Can't Reach The Speed That My Router Shows

[Osilidath]

Hello everyone,

 

I'm using a Huawei HG658c V2 router and Asus Rog Strix B450-F mobo. I should actually have 75 Mpbs down but router interface says that 78 Mbps comes to router (which is ok), 64 Mpbs to my pc (that's not ok). And I get 55 Mpbs at speedtest. I checked my updates (BIOS included) several times. I don't really know what's the problem. But I know that I nearly got 50% loss at down speed. My ISP says there's nothing wrong from their perspective. They keep saying "We'll send a team to check" and "We didn't see any problem". I dunno much about ethernet and electricity stuff. And I don't know what it is called but the big ethernet thing is in my building. I would be really appreciated if someone could help.

 

[Electronics Wizardy]

What speed are you paying for from the isp?

 

What speeds do you get when wired? You want to rule out wifi as a limt.

[Biomecanoid]

25 minutes ago, Osilidath said:

Hello everyone,

 

I'm using a Huawei HG658c V2 router and Asus Rog Strix B450-F mobo. I should actually have 75 Mpbs down but router interface says that 78 Mbps comes to router (which is ok), 64 Mpbs to my pc (that's not ok). And I get 55 Mpbs at speedtest. I checked my updates (BIOS included) several times. I don't really know what's the problem. But I know that I nearly got 50% loss at down speed. My ISP says there's nothing wrong from their perspective. They keep saying "We'll send a team to check" and "We didn't see any problem". I dunno much about ethernet and electricity stuff. And I don't know what it is called but the big ethernet thing is in my building. I would be really appreciated if someone could help.

 

Your internet is fine 

 

Your modem negotiates its link to the ISP at 64mbps down and 8mbps up. This is the network speed the modem achieves to the provider its the pipe from which internet will travel thru.

 

So you use this link to achieve about 58mbps which means like  ( x= 5800/64 ) your link is 90% efferent on the download and ( x=760/8.1 ) and 93% efficient on the upload.

 

All is good

 

 

[Osilidath]

14 hours ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

What speed are you paying for from the isp?

 

What speeds do you get when wired? You want to rule out wifi as a limt.

I pay for 75 Mbps

 

14 hours ago, Biomecanoid said:

Your internet is fine 

 

Your modem negotiates its link to the ISP at 64mbps down and 8mbps up. This is the network speed the modem achieves to the provider its the pipe from which internet will travel thru.

 

So you use this link to achieve about 58mbps which means like  ( x= 5800/64 ) your link is 90% efferent on the download and ( x=760/8.1 ) and 93% efficient on the upload.

 

All is good

 

 

So the problem if from ISP right? Because my downstream line rate should have been 75 Mbps. Because its 64, my 55 Mpbs speedtest is normal. But I think I should at least get 65 Mpbs at speedtest.

[Biomecanoid]

55 minutes ago, Osilidath said:

I pay for 75 Mbps

 

So the problem if from ISP right? Because my downstream line rate should have been 75 Mbps. Because its 64, my 55 Mpbs speedtest is normal. But I think I should at least get 65 Mpbs at speedtest.

Its not a real problem but you can complain if you want but it would also be the wiring in your house

[akio123008]

16 hours ago, Biomecanoid said:

90% efferent on the download and ( x=760/8.1 ) and 93% efficient on the upload.

There's no such thing as "90% efficient download speed". It's not a power supply.

 

With networking, if your max down speed is 75mbit, you should get 75 down. That's it. There's no rule that says "90% is good enough" or whatever. 

 

If you've ruled out wifi:

16 hours ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

You want to rule out wifi as a limt.

 

Then it's time to tell your ISP they better fix that speed now.

 

PS I have VDSL too and sometimes it acts a bit strange and achieve only 60% of my usual max speed, then a few days later it's all fine again. That may be going on here as well.

[Biomecanoid]

56 minutes ago, akio123008 said:

There's no such thing as "90% efficient download speed". It's not a power supply.

Yes there is since it uses 90% of the negotiated link. If the negotiated link should have been higher that's another thing to look at.

 

With networking, if your max down speed is 75mbit, you should get 75 down. That's it. There's no rule that says "90% is good enough" or whatever. 

