Good wireless speed???

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by brazen, Feb 23, 2005.

  1. brazen

    brazen Guest

    Hi there,

    I recently went wireless with a co that offers a 2Mb connection. Downloads
    seemed to be a lot faster than dial up, but not that fast! So I did a few
    tests and got an average of 78 kilobytes per second. Seemed a bit slow to
    me.

    So I queried it with the techies and they said that the 2mb connection
    should give me a download speed of 40 - 160 kilobytes per second, dependant
    on traffic and signal. Now that seemed a little slow to me too.

    He also said that my lan hub might be slowing me down (10/100) so I bypassed
    that and went direct, and got an increased speed but still at an average of
    129 kilobytes per second.

    Is this slow, or am I expecting too much? I'm told the signal is good, so
    does that leave the traffic???? But surely it cant be that bad...

    Gay



    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
     
    brazen, Feb 23, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. brazen wrote:
    > I recently went wireless with a co that offers a 2Mb connection. Downloads
    > seemed to be a lot faster than dial up, but not that fast! So I did a few
    > tests and got an average of 78 kilobytes per second. Seemed a bit slow to
    > me.


    thats pathetic, you should be getting somwhere near 200kbytes/second

    > So I queried it with the techies and they said that the 2mb connection
    > should give me a download speed of 40 - 160 kilobytes per second, dependant
    > on traffic and signal. Now that seemed a little slow to me too.


    Personally I'd say closer to 160-220.

    > He also said that my lan hub might be slowing me down (10/100) so I bypassed
    > that and went direct, and got an increased speed but still at an average of
    > 129 kilobytes per second.


    I don't quite see how it could make that much difference, it certainly
    wasn't the bottleneck in this instance, as even 10Mbit is faster than 2.

    > Is this slow, or am I expecting too much? I'm told the signal is good, so
    > does that leave the traffic???? But surely it cant be that bad...


    It sounds way too slow, do they have anything hosted locally(as in on
    their servers) that you could download? it may be network congestion.
     
    Dave - dave.net.nz, Feb 23, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. brazen

    EMB Guest

    brazen wrote:
    > Hi there,
    >
    > I recently went wireless with a co that offers a 2Mb connection. Downloads
    > seemed to be a lot faster than dial up, but not that fast! So I did a few
    > tests and got an average of 78 kilobytes per second. Seemed a bit slow to
    > me.
    >
    > So I queried it with the techies and they said that the 2mb connection
    > should give me a download speed of 40 - 160 kilobytes per second, dependant
    > on traffic and signal. Now that seemed a little slow to me too.


    My 2Mbit ADSL downloads in the range of 160 - 220 kB/sec on local sites.

    Try the download speed test at
    http://jetstreamgames.co.nz/speed/ADSLdownload1MB.html and post the
    results (244kB/sec for me just now).

    >
    > He also said that my lan hub might be slowing me down (10/100) so I bypassed
    > that and went direct, and got an increased speed but still at an average of
    > 129 kilobytes per second.


    Unlikely - your hub will be running at at least 10Mbit/sec which is
    loads of headroom for a 2Mbit transfer.

    >
    > Is this slow, or am I expecting too much? I'm told the signal is good, so
    > does that leave the traffic???? But surely it cant be that bad...


    It sounds pretty slow. I'd be wanting to know what the signal is
    actually like - it may be piss poor, but you're being told it's ok just
    to keep you as a customer.


    --
    EMB
     
    EMB, Feb 23, 2005
    #3
  4. brazen

    brazen Guest

    "EMB" <> wrote in message
    news:cvgogn$njl$...
    > brazen wrote:
    >> Hi there,
    >>
    >> I recently went wireless with a co that offers a 2Mb connection.
    >> Downloads seemed to be a lot faster than dial up, but not that fast! So I
    >> did a few tests and got an average of 78 kilobytes per second. Seemed a
    >> bit slow to me.
    >>
    >> So I queried it with the techies and they said that the 2mb connection
    >> should give me a download speed of 40 - 160 kilobytes per second,
    >> dependant on traffic and signal. Now that seemed a little slow to me too.

    >
    > My 2Mbit ADSL downloads in the range of 160 - 220 kB/sec on local sites.
    >
    > Try the download speed test at
    > http://jetstreamgames.co.nz/speed/ADSLdownload1MB.html and post the
    > results (244kB/sec for me just now).


