Trinitarian broadband!!!

[#1]

The socket I normally use is about 12 foot from the main socket, but since I was asked to use the main socket last weekend (I think it was), I ran a mains cable through the hall to connect the router direct to the main socket, which is where it has stayed.
The contract is with my landlord's representative and the landlord pays the phone bill - I have to reimburse him for private calls and pay the whole cost of internet which is the only part in my name. HMRC will tax me on any pecuniary benefit from having changes made, to suit my personal needs, in relation to any part of the house, where the landlord pays the bill for the work to be done. Changing the phone line at a cost to him must be shown on my P11D tax form, and I will have to pay tax on that cost. He, as my employer, must also pay employers' National Insurance charge on the cost, as well.

[#2]

Adam C - BT will know the account holder's details and could contact them direct and ask to check the line. 

[#3]

I understand that avodat, but often there are ways to get things done at no cost or very low cost.
The only "issue" here that I see, is a little bit of protocol. If you can check with your landlord's representative/landlord that should the need arise to get a small change to the sockets as they are very old, and the wire between them altered at no cost to the landlord, would that be ok?

[#4]

Quote from: avodat

Adam C - BT will know the account holder's details and could contact them direct and ask to check the line.

As I've already pointed out, Plusnet should carry out the tests, in the first instance, as you are complaining about your broadband problem. If the results indicate a fault with the line, then the information can be passed on for it to be dealt with.
Otherwise other avenues have to be explored, and the ability to pursue one of them is potentially determined by the response to my previous post.

[#5]

Anotherone - I am sure that financially neutral changes could be carried out with no problem as far as the landlord is concerned, or the tax man   🙂  . It is one of the problems of working in a place where you live in your employer's property!
I am also aware that we are talking about an, as yet, unknown charge 

[#6]

As regards the disconnects that are occurring whilst the workmen are on the premises, they will like be due the the interference being generated by any electrical equipment being used and/or interruptions/surges & dips on the mains. So they really need to be ignored, even if they are a pain.
If that continues after they have left today (other than the similar overnight pattern) then someone may need to look at the electrical connections to make sure nothing has come loose/become intermittent.
I take it you still can't hear any audible noise/crackling etc on the phone line when using the phone?

[#7]

Afternoon AO,
I agree with you, this looks different to what we were seeing previously however the likelihood of this being a new issue which has manifested after the resolution seen with the firmware update is pretty slim although as you say, it's tough to be definitive about that.
With regards to the SNR change, this is just another tool in the tool box for us to use in order to stabilise the line so that we don't continue to see the drops. I'm agreed that there needs to be updates to the wiring and socket however at this stage we don't have too many options open for us given the results we're seeing back on the faults testing although given the new resulting drops this could well change
Just checking on the SNR reset now has flagged that this has failed so this now looks like both changes requested haven't gone through. I'm going to retry this again for a final time and then i think it could be time for us to try down the route of testing a second router (so that we have ticked that box for the BTW faults process) and failing this we're going to have to defer it to BT and see what we come back with.
@Avodat - Having the owner of the line request it is tested wouldn't mean that anyone will incur any charges, in addition to this, if they find a problem then having them rectify this would also be free for all parties. It would only be in the instance that an engineer visit is requested and either no fault is found or the fault is sat with your equipment or set up. This means that the initial testing/investigation by them shouldn't cause any cost issues.

[#8]

I've sent avodat a PM which may have some useful answers, just so that you don't feel left out Adam I've also sent you one

[#9]

Adam C - I have passed on your request to the landlord.

[#10]

Anotherone:  re your post 200 - did you see my amendment to my post 192?

[#11]

Not the best place to put it, something may have been disturbed before they started using the equipment. When you are having that sort of work done, I would not automatically discount anything. And therefore want to see what was going on when they were off the premises.
If there's an electrician present I would ask him to check things for loose connections or whether they very briefly turned off the power etc.
One needs to check these things otherwise it's too easy to go off on a tangent.

[#12]

Looking in that last log at post #192 that was a modem/router restart which coincides with the Routerstats post 0933 two drops. Having thrashed this through with Townman, although we are not in 100% agreement, the fact that the builders were doing things emphasises the need to check the electrical aspects I mentioned in my last post. The one at 1024 was a line test.
The cause of the apparent dusk/dawn events are unexplained at the moment.

[#13]

Builders left long before these 3rd day glitches
<14> Sep  3 10:28:37 CONFIGURATION saved by TR69
<81> Sep  3 10:29:29 FIREWALL icmp check (1 of 1): Protocol: ICMP  Src ip: 24.168.135.218 Dst ip: 146.90.167.152 Type: Destination Unreachable Code: Host Unreacheable
<102> Sep  3 10:46:08 SNTP Synchronised to server: 212.159.13.50
<102> Sep  3 11:46:08 SNTP Synchronised to server: 212.159.6.10
<102> Sep  3 12:46:08 SNTP Synchronised to server: 212.159.13.50
<102> Sep  3 13:46:08 SNTP Synchronised to server: 212.159.6.9
<84> Sep  3 13:48:19 IDS scan parser : tcp syn scan: 93.174.93.235 scanned at least 20 ports at 146.90.167.152. (1 of 1) : 93.174.93.235   146.90.167.152  52    118 TCP 7678->135 [S.....] seq 2201247283 ack 0 win 8192
<84> Sep  3 14:17:23 IDS proto parser : tcp null port (1 of 1) : 123.151.42.61   146.90.167.152  40    48  TCP 12201->0 [S.....] seq 91642271 ack 0 win 8192
<37> Sep  3 14:29:02 LOGIN User logged in on TELNET (192.168.1.)
<37> Sep  3 14:42:50 SESSION TIMEOUT Timeout! (after 900 sec)
<37> Sep  3 14:42:50 LOGOUT User logged out on TELNET (192.168.1.)
<102> Sep  3 14:46:08 SNTP Synchronised to server: 212.159.13.50
<102> Sep  3 15:46:08 SNTP Synchronised to server: 212.159.6.10
<102> Sep  3 16:46:09 SNTP Synchronised to server: 212.159.13.49
<173> Sep  3 17:14:34 xDSL linestate down
<132> Sep  3 17:15:19 PPP link down (Internet) [146.90.167.]

<173> Sep  3 17:15:27 xDSL linestate down
<173> Sep  3 17:16:25 xDSL linestate down
<173> Sep  3 17:16:55 xDSL linestate down
<173> Sep  3 17:17:21 xDSL linestate up (ITU-T G.992.5; downstream: 12918 kbit/s, upstream: 440 kbit/s; output Power Down: 20.9 dBm, Up: 12.9 dBm; line Attenuation Down: 23.0 dB, Up: 10.8 dB; snr Margin Down: 6.1 dB, Up: 31.1 dB)
<38> Sep  3 17:17:24 PPP CHAP Receive challenge from rhost bras-red6.wv (Internet)
<38> Sep  3 17:17:24 PPP CHAP Receive challenge from rhost PTW-AG01 (Internet)
<38> Sep  3 17:17:24 PPP CHAP Receive success (Internet)
<132> Sep  3 17:17:25 PPP link up (Internet) [146.90.25.]

<14> Sep  3 17:18:11 CONFIGURATION saved by TR69
<102> Sep  3 17:46:09 SNTP Synchronised to server: 212.159.13.50

[#14]

Now I'm totally confused, you said the builders arrived at 0930. I'll re-read that lot.

[#15]

I meant from the latest drop this afternoon!!