×

Switch Account

Paying for 50Mbps, never ever get past 20's. Does anyone actually get even 35 or 40Mbps?

Reply
Highlighted
Copper Contributor
Copper Contributor
Posts: 10
Registered: ‎04-21-2012

Paying for 50Mbps, never ever get past 20's. Does anyone actually get even 35 or 40Mbps?

Message 1 of 48
(70,577 Views)
Upgraded to 50Mbps. Have used Verizon speed test dozens of times, unofficial speed tests dozens of times, many many downloads from hundreds of sites. Have NEVER come close to 50Mbps. I'm lucky if I get 25 which is what I was paying for BEFORE upgrading and paying MORE. My router is 15 feet from my PC and nothing at all blocking the signal. This is my router: https://teleproducts.verizon.com/fios/index.cfm/eh/DisplayDetails It's even Wireless N. Gone through 3 wi-fi receivers and none get faster speeds. All 3 were wireless N capable. I feel they are restricting my speed and taking my money. Raise your hand if you are in the "Getting 20Mbps club but paying for 50Mbps Club" Is this widespread? Does Verizon read these boards? If so, be proactive.
47 REPLIES 47
Highlighted
Copper Contributor
Copper Contributor
Posts: 11
Registered: ‎07-09-2012

Re: Paying for 50Mbps, never ever get past 20's. Does anyone actually get even 35 or 40Mbps?

Message 2 of 48
(70,553 Views)

just recently upgrade to 50 mbps.. can't get ov er 25mbps when using wifi. (wired I get 55mbps, but it isnt possible for me to always use a wired connection, so it's extremly inconveniet). I was going to purchase the N router and see if they would improve anything but I guess I don't have to now that you said you till cant get past 20..

Highlighted
MVP MVP
MVP
Posts: 7,495
Registered: ‎12-15-2010

Re: Paying for 50Mbps, never ever get past 20's. Does anyone actually get even 35 or 40Mbps?

Message 3 of 48
(70,545 Views)

Widespread? No. Have you tried a Wired connection?

 

If you're getting 55Mbps on a Wired connection Verizon's doing their job. If you don't get 50Mbps on a FiOS connection while wired the speed test you're using is either very poor or something is wrong which we can figure out for you. Wireless N will "fix" speed issues, but it is also an animal to deal with as for it to accomplish the speeds it's rated for you need to have the correct pairing of equipment and the correct settings in place to boot. Not a huge fan of the standard due to the mess they put it through during the drafting stages.

Highlighted
Platinum Contributor III
Platinum Contributor III
Posts: 5,881
Registered: ‎07-22-2009

Re: Paying for 50Mbps, never ever get past 20's. Does anyone actually get even 35 or 40Mbps?

Message 4 of 48
(70,542 Views)

Majority of customers realize their speeds when they are hardwired, and as smith mentioned wireless can be challenging, but you can probably do better.

 

Advertised Actual Hardwired with the extra fluff that verizon gives

50/25   ---> 58 / 38
75/35   ---> 84 / 40
150/65 ---> 155 / 75

300/65 ---> 315/75

 

 

http://speedtest.verizon.net/fios300

 

Also keep in mind (for higher end customers that may stumble across this thread) that 

The Ookla client that speedtest.net uses cannot handle the high upload speeds on FiOS. Verizon is using a newer Ookla client that can correctly measure the high uploads on the new Quantum tiers. Ookla knows they need to get this newer client out to the speedtest.net hosting providers.....

 

 

Highlighted
Copper Contributor
Copper Contributor
Posts: 11
Registered: ‎07-09-2012

Re: Paying for 50Mbps, never ever get past 20's. Does anyone actually get even 35 or 40Mbps?

Message 5 of 48
(70,531 Views)

@Smith6612 wrote:

Widespread? No. Have you tried a Wired connection?

 

If you're getting 55Mbps on a Wired connection Verizon's doing their job. If you don't get 50Mbps on a FiOS connection while wired the speed test you're using is either very poor or something is wrong which we can figure out for you. Wireless N will "fix" speed issues, but it is also an animal to deal with as for it to accomplish the speeds it's rated for you need to have the correct pairing of equipment and the correct settings in place to boot. Not a huge fan of the standard due to the mess they put it through during the drafting stages.



how so? What do you recommend? I am planning on purchasing the N router from Fios but the OP stated that it didn't really improve the speeds over wifi.

Highlighted
Gold Contributor IV
Gold Contributor IV
Posts: 1,340
Registered: ‎10-13-2008

Re: Paying for 50Mbps, never ever get past 20's. Does anyone actually get even 35 or 40Mbps?

