# Speed issue with new fiber connection



## Chomiq (May 13, 2020)

ISP guys connected fiber at my flat today. The way it's setup:
Comes in with fiber -> Huawei HG8310M -> cat 5e (0.5m) to WNDR4300v2 Netgear router -> Cat 5e (2m) to PC

Connection is rated at (up to) 600 Mbps.

Best I could get from running speedtest is ca. 270 Mbps down, 170 Mbps up on what is pretty much:





I know it's up to but I'm wondering if the old netgear router can be limiting the speed somehow?
Link to specs https://routerchart.com/netgear/netgear-n750-wndr4300-v2-wndr4300v2-289

WAN/LAN is connection status is listed as 1Gbps in router and in Windows.

Any ideas? I can get in touch with ISP to verify speeds with their supplied Huawei AC router and also try to switch 5e cables to Cat 6 for router/PC side of the connection.


----------



## Cranky5150 (May 13, 2020)

I experienced that same thing mate ! when i went to my half gig connection i had the same issue. I was running a old gigabit router myself. I purchased a much newer one, and i got all the speed i was paying for. Also, try updating you adapter drivers in windows as well.


----------



## TheLostSwede (May 13, 2020)

Time to get a new router. You got a very old SoC in that thing, even when it was new, it was not really cutting edge.





						Netgear WNDR4300v2 - TechInfoDepot
					

"2976482101" is silkscreened on the board in the FCC photos.




					en.techinfodepot.shoutwiki.com
				



I guess it can't handle routing more data than what it's doing, not unusual, as the SoC wasn't built for high-speed data routing. Routing data works differently from using the built in switch for the local network, so even though it has Gigabit switching abilities, it doesn't mean it can route the data at the same speed.
Try plugging the computer straight into the Huawei bridge, you should get the full speed doing that.

One thing that might be worth doing, is checking all the settings to make sure any CPU offload options it might have, are turned on, as well as Hardware NAT if it has it. Looking at the manual, your router seems to support neither.


			https://www.downloads.netgear.com/files/GDC/WNDR4300v2/WNDR4300v2_UM_23dec2014.pdf
		


Whatever you get, I recommend something supported by Merlin or Voxel.





						About | Asuswrt-Merlin
					






					www.asuswrt-merlin.net
				








						Voxel's Firmware
					






					www.voxel-firmware.com
				




I guess you could try DD-WRT or OpenWRT on your router first, but they're both a bit time consuming to configure.


----------



## Chomiq (May 13, 2020)

Thanks @Cranky5150 and @TheLostSwede 

As suggested I've hooked up directly to Huawei bridge, bypassing the router. Speed went up to 350Mbps which pretty much matches what the tech guy from ISP said he was getting at a different customer today. So yeah, it looks like (apart from the "up to" not really matching the max) the old Netgear is the culprit.

Anyone got a decent AC router they can recommend, let's say €150 tops.


----------



## TheLostSwede (May 13, 2020)

Chomiq said:


> Thanks @Cranky5150 and @TheLostSwede
> 
> As suggested I've hooked up directly to Huawei bridge, bypassing the router. Speed went up to 350Mbps which pretty much matches what the tech guy from ISP said he was getting at a different customer today. So yeah, it looks like (apart from the "up to" not really matching the max) the old Netgear is the culprit.
> 
> Anyone got a decent AC router they can recommend, let's say €150 tops.


This one, with Voxel's firmware.








						Netgear Nighthawk X4S (R7800-100PES / R7800-100UKS) ab € 152,66 (2023) | Preisvergleich Geizhals EU
					

✔ Preisvergleich für Netgear Nighthawk X4S (R7800-100PES / R7800-100UKS) ✔ Bewertungen ✔ Produktinfo ⇒ Modem: N/A • WAN: 1x 1000Base-T • LAN: 4x 1000Base-T • Wireless: WLAN 802.11a/b/g/n/ac (Wi-Fi 5), simulta… ✔ WLAN-Router ✔ Testberichte ✔ Günstig kaufen




					geizhals.eu
				



Really reliable hardware in that one. Haven't had to touch my router in years, besides firmware updates. Never had a more reliable router and that comes from someone that used to work at a router manufacturer. Not that we made crap, but the hardware wasn't as good. Admittedly it was also before the hardware inside the R7800 was available so...

Yes, the R7800 is "old" but Netgear is still supporting it and 802.11ax is still very much "beta" testing.
The most recent official firmware came out on the very last day of 2019 and added support for more Wi-Fi channels.


			https://kb.netgear.com/000061548/R7800-Firmware-Version-1-0-2-68


----------



## Bill_Bright (May 13, 2020)

Chomiq said:


> I've hooked up directly to Huawei bridge, bypassing the router. Speed went up to 350Mbps


It's important to remember speeds can vary quite a bit minute to minute - and especially throughout the day. I would go back an forth between direct connect and through the router a few times checking your speeds. You could also try different switch ports on your router - and for sure, a different cable. 

I'm not trying to talk you out of getting a new router. Since that one only  supports 11n and USB 2.0, I personally would want to upgrade eventually. But if running a few more tests with your Ethernet connection reveals the times are closer when going through the router - you may not need to upgrade with the same sense of urgency.


----------



## Cranky5150 (May 13, 2020)

A Nighthawk is a excellent choice for a really reliable router. I use a Dlink personally and have had zero issues with it. It's been the most consistant router i have ever used TBH.


----------



## TheLostSwede (May 13, 2020)

Cranky5150 said:


> A Nighthawk is a excellent choice for a really reliable router. I use a Dlink personally and have had zero issues with it. It's been the most consistant router i have ever used TBH.


Which model and more importantly, are they following the FCC ruling now and releasing firmware updates? Asus does on some models, but the ones they don't sell in the US, gets one or two updates and are then "forgotten" about...
Personally I can't recommend D-Link due to their poor software support and the fact that I know they are more of a branding company than anything else. They don't develop hardware or software in-house and they're obviously not a manufacturer any more, as everything is outsourced. Not the kind of company you want to trust with something as important as networking hardware.
Sometimes it's a huge downside to have worked in an industry, as you know way too much of what's going on behind the scenes...