Most of the times you never get the advertised speed  (unless you live next to the ISP ), because the advertised speed often is what the provider allows you to have ( in their profiles ) not accounting for any losses down the line or in you home. Even your 1gb network at home it won't be 1000mbps sharp it may be 900mbps or 950

 

As we don't leave in a prefect world anything above 90% is considered normal. I doubt that even YOU as a person operate at 100% efficiency nothing is.

 

If you've ruled out wifi:

 

Then it's time to tell your ISP they better fix that speed now.

 

PS I have VDSL too and sometimes it acts a bit strange and achieve only 60% of my usual max speed, then a few days later it's all fine again. That may be going on here as well.

 

 

[akio123008]

1 hour ago, Biomecanoid said:

I doubt that even YOU as a person operate at 100% efficiency nothing is.

That's exactly my point. You're confusing efficiency in physics with transfer speed in networking. 

 

Efficiency is about a conversion of energy, not about how much data transfer compared to an advertised speed.

 

100% efficiency is impossible indeed; 100% of the advertised network speed is not. 

 

It's like saying "this car's top speed is 200kmh but the efficiency is only 90% so it can only do 180": that doesn't make sense. The top speed is 200, so 200 it is. Efficiency has nothing to do with that.

 

 

 

[Biomecanoid]

1 minute ago, akio123008 said:

That's exactly my point. You're confusing efficiency in physics with transfer speed in networking. 

 

Efficiency is about a conversion of energy, not about how much data transfer compared to an advertised speed.

 

100% efficiency is impossible indeed; 100% of the advertised network speed is not. 

You live in a perfect world, use iperf on your local LAN and I am pretty sure you will NOT get the advertised bandwidth. Do it and post the results here. Nothing works at 100%

 

Efficiency is a broad term and it applies to more than physics, it applies even to humans , HR departments for example in large companies evaluate the efficiency of their employees 

 

 

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/efficiency

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

efficiency

noun [ U ]

 

B2

the good use of time and energy in a way that does not waste any:

What is so impressive about their society is the efficiency of the public services.

energy efficiency

 

PHYSICS   specialized

the difference between the amount of energy that is put into a machine in the form of fuel, effort, etc. and the amount that comes out of it in the form of movement

 

 More examples

• She got through her work with speed and efficiency.
• Streamlining cars increases their fuel efficiency.
• Ships from eight navies will be taking part in an exercise in the Pacific to improve their efficiency in combat.
• He's a stickler for efficiency.
• Sweden has shown the way forward on energy efficiency.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

1st  interpretation of the word is the general broadly used term and the second is the specialized physics one.

[akio123008]

5 minutes ago, Biomecanoid said:

Nothing works at 100%

You see what you don't get is that, the advertised speed is supposed to be accurate. They should take your "effciency" (terrible term to use still in this context) into account. If their link can only do 64mbit realistically, then the plan should say 64mbit on it, not 75.

 

And then as a consumer you can't just say "oh well give em some slack 90% is good enough" because 75 is what you paid for.

 

And even if you do think that's right, where does that 90% come from? Why not 95 or 70? What makes you draw this arbitrary line? That's the problem with this.

 

Just like when I buy a car, that says "140HP" on the spec sheet, that means I have that amount of engine power available.

 

The spec sheet doesn't say "420HP" on it because that's how much power it uses in terms of fuel but it's only 33% efficient so then it effectively still is 140. That wouldn't be fair. 

[Lurick]

The reason you don't see getting 100% link speed (aka line rate) is because of overhead and how different devices handle that (showing it or not) but in a point to point connection through a switch that can operate at line rate (ie almost all of them) you will get 100% of the line rate assuming no issues with either NIC on each end. What might be different is how the application handles the display of overhead. If you send tons of 64byte packets + ethernet overhead your link might just strip the overhead of the ethernet header off when showing things to you so you have to do the math to figure out full line rate, otherwise it will appear lower.

[Biomecanoid]

4 minutes ago, akio123008 said:

You see what you don't get is that, the advertised speed is supposed to be accurate. They should take your "effciency" (terrible term to use still in this context) into account. If their link can only do 64mbit realistically, then the plan should say 64mbit on it, not 75.

Well that is what the ISPs do they advertise the bandwidth cap they have on you not what you will receive at the end of the link.

 

And then as a consumer you can't just say "oh well give em some slack 90% is good enough" because 75 is what you paid for.