    The 1Mb file didnt work for me (no results given??) - the 512K one gave me
    439 kilobits per second (57 Kilobytes/sec)

    >
    >>
    >> He also said that my lan hub might be slowing me down (10/100) so I
    >> bypassed that and went direct, and got an increased speed but still at an
    >> average of 129 kilobytes per second.

    >
    > Unlikely - your hub will be running at at least 10Mbit/sec which is loads
    > of headroom for a 2Mbit transfer.
    >
    >>
    >> Is this slow, or am I expecting too much? I'm told the signal is good, so
    >> does that leave the traffic???? But surely it cant be that bad...

    >
    > It sounds pretty slow. I'd be wanting to know what the signal is actually
    > like - it may be piss poor, but you're being told it's ok just to keep you
    > as a customer.



    Well the salesman said it was good, but I think he'd sell his mother for a
    buck, and the aerial installer said it was good and he seems to be an honest
    chap. He gave us a v small dish as he said that that was all that was needed
    as the signal was so good and clear (and it was on a drizzly day when he set
    it up).

    gay



    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
     
    brazen, Feb 23, 2005
    #4
  5. brazen

    EMB Guest

    brazen wrote:

    > The 1Mb file didnt work for me (no results given??) - the 512K one gave me
    > 439 kilobits per second (57 Kilobytes/sec)


    I'd be getting on to your provider and telling them it's not acceptable.
    As a further bit of troubleshooting do a tracert to
    jetstreamgames.co.nz and post the results - it will be interesting to
    see if you're being nerfed by being routed all over the place.


    >
    > Well the salesman said it was good, but I think he'd sell his mother for a
    > buck, and the aerial installer said it was good and he seems to be an honest
    > chap. He gave us a v small dish as he said that that was all that was needed
    > as the signal was so good and clear (and it was on a drizzly day when he set
    > it up).



    Ok, so it's probably the signal is ok. What sort of wireless are you using?


    --
    EMB
     
    EMB, Feb 23, 2005
    #5
  6. brazen

    brazen Guest

    "EMB" <> wrote in message
    news:cvgqgi$oqj$...
    > brazen wrote:
    >
    >> The 1Mb file didnt work for me (no results given??) - the 512K one gave
    >> me 439 kilobits per second (57 Kilobytes/sec)

    >
    > I'd be getting on to your provider and telling them it's not acceptable.
    > As a further bit of troubleshooting do a tracert to jetstreamgames.co.nz
    > and post the results - it will be interesting to see if you're being
    > nerfed by being routed all over the place.
    >
    >


    You've got me there EMB, I dont know how to do a tracert

    >>
    >> Well the salesman said it was good, but I think he'd sell his mother for
    >> a buck, and the aerial installer said it was good and he seems to be an
    >> honest chap. He gave us a v small dish as he said that that was all that
    >> was needed as the signal was so good and clear (and it was on a drizzly
    >> day when he set it up).

    >
    >
    > Ok, so it's probably the signal is ok. What sort of wireless are you
    > using?
    >

    Dunno that either - I guess I have some questions to ask then now.

    Gay



    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
     
    brazen, Feb 23, 2005
    #6
  7. brazen

    EMB Guest

    brazen wrote:
    >
    > You've got me there EMB, I dont know how to do a tracert
    >


    Judging by your posting headers you're using Windows. If so, do the
    following.

    Bring up a command prompt (Start - Run - Command)

    Type - tracert jetstreamgames.co.nz - and hit the enter key

    After a while (10's of seconds I expect) it will have done it's thing
    and generated a whole heap of crap for you to post here.


    --
    EMB
     
    EMB, Feb 23, 2005
    #7
  8. brazen

    brazen Guest

    "EMB" <> wrote in message
    news:cvgt74$qb2$...
    > brazen wrote:
    >>
    >> You've got me there EMB, I dont know how to do a tracert
    >>

    >
    > Judging by your posting headers you're using Windows. If so, do the
    > following.
    >
    > Bring up a command prompt (Start - Run - Command)
    >
    > Type - tracert jetstreamgames.co.nz - and hit the enter key
    >
    > After a while (10's of seconds I expect) it will have done it's thing and
    > generated a whole heap of crap for you to post here.
    >