----------



## Cranky5150 (May 13, 2020)

TheLostSwede said:


> Which model and more importantly, are they following the FCC ruling now and releasing firmware updates? Asus does on some models, but the ones they don't sell in the US, gets one or two updates and are then "forgotten" about...
> Personally I can't recommend D-Link due to their poor software support and the fact that I know they are more of a branding company than anything else. They don't develop hardware or software in-house and they're obviously not a manufacturer any more, as everything is outsourced. Not the kind of company you want to trust with something as important as networking hardware.
> Sometimes it's a huge downside to have worked in an industry, as you know way too much of what's going on behind the scenes...



I hear you sir. I used to use Netgear all of the time and i still like their products and recommend them. This Dlink just works for me though LOL


----------



## TheLostSwede (May 14, 2020)

Cranky5150 said:


> I hear you sir. I used to use Netgear all of the time and i still like their products and recommend them. This Dlink just works for me though LOL


But that doesn't answer my questions


----------



## Cranky5150 (May 14, 2020)

Sorry friend LOL......I've had a few......


----------



## Chomiq (May 14, 2020)

Bill_Bright said:


> It's important to remember speeds can vary quite a bit minute to minute - and especially throughout the day. I would go back an forth between direct connect and through the router a few times checking your speeds. You could also try different switch ports on your router - and for sure, a different cable.
> 
> I'm not trying to talk you out of getting a new router. Since that one only  supports 11n and USB 2.0, I personally would want to upgrade eventually. But if running a few more tests with your Ethernet connection reveals the times are closer when going through the router - you may not need to upgrade with the same sense of urgency.


You're right it's a difference between 360 through the bridge (who knows this thing might have a crappy Huawei SoC in it) and 260-270 through router (tested over 4 h yesterday). Upload tops out at 200.
Thing is R7800 would cost about €200 and at the moment it makes no sense to me to upgrade if the cost itself would cover 2 years of internet bill.
Thanks for all the input guys.


----------



## TheLostSwede (May 14, 2020)

Chomiq said:


> You're right it's a difference between 360 through the bridge (who knows this thing might have a crappy Huawei SoC in it) and 260-270 through router (tested over 4 h yesterday). Upload tops out at 200.
> Thing is R7800 would cost about €200 and at the moment it makes no sense to me to upgrade if the cost itself would cover 2 years of internet bill.
> Thanks for all the input guys.


Did you not see the link I sent? It's just over €131 in Poland. Direct link to the shop below.





						Netgear Nighthawk X4S R7800 AC2600 Gaming Router - Router bezprzewodowy Wi-Fi 5
					

799,00 zł Router bezprzewodowy, przełącznik 4-portowy, GigE, 802.11a/b/g/n/ac, Dwuzakresowy. Szybka dostwa




					www.proshop.pl
				




And the Fibre to Ethernet bridge is NOT the weak link here, don't use that as an excuse. It doesn't route data, it's simply an optical to electrical converter.
I also thought you said they provided you with a Huawei router, at least give it a try and see what speeds you're getting.
On top of that, you should call your ISP, as if you're paying for up to 600Mbps and only get 360Mbps with your PC directly connected, something is wrong. Never make excuses on behalf of a service provider, if they don't deliver what you pay for.

I pay for 250/100 at my parents flat here in Sweden, and I get a little more in terms of upload speed and about that in download speed (keep in mind it's early afternoon now, so not the ideal time to test).


----------



## Chomiq (May 14, 2020)

TheLostSwede said:


> Did you not see the link I sent? It's just over €131 in Poland. Direct link to the shop below.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Proshop is a Danish retailer, their Polish branch is pretty much a phone number and email address. Regular retailers have it listed at ca. 945 PLN.
ISP can supply Huawei router, I'll contact them to test it and give them the result from plugging in directly to the bridge.
For comparison monthly cost is 65 PLN vs 55 PLN for 600 and 300 respectively. So if they won't be able to deliver 600 on a clean connection I'll get them to drop the price to 55.


----------



## TheLostSwede (May 14, 2020)

Chomiq said:


> Proshop is a Danish retailer, their Polish branch is pretty much a phone number and email address. Regular retailers have it listed at ca. 945 PLN.
> ISP can supply Huawei router, I'll contact them to test it and give them the result from plugging in directly to the bridge.


Sorry, but I don't see the problem if they have the product in stock at a much better price. This is part of the pro's with the EU.

I presume the router they provide is a loaner, that doesn't cost anything? I wouldn't trust using a Huawei router for shit when it comes to security updates though.


----------



## Chomiq (May 14, 2020)

TheLostSwede said:


> I presume the router they provide is a loaner, that doesn't cost anything? I wouldn't trust using a Huawei router for shit when it comes to security updates though.


Nope they charge you for it a one time fee. Neither would I that's why I wanted to stick with the old one.

Called the ISP they'll test it at my place next week.


----------



## Bill_Bright (May 14, 2020)

Sadly, loaners still cost consumers. The "rental fee" may not show up as a separate line item on the bill, but it's still in there. And as a loaner, it can mean you are making payments on it years after it has been payed off.  

BTW, if the loaner is old and outdated, you can often call the ISP up and request a trade-in for a newer model at no additional cost to you. Worth a phone call to find out. I bought my own modem and wireless router but know others with the same ISP (and other ISPs too) who have done that. And I did with it with the cable/DVR box for my cable TV.


----------



## TheLostSwede (May 14, 2020)

Well, this is an ok alternative otherwise. Hopefully that's a "local" local shop.
It's another model that gets regular firmware updates from the manufacturer and Merlin supports it. Getting a bit old, but still a solid choice.





						Router ASUS RT-AC68U najlepsza cena, opinie - sklep online Neonet
					

Router ASUS RT-AC68U najniższa cena sklep internetowy Neonet dane techniczne opinie  Router ASUS RT-AC68U opinia testy recenzje darmowy transport szybka dostawa promocja cenowa




					www.neonet.pl


----------



## agentnathan009 (May 14, 2020)

Also, you need to keep in mind that Speedtest.net isn't the most reliable indicator or bandwidth. I have a friend who works in IT and he could fill your ear about better ways to determine bandwidth. Anyway, with speedtest, the equipment on the other end may have traffic, or it may not be able to handle that level of bandwidth. For example, maybe their equipment has access to 300Mbps internet pipeline and your bandwidth can reach up to 500 Mbps. You won't see 500Mbps testing to that server and when you factor other traffic and inefficiencies you won't see the full 500Mbps of your up to speed anyway. I have found servers that could handle higher bandwidth than others on speedtest so you are getting a number that doesn't mean a lot because you could connect to a server to download a game to you game console but due to traffic and connection bandwidth available for that server you won't see the higher bandwidth.

