Modem or Router Issue

Paul wrote:

https://www.smallnetbuilder.com/tool...ts/router/view

If we instead use the ranker, you can look at a review
for the top rated unit.

https://www.smallnetbuilder.com/wire...outer-reviewed


The top rating doesn't mean anything, unless it happens
to map to what you want to do most.

The plots on page 2 show 600-800Mbit/sec WAN/LAN routing capability,
which gives you some headroom on your 60Mbit/sec cable service.


Thank you. Those pages were interesting. --Bill

Bill wrote:
VanguardLH wrote:

Their User Guide is far more extensive, and 139 pages long
Yes, I downloaded it before I swapped out the router.
The User Guide made me think, but it didn't help me as much as my common
sense. Somehow as a result of disabling "Homegroup" which I didn't
think I needed at the time, the local area connection got disabled, and
that kept me from "seeing or using" the router.
I eventually noticed that the local area connection was disabled,
immediately enabled it, and all was better. Still need to learn more
about Homegroup (and why I need it). I'll consult the manual! : )

https://www.newegg.com/p/N82E16833122715

WAN Ports 1 x 10/100M

LAN Ports 4 x 10/100M

Rly??? Ugh. No GbE ?

You're relying on the wireless for performance then.

The WAN connection from the Surfboard is probably OK,
as 100BT is 60Mbit/sec. But now you don't have a lot
of room for upgrades.

CPU1: MediaTek MT7628A = a 580MHz MIPS 24KEc CPU
FLA1: 8 MiB (Brand? Model?)
RAM1: 64 MiB (Nanya NT5TU32M16EG-AC)

The same SOC is in the Netgear AC1200 (R6120), so you can
use WAN to LAN routing charts for that one to
estimate performance on the AC1000.

OK, I had to switch to Asus RT-AC1200 which uses the
same chipset.

https://www.reddit.com/r/techsupport...bps_i_pay_for/

"Asus RT-AC1200 will only put out 25mbps.

I pay for 890mbps
"

That tells us your new router is a dud.

To prove me wrong,

Surfboard ---- NetgearAC1000 --- computer (browse to SpeedTest.net, flash based tester)

That benchmark will give you a test of WAN to LAN,
and see if the new router is holding you back.

Speedtest.net is failing for me right now, and I
hope the server in your area works better.

My router has "just enough" WAN to LAN for me to
bench my connection. I found a quote of how much,
before I bought it.

Paul

Paul wrote:
Bill wrote:
VanguardLH wrote:

Their User Guide is far more extensive, and 139 pages long
Yes, I downloaded it before I swapped out the router.
The User Guide made me think, but it didn't help me as much as
my common sense.Â* Somehow as a result of disabling "Homegroup"
which I didn't think I needed at the time, the local area
connection got disabled, and that kept me from "seeing or
using" the router.
I eventually noticed that the local area connection was
disabled, immediately enabled it, and all was better. Still
need to learn more about Homegroup (and why I need it). I'll
consult the manual! : )

https://www.newegg.com/p/N82E16833122715

Â*Â* WAN PortsÂ*Â* 1 x 10/100M

Â*Â* LAN PortsÂ*Â* 4 x 10/100M

Rly??? Ugh. No GbE ?

You're relying on the wireless for performance then.

The WAN connection from the Surfboard is probably OK,
as 100BT is 60Mbit/sec. But now you don't have a lot
of room for upgrades.

CPU1: MediaTek MT7628AÂ*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* = a 580MHz MIPS 24KEc CPU
FLA1: 8 MiB (Brand? Model?)
RAM1: 64 MiB (Nanya NT5TU32M16EG-AC)

The same SOC is in the Netgear AC1200 (R6120), so you can
use WAN to LAN routing charts for that one to
estimate performance on the AC1000.

OK, I had to switch to Asus RT-AC1200 which uses the
same chipset.

https://www.reddit.com/r/techsupport...bps_i_pay_for/


Â*Â* "Asus RT-AC1200 will only put out 25mbps.

Â*Â*Â* I pay for 890mbps
Â*Â* "

That tells us your new router is a dud.

To prove me wrong,

Â*Â* Surfboard ---- NetgearAC1000 --- computer (browse to
SpeedTest.net, flash based tester)

That benchmark will give you a test of WAN to LAN,
and see if the new router is holding you back.

