High ADSL line rate but slow internet speeds

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Rats, Oct 17, 2008.

  1. Rats

    Rats Guest

    Hi,

    I recently moved to my new house and had my internet account
    relocated. On testing the internet speed at my new place I found it to
    be quite slow (max 30k/s). So I ran some speed tests and it peaked at
    about 750kbps. In fact my local ISP speed tests were even slower at a
    max of 300kbps.

    What is strange though is my ADSL router device shows a very high
    connection rate:

    Line Rate - Upstream (Kbps): 160
    Line Rate - Downstream (Kbps): 4128

    I am on a FS/128k plan with Worldnet.

    Any help will be most appreciated.

    Thanks
    Rats, Oct 17, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Rats

    Rats Guest

    On Oct 17, 6:00 pm, Allistar <> wrote:
    > Rats wrote:
    > > Hi,

    >
    > > I recently moved to my new house and had my internet account
    > > relocated. On testing the internet speed at my new place I found it to
    > > be quite slow (max 30k/s). So I ran some speed tests and it peaked at
    > > about 750kbps. In fact my local ISP speed tests were even slower at a
    > > max of 300kbps.

    >
    > > What is strange though is my ADSL router device shows a very high
    > > connection rate:

    >
    > > Line Rate - Upstream (Kbps): 160
    > > Line Rate - Downstream (Kbps): 4128

    >
    > > I am on a FS/128k plan with Worldnet.

    >
    > > Any help will be most appreciated.

    >
    > It's possible that the last people to use your line had a limited account
    > and the software/hardware at the exchange is still limiting it to that. If
    > that's the case then your ISP needs to communicate the plan change to the
    > exchange.
    > --
    > A.- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    Hi, thanks for your respone. The line itself is new as the house has
    just been built. However I will make enquiries along these lines with
    my ISP.

    Thanks.
    Rats, Oct 17, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Rats

    EMB Guest

    Rats wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > I recently moved to my new house and had my internet account
    > relocated. On testing the internet speed at my new place I found it to
    > be quite slow (max 30k/s). So I ran some speed tests and it peaked at
    > about 750kbps. In fact my local ISP speed tests were even slower at a
    > max of 300kbps.
    >
    > What is strange though is my ADSL router device shows a very high
    > connection rate:
    >
    > Line Rate - Upstream (Kbps): 160
    > Line Rate - Downstream (Kbps): 4128
    >
    > I am on a FS/128k plan with Worldnet.
    >
    > Any help will be most appreciated.
    >

    Backhaul congestion from the DSLAM to your ISP?
    EMB, Oct 17, 2008
    #3
  4. Rats

    Tony in Oz Guest

    "Rats" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    On Oct 17, 6:00 pm, Allistar <> wrote:
    > Rats wrote:
    > > Hi,

    >
    > > I recently moved to my new house and had my internet account
    > > relocated. On testing the internet speed at my new place I found it to
    > > be quite slow (max 30k/s). So I ran some speed tests and it peaked at
    > > about 750kbps. In fact my local ISP speed tests were even slower at a
    > > max of 300kbps.

    >
    > > What is strange though is my ADSL router device shows a very high
    > > connection rate:

    >
    > > Line Rate - Upstream (Kbps): 160
    > > Line Rate - Downstream (Kbps): 4128

    >
    > > I am on a FS/128k plan with Worldnet.

    >
    > > Any help will be most appreciated.

    >
    > It's possible that the last people to use your line had a limited account
    > and the software/hardware at the exchange is still limiting it to that. If
    > that's the case then your ISP needs to communicate the plan change to the
    > exchange.
    > --
    > A.- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    Hi, thanks for your respone. The line itself is new as the house has
    just been built. However I will make enquiries along these lines with
    my ISP.

    Thanks.

    How do you know its a new line? Just because the house is new, doesn't
    mean the number is. Someone may have vacated it only weeks ago. The only new
    part is likely to be the underground between the DP out at the road and your
    house. It will probably be a jumper in the exchange. Cheers
    Tony in Oz, Oct 17, 2008
    #4
  5. Rats

    Rats Guest

    On Oct 17, 6:46 pm, "Tony in Oz" <> wrote:
    >     How do you know its a new line? Just because the house is new, doesn't
    > mean the number is. Someone may have vacated it only weeks ago. The only new
    > part is likely to be the underground between the DP out at the road and your
    > house. It will probably be a jumper in the exchange.  Cheers- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    I see what you mean. I'll ask the guys at my ISP. Thanks for your
    help.
    Rats, Oct 17, 2008
    #5
  6. Rats

    Tony in Oz Guest

    "Rats" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    On Oct 17, 6:46 pm, "Tony in Oz" <> wrote:
    > How do you know its a new line? Just because the house is new, doesn't
    > mean the number is. Someone may have vacated it only weeks ago. The only
    > new
    > part is likely to be the underground between the DP out at the road and
    > your
    > house. It will probably be a jumper in the exchange. Cheers- Hide quoted
    > text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    I see what you mean. I'll ask the guys at my ISP. Thanks for your
    help.