Basically, you can have higher bandwidth than many servers and since, like with public wifi, you will get throttled so others can utilize a portion of the available bandwidth the server has access to. Say 400Mbps, if you are only person connected, but say 14 people are connected and downloading, that 400Mbps gets divided up so that comes out to 28 Mbps each, factor in inefficiencies and you might only be able to download around 20 Mbps.


----------



## TheLostSwede (May 14, 2020)

@agentnathan009 fair points, although we don't really know what the OP tested against.

A lot of people recommend https://fast.com/ these days, but it also depends on where you live. I get really odd numbers testing against fast.com here.

My ISP where I live provides their own, custom Speedtest server, although I have slower internet there, since they charge too much for the next step up...

Even so, you have to agree that 1. his current router isn't fast enough and 2. there's something seemingly off if he gets half the bandwidth he's paying up to for, no?


----------



## Chomiq (May 14, 2020)

What I'm testing against is a speedtest.net server hosted by the same company that's supplying the fiber connection that's used by my ISP, so this should at least show the quality of connection on the ISP->fiber provider route. Server is located in a major city 25 km away:



10 minutes later, pretty much same result in regards to DL speed:



Steam, which usually can top out the connection during download, was showing 30,6MB/s yesterday, which transaltes to roughly 240Mbps. This all through the old Netgear, plugging in directly through the bridge would give something around 360Mbps on speedtest to the same server (at least when I tested at 11PM last night) but PPPoE wouldn't hold for long in Windows 10.

Once the ISP comes here to test the connection (which is next week) with the Huawei router I'll know if the situation can improve dramatically with a router upgrade. If it does reach 500+ I'll consider going for something better than a Huawei unit that costs 100 PLN (ca. $25) to buy (not loan) from the ISP (so I doubt it's something amazing). I've called the ISP today and when I told the guy that connection through the bridge topped out at 370Mbps his response was that going directly through the bridge to onboard might not be enough to hold higher speeds.

If even with Huawei unit the connection will not be able to keep above 400Mbps of the "up to 600Mbps" that's on the contract I'll tell 'em to drop me to the 300Mbps plan. There won't be a problem and I don't get charged until next month.

I'd rather avoid throwing money on a new router just to find out that it won't do much because ISP's infrastructure is the culprit here.

Anyway, we'll find out next week.


----------



## TheLostSwede (May 14, 2020)

That Fast.com result is terrible imho.
Below is this 250/100Mbps connection and it's possible to go all the way to 1000/1000Mbps here, for a price I'm not willing to pay.


----------



## Bill_Bright (May 14, 2020)

agentnathan009 said:


> you need to keep in mind that Speedtest.net isn't the most reliable indicator or bandwidth. I have a friend who works in IT and he could fill your ear about better ways to determine bandwidth.


Then what is the most reliable indicator of bandwidth? Its hardly helpful if you don't tell us all those better ways to determine a more accurate bandwidth your friend told you. Many of us here at TPU work in IT and surely would like to know. 


agentnathan009 said:


> For example, maybe their equipment has access to 300Mbps internet





> fair points



No they are not fair points because that's a totally unrealistic "what if" arbitrary hypothetical scenario! For one, it is just wrong to fault Speedtest.net for "_maybe_" accessing 300Mbps equipment! It actually makes no sense for any testing service to do that. "Maybe" your friends method has access to only 200Mbps internet! "Maybe" Speedtest.net has access to 2,000Mbps Internet. Since that IS available in some areas, it would make sense they would have access to that. With speeds up to 10,000 Mbps (for business networks) in some areas, it would make no sense Speedtest.net (or any other testing service) would connect to such a slow poke server as a 300Mbps without - at least not without offering other options. So they don't!

If you note the Speedtest FAQ, they make it clear there are many variables that affect the scores, including the fact different servers will perform differently - that's why they let you choose from over 10,000 servers  around the world!!! And they recommend performing several tests with several different servers to get the most accurate picture of your speeds. Typically, you can even test with your own ISP and that's important because then you can make a solid argument your ISP can't refute.

Plus, you can always compare your Speedtest.net results with Fast.com or Testmy.net or several other sites - any of which could be affected by your same totally unrealistic "what if" arbitrary scenario!  

FTW, I get the following,
Speedtest: 146.21Mbps download and 10.41Mbps upload
Fast.com: 150Mbps download and 8.7Mbps upload
Testmy.net: 138.8Mbps download and 10.9Mbps upload

Which one is right? I suspect all of them were - at the time they tested and for the server they connected to. But if you Google what is the best way to measure Internet bandwidth? Speedtest is most often mentioned. 

Note that many home routers let you test from within the router's admin menu. This is probably one of the best ways for home consumers because it eliminates any latency issues caused by your computer or its NIC.


----------



## Chomiq (May 14, 2020)

For comparison:
Speedtest to fiber provider - 270 Mbps down 170 Up
Fast.com - 130 Mbps, 140 Up
Testmy - 10 Mbps (this stores results based on IP so it has archival results from March this year when someone run it from the same ISP, topped out at 300 Mbps), 65 Up

So yeah quality going outside is all over the place.


----------



## agentnathan009 (May 14, 2020)

Bill_Bright said:


> Then what is the most reliable indicator of bandwidth? Its hardly helpful if you don't tell us all those better ways to determine a more accurate bandwidth your friend told you. Many of us here at TPU work in IT and surely would like to know.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



First of all, I'm not in IT, so trying to regurgitate testing with a Linux box and certain other hardware/software to get accurate bandwidth measurements gets over my head. He rattled off some things that he did for internal testing, and that conversation took place last year, so I'm sorry if I can't give you more details other than his information sounded quite compelling as I listened. Conversation started with 5G bandwidth being promised by cellular carriers and field tests with 5G wide band capable phone tests.