As I said test your internal network with iperf and share the results your LAN right now should work at about 90% your NICs would have successfully negotiate a 1000mbps link but the actual throughput would be less. Whose fault is that ? nobody's. See for yourself.

 

And even if you do think that's right, where does that 90% come from? Why not 95 or 70? What makes you draw this arbitrary line? That's the problem with this.

I have my moments of OCD myself but then sanity kicks in and I just realize that nothing can be perfect. 

 

Just like when I buy a car, that says "140HP" on the spec sheet, that means I have that amount of engine power available.

Most manufacturers state their HP at the ENGINE not the wheels   same analogy with what the ISPs do. So in your point of view you are getting "cheated".

 

The spec sheet doesn't say "420HP" on it because that's how much power it uses in terms of fuel but it's only 33% efficient so then it effectively still is 140. That wouldn't be fair. 

I will say again test your LAN and post the results

[Lurick]

32 minutes ago, Biomecanoid said:

I will say again test your LAN and post the results

Iperf shows the results ignoring any ethernet + TCP/IP overhead which are part of the packet but the more headers = lower amounts of data transmission at a given packet size per packet but is still line rate in terms of actual data (1s and 0s) passed from A to B through a switch. If you want to see real line rate results you're grabbing a proper traffic generator that uses FPGAs and blasting traffic properly not relying on generated packets with iperf which can struggle at higher data rates.

 

https://sourceforge.net/p/iperf/mailman/message/19147882/

Headers + 1500 byte packets = 10Gbit/s

python@ubuntu-py:~$ iperf3 -c 172.31.7.68 -M 1500 -R
Connecting to host 172.31.7.68, port 5201
Reverse mode, remote host 172.31.7.68 is sending
[  4] local 172.31.7.67 port 36276 connected to 172.31.7.68 port 5201
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth
[  4]   0.00-1.00   sec  1.09 GBytes  9.34 Gbits/sec                  
[  4]   1.00-2.00   sec  1.09 GBytes  9.35 Gbits/sec                  
[  4]   2.00-3.00   sec  1.09 GBytes  9.35 Gbits/sec                  
[  4]   3.00-4.00   sec  1.09 GBytes  9.35 Gbits/sec                  
[  4]   4.00-5.00   sec  1.09 GBytes  9.35 Gbits/sec                  
[  4]   5.00-6.00   sec  1.09 GBytes  9.35 Gbits/sec                  
[  4]   6.00-7.00   sec  1.09 GBytes  9.35 Gbits/sec                  
[  4]   7.00-8.00   sec  1.09 GBytes  9.34 Gbits/sec                  
[  4]   8.00-9.00   sec  1.09 GBytes  9.35 Gbits/sec                  
[  4]   9.00-10.00  sec  1.09 GBytes  9.35 Gbits/sec                  
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth       Retr
[  4]   0.00-10.00  sec  10.9 GBytes  9.35 Gbits/sec    0             sender
[  4]   0.00-10.00  sec  10.9 GBytes  9.35 Gbits/sec                  receiver

iperf Done.

[Biomecanoid]

2 hours ago, Lurick said:

Iperf shows the results ignoring any ethernet + TCP/IP overhead which are part of the packet but the more headers = lower amounts of data transmission at a given packet size per packet but is still line rate in terms of actual data (1s and 0s) passed from A to B through a switch. If you want to see real line rate results you're grabbing a proper traffic generator that uses FPGAs and blasting traffic properly not relying on generated packets with iperf which can struggle at higher data rates.

 

