What modem and what type of cables are you using ? btw: you wont notice a difference between 900 mbps and 1000 mbps
Is your internet speed slower then advertised?
- Thread starter alarmguy
- Start date
Motorola MB8600 gigabit modem.
Mama's gaming rig and my computer have direct wired gigabit ethernet. TV's and other toys are WiFi on a netgear AC1900 router.
The problem lies with Comcast. It shuts off and comes back. They admit it's on their end. When it's not glitchy, it's pretty epic.
Mama's gaming rig and my computer have direct wired gigabit ethernet. TV's and other toys are WiFi on a netgear AC1900 router.
The problem lies with Comcast. It shuts off and comes back. They admit it's on their end. When it's not glitchy, it's pretty epic.
Yes, I assume you saw my other post, we always got 20% more then we paid for, after a cancelation and reconnect we get 10% less. (a swing I think of 30%)
I already know its Spectrum, I dont see why they have to come to the house but will be here today, Monday by noon.
6 weeks ago we got 117 mbps all the time, morning, afternoon, evenings and night for more then a year.
Now we get 88 to 92 all the time, through both wifi and Ethernet.
The speed is intentionally throttled at this level, we live in an area where 400 Mbps is available and again, we had 117 on our 100 service for years (?) until we cancelled 6 weeks ago to try TMobile Home Internet and just restarted the service with Spectrum..
We will see if the service person can allow a bit more bandwidth on his own. I suspect not but who knows. If not I will file with the FCC and have Spectrum contact me to explain... *LOL* that's all my thread is about, I dont have to call Spectrum again, the FCC will make sure they call me.
Honestly no one can tell the difference at these speeds and above if its 10% slower and I assume that Spectrum works that way now. No big deal, but for those who have an issue, just fill out the FCC form and forget about it. Your provider will have 30 days to contact you, look into it and report back to the FCC.
Last edited:
92 is an interesting number, it is the usable rate of an Ethernet cable linked at 100 Mb instead of 1000.
They are not intentionally throttling subscribers to various rates less than the advertised rate. All that would be in it for them is more complaints. Everyone on the same package gets the same setup, with a throttle somewhat higher than the advertised rate.
They are not intentionally throttling subscribers to various rates less than the advertised rate. All that would be in it for them is more complaints. Everyone on the same package gets the same setup, with a throttle somewhat higher than the advertised rate.
I do hope it works out well for you. I've been skimming the thread. Many good points have been made regarding how one tests and so on, which I will offer my anecdote.
I'm currently on a 2013 vintage laptop, oilBabe's old Asus S500C with an add on 802.11n USB2 adapter, as the on-board is an 802.11g IIRC. I can only get about 160mb up and down with this compared to the >350mb I get with the gigabit Ethernet adapater wired directly to the RG.
Since the on-board Ethernet on this dinosaur is 100mb, that would probably be even slower if I'd try it.
Just goes to support the already stated notion that how you test is important.
Zee09
$200 Site Donor 2023
Can't I just use a speed gun to measure the speed??? 
I'm generally getting more - most of the time. All bets are off if the line is congested.
It's very much like gym memberships or overbooking airline travel. The need to factor in people who don't fully utilize the resource. But sometimes it does get close. However, they've often solved that by using more lines so that there's less sharing of each cable line.
When DSL was more common, SBC/Pacific Bell had commercials showing a fictional neighborhood where residents were going at each other for using cable internet and slowing people down since it's a shared line. However, in reality I used cable internet back then when visiting and saw great speeds. Typical 20-30 Mbit/sec even though they advertised 6/12 Mbit/sec. DSL might have a dedicated line from the home to the switch, but that could get congested too. I remember my (old) equipment maxed out at 1.5 Mbit/sec when I had DSL
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Yes, DSL was just as over-subscribed as cable, it's just that the switch point was further away (whooptie doo!). Dedicated bandwidth is expensive. We are ~$1,300/month for 500/500 dedicated fibre at a few locations. 99.998% uptime (or something along those lines, guaranteed), all of the distribution equipment here locally is on massive gensets so even when there's a power outage as long as I have power we have internet (and phone, as we leverage SIP at several locations). Our local cable provider, who I just switched a local clinic away from (to fibre), has had three outages in the last couple of months. We've never had a single fibre outage in 5 years at our building that's just a block away. And the cable does get congested during peak periods, the fibre always delivers, as it is required to, given the guaranteed bandwidth, but you are paying for all of that when you pay for an enterprise-grade connection.
The cable company also is prone to doing some REALLY stupid stuff, like completely nuking your static IP config with a modem upgrade, which can mean significant loss of service including downed VPN's...etc. I've had that exact thing happen with this provider far more times than a single person should ever experience with multiple clinics, it's actually a bit disturbing.
DSL always had limitations based on distance. It's just trying to make up for how utterly bad an idea it is to try to push large amounts of data through a long 24 gauge phone line. The original AT&T U-Verse tried to reuse phone lines with really short distances to neighborhood switches. I think they were capped at 24 Mbit/sec, but that included the bandwidth for TV service.
When I first got DSL I was thinking that yeah this is faster than dial-up. I had a fairly simple Speedstream DSL modem that maxed out at 1.5 Mbit/sec downstream, so that was my hard speed cap. I think that was the maximum speed up to maybe 5 miles to the switch.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Yes, I have extensive experience with DSL. There was a thread on here years and years ago when I was still using it. I had a Cisco 1841 ISR with the ADSL2+ HWIC in it. I could do 99% RCO which was 25/1 IIRC; very fast for ADSL. That was on a line length that was roughly 2km, even though I'm only about 4 blocks straight-line from the CO.
