukiah Jim

join:2011-04-21
Ukiah, CA

This is what the U-verse care person said:
"The actual signal isn’t dropping but the amount of code violations being on the fast path is enough for the signal to be interrupted without dropping."

Wasn't doing this at 3mbps, and my question is, what is causing the "code violations"?


WhyMe420
Premium
join:2009-04-06
kudos:1

In other words instead of fixing the problem they're just going to throw you on interleaving.


Ukiah Jim

join:2011-04-21
Ukiah, CA

1 edit

said by WhyMe420:

In other words instead of fixing the problem they're just going to throw you on interleaving.

That's what I get out of it. They're not putting me on interleaving until I say I'm willing to do it as a last resort, and I told them that. I'm not done with them yet, but I learned last year how they are to deal with......it was a joke.


Forosnai

join:2011-09-30
kudos:2
reply to Ukiah Jim

Nothing looks out of the ordinary. Compare that 8 Mbps max rate with what you get after having the NVG 510 synced up for an hour.


Ukiah Jim

join:2011-04-21
Ukiah, CA

said by Forosnai:

Nothing looks out of the ordinary. Compare that 8 Mbps max rate with what you get after having the NVG 510 synced up for an hour.

You think it will improve by just swapping out the 2WIRE?

Something is causing the interruptions though.......that can't be the modem, when it just started with the frequency you see, after the upgrade to the 6mbps. Or could it?

Another thing......do you happen to know if the NVG510 has all the diagnostics and whatnot, like the 2WIRE?

Ukiah Jim

join:2011-04-21
Ukiah, CA
reply to Forosnai

said by Forosnai:

Compare that 8 Mbps max rate with what you get after having the NVG 510 synced up for an hour.

I sure am curious what that comparison is, now that the NVG510 is synced up, but they don't show those type of stats inside it, like the 2WIRE.

PremTechLife

join:2012-09-16
reply to Ukiah Jim

You have too many errors on the line. You need a tech to clean up your IW and create a ticket for an outside guy to cut off some extra wiring branching off yours.


Ukiah Jim

join:2011-04-21
Ukiah, CA

3 edits

said by PremTechLife:

You have too many errors on the line. You need a tech to clean up your IW and create a ticket for an outside guy to cut off some extra wiring branching off yours.

The IW is fine.........all done last year. New pedestal, new NID, new whole house filter, Shielded Cat5 home run straight to the modem, etc. etc. They looked high and low for bridge tap........none found.

The only solution AT&T seems to have is to put it on interleaving.
The easy way out.

PremTechLife

join:2012-09-16

I would check grounding at nid, outlet. That really, really sucks. The shielded cat5 could cause problems too.


Ukiah Jim

join:2011-04-21
Ukiah, CA

said by PremTechLife:

I would check grounding at nid, outlet. That really, really sucks. The shielded cat5 could cause problems too.

How can shielded Cat5 cause problems? The whole idea of it is to keep out interference. Especially when this supposedly elite Tier II guy was adamant about me using shielded Cat5 for the home run.

WhyMe420
Premium
join:2009-04-06
kudos:1

lol, sorry, but PremTechLife See Profile demonstrates about the same amount of knowledge that almost every other premises tech I have met has had, slim-to-nil. They'll come up with any excuse not to do actual work and come up with off-the-wall crap such as this, lol. I think AT&T trains them to be that way.


Ukiah Jim

join:2011-04-21
Ukiah, CA

1 edit

said by WhyMe420:

lol, sorry, but PremTechLife See Profile demonstrates about the same amount of knowledge that almost every other premises tech I have met has had, slim-to-nil. They'll come up with any excuse not to do actual work and come up with off-the-wall crap such as this, lol. I think AT&T trains them to be that way.

Well, especially when I had 20+ techs here last year, and even though a few said the shielded Cat5 was overkill, none said it could cause problems. Defeats the entire reason it's shielded if it does.

Ukiah Jim

join:2011-04-21
Ukiah, CA

1 edit

Click for full size
Here are the line stats with the Motorola NVG510, after a little over 48 hours. I hate the limited stats you can get out of this modem, but whatever. It's still getting errors.

