UK Mobile Phones (uk.telecom.mobile) Mobile telephone equipment and networks.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31   Report Post  
Old December 1st 18, 03:08 AM posted to uk.telecom.mobile,comp.mobile.android,uk.telecom.broadband
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by MobileBanter: Nov 2018
Posts: 49
Default Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries

On 30/11/2018 00.05, Martin Brown wrote:
On 29/11/2018 22:06, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 29/11/2018 21.46, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 28/11/2018 17.03, Martin Brown wrote:
On 28/11/2018 13:03, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 28/11/2018 12.57, Martin Brown wrote:


....

Many people have such slow WiFi. And even slower if living on a flat
(apartment): 1 MB is typical.

If there are zillions of users all fighting for the same channel 11 as
BT used to by default set them up to do then you can get a huge
slowdown
due to collisions. I persuaded my nearest neighbours to use
channels so
that people on the same channel are separated as widely as possible.

Oh, at that place there are so many neighbours all using WiFi that all
channels are used by more than one apartment.

Yes, it is possible to purchase access points using 5 Gh and improve
speed.

Most ISP provided modems are capable of 5GHz operation and 802.11n
these
days - maybe you should ask your ISP to replace your antidiluvian
unit.

Oh, they will. They are replacing them, forcibly, and charging extra,
which I do not want. I do not know if the new model does 5G - I'll
google. [...] Yes, it has 5G. But apparently only for new clients, not
guaranteed they install it if we complain.

<https://comunidad.movistar.es/t5/Blog-Movisfera/Telef%C3%B3nica-sustituye-router-ONT-y-videobridge-por-un-nuevo/ba-p/2505790


** "charging extra"!? If you buy the router, then why should your ISP
charge extra?


Forget about me replacing the ISP provided router, out of the question.

Why? Well, they manage the router remotely, and they do not publish the
various and complex configurations needed for the router to handle the
phone and TV services. And they do change things, that make things stop
working if you use your own hardware.


OK so they manage their router remotely - but surely it has a decently
fast fixed wire 10/100/1000 hard wired ethernet socket so you could buy
a modern post-diluvian router to use in addition.


I have a recent Access Point and what it does is 40 mbit. I just looked.


Yes, I believe some people do it. I don't have time for that. For
fighting the device and them.


It should be just a case of disabling the inbuilt Wifi and substituting
your own as a pass through device.


I did. I bought an AP a year or two ago, and it does the very modern and
decent rate of 40 mbit :-p


** Anyhow, if you have a "600 Mbit land line", then why does your ISP
get
away with providing only a 45 Mbps router? If an ISP in our country
tried that, a few complaints to a consumer organization would make the
ISP get their act together very quickly.


Interesting question, but all providers do that.


How do they get away with it? My landline speed is a pathetic 5Mbps (the
average local speed round here is typically 1-2Mbps) but the ISP
supplied router is easily capable of 300M on its Wifi - and the chipset
is nothing special it is the default ISP modem.


Interesting.


They do the testing on Ethernet, obviously.

With another provider at another place, the apartment has the minimal
Internet available. The ISP wanted to "improve" speed, and I said "no",
because the WiFi is the same. I had a hard time convincing the girl at
the other side that "no, we do not want more internet speed, and yes, I
know what I'm saying, and no, you don't". No, she did not offer to
improve the WiFi.

So I got a rebate for the house instead. 120 or 150 mbits, I think.


It is odd that they sell such a fast WAN connection with such a
dreadfully slow Wifi capability. Are you sure that the things Wifi
cannot be re-configured to work as if it was made in the 21st century?


Certainly. I just looked at the configuration pages of both devices, and
I can choose 20 or 40 mbits, no more.

I just opened a page at my supplier, and I see some 11n routers, some at
almost 400 euros, some at 24€ (MIMO, 2.4 band only).

Not very promising on the low price range.