Message 6 of 48
(70,488 Views)

I noticed an issue when going to different sites speedtest.net when testing from dallas I have eh speeds but when I go to fort worth I see my speeds and what I should have....wireless isn't a guarantee on speeds its darn near impossible to get advertised speeds

Highlighted
MVP MVP
MVP
Posts: 7,495
Registered: ‎12-15-2010

Re: Paying for 50Mbps, never ever get past 20's. Does anyone actually get even 35 or 40Mbps?

Message 7 of 48
(70,460 Views)

@vinnie365 wrote:

how so? What do you recommend? I am planning on purchasing the N router from Fios but the OP stated that it didn't really improve the speeds over wifi.



I would suggest getting this and attaching it to a free Ethernet port on your current FiOS router: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833156232 -OR if you prefer Amazon- : http://www.amazon.com/TRENDnet-Mbps-Wireless-Easy-N-Upgrader-TEW-637AP/dp/B00134LUE2

 

The reason why I stated Wireless N is an animal itself is because it factors in some further factors that may be result in the speed not being quite where it should be on Wireless. Wireless itself is an animal to deal with, especially unlicensed spectrum (2.4Ghz, 5Ghz are some examples). When dealing with Wireless, you're factoring in Interference, Antenna quality, radio quality, location, signal propagation, modulation, transmit powers, and all sorts of other factors. While much of this is ultimately moot, you're fighting with what has happened to the Wireless N standard as a whole.

 

When Wireless G was created, it included some additional features that were mainly under the hood, such as support for WDS (Wireless Distribution System), WPS (Wireless Protected Setup, a security risk today), WMM QoS, and introduced security methods such as WPA2 encryption. Every cheapo or expensive router and wireless card supported these for the most part, and you either got 54Mbps theoretical, or you had a slower speed due to signal quality. There wasn't much that would knock your speed down besides the normal issues with Wireless and perhaps issues with chip build. Also with Wireless G, you had backwards compatibility support for older Wireless B devices, and as a result protections were also included with Wireless G that allowed B devices to communicate without resulting in extremely low speeds due to collisions or radio throttling. It was easy, and for the most part unless you had some really, really bad equipment or you were in a noise environment, you got yout 54Mbps or ~20-25Mbps theoretical speed in a single direction. In the later days of Wireless G, you started to see the birth of MIMO and Channel Bonding for 108Mbps Wireless G connections. These were experimental and Proprietary (mainly the 108Mbps on Wireless G), but they didn't require anything special. If you bought a card that supported 108Mbps + MIMO yet the router didn't support it, you'd connect at 54Mbps, the max speed of the router. Vice versa, same deal. Weakest link would negotiate highest possible link.

 

In comes Wireless N, and they began building upon the standard based on previous progress in Wireless B and Wireless G (let's not forget about Wireless A, our friend in the 5Ghz band!). When the Wireless N standard was in draft, you had some adjusts being made to the signal and to the chips of each Wireless N card. Your base Wireless N speed for Draft was 65Mbps with a Guard Interval of 800ns (here comes the technical stuff!) and this card had to support backwards compatibility with Wireless B and Wireless G networks. In addition, it used a single stream setup, 1x1 on a single antenna or a two antenna diversity setup. Not fast, but was an improvement over G. As they improved the chipsets and pushed more out of the spectrum, you began seeing adaptations with MIMO, signaling and so on. Adapters supporting up to 130Mbps, 300Mbps, and even 450Mbps theoretical links started coming out.

 

The problem with Wireless N started to develop when they started allowing the mass purchase of DRAFT hardware. While Wireless G had the same thing occur with it, it didn't quite last as long as the Wireless N deployment went along. As there wasn't exactly a Standard, things were more or less a set of guidelines. What did this result in? It turned into a marketing game rather than a game for ensuring everything works equally. You then started seeing issues with compatibility between chips, and our infamous speed issues as routers and cards capable of different performances (eg: Laptops with 130Mbps cards, Routers with 300Mbps cards) could not negotiate properly a higher speed than 65Mbps that both would agree upon. So, what you essentially have now is a ton of Wireless N rated gear rated for specific max speeds, and you either need to pair the gear up correctly, or your speeds will not work out as expected, falling to a value lower than expected.

