[qasdfdsaq]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Here's where my circuit differs. When I was on the 38/40 service, that is what I got. 38 meg.

As soon as the went to 17a, my download speed has never risen above 55 meg, which I put down to something in the 350 m to the cabinet. Aluminium, perhaps. I don't know if vectoring will help that situation.

Everybody's circuit differs, obviously yours is below average for a 76/20 customer but many in your situation wouldn't have gone for the upgrade at all (hence why the average is higher).

Vectoring won't help aluminium cable be less crap, but if that is being compounded by crosstalk then the latter will be helped.

---------- Post added at 23:58 ---------- Previous post was at 23:36 ----------

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

But you have to consider since there is a 40/10 and 40/2 product people who are unable to sync higher than 40 are likely to be on the lower product which in turn stuff's the stats somewhat. If my line only synced at 30mbit eg. why would I pay for the 80mbit package?

Well yes, that's certainly true. If everybody was on 76/20 then the averages would be lower, people who can't get more than 40/10 won't be contributing to the figures because they would be best off on the lower service. How many people would move from the lower band to the upper band as a result of vectoring improvements though, that's anybody's guess.

Whilst 140 is possible, its not a very high %, certianly not 10%. BT have learnt a little about managing expectations which is one reason we dont have vdsl max (fully rate adaptive no cap) by comparison to your city area example, I started off on 110mbit and am now down to a 71mbit sync, attainable is currently 70 so if I resync again my sync will go down.

Indeed, it's not often you see lines go that high but point is simple, it exists in the real world and it does happen. Not a very high % got 24Mbps on 24/2 either, but some still did. But yours is the exact situation that vectoring will drastically improve, bringing your line back up to 100+ without profile 30a which will further improve speeds drastically.

If someone syncs at 80 on a line that can do 100mbit and as such has a nice high snrm so little chance of been interleaved, they are much less likely to complain than someone with a line that can do the same 100mbit but the max speed is 140mbit on the product, the line is running at just 6db snrm, has too many errors, gets interleaved and the whole situation explodes. I think anything over 100mbit is very unlikely when vectoring is enabled unless its combined with bonding.

If 70% of people currently get 70+ and we assume they get similar amounts of crosstalk to you, then that means 70% of people will get over 100Mbps once vectoring is enabled. That certainly doesn't concur with the idea anything over 100 is very unlikely. You said yourself your own line can do at least 110 (assuming your 110 result was at zero crosstalk).

Personally I think BT wont touch profile 30, gfast will come after vectoring.

Perhaps, but it seems you are "widely" disagreed with:

http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php...s-bt-fttc.html

A further speed boost is also likely to surface in 2013 when BT is widely expected to increase its spectrum allocation to 30MHz (Profile 30a), which could result in headline speeds of above 100Mbps (BT hinted to ISPreview.co.uk last year that 120Mbps was a possibility)

Also the way the dslam vendors are marketing vectoring to companies like BT is not to roll out lines pushing vdsl2 to the absolute limits but rather allowing rollout of speeds of 100mbit at 400m, isp's using whats capable at 400m as the benchmark.

So when the majority of urban lines are <350m, and the national average line length is around 400-500m, and the "benchmark" is 100Mbit at 400m, then how do you come up with the conclusion 100Mbit is "very unlikely"?

Supposedly some others think vectoring + 17a provides 100Mbit out to 600m, not 400.

I respect your opinion and I hope you respect mine, but given the farce adsl2+ is/was with marketed speeds I dont think BT want a repeat and as such will not market speeds based on a 0m attainable distance

Marketing and attainability are always different, as you know. But I'd rather have an "Up to 24Mbps" service that does "Up to 24Mbps" than have what I am actually getting obfuscated by some arbitrary "realistic" marketing horsecrap when I can no longer tell if what I'm getting is really "Up to 16Mbps" or actually "Up to 24Mbps". Even then, marketing a 24Mbps service as 16Mbps is one thing, artificially capping everybody on a 24Mbps service to 16Mbps is another. In that vein, I'd rather have an "Up to 200Mbps" service knowing full well my line was likely to be able only do 120 instead of having an artificially capped "Up to 100Mbps" service knowing full well my line was actually able to do 120. Why penalize people who actually live 0m from the cab.