BTW performance test (IP profile checker)

[#1]

@ Andy, Zen have offered to change the dlm profile for their customers they did this some time ago, and the option to swap between dlm profiles  is available to all isp's who sell fttc, that includes plusnet, of course no one can be sure switching back and forth between the 3 profiles would cause dlm to reset, But it's is logical to assume that it would, But unless someone tries  this we wont know will we,? Hence why i have requested this changing of dlm profiles in the hope that it does have the desired effect,
@Chris  can someone please be brave enough to try this switching of dlm profile to at least see if it also causes a reset of dlm ?  also I think that the days of an engineer being needed for a reset may  no longer be the case, as it probably can be done  remotely  following a telephone call,
And another reason it my downstream throughput is now pausing repeatedly when using a single steam , this since dlm intervened  so could be a fault somewhere too, as it shouldn't be pausing at all

[#2]

It doesn't cause a DLM Reset, it does do a DLM Re-assessment though.
This just means that the DLM will take a look at your line, check the sync rate and apply the right level of banding depending on the sync rate.

[#3]

@ Chris - Understood, I assumed there was no cost for changing DLM Profiles. Looking at the BTw Pricing Spreadsheet, it shows there's a £10 + VAT charge to modify the DLM. So I can understand why users wouldn't be free to change their DLM Profiles as and when they want.  

[#4]

Quote from: Chris

It doesn't cause a DLM Reset, it does do a DLM Re-assessment though. This just means that the DLM will take a look at your line, check the sync rate and apply the right level of banding depending on the sync rate.

Which DLM profile is my connection currently using ?

[#5]

Yours is currently:
40M-80M Downstream, Interleaving Low - 10M-20M Upstream, Interleaving Off
A small amount of errors appear on your line, not sure what's causing that but it's only a very low amount, but enough for Interleaving to be applied.

[#6]

Quote from: Chris

Yours is currently: 40M-80M Downstream, Interleaving Low - 10M-20M Upstream, Interleaving Off A small amount of errors appear on your line, not sure what's causing that but it's only a very low amount, but enough for Interleaving to be applied.

Thank's for checking But not quite what i was asking you, Which of the 3 Openenreach  DLM profiles  SPEED, STANDARD.STABLE is set for my connection as per the below choices /mapping ,thanks And what can be done about the  single stream pausing downstream throughput fault ?
BTW "Standard" = Openreach "Speed"
BTW "Stable" = Openreach "Standard"
BTW "Superstable" = Openreach "Stable"

[#7]

Sorry, everyone has a different work for it, it's known as a 'Policy'
You're on: BTW "Standard" = Openreach "Speed"

[#8]

Thanks for confirming  that for me

[#9]

Quote from: Chris

It those changes are made, it definitely opens the door for us to be a little more specific about the types of connection we can pick for Gamers for example. What we need to be careful of, is, if there's a line that's erroring and they are on the 'Gaming' profile, and the errors are being generated by a Third Party, the End User needs to accept that as Interleaving may/will be applied on the other policies.

 
A connection that uses  fast path will always  generate some  errors that's always been accepted , But if the amount of errors aren't having a significant impact on the connection, preventing or hindering  the end users experience, ie high packet-loss ,frequent ,disconnects then the error rate is pretty much irrelevant , and if BT think differently then perhaps they should  start the roll out of FTTP , It's not the customers fault that their line plant isn't really upto to the job
My connection , i don't agree with  DLM  applying interleave,  the connection has been stable over the last 12mths, and this is only the 3rd time DLM has IMO over reacted,
My connection is no more stable now with interleaving on  than when it was on fast path, infact as a result of  the last change made by DLM i now have this pausing throughput single thread issue, On top of a reduced sync speed of around 5-7mbps and of course 7-8ms of added lag

Quote from: Chris

We fully appreciate that gamers don't want interleaving as 'Low' adds 8ms ping and 'High' adds 16ms ping and our suppliers recognise this. So, please don't think that nothing is being done because it is, just, these things do take time planning, developing and bringing to fruition.

Whilst this will be welcome  & long awaited news, Considering the speed that BT work at, It could be several years away before it's available to ISP's So in the meantime were no better off , If it is going to be years away i will certainly be considering my options as to reverting back to ADSL2+ SMPF LLU no dlm & set to fast path , or just not bother having an internet connection,  until after it has been rolled out to isp's

[#10]

That's just how DLM works I'm afraid, there's not really a lot we can do about that until BT complete the re-design of DLM which is currently under way. We and BT understand and know that the way that DLM on FTTC currently works doesn't give each and every customer exactly what they want, which is why it's been looked at and changed in a few different ways.
We're looking at having a policy option that DLM doesn't apply Interleaving on at all. Remember that the DLM that VDSL2 is using is about 5 years old and it wasn't possible at the time to know exactly how DLM would perform on it.

Quote

Whilst this will be welcome  & long awaited news, Considering the speed that BT work at, It could be several years away before it's available to ISP's So in the meantime were no better off , If it is going to be years away i will certainly be considering my options as to reverting back to ADSL2+ SMPF LLU no dlm & set to fast path , or just not bother having an internet connection,  until after it has been rolled out to isp's

I don't have any timescales, but it's something that's being looked at.