WhyMe420
Premium
join:2009-04-06
kudos:1

Your downstream attenuation is certainly high, but your SN Margin is still sorta decent. Doesn't leave much room for line variations though, possibly why there are so many CRC errors. If there is nothing that they can/will do about the attenuation then your only options are either interleaving or ideally (in terms of latency and stability) dropping the profile down to 3Mbps.


Ukiah Jim

join:2011-04-21
Ukiah, CA

said by WhyMe420:

Your downstream attenuation is certainly high, but your SN Margin is still sorta decent. Doesn't leave much room for line variations though, possibly why there are so many CRC errors. If there is nothing that they can/will do about the attenuation then your only options are either interleaving or ideally (in terms of latency and stability) dropping the profile down to 3Mbps.

Well, if you look back at my first post, and the stats from the 2WIRE, my attenuation was about the same with the 3mbps, does that mean anything?

Also, last year, after this 5 month long fiasco
»IP-DSLAM 3.0 and continuing loss of sync issue.
with 20+ tech visits, my almost daily loss of sync issue was pretty much resolved. It would drop once in a few months, or whatever, so it was no big deal. Then last month I noticed it lost the signal about 4 or 5 times, so I emailed the U-verse care team, just to see if they saw anything weird. Naturally, the guy put me on interleaving right away.....typical. I emailed back and said I didn't want it on interleaving, so he put it back on fast path, but he said he had to upgrade me to 6mbps to do so, and would put it back to 3mbps, after the system reset.....something like that. He did put a nice promotion in place, and said his tests showed that all the numbers were good enough for the 6mbps to run smooth and stable, if I wanted to keep it there. Naturally I said keep it that way, especially since my 3mbps promotion would end in December.

So, I start getting more ERR_SIG_INTERRUPT, with the 6mbps, as opposed to ERR_LOS_LIMIT, with the 3mbps. Now, I don't claim to be an expert on this stuff, or anything close, but it seems I'd get more loss of sync when going to a higher speed, not just the signal being interrupted. The Tier II guys says it's getting enough code violations to interrupt it, but not lose it. WTF?? Seems odd to me, but what do I know....I'm just trying to use logic.

All that being said, I wonder what's better.....switch back to the 3mbps, no interleaving, and possibly get loss of sync once a day, or whatever, or put it on interleaving, and get latency, or leave just the way it is right now....6mbps, so far, not dropping the signal, just getting "interrupted", and have no latency??

The ideal thing would be AT&T actually resolving the real issue, but that's wishing for a lot.


PremTechLife

join:2012-09-16
reply to WhyMe420

I am sorry you have had a bad experience, and that you feel the need to gain retribution by lashing out at me. I don't appreciate the extreme over-exaggeration. In order for a network to be shielded, the cable, the jack, and the connector on the cable must all be shielded. Thats all I was referring to. With a nmr and max rate like I see here, I would not want to drop from 6 meg if it was my internet.
--
I do not speak on behalf of At&t. Everything I write should be considered opinion and fiction; and in no way a reflection on At&t, its empoyees, or partners.


WhyMe420
Premium
join:2009-04-06
kudos:1

said by PremTechLife:

I am sorry you have had a bad experience, and that you feel the need to gain retribution by lashing out at me. I don't appreciate the extreme over-exaggeration. In order for a network to be shielded, the cable, the jack, and the connector on the cable must all be shielded. Thats all I was referring to. With a nmr and max rate like I see here, I would not want to drop from 6 meg if it was my internet.

Sorry but that's also not true. The shielded cat5e will NOT cause issues with the line, PERIOD. What you are describing is what is necessary to make the shielding MORE EFFECTIVE. It doesn't mean that if EVERYTHING isn't shielded that it will cause issues. Simply having the entire IW shielded accounts for 90% of the shielding. Shielding everything else is just extra shielding. Considering that much of IW isn't even twisted pair, shielded cat5e even without everything else being shielded is still a HUGE step up.

AT&T really has it down pat with all the techs and such blaming the IW at any chance they can get. It is their way of placing the blame on the CUSTOMER, and making the CUSTOMER either pay the EXTORTION fee for "Inside Wire Maintenance" or suffer charges for IW work that won't even FIX THE PROBLEM.

It is RARE for IW to go wrong, and chances are SLIM that a shielded cat5e homerun will cause issues with xDSL. FACE IT. The problem is OUTSIDE, AS ALWAYS in cases like this.