Second, I did make valid points because those are variable that the average Joe doesn't think about. I gave examples to help illustrate that "up to" is just that, up to and you have to take into account numerous other variables and bandwidth sharing with other people. There are various servers and they may not support the upload as fast as he can download. Take Comcast for example, they offer 25Mbps download and a wimpy 5Mbps upload, at least they did offer such speeds when I was using their service. Verizon offers 100Mps up and down. Another variable that the average Joe won't take into account. They see a speedtest number and complain if it doesn't match what the ISP says they should get. I explained some variables that OP did not take into account with his testing, since most were pointing him to upgrade his equipment. I don't have equipment that I can bring over that I know is capable of 1Gbps to replace his to test and see if it is his equipment or other variables that could be affecting his bandwidth results.

Testing to different servers on speedtest can help you see, as you put at the bottom of your post, that there are variables, but your bandwidth is so low you are less likely to see the possible limitations of servers.

Next time, how about you use more constructive dialogue rather than bashing what someone is saying. Some of us are attempting to help the OP sort out his issues rather than attacking each other for perceived misinformation...



Chomiq said:


> For comparison:
> Speedtest to fiber provider - 270 Mbps down 170 Up
> Fast.com - 130 Mbps, 140 Up
> Testmy - 10 Mbps (this stores results based on IP so it has archival results from March this year when someone run it from the same ISP, topped out at 300 Mbps), 65 Up
> ...



I would hope that your ISP isn't over promising on speed and under delivering. I would be interested in the results the ISP gets testing your equipment.


----------



## Chomiq (May 14, 2020)

agentnathan009 said:


> I would hope that your ISP isn't over promising on speed and under delivering. I would be interested in the results the ISP gets testing your equipment.


If they indeed are then down to the cheapest plan I go.


----------



## Bill_Bright (May 14, 2020)

agentnathan009 said:


> He rattled off some things that he did for internal testing


"Internal" testing is "WAY" different from testing Internet speeds. 


agentnathan009 said:


> Second, I did make valid points because those are variable that the average Joe doesn't think about.


Sorry but it is not valid because your hypothetical scenario applies to every single testing site out there. But you singled out Speedtest as not being reliable when the same limitations apply to all.


agentnathan009 said:


> Next time, how about you use more constructive dialogue rather than bashing what someone is saying. Some of us are attempting to help the OP sort out his issues rather than attacking each other for perceived misinformation...


 Well, next time, how about you don't take things so personally. I didn't attack you. I asked that you clarify by telling us the better solution - which you said your friend told you about. And sorry, but it is not "perceived" misinformation. Speedtest.net was being unfairly singled out when the same "maybe" scenarios apply to all. That is not really being helpful for the OP. And again, your friend was talking about "internal" networking speeds - not the same a Internet speeds. 

As for ISP promises, my plan calls for "up to" 50Mbps so my speeds of 138 to 150 (depending on the testing service) are nothing I can complain about.


----------



## elemelek (May 14, 2020)

If the ISP is the one i think it is. Do not bother and downgrade to cheapest plan or find another ISP.


----------



## Chomiq (May 14, 2020)

Bill_Bright said:


> As for ISP promises, my plan calls for "up to" 50Mbps so my speeds of 138 to 150 (depending on the testing service) are nothing I can complain about.


Mine was 40 before, which then topped out at 94 once they switched to fiber so I had nothing to complain about. Except now it looks like somehow the quality of the uplink to the rest of the world went downhill.

I mean, wth?


----------



## TheLostSwede (May 14, 2020)

Chomiq said:


> Mine was 40 before, which then topped out at 94 once they switched to fiber so I had nothing to complain about. Except now it looks like somehow the quality of the uplink to the rest of the world went downhill.
> 
> I mean, wth?
> View attachment 155224


That's also super high ping, you should be at 2-10ms with fibre, as you were in your earlier tests.


----------



## Bill_Bright (May 14, 2020)

Chomiq said:


> Mine was 40 before, which then topped out at 94 once they switched to fiber so I had nothing to complain about.


Something is wrong there. As TheLostSwede notes, your pings are really high and your other scores seems backwards. The download speed is typically the most important. And that's with fiber? I have cable and this is mine.


----------



## Chomiq (May 14, 2020)

TheLostSwede said:


> That's also super high ping, you should be at 2-10ms with fibre, as you were in your earlier tests.


Yeah before they switched to fiber the connection was hosted by railroad service and that had great pings, 5-7 ms from here to Warsaw, which is like 400 km away. No major differences in bandwidth between servers like now.


----------



## agentnathan009 (May 14, 2020)

Bill_Bright said:


> "Internal" testing is "WAY" different from testing Internet speeds.
> Sorry but it is not valid because your hypothetical scenario applies to every single testing site out there. But you singled out Speedtest as not being reliable when the same limitations apply to all.
> Well, next time, how about you don't take things so personally. I didn't attack you. I asked that you clarify by telling us the better solution - which you said your friend told you about. And sorry, but it is not "perceived" misinformation. Speedtest.net was being unfairly singled out when the same "maybe" scenarios apply to all. That is not really being helpful for the OP. And again, your friend was talking about "internal" networking speeds - not the same a Internet speeds.
> 
> As for ISP promises, my plan calls for "up to" 50Mbps so my speeds of 138 to 150 (depending on the testing service) are nothing I can complain about.



He was using testing means that performed the same function as speedtest because he found that he couldn't get the most accurate results by using speedtest. I was not trying to single out speedtest, but it is likely the most well known and popular. The method he was using is way beyond what average Joes would ever need to use or need. Speedtest is good enough for the rest of us.

As the OP noticed in a follow up post to your post, he saw that he was getting all kinds of different bandwidths. None of this invalidates what I said and I don't appreciate your attitude.



Chomiq said:


> If they indeed are then down to the cheapest plan I go.






I have 50/50Mbps with Verizon, but they gave me a free bump to 100/100Mbps. Usually, when there isn't a global pandemic and I have 2 or more people streaming movies or TV shows at the moment, the download bandwidth is usually above 100Mbps.

I have found that 100Mbps is more than enough to stream 4K, handle all the mobile devices, and play online video games. In 4-5 years I may need to go up to 200Mbps or more if 100 gets to be slow. Only time I really tax bandwidth is downloading Xbox games, cough Red Dead Redemption 2 cough that exceed 100GB in size.


