Kitz Forum
Broadband Related => Broadband Hardware => Topic started by: Tratzo on August 28, 2008, 09:03:33 PM
-
As the titles says I picked up this router/modem/wireless all in one thingy for my room. Everything has connected up fine but for some strange reason this router has a slower downstream than my old Voyager 240. It's like a quarter of my downstream suddenly disappears whenever I connect to it. I'm not to literate when it comes to networks but I know my way about and this has left me totally stumped, I've turned off all firewalls, tried factory resets, disabled QoS, disabled DHCP, and nothing has worked so far... I'm hoping there is some brainiac out there who could help. If I where to plug in the Voyager 240 my downstream will be back up to what it should be 1920 (usually), but with the Zoom it floats around 1420.
This is my first post but I have been looking around this website for a while now to help me with tweaking Vista, it's been a huge help and I noticed massive changes when I used my old 240 :)
-
Hi and welcome.
From your figures it looks as though you have a pretty long line, and on such a line the performance of different routers can vary quite a lot. I think that the unfortunate conclusion is that the Zoom doesn't do well on your line.
It's worth doing all you can to make your own setup as good as possible, and these pages (http://www.kitz.co.uk/adsl/socket.htm) may help you to do this, but I fear that the Zoom will never perform as well as the old Voyager on your line.
Just to make sure about the figures, could you copy your router stats here. If you're unsure how to do this, this page (http://www.kitz.co.uk/adsl/frogstats.php) may help, although the X6 isn't shown there; it may well use the same mthod as the X3/X4 which are included.
-
Thanks for the reply, the router not being compatible with my line would probably be right if it wasn't for my sister living in the same street a few doors down with the same ISP, package, and router - yet she has full downstream. Hopefully the stats can pint point it.
Item Status
ADSL Line State: Showtime
Downstream: 1408 Kbps
Upstream: 256 Kbps
Mode: ADSL2PlusAuto
Transmit Power: 11.5 dB
ADSL Link UP Time: 0 day 1 hour 16 min 17 sec
Operational Mode: G.Dmt
Item Downstream Upstream
SNR Margin 10.0 dB 20 dB
Line Attenuation 59.0 dB 31.5 dB
CRC Errors 41 1
FEC Errors 2424 0
HEC Errors 36 0
-
Your downstream attenuation is high at 59 dB, so it's just the sort of line to show up differences between routers. It's not a question of compatibility as such, but simply different performances under rather marginal signal conditions. It would be interesting to see your sister's router stats to compare them.
That being said, it should be possible to do better. Putting your 59 dB into this checker (http://www.kitz.co.uk/adsl/max_speed_calc.php) suggests that you could be getting something approaching 3000 kbps at best. I would certainly recommend that you follow the link in my previous message to make your own setup as good as possible.
-
Thanks a lot for your help, I did as the guides said and took out the ring wire from the BT socket. I haven't touched the mains yet but I tried the one upstairs that my router is plugged into and it jumped from 1440 to 1888! Now my question has to be, is this safe to do on all of my BT sockets? I will still be able to receive phone calls? All of my phones are digital so I have three, one in the living room, one in my mum and dads room and one in the hall. The only phone plugged into the mains is the phone in the living room, the rest all get their signal digitally. So could I safely remove this wire from the mains downstairs with no repercussions?
-
With modern phones it's very unlikely that the ring wire is used at all, as electronic phones generate their own ring signal from the two main wires. Also, with the exception of a few cheap and nasty non-conforming units, all ADSL filters contain their own ring capacitors and don't make use of the ring connection in the socket. So if you're using plug-in filters then even old phones will still ring properly.
-
Downstream is now back up to 1920. Thanks a lot!
-
You're welcome. :)
-
Glad to see things have improved for you now you've sorted your internal wiring out.
It would be worth trying your original router again to see what that now connects (sync) at.
As this was syncing higher with the ring wire attached then it's possible you can still get more out of your line with the right router.
I tried numerous routers and found the Speedtouch 585 is in a different league on my line...
-
I had thought of that bud, I'm just happy to be back up to what I am supposed to be :) This new router I bought also has its own DSL filter built in so maybe it was causing interference with the DSL filter I have in the wall, and also the wall socket itself. I can't just use the one inside the router because it only uses RJ45 and not RJ11 like my wall socket needs.
-
>> This new router I bought also has its own DSL filter built in
Not sure if Ive missed something here, but Ive not heard of a router with a built in adsl filter? Firewall filters or filter rules etc yes.
>> I can't just use the one inside the router because it only uses RJ45 and not RJ11 like my wall socket needs.
It uses an ethernet (RJ45 plug) to connect to the telephone point? how have you managed to plug that into a normal filter which takes a RJ-11 connector? :confused:
-
The DSL filter inside of my router only has one input which is RJ11. This cable goes through my wall to the next room where another DSL filter is dangling from my phone socket. This DSL filter has an RJ11 port. What I was saying is that it's not possible for me to rely solely on the filter within my router because it only has RJ11 connections which won't fit into my phone socket and thus I need to connect a filter to the socket in order to hook it up.
