Re: Poor VM Connection, strange TBB quality monitor etc..
 

FTTN. The C doesn't get F on VM, only the F N's do.

As for the graphs, I've never seen anything like it. Looks more like a problem at the CMTS end - either channelization or routing. You don't get those giant and sudden jumps in the green part of the graph from bad signal by any means...

Re: Poor VM Connection, strange TBB quality monitor etc..
 

Yeah - I suppose that distinction is valid.

Re: Poor VM Connection, strange TBB quality monitor etc..
 

I'm not working from home today so I can't measure just how good my connection is, but...

[img]Download Failed (1)[/img]

It looks to have stabalised in terms of where the blue bit stops, although I'm still concerned.

I'm debating emailing the director of transmission operations again, whos been dealing with my issues since September, but because i'm having no issues that show up on a speed-test, I don't know what exactly to tell him, or how to get VM to sort it out!

qasdfdsaq - what's the CMTS end??

Re: Poor VM Connection, strange TBB quality monitor etc..
 

The CMTS end is the VM end of the operatio. It's the massive server that puts out to and receives from several thoudand broadband users as well as sending out the TV stuff.

The graph you've posted can now be classified as BAD. You should take advantage of your handle on the TOD. When the average goes up like that then somethings spooking in the circuit. I would now expect you to see an effect on performance.

Re: Poor VM Connection, strange TBB quality monitor etc..
 

I've dropped him an email. He's usually really good at responding within a few hours so I'll let you know what he comes back with.

Sorry for all the questions I keep asking. I like to have a good idea of what's going on before I fire off emails. If I have a vague idea of what I'm talking about they might take notice, rather than just saying "my graph looks bad". Ha.

Re: Poor VM Connection, strange TBB quality monitor etc..
 

Do a proper ping test - ping -n 100 www.bbc.co.uk or something like that. I'd like to see if the graph is actually representative of most paths or just TBB's network

Re: Poor VM Connection, strange TBB quality monitor etc..
 

Pinging www.bbc.net.uk [212.58.246.90] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=61ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=193ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=562ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=155ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=280ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=385ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=562ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=110ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=132ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=102ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=114ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=138ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=98ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=97ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=96ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=77ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=61ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=646ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=292ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=314ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=499ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=161ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=321ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=83ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=85ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=193ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=122ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=64ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=83ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=37ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=156ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=96ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=32ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=94ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=46ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=907ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=179ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=245ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=348ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=58ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=285ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=432ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=58ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=97ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=52ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=71ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=55ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=37ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=56ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=84ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=165ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=334ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=532ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=195ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=233ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=407ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=59ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.246.90: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=53

Ping statistics for 212.58.246.90:
Packets: Sent = 100, Received = 100, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 22ms, Maximum = 907ms, Average = 128ms

---------- Post added at 22:15 ---------- Previous post was at 22:15 ----------

I did type in bbc.co.uk.... Not sure why it came up with .net.uk!

Re: Poor VM Connection, strange TBB quality monitor etc..
 

.net.uk is right dont worry about that. no loss which is good.

Re: Poor VM Connection, strange TBB quality monitor etc..
 

That's fairly consistent with the TBB graph. Good call by Qasi to ask for that.

Re: Poor VM Connection, strange TBB quality monitor etc..
 

My vm contact didn't actually reply, no out of office either... Shocking. I sent a text to the PT. he's back on Monday, hopefully he'll pop out to my house to see what the fuss is all about

---------- Post added at 22:53 ---------- Previous post was at 22:30 ----------

Question: should I present that ping test to the Director of transmission operations.

Re: Poor VM Connection, strange TBB quality monitor etc..
 

I've had a reply :)

Long story short, he's got people looking at it. Can see the issues I'm having, no other customers on the same network as me is having these issues and so he's arranging a specialist to visit my house to take a look.

What a carry on.

Re: Poor VM Connection, strange TBB quality monitor etc..
 

Jumping from 24ms to 900ms in one second, though no packet loss. Crazy.

Re: Poor VM Connection, strange TBB quality monitor etc..
 

I used to be angry... now I just think it's amusing, especially as my graphs/results seem to baffle everyone. As long as they keep whacking out the credits while it's not working and fix it at some point soon for good it's not bothering me.

I rarely use the internet at the moment for anything other than downloading mixes and the occasional browsing... its my other half that's taken the hit as he plays fifa, or rather he used to before this started happening a few month ago!

I'll let you know what my guy comes back with!

---------- Post added at 13:18 ---------- Previous post was at 12:21 ----------

Ashleigh

Please do not apologise, I am personally and proifessionally embarrassed that your service is still not as you need.

I have been working this morning to arrange the necessary people for you

The work we did last night has given us hopefully the answers towards rectifying your issues

We will need to look at your home setup and settings also though

It will be a combination of possibly Graham on site and a remote specialist who did a lot of analysis last night

Will advise soonest on a date / time to suit you




Regards

Hugh.


---
Looks like we're getting somewhere :)

Re: Poor VM Connection, strange TBB quality monitor etc..
 

JDAST is the one to rely on. Good that you've got it going now.

Your upstream is so poor that:

1/
JDAST can't get in to perform the upload speed test

2/
You're getting packet loss. I get zero packet loss 100% of the time and so should you. It could be discards due to utilisation or it could be noise on the upstream (which is what I suspect).

Your contact at VM really needs to look at the upstream, IMO.

Re: Poor VM Connection, strange TBB quality monitor etc..
 

Well... I got a text from the PT who said he would be coming through tomorrow evening.

Me and my other half have moved the router because we've put the christmas tree up... It was unplugged for a short while, and now it's back on the graph's looking, well... Normal?!

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ping/s...02-12-2012.png

No doubt it will rise again, but at the minute, I'm having no issues. Just done another ping test too. Now I'm worried that they will come out and say everythings fine. Something must not be if it's causing issues like I've had all weekend.


Pinging www.bbc.net.uk [212.58.244.69] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=45ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=41ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=38ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=45ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=36ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=34ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=30ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=42ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=40ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=26ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=35ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=37ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=33ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=27ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=44ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=31ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=53ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=28ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=22ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=53
Reply from 212.58.244.69: bytes=32 time=23ms TTL=53

Ping statistics for 212.58.244.69:
Packets: Sent = 100, Received = 100, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 19ms, Maximum = 60ms, Average = 26ms