<https://www.pccomponentes.com/routers/wifi-11-n

And of course, I do not know if my laptops will be able to connect at
that speed.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

  #32   Report Post  
Old December 1st 18, 03:28 AM posted to uk.telecom.mobile,comp.mobile.android,uk.telecom.broadband
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by MobileBanter: Nov 2003
Posts: 108
Default Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries

In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:


I just opened a page at my supplier, and I see some 11n routers, some at
almost 400 euros, some at 24 (MIMO, 2.4 band only).

Not very promising on the low price range.


<https://www.pccomponentes.com/routers/wifi-11-n

And of course, I do not know if my laptops will be able to connect at
that speed.


if the laptops were made in the last decade or so, then they're at
least 802.11n, but even if they're older and have 802.11g, they'll
still benefit (although not by much).

however, at this point, it's best to get an 802.11ac router.
  #33   Report Post  
Old December 1st 18, 09:07 AM posted to uk.telecom.mobile,comp.mobile.android,uk.telecom.broadband
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by MobileBanter: Mar 2017
Posts: 75
Default Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries

On 01/12/2018 03:08, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 30/11/2018 00.05, Martin Brown wrote:
On 29/11/2018 22:06, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 29/11/2018 21.46, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 28/11/2018 17.03, Martin Brown wrote:
On 28/11/2018 13:03, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 28/11/2018 12.57, Martin Brown wrote:


...

Many people have such slow WiFi. And even slower if living on a flat
(apartment): 1 MB is typical.

If there are zillions of users all fighting for the same channel 11 as
BT used to by default set them up to do then you can get a huge
slowdown
due to collisions. I persuaded my nearest neighbours to use
channels so
that people on the same channel are separated as widely as possible.

Oh, at that place there are so many neighbours all using WiFi that all
channels are used by more than one apartment.

Yes, it is possible to purchase access points using 5 Gh and improve
speed.

Most ISP provided modems are capable of 5GHz operation and 802.11n
these
days - maybe you should ask your ISP to replace your antidiluvian
unit.

Oh, they will. They are replacing them, forcibly, and charging extra,
which I do not want. I do not know if the new model does 5G - I'll
google. [...] Yes, it has 5G. But apparently only for new clients, not
guaranteed they install it if we complain.

<https://comunidad.movistar.es/t5/Blog-Movisfera/Telef%C3%B3nica-sustituye-router-ONT-y-videobridge-por-un-nuevo/ba-p/2505790


** "charging extra"!? If you buy the router, then why should your ISP
charge extra?

Forget about me replacing the ISP provided router, out of the question.

Why? Well, they manage the router remotely, and they do not publish the
various and complex configurations needed for the router to handle the
phone and TV services. And they do change things, that make things stop
working if you use your own hardware.


OK so they manage their router remotely - but surely it has a decently
fast fixed wire 10/100/1000 hard wired ethernet socket so you could buy
a modern post-diluvian router to use in addition.


I have a recent Access Point and what it does is 40 mbit. I just looked.


That is truly bizarre. I can't see what the ISP gains by using such a
prehistoric Wifi capability. Even my cheapo Mifi device the size of a
packet of cigarettes can manage faster speeds. They would quickly go out
of business in the UK if they tried that here.


Yes, I believe some people do it. I don't have time for that. For
fighting the device and them.


It should be just a case of disabling the inbuilt Wifi and substituting
your own as a pass through device.


I did. I bought an AP a year or two ago, and it does the very modern and
decent rate of 40 mbit :-p


Where did you buy it? In a junk shop?


** Anyhow, if you have a "600 Mbit land line", then why does your ISP
get
away with providing only a 45 Mbps router? If an ISP in our country
tried that, a few complaints to a consumer organization would make the
ISP get their act together very quickly.

Interesting question, but all providers do that.


How do they get away with it? My landline speed is a pathetic 5Mbps (the
average local speed round here is typically 1-2Mbps) but the ISP
supplied router is easily capable of 300M on its Wifi - and the chipset
is nothing special it is the default ISP modem.


