Now what have I done?

In message <ujlhgi$1efse$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me, Andrew snipped-for-privacy@btinternet.com writes snip

Interesting. Wifi barely reaches my office. How would I check?

Hmm. I had a string of restarts and decided to roll back. Probably totally confused W7

For the avoidance of doubt, my Network adapters list has no wireless adapter or wifi.

No, he's ingested an actually update (KB4539601). A real McCoy.

That update is in the Optional section of Windows Update, and not in the regular section.

Admin window:

wusa /uninstall /kb:4539601 /quiet # Be patient. The CPU should be busy right now. # There is no visual indicator... until it reboots itself.

It will reboot.

If you check Windows Update, it should now be back in the Optional section and waiting waiting waiting for a chance to sneak in.

I did a complete test, installed OS, patched up, speedtest.net, install '601, speedtest.net, and there was some weirdness. Speed dropped to about 60% of normal. After uninstalling'601, and speedtest.net again, I was back to "rated speed".

Also, while '601 was installed, I got the "EOL warning dialog" across the screen at boot-complete time.

And another weirdness, is if I stepped the system backward and forward with System Restore, the Windows Update history would not change. Even though there is a reboot after every one of those, so state info should refresh. That's why the recipe above, contains no mention at all about System Restore. Because it just didn't seem to matter. Only WUSA (Windows Update Stand Alone) removal method, made a difference, and the only way to "measure success", was to check Windows Update and see that it is now waiting in the list again.

Paul

It is very hard to see how unless it has a virus that is using the internet, that could cause a slow download rate.

I was able to reproduce it, in a limited sense.

After '601 is installed, I did a Speedtest.net test and my network speed measured via a Win7 VM, was cut in half.

I removed '601 and the speed came back to spec (the "contract rate").

wusa /uninstall /kb:4539601 /quiet

It will reboot, right after that finished.

WUSA stands for Windows Update Stand Alone.

What I also found weird, is the System Restore point didn't affect the Windows Update work. I could roll back, and the damn update was still inside C: . It looks like you can roll back and forward, and "not fix it".

But the WUSA should fix it. Backup first, then give it a try.

Doing

wusa /?

gives the Help, but there's nothing in there that adds any debugging value particularly.

Paul

Hmm. Seems to be fixed!

Engineer changed the incoming socket and cable without benefit.

Agreed that the download speed was well below line capacity.

Initially finger pointed at router or internal house wiring connections.

Just before leaving, he contacted someone who was able to reset some external device which monitors and controls the router data speed.

Eureka!

Ok Paul. Thanks for your time.

I'm inclined to leave it alone for a few days and see what happens. I'll have a look at the wusa help and see if I'm capable:-)

Back up today!

As a general rule a wired ethernet connection will be faster and less prone to random change in performance than a wifi connection. So if one's internet connectivity includes wifi at any point in the chain, then that introduces an additional layer of complexity that may need investigation.

I often find when there is a complaint of "slow internet" it is wise to check that it is not actually a case of "slow wifi". Especially as this can be caused by some change not even under the owners control, like a neighbour setting up a new wifi access point on the same wifi channel as yours, or getting a new leaky microwave!

However in this case we can rule out a wifi problem due to your total lack of wifi on the PC :-)

In your other post at 15:11 on 22/11 you mentioned that the WAN speed reported in the routers management page matched what you were seeing on your speed test results.

Since the WAN speed will represent the maximum performance that you are going to get it strongly suggests that the PC itself is not part of the problem.

The post from Paul is interesting. I'm inclined to leave things alone but his findings appear to show a similar effect. The upcoming W11 move is a disincentive.

Remote throttling triggered by some W7 glitch seems to be the cause.

This could be caused if they swapped line pairs for some reason. They can be sneaky, and do this while you are sleeping.

I looked out the window here one day, and a guy was about to disconnect my ADSL. He said he was switching me to another pair, so perhaps the pair I had, was being given to a VDSL customer. The lines are sorted according to "goodness", and that's how they know which pair to give to which customer.