 

In addition to this, Wireless N added to the requirement (a good thing!), WPA2 encryption is absolutely needed for anything using Wireless N. Many people don't seem to realize this completely yet from what I've seen, and they wonder why their speed is capped at 65Mbps (Draft speed/hardware/compatibiliy mode) or why they're stuck at Wireless G speeds. In addtion, WMM QoS is required for higher Wireless N speeds. This should be on by default on all routers but sometimes it isn't. In addition, you'll find that with devices actually complying to the Wireless N spec, 40Mhz wide channels won't work in noisier environments, or chips that have their drivers telling them to not use 40Mhz wide channels results in lower speeds.

 

I can keep going on, but ultimately I'm not a huge fan of the standard as I stated. They botched it up before they allowed it to reach it's potential. The tech is great when it's working as expected, and I've seen 95Mbps in a single direction on a 20Mhz link in close proximity however the execution of it was abysmal. All I can say is, ask around if you see lower than expected speeds and you'll get an answer. But definitely, save the $50 and get an AP to hang off of your current ActionTec. The ActionTec you have now, regardless of how old it is will be plenty fast for anything up to and including 100Mbps service.

Highlighted
Copper Contributor
Copper Contributor
Posts: 11
Registered: ‎07-09-2012

Re: Paying for 50Mbps, never ever get past 20's. Does anyone actually get even 35 or 40Mbps?

Message 8 of 48
(70,456 Views)

@Smith6612 wrote:

@vinnie365 wrote:

how so? What do you recommend? I am planning on purchasing the N router from Fios but the OP stated that it didn't really improve the speeds over wifi.



I would suggest getting this and attaching it to a free Ethernet port on your current FiOS router: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833156232 -OR if you prefer Amazon- : http://www.amazon.com/TRENDnet-Mbps-Wireless-Easy-N-Upgrader-TEW-637AP/dp/B00134LUE2

 

The reason why I stated Wireless N is an animal itself is because it factors in some further factors that may be result in the speed not being quite where it should be on Wireless. Wireless itself is an animal to deal with, especially unlicensed spectrum (2.4Ghz, 5Ghz are some examples). When dealing with Wireless, you're factoring in Interference, Antenna quality, radio quality, location, signal propagation, modulation, transmit powers, and all sorts of other factors. While much of this is ultimately moot, you're fighting with what has happened to the Wireless N standard as a whole.

 

When Wireless G was created, it included some additional features that were mainly under the hood, such as support for WDS (Wireless Distribution System), WPS (Wireless Protected Setup, a security risk today), WMM QoS, and introduced security methods such as WPA2 encryption. Every cheapo or expensive router and wireless card supported these for the most part, and you either got 54Mbps theoretical, or you had a slower speed due to signal quality. There wasn't much that would knock your speed down besides the normal issues with Wireless and perhaps issues with chip build. Also with Wireless G, you had backwards compatibility support for older Wireless B devices, and as a result protections were also included with Wireless G that allowed B devices to communicate without resulting in extremely low speeds due to collisions or radio throttling. It was easy, and for the most part unless you had some really, really bad equipment or you were in a noise environment, you got yout 54Mbps or ~20-25Mbps theoretical speed in a single direction. In the later days of Wireless G, you started to see the birth of MIMO and Channel Bonding for 108Mbps Wireless G connections. These were experimental and Proprietary (mainly the 108Mbps on Wireless G), but they didn't require anything special. If you bought a card that supported 108Mbps + MIMO yet the router didn't support it, you'd connect at 54Mbps, the max speed of the router. Vice versa, same deal. Weakest link would negotiate highest possible link.

 

In comes Wireless N, and they began building upon the standard based on previous progress in Wireless B and Wireless G (let's not forget about Wireless A, our friend in the 5Ghz band!). When the Wireless N standard was in draft, you had some adjusts being made to the signal and to the chips of each Wireless N card. Your base Wireless N speed for Draft was 65Mbps with a Guard Interval of 800ns (here comes the technical stuff!) and this card had to support backwards compatibility with Wireless B and Wireless G networks. In addition, it used a single stream setup, 1x1 on a single antenna or a two antenna diversity setup. Not fast, but was an improvement over G. As they improved the chipsets and pushed more out of the spectrum, you began seeing adaptations with MIMO, signaling and so on. Adapters supporting up to 130Mbps, 300Mbps, and even 450Mbps theoretical links started coming out.

 

The problem with Wireless N started to develop when they started allowing the mass purchase of DRAFT hardware. While Wireless G had the same thing occur with it, it didn't quite last as long as the Wireless N deployment went along. As there wasn't exactly a Standard, things were more or less a set of guidelines. What did this result in? It turned into a marketing game rather than a game for ensuring everything works equally. You then started seeing issues with compatibility between chips, and our infamous speed issues as routers and cards capable of different performances (eg: Laptops with 130Mbps cards, Routers with 300Mbps cards) could not negotiate properly a higher speed than 65Mbps that both would agree upon. So, what you essentially have now is a ton of Wireless N rated gear rated for specific max speeds, and you either need to pair the gear up correctly, or your speeds will not work out as expected, falling to a value lower than expected.