Interesting.


They do the testing on Ethernet, obviously.

With another provider at another place, the apartment has the minimal
Internet available. The ISP wanted to "improve" speed, and I said "no",
because the WiFi is the same. I had a hard time convincing the girl at
the other side that "no, we do not want more internet speed, and yes, I
know what I'm saying, and no, you don't". No, she did not offer to
improve the WiFi.

So I got a rebate for the house instead. 120 or 150 mbits, I think.


It is odd that they sell such a fast WAN connection with such a
dreadfully slow Wifi capability. Are you sure that the things Wifi
cannot be re-configured to work as if it was made in the 21st century?


Certainly. I just looked at the configuration pages of both devices, and
I can choose 20 or 40 mbits, no more.

I just opened a page at my supplier, and I see some 11n routers, some at
almost 400 euros, some at 24€ (MIMO, 2.4 band only).

Not very promising on the low price range.

<https://www.pccomponentes.com/routers/wifi-11-n


One of the cheaper ones by a reputable brand ought to easily do 300M or
600M if you pay a shade more for it. This onse splits the difference:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/TP-Link-Wir...dp/B003Y5RYNY/

About £25 in the UK. PC magazines here regularly review better
replacement routers for domestic and business use rating them by
price/performance and range.

And of course, I do not know if my laptops will be able to connect at
that speed.

RTFM

--
Regards,
Martin Brown
  #34   Report Post  
Old December 1st 18, 11:00 AM posted to uk.telecom.mobile,comp.mobile.android,uk.telecom.broadband
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by MobileBanter: Dec 2018
Posts: 5
Default Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries

Frank Slootweg wrote:
Anyhow, if you have a "600 Mbit land line", then why does your ISP get
away with providing only a 45 Mbps router? If an ISP in our country
tried that, a few complaints to a consumer organization would make the
ISP get their act together very quickly.


That wouldn't happen. What does "600 Mbit land line" say? To me only
that the line is capable of 600 Mbps. But it says nothing about the
customer's subscription. If I pay for, say, 30 Mbps, then a 45 Mbps
router does the job and there's nothing to complain about.
My fiber land line is capable of 1 Gbps, maybe much more, but I pay
for 100 Mbps, so that's what I get and I have no reason to complain.

-p

  #35   Report Post  
Old December 1st 18, 11:16 AM posted to uk.telecom.mobile,comp.mobile.android,uk.telecom.broadband
NY NY is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by MobileBanter: Jan 2014
Posts: 34
Default Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries

"Piet" wrote in message
news
Frank Slootweg wrote:
Anyhow, if you have a "600 Mbit land line", then why does your ISP get
away with providing only a 45 Mbps router? If an ISP in our country
tried that, a few complaints to a consumer organization would make the
ISP get their act together very quickly.


That wouldn't happen. What does "600 Mbit land line" say? To me only
that the line is capable of 600 Mbps. But it says nothing about the
customer's subscription. If I pay for, say, 30 Mbps, then a 45 Mbps
router does the job and there's nothing to complain about.
My fiber land line is capable of 1 Gbps, maybe much more, but I pay
for 100 Mbps, so that's what I get and I have no reason to complain.


Yes, there's always a rate-limiting step. If it's exchange/ISP equipment and
you only pay for what you get, then that's fair enough.

The problem is when you pay the same rate as someone who can get the maximum
that ADSL can supply (which I believe is about 15 Mbps down and 1 Mbps up)
but the quality of the *line* restricts you to 1.8 / 0.2 - which is what I
get here, at the end of a fairly long line from the exchange. The exchange
is 5 km as the crow flies, and the phone line probably takes a significantly
longer route.

When they first enabled ADSL in this village, everyone was gobsmacked that
it was possible at all, but several years on from that, people are starting
to moan about the abysmal speed.



