Only getting 15Mbps

[#1]

Hello,

We have had plusnet broadband for perhaps 1 year or more and pay for the 66mbit connection. It has always been slow, but just about ok for my needs. I have recently started looking in to the issue and realise that I am only getting about 14 or 15 Mbps.

The hub is plugged directly into the master socket (via microfilter). I have tried resetting the hub to factory and its the same.

I have copied the info from the hub and my account page below which may help.

Thank you for any advice you can offer.

- Alan

1. Product name:	Plusnet Hub
2. Serial number:	[removed from forum post]
3. Firmware version:	Software version 4.7.5.1.83.8.263 Last updated 14/06/19
4. Board version:	Plusnet Hub One
5. DSL uptime:	0 days, 02:20:19
6. Data rate:	5439 / 15789
7. Maximum data rate:	5439 / 35075
8. Noise margin:	6.4 / 14.2
9. Line attenuation:	36.8 / 30.7
10. Signal attenuation:	36.8 / 40.0
11. Data sent/received:	38.3 MB / 442.1 MB
12. Broadband username:	[removed from forum post]
13. 2.4 GHz Wireless network/SSID:	PLUSNET-[removed]
14. 2.4 GHz Wireless connections:	Enabled (802.11 b/g/n (up to 144 Mb/s))
15. 2.4 GHz Wireless security:	WPA2
16. 2.4 GHz Wireless channel:	Automatic (Smart Wireless)
17. 5 GHz Wireless network/SSID:	PLUSNET-[removed]
18. 5 GHz Wireless connections:	Enabled (802.11 a/n/ac (up to 1300 Mb/s))
19. 5 GHz Wireless security:	WPA2
20. 5 GHz Wireless channel:	Automatic (Smart Wireless)
21. Firewall:	Default
22. MAC Address: [removed]
23. Modulation:	G.993.2 Annex B
24. Software variant:	AA
25. Boot loader:	1.0.0

From event log

( 7559.830000) PPPoE is up -​ Down Rate=15789Kbps, Up Rate=5439Kbps; SNR Margin Down=14.1dB, Up=6.3dB

[#2]

Hi, Same slow speed, normally get low 30Mbps but as it was noticeable that sites were slow to respond I checked and am currently getting around 16Mbps, perhaps a more general issue ....

[#3]

Thanks for your reply. I think this has been pretty long term and quite consistant for me though.

I also ran the BT wholesale test. To run this test I disabled all wifi on the hub and ran the test over ethernet (i.e. single device connected directly by ethernet).

[#4]

@catherinealan there's something basically wrong with those stats

6. Data rate:	5439 / 15789
7. Maximum data rate:	5439 / 35075
8. Noise margin:	6.4 / 14.2
9. Line attenuation:	36.8 / 30.7

The downstream margin is way too high , which would either indicate a line fault or banding ( probably caused by a line fault anyway ). Also the upstream attenuation being higher than the downstream indicates line problems.

You say you're plugged into the master socket. Have you tried connecting to the test socket behind the removable face plate ?

If you can do that and repost the stats , just those lines I quoted above are needed. Other speed tests are pointless until we can improve the sync speeds ( data rate ) shown above.

That will eliminate any internal wiring and will be the first thing that PlusNet will ask you to do as part of any fault investigation.

If there's any PlusNet staff around, a GEA test would be useful...

[#5]

Thanks @MisterW I will try this later this evening after I am finished working. Do I need a microfilter in the test socket? (suppose it dosnet matter/hurt, right?)

[#6]

@catherinealan Do I need a microfilter in the test socket? (suppose it dosnet matter/hurt, right?)

Strictly speaking, you don't NEED one, since it's only there to filter the phone connection. However you'll need one to provide the correct (RJ11) socket to plug the router into.

[#7]

@MisterW 

I connected directly to the test socket and the speed seems about the same

5. DSL uptime:	0 days, 00:02:21
6. Data rate:	19999 / 15789
7. Maximum data rate:	27123 / 91796
8. Noise margin:	15.6 / 31.1
9. Line attenuation:	19.9 / 15.8
10. Signal attenuation:	19.5 / 15.8

[#8]

@catherinealan  I appreciate the speed has stayed the same but those figures are very useful.

You will notice that the maximum data rate has increased substantially. These figures represent what the router thinks the line is capable of under ideal conditions and these have increased both upstream and downstream. In terms of actual speeds only the upstream has increased because, I believe the downstream is 'banded'. This banding is applied by the exchange when there are errors on the line caused by interference. The sync speed is reduced, which reduces the impact of the noise by increasing the noise margin.

The fact that the noise margin has increased drastically when in the test socket means that the interference which caused the banding is internal to your property. So we need to find out what is causing that. Once that's done and remedied , then PlusNet can get the banding removed. Although it may take a while because priority is being given to people with no broadband or phone faults rather than speed faults.

