ADSL Speed Question

natsukikuga · Post by **natsukikuga** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 4:44 am

Hello i switched to SBC DSL (384kb-1.5MB) lately from dial up...and the downloads only go up to 80kb? ... is that..really how high it goes?

hmm im also using a Linksys router.. but i dont think thats the problem.. since it is also 80kb when i directly connect to the modem..

Gary335 · Post by **Gary335** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 10:50 am

That is not a normal speed for DSL. The problem could be either the telephone wiring ( inside and/or outside your house), or, more likely, your distance from your telephone company's nearest CO (central office). The limit is about 3 miles. If your any further than that, your connection will begin to deteororate.

Also, it could be that there is a problem with the modem, your ethernet card, or the ethernet cable running from the modem to your ethernet card. If you have a spare ethernet card or some spare ethernet cable, try them and see what happens. If nothing changes, then the problem is either the wiring or the modem, in which case you need to have a technician come out to take a look at things.

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 3:08 pm

You sure it's not KB/s transfer speeds? 80 wouldn't be too bad if you were 12,000 - 15,000 feet from the CO. Most DSL ISPs will only support up to 17,500 feet from the CO. If you're say..around 14,000 feet from the CO...you'd see about 750kb/s. Divide by 8..and....

So perhaps you're a bit closer to 16,000 feet from the CO..which would put that as quite normal. When I had DSL, I was 14,500 from the CO..I'd range from 80-about 120 peak..depending on where I was downloading from.

So take a look at that transfer speed a bit closer...downloading a file from within IE or FF or something...you should see a big "B"...Bytes. Different from "Bits"..which is how ISP/bandwidth measurements usually are.

Gary335 · Post by **Gary335** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 3:39 pm

YeOldeStonecat wrote:You sure it's not KB/s transfer speeds? 80 wouldn't be too bad if you were 12,000 - 15,000 feet from the CO. Most DSL ISPs will only support up to 17,500 feet from the CO. If you're say..around 14,000 feet from the CO...you'd see about 750kb/s. Divide by 8..and....

So perhaps you're a bit closer to 16,000 feet from the CO..which would put that as quite normal. When I had DSL, I was 14,500 from the CO..I'd range from 80-about 120 peak..depending on where I was downloading from.

So take a look at that transfer speed a bit closer...downloading a file from within IE or FF or something...you should see a big "B"...Bytes. Different from "Bits"..which is how ISP/bandwidth measurements usually are.

YoS, you've confused me. Your asking if he's sure he's not getting 80 KB/s, but he said in his post that that is what he gets. Am I missing something here?

Oh, and 80 is on the low end. When I download in IE or FF with my Verizon DSL its common to get speeds of 150-300 KB/s depending on the server from which I'm downloading. And I live very close to the 3 mile limit from the CO. His service should be able to achieve at least 150 KB/s.

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 3:58 pm

Gary335 wrote:Am I missing something here?

You probably are...yes.

Seriously want to compare how many DSL installs I've done? Reselling for 2x DSL ISPs even? For how many years? Compare notes? Yes?

Just making sure he's posting the correct "B". There is a difference between little "b", and big "B". Not everyone knows that..spend a little time helping people on forums and you might indeed notice it's a common mistake.

We don't know what he's using to measure this

And no, DSL downloads hovering in the hundge range aren't bad.

Gary335 · Post by **Gary335** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 4:33 pm

YeOldeStonecat wrote:You probably are...yes.

Seriously want to compare how many DSL installs I've done? Reselling for 2x DSL ISPs even? For how many years? Compare notes? Yes?

Just making sure he's posting the correct "B". There is a difference between little "b", and big "B". Not everyone knows that..spend a little time helping people on forums and you might indeed notice it's a common mistake.

We don't know what he's using to measure this

And no, DSL downloads hovering in the hundge range aren't bad.

Calm down YoS. I'm not questioning your supposed superiority over everyone else.

Take it from a guy who regularly deals with folks who aren't exactly computer Einstein's (natsukikuga, I hope you don't take offense to that-it isn't meant to be offensive). He means kilobytes, not kilobits.

80 is acceptable if it turns out he can't do any better. But technically, its a little on the slow side. If he's within the threemile limit he should easily hit 100, if not better.

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 4:42 pm

Natsukikuga....lets be sure about what you're measuring. Indeed yes you are most likely just forgetting a cap B...but until we know for sure..that will detemine which way to look. If you really have 80KB/s...yes..this can be improved a bit after looking at a few things, tweaks.

