Three 4G Router slower than Phone???

I have Three's 4G Home Broadband with the supplied router Huawei B535-232.

I also have a Oneplus 7T also on Three.

The router is in an upstairs window with a fairly direct line of site to the transmitter (I'm in a village, & there appears to be only one available transmitter for Three)

Why does my phone always get 2 to 5 times faster up/down speeds than the router on the same network, on the same transmitter at the same time????

The phone doesn't even need to be in as advantageous a position as the router!!!!!

Because your phone has far newer connectivity tech (LTE Cat.16) with the mast than the B535. (LTE Cat.7)

I know, it does my head in why mass produced 4g routers don't have the same level of tech as mobile phones.

In reply to a post by buggerlugs:

I know, it does my head in why mass produced 4g routers don't have the same level of tech as mobile phones.

Simple, sales volume. 4G routers sell to a few thousand units, phones sell to a few million units.

In reply to a post by jchamier:

In reply to a post by buggerlugs:

I know, it does my head in why mass produced 4g routers don't have the same level of tech as mobile phones.

Simple, sales volume. 4G routers sell to a few thousand units, phones sell to a few million units.

Still makes no sense. Why would sales volume mean they stick [censored] out of date chips in it? That just means people won't want to buy it or will buy it without knowing the performance will be [censored]).

Which routers have the CAT 16 or better chipsets?

In reply to a post by lockyatlrg:

Which routers have the CAT 16 or better chipsets?

As an example:

Netgear 810 is Cat 12:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/NETGEAR-AC810-100EUS-Broadb...

Netgear M1
https://www.amazon.co.uk/NETGEAR-Nighthawk-Mobile-Ho...

Netgear M2
https://www.amazon.co.uk/NETGEAR-Nighthawk-Mobile-Ho...

and the 5G Netgear M5 is "coming soon":
https://www.netgear.co.uk/home/products/mobile-broad...

As you can see the higher performing devices from Netgear, are a lot more expensive than the ones supplied by Three, Vodafone and others with mobile broadband packages. It is a shame the desktop, mains powered, don't use these chipsets. (from Qualcomm I believe in the Netgear products).

Edited by jchamier (Sun 08-Mar-20 16:04:15)

Because most people don't know the difference? Don't read forums like this?

Absolutely. Take any mass produced mobile phone that is say 12 months old and it will come with LTE CAT 12 or higher, so why are brand new routers even produced with anything less?

Wow, I never realised! :0

I was thinking of installing an external pole mounted antenna for around £150.

Would I be right in thinking that I'd be better off junking the supplied router and replacing it with something like the Netgear AC810 for only slightly more money????

Thanks for all the responses

Honestly at this point in time with my experience of LTE broadband currently, I'm not so sure.

The sheer amount of variables that can affect the quality and strength of the LTE signal mixed with the questionable quality of the hardware on offer making the connections, coupled with the quality of the carriers backbone and mast hardware, I think a half decent mobile with the B535 rabbit ears fitted would probably be a great "if not ideal" solution!

The answer is, it depends...

What speeds are you actually seeing on the phone/router ?

Typically, the router gets around about 15Mbps on a good day, but currently its 9 down 4 up.

The phone data is currently 39 down 10 up

Router
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1OgdhJuovF5MIqeTxmI...

Phone Data
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1OiRRgRlBt2Si94MlwD...

In reply to a post by buggerlugs:

I think a half decent mobile with the B535 rabbit ears fitted would probably be a great "if not ideal" solution!

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean?

Are you suggesting using a mobile phone as a wi-fi hotspot to be the access to the internet for the router?

Cheers

With figures that low I�d say it is more likely that your router antenna just isn�t pulling in a good a signal as the phone one is, rather than it being down to the modem class.

It would be worth comparing signal quality measurements on the two and might be worth using an external high gain router instead.

"Sorry, I don't understand what you mean?

Are you suggesting using a mobile phone as a wi-fi hotspot to be the access to the internet for the router?

Cheers"

I was suggesting if you could somehow fit the rabbit ears aerials to your mobile phone (with far better connectivity tech), you'd get a far superior connection than ANY current LTE router on the market today!