    Also worth trying if you haven't done it already, is pull the plug out
    of your modem, at the back. Leave it about 30 seconds or so, then plug it
    back in. I got caught out like that when i upgraded to a faster plan.
    Several days after I had changed it was still showing the old speed. And its
    not just reboot the modem, but leave it with the pug out long enough for the
    diodes to completely discharge. Simple, but easy to discount.
    Tony in Oz, Oct 17, 2008
    #6
  7. Rats

    Rats Guest

    On Oct 17, 7:34 pm, "Tony in Oz" <> wrote:
    >     Also worth trying if you haven't done it already, is pull the plug out
    > of your modem, at the back. Leave it about 30 seconds or so, then plug it
    > back in. I got caught out like that when i upgraded to a faster plan.
    > Several days after I had changed it was still showing the old speed. And its
    > not just reboot the modem, but leave it with the pug out long enough for the
    > diodes to completely discharge.  Simple, but easy to discount.


    Hi, I found out what the problem was. It was in fact my laptop. Don't
    ask me why, but I was getting slower DL speeds off my laptop compared
    to when i plugged in my PC.

    However now I am faced with the issue as to why I am getting
    consistent 2.2mbps DL speeds when my router is connecting at 4+ mpbs!
    Test with another computer?! :-(
    Rats, Oct 19, 2008
    #7
  8. In message
    <>, Rats
    wrote:

    > Hi, I found out what the problem was. It was in fact my laptop.


    Is it running Vista? :)
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Oct 19, 2008
    #8
  9. Rats

    Rats Guest

    On Oct 19, 8:40 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    > In message
    > <>, Rats
    > wrote:
    >
    > > Hi, I found out what the problem was. It was in fact my laptop.

    >
    > Is it running Vista? :)


    LOL! That would only be so true ... but unfortunately it's running XP.
    Rats, Oct 19, 2008
    #9
  10. On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 20:40:14 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    <_zealand> wrote:

    >In message
    ><>, Rats
    >wrote:
    >
    >> Hi, I found out what the problem was. It was in fact my laptop.

    >
    >Is it running Vista? :)


    Vista's TCP/IP stack is better than XP's - it dynamically adapts the
    window size, so it normally will download faster with fewer
    connections to a site. I was pleasantly surprised to discover this -
    MS actually did get something right for a change.
    Stephen Worthington, Oct 19, 2008
    #10
  11. Rats

    Squiggle Guest

    Stephen Worthington wrote:
    > On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 20:40:14 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    > <_zealand> wrote:
    >
    >> In message
    >> <>, Rats
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Hi, I found out what the problem was. It was in fact my laptop.

    >> Is it running Vista? :)

    >
    > Vista's TCP/IP stack is better than XP's - it dynamically adapts the
    > window size, so it normally will download faster with fewer
    > connections to a site. I was pleasantly surprised to discover this -
    > MS actually did get something right for a change.


    You can also do that with XP, its a registry tweak away.
    TCP window scaling.
    http://www.psc.edu/networking/projects/tcptune/OStune/winxp/winxp_stepbystep.html

    there are also many graphical tools to do the same thing.
    Squiggle, Oct 19, 2008
    #11
  12. On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 01:50:17 +1300, Squiggle <>
    wrote:

    >Stephen Worthington wrote:
    >> On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 20:40:14 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    >> <_zealand> wrote:
    >>
    >>> In message
    >>> <>, Rats
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Hi, I found out what the problem was. It was in fact my laptop.
    >>> Is it running Vista? :)

    >>
    >> Vista's TCP/IP stack is better than XP's - it dynamically adapts the
    >> window size, so it normally will download faster with fewer
    >> connections to a site. I was pleasantly surprised to discover this -
    >> MS actually did get something right for a change.

    >
    >You can also do that with XP, its a registry tweak away.
    >TCP window scaling.
    >http://www.psc.edu/networking/projects/tcptune/OStune/winxp/winxp_stepbystep.html
    >
    >there are also many graphical tools to do the same thing.


    Yes, but Vista does not need any tweaking, and in fact ignores those
    registry entries. It adapts the window size to the conditions it
    sees. Getting the tweaking right in XP I found to be a real problem,
    as the tweaking tools almost always broke something.
    Stephen Worthington, Oct 20, 2008
    #12
  13. On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 10:12:11 +1300, "~misfit~"
    <> wrote:

    >Somewhere on teh intarwebs "Squiggle" typed:
    >> Stephen Worthington wrote:
    >>> On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 20:40:14 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    >>> <_zealand> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> In message
    >>>> <>,
    >>>> Rats wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Hi, I found out what the problem was. It was in fact my laptop.
    >>>> Is it running Vista? :)
    >>>
    >>> Vista's TCP/IP stack is better than XP's - it dynamically adapts the
    >>> window size, so it normally will download faster with fewer
    >>> connections to a site. I was pleasantly surprised to discover this -
    >>> MS actually did get something right for a change.

