Home-networking primer

Topic

New Reply

NETWORKING By Ed Tittel Nearly 9 out of 10 American households and businesses can access gigabit-speed Internet service. Now’s the time to up your hom
[See the full post at: Home-networking primer]

9 users thanked author for this post.

TechTango, jburk07, Cybertooth, fisher75, IBM1130, windbg, Neil Krum, DLivesInTexas, lmacri

Reply | Quote

Replies

Looking forward to the rest of the article. I live in a semi-rural environment, though it is rapidly becoming suburban. Until 2006, I had 52k dialup. Over the years, my single available ISP has gone from 1M to 5M to 50M DSL a few years ago. Early this year, they installed fiber to my pole, up to 2G. The price difference is minimal, but so far, I have not been moved to upgrade. The reason is simple. I don’t do anything which would be materially improved, except for the rare uploads which move at a glacial 3G. Of course, multiple simultaneous users, some playing games, would crush 50G, but that is not the case here. However, I like to keep informed, and your article so far has been an excellent source.

Reply | Quote

Thanks for your comments and feedback. Hope you find Part 2 of equal interest and value.
–Ed–

Reply | Quote

The options you discuss are only available in major metropolitan areas!!
I live just north of Austin Texas and although we have had many fiber “ads,” due to the problems of trying to drill through limestone to lay cable, we are stuck with ONE cable provider or 5g and due to topography (it is hilly here) 5g is sometimes iffy.
You really need to take location/availability into consideration in articles like this.

Reply | Quote

You are correct in two ways: options available outside major ISP service areas are slim to none. Likewise, the cost of “other options” — mostly satellite uplink/downlink setups — are quite expensive. From your feedback, that should have been said. I’ll talk to Will about adding a short section for that discussion. Thanks for the feedback!

–Ed–

Reply | Quote

Ed, two comments.

First, major metro areas often have a choice of two or more true broadband ISPs.  Cities and towns with Verizon FIOS often benefit from the choice between another incumbent (e.g. Comcast, Spectrum).  But my town out here in the exurbs has the choice of one from a list of one, Spectrum, disregarding Starlink, of course.  PCMag and other pubs with a broader reach often ignore this reality because writers live mostly in major metro areas.

Second, although I have used a very capable Netgear Wifi6 router here for nearly two years, we have only one Wifi6 802.11ax device in use here, a Lenovo Thinkpad X280 I upgraded myself. Cellphones, even newer with 5G?  Nope.  Other computers?  Nope.  And this tower is wired with an Ethernet cable to the router.

My punchline here is that Wifi6 is very slow on the uptake, except for newer better quality laptops sold these days.  Wifi6+ and Wifi7?  Effective use is even further out in the future.

On the other hand, I have replaced numerous ancient circa 2009 802.11n routers for people, who don’t replace them because if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.  And then they marvel at how fast there wifi has become.

That’s what wifi is like here in the exurbs, 30 miles from any city of respectable size.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Ed Tittel, Will Fastie, windbg

Reply | Quote

I am wondering if you will be covering or maybe already have the gear required for the different speeds. I recently decided to switch to fiber internet, and I am paying to get speeds up to 2.3 gigs, but I have never gotten speeds more than 950Mbps. To my knowledge the hardware I have should allow me to get those speeds so I am just wondering if you could give some insight into what may be going on here. Having said that I can get this speed on my phone so like what gives with that?

I have seriously considered downgrading to their 1gig option since that is all I am getting and all I have ever gotten but and this might sound silly, but I am afraid if I do that my speeds will go lower lol!

 

 

1 user thanked author for this post.

rizzquery

Reply | Quote

Wireless speeds are something of a game. That is, max speeds are theoretical maxima. I have never seen those speeds matched in real life, even when the device and router are right next to each other. In most home situations, you’re lucky to get 40-50% of the rated max in actual use. And that number decreases as traffic levels go up, and as EMI, RFI and other sources of signal degradation make themselves felt. Don’t feel too bad: what you’re reporting is not very different from most people’s experiences. About the only hope I can hold out is that 5G and newer wireless services should bring more bandwidth (and buying options) to homes within a sightline and clear signals of some cell tower in the next 3-5 years. It could be a game changer.

 

Stay tuned & thanks for your detailed and thoughtful reply.

–Ed–

Reply | Quote

Advertised speeds are always contingent upon your network equipment (ONT/modem, switches, NIC, ethernet cables/WiFi), the infrastructure and capacity of your network provider, as well as the network infrastructure of the remote hosts you utilize.

Keep in mind:

Many services (not ISPs) will throttle your connection to a level they deem appropriate. If you have 100gbps ISP connection, but your remote file server is throttling you to 100mbps, a faster ISP speed isn’t going to help.

