Very slow broadband

[#1]

Quote from: ARLH7

I have taken other pictures of the wiring set-up through out the property and tracing the line from my flat, it has been done to a bad standard as you will see from the pictures.

That is an understatement!  Loops all over the place and "unsupported" joins open to the elements.  Quite shoddy really.
@CRT,
Is there a route through which BTOR can be made to bring such wiring up to a "workman like" standard at their own expense?  As noted in an earlier post, the synch on this line is around 2Mbps lower than that which the reported attenuation might be expected to deliver.  The internal wiring (though not ideal) does not appear to make material difference to the reported synch speeds... or is the line banded?

[#2]

7168k - 14336k is a banded profile, so yes the line speed is very likely banded.
In the absence of stats with error counts, we could try using ping commands to check for packet loss (Windows style):
ping -n 50 212.159.6.9
ping -n 50 -l 1400 212.159.6.9
If packet loss due to line errors is the reason for slow downloads / low speedtest results, then I would expect more packet loss for the second ping command that uses larger packets.

[#3]

Now that is a cunning approach!  I like that a lot! 

[#4]

Hi,
Here are the results:

C:\Users\Anthony>ping -n 50 212.159.6.9
Pinging 212.159.6.9 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=60
Ping statistics for 212.159.6.9:
    Packets: Sent = 50, Received = 50, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 23ms, Maximum = 25ms, Average = 23ms

C:\Users\Anthony>ping -n 50 -l 1400 212.159.6.9
Pinging 212.159.6.9 with 1400 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=1400 time=52ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=1400 time=53ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=1400 time=52ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=1400 time=53ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=1400 time=53ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=1400 time=53ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=1400 time=52ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=1400 time=52ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=1400 time=53ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=1400 time=52ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=1400 time=52ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=1400 time=53ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=1400 time=52ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=1400 time=52ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=1400 time=53ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=1400 time=52ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=1400 time=52ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=1400 time=53ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=1400 time=52ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=1400 time=52ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=1400 time=53ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=1400 time=52ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=1400 time=53ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=1400 time=52ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=1400 time=52ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=1400 time=53ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=1400 time=52ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=1400 time=52ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=1400 time=52ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=1400 time=53ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=1400 time=53ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=1400 time=52ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=1400 time=52ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=1400 time=52ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=1400 time=52ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=1400 time=52ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=1400 time=52ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=1400 time=52ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=1400 time=52ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=1400 time=53ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=1400 time=52ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=1400 time=52ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=1400 time=52ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=1400 time=52ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=1400 time=53ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=1400 time=52ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=1400 time=52ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=1400 time=53ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=1400 time=53ms TTL=60
Reply from 212.159.6.9: bytes=1400 time=52ms TTL=60
Ping statistics for 212.159.6.9:
    Packets: Sent = 50, Received = 50, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 52ms, Maximum = 53ms, Average = 52ms
C:\Users\Anthony>

[#5]

Still nothing to explain the slow speedtest results. What TP-Link model is it? Is it running the latest firmware?

[#6]

Hi ejs,
The model is TD-W8980 and it has the latest firmware installed.

[#7]

You could check using the Network tab of Task Manager to see how much bandwidth your computer is using, just to check that there isn't anything running in the background using a lot of bandwidth.
I'm not sure if it's worth doing a factory reset of the router, it might depend on how complex your configuration is and how much hassle it would be to re-do it.
I suppose something ought to be done towards removing the banding and uncapping the upstream, but it's difficult to tell if using the test socket made any difference, it doesn't appear to have. But what we can't see is the long term line stability, error rate, number of drops. A Visual Radius graph or RRT historic DLM data from Plusnet CRT might be useful.

[#8]

I had a look to see if anything was using up the bandwidth and it was not. And then I did a factory reset of the router a go. I checked the download speeds again and it is still very slow the same as before. I did raise a BB line fault, do you know of the results for my telephone line ? I wonder if something has happened at the exchange at Bexhill-on-Sea where I am located. That may have caused the problem also could it be that plusnet have capped my line ? I am on unlimited BB. Thanks

[#9]

I, like many of the people on these forums, am just a Plusnet customer, so can only see what you and others post to the forum.
Of course it's possible that there's a fault in the exchange, but this tends to be a fairly unlikely place for faults to be. Plusnet won't have capped your line, the current line speed shows what speed Plusnet have got your connection set to.
It's a bit strange that your download speed is far lower than what it should be for your DSL connection rate. Unfortunately the TP-Link doesn't provide more detailed ADSL stats. Ideally you should test a different router, but the photo with the individual white, orange, black and green wires exposed clearly shows that that needs some attention. I think the black cable that the orange and white wires are attached to, that has a figure of 8 cross section, might not be twisted pair, so is another section of cable that could pick up a lot of interference and be bad for broadband.

[#10]

Quote from: Townman

Quote from: ARLH7 I have taken other pictures of the wiring set-up through out the property and tracing the line from my flat, it has been done to a bad standard as you will see from the pictures. That is an understatement!  Loops all over the place and "unsupported" joins open to the elements.  Quite shoddy really. @CRT, Is there a route through which BTOR can be made to bring such wiring up to a "workman like" standard at their own expense?  As noted in an earlier post, the synch on this line is around 2Mbps lower than that which the reported attenuation might be expected to deliver.  The internal wiring (though not ideal) does not appear to make material difference to the reported synch speeds... or is the line banded?

Can CRT please comment and recommend a path to resolution please?

[#11]

Hi,
I had a bt engineer to test the line and he could not find any problems with it using his diagnostics tool and he also tested the extension and there was no problems. I have also managed to try using a different router and micro-filters and it is still incredibility slow (max download speed is around 160KB/s). Please plusnet can you fix the broadband it must be capped or something I really need this fixed. can you reset my IP profile anything to make it work like it was before ? Thanks 

[#12]

Drat - the problem is that no fault was found at the time of the visit.
That wiring is (to be polite) untidy!
The profile cannot be "just reset" as it follows the synch speed, which in turn is limited by the quality of the line.

[#13]

When he arrived he just checked the line for faults (none were found) and he pointed out the sync speed around the 14mb mark. I did show him the poor download speeds I was getting at the time. As the line was fine, that seemed to be his remit for the work and that was it. He did not make mention of the loop the loops with the wires, however he put the exposed wires back into the box. The only thing I can think of is that my router was turned for abit before the speed suddenly dropped so much say about a week prior to the drop, it my have nothing to do with it all. Maybe some type of reset on your end it might just fix it. Just thinking out loud here.