  #36   Report Post  
Old December 1st 18, 11:41 AM posted to uk.telecom.mobile,comp.mobile.android,uk.telecom.broadband
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by MobileBanter: Nov 2012
Posts: 72
Default Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries

On 01/12/2018 11:16, NY wrote:

When they first enabled ADSL in this village, everyone was gobsmacked
that it was possible at all, but several years on from that, people are
starting to moan about the abysmal speed.


Yes, because when they were first connected, page weights were more
reasonable, but as they increase on average about 15-20% every year, it
takes longer and longer to load a page over a slow line, and
understandably people get more and more frustrated.
  #37   Report Post  
Old December 1st 18, 12:27 PM posted to uk.telecom.mobile,comp.mobile.android,uk.telecom.broadband
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by MobileBanter: Nov 2018
Posts: 5
Default Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries

In message , Java Jive
writes:
On 01/12/2018 11:16, NY wrote:

When they first enabled ADSL in this village, everyone was gobsmacked
that it was possible at all, but several years on from that, people
are starting to moan about the abysmal speed.


Yes, because when they were first connected, page weights were more
reasonable, but as they increase on average about 15-20% every year, it
takes longer and longer to load a page over a slow line, and
understandably people get more and more frustrated.


Is it only 15-20%? My impression is that it's more. But even that much
is bad.

It's rather like, to me, domestic electricity consumption in the
1950s-'70s or so: it just grew, on the assumption that the network would
grow to keep pace with it. OK, it's not _quite_ the same, in that
improvements in technology mitigate it more than they did back then with
power consumption, but I do think we're well overdue for the web page
design equivalents of the low-energy lightbulb.

JPG


Have you ever disagreed with a petition, but been frustrated that there's no
way you can *show* that you disagree? If so, visit 255soft.uk - and please
pass it on, especially to twitter, facebook, gransnet/mumsnet, or any such.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I long for the commercialised Christmas of the 1970s. It's got so religious
now, it's lost its true meaning. - Mike [{at}ostic.demon.co.uk], 2003-12-24
  #38   Report Post  
Old December 1st 18, 01:14 PM posted to uk.telecom.mobile,comp.mobile.android,uk.telecom.broadband
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by MobileBanter: Nov 2012
Posts: 72
Default Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries

On 01/12/2018 12:27, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

In message , Java Jive

Yes, because when they were first connected, page weights were more
reasonable, but as they increase on average about 15-20% every year,
it takes longer and longer to load a page over a slow line, and
understandably people get more and more frustrated.


Is it only 15-20%? My impression is that it's more. But even that much
is bad.


Yes, that's about the figure, but sustained over 5 successive years that
will double page weight over that time.

2014 - 15% increase in average page weight:
https://www.sitepoint.com/average-pa...eases-15-2014/
2015 - 16% increase in average page weight:
https://www.sitepoint.com/average-pa...other-16-2015/
Finally in 2017: "The average web page is 3MB."
https://speedcurve.com/blog/web-performance-page-bloat/

Further reading:

https://www.sitepoint.com/complete-g...g-page-weight/
"An overweight site will adversely affect your bottom line"

.... which headline gives an interesting new jocularity to the question:
"Does my bum look big in this?" For most corporate web-pages the answer
is a resounding "YES!" because most of them consist 90% or more of
bloat. A few months ago in a thread about the mess that is the BBC
website, I calculated that the particular page that I was complaining
about contained 8,183 characters of text content visible to the user,
but 188,105 characters of source code which had to be downloaded to
display that text content, and wasn't even crunched to remove surplus
whitespace to make it load more quickly (and further generated 113
errors and warnings when put through a W3c validator).

This gives a Macfarlane bloat index* for the page of 188105/8183 = 23
times, just to show some text and some pictures! Inverting that gives
the result that just 4% of the page's coding produced anything of use to
the viewer.