If you indeed only have 80kb/s, then we have a huge problem here...faulty lines, faulty modem, who knows...but it's a big problem requiring a totally different method to fix. Tweaks ain't gonna help here..you need the phone company if this is the case.

What make/model DSL "modem"? Do you have? Because lately SBC/AT&T is shipping Speedstream appliances..that are combination modem-bridges, as well as routers. They are more like gateway appliances...already doing NAT for you, and the PPPoE authentication. Adding another router to this can cause problems..as you'll end up double NAT'ing. Yes I know you stated you get the same performance either way...but first, lets just get that one straight.

Gary335 · Post by **Gary335** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 4:45 pm

YeOldeStonecat wrote:
If you really have 80KB/s...yes..this can be improved a bit after looking at a few things, tweaks.

If you indeed only have 80kb/s, then we have a huge problem here...faulty lines, faulty modem, who knows...but it's a big problem requiring a totally different method to fix. Tweaks ain't gonna help here..you need the phone company if this is the case.

So is it fixable with a few tweaks, or a huge problem?

And yeah we've kinda established the fact that its a huge problem and what could be causing it.

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 4:49 pm

Gary335 wrote:So is it fixable with a few tweaks, or a huge problem?

.

Very good...see? It's not that hard, you're capable of grasping it.

Gary335 · Post by **Gary335** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 4:51 pm

YeOldeStonecat wrote:Very good...see? It's not that hard, you're capable of grasping it.

Are you drunk or something? I asked you which it was. Again, which is it? It can't be both!

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 5:12 pm

Gary335 wrote:Are you drunk or something? I asked you which it was. Again, which is it? It can't be both!

Here..maybe this will help you
http://www.speedguide.net/read_articles.php?id=115

There's no confusion on my end, simply waiting for the OP to confirm which it is..so I can point in the right direction.

Gary335 · Post by **Gary335** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 5:16 pm

YeOldeStonecat wrote:Here..maybe this will help you
http://www.speedguide.net/read_articles.php?id=115

There's no confusion on my end, simply waiting for the OP to confirm which it is..so I can point in the right direction.

Still, you told him that it could be fixed with some tweaks, and then in the same post you claimed it was a major problem. The OP isn't going to confirm which it is-that's what he's asking US to do.

I like how you came in here and took over as though I'm not good enough to help him.

Oh, I hope you didn't think I wouldn't notice that you went back and changed your post.

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 5:27 pm

What the heck you talking about change post? Try refreshing your browser or something, my cap B's are fine on my end.

You'd better change your tune here on the boards. For a newcomer, I see you have a trend, to argue against almost every senior member here who has a long time track record of helping posters. That sort of personality type does not blend in well here. You have a trend of quoting someone elses help offering..and attacking it..and turning the post into an arguement. The MO observed in this post here can be seen as a broken record for you, regardless of who the member is who you're arguing with. We've already had complaints from senior members about you, and as I pour through many of the other posts this has happened, I agree with it. Am I immune to typos? No, I'm not. But I do have a habit, if I make a typo, of going back and clearly editing with an "oops...fat finger" comment. I dont' recall doing that in this thread, and I wont stand for being accused. You'll also close a thread, after someone else helped an OP along and the problem is solved, with a "See..I said that all along " comment followed by some rolling eyes. Along with your directly disrespectful comments towards staff here (myself..a mod), I suggest you learn to adapt your behavior to be more of a team approach. If not..perhaps looking for another forum would be a good idea..possibly encouraged by if I reach for the ban button.

Gary335 · Post by **Gary335** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 5:50 pm

YeOldeStonecat wrote:What the heck you talking about change post? Try refreshing your browser or something, my cap B's are fine on my end.

I'm not talking about your cap B's. I'm talking about some of the wording.

YARDofSTUF · Post by **YARDofSTUF** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 5:54 pm

Gary335 wrote:YoS, you've confused me.

I havent even posted yet

Anyway SBC sucks, their service seems to be affected by distance more than any other dsl company.

Nothing really to add to whats been said, 80kbps is pretty crappy, 80K a sec, not too shabby for SBC.

As far as the distance goes, isnt there a tool somewhere on dlsreports or cnet that tells you the distance from the remote terminals and central office?

Gary335 · Post by **Gary335** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:16 pm

YARDofSTUF wrote:I havent even posted yet

Anyway SBC sucks, their service seems to be affected by distance more than any other dsl company.

Nothing really to add to whats been said, 80kbps is pretty crappy, 80K a sec, not too shabby for SBC.

As far as the distance goes, isnt there a tool somewhere on dlsreports or cnet that tells you the distance from the remote terminals and central office?

