UPC Wireless Speeds on 100MB line?

DamoKen

Hi all, just moved to UPC on Saturday and using the 7 day cooling off period to assess the line.

Three things I've noticed which are a concern.

1. Wireless Speed
   
   According to the UPC site

   In optimum circumstances you can expect to achieve 74Mb when connected wirelessly using an "N" class modem.

   So far I'm not experiencing anything like that. Admitedly most of my testing has been on my Samsung Nexus which has Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n, dual-band but going from that spec theoretically I should be able to achieve speeds between 15, 30, 45, 60, 90, 120, 135, 150. However the closest I've managed is 10.09 when standing right over the router (which is in the attic by the way which the guy who installed said would not affect speed).
   
   In my living room speeds are varying between .3 and 3Mbps. Out of curiosity I've also tested my speed on my provider (Vodaphone) and found this has actually been faster on a couple of occasions! Finally logged into my neighbours wireless router (with their permission) from my garden last night, their 5MB line gave a speed of 4.5Mbps download, upload of 2.1 and ping of 54ms compared to mine of .8 download, 3.4 upload and ping of 191ms. I'm using Speedtest for android by the way.
   
   Also ran a quick test on my brothers laptop and discovered similiar speed issues. Forgot to ask what his wireless card was but it's a fairly recent machine so doubt it's the old protocol.
   
   Forgetting what the blurb on UPC's site says what speeds should I be able to realistically expect via wireless on 100MB line? I'm thinking of picking up a dual band N wireless adapter on my way home to rule out problems with my phone and laptop and connect to a recently built pc.
   
   The router by the way is the Thompson.
   
   
2. Variable Cat5 Speeds
   
   This looks to have been covered in another thread so won't go into it apart from mentioning that I've also been experiencing massive fluctuation in speeds, from 10Mb to 85Mb but seems to average in the 30's which is what I'd expect from a 50 rather than 100MB line.
   
   
3. Phone Line
   
   I've had to put my base station into the attic itself and connect directly to the phone point on the router. From my previous installation all internal points go back to the attic (cat 5) as well as my phone line. The guy from UPC who did the installation said I should be able to connect the router directly to the phone point in the attic and my base station downstairs which is connected to a phone point would then be connected. Doesn't work, instead just get a very loud regular noise, almost like an alarm of some sort

Any idea on realistic wireless speeds as well as the other issues really appreciated. 3 days to decide whether or not to cancel so want to make sure to try all options before then.

Thanks

PogMoThoin

God, don't know where to start with this one.

Wireless speeds are never guaranteed and will depend on many variables like obstacles, structure and interference from devices in or nearby your home. Try changing channel to see if performance is better on another channel. Also, use something other than a mobile phone to test wireless speeds.

You're not paying for 100mbit, you're paying for a share of 100mbit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contention_ratio

DamoKen

Hi PogMoThoin, yeah aware of contention and figured that was the issue in the evenings especially as that's when speeds really drop off. However when I asked the UPC sales guy who called and signed me up about this he said contention is not an issue with UPC. This has also seemed to be part of their marketing campaign? Anyways went home for lunch and checked the download speed over a line and back up in the 80MB range which is consistent with results from yesterday and Monday.

Also logged into the admin console to change the channel and see if that helped and came across something a bit weird. 802.11 band was set to 2.4Ghz and Band was set to 20 Mhz. Changed these to 5Ghz and 40Mhz and voila, blistering fast wireless speeds!

Bought a NetGear N600 dualband wireless router on the way home as well so results are below.

On Speedtest averaging between 65-85Mb download, 6Mb upload and ping beween 15 and 25ms.

On my phone 5 min to download ubuntu (695MB) so 2.31MB ps
Using the new wireless adapter on my pc same file took 1.22 min so 8.47MB ps!!!

Very happy with the results so reckon come the end of the 7 day period might just find myself staying despite the drop in the evenings

vibe666

i wouldn't be counting on my phone to be able to download anything at optimal speeds, even if it is a newer model with 802.11n as the phone may not be able to process that amount of data all at once.

DamoKen

vibe666 wrote: »

i wouldn't be counting on my phone to be able to download anything at optimal speeds, even if it is a newer model with 802.11n as the phone may not be able to process that amount of data all at once.