I'm not entirely sure what the purpose of this built-in filter is, but the set up guide said it was something to do with plugging in a phone if you so wish. Which I won't be doing and have frankly never heard of or seen done before.
-
>> because it only has RJ11 connections which won't fit into my phone socket and thus I need to connect a filter to the socket in order to hook it up.
Thats fine - I was confused that the mention of RJ45. adsl modem cable should use RJ11 so that it can only be plugged into a filter as adsl frequencies are much higher than telephone voice frequencies. When you have adsl you need to make sure that every telephone device (including fax machines and sky boxes) is plugged into an adsl splitter.
>> I'm not entirely sure what the purpose of this built-in filter is.
I presume the back of your router looks like this - http://www.zoom.com/products/x6_back_panel.html
I strongly suspect its not an adsl filter but more to do with something else. The telephone device will be to do with VoIP.
From the data sheet (http://www.zoom.com/graphics/datasheets/adsl/1098_5590.pdf)
"The X6 has easy-to-use Quality of Service (QoS) to guarantee upstream speed when you need it for applications like on-line gaming and Internet Telephony, // Mac address filtering, // Ports Filtering. "
and
Voice over IP telephone adapter or other device plugged into those ports is then provided with the guaranteed upstream bandwidth selected by the user.
VoIP uses the same frequencies as adsl (Voice Over IP), hence you still need to plug it into a normal adsl filter.
Filters and phone adapters:
Filters and/or phone adapters may be included in some markets. Please
check the package for specifics or ask your dealer. An ADSL filter allows a
telephone, facsimile machine, or other telephone instrument to be used even
when you are online with your ADSL modem.
What that means is that in the UK you should have been sent / need to use a filter.
The exception would be if you have an adsl filtered NTE5 faceplate.
(https://forum.kitz.co.uk/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kitz.co.uk%2Fadsl%2Fimages%2Fphone%2Fnte5_faceplate_front.jpg&hash=908b02c740b90cc84f0babd1bb5d9229bc436359)
-
Sorry I've not posted in a while, I've been busy helping my mum and dad out on account of their flight company going bust while they where in Crete :lol: Anyway, I did as roseway suggested and I plugged in my old Voyager router to see what type of speeds I am now getting with the ring wire disconnected. Unbelievably I am now getting downloads on average of 240kb/s! Unheard of in this household! But it begs the question, my new router (the Zoom x6) is only managing downloads of 180kb/s on average, so what is causing this drop in speed? We've removed the ring-wire from the equation because with the ring-wire disconnected both routers are faster. However, the Zoom is still 60kb/s slower than the Voyager,
this is posing me a problem because my Voyager - as much as I love it, I can't play Metal Gear Online because it does not support IP fragmentation (or so the Playstation 3 keeps telling me, resulting in constant disconnection). <-- Fixed, MTU related.
-
Sorry to hear about your parents' problem. I hope they're OK now.
I think the simple answer to the question is that the Zoom router isn't so good as the Voyager on your line. When the router connects it has to make decisions about which frequencies (bins) to use, and how many bits to allocate to each one, and so on, for the best result. The Voyager does a pretty good job of optimising the connection, whereas the Zoom doesn't seem to do as well. There's not much you can do about this, apart from possibly upgrading the firmware if an upgrade exists.
-
I'm using the latest firmware, I didn't want to admit it but this router has caused me nothing but trouble since I bought it. The software side of it is horrendous, it took me 5 hours to get everything up and running to begin with, and now I have this to add to the list. I bought it to allow my mum and dad to connect through wireless with the laptop they're planning on purchasing, so I don't need it. Maybe when they decide to part with the cash Wireless N will be the new standard and I can soundly invest in a new router.
Until then I will stick to using old faithful Voyager, and spread the word of Zooms' failure.
-
I couldn't disagree with that. :)
-
Thats good news about the ringwire :)
Unfortunately (for you) Im also of the same opinion of the Zoom routers :/
-
From your own personal experience, kitz and roseway, would you mind sharing with me what you would class as a freaking awesome wireless router?
-
I don't think you'll get us to describe any router quite so enthusiastically. There's no single best model, because the best performer on one particular line may well be only average on another line. Routers which we have generally good experiences with are:-
Netgear DG834G (v3 with latest firmware upgrade or v4)
Netgear DG834GT (especially with the DGTeam unofficial firmware)
Speedtouch ST585 / Thomson DG585
I've no personal experience of the BT Voyagers, so I'll leave those to someone else to comment on.
-
... Routers which we have generally good experiences with are:-
Netgear DG834G (v3 with latest firmware upgrade or v4)
Netgear DG834GT (especially with the DGTeam unofficial firmware)
Speedtouch ST585 / Thomson DG585
...
I second that sentiment Roseway
-
Thirded ;D