LOL, sorry about that. I saw the letter Y at the begining of his name and thought it was you.

Yeah I've heard of a tool that does that. Don;t recall where it is though.

natsukikuga · Post by **natsukikuga** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:48 pm

uhh i did a speed test at Speakeasy and here the results:
Download Speed: 643 kbps (80.4 KB/sec transfer rate)
Upload Speed: 316 kbps (39.5 KB/sec transfer rate)

its still consider slow isnt?

Gary335 · Post by **Gary335** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 7:20 pm

natsukikuga wrote:uhh i did a speed test at Speakeasy and here the results:
Download Speed: 643 kbps (80.4 KB/sec transfer rate)
Upload Speed: 316 kbps (39.5 KB/sec transfer rate)

its still consider slow isnt?

That's not too bad, but given the fact that your supposed to get 1.5Mbps/368kbps, there's some room for improvement. However, your probably getting only 643 kbps becauseof how far away from the CO you are, so there's probably nothig you can do to improve that speed very much.

natsukikuga · Post by **natsukikuga** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 7:46 pm

heres a TCP/IP settings result from the SG TCP/IP Analyzer
is anything wrong with it?

oh yeah...i noticed
"Your TCP Window limits you to: 534.336 kbps (66.792 KBytes/s) @ 500ms"

= _ = you guys think thats causing the problem? if so.. any way to fix that? ~_~

TCP options string = 020405ac0103030001010402
MTU = 1492
MTU is optimized for PPoE DSL broadband. If not, consider raising MTU to 1500 for optimal throughput.
MSS = 1452
MSS is optimized for PPPoE DSL broadband. If not, consider raising your MTU value.
Default TCP Receive Window (RWIN) = 33396
RWIN Scaling (RFC1323) = 0 bits
Unscaled TCP Receive Window = 33396

RWIN is a multiple of MSS
Other RWIN values that might work well with your current MTU/MSS:
511104 (MSS x 44 * scale factor of 8)
255552 (MSS x 44 * scale factor of 4)
127776 (MSS x 44 * scale factor of 2)
63888 (MSS x 44)
bandwidth * delay product (Note this is not a speed test):

Your TCP Window limits you to: 1335.84 kbps (166.98 KBytes/s) @ 200ms
Your TCP Window limits you to: 534.336 kbps (66.792 KBytes/s) @ 500ms
MTU Discovery (RFC1191) = ON
Time to live left = 52 hops
TTL value is ok.
Timestamps (RFC1323) = OFF
Selective Acknowledgements (RFC2018) = ON
IP type of service field (RFC1349) = 00000000 (0)

YARDofSTUF · Post by **YARDofSTUF** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 8:15 pm

No thats not a problem.

80K a sec isnt bad and is probably all you can get at your distance.

natsukikuga · Post by **natsukikuga** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 10:05 pm

yup...its the distance n the CO. no help with that problem... the only solution...you guys know any other DSL companies? ~_~

Gary335 · Post by **Gary335** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 12:14 am

natsukikuga wrote:yup...its the distance n the CO. no help with that problem... the only solution...you guys know any other DSL companies? ~_~

Yeah I knew that. Usually when you can only achieve a speed that's about half of what your supposed to get, that's the cause. Again, as I've said multiple times, 80Kbps is ok if that's all you can get because of distance. But when the problem is something other than distance you should easily get over 100Kbps on a consistent basis.

As for otherDSl companies, I don't know what area you live in so its hard to name any. But all you have to do is google DSL service and you'll end up with more companies than you know what to do with. and don't be fooled into htinking that a particular company can't serve you because they aren't located in yourarea. Many offer their service by simply using the phone company's equipment. Most simply have a cubicle in the CO, which is where all the tech support occurs. Here's a tip: These companies often have better tech support than your phone company does. They will fix your problems alot quicker than the phone company would.

Faction · Post by **Faction** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 1:47 pm

i'm 17,000 ft from my CO and i'm getting 170 maxxed

Gary335 · Post by **Gary335** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 2:25 pm

Faction wrote:i'm 17,000 ft from my CO and i'm getting 170 maxxed

Which proves my point that he should be getting more than the 80 that he is.

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 5:17 pm

natsukikuga wrote:heres a TCP/IP settings result from the SG TCP/IP Analyzer
is anything wrong with it?

Try running our Speedguide TCP Optimizer...flip the button to Optimal..adjust the slider for your bandwidth, making sure to also check PPPoE. I'd try both 64240 and 128480, one at a time, apply each one, reboot, benchmark..try the other..apply, reboot, benchmark.

