1GB Internet Very Inconsistent

[EarthDog]

Now something that’s crazy if I connect directly to the modem I can consistently hit 900+Mbps but through my router is varies wildly

That's crazy???

What router (brand and model) is it?

 

[TheLostSwede]

Actually, unless your router can handle the speed, it can happen. Older routers, even though they have Gigabit Ethernet, might not be able to handle the traffic.
I would suggest getting something with at least a dual core SoC.

 

[Durvelle27]

That's crazy???

What router (brand and model) is it?

My router is a TP-Link AC1750


SoC is a Qualcomm 750MHz

 

[TheLostSwede]

My router is a TP-Link AC1750


SoC is a Qualcomm 750MHz

Yeah, that's it. Got one of those as a Wi-Fi AP, won't do proper Gigabit speed.
I set it it up as a "switch" with AP, had to move it elsewhere in the network, as it became a bottleneck for wired transfers.

Got Amazon prime? Get one one of these, they're on sale today, best router I've ever owned.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0192911RA/

 

[Durvelle27]

Yeah, that's it. Got one of those as a Wi-Fi AP, won't do proper Gigabit speed.
I set it it up as a "switch" with AP, had to move it elsewhere in the network, as it became a bottleneck for wired transfers.

Got Amazon prime? Get one one of these, they're on sale today, best router I've ever owned.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0192911RA/

I also have Comcast router as well which is

2 Cores at 1.5GHz

 

[TheLostSwede]

I also have Comcast router as well which is

2 Cores at 1.5GHz

Any idea what model it is? That's most likely Broadcom based, but should be vastly superior to that old TP-Link.

 

[Durvelle27]

Any idea what model it is? That's most likely Broadcom based, but should be vastly superior to that old TP-Link.

 

[TheLostSwede]

That should be plenty decent, although keep in mind that they have a backdoor into that via TR-069.

Specs here https://wikidevi.com/wiki/Technicolor_CGM4140COM
Very much Broadcom based, not that that is a bad thing as such.
The downside might be the Quantenna part, but if it works, it works...
Insanely enough, that's an 8x8:8 Wi-Fi router, which can most likely delivery 1Gbps over Wi-Fi, if you can find an 8x8:8 client...
The 2.4GHz Wi-Fi is only 2x2:2 though, so that'll be max 300Mbps sync rate.
Plenty of RAM as well and a boatload of flash, not that you can do anything useful with it...

I would go ahead and try that, you should get constant performance from it.

 

[Durvelle27]

That should be plenty decent, although keep in mind that they have a backdoor into that via TR-069.

Specs here https://wikidevi.com/wiki/Technicolor_CGM4140COM
Very much Broadcom based, not that that is a bad thing as such.
The downside might be the Quantenna part, but if it works, it works...
Insanely enough, that's an 8x8:8 Wi-Fi router, which can most likely delivery 1Gbps over Wi-Fi, if you can find an 8x8:8 client...
The 2.4GHz Wi-Fi is only 2x2:2 though, so that'll be max 300Mbps sync rate.
Plenty of RAM as well and a boatload of flash, not that you can do anything useful with it...

I would go ahead and try that, you should get constant performance from it.

This is with the Comcast router

This is with mine

Both ran from my iPad


I’m getting consistent 450-580Mbps

 

[TheLostSwede]

Try wired as well.

As I said before, you can't expect to get Gigabit over Wi-Fi, as the devices in general only have 2x2:2 antenna configuration at best. That limits the speed, unless you move to 802.11ax, where you'd get closer, but not close enough with the same antenna configuration.
The best devices with Wi-Fi are MacBooks, they have 3x3:3 designs, which I don't even know if there's a Windows laptop that does.
Your router is major overkill for a consumer device, as it has, as I pointed out, eight antennas...

Lol, that's the first time I've seen a router on the FCC with three PDF's full of internal pictures...

FCC ID G95CGM414X DOCSIS Cable Gateway by Technicolor Connected Home USA LLC

FCC ID application submitted by Technicolor Connected Home USA LLC for DOCSIS Cable Gateway for FCC ID G95CGM414X. Approved Frequencies, User Manuals, Photos, and Wireless Reports.

fccid.io

This is the Wi-Fi "chip" which has another dual core SoC inside it.

http://www.quantenna.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/QSR10GU-V1.3.pdf

 

[Durvelle27]

Try wired as well.

As I said before, you can't expect to get Gigabit over Wi-Fi, as the devices in general only have 2x2:2 antenna configuration at best. That limits the speed, unless you move to 802.11ax, where you'd get closer, but not close enough with the same antenna configuration.
The best devices with Wi-Fi are MacBooks, they have 3x3:3 designs, which I don't even know if there's a Windows laptop that does.
Your router is major overkill for a consumer device, as it has, as I pointed out, eight antennas...

Lol, that's the first time I've seen a router on the FCC with three PDF's full of internal pictures...