Speedtest.net is failing for me right now, and I
hope the server in your area works better.

My router has "just enough" WAN to LAN for me to
bench my connection. I found a quote of how much,
before I bought it.

Â*Â* Paul

Thanks for helping Paul.
Speedtest reported about 71 Mbps download and 6 Mbps upload.
I ran it 3 or 4 times (using different locations) and got almost
exactly the same results. I tried to determine what Comcast's
"Performance Internet" expected upload speed is supposed to be
(but was unsuccessful so far). The advertised download speed is
60 Mbps. I may not have a lot of room for upgrades, but I only
paid $59.99 too--and it seems I am utilizing all of my current
pipeline...no? FWIW, I use only the wired connection, my wife
uses the wireless (she is not particular). Thanks for teaching me
a bit! I'll look up the specs on the Cisco e-1000 and see
whether I upgraded or downgraded...

Bill

Bill wrote:
Paul wrote:
Bill wrote:
VanguardLH wrote:

Their User Guide is far more extensive, and 139 pages long
Yes, I downloaded it before I swapped out the router.
The User Guide made me think, but it didn't help me as much as my
common sense. Somehow as a result of disabling "Homegroup" which I
didn't think I needed at the time, the local area connection got
disabled, and that kept me from "seeing or using" the router.
I eventually noticed that the local area connection was disabled,
immediately enabled it, and all was better. Still need to learn more
about Homegroup (and why I need it). I'll consult the manual! : )

https://www.newegg.com/p/N82E16833122715

WAN Ports 1 x 10/100M

LAN Ports 4 x 10/100M

Rly??? Ugh. No GbE ?

You're relying on the wireless for performance then.

The WAN connection from the Surfboard is probably OK,
as 100BT is 60Mbit/sec. But now you don't have a lot
of room for upgrades.

CPU1: MediaTek MT7628A = a 580MHz MIPS 24KEc CPU
FLA1: 8 MiB (Brand? Model?)
RAM1: 64 MiB (Nanya NT5TU32M16EG-AC)

The same SOC is in the Netgear AC1200 (R6120), so you can
use WAN to LAN routing charts for that one to
estimate performance on the AC1000.

OK, I had to switch to Asus RT-AC1200 which uses the
same chipset.

https://www.reddit.com/r/techsupport...bps_i_pay_for/


"Asus RT-AC1200 will only put out 25mbps.

I pay for 890mbps
"

That tells us your new router is a dud.

To prove me wrong,

Surfboard ---- NetgearAC1000 --- computer (browse to
SpeedTest.net, flash based tester)

That benchmark will give you a test of WAN to LAN,
and see if the new router is holding you back.

Speedtest.net is failing for me right now, and I
hope the server in your area works better.

My router has "just enough" WAN to LAN for me to
bench my connection. I found a quote of how much,
before I bought it.

Paul

Thanks for helping Paul.
Speedtest reported about 71 Mbps download and 6 Mbps upload.
I ran it 3 or 4 times (using different locations) and got almost exactly
the same results. I tried to determine what Comcast's "Performance
Internet" expected upload speed is supposed to be (but was unsuccessful
so far). The advertised download speed is 60 Mbps. I may not have a
lot of room for upgrades, but I only paid $59.99 too--and it seems I am
utilizing all of my current pipeline...no? FWIW, I use only the wired
connection, my wife uses the wireless (she is not particular). Thanks
for teaching me a bit! I'll look up the specs on the Cisco e-1000 and
see whether I upgraded or downgraded...

Bill


OK, so I don't understand how the other guy only got 25Mbps
from his. It sounds like it isn't holding you back, so it's
a pass.

I'd have used a Smallnetbuilder bench, if I could have found
one for that Mediatek chipset. All I could find was that one
customer comment for a similar product with the same chipset.

Mediatek started out making chips for DVD drives, and has
branched out since. They're a competitor for Broadcom,
which also makes SOCs for modem/router boxes.

Paul

Paul wrote:

OK, so I don't understand how the other guy only got 25Mbps
from his. It sounds like it isn't holding you back, so it's
a pass.

Thanks Paul. It is true that the second thing the installer did
(after being unsuccessful with it's first attempt) is update the
firmware from version 38 to version 42. Who knows, the
unfortunate fellow that you refer to may have had version 5, or
something like that! : )