[Resolved 8/1/10] 5 - 90 Min into the call and drops out

[beverly]

Update

upgraded Rogers plan from Express 10mb down and 512k up to Extreme 10mb down and 1mb up
Still getting random dropped calls...

[marginal]

My ISP is Cogeco. I doubt if it's anything to do with the provider.

Mine is Acanac.

[marginal]

Router is the single most likely thing causing this, even if port forwarding is done, the router may still have some other option somewhere that isn't playing nicely with VOIP until modified.

My ATA is located before the router, so the problem can not be router related.

[Timmi]

Cable is shared bandwidth on every connection. QoS could help, reserving a minimum the bandwidth for calls (prioritization), but only in your home - once outside, it has no effect on the rest of the network's segment, and it's a free-for-all. Heavy downloads will cause bandwidth interruptions. Throttling may be interfering as well. This having been said, I am on BELL. There is only one subscriber per connection, and it all goes into huuuuuge routers at the CO that don't have the slightest congestion issue.

Despite this, I ALSO EXPERIENCE DROPPED CALLS with a WiFi phone but NOT with the SOFTPHONE app.

[tbrummell]

Throttling may be interfering as well. This having been said, I am on BELL. There is only one subscriber per connection, and it all goes into huuuuuge routers at the CO that don't have the slightest congestion issue.

Despite this, I ALSO EXPERIENCE DROPPED CALLS with a WiFi phone but NOT with the SOFTPHONE app.

I love it when DSL users spread misinformation regarding cable internet. Yes, it is shared infrastructure. BUT, to say that *every* cableco has congestion issues is boarder line slander. My connection with Rogers is great, 10Mb/sec all day long with burst of 25M/sec. Not sure I like this new burst setup they have, but it sure does make <1Meg files download uber fast. So before you go on about cable users having congestion due to their neighbours download habits, do a little research first.

PS: if having your OWN direct connection to the telco eliminates congestion problems, when is Bell trying to implement UBB? One of their main fighting points is congestion. Strange huh? I just re-read the part I quoted, that kills me...."huuuuuge routers at the CO that don't have the slightest congestion issue." LoL Too funny.

[Timmi]

I love it when DSL users spread misinformation regarding cable internet. Yes, it is shared infrastructure. BUT, *every* cableco has congestion issues is boarder line slander. My connection with Rogers is great, 10Mb/sec all day long with burst of 25M/sec. Not sure I like this new burst setup they have, but it sure does make <1Meg files download uber fast. So before you go on about cable users having congestion due to their neighbours download habits, do a little research first.

PS: if having your OWN direct connection to the telco eliminates congestion problems, when is Bell trying to implement UBB? One of their main fighting points is congestion. Strange huh? I just re-read the part I quoted, that kills me...."huuuuuge routers at the CO that don't have the slightest congestion issue." LoL Too funny.

Dude it's not a p!ssing contest on who is evil and who is not and who has a faster download speed than the website can sent it to you at anyways. Such nasty replies are not helpful. And yes, I did actually get to visit a CO and actually see them! I work in the industry. (and they are huge, taking up an entire rack with a backbone of well over 100GB/s). I never used the term "every cableco", and your making personal attacks is highly offensive and wayyy out of line!!! We fail to see how your 1 file download speed marketing hype is in any way pertinent to this thread! I refrained from flaunting that I have fibre and that I have higher upload speeds than you, as it's not part of the issue. The point is, even when we eliminate the sporadic bottlenecks on a shared piece of coaxial cable that has the whole street on it, by going to a different infrastructure, there are still dropped calls. It should constitute more clues as to where to look. (and I don't see why you didn't view that as positivity in defense of cablecos, as it doesn't seem to be an advantage).

[laurent]

This having been said, I am on BELL. There is only one subscriber per connection, and it all goes into huuuuuge routers at the CO that don't have the slightest congestion issue.

That is completely wrong. All DSL lines that aren't connected directly into an alternate ISP's DSLAM equipment is going to touch the shared network of Bell (even it you're not with Bell), and this portion of the network (which isn't the internet yet) is heavily throttled by Bell. In fact, this has caused quite an uproar a few years ago, and certain alternative ISPs offer specialized DSL connections called MLPPP single lines that are used for the specific purpose of circumventing Bell's throttling of their last-mile-to-the-CO segment.

