sky fibre pro over wifi

Can anyone help... im on sky fibre pro... getting speed test results of 59-64mb/s over ethernet. but no where near that figure on wifi.. Any help getting around 20-30meg over wifi

Have you checked your device can get faster than 30 Mbps from its wireless cards? Or at the more basic level, is the device 802.11n capable and reporting a connection speed of well over 100 Mbps?

The Sky devices are not renowned for the fastest wireless speeds, but generally good coverage.

wireless is never as fast as wired ethernet your getting about what i get on 802.11n on 802.11ac i can get upto 50 but thats about it

Well i got a 300meg wireless n adaptor . Is there no way of getting that speed through wireless

NO

The 300 Meg, is actually 150 Meg in one direction PLUS 150 Meg in the other, and then the overheads need to be taken into account, so even with perfect set-up under 150 Mbps for downloads.

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/hardware/reviews/77-sk...

Shows the sort of speeds with an SR101 that we got, i.e. 55 Mbps in the same room and believe the fibre sky hub is basically the same wireless wise.

http://www.thinkbroadband.com/hardware/reviews/76-as...
Even hardware that claims 900 Mbps wireless struggles to get 113 Mbps, but does better on 5GHz with 140 Mbps in the same room.

In reply to a post by Apriliamgt:

Well i got a 300meg wireless n adaptor . Is there no way of getting that speed through wireless

The Sky SR101 and SR102 routers are not top spec for WiFi. If you want fast WiFi then you will need to buy something else that manages 3 streams (450Mbps) at 2.4 Ghz AND also 5 Ghz. Much of the reason WiFi is slow is due to interference in the air, especially at 2.4 Ghz.

Here in my flat, I get 50 Mbps on a wired speed test. On 2.4 Ghz I can usually only get 18 or 19 Mbps even opposite the router. At 5 Ghz, I can get 50 Mbps. I have a LOT of other people around with WiFi as you'd guess in a flat, and they're all on 2.4 Ghz only.

inSSIDer or similar tools can show the issue, but sadly inSSIDer is now a paid product for Windows users. On the Mac you can get WiFi Scanner in the Mac App Store (inSSIDer for Mac is useless). There is nothing for iPhone or iPad as Apple don't allow it. On Android devices there are a few free scanners that work well. Not all devices support 5Ghz.

FYI,

inSSIDer is free and available on the google store

Inssider google store android

Edited by deleted (Thu 20-Feb-14 19:51:35)

In reply to a post by Ianph:

inSSIDer is free and available on the google store

"We're sorry, the requested URL was not found on this server."

But real question, is it any good?

Its not free on Windows or Mac anymore - http://www.inssider.com - its now US $20.

Yes, and that's a shame, I much preferred inSSIDer to NetStumbler which I used before I found inSSIDer.

if anyone would like me to upload the .apk anywhere that's fine

I just ran this speedtest over wi-fi. My adaptor is showing 300Mbps
http://www.thinkbroadband.com/speedtest/results.html...
I just checked Inssider and that's showing I'm connected on 2.4GHz 40MHz bandwidth.

Edited by deleted (Thu 20-Feb-14 21:05:48)

and router?

sorry realised sounded rude so changed the post

Edited by deleted (Thu 20-Feb-14 22:50:54)

That was my old TP link TL1043ND working as a WAP.

Looks like this http://uk.tp-link.com/resources/images/press/tl-1043...

Edited by deleted (Thu 20-Feb-14 21:20:29)

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

I just checked Inssider and that's showing I'm connected on 2.4GHz 40MHz bandwidth.

How many other networks on same or crossed channels ? Or how many faulty microwaves nearby, or airport radar

WiFi is great a lot of the time, its just not perfect all the time

2 co-channel networks
4 overlapping networks

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

NO

The 300 Meg, is actually 150 Meg in one direction PLUS 150 Meg in the other

This isn't right. The max MCS rate is Tx or Rx specific.

In reply to a post by Apriliamgt:

Well i got a 300meg wireless n adaptor . Is there no way of getting that speed through wireless

When conducting a few tests at work the maximum I've managed to get from a 5Ghz 802.11n AP is about 150Mbps, which isn't too bad... This was from an £120 AP... Even more expensive wireless systems were slightly less, but of course come into their own when talking about multiple APs, but that isn't appropriate for a home environment.

Wireless interference is an overrated phenomenon most of the time imho... In a house the intended AP is likely to be fairly close and neighbouring APs shouldn't cause too many problem, if they do, then adding an AP onto each floor usually mitigates that.

I'd still take 100Mbps wired over that, even if 1Gbps wasn't available, because it is just much more stable.

It's possible, but I don't know about your specific hardware.

