Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 5,712
If g fast isn't using SRA then the connection rate will be more stable. Due to high frequency from g fast with SRA are make it matter lots worsen as the speed keep degradation over the time
Gfast constant drops
- Thread starter TheGamingGeneral
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 5,712
This is why I went back to FTTC from G.fast after the past 12 months the speed does varies from 190-241 Meg - one of the worse case was drop to 145 Meg few times! BTw Checker estimated when I sign up to G.fast was Range A Clean 172 to 234 Meg.
G.fast are more higher sync rate in cold winter than hottest summer.
G.fast are more higher sync rate in cold winter than hottest summer.
A worst case rate of 145Mbps is still nearly double what the fastest FTTC service runs at, and your average is three times faster, so it's a bit of a broad statement to say it's "not fit for purpose".
I'd never recommend G.fast over FTTP but if it was available to me I'd at least give it a try I think.
I'd never recommend G.fast over FTTP but if it was available to me I'd at least give it a try I think.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 5,712
145 Meg as the isp warned me that G.fast are best on 160/30 rather than 330/50 but I upgraded to 330/50 took my own risk and knowing the speed drop to 145 Meg could have better off with 160/30 to save cost than the 330/50 product. But anyway I am back on cheapest FTTC 80/20. The ISP say G.fast are more reliable on those between 50m and 100m to the cabinet. Anything over 150m best on 160/30 product.
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 1,408
Well, 20 months on from my earlier post in this thread and I still get a very fast, stable gfast connection that I couldn't be happier with. In case anyone's interested...
[URL=https://www.speedtest.net/result/13252212934]
[/URL]
[URL=https://www.speedtest.net/result/13252212934]
[/URL]
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 5,712
That's because u are closer to the Gfast pod. It's ok for those who are within a stone throw next to the cabinet! Lucky you as U must on max data rate over 330/50 that why it rock solid for 20 months!
These are no benefits to me! Only 160/30.
These are no benefits to me! Only 160/30.
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 1,408
Yes. I am a lucky boy. 
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 5,712
Yes u are! If I was in the same shoe as you I would stayed with G.fast 330/50 if my house is right next to the G.fast pod!Yes. I am a lucky boy.
My last G.fast connection as Openreach test kit say 210/30 last year
Downstream Upstream
Line attenuation (dB): 37.4 0.0
Signal attenuation (dB): 37.4 0.0
Connection speed (kbps): 210576 30023
SNR margin (dB): 3.1 3.1
Power (dBm): 0.0 4.0
Interleave depth:
INP: 551.00 607.00
G.INP: Not enabled Not enabled
Vectoring status: Unknown
Last edited:
It has a fancy name but of course gfast is just another evolution of DSL. So the inherit problems with DSL will apply to gfast.
I too have observed what seems to be high fault conditions with the service, which is interesting, as it has vectoring, g.inp etc. However it is a very aggressive product in the amount of frequency it utilises on the old copper cables, and also uses SRA, SRA is great when it works properly but historically has been finicky to get working, I do wonder if they have it working 100% on gfast.
BT didnt deploy it the way it was designed either, it was designed to be deployed from nodes closer to the home than street cabinets, so an intermediate between VDSL and FTTP, but instead its only been deployed from cabinets so longer runs of copper been used.
As far as I know gfast rollout has almost stopped so BT appear to have recognised it was a bad decision.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 5,712
Yeah it was bad decision if line distance over 150m then the problem will start arise. Openreach say my line length are 187m from the G.fast pod with 210/30 as the max rate that my line can get.