|This is the last time your account was accessed.|
Connect with us
Watch thousands of your favorite TV shows and movies On Demand and Live. Rent or buy your favorites and watch them on any device. Or, check what's on tonight and program your DVR. You can do it all!
Watch Free TV & Movies
Rent or Buy
Set your TV Viewing Experience
12-20-2011 09:18 AM - edited 12-20-2011 09:36 AM
You haven't read all of my 2,100+ posts have you? I also post on various other websites where I've accumulated thousands of posts (not that it matters, any) which you should be able to find by simply searching Verizon FiOS Forums in your favorite search engine. There's plenty of parts where I disagree on how Verizon does things. I disagree with the way they run their DSL network, yet I use DSL because I've got contacts within Verizon who don't give me problems when something hits the fan. I'm constantly getting people off of Juniper ERX routers because Verizon had to go screw that up and not inform anyone. I'm also constantly helping people get their DSL lines back in working order after Verizon screws up their overselling ratios. I could just go to Cable and deal with the entire node being loaded down at night and software-based provisioning that destroys any measure of QoS when downloading, but I'd rather stick with having 80ms latency on downloads over 200-500ms latency. I could also just say "Screw FiOS" which isn't even here at the moment, but I'm holding out some hope that it will arrive since there are spools of Corning Fiber everywhere around here. I also disagree with the way their router firmware is written, with their auto-updating policies, and how MoCa is seen as a standard over the traditional, more versitile Ethernet setup they used when the service first came out. I also don't agree with the backdoor Verizon has in every router they issue which can be exploited in no time to start causing problems. I also constantly bash Verizon for slowing FiOS expansion big time and for wanting to do Fixed LTE to the Home, which I will just blow off like it's not important.
Also, if you'd so like I will personally show you how long it takes to gather wireless data using some rather basic tools. WEP is crackable within a few seconds and requires no more than 3000 BYTES of data, and takes literally no time to start causing problems with routers. WPA can be cracked with off the shelf computer hardware and rainbow tables. Wi-Fi signals can be picked up for more than a few houses away. People have picked them up for miles with a build-it-yourself style of building things. I won't speak of the tool which I personally use to get people off WEP security while working on their networks (with their permission, of course!), as I'm sure it's not allowed to be mentioned here.
What I'm speaking of in regards to the Wireless access is basically what the reality of things are. Verizon never provided me with a Wireless router when I signed up with DSL. You know what they gave me? A basic DSL modem. For free. They didn't have to do that either. I could have purchased my own DSL modem, which I am free to do so. In my area, guess what the Cable company does. As much as I support their service in Non-FiOS areas, they charge you for even getting anything more than a basic modem unless you pay for their DOCSIS 3.0 tiers. Clearly they are doing something wrong, right? I'm not paid to show up here, either. I show up here on my free time to just discuss matters. Verizon doesn't pay me, and I still have to deal with my monthly bill as well as putting up with a measly 1Mbps/384kbps which goes to dial-up at night because of the amount of traffic we generate (Verizon isn't doing a thing to the line).
I like I said. All a company needs to do is supply the medium for connecting. Verizon in this case, only needs to supply you with an Ethernet port and you can bring your own gear onto the network like any other Tier 1 provider needs to do. With people being so switch happy for services lately due to whatever reason, the economy, etc... , Verizon I'm sure has no incentive to get people Wireless N routers when they're already spending a few thousand dollars per home just to even hook up FiOS and there's a risk of people switching away from FiOS before the recoup period. Like I said, it's a courtesy of the company, NOT a requirement. If people want it, if Verizon so wishes they are free to set something up to get Wireless N routers going out to people. Otherwise, just enjoy the fact that right now you have a 35/35 line that runs faster than that and has an unmetered data usage policy on it. Comcast people, as much as Comcast gives out Wireless N routers as a courtesy (besides giving people a Cable modem to use), have to put up with whatever speed they pay for, less upload, and with a 250GB soft data cap with risk of disconnection for one year if busted.