In my office, my MacBook Pro sustains a steady 75-85 Mbps receive throughput with a Technicolor TG582n (many on here say its wireless is [censored]) and a chock a block spectrum. This is plain old 2.4ghz 20Mhz.

Quote from Wicki

USB 3 gives a signaling speed of 5 Gbit/s and a usable data rate of up to 4 Gbit/s (500 MB/s).

So all the sellers of USB equipment quote the upto 5Gb/s but that is the theoretical burst speed. Also similar to the data transfer rate on hard drives. The max speed is never attainable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11n-2009

But close enough to each other that I don't feel bad for an off the top of the head response.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11n-2009

But close enough to each other that I don't feel bad for an off the top of the head response.

Sorry Andrew, I'm not sure what you mean by this (half is quite a way off?)

Back to basics

So you are saying when a PC reports a 54 Mbps wireless connection, that a user be able to get more than 27 Mbps in any single direction?

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Back to basics

So you are saying when a PC reports a 54 Mbps wireless connection, that a user be able to get more than 27 Mbps in any single direction?

No. My understanding of what are you saying is that at any point in time there is a single link rate between client and AP, eg 300Mbps, and this is effectively split into 2 equal link rates such that the maximum Rx throughput is 150 minus overheads and the maximum Tx throughput is 150Mbps minus overheads.

But this isn't right. There are two link rates in two directions at any point in time. Eg the client might have a Rx link rate of 300Mbps with a throughput of 300 minus overheads, and a Tx link rate of 150Mbps with a throughput of 150 minus overheads.

I think maybe you were getting at transaction time as an overhead, but what you actually said was something fundamentally different.

Edited by deleted (Sat 22-Feb-14 01:21:18)

Lets go at this another way?

Why in windows when it says a good 54Mbps wireless connection link is around ~22 Mbps the maximum in any one direction

shall we all just say to get the best wireless performance you need to spend the most pennies?

the OP asked if he is able to get faster wireless and the answer is yes if you spend £££s

its nice to have a conversation about the how's and why's of wireless but i would think most people who join the website/forum come here because they have little to no knowledge of anything but surfing the net so Rx, Tx, throughput they may not understand so it gets confusing

My router is thirty quid, not exactly £££

lol ok ££s but what i am saying is mostly true

Edited by deleted (Sat 22-Feb-14 10:03:48)

Well what are you saying? It gets confusing? If anyone is confused they can simply ask. That's how forums work.

not everyone is technically minded

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Lets go at this another way?

Why in windows when it says a good 54Mbps wireless connection link is around ~22 Mbps the maximum in any one direction

That's several pages of detailed answer that wouldn't change the point, and your statement isn't necessarily true. (I'm not saying 22Mbps isn't a typical TCP ceiling for 802.11g) The answer is not because 27Mbps is reserved for one direction and 27Mbps for the other.

How about this: if you have this client connecting at its maximum with an AP, what would it say "in Windows" as a link rate, and how does that relate to download and upload throughputs ( would they be similar)?

I never said 27 Mbps was reserved, but in most normally observed scenarios it seems to be a roughly 50/50 split

Gives up on Wifi

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

I never said 27 Mbps was reserved, but in most normally observed scenarios it seems to be a roughly 50/50 split

Gives up on Wifi

Its ok, don't worry, I'm obviously failing to get it across, it seems clearer in my head (The point is there is no splitting of the link rate! One direction has one link rate - eg 300Mbps, the other has its own - could also be 300Mbps, could be 60Mbps . It's a common normally observed scenario for them to be significantly different eg at range, eg with 1x2:2 clients)

In reply to a post by vimto_girl:

Its ok, don't worry, I'm obviously failing to get it across, it seems clearer in my head (The point is there is no splitting of the link rate! One direction has one link rate - eg 300Mbps, the other has its own - could also be 300Mbps, could be 60Mbps . It's a common normally observed scenario for them to be significantly different eg at range, eg with 1x2:2 clients)

This is fascinating - I'm wondering if you're both approaching the question at a different angle. One from the TCP/IP throughput, and one from the radio Tx/Rx side.

My own testing on various laptops (1 stream, 2 stream, 3 stream) with a three stream router has shown that G throughput is along the lines Mr Saffron mentioned. This may be due to TCP/IP getting delayed ACK packets due to RF interference - but 802.11g is never capable of 54 Mbps real world TCP/IP throughput. Similarly HomePlug AV200 or AV500 adaptors don't reach that speed at the TCP/IP traffic level. Only copper Ethernet gets the speeds described.

edit - spelling

Edited by jchamier (Sat 22-Feb-14 18:39:41)

Thank you.