Hi Vibe, yeah wanted to get a more accurate test using a standard wireless card hence the dongle. Phone did allow for handy testing on optimal locations in the house however

Figured in the end that the default settings on the router are more than likely to allow for older cards to work. Think this was confirmed once I upped the speeds as my brothers laptop could no longer even detect the signal let alone connect.

Haven't had a chance to check his card yet but guessing it's an older spec 802.11b\g card. Going to check the router options later to see if I can configure for these cards as well as 802.11n

vibe666

you will generally find that with mixed mode wireless (i.e. wireless G & N used together) the slower G connection(s) will drag down the overall performance of the N one(s) unless it has dual band and dual radios to totally separate the wireless traffic.

having said that, i'm pretty sure i picked up a decent dual band intel abgn mini pci wifi card for my laptop for about 15 quid off ebay a year or so ago and it works perfectly. i'm sure you can get cheaper if you go with an atheros or other cheapy chipset, but i've had some reliability issues with cheaper cards, so i tend to spend a bit extra for something with a feeling of reliability and will normally do some research to find out what's good around the time of purchase.

zg3409

To get 100Mbps you really need to use a cable.

Also the UPC Cable modem wireless has two transmitters. One for 2.4Ghz and one for 5.8Ghz. By default they are both set to the same name UPCxxxx xxxx

For least interference from neighbours you need a wireless card that supports 802.11A which is 5.8Ghz.

However 5.8Ghz is blocked by walls more. So ideally you need the UPC box as close as possible to where you will be connecting.

As others have said do not allow any old wirless devices to connect on 2.4 as they will slow everything down.

For max speed

1) Move the UPC box to right beside where you want to work
2) Make sure any wireless device is 802.11a and close to the router
3) If possible run a cable to the box especially for any device that will download a lot.

Ignore what salespeople tell you. UPC's system has contention. The contention depends on the number of houses sharing the one fibre connection, the number of those houses that have signed up to UPC, the speed they have paid for, and the number of people that happen to be downloading the second you try to download.

Speed can also be limited depending on the distance your house is from the fibre head end, as the cable modem tries to connect at high speed and if it fails it will connect slower.

For 20Mbps users they may not notice much of a slow down in the evenings, but with 100Mbps you will notice more, assuming you have some way to tell, which may people do not.

vibe666

pretty sure it's just 5ghz, not 5.8ghz. 5.8ghz is mostly used for newer video and/or audio transmission, not wifi.

it's also just wireless 802.11G & 802.11N with the UPC router, not 802.11A unless the new Cisco 3925 is different than the Thompson router they were previously providing, but as far as Ireland goes, the majority of people will be using 2.4 ghz G or N anyway, with only a few (inc. myself) using 5ghz as it is a much newer technology that most people don't seem to be using yet, going by the dozen or so 2.4ghz networks in range of my house and nothing except my own 5ghz network in range.

pizzahead77

zg3409 wrote: »

For least interference from neighbours you need a wireless card that supports 802.11A which is 5.8Ghz.

The problem with 8.02.11a is that its limited to 54Mbps so the OP won't get any more that that from his connection

zg3409

vibe666 wrote: »

pretty sure it's just 5ghz, not 5.8ghz. 5.8ghz is mostly used for newer video and/or audio transmission, not wifi.

it's also just wireless 802.11G & 802.11N with the UPC router, not 802.11A unless the new Cisco 3925 is different than the Thompson router they were previously providing, but as far as Ireland goes, the majority of people will be using 2.4 ghz G or N anyway, with only a few (inc. myself) using 5ghz as it is a much newer technology that most people don't seem to be using yet, going by the dozen or so 2.4ghz networks in range of my house and nothing except my own 5ghz network in range.

I have the Cisco. It has 5.8 and it is indeed 5.8 the same as newer video senders/cameras etc. Hence licence exempt.

The problem with 8.02.11a is that its limited to 54Mbps so the OP won't get any more that that from his connection

I have 802.11N over 802.11a so I get the same speed as 2.4 but over 5.8. 802.11N does not specify 2.4 nor 5.8

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11

So a device that is 802.11a and 802.11n can thoretically operate at 150Mbps. Note most new laptops and smarphones do not come with 5.8Ghz radio which is good for those that do as it means these frequencies are quiet compared to the normal 2.4 channels.

