To check speed one has to use same server at busiest time of the day like 10 in the morning. I use Oookla speedtest.net. I you have a router and use QoS, it'll affect speed, bit less than what it should be.
That brings up a good question which I didn't know the answer to.
Being a cheapskate, I bought my coax cable from the Goodwill for a buck.
I know there are different impedances for coax cable, but I didn't know what letting to look for on the Goodwill coax cables.
So, the one I bought said "CATV" but I don't know if that's the right cable.
Is it?
We should probably list the various servers. I'll make a start, but this is just from memory.
I wonder if Jeff knows whether it's best to use the speed test supplied by the ISP, since that's most likely to follow the same pipes?
That is, if I'm using AT&T, wouldn't the most accurate speed test be one that AT&T supplies, which uses AT&T pipes?
Likewise, for comcast?
You want something in 75 ohms, not 50 ohms. That means one of the many mutations of RG-6/u.
CATV means CAble TV. That term hasn't been used in many years, so it's probably old cable with potentially ancient connectors. It may also be RG-59/u, which you should not be using (because most of it is garbage).
Incidentally, a quick test of the connector is to just pull on the connector. If it seperates from the coax cable, it's a lousy crimp, bad connector, or both. If you want to make your own cables, buy compression connectors and the right tools.
That used to be the case, when the number of hops and total latency limited the maximum speed that it would test. However, with jumbo packets and large windows, that's no longer the case. The speed test program will usually select the closest or fastest test server anyway. I'm on Comcast Biz class service. I sometimes run Comcast speed test from California to Washington DC. The latency figures are high (88 msec instead of the usual 13 msec) but the speed figures are roughly the same as local. I do tend to favor using the ISP's test server, but that's from habit, not necessity. and bunch of private iperf, iperf3, Jperf test servers.
Accurate usually means highest speed indication and minimum congestion effects. At slow connection speeds, almost any test server will work. When you get up to 100 Mbit/sec speeds as Comcast is doing, you'll need to check a few test sites. Things get messy if your route is through a router that blocks, throttles, or delays speed tests. Probably the highest number is the least congestied, and therefore the most accurate. Those that limit the number of simultaneous or consecutive tests are probably the best. Comcast does that as when they boosted the local speeds, it sometimes took me 10 mins to start a tests because everyone in the area was running speed tests.
Generally true, but not always. Peering between ISP nodes is commonly shared. Run a traceroute to a test server and see what's on the route.
I bought an SB6121, a month or two before it would have made sense to by a
6141, but in any event, the Motorola/Arris anything is better than the Arris/Arris that Comcast provides.I knew I hadn't paid an install fee, and forgot how that happened. I took the "$8/month" modem/router, because once upon a time, I had so much trouble with cable that they replaced the modem several times before they replaced the drop, and I didn't want to have that argument with customer owned equipment. But, after a month or two of horrible WiFi, I went with the 6121 and an Asus router.
Mine took a couple of minutes on the phone.
In a reply to another post, speedtest.comcast.net shows IPv4 and IPv6 numbers, speedtest.net only shows IPv4.
This is good to know as I knew you'd have experience with the answer.
These are great test URLs to have handy, and I put them in my database. Others will find them useful also. Thanks.
I find, strangely enough, that if I run two or three sequential tests, that the second and/or third test are far faster than the first. I dunno why, but, it's almost as if the first test "cleans the pipes" or something obscure like that.
This makes sense, although I had never thought about that before. So, basically, run a few tests, and the highest result is the best.
I don't remember it saying what the ohms were, but I'll visit this weekend, and look at the cable. It had nice long copper wires sticking out, so, I think it was home made, but sturdy nonetheless.
I'll look, this weekend, for RG figures, but I don't remember seeing them on the cable when I first bought it. They're getting 90Mbps down (and 10 Mbps up) out of both the Costco cable modem and out the back of the TP-Link router Ethernet cable, so, it's not too debilitating if it's the wrong cable.
The only bad thing is that they're getting only 60Mbps down over the air, but they're stuck on 2.5GHz in a crowded spectrum, so, I'll bring an Android phone with InSSIDer installed to check the noise.
I might even bring a spare ubiquiti nanobridge (Jeff knows what they can do) to check the noise spectrum, and if I do, I'll try to capture it to show you folks. That won't happen until the weekend though.
I never heard of "Arris" before. Why do they bother with two names anyway? Why not just an "arris" or just a "motorola" modem?
Comcast told me it's $10 a month for a modem, and $6 for the self install, so, prices are different here in California.
It was pretty quick for me too. The guy just made all the lights blink a few times and that was it. About 10 minutes. Maybe 15 but not much more (I wasn't timing it though - but it was pretty quick).
I never understood IPv6, so, I wouldn't know the difference.
Not strange at all. What you're seeing is a problem with the speed testing algorithm caused by various devices along the path buffering or cacheing the data. Instead of getting an end to end test without any intermediate buffering, you're measuring the speed from some intermediate devices cache. This happens if the speed test uses identical data files for each test, instead of randomizing the data for each test. I have not checked if this is the case for any of the previously listed speed tests. The usual fix of downloading a large amount of data to flush the cache before performing the actual speed test doesn't really work because it slows everyone else down and ISP's hate that. This is another reason why you want to use the closest server, with fewer buffers and caches in the path. Of course, the ISP has a vested interest in producing the highest numbers and could easily "optimize" their system to produce amazing results that can't be duplicated by real applications.