As far as the Wireless debackle goes. When you've got a home of 50 devices Wireless is out of the question. Variables, variables, variables, and variables. Even Wireless N is out of the question. Variables galore. I mean, to even set up Wireless N the right way rather than the "Just Works" way you need to really have an idea of the site it's being installed in. 2.4Ghz, no more than 20Mhz wide channel width. Otherwise you're not operating within the Wireless N spec and you are potentially causing problems with other networks (I've seen this happen a lot). If you're not using WPA2-PSK AES, you're throttled to Wireless G speeds on compliant devices. If you're using WPA or WEP on Wireless N and get Wireless N speeds, you're not complying with the specification and this causes issues with devices. If you're not using WMM, you're throttled to Wireless G speeds. You got G devices on an N access point? No point having N in that point. You're throttled to G speeds anyways.
But if people wish to use Wireless, I can't stop them. If all they do is check e-mail and check it over Wireless (with N) and have a 35Mbps line, then great for them! I'm envyous that they have a faster connection than I do and don't utilize it as much as it could be used for. But I'm just trying to say this, and others here will back me up if they see this (instead of going tl;dr). Wireless will not work like many proclaim it will.
12-21-2011 12:45 AM
I find it intriguing that Smith6612 has posted 2,150 messages here and seems to be in agreement with a lot of Verizon’s attitudes and policies. That is 5.8 posts per day, every day since 12-15-2010.
I find it intriguing that Rosedale has posted 4 messages here and seems to mention how much better the cable companies are a lot. That is less than .3 posts per day, only since 12-05-2011. But what has that to do with the price of peas in Persia?
If you want an N router, go buy one. Easy-peasy. As you keep explaining, there's one for only $60!
12-21-2011 09:00 PM - edited 12-21-2011 09:06 PM
Might also point this out:
Yeah, that is Wireless G in my home, properly set up and benchmarked beyond belief. I max at 28Mbps in one direction. On very good days, it will hit 30Mbps. Even then, anything past 20Mbps and the throughput is very, very inconsistent. The particular device I caught using the Wireless network here is really one of three devices here that we cannot hardwire to the network: An iPad 2 which was performing an iTunes Sync to the file server over Wi-Fi. It was on the other end of the house from the Access Point, which believe it or not is an ActionTec MI424WR Rev. D loaded up with custom firmware. This was caught very early in the morning, where no other Wireless networks have activity on them in the neighborhood and this was the only device that was actually connected to the AP (the only other devices are once again, Apple products without Ethernet ports). All of our other machines are plugged in, including the laptops. Half of the machines have 100Mbps ports. They don't slow down the machines on Gigabit nor do the switches care. The Wireless cares if anything slower than 54Mbps hops on...
Here's a current snippit of what's being picked up while it's raining like crazy out here (which, keep in mind, attenuates wireless signals). Networks using Wireless N on 40Mhz are highlighted in RED. MAC addresses and SSIDs have been snipped in respect to my neighbors' networks. There are two other networks not being picked up right now that run 40Mhz N (300Mbps Theoretical) that cannot be picked up. 40Mhz plus the rain is killing their range, and there is already enough crap in the air drowning out their signal.:
I'm not even going to explain what I can do with that Join button and some additional settings in the router.
Verizon nor any other company by no means wants to deal with this. You see why they don't gaurantee speeds? No one can. Those Wireless N networks running at 300Mbps at night? They've called me down every few months stating they're having drop-out issues. I fix their problems by setting the network up right, lo and behold, the router gets factory resetted a month later for who knows what reason and it's all hosed up again.
About Wireless link speeds: Guess which device is slowing down the works.