Without knowing what your distance is from the CO, my hunch is that you are on the far end of things. On the average, your transfer speeds are on the norm for being on the far end of things. Yes there are exceptions to the rule that I'm sure we'll be reminded of...there will be a handful of people who obtain max speeds even though they are far from the CO. But there are other factors that aren't being considered for those cases...the diameter of the phone lines varies from area to area, provider to provider, 0.4 or 0.5mm. The thicker..the better. Also how many bridged taps from you..to the CO....the more..the more drop in speeds you see as you go over more distance, increasing attenuation. Also if your have any remote terminals in your area..such as areas of recent fast paced growth in homes, developments, etc. Those remote terminals sort of reset the counter..."boost" if you will.

Gary335 · Post by **Gary335** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 5:32 pm

YeOldeStonecat wrote:Without knowing what your distance is from the CO, my hunch is that you are on the far end of things.

I've already told him that a dozen times, but I suppose it only counts when you say it.

And I think it's you who needs to learn to take a team approach. Everytime I try to help someone you jump in like your some kind of cimputer god and start telling the person we're helping the same things I say, except yours always have an "I'm better than you" infliction to them. I do have a real bad track record when it comes to getting along with "senior" members, because senior members think they're god's gift to forums. Get over yourselves. I'm not a senior member here, but I know as much as any of them and am every bit as qualified to help as any of them. Trying to be helpful seems like a crime here.

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 5:46 pm

Gary335 wrote:I've already told him that a dozen times, but I suppose it only counts when you say it.

And I think it's you who needs to learn to take a team approach. Everytime I try to help someone you jump in like your some kind of cimputer god and start telling the person we're helping the same things I say, except yours always have an "I'm better than you" infliction to them. I do have a real bad track record when it comes to getting along with "senior" members, because senior members think they're god's gift to forums. Get over yourselves. I'm not a senior member here, but I know as much as any of them and am every bit as qualified to help as any of them. Trying to be helpful seems like a crime here.

You're contradicting yourself....you opened up with your first replies stating it was way too low, it should be 150 or higher. When I first replied..I didn't quote your answer, I was not replying to you at all, I was simply replying to the OP that his speed was possibly quite normal, if he were that distance. You then jumped on my reply as it for some reason I was replying to you..which I wasn't, I was replying to the OP. You then went about nearly doubleing what you think he should be at. For over 1/2 the thread you insisted 80 was waaaaay too low. I've maintained my same opinion all the way through it. My prior reply was also focusing only towards the OP..he started asking about his TCP values. So stop crapping in peoples threads, he's probably given up in trying to read this thread, I'm going to have to waste my time cleaning it up to keep it back on the OP's track.

Gary335 · Post by **Gary335** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 5:53 pm

YeOldeStonecat wrote:You're contradicting yourself....you opened up with your first replies stating it was way too low, it should be 150 or higher. When I first replied..I didn't quote your answer, I was not replying to you at all, I was simply replying to the OP that his speed was possibly quite normal, if he were that distance. You then jumped on my reply as it for some reason I was replying to you..which I wasn't, I was replying to the OP. You then went about nearly doubleing what you think he should be at. For over 1/2 the thread you insisted 80 was waaaaay too low. I've maintained my same opinion all the way through it. My prior reply was also focusing only towards the OP..he started asking about his TCP values. So stop crapping in peoples threads, he's probably given up in trying to read this thread, I'm going to have to waste my time cleaning it up to keep it back on the OP's track.

And you wonder why I have a problem with you? Look at the crap you say to me. Aren't you the one who also called me a **** face? I come here to try and help people and every time I do my opinions get shrugged off by people who think they know it all. My opinion in this thread has never changed. I still believe 80 is much to low, and I still believe it has everything to do with distance and nothing to do with his settings or anything else. You have had a difficult time understanding my posts thorughout this entire thread.

Bababooey · Post by **Bababooey** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 11:27 am

YARDofSTUF wrote:I havent even posted yet

Anyway SBC sucks, their service seems to be affected by distance more than any other dsl company.

Nothing really to add to whats been said, 80kbps is pretty crappy, 80K a sec, not too shabby for SBC.

As far as the distance goes, isnt there a tool somewhere on dlsreports or cnet that tells you the distance from the remote terminals and central office?

I have constantly heard that SBC is the among the worst dsl providers but I guess I'm just really lucky. I have the 6m adsl service from them and I can get a steady 650KB/s which is about 5.2m ish and in the 7 years I have been with them I have only had connection problems twice. I guess it also doesnt hurt that I can throw a rock out of my window and hit thier C/O from there.