tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post4798663017317191415..comments2024-03-27T17:30:11.247+00:00Comments on RevK<sup>®</sup>'s ramblings: Another little gem in the OFCOM CoPRevKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12369263214193333422noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-5012218606938206652017-10-14T13:59:50.315+01:002017-10-14T13:59:50.315+01:00Well, one could make up a range, yes, but one cann...Well, one could make up a range, yes, but one cannot produce a range from 20th to 80th percentile as OFCOM have said.RevKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369263214193333422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-90070708886293450792017-10-14T13:56:42.529+01:002017-10-14T13:56:42.529+01:00Surely there is still likely to be a range, as for...Surely there is still likely to be a range, as for most isps now a new customer will get a new modem, which may have slightly different characteristics, and of course, each time I power cycle my modem I will get a slightly different sync!rtho782https://www.blogger.com/profile/02052870855136709228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-63371456310428257422017-10-14T11:17:33.170+01:002017-10-14T11:17:33.170+01:00The mention of contention is interesting (or opens...The mention of contention is interesting (or opens another can of worms!) - without that, it could be taken as more rambling about sync speeds Ofcom don't quite understand - but they want "peak time" (arbitrarily defined as 12-2pm, which might come as a surprise to residential ISPs!) contention to be taken into account. So presumably a certain large ISP would have to start quoting "speeds" of zero, thanks to overselling backhaul to the point even web surfing is an exercise in futility...<br /><br />One bullet point does note that where the "range" is less than 2 Mbps you can just quote that figure instead, so at least there's a glimpse of sanity there.<br /><br />Perhaps this is all a devious ploy by Ofcom to make xDSL such a hassle to sell that Openreach get their finger out and offer FTTP properly instead?jas88https://www.blogger.com/profile/05563592458314214904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-15206510663320333192017-10-13T21:45:03.135+01:002017-10-13T21:45:03.135+01:00You can still give a range in this case - for exam...You can still give a range in this case - for example "between (known sync speed) and 0". Or maybe give a range between those extremes, and use some traffic shaping to ensure the effective line speed falls below, in and above your specified range 20%, 60%, 20% of the time respectively. Hard to argue with that; also hard to see how it would benefit anyone at all ever!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-91761398888136193492017-10-13T18:27:39.177+01:002017-10-13T18:27:39.177+01:00Well it says a range must be given 'where poss...Well it says a range must be given 'where possible'. If the sample size is 1 then it's not possible. So that's fine (if a bit strange) - you would quote a speed based purely on the current actual sync speed.<br /><br />The problem of is that an ISP like A&A who will take on knowingly faulty lines and try to improve them is hampered by this, because you would be required to quote the current sync speed as the speed you expect the line to achieve, even if you have reason to believe you can do much much better.<br /><br />But I don't see how this affects the 10% of lines issue. Irrespective of whether the estimate is given based on actual current sync speed the line is still grouped within the same set of "similar lines" and so it either is or is not still in the bottom 10% of those. Or am I missing something here?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00434430719717192188noreply@blogger.com