!! Apologies - I replied before reading the rest of the thread - there's been many useful replies already... !

Your phone almost definately has a better radio receiver than the router.

It may support more bands - each mobile network uses a variety of different bands, so your phone may have access to a wider variability

The phone probably can deal with more simultaneous streams - lookup 2x2 vs 4x4

Devices can also aggregate multiple channels together - across bands. So for example the best the B535 can do is 2 at a time -- and the combinations are limited. A phone may be able to do 5, or 6, with more flexibility

I see similar between the B535 and my iPhone XS Max - the latter is noticeably better. Though the router does have one thing in its favour - it seems as if the antenna - even built in - are better.

That all being said I peaked at 148 Mbps down on the B535 at the weekend. Though this was with vodafone, and aggregating two bands. Part of my comparison testing against three which is problematic (see elsewhere). And that's not bad.

For the best routers you have to go up to the B818 - or with 5G too the 'CPE Pro' h112-370 - these seem to be up there with the latest phones, but will set you back between £200-£400.

I'm with virgin and get 1Gbps currently, but use the B535 elsewhere where 20-30 is kinda ok. 100-150 (v) is nicer. Anything more is overkill. But when I move I'll seriously consider one of those routers - or later equivs as they have the potential for up to 400 Mbps on 4G, and even more on 5G -- in the right areas!

Edited by planetf1 (Mon 09-Mar-20 18:41:11)

I think whilst the B535 has the potential for 400mb on 4g, sadly Three does not.

Looking at my B535 router on Three it actually connects to a mast some 3 miles away, whilst my mobile (also on three) connects to a mast less than a quarter of a mile up the road (whilst I'm at home!). I'm now wondering if up until January I was connected to the closer mast all the time and now I'm not.

Shouldn't the router automatically connect to the strongest signal?

Another weird thing with regards to the signal is that its strongest right next to my chimney breast, but worse by the window in the direction of said mast. If I go towards the ceiling it just gets worse too. So I'm going to build an experimental LauC2 Antenna tomorrow and see if my issues are more signal strength related than Three's contention on the mast. Will report back my findings.

I am still using the original Three B310 router which is just a CAT 4 router.

I get 100Mbps download speeds, I tried a Huawei 5186, B525 and B535 and it made no difference to speed.

If you're getting 100 Mbps today, then it is unlikely you will see any difference from changing the client device. Most of the advice is for people with poor speeds, likely due to poor signal reception.

Cat4 devices only have the ability to use 1 x 20mhz channel at a time with theoretical max speeds of 150 Mbps. A cat 6 device has the ability to aggregate two 20mhz channels together with theoretical max speeds of 300 Mbps.

Three UK has the following spectrum:
* Band 20 = 800mhz = 5 Mhz
* Band 1 = 2100mhz = 10 Mhz (in some areas 15 Mhz)
* Band 3 = 1800mhz = 15 Mhz
* Band 32 = 1500mhz = 20 Mhz

Graphical list of spectrum and a list of LTE categories


There is a report from Qualcomm that if most people on a network use higher category devices, then those stuck with lower category devices will see higher speeds.

Edited by jchamier (Mon 09-Mar-20 21:01:47)

Thanks for the info, some interesting reading

In reply to a post by jchamier:

If you're getting 100 Mbps today, then it is unlikely you will see any difference from changing the client device. Most of the advice is for people with poor speeds, likely due to poor signal reception.

Cat4 devices only have the ability to use 1 x 20mhz channel at a time with theoretical max speeds of 150 Mbps. A cat 6 device has the ability to aggregate two 20mhz channels together with theoretical max speeds of 300 Mbps.

Three UK has the following spectrum:
* Band 20 = 800mhz = 5 Mhz
* Band 1 = 2100mhz = 10 Mhz (in some areas 15 Mhz)
* Band 3 = 1800mhz = 15 Mhz
* Band 32 = 1500mhz = 20 Mhz

Graphical list of spectrum and a list of LTE categories


There is a report from Qualcomm that if most people on a network use higher category devices, then those stuck with lower category devices will see higher speeds.