There is either simply too much distance between OP and the RT, or there are line ISSUES somewhere in between OP and the RT, OUTSIDE.

WHO WOULD want to drop their Internet to a lower speed? Not many. FACT OF THE MATTER IS that those stats are on the EDGE of 6Mbps service. NO ROOM FOR VARIANCES WHATSOEVER. Therefore the options are INTERLEAVING, DROP THE PROFILE RATE, or AT&T could actually FIX THE PROBLEM (if possible.)

THE PROBLEM IS, that AT&T is QUICK to LIE to you and BLAME YOU THE CUSTOMER for all problems. THEN if you don't fall for it, THEY SIMPLY TURN ON INTERLEAVING OR LOWER THE PROFILE RATE, without ACTUALLY DETERMINING if it is an OUTSIDE ISSUE (PAST the POLE DROP.)

They are CHEAP with the outside lines. They REFUSE to do ANY work on the outside lines, when AT ALL POSSIBLE.

Yes I know I am ranting, this is nothing PERSONAL with YOU, just AT&T's craptacular cheap tactics. AT&T is great WHEN IT WORKS, but lo-and-behold, if you have issues, DON'T expect AT&T to help you without a fight.

Ukiah Jim

join:2011-04-21
Ukiah, CA
reply to PremTechLife

Click for full size
said by PremTechLife:

In order for a network to be shielded, the cable, the jack, and the connector on the cable must all be shielded.

Just to clairify......in my case, it is. It's a shielded Cat5 home run, and the ground "tracer" wire is connected to the NID ground. The jack has a shielded keystone, and the patch cable from the jack to the RG is a Belkin shielded Cat5 cable. I've attached a picture, and it's not even the final job on the NID. A new drop from the pedestal to the NID was put in after the picture, and it was cleaned up even more, but you get the idea.

Ukiah Jim

join:2011-04-21
Ukiah, CA

1 edit
reply to WhyMe420

said by WhyMe420 See Profile
Sorry but that's also not true. The shielded cat5e will NOT cause issues with the line, PERIOD. What you are describing is what is necessary to make the shielding MORE EFFECTIVE. It doesn't mean that if EVERYTHING isn't shielded that it will cause issues. Simply having the entire IW shielded accounts for 90% of the shielding. Shielding everything else is just extra shielding. Considering that much of IW isn't even twisted pair, shielded cat5e even without everything else being shielded is still a HUGE step up.

AT&T really has it down pat with all the techs and such blaming the IW at any chance they can get. It is their way of placing the blame on the CUSTOMER, and making the CUSTOMER either pay the EXTORTION fee for "Inside Wire Maintenance" or suffer charges for IW work that won't even FIX THE PROBLEM.

It is RARE for IW to go wrong, and chances are SLIM that a shielded cat5e homerun will cause issues with xDSL. FACE IT. The problem is OUTSIDE, AS ALWAYS in cases like this.

There is either simply too much distance between OP and the RT, or there are line ISSUES somewhere in between OP and the RT, OUTSIDE.

WHO WOULD want to drop their Internet to a lower speed? Not many. FACT OF THE MATTER IS that those stats are on the EDGE of 6Mbps service. NO ROOM FOR VARIANCES WHATSOEVER. Therefore the options are INTERLEAVING, DROP THE PROFILE RATE, or AT&T could actually FIX THE PROBLEM (if possible.)

THE PROBLEM IS, that AT&T is QUICK to LIE to you and BLAME YOU THE CUSTOMER for all problems. THEN if you don't fall for it, THEY SIMPLY TURN ON INTERLEAVING OR LOWER THE PROFILE RATE, without ACTUALLY DETERMINING if it is an OUTSIDE ISSUE (PAST the POLE DROP.)

They are CHEAP with the outside lines. They REFUSE to do ANY work on the outside lines, when AT ALL POSSIBLE.

Yes I know I am ranting, this is nothing PERSONAL with YOU, just AT&T's craptacular cheap tactics. AT&T is great WHEN IT WORKS, but lo-and-behold, if you have issues, DON'T expect AT&T to help you without a fight.

Thank you. I couldn't describe AT&T better if I tried. The Tier II guy I've been emailing hasn't responded to the last few emails I sent over the last few days, and it's for the reason you mentioned........they just want to take the easy way out......interleaving.