FCC ID G95CGM414X DOCSIS Cable Gateway by Technicolor Connected Home USA LLC

FCC ID application submitted by Technicolor Connected Home USA LLC for DOCSIS Cable Gateway for FCC ID G95CGM414X. Approved Frequencies, User Manuals, Photos, and Wireless Reports.

fccid.io

This is wired

Almost 3x as fast as my router over wired

 

[TheLostSwede]

Not sure what your new router defaults to in terms of channel width, but you can play around with 40, 80 and 160MHz to see if you get any more speed out of your mobile devices. Most of them aren't likely to support anything over 80MHz though.
Keep in mind, that if you live close to others, you might interfere with their Wi-Fi if you use 80 and 160MHz, as it uses up all the available frequencies.
Some devices might not even work when you set it to 160MHz.

You can also use the DFS bands on that router, as it won't interfere with weather radar, but it might switch off temporarily if it detects a weather radar signal and you're using the DFS bands.

So all good now otherwise?

 

[Bill_Bright]

But I'm sure you can still find articles written very recently that still put out the myth that Cable is shared like it is fact and it hasn't been that way for almost a decade. People started saying it, it stuck, and everyone still think it's true like nothing has changed from 20 years ago.

I get so frustrated with stuff like this. I see it all the time where something was (or was rumored to be) true 20 years ago and some folks still think it true today. I see it all the time with Windows. Some think because it was true with XP, it must still be true with W10. OEM coolers were, therefore must still be junk. Today's generation SSDs will wear out if you use them. Yadda yadda.

 

[Durvelle27]

Not sure what your new router defaults to in terms of channel width, but you can play around with 40, 80 and 160MHz to see if you get any more speed out of your mobile devices. Most of them aren't likely to support anything over 80MHz though.
Keep in mind, that if you live close to others, you might interfere with their Wi-Fi if you use 80 and 160MHz, as it uses up all the available frequencies.
Some devices might not even work when you set it to 160MHz.

You can also use the DFS bands on that router, as it won't interfere with weather radar, but it might switch off temporarily if it detects a weather radar signal and you're using the DFS bands.

So all good now otherwise?

So I got it set at 20/40/80 as 160 didn’t show much difference

Everything seems good now. All my wireless devices are hitting 400-500Mbps every time and my wired devices hit 900-970Mbps every time

So it was my router that was the issue

Tested again with my iPhone XR

 

[TheLostSwede]

So I got it set at 20/40/80 as 160 didn’t show much difference

Everything seems good now. All my wireless devices are hitting 400-500Mbps every time and my wired devices hit 900-970Mbps every time

So it was my router that was the issue

Tested again with my iPhone XR

View attachment 126935

The 20/40/80 settings is the considerate setting, as it means the router will slow down if it detects other 5GHz routers nearby. As such, it'll try to share the available spectrum with them. It might never happen though, since 5GHz signals don't really reach that far.
HT160 pretty much only does something in bridge mode, i.e. you have another router/range extender that you connect to the main router as a wireless bridge, as not many devices support HT160.

Those are some fast speeds for a phone over Wi-Fi.

 

[Durvelle27]

The 20/40/80 settings is the considerate setting, as it means the router will slow down if it detects other 5GHz routers nearby. As such, it'll try to share the available spectrum with them. It might never happen though, since 5GHz signals don't really reach that far.
HT160 pretty much only does something in bridge mode, i.e. you have another router/range extender that you connect to the main router as a wireless bridge, as not many devices support HT160.

Those are some fast speeds for a phone over Wi-Fi.

I might add a AP

This is from almost 40 feet away on the other side of the house

 

[TheLostSwede]

I guess your home doesn't have concrete walls or any metal in the walls?
Those are the big killers for Wi-Fi signal, well, that an old European rock walls...

 

[Bill_Bright]

I might add a AP

Do you live in a crowded network neighbhorhood - like in or near a large apartment complex? Have you checked your area for channel crowding? I would do this before spending money on more network devices. Use a sniffer to look at all the wifi signals in your area to see if the channel you are using is being used by other nearby wifi networks. I use XIRRUS WiFi Inspector to see what wireless channels are in use and available. NirSoft's WifiInfoView is another good one. Also popular is inSSIDer.

If your networks (both 2.4GHz and 5GHz) are out by themselves, then I would leave the channel settings alone. But if other networks are using the same (or adjacent) channels as you, and the sniffer shows unused channels are available, I recommend changing your channel setting in your router, then see how your propagation goes. Note this setting is typically made easily in your router's wifi admin menu. You don't have to change anything in your connected devices, that will happen automatically.

Note if your full wifi spectrum is crowded, and all channels are being used, then you will need to look at the signal strength of the other wifi networks and move your wifi network to the channel where other networks are the weakest.

This is from almost 40 feet away on the other side of the house

40 feet "line of sight" should not pose a problem - even with 5GHz (though beyond that I would go with 2.4GHz). It is more about the number of barriers (walls, floors and ceilings), the composition of those barriers (thick concrete or rock, or thin wall board as examples), and the contents of those barriers (steel or wood studs, metal pipes and wires) that matters more. And then there are sources of interference such as other networks, other EMI/RFI sources like microwave ovens, TVs, cells towers, etc. Even reflective surfaces (like the metal side of a large refrigerator) can affect reception.