----------



## Chomiq (May 15, 2020)

8am comparison:



Mytest 54 Mbps 103.2 Mbps 

So yeah, it's all over the place and it's heavily affected by traffic. Not to mention pings that are in mid 20's 30's to servers that should be in 10-15ms range.


----------



## Bill_Bright (May 15, 2020)

agentnathan009 said:


> I was not trying to single out speedtest, but it is likely the most well known and popular. Speedtest is good enough for the rest of us.
> 
> As the OP noticed in a follow up post to your post, he saw that he was getting all kinds of different bandwidths. None of this invalidates what I said and I don't appreciate your attitude.


My "attitude" is all about presenting the true facts so OPs have the correct information to make informed decisions. You did unjustly single out Speedtest and that was the driving force for my "attitude". Sorry if you didn't appreciate it. It was not personal, I assure you. Most people don't enjoy being corrected - but its their attitude and maturity when shown their mistakes, and how they accept they made a mistake that shows one's true character, isn't it? 

Anyway, for sure, I appreciate you now coming in to say you did not mean to single Speedtest out.  You are right, it is the most well known and popular. But contrary to claims, it is a "reliable indicator of bandwidth" too, when used as suggested in the Speedtest FAQ. And it is good enough, not just for the rest of us, but for those in the profession too - as I note ISP field techs use it all the time to verify customers are getting the bandwidth expected. 

In fact, major ISPs use the Speedtest.net tool themselves, as seen here for Cox (my ISP) and Time Warner/Charter. Even Comcast uses it.


----------



## agentnathan009 (May 15, 2020)

Bill_Bright said:


> My "attitude" is all about presenting the true facts so OPs have the correct information to make informed decisions. You did unjustly single out Speedtest and that was the driving force for my "attitude". Sorry if you didn't appreciate it. It was not personal, I assure you. Most people don't enjoy being corrected - but its their attitude and maturity when shown their mistakes, and how they accept they made a mistake that shows one's true character, isn't it?
> 
> Anyway, for sure, I appreciate you now coming in to say you did not mean to single Speedtest out.  You are right, it is the most well known and popular. But contrary to claims, it is a "reliable indicator of bandwidth" too, when used as suggested in the Speedtest FAQ. And it is good enough, not just for the rest of us, but for those in the profession too - as I note ISP field techs use it all the time to verify customers are getting the bandwidth expected.
> 
> In fact, major ISPs use the Speedtest.net tool themselves, as seen here for Cox (my ISP) and Time Warner/Charter. Even Comcast uses it.



I was giving accurate information concerning Speedtest. I have used it many times and it is only as good as the server you connect to at that time. It does not necesesarily give you the most accurate or show you the true capability of your equipment. You don't know the capability of the server that you connected to to perform a test. Bottom line is Speedtest give you a number, but you don't know jack about the server that you connected to. I work in the cellular industry and I have to be figure out the capability of equipment that I am testing. I also have had to take known working equipment and put it in place of equipment that is not working to prove out fiber, power, RF connections, etc. Thus, given that I have no idae what any server is capable of that I connect to I have to take the result numbers as numbers that tell me something, but yet nothing at the same time. It gives me a small piece of information to work with.

Given how much I have used and given my line of work and given the servers being an unknown variable, the result numbers don't tell me a lot. It gives me a place to start. So what is the problem with taking speedtest as gospel as you seem to look at it as? Take the average Joe and have him do a test, he gets a number, number doesn't match up with his expectations, he starts blaming his equipment or ISP, this starts a chain reaction of pathways where average Joe is upset and blaming something, and failing to realize that maybe the 1Gig connection he has may have saturated the servers internet pipe (inaccurate speedtest result), overrun the upload capability of servers internet connection (inaccurate speedtest result), or he has to share bandwidth with other people (inaccurate speedtest result). See the pattern? No, suppose I only have a 100Mbps connection to internet, now those aforementioned scenarios are far less likely to be the case and I will probably have a more accurate result. Bandwidth, especially a lot of it, can quickly show how unreliable speedtest can be in certain scenarios. Hence the reason my IT friend had to resort to other means to get accurate bandwidth results using means that I can't remember details of.

OP mentioned 600 Mbps as his internet bandwidth, thus the inaccuracies that I stated above begin to come into play. This applies to any bandwidth testing platform, not just speedtest. The higher your residential bandwidth is, the less likely you will see the true potential with a bandwidth testing platform. Low bandwidth residential internet, not really an issue.

I don't make it a point to mislead people with misinformation, I draw from life experiences and what I know to be true, at least true at a given time since technology can change and it can make what was true at one time a source of inaccuracy if one does not keep up with the changes such as server updates over 10 years time where 100Mbps could potentially saturate speedtest server to not being an issue 10 years later for updated internet bandwidths and server updates. 10 years ago we didn't have 10 gigabit ethernet, 10 years from now we may have 100 Gpbs or more.

From speedtest's on knowledge base:

"*What factors may impact my Speedtest® result? # *
Speedtest measures the speed between your device and a test server, using your device's internet connection. Several factors can impact the speed recorded by a test:

Devices (phones, tablets, PCs, etc…) can have very different Wi-Fi and cellular radio capabilities. This means you might get one Speedtest result on one device and a different result on another, even using the same provider. Some devices may not be able to measure the full speed of your internet service. It’s also possible that your Wi-Fi router doesn’t support the full speed of your service.
Speedtest servers may perform differently. Generally, you will get faster speeds from servers closer to you. We recommend testing to a variety of test servers to get the most complete picture of your speed. Speedtest has the world’s largest testing server network, which means you will always have the benefit of testing to a server near your geographic location.
Other speed testing services use different servers in different locations than Speedtest, so differences in speeds between testing services are not uncommon.
Browsers (Chrome, Firefox, Edge, Safari, etc…) have different capabilities and may provide different results, particularly on high-speed connections."
Those are the kinds of variables that I was pointing out to OP, stuff that most don't think about, no fault of theirs.


----------



## Bill_Bright (May 15, 2020)

agentnathan009 said:


> I was giving accurate information concerning Speedtest.


Dude, it is time to let it go! I did not read past what I just quoted because you are just wasting your time and everyone else's time! 