WhyMe420
Premium
join:2009-04-06
kudos:1
reply to Ukiah Jim

said by Ukiah Jim:

said by WhyMe420:

Your downstream attenuation is certainly high, but your SN Margin is still sorta decent. Doesn't leave much room for line variations though, possibly why there are so many CRC errors. If there is nothing that they can/will do about the attenuation then your only options are either interleaving or ideally (in terms of latency and stability) dropping the profile down to 3Mbps.

Well, if you look back at my first post, and the stats from the 2WIRE, my attenuation was about the same with the 3mbps, does that mean anything?

Also, last year, after this 5 month long fiasco
»IP-DSLAM 3.0 and continuing loss of sync issue.
with 20+ tech visits, my almost daily loss of sync issue was pretty much resolved. It would drop once in a few months, or whatever, so it was no big deal. Then last month I noticed it lost the signal about 4 or 5 times, so I emailed the U-verse care team, just to see if they saw anything weird. Naturally, the guy put me on interleaving right away.....typical. I emailed back and said I didn't want it on interleaving, so he put it back on fast path, but he said he had to upgrade me to 6mbps to do so, and would put it back to 3mbps, after the system reset.....something like that. He did put a nice promotion in place, and said his tests showed that all the numbers were good enough for the 6mbps to run smooth and stable, if I wanted to keep it there. Naturally I said keep it that way, especially since my 3mbps promotion would end in December.

So, I start getting more ERR_SIG_INTERRUPT, with the 6mbps, as opposed to ERR_LOS_LIMIT, with the 3mbps. Now, I don't claim to be an expert on this stuff, or anything close, but it seems I'd get more loss of sync when going to a higher speed, not just the signal being interrupted. The Tier II guys says it's getting enough code violations to interrupt it, but not lose it. WTF?? Seems odd to me, but what do I know....I'm just trying to use logic.

All that being said, I wonder what's better.....switch back to the 3mbps, no interleaving, and possibly get loss of sync once a day, or whatever, or put it on interleaving, and get latency, or leave just the way it is right now....6mbps, so far, not dropping the signal, just getting "interrupted", and have no latency??

The ideal thing would be AT&T actually resolving the real issue, but that's wishing for a lot.

Your attenuation will remain constant regardless of the profile rate and SNR. The only thing that changes attenuation is line length and line quality. If you were to add interleaving, your SNR would see a rise to a more acceptable value that has more tolerance for line interference/variances. Same goes for if you were to keep fast path and drop the profile rate. More room for variances.

Interleaving adds on average around 13ms to your latency. So it's up to you to determine if you can live with it or not. U-verse VDSL (such as what I have) makes interleaving MANDATORY as otherwise hardly any lines could support 18-24Mbps Internet. I think that my line could handle the 32/5 with ease without interleaving however I am only 750ft from the VRAD and as I said AT&T won't even let me disable interleaving. I still have very decent latency, sure it's nothing to brag about but it serves the purpose :-



Now... Back to you. If you can't get AT&T to do anything with the outside wiring then as I said those are your other two options (other than dropping AT&T.)

What the tech you spoke to was ATTEMPTING to describe to you was something called IMPULSE NOISE. Impulse noise can cripple an otherwise-healthy line as this type of interference comes and goes. One major factor in the case of xDSL would be LIGHTNING. Ever heard an AM RADIO? Ever heard that crackling in the background even when storms are so far away you don't even hear thunder?

Consider this: xDSL uses the same frequency range as AM radio. Thus, not only does it make unbalanced pairs susceptible to AM radio interference, but also to lightning in much the same way as AM radio. There are plenty of other things that can cause IMPULSE NOISE as well, such as street lights, HAM radios, wind blowing the lines, squirrels chewing the lines, etc.

So INHERENTLY xDSL is quite susceptible to interference, especially when coupled to the fact that many of the telephone lines are VERY old, and when installed were NEVER intended to be a roadway for broadband communication. They were designed to carry BASEBAND VOICE.

Think about the old dialup modem. Remember how SLOW it was? THAT is BASEBAND. Even dialup wasn't 100% consistent in the least.

Anyway long story short, three options:

1.) Get AT&T to fix the problem (if possible, highly unlikely they will even if it is)
2.) Go on interleaving and keep your 6Mbps.
3.) Stay on fast path, downgrade to 3Mbps.