It's worth adding that although Three have this spectrum it's not all deployed at each cell site. There could be as little as one band in certain locations.

There could be as little as one band in certain locations

That's particularly true in rural areas (like mine) where only band 20 is provided as it has better range. Unfortunately the limited throughput on a 5MHz band means my area is getting slower as more people swap from ADSL to 4G.

"It's worth adding that although Three have this spectrum it's not all deployed at each cell site. There could be as little as one band in certain locations. "

I think you are correct. I have two masts near my home and I believe one (some half a mile from me) is used primarily for mobile phones and all the local broadband customers are connecting to the other one (some 3 miles away!).

In reply to a post by buggerlugs:

I think you are correct. I have two masts near my home and I believe one (some half a mile from me) is used primarily for mobile phones and all the local broadband customers are connecting to the other one (some 3 miles away!).

It doesn't work like that. Each device will listen out for transmissions and attempt to connect to all the masts nearby. The mast and the device then negotiates if the signal is "good enough" or if the device should try other masts in the list the first mast gives it.

This happens all the time, constantly, otherwise you wouldn't be able to make calls, or use the internet whilst moving. (e.g. on a train, on a bus etc).

In reply to a post by sheephouse:

That's particularly true in rural areas (like mine) where only band 20 is provided as it has better range. Unfortunately the limited throughput on a 5MHz band means my area is getting slower as more people swap from ADSL to 4G.

Unlikely in the plan, but it may be that is all you can receive. An external antenna, or just trying every room in your house might help. Alternatively try another network operator. Worth using the "search network" option on your device to see what else shows up - especially in rural areas.

Yes, there is a mast with band 3 a few miles away. Unfortunately it is over a hill, and even with an external antenna I get very poor download speeds from that (but much better upload speed strangely). I have an EE SIM on order to try that out now that they offer unlimited deals.
However, the point is that some areas will be slow regardless of the router/phone you use simply because the masts available have limited bandwidth.

Edited by sheephouse (Tue 10-Mar-20 11:47:02)

In reply to a post by sheephouse:

However, the point is that some areas will be slow regardless of the router/phone you use simply because the masts available have limited bandwidth.

Agreed. But bandwidth on masts does increase. For example a mast site could easily have two 1Gbit links, but only have Three with 5Mhz at Band 20 (800mhz) and so get saturated. If Three then added 15Mhz at Band 3 (1800mhz) and 20Mhz downlink at Band 32 (1500mhz) then they might need to add two more 1Gbit links.

Some networks are good at predicting capacity growth in areas, others are not. It can sometimes take 12 or 24 months to increase capacity.

This is so different to fixed line broadband, over twisted pair copper wire, or coax copper, or fibre.

Kinda makes you wonder if Three has anywhere near the level of mast infrastructure in place (and money) to deliver the 5G that they're selling doesn't it?

Yes they do: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uedDVcQ_Kgs
It takes years to roll this stuff out - they've just started.

Compare Three�s 4G (non-supervoice) and 4G (supervoice) coverage of East Anglia with their 3G map. It shows that only a minority of sites have been upgraded to 4G and they are relying on 5MHz of band 20 from those, plus the existing MBNL 3G network, to fill the gaps. I�m not holding my breath for them suddenly deciding to install 5G at sites that are still 3G only.

The EE 3G map looks very similar to Three as you�d expect, but they have added 4G to most masts.

Edited by CJ8 (Wed 11-Mar-20 08:44:35)

What does Cellmapper show? Do you have any more specific areas / towns / villages to look at, as East Anglia is a large place.

East Anglia is a large place. Cellmapper shows fewer than 10 sites in the whole of East Anglia have Three 4G on band 1, and only 1 site has band 32 (it�s also the only one with 5G).

In Colchester, EE has more than 20 verified 4G sites. About half of them have bands 3&7. Three has 8 verified 4G sites and another 4 unverified, all are band 3 only or band 3&20. They also have many unverified 3G only sites.

In Clacton on Sea, EE has 12 verified 4G sites, band 3 only apart from one with band 20. Three has 2 verified 4G sites.

That would certainly explain the huge difference in speed and coverage between the two networks.