Cuddlesworth

pizzahead77 wrote: »

The problem with 8.02.11a is that its limited to 54Mbps so the OP won't get any more that that from his connection

With a actual through put of around 20mbs at best. Combined with crap range, client number limitations, slowdown of all other devices and a host of other issues as its a first gen wireless standard.

That post was such a bad piece of advise.

Currently the best solution is a dual band wireless N device(which UPC don't provide). Have your wireless N devices on the 5ghz freq where possible, wireless G on the 2.4ghz range. You will get the best throughput with this setup within reason.

zg3409

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

With a actual through put of around 20mbs at best. Combined with crap range, client number limitations, slowdown of all other devices and a host of other issues as its a first gen wireless standard.

That post was such a bad piece of advise.

Currently the best solution is a dual band wireless N device(which UPC don't provide). Have your wireless N devices on the 5ghz freq where possible, wireless G on the 2.4ghz range. You will get the best throughput with this setup within reason.

As I said the Cisco is dual band. However you should change the network name for 5.8 to something different so you can tell which you are connected to, but also to stop your laptop hopping onto 2.4 by mistake.

As I said
1) Cable
2) 802.11a (5.8Ghz)
3) 802.11G whatever.

I don't really recommend 802.11N on 2.4Ghz as there is so much noise on this band in any sort of housing estate setting.

Cuddlesworth

zg3409 wrote: »

I have the Cisco. It has 5.8 and it is indeed 5.8 the same as newer video senders/cameras etc. Hence licence exempt.

The range is 4915MHz to 5825MHz. Its commonly referred to as the 5GHz range.

zg3409 wrote: »

I have 802.11N over 802.11a so I get the same speed as 2.4 but over 5.8. 802.11N does not specify 2.4 nor 5.8

You can't enclose a 802.11N transmission within 802.11A broadcast. Its one or the other. When you attach any lesser standard to a broadcast, its downgrades the connection type.

zg3409 wrote: »

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11

So a device that is 802.11a and 802.11n can thoretically operate at 150Mbps. Note most new laptops and smarphones do not come with 5.8Ghz radio which is good for those that do as it means these frequencies are quiet compared to the normal 2.4 channels.

From Wiki, " It operates in the 5 GHz band with a maximum net data rate of 54 Mbit/s" for wireless A. So how can it operate at 150Mbps?

Btw, there is still quite a large amount of devices that prefer to operate at 2.4ghz only and without a dual band access point its fairly unreasonable to tell people to move completely to the 5ghz range.

Cuddlesworth

zg3409 wrote: »

As I said the Cisco is dual band. However you should change the network name for 5.8 to something different so you can tell which you are connected to, but also to stop your laptop hopping onto 2.4 by mistake.

As I said
1) Cable
2) 802.11a (5.8Ghz)
3) 802.11G whatever.

I don't really recommend 802.11N on 2.4Ghz as there is so much noise on this band in any sort of housing estate setting.

The Cisco devices are capable of operating at both frequency's. Just not at once. That's the issue. Also, the new devices are so bad, its worth your while replacing them anyway.

And its,
1) Cable
2)802.11N
3)IEEE 1901
4) 802.11G
5) 802.11B
6) 802.11A

zg3409

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

The range is 4915MHz to 5825MHz. Its commonly referred to as the 5GHz range.

You can't enclose a 802.11N transmission within 802.11A broadcast. Its one or the other. When you attach any lesser standard to a broadcast, its downgrades the connection type.

From Wiki, " It operates in the 5 GHz band with a maximum net data rate of 54 Mbit/s" for wireless A. So how can it operate at 150Mbps?

Well it's 802.11N at 5.8Ghz, but you it's easier to see if your wireless card supports 802.11a first, as most don't. 802.11N postdates 802.11a specifications. Anyway it works.

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Btw, there is still quite a large amount of devices that prefer to operate at 2.4ghz only and without a dual band access point its fairly unreasonable to tell people to move completely to the 5ghz range.

Yes I agree. Except the AP I have from UPC is dual band, and my laptop is dual band. Also anyone who signs up from now on to 50Mb or 100Mb seems to be getting the dual band cisco.

The Cisco devices are capable of operating at both frequency's. Just not at once. That's the issue. Also, the new devices are so bad, its worth your while replacing them anyway.

Well yes I am using a Lynksys E3000 instead, with Tomato USB firmware, but they are not really for the average user. It is capable of both at the same time.

