Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Disconnect Issues, now Speed Reductions, waaay past annoyed now

Posts: 5
Thanks: 2
Registered: ‎06-12-2018

Re: Disconnect Issues, now Speed Reductions, waaay past annoyed now

The DLM won't put a banded line or a line that had recently had banding back on a 3dB profile.

The line would need a DLM reset for this.
It could possibly make no difference though as the DLM is 100% automated.
It will only apply lower dB profiles on what it feels to be stable lines.

Retransmission High reduces throughput compared to retransmission Low.
A difference of 96.7% of sync speed for ReTx Low or circa 91-92% for ReTx High.

When your DLM policy is changed or the product speed package is changed it effectively resets the DLM.
This removes G.INP and makes a line a little vulnerable to high errors during the few days it can take to add G.INP back.

As Plusnet advise earlier in the thread changing from 80/20 to 40/10 can indeed make a line more stable.
It absolutely won't make it more stable if you already synced below 40Mb down and 10Mb up.
That's just utter waffle.
It's a higher SNRM that makes a line more stable and SNRM won't increase with a 40/10 cap on your line.
All that achieves is resetting the DLM.

Likewise though the 67/17 banding is having no impact on your current line as you sync considerably below this.

It does however prevent DLM lowering the SNRM target.

Things to note:
GEA tests show a DLM line profile that's 13 days old.
Plusnet have another test that gives a line profile that's only around 24 hours old.
For whatever reason when someone queries banding Plusnet staff run a GEA test.
Plusnet need to train their staff regarding the 13 day old line DLM line profile and when a line profile specifically is needed the alternative RRT(Reactive Repair Tool) test should be done as it's much more current, though still a little old.

If you are within your quoted estimates Plusnet technically don't have to do a thing.

Things to try:
If you really want your original speed back you need to get the DLM reset to remove the banding or DLM will never lower the SNRM.
Even with a reset it might not anyway.
A product change would achieve this if Plusnet refuse to request a DLM reset.

80/20 is useless to you and you shouldn't be charged extra for it.
Downgrade to 40/10. That will reset the DLM.

You could manually cap the sync speed about 5Mb lower.
This makes the line more stable and often nudges DLM to change from ReTx High to Low, increasing throughput.

Manually capping the sync can also nudge DLM to a 3dB profile (unless banded).
Posts: 30
Thanks: 4
Registered: ‎31-10-2016

Re: Disconnect Issues, now Speed Reductions, waaay past annoyed now

@minted Thanks for the post there are many valid points raised.

I was aware of most/all of information you provided.

24/09/2019 - Plusnet Agent Modifies Package from 80/20 to 40/10 - should have triggered a DLM Reset
25/09/2019 - Complain, package modified back to 80/20 - should have triggered a DLM Reset
25/09 - 30/09 - Disconnection issue continues

GEA Test shows that on 30/09 (approx 5 days after a DLM Reset should have been triggered) our line was Banded 67/17 this is within the 10 day training period.......

Additionally, and too coincidentally for me, despite engineer #3 (30/09) saying that no work was done, he DID carry out work outside the property next door in the underground connection, ANY work carried out would have impacted the DLM and that is why a DLM Reset "should" be carried out as a matter of course. It may also be the root cause of a Banding Profile being applied on the SAME day!

As you say

Retransmission High reduces throughput compared to retransmission Low.
A difference of 96.7% of sync speed for ReTx Low or circa 91-92% for ReTx High.

The primary difference in Downstream Speed we are are receiving can be explained/quantified being as a result of

Retransmission High vs Retransmission Low

Which as you also said

It does however prevent DLM lowering the SNRM target.

will be prevented from changing due to the Banding

Consequently a DLM Reset is required to remove Banding and to ensure that a proper 10 day period of training can take affect now that there are no more disconnections.


80/20 v 40/10

I concur that with the distance from the cabinet we are we should not obtain better Downstream and Upstream speeds.

I can only draw from my own personal experience that dropping to 40/10 does reduce or Downstream speed.

I can only conclude that being on the Fibre Extra package we are either

  • not being either throttled
  • experiencing a negative impact of Over Provisioning

On a slight tangent BT Wholesale Speed Tests (which may or may not be a complete farce) are reporting Upstream speeds circa 9.8Mbps and sometimes 14.34Mbps. Dropping to a 40/10 would therefore absolutely impact our Upstream speeds!


To @Gandalf does that satisy your query sufficiently?


Regarding the BT Wholesale Speed Test / Further Testing - if there is a problem with this test, then a couple of things should be triggered;

A Sticky Post on the forums telling everyone to use an Alternative until it is fixed

A notification to EVERY customer facing member of Plusnet staff informing them to use the Same Alternative.

Until the problem is resolved, the ONLY reason to use BT Wholesale Speed Test, Further Testing is as part of the KBD process as those results are returned directly to Plusnet and can be used in fault resolution.