The whole point is, as you later admitted, you singled out SpeedTest as being unreliable when the fact is, *EVERY OTHER** speed testing site has the exact same limitations! *The difference is, SpeedTest points out those variables and tells people how to mitigate and adjust for them so they can get a fairly accurate picture of the bandwidth capabilities of their connection. 

SO PLEASE - except for you STILL unjustly singling out SpeedTest - we are actually on the same page!

Now I am moving on. I would ask you do the same.


----------



## agentnathan009 (May 15, 2020)

Bill_Bright said:


> Dude, it is time to let it go! I did not read past what I just quoted because you are just wasting your time and everyone else's time!
> 
> The whole point is, as you later admitted, you singled out SpeedTest as being unreliable when the fact is, *EVERY OTHER** speed testing site has the exact same limitations! *The difference is, SpeedTest points out those variables and tells people how to mitigate and adjust for them so they can get a fairly accurate picture of the bandwidth capabilities of their connection.
> 
> ...



I didn't later admit, I didn't say any others were better than speedtest either. Stop acting like I verbally attacked your speedtest girlfriend... You can't admit that you are wrong in continuing to insinuate that I singled out Speedtest when had no intent to do so from the beginning. You need to let that go dude.


----------



## SpikeHob (May 19, 2020)

Chomiq said:


> ISP guys connected fiber at my flat today. The way it's setup:
> Comes in with fiber -> Huawei HG8310M -> cat 5e (0.5m) to WNDR4300v2 Netgear router -> Cat 5e (2m) to PC
> 
> Connection is rated at (up to) 600 Mbps.
> ...


Try better cables too . I got hold of some CAT8 cables , certainly made a difference , now I reach my paid for download , far more of the time , much more quickly . not expensive either .


----------



## TheLostSwede (May 19, 2020)

SpikeHob said:


> Try better cables too . I got hold of some CAT8 cables , certainly made a difference , now I reach my paid for download , far more of the time , much more quickly . not expensive either .


You just wasted your money right there...
Nothing over Cat 6A is needed and Cat 8 is for 25 and 40Gbit, which I presume you don't have at home?
Also, if your original cables were that old and bad, it sounds like a any other old piece of string would've worked better.
Seriously, I don't get this cable flexing crap, it seems like most people are utterly clueless when it comes to cables, yet buy the highest number they can find, because it has to bet better, no?
I'm not suggesting people get Cat 5e for in-wall installations any more, at least if you want to plan ahead. However, for anything else, if you don't run 5 or 10Gbps equipment at home, Cat 5e more than good enough. Maybe don't buy the cheapest possible cable you can find, be careful how you bend them and try not snagging them and they'll be just fine.
Personally I like flat cables, as they're easier to deal with in many situations and are easier to hide.
That said, I don't have anything apart from Cat 5e or Cat 6 cables in the house, apart from a short run of Cat 6A from my PC to my switch and from the switch to my NAS, since they're connected over 10Gbps.
Buy what you need instead of wasting money on some spec you don't even understand.
And sorry for being aggro, but I see so many posts from people that want to show off that they bought a fancy cable, or even reviewers writing about cables, yet being clueless about what they're looking at.

Also, at least in part, we had established that his router is a weak link, but not the whole problem.


----------



## Bill_Bright (May 19, 2020)

TheLostSwede said:


> You just wasted your money right there...


Yeah, I agree. If your network performance improved after you got new cables, it is likely only because you got "new" cables, not because they were CAT-8. 

I also agree CAT 5e is more than good enough. If pulling new cable, I would go with CAT 6, but I sure would not yank out CAT 5e just because 6, 7, or 8 is now out there. 

I do, however, recommend making your own cables. Sadly, factory made cables are rarely quality checked before they leave the factory. I have seen way too many that were brand new and bad. 

Buy bulk quality cable and quality connectors. Be prepared to sacrifice a few connectors as you practice terminating cables. It takes practice to get it right. "Invest" in a quality crimping tool. Don't buy a cheap crimper or you will be sacrificing more connectors unnecessarily. A cable tester is handy too - and fortunately, inexpensive. 

What is really nice about making your own cables is you can make them the length you need. For example, if you need a 15 inch cable to go between your modem and your wireless router, make a 15 inch cable. If you need a 12 foot cable to your computer, make a 12 foot cable instead of buying a 25 foot factory made cable. 

Also, if you make your own cables, you can drill a much smaller hole through walls (and studs in walls), floors and ceilings since you don't need a hole big enough to feed the connector through too.


----------



## SpikeHob (May 19, 2020)

TheLostSwede said:


> You just wasted your money right there...
> Nothing over Cat 6A is needed and Cat 8 is for 25 and 40Gbit, which I presume you don't have at home?
> Also, if your original cables were that old and bad, it sounds like a any other old piece of string would've worked better.
> Seriously, I don't get this cable flexing crap, it seems like most people are utterly clueless when it comes to cables, yet buy the highest number they can find, because it has to bet better, no?
> ...


All I can say is my own experience , and CAT8 cables are measurably better and cost little more than CAT5/6 cables . It most certainly does NOT make my service faster , it just allows it to run nearer its full potential with less degradation . I can even see the difference between cat 7 and cat 8 , specially on the upload curiously , no idea why , I am pretty much a novice at networking , so I can only go by what I am seeing and measuring here . It may well be because I am the nearest property to V.Media junction box ( less than 10 metres) . And I am NOT showing off about paying 5.99 for some cable . I am merely offering advice from my own seen and measured experience . As Mr Bright says in his post , cable quality is quite poor in some cases , so a simple purchase of good quality cable may well help , and is cheap to do .


----------



## TheLostSwede (May 19, 2020)

SpikeHob said:


> All I can say is my own experience , and CAT8 cables are measurably better and cost little more than CAT5/6 cables . It most certainly does NOT make my service faster , it just allows it to run nearer its full potential with less degradation . I can even see the difference between cat 7 and cat 8 , specially on the upload curiously , no idea why , I am pretty much a novice at networking , so I can only go by what I am seeing and measuring here . It may well be because I am the nearest property to V.Media junction box ( less than 10 metres) . And I am NOT showing off about paying 5.99 for some cable . I am merely offering advice from my own seen and measured experience . As Mr Bright says in his post , cable quality is quite poor in some cases , so a simple purchase of good quality cable may well help , and is cheap to do .