https://sourceforge.net/p/iperf/mailman/message/19147882/

Headers + 1500 byte packets = 10Gbit/s

python@ubuntu-py:~$ iperf3 -c 172.31.7.68 -M 1500 -R
Connecting to host 172.31.7.68, port 5201
Reverse mode, remote host 172.31.7.68 is sending
[  4] local 172.31.7.67 port 36276 connected to 172.31.7.68 port 5201
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth
[  4]   0.00-1.00   sec  1.09 GBytes  9.34 Gbits/sec                  
[  4]   1.00-2.00   sec  1.09 GBytes  9.35 Gbits/sec                  
[  4]   2.00-3.00   sec  1.09 GBytes  9.35 Gbits/sec                  
[  4]   3.00-4.00   sec  1.09 GBytes  9.35 Gbits/sec                  
[  4]   4.00-5.00   sec  1.09 GBytes  9.35 Gbits/sec                  
[  4]   5.00-6.00   sec  1.09 GBytes  9.35 Gbits/sec                  
[  4]   6.00-7.00   sec  1.09 GBytes  9.35 Gbits/sec                  
[  4]   7.00-8.00   sec  1.09 GBytes  9.34 Gbits/sec                  
[  4]   8.00-9.00   sec  1.09 GBytes  9.35 Gbits/sec                  
[  4]   9.00-10.00  sec  1.09 GBytes  9.35 Gbits/sec                  
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ ID] Interval           Transfer     Bandwidth       Retr
[  4]   0.00-10.00  sec  10.9 GBytes  9.35 Gbits/sec    0             sender
[  4]   0.00-10.00  sec  10.9 GBytes  9.35 Gbits/sec                  receiver

iperf Done.

The above is exactly what expected. The header don't mean anything to the end user it's network overhead only packets carry information for the user,

 

So you lose some tiny meaningful bandwidth because the packets needs to carry with them extra information in order to reach their destination, that why its 9.35 Gbps and not 10 exactly.

 

Same applies to the Modem to ISP scenario + we have the loss of the wires depending on how far we are from the provider. 

[akio123008]

15 minutes ago, Biomecanoid said:

Same applies to the Modem to ISP scenario + we have the loss of the wires depending on how far we are from the provider. 

This is exactly what I'm trying to point out, but I'll do it again in case you missed it:

THE ISP IS SUPPOSED TO TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT WHEN TELLING YOU THE SPEED YOU'RE GOING TO GET. 

I'm not an idiot. I'm not some stupid guy who's never noticed that theoretical network speeds are almost never met. I never argued that the network speed is always at it's theoretical maximum. I argued that the network speed should be as advertised.

 

If they tell you you've got a 75mbit connection, then your connection is supposed to operate at that rate, or maybe something just below it. Meaning that, when your modem negotiates the speed to 64mbit, you're not getting even close to the speed agreed on, therefore not getting what you pay for. 

 

You can argue due to overhead etc. it's 57mbit instead of 64, but then the 64mbit is still not the right number to begin with. The OP got 57mbit instead of the 75 the ISP states, which is way too low to be acceptable. That's nothing at all like 9.4gbit on a 10GE LAN, it's far, far further off. 

 

15 minutes ago, Biomecanoid said:

So you lose some tiny meaningful bandwidth

So yeah, not at all tiny, more like 24% of your entire network speed in this case.

 

Therefore I'd contact the ISP and ask them what's going on. 

[Alex Atkin UK]

Firstly, I just want to backup what was said before, with VDSL you will always come out around 10% slower than the line rate in real-world throughput.  There's a LOT of overheads from the DSL protocol itself and any other layers such as PPP, TCP/IP, etc that is on-top of your actual usable data.

 

Secondly, have you actually tried rebooting the router?

 

VDSL will usually target a downstream SNRm of 6dB, you have 8.7dB suggesting something happened to cause it to connect slower than expected (the attainable figure is what the modem estimates it SHOULD connect at given the current line conditions).  This could be as simple as another person with VDSL has turned off their modem so now your modem can hear more clearly than it could before.  This is not unusual in itself, VDSL by its nature will connect as good as your line can handle at the time your router booted.

As for you PAID for 75Mbit, I'm not sure you did.  VDSL is typically sold as an "up to" service for this reason, they CAN'T guarantee 75Mbit as it depends on the condition and length of your phone line.  But in your case we can clearly see you should at least be faster than you are now.

 

In most cases though there is little you can do about it.  Look at my lines, both are provisioned for 80Mbit by the ISP and the actual rate differs dramatically due to line quality, such as other peoples lines with VDSL interfering with mine.  I used to get 80Mbit on both, then more neighbours got the service and the interference caused my speed to fall.

[Osilidath]

13 hours ago, Alex Atkin UK said:

Firstly, I just want to backup what was said before, with VDSL you will always come out around 10% slower than the line rate in real-world throughput.  There's a LOT of overheads from the DSL protocol itself and any other layers such as PPP, TCP/IP, etc that is on-top of your actual usable data.

 

Secondly, have you actually tried rebooting the router?