    Ah, thanks for that. It does 7 steps then times out after that:


    Tracing route to jetstreamgames.co.nz [203.96.92.95]
    over a maximum of 30 hops:

    1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.254
    2 11 ms 10 ms 10 ms 203-86-198-129-lightning.thepacific.net
    [203.86.
    198.129]
    3 11 ms 10 ms 10 ms mint.tasman.net [202.49.92.17]
    4 34 ms 45 ms 41 ms atm0-1-0-196.dom-vrf.orcon.net.nz
    [210.55.12.153
    ]
    5 63 ms 96 ms 90 ms fe-ape-core.nct.orcon.net.nz
    [219.88.242.252]
    6 37 ms 54 ms 106 ms xtra.ape.net.nz [192.203.154.60]
    7 73 ms 69 ms 39 ms v512.XTRAK2-B1.xtra.co.nz [202.27.176.226]
    8 * * * Request timed out.
    9 * * * Request timed out.
    10 * * * Request timed out.
    11 * * * Request timed out.
    12 * * * Request timed out.
    13 * * * Request timed out.
    14 * * * Request timed out.
    15


    gay



    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
     
    brazen, Feb 23, 2005
    #8
  9. brazen

    EMB Guest

    brazen wrote:

    > Tracing route to jetstreamgames.co.nz [203.96.92.95]
    > over a maximum of 30 hops:
    >
    > 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.254
    > 2 11 ms 10 ms 10 ms 203-86-198-129-lightning.thepacific.net
    > [203.86.
    > 198.129]
    > 3 11 ms 10 ms 10 ms mint.tasman.net [202.49.92.17]


    Ok. The above latency is fine. You're connected to thepacific.net who
    appear to be a (bloody expensive) Nelson wireless provider who are
    associated with/part of tasman.net (they're in the same building). It's
    possible that your problems are bandwidth related within their network,
    but it's pretty unlikely.


    > 4 34 ms 45 ms 41 ms atm0-1-0-196.dom-vrf.orcon.net.nz
    > [210.55.12.153
    > ]
    > 5 63 ms 96 ms 90 ms fe-ape-core.nct.orcon.net.nz
    > [219.88.242.252]


    Ok - this is looking likely. They appear to be getting their bandwidth
    from Orcon who have publically acknowledged that they have bandwidth
    issues at the moment. As an educated guess this is what is causing your
    problems - thepacific.net will probably need to do a bit of
    troubleshooting to identify quite where the problem is and then convince
    Orcon to fix it (which they probably can't until their new bandwidth
    turns up). After this point you're into the Auckland Peering Exchange
    and xtra's network. Whilst it's possible that the problem lies here it
    is highly unlikely.


    > 6 37 ms 54 ms 106 ms xtra.ape.net.nz [192.203.154.60]
    > 7 73 ms 69 ms 39 ms v512.XTRAK2-B1.xtra.co.nz [202.27.176.226]
    > 8 * * * Request timed out.


    Blocked by an xtra router at this point - no problem.


    Incidentally, what sort of speeds are you getting accessing your clients
    websites?


    --
    EMB
     
    EMB, Feb 23, 2005
    #9
  10. brazen

    brazen Guest

    "EMB" <> wrote in message
    news:cvgutt$ruk$...
    > brazen wrote:
    >
    >> Tracing route to jetstreamgames.co.nz [203.96.92.95]
    >> over a maximum of 30 hops:
    >>
    >> 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 192.168.0.254
    >> 2 11 ms 10 ms 10 ms 203-86-198-129-lightning.thepacific.net
    >> [203.86.
    >> 198.129]
    >> 3 11 ms 10 ms 10 ms mint.tasman.net [202.49.92.17]

    >
    > Ok. The above latency is fine. You're connected to thepacific.net who
    > appear to be a (bloody expensive) Nelson wireless provider


    mmm, the beauty of having a wireless monopoly.

    who are
    > associated with/part of tasman.net (they're in the same building). It's
    > possible that your problems are bandwidth related within their network,
    > but it's pretty unlikely.
    >
    >
    >> 4 34 ms 45 ms 41 ms atm0-1-0-196.dom-vrf.orcon.net.nz
    >> [210.55.12.153
    >> ]
    >> 5 63 ms 96 ms 90 ms fe-ape-core.nct.orcon.net.nz
    >> [219.88.242.252]

    >
    > Ok - this is looking likely. They appear to be getting their bandwidth
    > from Orcon who have publically acknowledged that they have bandwidth
    > issues at the moment. As an educated guess this is what is causing your
    > problems - thepacific.net will probably need to do a bit of
    > troubleshooting to identify quite where the problem is and then convince
    > Orcon to fix it (which they probably can't until their new bandwidth turns
    > up). After this point you're into the Auckland Peering Exchange and
    > xtra's network. Whilst it's possible that the problem lies here it is
    > highly unlikely.