But how can 2m of Ethernet cabling make any difference whatsoever? I think that's mostly a placebo effect, as none of the equipment on your premises can take advantage of the difference between that cable and a regular Cat 5e cable, unless you have something that's faster than Gigabit Ethernet.

Cat 7 doesn't exist for xBASE-T Ethernet, so if you use a Cat 7 cable, then you're not using standard Ethernet, or you got conned into buying something that's not part of the standard.

No, you're not offering advice, you're offering your opinion based on something you bought. Nothing wrong with that as such, but please don't make unsubstantiated claims, especially when you call your self a networking novice.

Yes, there are some crappy cables out there, but that doesn't mean it makes any sense peddling things that are near enough snake oil either.


----------



## agentnathan009 (May 19, 2020)

TheLostSwede said:


> But how can 2m of Ethernet cabling make any difference whatsoever? I think that's mostly a placebo effect, as none of the equipment on your premises can take advantage of the difference between that cable and a regular Cat 5e cable, unless you have something that's faster than Gigabit Ethernet.
> 
> Cat 7 doesn't exist for xBASE-T Ethernet, so if you use a Cat 7 cable, then you're not using standard Ethernet, or you got conned into buying something that's not part of the standard.
> 
> ...


Could be electrical or electromagnetic interference. Cat 5 is more susceptible to interference and has lower performance due to have a lower number of wire twists per foot than Cat 6. I don’t know about Cat 7 and 8 yet, haven’t looked into what makes them better than Cat 6. However, Cat 5 with the latest protocol is capable of 1Gbps and Cat 6 is capable 10Gbps, well, almost those bandwidths when you factor overhead and efficiency losses. You could get Cat 6 shielded to help mitigate electromagnetic interference that could lead to transmission bandwidth degradation. Shielded Cat 6 was what I installed years ago for backhaul microwave equipment, including one of the first 1Gbps microwave systems using Cat 6 cable. Previous systems with that bandwidth used fiber optic backhaul and the operated at stupid high frequencies, as in any rain, snow or fog would cause link loss.


----------



## TheLostSwede (May 19, 2020)

agentnathan009 said:


> Could be electrical or electromagnetic interference. Cat 5 is more susceptible to interference and has lower performance due to have a lower number of wire twists per foot than Cat 6. I don’t know about Cat 7 and 8 yet, haven’t looked into what makes them better than Cat 6. However, Cat 5 with the latest protocol is capable of 1Gbps and Cat 6 is capable 10Gbps, well, almost those bandwidths when you factor overhead and efficiency losses. You could get Cat 6 shielded to help mitigate electromagnetic interference that could lead to transmission bandwidth degradation. Shielded Cat 6 was what I installed years ago for backhaul microwave equipment, including one of the first 1Gbps microwave systems using Cat 6 cable. Previous systems with that bandwidth used fiber optic backhaul and the operated at stupid high frequencies, as in any rain, snow or fog would cause link loss.


Sorry, but Cat 5 is a much older standard that doesn't even support Gigabit Ethernet, so please don't confuse it with Cat 5e.
If you can't even tell the difference between the standards, why are you here arguing a moot point?








						Ethernet over twisted pair - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## agentnathan009 (May 19, 2020)

TheLostSwede said:


> Sorry, but Cat 5 is a much older standard that doesn't even support Gigabit Ethernet, so please don't confuse it with Cat 5e.
> If you can't even tell the difference between the standards, why are you here arguing a moot point?
> 
> 
> ...



I rest my case padawan...

"Category 5 (Cat5) has four twisted pairs of copper wire terminated by RJ45 connector. Category 5 cable has a bandwidth of up to 100 MHz, support 10 or 100 Mbps speed. Category 5 cable can be used for ATM, taken ring, Ethernet 1000Base-T, 100Bast-T, and 10Base-T networking. Cat5 is one of five grades of UTP cabling described in the EIA/TIA-586 standard. Cables belonging to Category 5 are either solid or stranded: solid Cat 5 is more rigid, and the better choice if data needs to be transmitted over a long distance, while stranded Cat 5 is very flexible and most likely to be used as patch cable. And the maximum length (maximum certifiable length) for Cat 5 patch or crossover cables is 100 meters.
*What Is Cat5e Cable?*
Category 5e (Cat5e) is an enhanced version of Category 5 cable, developed by TIA/EIA in 2001 to improve certain cable characteristics important to Gigabit Ethernet operation. Cat5e speed can reach up to 1000 Mbps "gigabit", so in theory, it's faster than Cat5. Cat5e ethernet cables are deployed in many places. For example, it can be used in the home networking environment with various lengths. Another common use of Cat5e patch cable is premise wiring.
*What Is Cat6 Cable?*
Cat6 ethernet cable is being made with 23guage conductor wire as opposed to the slightly smaller 24guage for Cat5e. And it also has a separator to handle crosstalk better. This separator isolates each of the four pairs of twisted wire from the others, which reduces crosstalk, allows for faster data transfer, and gives Cat6 bandwidth twice than that of Cat 5! Cat6 cable is ideal for supporting 10 Gigabit Ethernet speed, and is able to operate at up to 250MHz. The following video shows FS 28AWG slim Cat6 patch cable with smaller cable diameter, which can save up to 36% space than common Cat6 patch cables."

This link corroborates lowly Cat 5 even being capable of gigabit under the most ideal circumstances.


----------



## TheLostSwede (May 19, 2020)

agentnathan009 said:


> I rest my case padawan...
> 
> "
> Category 5 (Cat5) has four twisted pairs of copper wire terminated by RJ45 connector. Category 5 cable has a bandwidth of up to 100 MHz, support 10 or 100 Mbps speed. Category 5 cable can be used for ATM, taken ring, Ethernet 1000Base-T, 100Bast-T, and 10Base-T networking. Cat5 is one of five grades of UTP cabling described in the EIA/TIA-586 standard. Cables belonging to Category 5 are either solid or stranded: solid Cat 5 is more rigid, and the better choice if data needs to be transmitted over a long distance, while stranded Cat 5 is very flexible and most likely to be used as patch cable. And the maximum length (maximum certifiable length) for Cat 5 patch or crossover cables is 100 meters.
> ...


