MVNO vs Real Network

Hi all!

So i'm venturing into the mobile broadband world, as my life is revolving around increased travelling across the country and so I'm looking for some deals.

I stumbled upon Smarty, running off the Three network - £25 for unlimited everything on a 1 monther. So i'm tempted. But I just wanted to know if anyone has ever encountered differing speeds between a main network provider, and a subsequent MVNO.

Do main networks prioritise their own customers first in terms of speed etc, and then give lower priority to MVNO customers? Or is it consistent throughout, just a different label?

Any insight would be awesome!
Thanks!

Hi,

I�m using Smarty. In one month I�ve used 960gb. The speed is exactly the same as Three. In fact Three own Smarty - it�s where they can try our new ideas. They use the Three internet APN so ping is also quite good. Great service given you have no contract so nothing to lose if your areas is oversubscribed or signal cannot get through walls.

If you haven�t ordered already I can recommend you and you will get a free month and £10 Amazon voucher. I get between 30-40mb peak and up to 50mb when the mast isn�t busy.

Cheers Gary, good to know!
Happy to use your referral, especially if there's a free Amazon card in it! Drop me a DM!
Have you had any experience with port forwarding through this service? Would be useful to know!

Edited by Nitro93 (Mon 29-Jul-19 19:31:25)

I haven't tried port forwarding, however if you have an example of what your are wanting to do I could give it a go? I know the Xbox says it's behind a NAT, however things like Neos cameras do work without any fiddling around. Also, my works VPN (Cisco) works fine without any work arounds needed.

IP address given to me at moment is 94.197 which I believe means I am not behind a CG NAT

Edited by gary333 (Mon 29-Jul-19 20:01:18)

In reply to a post by gary333:

I haven't tried port forwarding, however if you have an example of what your are wanting to do I could give it a go? I know the Xbox says it's behind a NAT, however things like Neos cameras do work without any fiddling around. Also, my works VPN (Cisco) works fine without any work arounds needed.

IP address given to me at moment is 94.197 which I believe means I am not behind a CG NAT

Yep it's mostly for if/when this replaces my landline (speed dependent). I basically have a Synology Diskstation with a Virtual Machine that needs port 80 to run a web server, and CCTV running on a couple of ports through Surveillance Station. I assume that if I used a VPN though that this wouldn't be too much of an issue if I end up being a CG-NAT?

I've just tried port forwarding for my Reolink CCTV system and I can get it to give me access remotely. Unfortunately don't have anyway of testing a VM / web server as don't have one of those

I have a Reolink RLC-410W linked wirelessly to my Three Huawei 311B router, uploading a file through it with its (the camera's) built-in FTP server to my own cloud storage, (not Reolink's), as soon as a file reaches 1MB, which if there's any activity is a few minutes worth. About 300MB per day.

There's also a 32GB card in the camera where the files are created for the FTP and over-written when that is full.

I have the Reolink app on my Windows laptop using the same router wirelessly, and on my iPad and Android phone. So I can access either the local card for recent history, or my cloud for older stuff, or any device for the live feed from Reolink itself using the app. (I have unlimited data from Three on the router SIM and my phone SIM).

No port forwarding or anything. I just set up the wifi connections as normal, and the FTP server via the app.

Of course if I paid Reolink for their storage the live feed would be being copied seamlessly but I'm happy with the short period before the FTP kicks in.

Edited by RobertoS (Mon 29-Jul-19 21:52:55)

I have the Reolink NVR with wired IP cameras. If you use their software you can get it to work via the UID (which is how I normally have it) so no need to forward. However to test port forwarding out I accessed outside of their software and it worked fine (although took me time to figure it out). This means no need for client as it accesses the NVR directly.

In reply to a post by gary333:

I've just tried port forwarding for my Reolink CCTV system and I can get it to give me access remotely. Unfortunately don't have anyway of testing a VM / web server as don't have one of those

Is that directly through the IP address or through a Dynamic DNS service? If through the IP, that's excellent news!

I tried it through the IP address for remote view, however as soon as the IP address changes I would assume it�s game over. I don�t use this method normally as I prefer the app and that works via P2P so doesn�t need any port changes.