PremTechLife

join:2012-09-16
reply to Ukiah Jim

Do you have a land line? I assume since one tab is a different color on the line module that it is a adsl splitter. I'd hope so, havent seen that one. Like the other poster said, I wouldn't imagine IW causing that many CRC errors. IF thats not an adsl splitter, and just a line module, you are bridgetapped to your red/green IW, not a HR. I have seen crc errors due to inside and outside bridgetap. Get it fixed, youre paying for it
--
I do not speak on behalf of At&t. Everything I write should be considered opinion and fiction; and in no way a reflection on At&t, its empoyees, or partners.


Ukiah Jim

join:2011-04-21
Ukiah, CA

said by PremTechLife:

Do you have a land line? I assume since one tab is a different color on the line module that it is a adsl splitter. I'd hope so, havent seen that one. Like the other poster said, I wouldn't imagine IW causing that many CRC errors. IF thats not an adsl splitter, and just a line module, you are bridgetapped to your red/green IW, not a HR. I have seen crc errors due to inside and outside bridgetap. Get it fixed, youre paying for it

It's an adsl splitter, beyond the shadow of any and all doubt.
»www.hometech.com/hts/products/wi···dsl.html


Forosnai

join:2011-09-30
kudos:2
reply to Ukiah Jim

My money is on just a bit of grounding that needs to be retouched. That much shielding on inside wiring is notoriously prone to charge buildup, which could cause those errors on what is otherwise a good looking line.


Ukiah Jim

join:2011-04-21
Ukiah, CA

1 edit

Click for full size
said by Forosnai:

My money is on just a bit of grounding that needs to be retouched. That much shielding on inside wiring is notoriously prone to charge buildup, which could cause those errors on what is otherwise a good looking line.

But where?
I've attached a pic of how it's done.....all by AT&T, so you'd think they'd know.........wait, did I say that?
You can see the ground wire going to what is a brand new 8 foot copper ground rod, and you can also see the other wire coming down off the house ground, inside the panel, to that same ground rod. They also put a brand new 8 foot ground rod at the pedestal, as well as replace the pedestal(and drop).

Ukiah Jim

join:2011-04-21
Ukiah, CA
reply to WhyMe420

said by WhyMe420 See Profile

Anyway long story short, three options:

1.) Get AT&T to fix the problem (if possible, highly unlikely they will even if it is)
2.) Go on interleaving and keep your 6Mbps.
3.) Stay on fast path, downgrade to 3Mbps.

Well, I'll stay on them to fix it......did it before, but the fight almost isn't worth fighting again, unless the send the tech that pretty much got it stable last year.

The other two choices seem like a no brainer to choose between, if I have to choose. It makes the most sense to stay with the 6mbps, even if I settle for interleaving, because even with a little latency....it's still considerably faster than 3mbps, on fast path, correct? Or would you say it's a wash? When he switched my 3mbps to interleaving, I could tell web pages were loading slower.

I attached a screenshot of my ping test a little while ago.


Ukiah Jim

join:2011-04-21
Ukiah, CA

 
 
 
 
 
 
Here's 6 ping tests in a row.

WhyMe420
Premium
join:2009-04-06
kudos:1
reply to Ukiah Jim

If it were me personally and I've exhausted my other options (I would be bugging AT&T just like you... Had to bug them for the longest time because of static on the POTS) then I'd probably go for the 6Mbps interleaved.


Ukiah Jim

join:2011-04-21
Ukiah, CA

1 edit

said by WhyMe420:

If it were me personally and I've exhausted my other options (I would be bugging AT&T just like you... Had to bug them for the longest time because of static on the POTS) then I'd probably go for the 6Mbps interleaved.

That's what I've been thinking.

The emails the last few days have basically been ignored, even though the guy was curious to see what would happen with the new RG(I knew......nothing), so I expressed that I didn't appreciate being ignored. Here's the email this morning:

"Ive ran the tests showing not too much of a difference in the line, it may be a little more stable than before but we are still getting the code violations as well."

And that's it. Says a lot.

Ukiah Jim

join:2011-04-21
Ukiah, CA

Click for full size
FWIW, here's how my NID looks now, and it's been just like this since last year, when my loss of sync issue was resolved.