And am aware that if a connection has a download link speed of 80 Mbps reported by WiFi card, that is not split in half. The reality though for Windows users is usually the combined figure of download+upload link speed is reported, where its shown in OSX is something I need to figure out

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

where its shown in OSX is something I need to figure out

Hold Option (Alt) key and click the wifi icon in the menu bar. You'll get "Transmit Rate" which on my 2012 Air shows as 300. (two streams 40mhz 5GHz N as per wifi certification, on my 3 stream capable Asus).

(don't ask me about Linux, each distro will be different, and all my Linux boxen are server hardware, or VMs.)

(I'm only replying cos you said fascinating - if anyone is not interested, they don't have to engage in the conversation anymore). So....I don't think what you say is the source of the difference - we both agree that a typical max TCP throughput in any one direction for say 802.11g is 22Mbps and that the max link rate is 54Mbps. The radio chains are just an example to illustrate my point - I can make my point with single-radio 802.11g just as well - so this doesn't explain it.

My best interpretation of MrSaffron so far is that say you have a 802.11g client that declares on the box 54Mbps. 54Mbps refers to the maximum link rate, and when achieved, this means the transmit link rate plus the receive link rate must equal 54Mbps. Because this is usually a 50/50 split, the transmit link rate is 27Mbps and the receive link rate is 27Mbps - and this accounts for the bulk of the throughput 'deficit'.

I'm saying the 54Mbps refers to the maximum link rate. At any point in time a client has a Tx link rate and a Rx link rate. The two link rates can both be 54Mbps, one can be 54Mbps and another 12 Mbps, and so on. The throughput deficit is not because the 54Mbps link rate must be shared between both directions, but due to overheads - minimum transaction time (acknowledgement even in ideal RF environment) being the bulk when we are not sharing 'airtime', plus all the others. If we are just sending traffic in one direction, the link rate of the other direction does not affect it - it could be many times more or many times less or exactly the same.

Talking about a 300Mbps client "NO The 300 Meg, is actually 150 Meg in one direction PLUS 150 Meg in the other, and then the overheads need to be taken into account". I said this isn't right, in quite a fundamental way - not nitpicking, and a 1x2:2 300Mbps client is a vivid example that exposes this.

You're absolutely correct. WiFi is half duplex w/ TDD.

I imagine if you used a protocol like UDP over WiFi you'd see much better results. You wouldn't require ACKs going the other way as in TCP and that will reduce the amount of time that the Tx has to be using airtime up for.

Ta - used OSX for year and a bit but still miss the hover hints of windows

In reply to a post by vimto_girl:

I'm saying the 54Mbps refers to the maximum link rate. At any point in time a client has a Tx link rate and a Rx link rate. The two link rates can both be 54Mbps, one can be 54Mbps and another 12 Mbps, and so on. The throughput deficit is not because the 54Mbps link rate must be shared between both directions, but due to overheads - minimum transaction time (acknowledgement even in ideal RF environment) being the bulk when we are not sharing 'airtime', plus all the others. If we are just sending traffic in one direction, the link rate of the other direction does not affect it - it could be many times more or many times less or exactly the same.

Thanks, that's a great explanation (as is mr_mojo's mention of half duplex).

The problem is the user interface on most software only shows a single "link speed" entry, as it was designed for copper Ethernet. Back in the day we used 10 Mbps half duplex (and even 100 Mbps half duplex) the connection always showed 10 or 100 on this indicator.

Its people's expectations that a 54 Mbps status indicator for WiFi means its the same Tx and Rx, which in WiFi it has good reason that might not not be.

thanks.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Ta - used OSX for year and a bit but still miss the hover hints of windows

Its a nice OS, but often things that are easy in Windows are either easy in OS X or impossible. Sometimes its worth getting low level and grepping logs (as you do on Linux systems), such as when my MBA decided my router wasn't UK band compliant. (luckily a firmware update fixed that).

In reply to a post by jchamier:

Its people's expectations that a 54 Mbps status indicator for WiFi means its the same Tx and Rx, which in WiFi it has good reason that might not not be.

thanks.

No problem. I think the misapprehension here is fundamentally different though. It's that the MCS rates - these are 802.11 standards-based entities independent of status indicators or operating systems - refer to a total rate between client and AP which must be split into Tx and Rx rates. But the MCS rate is not the sum of two directions, it is in fact the rate for one direction only. 54/150/300 - those numbers refer to one direction, not the sum of both. An expectation that 54Mbps Rx must mean 54Mbps Tx would be impossible according to the misapprehension here.

In reply to a post by Ianph:

wireless is never as fast as wired ethernet your getting about what i get on 802.11n on 802.11ac i can get upto 50 but thats about it

Mine is http://www.speedtest.net/result/3710501854.png