Yeah. On properly written firmware those slow devices won't slow anything down unless there is actually network activity going to them. This very bit of info is something I've seen take a $117k wireless network to it's knees, however. It's Wireless 101 stuff, the place decided to go all Wireless with a proper enterprise setup and it basically stuffed itself up their rear end. When your network is choking bad enough to have Cisco go "What the heck?" and have to do Bronze support to even get connectivity going to people (meaning, Google takes 20+ seconds to load), there's a problem with the way people think about Wireless. When I saw that network, I basically walked around, found an Ethernet port attached on the same network, and got 100Mbps/100Mbps out of the network. Their IT Dept? Yeah, they knew about it, but they didn't do the network right when it came down to the matter of things. Before they knew it, here comes the mobile revolution. Adding devices to a Wireless network, and ooops! 800+ devices across 32 APs, almost all of them brand spanking new Wireless N APs doing Dual Band N, running per-spec, and it's running at sub-dialup speeds with all APs on Gigabit Ethernet and fueled by switches connected to 10Gbps gear which ties into a 10Gbps Internet connection. The Ethernet network didn't choke one bit, nor did their connection.
I hope I've made my point by now. Verizon does not want to deal with it. That place's IT department doesn't want to deal with their Wireless network because everything under the sun connected to it over the Wired network which was far easier to manage in the long run. I don't want to deal with Wireless in my neighborhood just due to how rediculous it is to even set up a network and expect to get more than 20Mbps on a good night, even on N.
12-21-2011 09:31 PM
You are correct - it is easy to buy a 802.11n router - at least for those with the technical understanding. But that isn’t everybody. But is that really the best solution? I think not.
In my opinion there are many reasons why Verizon should provide 802.11n and not 802.11g routers with 35/35 Mbps service.
1. Verizon already provides a wireless router when internet service is installed. Why not provide 802.11n instead of 802.11g which is nine-year-old technology? Wireless n has been available for five years. Certainly there wouldn’t be a great difference in price for technology that is that old.
2. Verizon boasts continually that it has the fastest internet throughput. Why sell 35/35 Mbps throughput and provide it to the router but not to the wireless devices that connect to the router when the technology is readily available? This doesn’t make sense.
3. Personally I felt misled by what was offered and what is delivered. I changed my original order from 15/5 Mbps to 35/35 Mbps which involved $30 more per month. The Verizon representative sold me on the faster throughput and told me I would get a wireless router as part of the deal. Any normal person would take that to mean that they are going to get somewhere around 35/35 Mbps wirelessly and not just with a wired ethernet connection. Since Verizon knows that their wireless router will only deliver about 25 Mbps and not 35, why not be honest and tell the prospective customer that up front? Perhaps because fewer people would decide to choose the more expensive service if they knew that they wouldn’t get the faster speed wirelessly? Why pay for 35/35 Mbps if you are only going to get 25 Mbps? Obviously honesty is not a part of Verizon’s company policy.
Satisfied customers are also not important to Verizon. After I discovered that my router wouldn’t provide the speed I was paying for I was initially lied to. The representative told me Verizon only had one wireless router. Later he admitted that they have another, faster router but they only provide it to people paying for 150 Mbps service. Verizon has repeatedly denied my request for a faster wireless router. What they did do was send me another Westell 9100EM router that is not one bit faster. Other companies place customer satisfaction high on their list of priorities and do what it takes to accomplish that. Not Verizon.
How does Verizon train its representatives to respond to this issue? “We don’t guarantee 35/35 Mbps throughput wirelessly.” Basically they are trained to blow smoke. However, if Verizon would provide 802.11n routers many of their customers would get the throughput that they are paying for and Verizon would be able to say, “Although we can’t guarantee it, many people experience the provided throughput wirelessly. We provide advice on where to position the router in your home in order to experience the highest possible throughput.”
4. Someone has claimed that a wireless connection is just a “convenience” and that we shouldn’t have any expectations about the throughput. It was implied that we should really be connecting by way of an ethernet cable. But this argumentation runs counter to basically many of the developments in our time: cars instead of walking or riding a horse, cell phones and not just landline phones, dish and clothes washing machines, clothes dryers. Our society and economy thrive on products that make our lives easier and more convenient. It isn’t logical to claim something is just a “convenience” and in that way excuse a company for not offering up-to-date equipment with their service.
