As far as I remember it has a single GigE and 3 FastE ports.

Mine has two Lan ports. Lan2 has a sticky over it saying "Not in use".

In reply to a post by Squirrel:

What's the difference ?

900mbps But if BT is trying to future proof the network and allow in theory for 100mbps services, then a 100mbps port won't be good enough. Also the problem will be finding routers with GigE WAN ports - I think that's one reason why VM supply an all-in-one solution due to the problems of low-spec domestic kit.

I saw a topic in another forum where a gent in a Nordic country has such fast speed (80m symmetric) that all the routers he tries cause massive slowdown. His internet is delivered by fibre to a block and then shared out via copper - so essentially a modified FTTC I guess!!

I have read this somewhere on the web this afternoon but I cannot find it again

BT HH 3

1 x 1Gbps WAN
1 x 1Gbps LAN
3 x 100Mbps LAN

VDSL2 Modem

1 x 100Mbps LAN
1 x unused LAN

In reply to a post by Squirrel:

VDSL2 Modem

1 x 100Mbps LAN
1 x unused LAN

That actually fits with something I found, but it was just a blog-type page so I didn't take it as gospel. Looks like it's only 100Mbps then... which should be OK really.

After all, the modem is basically just converting from set of voltage signals to another (OK, a bit of a simplification ) so it should be able to get pretty close to the 100Mbps without trouble.

Whereas a router has rather more work to do... I know a few people have found increased speed on FTTC by switching from a router with a 10/100 WAN port to a gigabit one.

Would that be something to do with the port itself, or the likelihood that a gigabit router would have a faster processor?

In reply to a post by billford:

Whereas a router has rather more work to do... I know a few people have found increased speed on FTTC by switching from a router with a 10/100 WAN port to a gigabit one.

Would that be something to do with the port itself, or the likelihood that a gigabit router would have a faster processor?

Could be a bit of both. On busy servers the TCP/IP overhead is overloaded to the network card. Doubt that happens on home routers.

I think with speeds higher than FTTC, ie, the VM 50 and 100 services, we will see some interesting developments in home router performance - but probably at increased costs.

Shame none of these routers yet supply 4 internal GigE ports; makes copying files around LAN much quicker

In reply to a post by jchamier:

Shame none of these routers yet supply 4 internal GigE ports; makes copying files around LAN much quicker

My Airport Extreme has got three

In reply to a post by jchamier:

The original BT idea of ADSL to a USB plug was generally accepted as insane (USB being a troublesome software interface).

The 512Kb service to USB wasn't quite the "original" ADSL service. Before 512K became available, the service was at 2Mb with BT-supplied Alcatel router/modem boxes. This too was installed by BT techs, and was a similar closed box to today's VDSL2 boxes, with no ability to read any stats. IIRC they too ran pretty hot.

But otherwise, yes, the USB boxes weren't a brilliant idea, were they!

my wndr3700 has Gigabit WAN & Four Gigabit Ethernet ports + a Broadband usage meter

In reply to a post by WWWombat:

The 512Kb service to USB wasn't quite the "original" ADSL service. Before 512K became available, the service was at 2Mb with BT-supplied Alcatel router/modem boxes. This too was installed by BT techs, and was a similar closed box to today's VDSL2 boxes, with no ability to read any stats. IIRC they too ran pretty hot.

I recall you could get these Efficient Networks routers with 512k as well but it was only on business plans. This was over £80/month IIRC ?

But otherwise, yes, the USB boxes weren't a brilliant idea, were they!

The problem was that BT (before OR) specified the USB plug was the network termination point, so legally you weren't allowed to change it. Draytek made a cool box that took the USB interface into what we'd expect today as a router - but performance was always low, only worked for 512k