If you’re layering networks (eg. VPN/proxy), you get the slowest connection speed (plus latency) of [your ISP, VPN ISP, remote host ISP, any throttling restriction in place] Also note that different ISPs have access to different network routes. [Using a VPN/proxy will often change the options you have for routes — for better or worse]

If you want highest performance, ditch WiFi– especially if you’re in an environment with lots of WiFi interference (wireless cameras, streaming, ….)

Some ISPs use CGNAT for all their IPv4 connections. It sucks. Use IPv6 [if possible] to avoid that extra overhead/ slowdown.

Ethernet cables are not created equal. Verify the cables you are using support the speeds you want.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Ed Tittel, Cybertooth

Reply | Quote

My suburb recently welcomed a new fiber ISP. It felt great to say GOODBYE to Comcast.

Same speed (2/2gbps) at 25% the price with no contract or extra fees.

Ironically, my mother pays the same for 10/10gbps. I always choose the wrong place to live

About 10 years ago, I moved all my servers to a datacenter. Letting the datacenter worry about connectivity, redundant power, etc. has been great. 2/2gbps is enough for me at home.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Ed Tittel

Reply | Quote

To bad your article doesn’t take Montana into account. 89%, I call bunk.

6 years ago, they laid fiber optic cable just a little over a block from my house. Still to this day, “only for businesses”.

Century broken link is the worst. I had DSL with them and the best they could offer 10 years ago was 3Mbs. Today, they are offering a whopping 3Mbs at a higher price.

My sister Idaho Fall, ID has had fiber optic for 3+ years and she lives on the outskirts of town. Montana isn’t a place, tech for some reason doesn’t come to.

 

Reply | Quote

My figures come from a source that does not take “the long tail” of geographical distribution and rural access issues into account. I didn’t mean to suggest, nor do I think I said, that 89% of the land mass was covered. Those numbers reflect where the people live closest together, in or near major metro areas. Census.gov says 80% of the population lives in the top 500 SMAs. Those are the readers to whom my story applies most. Those who live outside same must rightfully follow local services, availability and potential gotchas (such as having to pay for connecting up to grid points far, far away from their homes and businesses).

–Ed–

Reply | Quote

I am fortunate here in Oklahoma in that I have 1g fiber optic through my electric co-op for $55 a month.  I am just South of Tulsa.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Ed Tittel

Reply | Quote

CraigSH wrote:

89%, I call bunk.

Rural is tough. I’ve always thought that the rise of the Internet called for a “Rural Digitization Act” similar to the Rural Electrification Act of 1936. Connectivity today might be more important than electricity was back then.

4 users thanked author for this post.

wavy, RetiredGeek, TechTango, Ed Tittel

Reply | Quote

jynthea wrote:

I have never gotten speeds more than 950Mbps.

Document that, then talk to the company.

I had 1Gbps FIOS service for a time and it never actually hit the mark. I was getting 950 down and 900 up. I didn’t complain because that was enough, but should I return to 1Gbps, I will speak to Verizon about it.

I currently have 300/300, which costs less and entirely meets my current needs. And it delivers 300/300 (actually, a tiny bit more).

But the important thing to keep in mind is that the gateway router supplied by FIOS can handle whatever speed Verizon sells. For residential use, 1Gbps is the maximum available, and I don’t have the internal infrastructure to handle 2.5 or 10Gbps.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Ed Tittel

Reply | Quote

Supposedly, Federal money was approved to make internet available in rural America. Just when anybody will actually get it is another question.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Ed Tittel

Reply | Quote

Ya I have run speed tests and have them at Speed test.net. I’m honestly not sure if I should do several during a couple of days or what. I have Allo Fiber where I live and from what I was told when I signed up the router is capable of the speed I’m paying for. I have been thinking of googling it and looking for myself. That is something I have yet to do. I do know also that according to what I was told they are getting new routers later this year. And the speed I’m getting more than meets my needs so I guess it would not be a huge issue if I dropped to the 1gig. I just feel like I was duped by the company just to fatten their wallets. I have never personally had that happen, until now, but I used to work for a company that was based on the East Coast that would get customers to sign up for speeds that there was no way they could deliver because they were in the middle of nowhere. The rain would constantly knock their Internet out and the company did nothing to fix that. Ppl would call me screaming and cussing as if I’m the problem. I’m glad I don’t have that issue but I don’t like feeling like I’ve been taken advantage of.

Reply | Quote

There’s nothing wrong with dropping your service commitment and costs if you’re not getting what you’re paying for. If you take Will’s advice and talk to your provider, you may be able to get the switch and a refund. Never hurts to ask. Thanks for your comments. =Ed=

Reply | Quote

Dear Mr. Tittel,

As I read your article, I began to wonder what country you live in. I’m guessing that you work in a city, or at least in a a well-connected suburban area.