    Thanks for that EMB. YOu have given me some nice ammunition. I may try for a
    reduction in price till the service comes up to what they are advertising.

    So those figures (37 ms 54 ms 106 ms etc), or the difference btw them
    dont indicate lag?



    >
    >
    >> 6 37 ms 54 ms 106 ms xtra.ape.net.nz [192.203.154.60]
    >> 7 73 ms 69 ms 39 ms v512.XTRAK2-B1.xtra.co.nz
    >> [202.27.176.226]
    >> 8 * * * Request timed out.

    >
    > Blocked by an xtra router at this point - no problem.
    >
    >
    > Incidentally, what sort of speeds are you getting accessing your clients
    > websites?
    >

    We dont host internally. (erk, sounds like i have worms)

    Gay



    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
     
    brazen, Feb 23, 2005
    #10
  11. brazen

    EMB Guest

    brazen wrote:

    > So those figures (37 ms 54 ms 106 ms etc), or the difference btw them
    > dont indicate lag?


    They aren't excessively long (or missing) is the main thing. It would
    be nice if they were all fairly even around the 50ms mark, but the lag
    (or latency) seems acceptable (except for online games). The variation
    could well be a sign of a congested network.

    >
    > We dont host internally. (erk, sounds like i have worms)


    No, but some of your client sites (and your own) appear to be hosted on
    Tasman's network. If you can get decent download speeds from those
    sites it implies that the problem isn't in your wireless link or the
    connection as far as Tasman's network which is further evidence of
    problems in their upstream Orcon link.


    --
    EMB
     
    EMB, Feb 23, 2005
    #11
  12. brazen

    Gordon Guest

    On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 17:24:52 +1300, brazen wrote:

    > mmm, the beauty of having a wireless monopoly.


    Ah the beauty of having a copper line monolopy.
     
    Gordon, Feb 23, 2005
    #12
  13. On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 17:44:17 +1300, Gordon wrote:

    > On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 17:24:52 +1300, brazen wrote:
    >
    >> mmm, the beauty of having a wireless monopoly.

    >
    > Ah the beauty of having a copper line monolopy.


    er.. glass also (fibre optic)

    --

    Hardware, n.: The parts of a computer system that can be kicked
     
    Shane (aka froggy), Feb 23, 2005
    #13
  14. brazen

    brazen Guest

    "EMB" <> wrote in message
    news:cvh1a5$tgb$...
    > brazen wrote:
    >
    >> So those figures (37 ms 54 ms 106 ms etc), or the difference btw
    >> them dont indicate lag?

    >
    > They aren't excessively long (or missing) is the main thing. It would be
    > nice if they were all fairly even around the 50ms mark, but the lag (or
    > latency) seems acceptable (except for online games). The variation could
    > well be a sign of a congested network.
    >
    >>
    >> We dont host internally. (erk, sounds like i have worms)

    >
    > No, but some of your client sites (and your own) appear to be hosted on
    > Tasman's network.


    Oooh, blimey - you have been flicking around! Youre right I think there are
    one or two ancient ones (not ours though TS dont seem to have noticed we
    moved it about 4 years ago)

    If you can get decent download speeds from those
    > sites it implies that the problem isn't in your wireless link or the
    > connection as far as Tasman's network which is further evidence of
    > problems in their upstream Orcon link.
    >

    I shall rummage some more. Thanks

    gay



    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
     
    brazen, Feb 23, 2005
    #14
  15. brazen

    EMB Guest

    brazen wrote:
    >
    > Oooh, blimey - you have been flicking around! Youre right I think there are
    > one or two ancient ones (not ours though TS dont seem to have noticed we
    > moved it about 4 years ago)


    I try to do my homework - it's easier to make sensible
    suggestions/guesses whn you know what you're dealing with. How are you
    finding KC for hosting?