A rock solid 13meg, means there is five hundred feet or less of line pair, to the terminating equipment.

When you're getting 1.8 down, now you're talking a pair that goes all the way back to the Central Office. That's how I used to get my ADSL (before ADSL2 showed up). Having the connection terminated in a pedestal at the end of the road, really cuts down on wire length and impairment.

ADSL works on "frequency bins", and if a single bin is impaired, then the other bins continue to work. But when you're dealing with 6000 meters of wire, all frequencies are attenuated, so the overall rate has to drop. This is why the original ADSL achieved such bad rates, using wire going all the way to the Central Office.

Some ADSL modems, have a frequency response graph you can download from the unit. And this is a way to "characterize" your line. There should be some amount of "unallocated margin", and this means the line will have good error rate characteristics at the frequency offered. This is a judgment call by the operator, as setting the line too high, only "delivers bad data faster". This means your original line may have been capable of running 16 or 17, but they artificially set it to 13, to give unallocated margin. Using the modem chart that keeps track of performance, it's possible to decide whether you should phone up and say "hey, the chart says I can be bumped from 13 to 14". Not all modems have that -- if I upgrade the firmware on my current ADSL modem in fact, that interface has been removed from my model.

Dialup modems also had frequency bins, so this is not actually an alien innovation. It's a kind of continuation of some old tech. To dump the bins on a dialup modem, you wait until the session is terminated, and then there is a command that returns the bin data. Whereas on the few ADSL modems that have the data interface, you can get that info while the connection remains running (the protocol might be telnet, to the modem).

Paul

snip

I think the nearest cabinet is 600m. Mostly overhead.

The engineer said his line test gave a maximum 17meg.

On the *MS roll-up* install... did you spot any benefits as I am inclined to leave well alone!

Ah. Ho hum.

It certainly was.

from his master socket....

Yes. If the line is consistently showing errors the DSLAM in the exchange simply lowers the maximum connect speed and this needs a manual reset to default.

No. Your DSL router, the exchange equipment or the connection between them had the issue The equipment at your end after the router wont affect the speed between the exchange and you.

Hmm. Another glitch at 6.30 this evening. M/c restarted and connection came back at roughly half the earlier speed.

Couple of curiosities. My speed check displays my location and where the test is coming from. For years, my location has displayed as *Houghton Regis* about 10 miles away. After this mornings fix the location was Knebworth, even closer. The seriously low speeds put me at Leicester!

The other issue is that opening the network connection and signing in does not function and gives an error number which is meaningless to me! Computer re-start has been the way to re-connect.

Motor Cycle?

Get a new carburettor?

Remember that the WAN side of the router has no knowledge of what is connected at the LAN side. More so at the DSLAM on the other end of you ADSL line. So if the router and the DSLAM have negotiated a lower line rate, it will be as a result of the local line conditions, and might also be influenced by other metrics of "line stability".

(for example, the DSLAM can interpret frequent disconnections as a metric of poor line quality, and may adapt the data rate down to mitigate. That is why you are advised not to turn the router off at night since the daily disconnections might fool the equipment into thinking it has a poor stability connection, and rate adapt slower to "fix" it. They router / DSLAM will also train over a period of days - so that adaptation can be quite slow. Hence why sometimes fixing a line fault does not immediately get back to the original speed).

So if a glitch caused by windows did reduce your maximum ethernet throughput, you might see that reflected in lower internet download speeds[1], but the sync speed reported by the modem would be unaffected, which is why that is a useful pointer as to where the throttling is happening.

Indeed. I now suspect intermittent line faults might be the cause rather than the computer re-starts during the MS roll up debacle.

Currently the router is climbing back toward the normal speed after a major drop yesterday evening.

The overhead cable passes through trees bordering a river and is clearly in contact with the branches of a young Willow. The gusty wind is waving the branches and perhaps abrading the insulation. Chainsaw time perhaps!