In reply to a post by CJ8:

That would certainly explain the huge difference in speed and coverage between the two networks.

Also bear in mind the number of reported customers of each network. Also I'm surprised you're looking for Band 1 for Three, look for Band 3 as they rolled this out first, then added Band 20, and MUCH later started using Band 1. Band 1 is the same frequencies used for 3G, so if there is a high proportion of 3G users in an area, Band 1 won't get rolled out.

* Three has around 13 million customers
* Vodafone has around 18 million customers.
* O2 has around 26 million customers.
* EE has around 29 million customers.

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mobile_network...

Some might ask why the owner of Three, one of the richest companies in the world, CK Hutchison Holdings, did not spend more on spectrum at the Ofcom auctions?

Thanks for all those that have contributed, this has been a very interesting (and technically way above my pay grade!!!) thread.

I decided to try an external antenna, I bought a Poynting 4G-XPOL-A0001 and tried it just using the suckers on the bedroom window. There was a marked improvement!

I've now bitten the bullet & pole mounted it to the outside of the house and, even though it's omni-directional, rotated it towards the transmitter. I'm now seeing around 50 down & 10 up, comparable to my phone

The speed test analysis also reckons I'm "Faster than 81.2% of tests in South West England"

Thanks for all the help & info

Result !

I thought average data usage on Three was much higher than other networks, so they had the highest data usage of all networks. Maybe that has changed since the other networks started offering unlimited data, and I expect EE has an even higher market share relative to Three in East Anglia.

Three definitely has the least revenue available for network upgrades though. I was looking for Three's band 1 on cellmapper to get a view of how far they've got with network upgrades and 3G spectrum re-farming in the region. The answer is they've hardly started. With 3G running 10 times faster than 4G, that's not because there are too many 3G users. At least now I know the congestion and sub-1Mbps 4G speeds are unlikely to improve anytime soon.

One surprise on cellmapper was that O2 have added the higher frequency capacity upgrades in several towns in the region, with a decent number of sites in each town. So maybe, after months of 'our network is very busy in your area but we're working to make it better', they will soon do the same here. If that happens I'll ditch Three and use Vodafone as second sim. (Primary sim is EE, in case that's not obvious!).

In reply to a post by CJ8:

I thought average data usage on Three was much higher than other networks, so they had the highest data usage of all networks. Maybe that has changed since the other networks started offering unlimited data, and I expect EE has an even higher market share relative to Three in East Anglia.

Three have been vocal (marketing?) about this, but the other networks pretty quiet, and the information on usage is not freely available.

Three definitely has the least revenue available for network upgrades though. I was looking for Three's band 1 on cellmapper to get a view of how far they've got with network upgrades and 3G spectrum re-farming in the region. The answer is they've hardly started. With 3G running 10 times faster than 4G, that's not because there are too many 3G users. At least now I know the congestion and sub-1Mbps 4G speeds are unlikely to improve anytime soon.

Following Jonathan Morris (mobile journalist) on twitter and on the DS forum, he states he thinks Three has insufficient bandwidth to many of its masts. This could be of course waiting on the network rebuild, which is a) delayed, and b) sent into chaos by the Government announcements over Huawei. There have also been some high level staff resign suddenly.

One surprise on cellmapper was that O2 have added the higher frequency capacity upgrades in several towns in the region, with a decent number of sites in each town. So maybe, after months of 'our network is very busy in your area but we're working to make it better', they will soon do the same here. If that happens I'll ditch Three and use Vodafone as second sim. (Primary sim is EE, in case that's not obvious!).

Always worth testing, but skip GiffGaff. Friends of mine normally on O2, tried GiffGaff for 3 months, and moved back to O2. I personally have EE and Vodafone as mobile contracts, and Three as PAYG. Not bothered with O2 here as they were always much slower than Vodafone (each area is different!)

Edited by jchamier (Sat 14-Mar-20 15:56:45)

Thanks, I�ll note to avoid giffgaff. I was thinking Vodafone because it�s not much more expensive than Three on some of the cashback deals that occasionally crop up and their 4G plans are 5G ready. Otherwise O2 when they have band 32 might be a more obvious choice in the O2 zone, but I�m put off by their strange warning that using a 5G plan in a 4G phone will affect 4G functionality. I�ve no idea why, but Sky say the same thing so there must be a reason.