Another simple place to look is the antenna orientation of your WAP (wireless access point - typically part of a wireless router or residential gateway device). If your WAP has external antennas, you can try moving them around and using your sniffer to see if signal strength improves. Many antennas are detachable and can be raised and perhaps mounted high on the wall. If your antennas are internal, simply rotating the wireless router 90° may help. I would also try to move the WAP to a central (preferably upper) location in the house instead of on one end.

Adding a range extender or a second AP may be your only solution, but I recommend trying all of the above first before spending any money. Also note a range extender and/or second AP also adds complexity (and potential points of failure) to your network and the administration of it. If you have good house wiring, Powerline Networking is another option.

I note a range extender or second AP are typically better for larger homes and/or homes with more than two levels. So I would look at buying a new, more capable wireless router before adding a range extender or second AP.

And FTR, these are all just good reasons to go Ethernet, when possible. Not to mention Ethernet is inherently more secure by default.

 

[LittleKonae]

I had a splitter in line before my modem and it killed the signal, maybe check for that

 

[v12dock]

Post your SNR and power levels to the modem. Also Comcast pushed out Note+0 over the last few years so there should be no amp on your node. It simply looks like your router can not handle the full gigabit speeds. Also if you have your own router did you have them baseline the router/modem combo you are using from them? I imagine the modem is a 32/4 modem so you should be pulling 32 downstream channels with one of them being a 3.1 channel.

 

[TheLostSwede]

PSA, the problem has already been resolved by using the Comcast router that was included with the service.

 

[EarthDog]

Are threads here able to be marked SOLVED by users?

That would help (as would reading the whole thread, lol).

 

[Durvelle27]

I guess your home doesn't have concrete walls or any metal in the walls?
Those are the big killers for Wi-Fi signal, well, that an old European rock walls...

Test was ran in another room with 2 walls in between


And problem was solved, issue was the router

 

[Makaveli]

Your upload speed is kind of crap for that kind of download speed though, but I guess that's what your provider offers.

That is a limitation of a Cable Docsis network. There isn't enough bandwidth to provide decent upload speeds and all cable providers currently have this issue.

And it won't be resolved until they release full duplex cable which is probably another 3-4 years.

That's a long held myth that just isn't really true.

Like I told you before, the problem is not your internet it is the speedtest you're using. Speedtest.net is not a reliable speedtest for extremely fast internet connections. Fast.com gives more reliable results when you have a connection over 500Gbps, but even then it needs some tweaking, and it too struggles sometimes. You have to wait for the first test to finish, then go in an tweak the settings to have a minimum of 15 connections and a max of 30. Increasing the minimum test duration helps too.

But you have to realize that these speedtests are shared, multiple people are using the servers at the same time. They aren't built to test 1Gbps connection, heck most probably only have a 1Gbps connection. This is why you are getting inconsistent results. Even most webservers only have a 1Gbps connection, so again you're not going to be able to max your connection out downloading from one site either, because you're sharing that website's 1Gbps connection with everyone else downloading.

View attachment 126790

And Fast.com is not a reliable speed test site, I would choose speedtest.net over it and specifically you should be using the Speedtest.net App and not the flash based website it provides more accurate numbers.

And most home users have no need for higher upload speeds.

I usually see this from Cable internet users who are stuck with poor uploads and are use to it.

Once you get on a symmetrical connection you will see how that is no longer true.

 

[newtekie1]

I also have Comcast router as well which is

2 Cores at 1.5GHz

So my ASUS router would not give the 1Gbps throughput with 2x1GHz CPU. However, I was able to get close to the 1Gbps by turing on CTF(Cut-Through-Forwarding) on the ASUS router. I'm not sure what TP-Link calls it, or if they even have an option to enable CTF. I guarantee the Comcast modem has CTF enabled by default, which is why I can do the 1Gbps.

But I ended up building a pfSense router that can easily handle 1Gbps, because I didn't want to leave my security in Comcast's hands.

And Fast.com is not a reliable speed test site, I would choose speedtest.net over it and specifically you should be using the Speedtest.net App and not the flash based website it provides more accurate numbers.

It's more reliable that speedtest.net for fast connection. And by fast connections I mean near 1Gbps. The reason being is that some of the speedtest.net servers are only 1Gbps, so the results you get can vary greatly if you are on a 1Gbps server and it has some load from other users. The fast.com servers are all 10Gbps AFAIK. So you are less likely to hit an overloaded server that can't provide 1Gbps when testing a 1Gbps connection.

However, after playing around with speedtests over the past week or so, I find the DSLreports speed test to be more accurate than fast.com for 1Gbps connections, and even slower ones.

I usually see this from Cable internet users who are stuck with poor uploads and are use to it.

Once you get on a symmetrical connection you will see how that is no longer true.

I've got a symtrical 1Gbps cable connection at my work office. There's really no legitimate reason a home user needs more than 40Mbps upload right now. Hell, most would even notice the difference between 10Mbps up and 100Mbps up.