Regarding the Remote DLM/Caution Counter Reset;

There is a trial which commenced 22/04/2019 to which Plusnet is a signatory.

There are many forum posts where other members of Plusnet staff talk about getting

  • a remote DLM reset
  • DLM reset
  • Banding to be removed (which is a DLM reset in all but name)

You remain adamant that such a  thing is not possible.

The only conclusion can therefore be that 

  • At best
    Staff are woefully misinformed and/or uneducated on what is possible.
  • At worst
    Someone is not being honest somewhere


There are a couple of extremely interesting and relevant points which I had not bothered to discuss with Plusnet's agents.

UPDATE2 Speed Boost as BT Openreach Prep 3dB SNR for FTTC Broadband Lines

Expected Outcome

The downstream rates recorded with the 3dB target noise margins should be significantly higher than those recorded with the 6dB target margins. There should not be any significant difference in reported rates between the high and low retransmission profiles.

When you look at the original GEA Test you will see that we were on 3dB SNR Setting and therefore our speeds were ABOVE what would be normally expected.

Openreach Trial Improves FTTC Broadband Dynamic Line Management

This will ensure finer granularity of control of the automatic DLM process and should in theory optimise speeds for those affected.

UK ISP PlusNet Quietly Swaps to a Dedicated WBMC Network Platform



Whilst on the face of it this would seem like a positive change i.e. giving more control to Plusnet from Openreach, it has been a rollout which have has adverse impacts to many of Plusnets customers.

By moving to system which limits the maximum total bandwidth available at an Interconnect Node when the number of End Users (you & me) exceeds total capacity then Plusnet has no choice other than to throttle connections.

But as this is done at such high level within the Backhaul system they can claim that they are not throttling speeds.

Under_Over Provisioning Basic Example.png

New KBD Tool Handbook for 21C Copper and Fibre Broadband (Version 3)

My last experience with Plusnet Faults Team was back in October 2016

The difference between then and now is night and day.

There is a FANTASTIC POST from a prior Plusnet Customer who clearly has a deep understanding of the issues that Plusnet is experiencing and I wholeheartedly recommend reading through this.

Why I have left Plusnet

Posts: 5
Thanks: 2
Registered: ‎06-12-2018

Re: Disconnect Issues, now Speed Reductions, waaay past annoyed now

There is no 10 day training period on FTTC that's just nonsense terminology carried over from ADSL.
DLM may take few days to add things like G.INP (Huawei cabinets only) but it starts on day 1.
Banding applied 24 hours after a DLM reset can stick for months.
Hardly a training period.
Some ISP's use this as an excuse to tell customers to go away for 10 days on a new connection.

Any line fault would need rectified before any DLM reset should be requested as the line would likely just get banded again.

Banding is usually applied for too many resyncs in a short period.

The banding being applied at 67/17 shortly after a DLM reset suggests the line was still resyncing multiple times a day and a fault still exists on the line, DSLAM port or CPE.

If the line is still resyncing multiple times a day then a DLM reset would be pointless.
If it's now stable (as suggested a couple posts previous) then a DLM reset will aid the possibility of a 3dB profile being applied.

As you say the 40/10 package would indeed reduce your upstream. That was overlooked by myself and if upstream above 10Mb sync is important to you then your better sticking with 80/20.

There's a great thread on the kitz forum showing a number of users including myself "tricking/nudging" the DLM to use ReTx Low instead of ReTx High, increasing throughput.
The same method can be used to nudge a lower SNRM dB profile but AIUI banded lines won't do this part.,22086.msg379683.html#msg379683

It requires you lowering your sync for a time (between 2-10 days as shown in the thread above) until there is a DLM resync removing ReTx High.

This can be done with Broadcom xDSL chipset modems with access to the "maxdatarate" command or Lantiq xDSL chipset modems with access to the "vdsl snr" command.
The DrayTek 130 you own can do this.

My comments about Plusnet staff and the use of a GEA test is specific to the DLM line profile currently in use.
I believe that might be the only part that's 13 days old.
It makes it an absolutely pointless test to run when a customer reports banding has recently been applied.
It usually comes with a denial of banding based on 13 days old data.

A GEA test remains a good tool for other circumstances.
Plusnet Help Team
Plusnet Help Team
Posts: 16,292
Thanks: 5,005
Fixes: 846
Registered: ‎21-04-2017

Re: Disconnect Issues, now Speed Reductions, waaay past annoyed now

@tonyb55 I've not advised we can't submit a DLM reset, I've simply advised that your sync speed of 31.9mbps is not restricted by the banding of 67mbps. If banding was restricting your speeds I'd expect your sync speed to be 66.9mbps. Or I'd expect the banding to be set at 32mbps.