 

VDSL will usually target a downstream SNRm of 6dB, you have 8.7dB suggesting something happened to cause it to connect slower than expected (the attainable figure is what the modem estimates it SHOULD connect at given the current line conditions).  This could be as simple as another person with VDSL has turned off their modem so now your modem can hear more clearly than it could before.  This is not unusual in itself, VDSL by its nature will connect as good as your line can handle at the time your router booted.

As for you PAID for 75Mbit, I'm not sure you did.  VDSL is typically sold as an "up to" service for this reason, they CAN'T guarantee 75Mbit as it depends on the condition and length of your phone line.  But in your case we can clearly see you should at least be faster than you are now.

 

In most cases though there is little you can do about it.  Look at my lines, both are provisioned for 80Mbit by the ISP and the actual rate differs dramatically due to line quality, such as other peoples lines with VDSL interfering with mine.  I used to get 80Mbit on both, then more neighbours got the service and the interference caused my speed to fall.

Thanks for information my friend. So just a minute ago, ISP called me and said "I see that in the past you got max 71 Mbps so means your infrastructure supports that, not 78. But I also see that you're getting 60 Mbps so I send a ground unit to check your ports. I will keep you informed."

 

Btw I tried rebooting, resetting, replacing my router but nothing changed. And of course I meant UP TO 75 Mbps because you know, that's their marketing strategy. So they say my infrastructure supports 71 Mbps, but I can see that it supports 78, so that's a lie. And yes, I should definitely get higher. And thanks for helping me confirm that my router isn't the main issue. So I want to ask something. I'm currently using from wall, a combination of cable-splitter-cable-splitter-cable because my cable doesn't reach my router because I should keep my router close to my PC. Will buying a long one piece phone cable affect my speed, and is it worth it? And my current router is supports 150 Mbps max. Will upgrading it help?

[camieabz]

Yup. It's always 'up to' a given speed. That's the legal bit to stop people complaining that they don't get the speeds of their neighbour, because maybe your internal wiring is bad, or maybe your distance from exchange / cab / drop point is farther than the next house.

 

My connection is 'up to' 24 Meg. But distance from exchange means it'll never be more than 14000-16000 sync speed, and throughput speeds are rarely more than 12 Meg.

 

I've been meaning to upgrade to super/ultra/mega speeds for years, and never bothered. It's not a problem. I watch 1080p streams easily. Can only watch one at a time.

[mariushm]

On 1/25/2021 at 8:49 PM, Osilidath said:

 

 

The page says :

 

maximum downstream rate : 78624 kbit/s  - that's 78.6 mbps 

maximum upstream rate : 32295 kbit/s - that's 32.3 mbps 

 

Then you have

downstream line rate  - 64.8 mbps 

upstream line rate - 8.2 mbps 

 

I think this is the dsl router analyzing the quality of the wires between itself and the device at the other end, and I guess it determined the best quality of service (lower latency, lower data packets lost, less fluctuations) happen when it "syncs" at this line rate, instead of something higher. 

 

Unlike fiber, where the data travels as a beam of light without high enough degradation that you'd lose bits, or ethernet cable which works on short distances up to 100 mbps with no problems, DSL or VDSL (what's used to encode the bits on the phone line) is not guaranteed to achieve the maximum bandwidth, what you get is just like with the wireless connections, the maximum throughput will vary depending on how big is the distance between your home and the point where the other device your router "talks to" is located (could be around the corner, could be at the end of the street, could be 1 mile from you, could be further), can be affected even by how many phone lines are bundled together with your wires, how many use internet at that time of day.

 

For a DSL connection, getting 90-95% is quite good, and I wouldn't say they're cheating you or not giving you what they promise. I would complain if they advertise 100 mbps and you're only getting 50, but you're getting 57 out of 64 mbps, the maximum the router can connect at that moment, under your specific conditions. 

If you think you're paying to much, maybe discuss and have them change your plan to 50 mbps or something like that - if one is offered - and the router should still connect at 64 mbps / 8 mbps and you'll probably get 50 mbps all the time.