Or, the highest number is what your ISP is throttling your performance. In my office, the best I can do is bursts of 25 Mbits/sec and sustained traffic of about 12 Mbits/sec. However, when it was first installed, I was getting 160 Mbits/sec because on a new building installation, the cable installers wanted to know if the system could handle the traffic from three business class customers. So they temporarily turned off the throttling in order to make the test and forgot about it. 160 Mbits/sec is about the maximum that the Netgear(?) router could do with DOCSIS 3.0.
Another performance problem is your local wireless speed. If your laptop tests faster with an ethernet connection, than with a wireless connection, obviously the wireless is what's slowing you down. For example, if you're using 802.11g only, your maximum download speed via wireless will be about 25 Mbit/sec. If your cable modem can do 60 Mbits/sec, the "problem" is in the wireless link.
I've previously ranted on how to setup a local iperf3 server for testing local network speeds, without the need for an online test server or even an internet connection. It's interesting to see how bad some network devices are when the speed is NOT limited by the internet connection. Find your wireless router on this list for a clue. Wired download:
2.4 GHz wireless download: Note that only a few of top wireless routers can do over 100 Mbits/sec on 2.4GHz.
Every time some company produces a decent modem, Motorola buys them. The good stuff was made by Netopia and Cayman, both now Motorola companies. However, there was quite a bit of absolute junk being shipped during the transitions. Now that Motorola own Arris, I expect more of the same until things settle down. Incidentally, some of the Comcast "gateways" that I detest are made by Pace, which now owns
2-wire. I think TG and TC are Arris, SMC is SMC, DPC are Pace. The Gateway 3 drives seem decent (i.e. they do dual band). If you simply take whatever Comcast is leasing, you're likely to get a Gateway 1 or 2 until the supply runs out. If you try to buy your own, the only one of these on the approved modem list is a Gateway 1 (TG862G).Yep. I'm doing much of the same thing for my customers. The only problem is if they order phone service from Comcast, I'm stuck with a very small list of acceptable "telephony gateway" devices. The latest irritation is trying to get an Arris TM722/TM822 activated. They're both on the approved modem list: but not listed as "retail". Customers are buying perfectly legal and brand new devices from various vendors, only to find that Comcast claims that they can't be activated. There's a screwup somewhere. Of course, the ONLY retail telephony gateway available is the Gateway 1 TG862G, which has the wireless problems you describe. I suppose that the TM722 and TM822 will magically go back onto the approved retail devices as soon as the stock of TG862G junk gateways is depleted.
I did one yesterday that took about 20 minutes online total. However, this was a new modem transplant for an existing customer. I plugged in an SB6141, waited about 10 mins for things to settle down. I had a computah plugged directly into the modem. I went to some random web site and Comcast redirected me to the activation page. I gave it the account number and associated phone number. It thrashed around for about 10 minutes updating the modem firmware, rebooted twice, and worked as expected. However, the old modem was still working so I called Comcast support to make sure that the old (customer owned) modem will disappear from the bill. I was blessed with a very concientious support person, who answered every question except the ones that I asked. I guess we'll have to wait for the bill to arrive.
True. Since Windoze 10 seems to use IPv6 before trying IPv4, that's important. I've had a few odd problems which I've avoided by just turning off IPv6 in the router until things settle down and I have some time to assign the blame.
:)
It started out being Community Antenna (or Access) TV . . .
Ok. Thanks for the history. However, I'm correct that "CAble TV" is the current acronym of choice.
Some anecdotal history. I got my start in cable with STV (Subscription TV) in Smog Angeles in about 1966(?). Back then, the acronym had already morphed into "CAble TV". Oddly, the wireless TV [1] companies were also calling their stuff "Subscription TV". The cable companies needed something to differentiate themselves from the wireless companies, so they borrowed the CATV acronym. Notice how nobody wanted to invent a new acronym as it was easier to just steal one from the competition.
[1] Don't ask about this:
Indubitably. I just remember recently seeing the two acronyms and their original meaning and thought I would share. (-"
To that I say "Digital Versatile Disk!"
Ever see an early Saturday Night Live where (I believe) Dan Ackroyd and Steven Martin are dressed as farmers looking off into the distance and saying: "What the heck IS that dang thing?"
My question exactly. It looks like a roto-tiller for Lilliputians.
That's what happens when acronyms are chosen by marketing or management. The theory is that the acronym has to be clever, while what it represents can be totally contorted and insane, because everyone is only going to use the acronym. The company with the most acronyms (and patents) wins.
Sigh. I told you not to ask, which proves that nobody listens to me. It's an early version of a bootleg wireless subscription TV antenna and receiver front end. It was favored by the Z-channel[1] wireless TV pirates of the early 1970's in Smog Angeles because it had more gain than the official antenna and therefore worked at longer distances. Officially, it's a "disk yagi" antenna, which is roughly a yagi TV antenna, using disks instead of rods. It's actually a very good antenna that quite easy to design and build: Notice the lack of side and back lobes.