* An admittedly crude but simple and effective means of measuring
web-page bloat, the higher the number, the worse the bloat. Values of 3
to 7 are normal for a well designed, crunched (superfluous whitespace
removed) web page. Corporate pages are rarely less than 10, because
they use content delivery systems, but pages around 20 are far too
common, seemingly mainly because of corporate harvesting of user data.

To get back on topic, the above is largely why an ADSL service that
seemed wonderful a decade or more ago, is now frustrating and too slow
to be any longer fit for purpose.

Another factor is deterioration of the line over the intervening period.
Ours around here were never properly buried, and in at least a dozen
places hereabouts are lying on the surface vulnerable to damage by verge
trimming, ditch clearance, etc. So the number of joints in the lines
increases over the years.
  #39   Report Post  
Old December 1st 18, 02:24 PM posted to uk.telecom.mobile,comp.mobile.android,uk.telecom.broadband
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by MobileBanter: Nov 2018
Posts: 49
Default Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries

On 01/12/2018 10.07, Martin Brown wrote:
On 01/12/2018 03:08, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 30/11/2018 00.05, Martin Brown wrote:
On 29/11/2018 22:06, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 29/11/2018 21.46, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 28/11/2018 17.03, Martin Brown wrote:
On 28/11/2018 13:03, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 28/11/2018 12.57, Martin Brown wrote:


...

Many people have such slow WiFi. And even slower if living on a
flat
(apartment): 1 MB is typical.

If there are zillions of users all fighting for the same channel
11 as
BT used to by default set them up to do then you can get a huge
slowdown
due to collisions. I persuaded my nearest neighbours to use
channels so
that people on the same channel are separated as widely as possible.

Oh, at that place there are so many neighbours all using WiFi that
all
channels are used by more than one apartment.

Yes, it is possible to purchase access points using 5 Gh and
improve
speed.

Most ISP provided modems are capable of 5GHz operation and 802.11n
these
days - maybe you should ask your ISP to replace your antidiluvian
unit.

Oh, they will. They are replacing them, forcibly, and charging extra,
which I do not want. I do not know if the new model does 5G - I'll
google. [...] Yes, it has 5G. But apparently only for new clients,
not
guaranteed they install it if we complain.

<https://comunidad.movistar.es/t5/Blog-Movisfera/Telef%C3%B3nica-sustituye-router-ONT-y-videobridge-por-un-nuevo/ba-p/2505790



*** "charging extra"!? If you buy the router, then why should your ISP
charge extra?

Forget about me replacing the ISP provided router, out of the question.

Why? Well, they manage the router remotely, and they do not publish the
various and complex configurations needed for the router to handle the
phone and TV services. And they do change things, that make things stop
working if you use your own hardware.

OK so they manage their router remotely - but surely it has a decently
fast fixed wire 10/100/1000 hard wired ethernet socket so you could buy
a modern post-diluvian router to use in addition.


I have a recent Access Point and what it does is 40 mbit. I just looked.


That is truly bizarre. I can't see what the ISP gains by using such a
prehistoric Wifi capability. Even my cheapo Mifi device the size of a
packet of cigarettes can manage faster speeds. They would quickly go out
of business in the UK if they tried that here.


Well, now you see why "Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries". :-p



Yes, I believe some people do it. I don't have time for that. For
fighting the device and them.

It should be just a case of disabling the inbuilt Wifi and substituting
your own as a pass through device.


I did. I bought an AP a year or two ago, and it does the very modern and
decent rate of 40 mbit :-p


Where did you buy it? In a junk shop?


No, in a very reliable and popular shop.




*** Anyhow, if you have a "600 Mbit land line", then why does your ISP
get
away with providing only a 45 Mbps router? If an ISP in our country
tried that, a few complaints to a consumer organization would make the
ISP get their act together very quickly.

Interesting question, but all providers do that.

How do they get away with it? My landline speed is a pathetic 5Mbps (the
average local speed round here is typically 1-2Mbps) but the ISP
supplied router is easily capable of 300M on its Wifi - and the chipset
is nothing special it is the default ISP modem.