I have chosen to live in rural areas (East Coast and West), and I have almost always been without a decent internet connection, so I take issue with your statement that “In most areas of the country, homes can get nominal Gigabit Ethernet (GbE) links…” No matter the cost, I have never been able to get that kind of speed in any of my homes. (Nor could I get any connection beyond dial-up in many places).  I would appreciate it if you would at least recognize the major lack in this country of good internet availability in rural areas and stop congratulating the country on it’s advanced technology.

Admittedly, part of the problem in talking about this is defining what “good internet availability” means. I believe I once read that “broadband” was defined as a connection speed greater than 25 Mbps. If that is so, by definition, most of us would have “broadband” connections if we have a telephone, even in rural homes. However, my rural Washington state telephone-wire-based internet speed is running at 5.73 Mbps today, and I have never seen it reach as high as 8Mbps. My neighbor (about 3 miles away, with the same phone company) can seldom reach a speed as high as 3Mbps. My sister who lives in rural Pennsylvania, about 90 miles north of the other Washington (D.C.) and a friend who lives in rural Kentucky, have a similar situation. (Of course, there’s no cable to be had within 20 miles of any of us, let alone within the “last mile.”)

You also mentioned the pervasiveness of 5G, but again, despite our local phone companies advertising it unceasingly, it does not reach into every nook and cranny of our rural landscapes. I can actually see the cell tower from my house, but I can’t always get a reliable cell phone connection, and it is not uncommon for the whole local network to be down for hours at a time. It is commonly known in the area where the “dead spots” are on the main road into town, and our phone conversations are consistently interrupted as we drive through them.

Really Mr. Tittel, although you seem to think you are speaking for all of us, I think you should avoid such broad statements that seem to be based on your rosy (smug?) perception of urban internet entitlement rather than rural reality that others of us live with.

 

 

 

I don’t recall his article mentioning any of the satellite companies that provide at least some connection, as I have tried two and found the cost unjustifiable. But mostly, to get an internet connection in rural areas means having a hard-wired telephone line.

Reply | Quote

Kate Duttro wrote:

Admittedly, part of the problem in talking about this is defining what “good internet availability” means. I believe I once read that “broadband” was defined as a connection speed greater than 25 Mbps. If that is so, by definition, most of us would have “broadband” connections if we have a telephone, even in rural homes.

It was, but got redefined as 100 Mbps five months ago:

The Commission’s Report, issued pursuant to section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, raises the Commission’s benchmark for high-speed fixed broadband to download speeds of 100 megabits per second and upload speeds of 20 megabits per second – a four-fold increase from the 25/3 Mbps benchmark set by the Commission in 2015.
…
Fixed terrestrial broadband service (excluding satellite) has not been physically deployed to approximately 24 million Americans, including almost 28% of Americans in rural areas, and more than 23% of people living on Tribal lands;
…
45 million Americans lack access to both 100/20 Mbps fixed service and 35/3 Mbps mobile 5G-NR service;
…
The Report also sets a 1 Gbps/500 Mbps long-term goal for broadband speeds to give stakeholders a collective goal towards which to strive – a better, faster, more robust system of communication for American consumers.

FCC INCREASES BROADBAND SPEED BENCHMARK [PDF — Press Release, March 14, 2024]

Reply | Quote

You’re right: satellite is too expensive for most buyers to take seriously, unless they must have Internet access, have no other options, and have the means to buy equipment and pay for ongoing service. 5G cellular is getting better, but I understand and agree with your spotty/unreliable coverage observations: simple line-of-sight is good, but there are many other factors that can (and do) get in the way (sometimes, literally). Outside metro areas, broadband remains elusive, expensive and a bit of a yo-yo (up and down all the time). Sorry if my tone came across as smug or entitled, it wasn’t meant to. Thanks for calling me out on that. =Ed=

Reply | Quote

I am surprised that they can charge $300 for an install. Verizon gave our condo $3000 for the privilege of installing fiber in our complex. When I finally went to fiber the install was problematical (mostly because it took them 6 hours and two crews to finally listen to my suggestion and get it installed) . No charge!

Just because you don't know where you are going doesn't mean any road will get you there.

Reply | Quote

Dear Wavy:

I guess that’s the difference between a drop that serves a multi-family complex versus a single-family dwelling. If there are enough customers available, the provider will pay. When there’s only one customer, the customer pays. Capitalism has its quirks, and this may be one of them!

Thanks for your comment.

–Ed–

Reply | Quote