Additionally, as it's been pointed out, cable networks no longer suffer from "neighborhood hog" they had when they first deployed their networks over a decade ago. Lines are now aggregated to neighborood network segments connected via optic fiber that is an order of magnitude faster than everyone's internet combined. Why? Because cable companies are planning for the future, and they want to offer more than "just internet" to consumers. Your cable TV now passes through those IP networks, not the analog signal anymore...

[Timmi]

That is completely wrong. All DSL lines that aren't connected directly into an alternate ISP's DSLAM equipment is going to touch the shared network of Bell (even it you're not with Bell), and this portion of the network (which isn't the internet yet) is heavily throttled by Bell. In fact, this has caused quite an uproar a few years ago, and certain alternative ISPs offer specialized DSL connections called MLPPP single lines that are used for the specific purpose of circumventing Bell's throttling of their last-mile-to-the-CO segment.

Additionally, as it's been pointed out, cable networks no longer suffer from "neighborhood hog" they had when they first deployed their networks over a decade ago. Lines are now aggregated to neighborood network segments connected via optic fiber that is an order of magnitude faster than everyone's internet combined. Why? Because cable companies are planning for the future, and they want to offer more than "just internet" to consumers. Your cable TV now passes through those IP networks, not the analog signal anymore...

That is why I mentioned the throttling. But it is only triggered by certain behavior, such as torrents, as far as I can understand following some reading up on that.

Multi-Link PPP is a way of aggregating connections. It is the resellers' way of circumventing the fact that Bell was not offering them the same speeds to resell as Bell was offering to their own customers. A recent CRTC decision orders Bell to put into place service offerings to resellers giving them the possibility to offer higher speeds to their end-users. So you will likely see the marketing hype of resellers change in the near future. How is "cable companies planning for the future" (aren't ALL players doing that?) and other insertion of marketing hype pertinent to the issue of dropped calls? Are you saying MLPPP does NOT have the dropped calls issue? I am not clear on why you brought that up.

[laurent]

There seems to be some confusion. We were diverging briefly the thread to discuss about internet provider technologies and their pitfalls when it comes to the last mile. It is, in no way, relevant to your issue of dropped calls.

And no, not all players plan properly for the future. Some of them inevitably face harsh consequences when they can't meet consumer demands in time and other players come into play.

By the way, you don't have fibre, you have Fibe. It's rebranded ADSL2+ and VDSL2. Unless you have Optimax?

Now about your problem, I went back and read some of your recent posts in 2 or 3 threads discussing the issues you had setting it all up. To be honest, I think the problem lies with your Bell 2wire modem/router. Something doesn't feel right, given that when you were forwarding your ports it was still not working. I bet something in the 2wire is causing a disruption of the connection after some time.

I wonder if it's possible to put that modem in bridge mode, where it doesn't do any NAT, and then plug the ATA directly in it to test? Routers are a frequent cause of trouble with VoIP, D-Link being one of the popular cause of trouble...

[tbrummell]

I refrained from flaunting that I have fibre and that I have higher upload speeds than you, as it's not part of the issue.

LoL! Now we really know your technical prowess. You don't have fibre, nice try though. Only Verizon FiOS and Bell Optimax are dropping fibre at the house. Ohhh, just read further, I see laurent already schooled you on that. Peace out!

[laurent]

I'll admit that Bell are being jerks at confusing the consumers with names sounding similar to high-tech stuff. "Fibe" ? That's awful. What are they going to do when they actually bring fibre? (I exclude Optimax as it's more of a trial than anything else).

It's like the LED TVs you see. They're not LED TVs at all, they're regular LCD TVs, with an LED backlight instead of CFL. What are they going to do when actual LED TV technology makes it to retail? OLED I guess..

[Timmi]

I'll admit that Bell are being jerks at confusing the consumers with names sounding similar to high-tech stuff. "Fibe" ? That's awful. What are they going to do when they actually bring fibre? (I exclude Optimax as it's more of a trial than anything else). It's like the LED TVs you see. They're not LED TVs at all, they're regular LCD TVs, with an LED backlight instead of CFL. What are they going to do when actual LED TV technology makes it to retail? OLED I guess..

You prefer rogers, it is obvious(and that's just fine). Optimax started being marketed in 2006. Fibre covers the last mile to the pole, and the last 10 meters, from the pole to the premises, are copper. However, with the FTTH (fibre to the home) initiative, the last 10 meters are also fibre. Yes, "fibe" is a marketing buzzword, and you may not like it, but it basically designates what used to be called "optimax" which is phased out (not the new infrastructure, just the optimax plans). (optimax=fibe... it's just a remaniement of service plans reflected by new marketing terms).