 

There's no point checking updates and all that - you're connecting to the router using ethernet at 1 gbps or through wireless which is most likely higher than 150 mbps, so that shouldn't affect anything (wireless could add some extra latency on top of dsl latency, but if you're close to the router, you should get more than 100 mbps with a modern wireless card)

 

Quote

 

 

Hello everyone,

 

I'm using a Huawei HG658c V2 router and Asus Rog Strix B450-F mobo. I should actually have 75 Mpbs down but router interface says that 78 Mbps comes to router (which is ok), 64 Mpbs to my pc (that's not ok). And I get 55 Mpbs at speedtest. I checked my updates (BIOS included) several times. I don't really know what's the problem. But I know that I nearly got 50% loss at down speed. My ISP says there's nothing wrong from their perspective. They keep saying "We'll send a team to check" and "We didn't see any problem". I dunno much about ethernet and electricity stuff. And I don't know what it is called but the big ethernet thing is in my building. I would be really appreciated if someone could help.

 

 

[Osilidath]

2 hours ago, mariushm said:

 

The page says :

 

maximum downstream rate : 78624 kbit/s  - that's 78.6 mbps 

maximum upstream rate : 32295 kbit/s - that's 32.3 mbps 

 

Then you have

downstream line rate  - 64.8 mbps 

upstream line rate - 8.2 mbps 

 

I think this is the dsl router analyzing the quality of the wires between itself and the device at the other end, and I guess it determined the best quality of service (lower latency, lower data packets lost, less fluctuations) happen when it "syncs" at this line rate, instead of something higher. 

 

Unlike fiber, where the data travels as a beam of light without high enough degradation that you'd lose bits, or ethernet cable which works on short distances up to 100 mbps with no problems, DSL or VDSL (what's used to encode the bits on the phone line) is not guaranteed to achieve the maximum bandwidth, what you get is just like with the wireless connections, the maximum throughput will vary depending on how big is the distance between your home and the point where the other device your router "talks to" is located (could be around the corner, could be at the end of the street, could be 1 mile from you, could be further), can be affected even by how many phone lines are bundled together with your wires, how many use internet at that time of day.

 

For a DSL connection, getting 90-95% is quite good, and I wouldn't say they're cheating you or not giving you what they promise. I would complain if they advertise 100 mbps and you're only getting 50, but you're getting 57 out of 64 mbps, the maximum the router can connect at that moment, under your specific conditions. 

If you think you're paying to much, maybe discuss and have them change your plan to 50 mbps or something like that - if one is offered - and the router should still connect at 64 mbps / 8 mbps and you'll probably get 50 mbps all the time.

 

There's no point checking updates and all that - you're connecting to the router using ethernet at 1 gbps or through wireless which is most likely higher than 150 mbps, so that shouldn't affect anything (wireless could add some extra latency on top of dsl latency, but if you're close to the router, you should get more than 100 mbps with a modern wireless card)

 

 

As I say, the main ethernet box (I dunno what it's called) is in my apartment, 3 floors below. What they promised is up to 75 Mbps. And even they accepted that they're not giving all. I never got higher than 71 Mbps they said. Which is still ok if it is 71. But my infustracture supports 78 Mbps, yet they give me 64 Mbps. At least thats what reaches to my router. And they're saying there's an internal problem with the building and they can't do anything about it. So internal cabling of building was perfectly fine for 2.5 years, but 1 week after I upgraded my plan to 75 Mbps, internal cabling of building got old? I was using at 70 Mbps-ish for the first week perfectly. Then something happened out of nowhere and my connection slowed down. That's what irritates me. I dunno why they're doing this but it's like when you want something more, they give you even less, and make you pay more. Just like they do at coffee shops with bigger cups. That's just funny, they're tiring me and theirself both.

[Alex Atkin UK]

On 1/28/2021 at 11:09 AM, Osilidath said:

As I say, the main ethernet box (I dunno what it's called) is in my apartment, 3 floors below. What they promised is up to 75 Mbps. And even they accepted that they're not giving all. I never got higher than 71 Mbps they said. Which is still ok if it is 71. But my infustracture supports 78 Mbps, yet they give me 64 Mbps. At least thats what reaches to my router. And they're saying there's an internal problem with the building and they can't do anything about it. So internal cabling of building was perfectly fine for 2.5 years, but 1 week after I upgraded my plan to 75 Mbps, internal cabling of building got old? I was using at 70 Mbps-ish for the first week perfectly. Then something happened out of nowhere and my connection slowed down. That's what irritates me. I dunno why they're doing this but it's like when you want something more, they give you even less, and make you pay more. Just like they do at coffee shops with bigger cups. That's just funny, they're tiring me and theirself both.