Looking at this logically, a sync speed of 31.9mbps and a banding of 67mbps means that your line can physically sync at a speed anywhere up to 67mbps. On this occasion we've added you to the DLM reset tracker to request a DLM reset however there's a fair chance that this request will be rejected due to the above.

There is nothing we can do to track the progress of this request once we've added it, because we don't get any feedback. Let us know how it goes over the next 2 to 3 working days which is the time it normally takes for the reset to go through.

If this post resolved your issue please click the 'This fixed my problem' button
 Anoush Mortazavi
 Plusnet Help Team
Community Veteran
Posts: 5,416
Thanks: 606
Fixes: 25
Registered: ‎10-06-2010

Re: Disconnect Issues, now Speed Reductions, waaay past annoyed now

@minted wrote:
As you say the 40/10 package would indeed reduce your upstream. That was overlooked by myself and if upstream above 10Mb sync is important to you then your better sticking with 80/20.

It appears that the upstream sync speed has never been more than 10Mb. There may have been impossibly high speedtest results, obviously these results were erroneous.

Posts: 30
Thanks: 4
Registered: ‎31-10-2016

Re: Disconnect Issues, now Speed Reductions, waaay past annoyed now

Thanks for all the information & suggestions.

I would probably be able to figure out how to carry out the SNR hack, but frankly am annoyed that I should even have to consider it.

Its much the same with simply using the BT Smart Hub Business Router "as is" versus as just a Modem (in bridged mode). I took a considerable amount of time setting up my internal LAN/WiFi with individual MAC Address permissions, custom access and port forwarding where required on hardware that even 3 years or more down the line is much superior to any provided by the ISP's themselves.

All I (and my family) really want to do is to enjoy the Internet in the way we have been used to doing every day/night, with Plusnet, for the last 8 or more years. And not have to spend hours assisting Plusnet staff, who are emplyed to do this very thing, in diagnosing and resolving problems and failing that spending hours researching and writing posts onto either the Question (fault) system - which is then often disregarded - or Community Forum - for the additional knowledge base and enhanced level of public scrutiny.


So this is where we are.

On 12th October 2019 in relation to the level, and quality, of service being provided by Plusnet in attempting to resolve a problem with my internet connection and the subsequent, significant, reduction in the download speed being obtained I felt that we had reached an impasse ie.

Plusnet consider the matter of the disconnection resolved AND

consider the issue of a reduction in speed to be a "non issue" as the service was operating within "acceptable levels" despite evidence clearly illustrating a performance drop, prior to any problem, and continuing DLM restrictions being applied to the line post resolution.

After considering all the available options I requested that Plusnet issue a DEADLOCK LETTER in what I consider to be an ongoing issue.

The relevant information about the process can be found here;

How to complain about your provider.


I believe Plusnet has already "set their store out", as it were, but in the interest of absolute fairness to the entire process it can be considered that we are currently on

Stage 4 - Allow your provider enough time to investigate.

Your provider has six to eight weeks - depending on which one you use - to resolve your complaint. This is to give them enough time to assess the situation and the evidence to find an appropriate resolution.

During that time, they could contact you for more information. You can also contact them to see where your complaint is up to. In fact, we’d recommend you get in touch if you haven't heard anything after four weeks, just to check your complaint has been received or is being processed.

Your provider might reach a decision on your complaint at any time prior to the eight weeks. If they do, they'll send you a 'deadlock letter'. This normally contains a final offer and our details. At this point you’ll need to decide if you think their response is reasonable and will solve your problem. If it isn’t, you can contact us.


This is me giving Plusnet additional opportunity to

  1. Provide the latest information regarding any and all connection errors, whether these are severe enough to trigger a complete disconnection or simply to adversely impact the way in which DLM automatically manages our line statistics.

    Whether this by way of a GEA (General Ethernet Access) test or alternative, more up-to-date method (within 24hrs, as suggested by @minted) is entirely up to Plusnet.
  2. Provide the latest KBD stats for my line.
  3. Organise a Remote Caution Counter (DLM) Reset OR
  4. Arrange for an Engineer to carry out a DLM Reset as should have been applied on 30/09/2019 by Engineer #3 but was not.

So by 7th December 2019, AT THE LATEST, I expect the speed issue to be resolved, to my satisfaction being;

  1. Actual Downstream Speeds of circa 32Mbps
    This would be obtainable with IP Profiles of approximately
    33.5-34Mbps on a Retransmission LOW setting
    35.2Mbps on a Retransmission HIGH setting


  2. No Banding being applied to line
  3. Retransmission set to low, not HIGH
  4. SNR @ 3dB

If this is not the case then I will require the previously requested DEADLOCK LETTER to immediately be posted and/or emailed to me.

Upon receipt of which I will forward copies of all documented communication between myself and Plusnet onto whichever of the ADR Schemes Plusnet belongs to;