Interesting.


They do the testing on Ethernet, obviously.

With another provider at another place, the apartment has the minimal
Internet available. The ISP wanted to "improve" speed, and I said "no",
because the WiFi is the same. I had a hard time convincing the girl at
the other side that "no, we do not want more internet speed, and yes, I
know what I'm saying, and no, you don't". No, she did not offer to
improve the WiFi.

So I got a rebate for the house instead. 120 or 150 mbits, I think.

It is odd that they sell such a fast WAN connection with such a
dreadfully slow Wifi capability. Are you sure that the things Wifi
cannot be re-configured to work as if it was made in the 21st century?


Certainly. I just looked at the configuration pages of both devices, and
I can choose 20 or 40 mbits, no more.

I just opened a page at my supplier, and I see some 11n routers, some at
almost 400 euros, some at 24€ (MIMO, 2.4 band only).

Not very promising on the low price range.

<https://www.pccomponentes.com/routers/wifi-11-n


One of the cheaper ones by a reputable brand ought to easily do 300M or
600M if you pay a shade more for it. This onse splits the difference:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/TP-Link-Wir...dp/B003Y5RYNY/


About £25 in the UK. PC magazines here regularly review better
replacement routers for domestic and business use rating them by
price/performance and range.


24€ at my supplier.

The description says "MIMO technology", not "802.11n". The detailed
description does :-p

And it only does 2.4 - 2.4835 GHz, not 5.


And of course, I do not know if my laptops will be able to connect at
that speed.

RTFM


LOL. Go find them...

My new and small laptop specs do not say. The word Wifi or Wif-fi is not
included in the 80 pages maintenance PDF or the 33 pages of the user manual.

So I go to an spec site:

<https://uk.hardware.info/product/331498/lenovo-yoga-300-11ibr-80m10049mh/specifications

No mention of wifi on the network paragraph.


So I find another page on India, which says "802.11 ac". So, no "n".

<https://gadgets.ndtv.com/lenovo-yoga-300-11ibr-5295

But the page has some other specs wrong (it came with W10, not 8.1)



AFAIK only my mobile phone supports "n".


--
Cheers, Carlos.
  #40   Report Post  
Old December 1st 18, 02:35 PM posted to uk.telecom.mobile,comp.mobile.android,uk.telecom.broadband
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by MobileBanter: Nov 2018
Posts: 49
Default Mobile faster than wi-fi in many countries

On 01/12/2018 04.28, nospam wrote:
In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:


I just opened a page at my supplier, and I see some 11n routers, some at
almost 400 euros, some at 24¤ (MIMO, 2.4 band only).

Not very promising on the low price range.


<https://www.pccomponentes.com/routers/wifi-11-n

And of course, I do not know if my laptops will be able to connect at
that speed.


if the laptops were made in the last decade or so, then they're at
least 802.11n, but even if they're older and have 802.11g, they'll
still benefit (although not by much).

however, at this point, it's best to get an 802.11ac router.


Well, there is one for 49€, an Asus RT-AC53. My new and small laptop
seems to support it, so that's a reasonable possibility (for upstairs).

My main laptop doesn't, only 802.11b/g.

--
Cheers, Carlos.


Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
N95-1 faster than N95 8GB Walker Moore UK Mobile Phones 16 January 14th 08 04:49 PM
entering data faster into a mobile device [email protected] UK Mobile Phones 0 December 29th 04 05:42 AM
Orange "work faster" Bradley Bogbrush UK Mobile Phones 1 September 29th 04 07:49 PM
Orange "work faster" David Marshall UK Mobile Phones 0 September 29th 04 04:57 PM
Faster/Cheaper mobile Opera browser access? Ruari Callow UK Mobile Phones 3 June 11th 04 03:35 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:49 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 Mobile Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about UK mobile phones"

 

Copyright © 2017