The physical line connecting you to that box is part of the infrastructure and the bit that impacts the speed you can achieve so sadly no, the infrastructure does not support 78Mbit in your case.  Yes the box in the building might, just as the box I'm connected to at the end of my street supports 80Mbit but I can only connect to it at 67Mbit on one line and 56Mbit on the other. 

Don't get me wrong, if the box is indeed only three floors below that seems pretty poor performance, but we do not know the quality of the cable or how many other cables bundled next to yours also have DSL service and are interfering with each other.  The fact they chose DSL over running fresh CAT6 or Fibre suggestions this was very much a cost saving exercise so I wouldn't have much faith the existing wiring is that great.

The wiring seemed fine before because you were on a lower package so it wasn't trying to push the higher frequencies required for the faster data rate.

 

One thing to note, does this line just come in a single socket or are there other outlets?  Is this shared with a telephone service?  Because if there are multiple outlets this can cause issues with DSL and telephones need to be filtered if its a shared line.

[Darren]

Aside from the other answers about VDSL inefficiencies, overhead and whatnot, you don't "pay for 75Mbps". You pay for a VDSL connection and it's best effort because there's simply no guarantees, particularly as it's over copper buried in the ground decadess ago.

[Osilidath]

22 hours ago, Alex Atkin UK said:

The physical line connecting you to that box is part of the infrastructure and the bit that impacts the speed you can achieve so sadly no, the infrastructure does not support 78Mbit in your case.  Yes the box in the building might, just as the box I'm connected to at the end of my street supports 80Mbit but I can only connect to it at 67Mbit on one line and 56Mbit on the other. 

Don't get me wrong, if the box is indeed only three floors below that seems pretty poor performance, but we do not know the quality of the cable or how many other cables bundled next to yours also have DSL service and are interfering with each other.  The fact they chose DSL over running fresh CAT6 or Fibre suggestions this was very much a cost saving exercise so I wouldn't have much faith the existing wiring is that great.

The wiring seemed fine before because you were on a lower package so it wasn't trying to push the higher frequencies required for the faster data rate.

 

One thing to note, does this line just come in a single socket or are there other outlets?  Is this shared with a telephone service?  Because if there are multiple outlets this can cause issues with DSL and telephones need to be filtered if its a shared line.

There is 2 CAT3's on the wall, but only one of them works. That used to share a telephone but I'm not using it anymore. Used to have a cable to phone from splitter, but they use the same line. So now I'm still using those splitters because my cables doesn't reach from CAT3 to my router. I never tried connecting to router without splitters because I can't test the speed like that beacuse I have a PC and not a laptop.

Would using multiple splitters cause it? I'm using 2 of these together right now. 

6 hours ago, Darren said:

Aside from the other answers about VDSL inefficiencies, overhead and whatnot, you don't "pay for 75Mbps". You pay for a VDSL connection and it's best effort because there's simply no guarantees, particularly as it's over copper buried in the ground decadess ago.

No, I do pay for up to 75 Mbps. If they tell me up to 75 and can't provide it, that's their fault not mine. And the whole street and building are new. I mean there was just empty fields 5 years ago.  And I'm pretty sure copper cables do not get old at 5 years. 

[Alex Atkin UK]

3 hours ago, Osilidath said:

There is 2 CAT3's on the wall, but only one of them works. That used to share a telephone but I'm not using it anymore. Used to have a cable to phone from splitter, but they use the same line. So now I'm still using those splitters because my cables doesn't reach from CAT3 to my router. I never tried connecting to router without splitters because I can't test the speed like that beacuse I have a PC and not a laptop.

Would using multiple splitters cause it? I'm using 2 of these together right now. 

No, I do pay for up to 75 Mbps. If they tell me up to 75 and can't provide it, that's their fault not mine. And the whole street and building are new. I mean there was just empty fields 5 years ago.  And I'm pretty sure copper cables do not get old at 5 years. 

Double filtering can indeed make a difference, I'd definitely test with just one or none at all (you don't need it if you do not have a phone plugged in).

[Darren]

On 1/31/2021 at 10:27 PM, Osilidath said:

No, I do pay for up to 75 Mbps. If they tell me up to 75 and can't provide it, that's their fault not mine. And the whole street and building are new. I mean there was just empty fields 5 years ago.  And I'm pretty sure copper cables do not get old at 5 years. 

Yes, "up to" being the key word, your ISP is not faslely advertising here.