 

In addition to this, Wireless N added to the requirement (a good thing!), WPA2 encryption is absolutely needed for anything using Wireless N. Many people don't seem to realize this completely yet from what I've seen, and they wonder why their speed is capped at 65Mbps (Draft speed/hardware/compatibiliy mode) or why they're stuck at Wireless G speeds. In addtion, WMM QoS is required for higher Wireless N speeds. This should be on by default on all routers but sometimes it isn't. In addition, you'll find that with devices actually complying to the Wireless N spec, 40Mhz wide channels won't work in noisier environments, or chips that have their drivers telling them to not use 40Mhz wide channels results in lower speeds.

 

I can keep going on, but ultimately I'm not a huge fan of the standard as I stated. They botched it up before they allowed it to reach it's potential. The tech is great when it's working as expected, and I've seen 95Mbps in a single direction on a 20Mhz link in close proximity however the execution of it was abysmal. All I can say is, ask around if you see lower than expected speeds and you'll get an answer. But definitely, save the $50 and get an AP to hang off of your current ActionTec. The ActionTec you have now, regardless of how old it is will be plenty fast for anything up to and including 100Mbps service.


WOW thanks for the useful info! Althought I was looking at reviews for the TRENDnet access point and it got some pretty poor ones. Would you be able to recommend a more reliable product? Thanks!

Highlighted
MVP MVP
MVP
Posts: 7,495
Registered: ‎12-15-2010

Re: Paying for 50Mbps, never ever get past 20's. Does anyone actually get even 35 or 40Mbps?

Message 9 of 48
(70,338 Views)

There isn't much I really suggest otherwise short of going into pricy enterprise-grade gear. There's been a ton of people throughout this forum and DSLReports who have gotten the TrendNet nad it works fine for me. I believe since some of the more negative reviews were written a different revision started selling. But I'm not realy finding many high rated (5-star/5 egg) access points out there that are pretty good short of turning a router into an access point.

Highlighted
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 1
Registered: ‎10-06-2012

Re: Paying for 50Mbps, never ever get past 20's. Does anyone actually get even 35 or 40Mbps?

Message 10 of 48
(69,586 Views)

Getting new equipment is the way to.  I started off with the same issue, was paying for 50/25 and was only getting 20/20 on speedtest.net.

Called to complain multiple times and kept getting "we only gaurantee wired connection speeds."  That does me no good because they installed my router in a room I don't even have a computer in.  Granted my desktop was only about 10' away, passing through 1 normal sheetrocked wall.  Finally got them to agree to send me a Actiontec N Router to replace my old G one.

N Router came and I was still only getting 20/20.  I picked up a refurbished Linksys E2500 ($30) off of the Linksys site, hooked it up and disabled the radio on the Actiontec.  Suddenly getting 42/25.  I happen to be satisfied with the E2500 for the price, but I see a lot of less then favorabble reviews on it.

Then for the heck of it, I picked up a new USB adaptor, the Linksys AE3000 and now I'm getting 58/32 on my wireless connection.

My main computer is in the next room from the router, so it's pretty close , not sure if I would getting the same speed if it were on a different floor or further away, but I'm a reasonable man and I understand that there are factors that affect wireless speeds, but not to the point of only getting 20/20 with only 1 wall to pass through.

So for $80, for the router and adaptor, I am getting my advertised speeds.  Now I'm kinda missing some of the features on the  higher end Linksys routers, like  USB ports, so I may upgrade again in the near future.  I'm also curious if having a N900 router paired with my adaptor would make a difference.  I may even pay the extra $5 and move up to the 75/35 service.

I forgot to mention that I also had to set my router to broadcast N only as my computer kept connecting to G.

And I'm sorry, I just reread my post and I come off sounding like a Linksys fanboy.  I assure you I am not, I just wanted to share what equipment is working for me.  I've actually had lots of problems with Linksys in the past.  I only got the router because it was cheap and chose to stay with the same branded adaptor because they tend to work better together.

How-To Videos
 
The following videos were produced by users like you!
   
Videos are subject to the Verizon Fios Community Terms of Service and User Guidelines and contains content that is not created by Verizon.
Covid19


Browse Categories
Categories:
Posts

Verizon Troubleshooters
Unable to find your answer here? Try searching Verizon Troubleshooters for more options.