I later upgraded to VDSL2 (which is what U-Verse was/is) which allowed me to bump up to 24/5 IIRC, so the major improvement was on the upstream side only, downstream stayed roughly the same. I had a whole house Corning VDSL2+ splitter (still had an analog phone line at the time) had upgraded my NID with a new Corning unit and that was the reason I could run such a high RCO without drops.
Bell did the same thing up here as AT&T did. They did fibre to the node and then VDSL to the premises, so short loops and they then gave it the horribly and intentionally misleading name "fibe" which of course confused everyone. They did IPTV over it too. They eventually started doing fibre to the premises, which is their big push now.
I'm now on cable, which is technically shared line space with that retched company I mentioned earlier, except that thankfully it only uses the cable as a transport medium so it jumps off onto my ISP's network very close by. This means that in situations where that other provider has network issues, unless they are right at the local hand-over (which they almost never are) then I'm unaffected. So those three outages I mentioned, I had no problems, despite being on the same carrier medium.
I still have my original SpeedTouch Pro, hacked to a SpeedTouch Pro, here at the house. ADSL (not 2 or 2+) and I recall the best I could get with it was 7/0.8. Was super reliable though and with AlcaTool you could view all kinds of awesome line graphs and statistics from the unit.
I looked up what I had before. It was a Speedstream 5260 I believe. Mine was before they got bought out by Siemens. Can't find too many specs but there's one claim that it's up to 8 mbit/sec. I was lucky to get 1.3 down and 600 kbps up. I got it with a minimum 2 year contract with Earthlink. It was still being used until about 2012 when an ill-fated attempt to switch to 3rd party VoIP disconnected the phone line, and AT&T (at the time) couldn't install a dry line just for DSL.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
I looked up what I had before. It was a Speedstream 5260 I believe. Mine was before they got bought out by Siemens. Can't find too many specs but there's one claim that it's up to 8 mbit/sec. I was lucky to get 1.3 down and 600 kbps up. I got it with a minimum 2 year contract with Earthlink. It was still being used until about 2012 when an ill-fated attempt to switch to 3rd party VoIP disconnected the phone line, and AT&T (at the time) couldn't install a dry line just for DSL.
I definitely have one of those in my basement too. I have a surprising amount of wholly obsolete network gear including several DSL modems that will never be used again and even some T1 cards, lol.
That's what I am currently on. Two ATT bonded vdsl loops to a nearby fiber node. In theory this gives me 100/20 service. No other service providers here.
Back when I was still using it, one of the interesting things was the Earthlink still had dial-up service as a backup for all DSL customers. I used that a few times on vacation where I'd look up the local service number and make sure that I had included phone service. I even used it once on vacation on Maui where I wanted to look up something. I had free local phone service with my resort fee, but Wi-Fi was something like $15/day. And the laptop I brought with me still had a built-in modem and all I needed was a phone line.
I got it working around late 2002. I had a huge pain just trying to get it to work. It would lock but there was no connection. I didn't need to pay for it until my first connection, but that was really a pain calling up Earthlink several times until it finally worked. I think it was just a software configuration issue on their end, but for a while they were saying that they needed my local phone company to do something.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Oh I remember those! Sympatico did the same thing up here if you were on ADSL, you had access to dial-up using the same username/password and they provided you with a massive list of toll-free (local) calling numbers that worked coast-to-coast.
Why?
Trying to understand your thinking.
I had 117 Mbps 6 weeks ago and the preceding years, now that I am reconnected I have up to 95... Tech was here yesterday and got it up to 95 from the upper 80s to lower 90s) he was clueless on what he was doing or just wanted to get out of the house after an hour)
This is on a service that delivers up to 400. So if they can deliver 400 why dont they deliver me at least 100?
Doesnt make sense. Just wanted what is advertised (and I will get it*LOL*) If more people complained, everyone would get more of what they advertised, as I will, have to go get a Heart Catherization right now *(LOL) but if they let me go home later, Ill check it one more time, not bother contacting Spectrum and filed a complaint with the FCC and this will force Spectrum to contact me and explain.
Unless I get REALLY close to 100 which I need to check a bit more, haven't had time.
Why bother, your not going to notice any difference anyway.
Your right, I am not going to notice the difference. Between 93 and 100 Mbps.
I guess I just stand up for the rest of the people who allow companies to advertise and charge for things they don't deliver. I don't know why people don't care. Blows my mind really. Huge corporations know the average American won't care and why they get short changed.
We buy a product from a company, instead of being impressed with "over and beyond" we settle for less then advertised.
For me, if your going to sell me something, you are going to give me what I am paying for. Its that simple. Even better, the FCC makes it easy to put on record if you don't get what you pay for.
As stated, Spectrum delivers 400 Mbps service in my area as well, so it not a matter of system limitations to deliver 100 Mbps.
Its no big deal so don't take my posts wrong, but Ill break their b___ and if everyone demanded what they pay for, we would all be better off.
I find it fascinating how differently you treated and described T-Mobile as compared to Spectrum. You practically fell over yourself trying to put T-Mobile in the best light and explain away their problems, yet you're treating this provider completely different. T-Mobile was way off the mark, much further than Spectrum yet you continually fawned over them. The difference you're seeing between 93 and 100 Mbps is far less than what you were describing with the other carrier.
Mind you I wish I could spend less than the $75/month I'm paying Spectrum for 200 Mbps service, but I don't have a lot of choices where I live. After reading your constant and incessant problems with T-Mobile I'm not inclined to switch.