Do you have any telephone extension sockets or wiring ? if so can you describe it ?

Do you have an alarm system wired to the phone line ?

[#9]

@MisterW Thank you very much for your help with this. It is very much appreiated and I did not mean to sound like a complaint in my last message. Glad we are getting somewhere.

To make sure I understand your last message correctly, are you saying that when connected to the test socket the numbers look "normal" except for the sofware limitation (banding) enforced by the exchange?

The setup in my home is quite simple. No alarms or anything like that. When the house was built (about 25 years ago) the master socket was installed along with extensions to 2 other rooms in the house. In the years since we have obviously got broadband and upgraded a few times, but there has always been some issues. We no longer use any landline phones and the phone line is only used for the internet connection (there are physically no phones connected in the house).

I have been suspicious of the wiriing in the past and disconnected the faceplates of the phone extensions. I had a look at these again today and did see a possible short to the metal casing of the face plate, which I resolved.

Looking closer at the master socket, you can see where the cables are spliced. Note: we had a house fire a few years ago (far away from the phone socket) but you can see smoke damage inside the master socket. Thats what the black is.

For your information I have been keeping an eye on the router stats today also.

After fixing possible short (still in test socket):

5. DSL uptime:	0 days, 02:04:16
6. Data rate:	19999 / 15789
7. Maximum data rate:	27123 / 91800
8. Noise margin:	15.6 / 31.1
9. Line attenuation:	19.9 / 15.8
10. Signal attenuation:	19.5 / 15.8

Replacing master socket faceplate and plugging back into the "normal" socket. Clearly fixing short didnt help;

5. DSL uptime:	0 days, 00:05:34
6. Data rate:	5039 / 15789
7. Maximum data rate:	5061 / 33401
8. Noise margin:	7.4 / 13.2
9. Line attenuation:	41.5 / 30.6
10. Signal attenuation:	40.4 / 42.5

Back to test socket

5. DSL uptime:	0 days, 00:41:44
6. Data rate:	19999 / 15789
7. Maximum data rate:	27131 / 91737
8. Noise margin:	15.6 / 31.1
9. Line attenuation:	19.9 / 15.8
10. Signal attenuation:	19.5 / 15.8

I no longer need the extension sockets around my house and am happy to just have the master socket by the front door. Does the data from the test socket tell us that the issue could be with the wiring pictured above?

Thanks again for your help.

[#10]

If you don't use the extensions then I'd be looking to disconnect them at the master socket if I were you. That's essentially what plugging into the test socket is doing.
Your socket's pretty old though, so God knows what the back of it looks like.
There's normally a pair of wires terminated on the back of the faceplate for the feed into your house (maybe connected to terminals labelled 'A' and 'B'). Any other cable pairs are likely to be feeding the extensions and can be disconnected. If you're not confident, you could enlist the help of a sparky.
Another option would be to raise a fault ticket as I'm guessing your speeds are way below estimates. Fairly certain an OR engineer would replace the master socket as a matter of course. The question is whether or not they'd charge due to the problem lying with your internal wiring

[#11]

When FTTC was first installed OR would fit a filtered master socked as well as one of their modems. Alas they stopped after a few years and things changed to customer install the ISP supplied router. When customers complained the ISP would send OR to investigate, and the filtered master socket would be fitted.

There should not be a charge for this, as OR own the Master Socket.

[#12]

@catherinealan  dont worry , I didn't see your post as a complaint. I was trying to say that whilst the speed hadn't actually increased, the figures showed why that was.

I'm a little confused as to the wiring though, normally any extension wiring would be attached to the back of the removable faceplate. Hence when you remove it to use the test socket, you disconnect all extensions thus removing any effect they might be having. With yours, the extension wiring seems to be connected inside the socket. With wiring like that, you would not expect removing the faceplate to make any difference, but it certainly does!. I'm assuming there are no wires attached to the back of the removable faceplate ?

That wiring is not very good at all though, it looks more like mains cable than telephone cable!

However whatever the wiring is doing doesn't seem to be the problem, it appears to be purely the removable faceplate causing the problem. Can you photo the front and back of the faceplate, maybe its damaged ?

What do you think @bobpullen , the attenuation skyrockets when connected to the faceplate, could it really just be a damaged connector on the faceplate ? If we can get to the bottom of it, what are the chances of a remote DLM reset ?

[#13]

If BT fitted the extensions then that's easy to argue. If they didn't, it's not quite as clear cut. I honestly doubt it would end up being chargeable but if there's any possibility then it's only prudent I mention it.

[#14]

@MisterW, that's a very valid point.

[#15]

@bobpullen   your post crossed with my edit , you mean the fact that it just appears to be a faceplate problem ?