It is also not realistic to think people view developments as just a “convenience” after adapting to them. First there were wireless phones at home. Then cell phones. Many people no longer have a landline. Hardly anyone would even consider using a phone that is connected to a wire except perhaps at work. We see the same development regarding our computers and access to various devices - like printers and scanners. Wireless technology has been available for many years now. Manufacturers have adopted the technology. Buyers and users for the most part are certainly taking it for granted now. It is no longer a “convenience.” Given the choice, how many people would choose the inconvenience of a wired over a wireless connection for their devices? Verizon should recognize this and provide five-year-old technology and not nine-year-old 802.11g.
5. It was also claimed that a wireless router is only provided “as a courtesy” and therefore it is irrelevant if it is outdated and not capable of providing the throughput the customer is paying for. The customer can buy something better if she/he wants to. This excuse totally ignores how sales are made in our society. In a competitive market sales are made by offering more value for the customer’s money. The customer can compare offers and decide what she/he believes is the best deal.
In this situation, however, the customer can’t make a true comparison in advance. When offered 35/35 Mbps throughput and a wireless router, the logical conclusion is that the router will provide that level of throughput. Verizon offers 25 and 35 Mbps service. However, they don’t tell the customer in advance, “You won’t get 35 Mbps wirelessly with the router that we give you.” Not until service has been installed can the customer test throughput and then realize that Verizon was blowing smoke. I consider this discourteous.
6. One problem with this situation is that many people are not computer savvy enough to realize that they aren’t getting what they are paying for. Many are certainly not aware of internet sites that test throughput such as speedtest.net. They choose the faster service, install the router that was provided and assume that they are getting what the Verizon representative sold them.
My work involves real estate sales and the principle “buyer beware” holds true. However, I spend a lot of time educating my clients about hurricanes, termites, wood rot and other important issues so that they can make an educated decision. I strive to serve my clients and put their interests before mine. This definitely isn’t Verizon’s attitude or policy.
7. Some have suggested here that anyone wanting to get the throughput that they are paying for should just go out and buy a 802.11n router. But this involves a lot of unnecessary redundancy by thousands of Verizon customers. How much simpler would it be for Verizon to just decide to adopt 802.11n technology for all its customers?
Some that are computer savvy and don’t have an aversion to doing research will go online and research what kinds of routers are available. Others will likely walk in a computer store and buy whatever piques their interest or what the salesperson sells them. This is a lot of unnecessary work.
Consider another aspect of everyone buying a second router: the cost. Verizon could deliver the faster throughput at minimal added expense. But instead, the buyers will end up paying at least $50 but maybe three times that amount. This doesn’t make sense.
Keep in mind that this route has a negative environmental aspect: a second router involves the consumption of additional raw materials and energy in its production and also double the energy use as long as both routers are turned on which for most people is probably 24/7. This is not a good use of materials and a waste of energy. Yes, I realize that routers are small and use minimal energy but multiply that times thousands of redundant systems and it all adds up to unnecessary waste. Verizon could be green and easily prevent such waste.
For those that aren’t technically inclined, there is the possible difficulty in connecting a second router to the Verizon router. Mine was successfully connected in 18 minutes but I’ve seen numerous threads initiated by people that had problems. A decision by Verizon could easily prevent this.
So, the logical, easiest, least expensive and more customer and environmentally friendly solution is for Verizon to supply its customers with a 802.11n wireless router.
Unfortunately Verizon seems totally disinclined to take any of this into consideration. In fact, they have basically the same attitude towards their TV customers. The Motorola QIP2500 “set top box” that they provide with each installation does not support high definition TV even for customers paying extra to get those channels. Once again, Verizon provides equipment incapable of delivering the service the customer is paying for.