I am just recommending, if you can't go wired for whatever reason there is far less noise on 5.8Ghz than 2.4Ghz

vibe666

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

The range is 4915MHz to 5825MHz. Its commonly referred to as the 5GHz range.

yup, although interestingly enough, 5Ghz only seems to (officially at least, custom firmware notwithstanding) operate between 5.200Ghz to 5.7Ghz in Europe, so calling it 5.8Ghz isn't entirely accurate (unless someone were operating their router in a non-EU mode unofficially ), although globally speaking the entire range appears to be all the way from 4.915 up to 5.825Ghz according to ye olde witchypedia (Unless someone wants to find a more reliable source of info): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_WLAN_channels#5.C2.A0GHz_.28802.11a.2Fh.2Fj.2Fn.29 but not all of the available 5Ghz bands are used everywhere.

having set my location for my wireless settings to Ireland on my e3000, these are the frequencies available to me on 5Ghz:

zg3409 wrote: »

Yes I agree. Except the AP I have from UPC is dual band, and my laptop is dual band. Also anyone who signs up from now on to 50Mb or 100Mb seems to be getting the dual band cisco.

I have the thompson router myself with my 100mbps and although it's also dual band, it's only got a single radio, so it's either 2.4 or 5Ghz, not both at once and according to the instruction manual for the Cisco 3925 it seems that it is dual band as well, but also with just a single radio, so again only one or the other, not both at the same time.

HOWEVER, having said that the linksys e3000 which you and I are both currently using is a dual band AND dual radio router which allows both 2.4 and 5ghz to work at the same time (one of my reasons for buying it in the first place), so we can use the ideal configuration of both bands in use at once, with 2.4Ghz traffic using 802.11g and 5ghz traffic using 802.11n (as it is faster than 802.11a).

also, i think you might be confusing your wireless standards a bit as although 802.11a is always 5Ghz, 5Ghz does not always equal 802.11a and the majority of consumer wireless equipment seems to be going straight from 2.4ghz wireless b/g/n (at least in the UK & Ireland and most likely the rest of the EU) to keeping the former and also adding 5ghz wireless N to the mix, not wireless A
although i can see 5ghz 802.11a as an option in my e3000 which would have some possible use in an office environment where 802.11a is more likely to be used.

and although there is 5ghz on my thompson router and on the cisco 3925, i don't see 5ghz 802.11a anywhere on either one, just 5ghz 802.11n, but feel free to throw up a few screenshots or something from your 3925 if you find something different on it as i'm always happy to be corrected for the greater good.

zg3409

Well I get the 5.8Ghz from Comreg.

http://www.comreg.ie/licensing_and_services/5_8_ghz_registration.683.ghzlic.html
I am able to get full 100Mbps actual throughput with outdoor 5.8Ghz links.

General info here:
http://www.comreg.ie/radio_spectrum/exemptions.541.488.rslicensing.html

So we are allowed more channels in Ireland, than actually normally used. The good thing is laptops will generally not see these.

My main problem with 802.11N is that routers claim they are wonderful, but don't have 4.9/5/5.8Ghz

Any easy way to see if the radio is present is to look for 802.11a, same for laptops. The "N" is not band specific, it's just a speed.

I don't have access to my Cisco at the moment to check what it can do and not. Safe to say 5 is just as fast and not as noisy.

vibe666

zg3409 wrote: »

Well I get the 5.8Ghz from Comreg.

http://www.comreg.ie/licensing_and_services/5_8_ghz_registration.683.ghzlic.html
I am able to get full 100Mbps actual throughput with outdoor 5.8Ghz links.

except that you didn't read the link you posted as that has nothing to do with consumer wifi devices, it's for FWA/MAN services from 5.725 to 5.875GHz (as opposed to the 5.200 to 5.725GHz spectrum used in consumer 5Ghz wifi in Europe).

unless you've gone and registered yourself a 5.8Ghz base station with comreg (as it states on the bottom of the page in your link) for your home wireless as legally required?

zg3409 wrote: »

My main problem with 802.11N is that routers claim they are wonderful, but don't have 4.9/5/5.8Ghz

Any easy way to see if the radio is present is to look for 802.11a, same for laptops. The "N" is not band specific, it's just a speed.

sorry, but you're still confusing your wireless standards.