The uglier and stranger looking the antenna, the better it works.
Now, go away please. I just returned from Costco with a new Chromebook and some computah goodies for me and I want to play.
[1] Extra credit to Jeff Angus for reminding me of the company name.
Somehow the rule of "expand the acronym" for the first use in an article has pretty much fallen by the wayside. I come across at least a few every day that I have to look up because they're not as self-explanatory as the author may have thought. To be fair, it might have been an editor that elided the acronym expansion, but as far as I can tell, very few websites, newspapers and RATV stations use editors anymore. )-: FWIW, the Global Language Monitor also named the Most Confusing Tech Acronym of 2012:
The winner is SOA (solutions oriented architecture).
I think it actually means "Shi+ Out of Acronyms."
I listened, I just didn't obey. (-: I don't obey anyone. You wouldn't want to infringe on my personal freedom by expecting me to make an exception for you, would you?
Ah, yagi, another word origin to look up. I didn't expect there would be homework.
Alas, it's not Yaw Aligned Geosynchronous Inductor or any such thing:
A highly directional and selective shortwave antenna consisting of a horizontal conductor of one or two dipoles connected with the receiver or transmitter and of a set of nearly equal insulated dipoles parallel to and on a level with the horizontal conductor.
That's what it is alright. Origin. 1940s: named after Hidetsugu Yagi (1886-1976).
When I bought my first radial arm saw I went to Sears to buy a dado blade kit and of course, there was an attractive young salesclerk working the power tools register that day who clearly didn't know what a dado blade was but probably thought it was something that sounded similar.
FTR, its origin is from 1655-65 and might be from Italian: die, cube, pedestal, or perhaps an Arabic dad game, Now what, you might ask, is an Arab dad game? Dunno. Google is not being helpful:
Angry Arab dad over card game - YouTube
Ah, Google. It's just not very good at such searches, still.
Upon first read I thought we were talking about physical lobes on the antenna and then I realized you're talking about the polar graph of the radiated power. I poked around Google but couldn't find out why this style of antenna is side/rear lobe-lacking. I'll keep looking. I assume it's the size and linear design that does it. Obviously I am not a radio geek but rather a cross-post asylum seeker from AHR, which seems to have a terminal nitwit troll infection.
Apparently. While the specs don't match the parabolic antenna I use for Wi-Fi, the size of this yagi antenna and its reduced wind load certainly have advantages.
Don't get me started on Chromebooks, Android, Stagefright and Google. My favorite experience with the Chromebook was trying to get connectivity help. No help available unless you're on line, no ability to get on line unless you can get help with the various settings. A bit of a paradox.
Another fine experience for these aging eyes was to discovering how tiny the icons are even on a large screen. Still haven't found a good way around that. Also, no tool-tips but plenty of oddball things happen with mouseovers sending me to pages I am pretty sure I didn't select.
Still, at $150 it beats the hell out of a lot of other options, has HDMI output and sort of even works with my old PS-2 keyboard and Intellimouse trackball using a USB to PS/2 adapter. Unfortunately, the trackball seems to require three times as many revolutions to travel the same distance as it does hooked into a PC. Can't find any settings that alter that behavior. Solve that problem and I will publicly proclaim you as "hero patriae" (for a day).
Netflixers out there can rent it (as I just did - sounds good) at:
Now go play with your Chromebook which I've renamed my Crohnbook because it gives me such a bellyache. Leaving in a positive note, the Crohnbook does have a far more sensitive wi-fi card than many of my other wi-fi devices and works in places the others won't.
I also understand the newest Chromebooks can run lots of older legacy applications but don't know the details. I guess the industry has finally realized that end users are getting quite reluctant to abandon something that works for the next "greatest" thing in computing.
Yes, the lobes are the often unwanted directions and ammount of signal pickup/radiated of the antenna.
The Yagi type antennas can be designed for maximum gain or minimum side lobes with decent gain. It all has to do with the spacing of the elements, the number, and the lengths of them. The physical size (length of the boom) does not have too much to do with the side lobes, but the longer it is, the larger and narrower the main beam usually is.
If designed for maximum gain, it will usually have larger and more side lobes. Sometimes the bandwidth (frequency range) will have a factor in the lobes. OUtside of the design frequency range the lobes become very pronounced and the main beam may be distorted and lots smaller.
I assume that spacing corresponds in some way to the frequency you wish to transmit or receive. Conceptually I still don't get why a rod with all those disks "skewered" like a shish-kabob can focus the radio energy like a parabolic dish.
Thanks for the info. I would like to be able to send and receive wifi from a nearby free hot spot but the signal's not quite strong enough. A yagi antenna looks like it could do the trick except that my tablet and netbook don't have external antenna ports for wifi. I asked someone once and they said an antenna connection would cause serious signal loss at wifi frequencies but I don't know if that's true. I know that some people have opened up various wireless devices and added antenna jacks, but I doubt I will be doing that.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.