Regarding Three, I�ve read other suggestions that they are sometimes prone to skimp on backhaul capacity but I�d expect both 3G and 4G speeds to suffer if that was the bottleneck.

Too late to edit my post... I meant O2 are rolling out band 40, not band 32.

Also I checked cellmapper again and it looks like O2 added band 40 in other nearby towns but didn't add Vodafone band 7 or 38 at the same time. No wonder Vodafone aren't entirely happy with the joint venture. So it looks like O2 may be my only viable option for second sim, once band 40 arrives.

Back on the main topic of this thread - I also found a phone hotspot is faster than a dedicated mifi device, but the best phone signal in my house is not near my PC and wifi struggled with the distance. So I splashed out on an intel-based PCIe wifi card with decent aerial (Gigabyte GC-WBAX200) to replace a generic realtek wifi-N USB adapter and can't recommend it highly enough. It may be overkill until wifi 6 routers are more common, but I can now put my phone hotspot upstairs where there's a stronger mobile signal and still get a fast wifi conenction to my PC.

Until someone rings you on the phone and you have to go upstairs to answer it. By which time the caller has finished their voicemail if they choose to leave one .

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Until someone rings you on the phone and you have to go upstairs to answer it. By which time the caller has finished their voicemail if they choose to leave one .

Bluetooth headphones?

Do triple-simultaneous link headphones work well? Phone + Netflix + Amazon Prime?

Well one of those is hardware the others software. The answer is yes if you�re watching Netflix and Prime on the phone.

I'm not sure I asked a semi-joking question, with a hint of seriousness, properly.

Suppose you are watching Netflix on your computer/laptop. Not using the headphones. Somebody else is doing something similar, possibly with headphones also connected to their kit that is streaming from your hotspot-phone. Maybe a few people.

Your phone rings. What happens? Everything stops? Then where are your headphones?

Plus! The problem that made me buy the Three HomeFi. When I go out with my phone, so does the internet. Which was fine as a single user, but no good once I put in security cameras.

Edited by RobertoS (Sun 15-Mar-20 21:11:01)

Well in that case you have different headphones for each use case.

I agree it doesn�t scale or if you have multiple humans sharing the internet connection.

For some it may be cheaper and faster to have a dedicated phone as the internet connection as discussed many phones provide faster internet than the entry level LTE routers networks are supplying.

In reply to a post by jchamier:

For some it may be cheaper and faster to have a dedicated phone as the internet connection as discussed many phones provide faster internet than the entry level LTE routers networks are supplying.

I do use an old phone as a hotspot, but it wouldn't be practical for a large family. I assume people using a router have a separate sim for it and don't keep swapping it into their phone, so it's no more expensive than a dedicated router!

With EE, I got a second sim for £6 a month with unlimited calls and a tiny amount of data and transfer the 100GB gifting allowance from my unlimited sim at the start of each bill cycle, so £38 for an unlimited sim and a 100GB sim. The T&C for data gifting mention a fair use limit but an EE rep on their own forum confirmed it's not applied and the unlimited gifting add-on doesn't actually exist. That was in response to people asking why they advertise a data gifting allowance that's larger than the fair use limit.

With Three, for those who live in an area where the network hasn't become too congested, two unlimited sims would cost a bit less than £38 on a good day.

Exactly the point I was making in the first place. It doesn't work for everybody. In fact it only really works for single people, and not even that for anyone who wants internet connection for the premises when they go out and take their phone. The only reason to have a mobile

As for having different headphones for each use case, I don't see how that solves the problem of using your only phone situated upstairs and as specified by the person doing it physically connected to an antenna.

It may suit that person, but people it does suit will be low in number.

There is also the point discussed recently, (I'm not sure if it was in this thread or another), of phones not being designed for prolonged use either as a hotspot or ethernet-connected as a modem to a router. The heat build-up could be considerable over a long time. Modems and modem routers have significant cooling vents for a reason, and that's without a lump of lithium-ion battery getting hot.