    >>
    >> You can also do that with XP, its a registry tweak away.
    >> TCP window scaling.
    >> http://www.psc.edu/networking/projects/tcptune/OStune/winxp/winxp_stepbystep.html
    >>
    >> there are also many graphical tools to do the same thing.

    >
    >Looks good. Shame I don't really understand it all (even after reading the
    >bits at the bottom).
    >
    >I'm a simple hardware man. <g>


    The explanation is not so difficult to understand. When you send a
    TCP packet, eventually you have to get back a packet with an ACK
    saying that the packet you sent got there OK. Where k is the window
    size, the TCP stack allows you to send up to k packets (including the
    first one) before you are required to get back the ACK for that first
    packet. If the ACK has not arrived, as soon as k packets have been
    sent, the TCP stack stops sending packets until the ACK arrives or a
    timeout happens for a missing packet. Or a NAK arrives to say the
    other end has seen a missing packet. So if k is too small compared to
    the time it takes for the packets to get to the other end of the
    connection and an ACK to come back again, the TCP connection spends
    time waiting instead of sending, and the transmission speed drops
    below the available bandwidth. So k has to match the ping time to the
    other end, or it slows down.

    And in New Zealand, we are so physically far from the rest of the
    world, the ping times to any overseas destination are usually more
    than the default k used in Windows allows for.

    There are two ways normally used to fix this problem:
    1) Increase k. Difficult in Windows.
    2) Use multiple connections, so that when one connection is waiting
    for an ACK, another is likely to be able to use the bandwidth. This
    is inefficient due to all the overheads of multiple connections, but
    mostly what is done in Windows. Until Vista fixed this.
    Stephen Worthington, Oct 20, 2008
    #13
  14. On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 00:27:35 +1300, "~misfit~"
    <> wrote:

    >Somewhere on teh intarwebs "Stephen Worthington" typed:
    >> On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 10:12:11 +1300, "~misfit~"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>> Looks good. Shame I don't really understand it all (even after
    >>> reading the bits at the bottom).
    >>>
    >>> I'm a simple hardware man. <g>

    >>
    >> The explanation is not so difficult to understand. When you send a
    >> TCP packet, eventually you have to get back a packet with an ACK
    >> saying that the packet you sent got there OK. Where k is the window
    >> size, the TCP stack allows you to send up to k packets (including the
    >> first one) before you are required to get back the ACK for that first
    >> packet. If the ACK has not arrived, as soon as k packets have been
    >> sent, the TCP stack stops sending packets until the ACK arrives or a
    >> timeout happens for a missing packet. Or a NAK arrives to say the
    >> other end has seen a missing packet. So if k is too small compared to
    >> the time it takes for the packets to get to the other end of the
    >> connection and an ACK to come back again, the TCP connection spends
    >> time waiting instead of sending, and the transmission speed drops
    >> below the available bandwidth. So k has to match the ping time to the
    >> other end, or it slows down.
    >>
    >> And in New Zealand, we are so physically far from the rest of the
    >> world, the ping times to any overseas destination are usually more
    >> than the default k used in Windows allows for.
    >>
    >> There are two ways normally used to fix this problem:
    >> 1) Increase k. Difficult in Windows.
    >> 2) Use multiple connections, so that when one connection is waiting
    >> for an ACK, another is likely to be able to use the bandwidth. This
    >> is inefficient due to all the overheads of multiple connections, but
    >> mostly what is done in Windows. Until Vista fixed this.

    >
    >Thank you Stephen, I understood that perfectly.
    >
    >It's seems that there might actually be a reason to upgrade to
    >Vista!!!!!!!!!
    >
    >:)


    Yes, but only if you have hardware good enough to run it on. A Core2
    Duo with 2 Gibytes of RAM seems good.
    Stephen Worthington, Oct 21, 2008
    #14
  15. Rats

    EMB Guest

    Stephen Worthington wrote:
    > Yes, but only if you have hardware good enough to run it on. A Core2
    > Duo with 2 Gibytes of RAM seems good.


    Double that RAM for real performance.
    EMB, Oct 21, 2008
    #15
    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. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    393
  2. Xeno Chauvin

    Core speeds and memory speeds???

    Xeno Chauvin, Oct 3, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    509
    °Mike°
    Oct 3, 2003
  3. DP

    Internet speeds slow with Dlink router

    DP, Nov 24, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    12,941
  4. Radium
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,641
    dadiOH
    Jul 18, 2007
  5. =?Utf-8?B?TkpU?=

    Internet Sharing: Equal upload speeds but un-equal download speeds

    =?Utf-8?B?TkpU?=, Sep 14, 2007, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,012
    =?Utf-8?B?TkpU?=
    Sep 15, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page