Rest what case? You mean where it say that Cat 5 only supports speeds up to 100Mbps?

Did I ever say anyone should use Cat 5 cables? No, you're the one going on about Cat 5.


----------



## SpikeHob (May 19, 2020)

TheLostSwede said:


> But how can 2m of Ethernet cabling make any difference whatsoever? I think that's mostly a placebo effect, as none of the equipment on your premises can take advantage of the difference between that cable and a regular Cat 5e cable, unless you have something that's faster than Gigabit Ethernet.
> 
> Cat 7 doesn't exist for xBASE-T Ethernet, so if you use a Cat 7 cable, then you're not using standard Ethernet, or you got conned into buying something that's not part of the standard.
> 
> ...


My motherboard has a Aquintia 5 gigabit port , I know this is pretty much pointless as nothing else is that fast . But I stand by my comment that I can see a measurable difference , there is no " Placebo" effect . I can see the difference in the numbers . I would not of posted otherwise . That's my last on this matter .


----------



## TheLostSwede (May 19, 2020)

SpikeHob said:


> My motherboard has a Aquintia 5 gigabit port , I know this is pretty much pointless as nothing else is that fast . But I stand by my comment that I can see a measurable difference , there is no " Placebo" effect . I can see the difference in the numbers . I would not of posted otherwise . That's my last on this matter .


Aquantia you mean? I have two of their 10Gbps NICs, neither connects to my router, as it only has 1Gbps ports.

You might very well have had a crappy cable before and the new cable solved it, but you have no need for a Cat 8 cable, as it's not going to give you any tangible benefits over a Cat 5e, Cat 6 or Cat 6A cable. Even if you had a 2.5 or 5Gbps port on the router, you wouldn't gain anything over a Cat 5e cable, unless it was a run of over 20m in the case of 5Gbps. It's physically impossible, unless you somehow are breaking the laws of physics.


----------



## Bill_Bright (May 20, 2020)

SpikeHob said:


> CAT8 cables are measurably better and cost little more than CAT5/6 cables . It most certainly does NOT make my service faster , it just allows it to run nearer its full potential with less degradation .


Yes, CAT-8 cables are better. But they do not allow your service (or LAN) to run nearer its full potential because CAT-6 (or even CAT-5e) is not a bottleneck. Of course, I am assuming the cables and connectors are in good condition - but that same caveat applies to CAT-8 cables. too.

CAT-5 certainly would be a bottleneck but NOBODY here is suggesting anyone use CAT-5. So CAT-5 should not even be in this discussion.

Your NIC, wifi adapter, router/Ethernet switch and WAP are all currently holding your network to a "theoretical" maximum of 1000Mbps. And then, of course, the ISP and beyond will be limiting factors too. And CAT-6 supports that. 

If you have a 1/2 inch diameter hose connected to a 1 inch diameter hose that then connects back to another 1/2 inch diameter hose, that 1 inch section of hose is NOT going to let more water run through the entire length of hose.



SpikeHob said:


> My motherboard has a Aquintia 5 gigabit port , I know this is pretty much pointless as nothing else is that fast . But I stand by my comment that I can see a measurable difference , there is no " Placebo" effect . I can see the difference in the numbers . I would not of posted otherwise . That's my last on this matter .



I totally believe you saw an improvement! But as I and others have said above, it is not because you got CAT-8 instead of CAT-6 (or even 5e). It is because you got a new cable that was in good repair to replace a damaged and/or poorly made cable. That's all. *Ethernet cables are critical, but very fragile network devices.* It is not uncommon for them to have manufacturing defects (flawed wire terminations/crimps at the connectors). And one yank or trip-over can damage the connectors. And the cable itself is subject to kinks, cuts, damage from insects, rodents, puppy dawgs, and rugrats. 

Was it a mistake to go CAT-8? No! Absolutely not. It hurt nothing, but your wallet. But more importantly, it gave you peace of mind and sometimes, that's money well spent.


----------



## agentnathan009 (May 20, 2020)

TheLostSwede said:


> Rest what case? You mean where it say that Cat 5 only supports speeds up to 100Mbps?
> 
> Did I ever say anyone should use Cat 5 cables? No, you're the one going on about Cat 5.


I posted two links that indicate that Cat 5, under ideal conditions, can support gigabit bandwidth, but thanks for reading to understand and instead using your own beliefs as gospel. I supported my statement. I don’t recommend using cat 5, and if anything when you go to buy “Cat 5” it is likely going to be cat 5e anyway.


----------



## Bill_Bright (May 20, 2020)

agentnathan009 said:


> I posted two links that indicate that Cat 5, under ideal conditions, can support gigabit bandwidth


No they don't. Please read them again, and take the time to understand them.

What they say is CAT-5 can be used with 1000Base-T. Neither one of those articles say CAT-5 can support the maximum speeds of 1000Base-T. It is like USB 1.x vs USB 3.x. Or mixing fast RAM with slow RAM. Or connecting a 100Mbps network interface card to a 1000Mbps Ethernet switch. Everything slows down to the capability of the slowest component.

Both of those articles clearly state in your links: Category 5 cable has a bandwidth of up to 100 MHz, support 10 or 100 Mbps speed.  And, The Cat5 cable supports the bandwidth up to 100 MHz.


----------



## Chomiq (May 20, 2020)

For now I'm switching to cheaper plan. Once the whole pandemic business goes away or the quality of connection improves I'll make a choice on whether or not to upgrade router and plan. 
Mods feel free to lock the thread.


----------



## Bill_Bright (May 20, 2020)

I think that is a wise course of action for now. And sorry for my part in this thread running off in so many OT directions.


----------



## TheLostSwede (May 20, 2020)

agentnathan009 said:


> I posted two links that indicate that Cat 5, under ideal conditions, can support gigabit bandwidth, but thanks for reading to understand and instead using your own beliefs as gospel. I supported my statement. I don’t recommend using cat 5, and if anything when you go to buy “Cat 5” it is likely going to be cat 5e anyway.


Uhm, no, just no, please don't go there...
These standards are labelled very differently for a reason. There's nothing likely about it, if it's only Cat 5, then it's only for up to 100Mbps, no discussion.


----------