    --
    EMB
     
    EMB, Feb 23, 2005
    #15
  16. brazen

    brazen Guest

    "EMB" <> wrote in message
    news:cvh308$u5n$...
    > brazen wrote:
    >>
    >> Oooh, blimey - you have been flicking around! Youre right I think there
    >> are one or two ancient ones (not ours though TS dont seem to have noticed
    >> we moved it about 4 years ago)

    >
    > I try to do my homework - it's easier to make sensible suggestions/guesses
    > whn you know what you're dealing with. How are you finding KC for
    > hosting?
    >

    KC? D- for homework, EMB - we use a co called Netsmart (www.netsmart.co.nz)

    Gay



    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
     
    brazen, Feb 23, 2005
    #16
  17. brazen

    EMB Guest

    brazen wrote:

    > KC? D- for homework, EMB - we use a co called Netsmart (www.netsmart.co.nz)


    The IP address block is allocated to KC, and tagged by them as
    "subnetted for customers of KC internet services". Netsmart's IP is
    also in the same range.


    --
    EMB
     
    EMB, Feb 23, 2005
    #17
  18. brazen

    brazen Guest

    "EMB" <> wrote in message
    news:cvh3js$v2n$...
    > brazen wrote:
    >
    >> KC? D- for homework, EMB - we use a co called Netsmart
    >> (www.netsmart.co.nz)

    >
    > The IP address block is allocated to KC, and tagged by them as "subnetted
    > for customers of KC internet services". Netsmart's IP is also in the same
    > range.
    >

    Ah, Sherlock, must be further up the food chain. I understood that NS had
    links with Orcon but I may be wrong.

    Gay



    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
     
    brazen, Feb 23, 2005
    #18
  19. brazen

    calvin Guest

    I have a 2Mbit wireless connection as well, and downstream speeds seem to
    max out at 300kB/s. I have no difficulty grabbing stuff off a variety of
    sites (filefront, gotfrag, international ftps etc) at speeds exceeding
    200kB/s. As such, I've no complaints.

    The speeds you're obtaining and the techs say you should get getting are
    unacceptable. Let them know about it.

    >brazen" <> wrote in message
    >news:421be094$1_1@127.0.0.1...
    > Hi there,
    >
    > I recently went wireless with a co that offers a 2Mb connection. Downloads
    > seemed to be a lot faster than dial up, but not that fast! So I did a few
    > tests and got an average of 78 kilobytes per second. Seemed a bit slow to
    > me.
    >
    > So I queried it with the techies and they said that the 2mb connection
    > should give me a download speed of 40 - 160 kilobytes per second,
    > dependant on traffic and signal. Now that seemed a little slow to me too.
    >
    > He also said that my lan hub might be slowing me down (10/100) so I
    > bypassed that and went direct, and got an increased speed but still at an
    > average of 129 kilobytes per second.
    >
    > Is this slow, or am I expecting too much? I'm told the signal is good, so
    > does that leave the traffic???? But surely it cant be that bad...
     
    calvin, Feb 23, 2005
    #19
  20. brazen

    David Preece Guest

    Dave - dave.net.nz wrote:
    >> He also said that my lan hub might be slowing me down

    >
    > I don't quite see how it could make that much difference


    If it's actually a hub it'll be causing packet collisions. However, if
    he's bought it at any point in the last three years it'll almost
    certainly be a switch not a hub and that won't be it.

    > It sounds way too slow, do they have anything hosted locally(as in on
    > their servers) that you could download? it may be network congestion.


    You get evil speeds off ftp.nz.debian.org if you're on Citylink...

    Dave
     
    David Preece, Feb 23, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Lance
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    749
    Lance
    Oct 31, 2004
  2. DannyD1355

    USB High Speed against USB Non High Speed

    DannyD1355, Sep 7, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    622
    Patrick
    Sep 7, 2003
  3. a.metselaar

    speed speed speed

    a.metselaar, Dec 28, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    1,041
    BuffNET Tech Support - MichaelJ
    Dec 30, 2003
  4. hummingbird
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    1,215
    hummingbird
    Jun 12, 2004
  5. ChasX

    Half speed wireless, full speed wired?

    ChasX, Aug 26, 2008, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    793
    Barb Bowman
    Aug 26, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page