12-22-2011 10:13 AM
2011-12-22 12:50 PM
Two free modems connected to Verizon’s 35/35 Mbps service - both are in the same room as the laptop and 11 feet away.
Three neighboring wireless networks showing up - each with one out of five bars
Test site: speedtest.net with Internet Explorer:
Ping Download Upload
Verizon’s Westell 9100EM 52 ms 25.65 Mbps 13.52 Mbps
Comcast’s Netgear 60 ms 43.29 Mbps 14.63 Mbps
12-31-2011 06:29 PM
I have another one for you.
I had a problem with my very old Dlink G router that I received some 5 years ago. I called Verizon and they were very nice and prompt in supplying a
I spent half an hour installing it and getting everything to work. Then tested the speed with the Verizon FIOS speed test. I did it half a dozen times because I could not believe the speed. It is a reduction from my D-link of about 50%. All of my tests were wireless tests. My D-link test that I did several times previously provided a download of 15.9 Mbps and Upload of 17.1 Mbps.
With the new Actiontex N router I got 7.9 Mpbs download and 8.8 Mbps upload. I purchased 25/25 service. It looks like I am getting about 1/3 of the advertised and purchased rate. They can say that it is the wireless all they want, but my wireless speed was twice what i have now with the Actiontec router and that was with a G router.
What do you think of those apples?
12-31-2011 09:35 PM - edited 12-31-2011 09:42 PM
What is the Rev of the Actiontec? If it is a Rev. F it is Draft N, Rev. E or below it is a G. I have read that only the Revision G with giga bit ports support actual N. So you could be running into various issues with compatibility. Rev. G are only being supplied to the customers with 150mbps download speeds. I would say check to see what the default channel is for the new router, what encryption it is using, and compare that with your old router. I too had one of the OLD Dlink routers pre Fios TV, and my Actiontec Gen. 2 Rev E works much better, even though it is not N or Draft N. You could also go out and get a wireless bridge and just disable the Actiontec wireless. I did that and have two wireless networks at different levels of security, on different subnets before and after a proxy server. I left the Actiontec wireless named something else. There are also very many valid points in regards to how many wireless devices are in your area. Nothing wireless can be guaranteed.
12-31-2011 09:39 PM - edited 12-31-2011 09:44 PM
Have you tried playing with the Wireless settings, such as...
1: Enabling WPA2 Encryption
2: Setting the wireless to only operate in "G" mode (Or G/N mode if it's a Rev. F, G, or I)
3: Changing the Wireless Channel
The D-Link was probably a bit more solid in terms of Wireless. Those old DI-524s, as much as they are aged and starting to die out now, were tanks. I've got one in service at a friend's home right now set up as an Access Point and a Switch. His home is wired for Ethernet, but he has it for his iPod Touch and some laptops when they're out and about. Clocks in close to 20Mbps, though the D-Link loves to reboot itself constantly for up to a half an hour at times at random. It's on it's way out so it's getting replaced soon with another AP.
01-29-2012 12:44 AM
I have the 35/35 plan with an Actiontec M1424 WR rev F (Gen 2) router.
Using Verizon Speet Test, http://my.verizon.com/micro/speedtest/broadband/#
When tested ethernet-wired to the router, but also wireless, I get slower upload speed on laptops than deskops. This is true even with a new state-of-the-art laptop (i7, 12 GB ram et) wired by ethernet to the actiontec router. For example, an older i5 desktop gave ~42/42, but the new i7 laptop gave ~42/5 mbps (download/upload).
Using another Speed Test site, http://www.speedtest.net/
both the laptop and desktop gave ~42/42 (each wired to the router, but very good speeds when wireless as well).
So the slower upload speed is only seen with the laptop, and only on the Verizon speed test site.
Can anyone explain this? Is it really slower upload speed on the laptop, or just a glitch on Verizon's site.
If really slower, how do I fix? Obviously not FIOS network problem, since not seen with desktop.