trparky wrote:
Wait, isn't that supposed to be a 25/2 profile... not 25/1.5?
I believe the proper (i.e. the designed) profile for iNID installations is actually 25/1.5.
iNID lines are (supposed to) be provisioned differently than normal single-line installations on a 3800HGV-B, 3801HGV, or 3600HGV. Normally, the VDSL2 frequency allocation (also called the "band plan") is as follows:
Downstream 1: 0.138 MHz - 3.75 MHz
Upstream 1: 3.75 MHz - 5.2 MHz
Downstream 2: 5.2 MHz - 8.5 MHz
This is a standard VDSL allocation and band plan, known as G993.2 allocation 8d, band plan 998.
For the iNID, the upstream band 1 is assumed to not be available due to distance, so the pair-bonded lines follow a different band plan that looks like this:
Upstream 0: 0.026 MHz - 0.138 MHz
Downstream 1: 0.138 MHz - 3.75 MHz
This is G993.2, allocation 8d, with a modified band plan 998. (For convenience, I'm going to call it band plan 998a).
I have 36 iNIDs in the database. 9 of them have line profiles that are approximately 25/2. Of those 9, 5 of them are using lines that are not provisioned properly for the iNID. Instead of their lines using band plan 998a as intended for the iNID, they're using 998. This allows them to use upstream band 1 instead of upstream band 0 and contributes to their ability to increase the upstream profile rate. Furthermore, these lines have upstream power levels in the 6-7 dBm range which is well above the other iNIDs. So I believe these 25/2 lines are actually not proper iNID installations.
The remaining 27 iNIDs are all using 998a lines, and nearly all of them have a resulting profile near 25/1.5. These lines also have an upstream power level of approximately -0.5 dBm, which is 6-7 dBm lower than the other 9 lines. I assume this is done to reduce cross-talk. I believe these are proper iNID installations.
The 1.5 Mbps upstream profile limitation is also the likely reason that the highest internet package available to iNID users is the 12/1. 18/1.5 would not run properly with a 25/1.5 line profile.
SomeJoe7777