But once again, HOW is this bringing us closer to resolving the dropped calls issue? How is it pertinent to this forum thread? Fibre optic just lets you go longer distances without signal loss or need for repeaters... even if the infrastructure would be copper instead of fibe, it is still the same topology versus coax topology. I remember working in LANs in the 80's, and we were so happy when coax was phased out in favor of the modern structure on TP. Running data networks over an old coax type infrastructure is just archaic in terms of reliability (a segment goes down and the whole street is down! as opposed to the DSL structure where if one goes down, you have one single customer down, not a hundred). Sure their coax infrastructure has improved... now it is in the 3 figures, instead of in the 4 figures, the amount of subscribers on a single coax segment... but statistically speaking it's still multiplying by 100 your chances of failure.

We can go round and round on the marketing hype issues and flaunting who prefers what and why... but it's not useful to us finding a problem resolution to the dropped calls issue. So can we just put the hatchet away and get on with the main topic please?

[laurent]

Why are you criticizing my post for being irrelevant to your problem, yet you spend two whole paragraphs discussing about the good old days of terminating resistors and various levels of rebranding? If all you want is to discuss your dropped calls, by all means, stop talking about everything else.

Might I remind you this is a public user forum, where the public users (like you and me), come to discuss and exchange. I come here to talk with people about technology, internet, telephony, and try to help them out while we're at it, to give back a bit to the community of this company. I'm not paid by anyone to be here. If all we were allowed to do was to provide support to other users, this forum would be empty and you would be talking to yourself.

Additionally, you're replying to a very old thread that is marked RESOLVED. Perhaps the first step to having a thread of discussion dedicated to your problem is to start a dedicated discussion about your problem?

I don't prefer cable over DSL, nor do I prefer DSL over cable. They're "means" to deliver internet to me. I chose according to what I want, which is DSL right now.

Btw there's no hatchet to be put away, I don't see where you get any kind of "confrontational" posts. We're talking, about stuff, that's all. It's hard to convey "tone" in words, but rest assured, we're not in any sort of fight. It's not even a heated discussion.

[Timmi]

I really don't see why they marked it as "resolved"... maybe at some point they thought it was, but at the tail end of it I can read people mentioning they are still experiencing dropped calls. I do on a regular basis, but only with ATA or WIFi phone, not with the softphone app.

[laurent]

You seem to be technically inclined, so I would suggest you use the Wireshark capture and analysis tool to record the traffic between your ATA or WiFi phone and your modem, up to the point where it stops working. There's an integrated SIP filter analysis in Wireshark, so applying that filter could give you some insight about what happens "when the call drops".

Something else to try: contact the admins of this forum by PM and request that they look at the very specific time and date when you experienced a drop, and they could check the logs of their server to try and see if, on their end, there's an indication of why it failed.

It should be noted that most of this thread dates from before the server upgrade of last October. It's possible that the old problem doesn't exist anymore, and this is a new problem that should be diagnosed from scratch.

[Timmi]

It should be noted that most of this thread dates from before the server upgrade of last October. It's possible that the old problem doesn't exist anymore, and this is a new problem that should be diagnosed from scratch.

hmmm, good point.

as I mentioned elsewhere on this forum, I have a suspicion that the little video that plays on the softphone, is a simple QOS trick, to reserve a minimum amount of bandwidth for the call, by keeping that much busy at all times (reserving (and wasting) something like 64k or 128k of your bandwidth). This became apparent when I noticed the video stream stopped whenever a call was happening. It's very clever. When you have so many players/routers in between two end points, you can't control QOS all the way through, but with this little trick, you at least have some control over it all the way to your ISP's central infrastructure, which goes a long way towards eliminating much of the problems, as your segment is a small pipe compared to what the typical service provider (like fibernetics) would have going into the cloud.

Unless some magic can be done with a modem to reserve a pipe (64k-128k or so, as the video stream does), which is then released to a call, I suspect there is little that can be done for the ATAs.
I'm saying this, because QoS is only effective from end to end if both routers (and all in between) are cooperating and all have a common configuration for that "QoS connection" if I may call it that. Which your ISP will never do for you (unless you want to pay for that, monthly - ie: SIP services).

Here is the newer thread:
http://forum.freephoneline.ca/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1127