[#11]

Quote from: Chris

We're looking at having a policy option that DLM doesn't apply Interleaving on at all. Remember that the DLM that VDSL2 is using is about 5 years old and it wasn't possible at the time to know exactly how DLM would perform on it.

IMO BTOR should of provided the option for ISP's to have DLM disabled  altogether  Several LLU providers both  past and present didn't even have DLM set up on their systems , IMO it isn't needed really, But BT are known to use it to hide underlying faults, It also is a big saver on support calls and them having to employ real support who are knowledgeable (fully trained)  unlike the script readers that the currently have for support
RE: the implementation of giving isp's more control, sounds as it's only talk  at the moment with no hard plans in place ,  then they will probably delay the roll-out even further and only trial it for a year  limited in numbers and knowing them certain geographic areas as well before they  roll it out ,so will take probably take years too long for me  to wait,keep paying for extra unneeded/wanted lag on my connection  if they don't decide to shelve the idea in the meantime,

[#12]

Quote from: deathtrap

IMO BTOR should of provided the option for ISP's to have DLM disabled  altogether  Several LLU providers both  past and present didn't even have DLM set up on their systems , IMO it isn't needed really, But BT are known to use it to hide underlying faults, It also is a big saver on support calls and them having to employ real support who are knowledgeable (fully trained)  unlike the script readers that the currently have for support

As far as I am aware, someone had to remote connect to the actual FTTC cabinet to perform a DLM/line reset. This is why there has been no control by ISPs over FTTC lines as it has to be done manually rather than through an automated system.
The same DLM system should be present for LLU/non-LLU customers. BT Wholesale may label it differently to Openreach, but they are the same.
As for the necessity of DLM, I would disagree with you on that. The vast majority of people want a stable connection and are going to prefer line stability over speed.

[#13]

Sky uses their own version of DLM for ADSL LLU  As do TT retail, But i certainly would be avoiding both like the plague, It is possible to get tt wholesale products via a reseller , And most if not all resellers have control over target noise margins, Fast path, in order to manually configure the connection as per customer requests  and the wholesale variant probably does not have DLM Be and UKOnline never had DLM in place, That i know for a fact ,
On the BT wholesale based  resold white lable  adsl2+  ISP's have some degree of control, too,
What i meant when i said they Openreach should of included an option for ISP's to turn of/disable DLM , was it could of been added as one of the policies offered to all isp's at time of order, then they could of processed it /remote to the cab, not a hard or time consuming task ,unless the ISP ordered no DLM for each order
BT's DLM has never really worked in the consumers favour, take me for instance, DLM should never have intervened for a low error count, it's a dumb system end of
And as for this  single stream pausing  problem,/fault ? until I'm able to take my router out of the loop by connecting directly to the BT modem, i can't progress further with it although i don't think it will  be the router causing this, but so matter how unlikely something is,you never can be certain, and i don't want to be donating to the BTOR Christmas party (BT openreach charges),
Why doesn't the Modem lan led illuminate when connected to my pc is what i need to know , i setup a pppoe, mini port connection as per instructions on web site, I cleared my manually configured Lan  connection,network adapter, and set both obtain IP address and DNS  Automatically, and even rebooted my PC,  so as to enable DHCP ,  and still no joy they won't talk to each other , maybe i should buy another modem HG612  3B  so i can also unlock it & get the stats  as well as ruling out the ECI s faulty or not

[#14]

Chris,
Interesting stuff. I know a lot of people take a visceral dislike to DLM, but in truth the only usual casualty is raw speedtest results. Gamers, seeking absolute low latency, are an obvious exception that is willing to sacrifice quality for latency, while families demanding perfect broadcast-quality from IPTV have the opposite requirements.
However, I understand there is an entirely different dimension to consider in the discussions of what DLM settings should be allowed... the introduction of G.INP.
Obviously, if DLM gains a different tool to use to combat errors, discussion here shouldn't focus on whether DLM itself is a good/bad idea, but would be better focussed on which tools it should choose to deploy for a particular line, or what effects you would prefer to see.
Did the matter of G.INP come up with BT's discussions of DLM?
G.INP (for those that don't know) is technology that replaces FEC/interleaving (which DLM chooses to deploy to cope with high error rates) with a re-transmission mechanism; BT have required that all modems must be capable of working with G.INP, even if they haven't started to use it yet.
The effect of G.INP (for someone where DLM has intervened) is to remove the current cost of FEC (so adding back some bandwidth) and interleaving (so decreasing latency), but adding a new cost: faulty packets must be re-transmitted on the physical layer, which obviously increases the latency of just those packets... which appears as jitter.
G.INP usually gets mentioned with vectoring, and seems to be being thought of, and deployed, in conjunction with the rollout of vectoring (eg Eircom seem to be rolling both out at the moment).
As far as I can make out, BT have been trialling G.INP - but it isn't obvious whether they're doing this independently of the vectoring trials, or in conjunction with it.

[#15]

In my case there was no loss in quality before DLM intervened  it IMO  and i'm the one that uses the connection and pays the subs for it,DLM overreacted its actions were not needed or wanted , I feel that the customer should have  the choice and the final say  on how their connection is configured and not some pre programmed  script that was tested in some lab somewhere, The sooner it can be disabled the better as far as i am concerned