dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
25678
share rss forum feed

JonHK

join:2011-03-20
Aurora, CO

SBG6580 Ethernet fast, wireless slow

ISP is Comcast; I setup SBG6580 and using Speedtest.net I get a ping time of 10ms on ethernet-connected desktop, with download approx 9mbps and upload about 3.5mbps. However, using the wireless output, and testing also with Speedtest.net on an iPhone 3G placed 1 foot from the gateway, I get a ping time of about 275ms, and download of 2.19mbps and upload of only 1.9mbps. Motorola support was not very helpful at all, suggesting I try different control channel settings (results above are best I could get, and that is on channel 11); IP flood control and firewall are both off. It seems as if I should be able to get faster wireless throughput...can anyone help?


TuLSaViPeR

join:2002-12-20
Los Angeles, CA

Why did the the Moderator move this from "Hardware" to "Comcast". Did it ever occur to him that the OP has a Hardware issue not a Comcast Issue. Im just saying!!!

I am on TimeWarner and I am having the same issues with my SBG6580. My Wired connection is super FAST, but my wireless connection is Super Slow, sluggish and it drops all the time.THIS IS NOT A ISP issue but seems to be an Issue with the Motorola SBG 6580.

Steps that I have Taken:

1.) Called my ISP had them update my MacAddress.
2.) Disabled Firewall.
3.) Disabled IP Flood Detection.

The I was getting 40+bps for a day or so after that the wireless just slowed to a crawl. My wired connection still gets blazing speeds but the wireless.

Has anyone found a firmware update?

Thanks


ajwees41
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Omaha, NE

firmware is cable company provided



JasonM

@charter.com
reply to JonHK

you only need to turn off IP Flood Detection, you can leave your firewall on



PaulGor
Premium
join:2002-07-22
Palo Alto, CA

1 edit

Any update from OP guy?

Also, he wrote:
"I was getting 40+bps for a day or so after that the wireless just slowed to a crawl"

How can one measure that? That is, what are the tools to check wireless connection speed (not connection quality of Low, Excellent, but speed)?

When I use say this site's speed tools it does not let me know what speed I see - Internet speed provided by ISP or a wireless connection speed (between wireless router and my laptop)



Ripper
Premium
join:2002-02-07
West Palm Beach, FL
Reviews:
·Comcast

You can check your speeds with these two sites »speedtest.comcast.net/ and »www.speedtest.net/index.php . And check your connection quality here »pingtest.net/



PaulGor
Premium
join:2002-07-22
Palo Alto, CA

1 edit

Thanks.So if I get it correctly, when I am on my laptop and use wireless connection, I can not figure out/distinguish (using any of the links you provided) what are the numbers for my wireless connection (between router and laptop) and what are the numbers for ISP Internet connection, right?

I mean when pingtest.net tells me that connection is poor - is it ISP Internet connection quality or wireless connection quality? No way to tell?

I need to compare wireless case vs direct network cable connection case, right?



Ripper
Premium
join:2002-02-07
West Palm Beach, FL
Reviews:
·Comcast

Under connection status,you will be able to see maximum link speed, but not actual speed.


nerdburg
Premium
join:2009-08-20
Schuylkill Haven, PA
kudos:1
reply to JonHK

This is pretty much why everyone hates "gateway" devices. Put it in bridge mode and buy a router.



PaulGor
Premium
join:2002-07-22
Palo Alto, CA

So no news for OP? I have same problem - just installed this Gateway for Comcast 12Mb/s:

Ethernet connection works with promised speed (and 10ms ping) but Wireless - 1/3 speed - 4Mb/s or sometimes 1.5 - and 30ms ping



JigglyWiggly

join:2009-07-12
Pleasanton, CA

Crud, I just bought the modem/router, but I never measured wireless speeds or any speeds yet since I have not provisioned it yet.
Hope I don't have this problem.



beachintech
There's sand in my tool bag
Premium
join:2008-01-06
kudos:5

If you are anything more than a casual email checker / facebook farmville'r, you will come to hate the device.
--
Retired Tech at the Beach.
I speak for myself, not my former employer.



PaulGor
Premium
join:2002-07-22
Palo Alto, CA

said by beachintech:

If you are anything more than a casual email checker / facebook farmville'r, you will come to hate the device.

No, I bought it because now I often has to work from home and it's heavy - connect to our servers, etc. For this reason I have just signed for Comcast Internet..

I bought the device because I did not want to have two devices (each with its own several cords!) next to my TV - my wife would hate it

Previously - for years - I had AT&T DSL - with the same kind of setup (i.e. one box) - instead of DSL modem and a separate wireless device I had "wi-fi router/DSL modem" box

So, beachintech, what you are saying is that one must have 2 separate devices (cable modem + wireless router), right?
Or it's just this Motorola "combo" is bad while there are good ones on the market?

I am still within my "30 days after buying" period, so I can return this to Amazon - if I'd know that there are - really - good "combos" out there...



beachintech
There's sand in my tool bag
Premium
join:2008-01-06
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast

I have yet to find a combo device I like / didn't end up causing problems for a user - and I worked for comcast for a few years and worked with them daily.

I would get a modem and router (2 devices). Put the modem behind the tv where no one can see it, and put the router in view. Only 2 cables going to it, one ethernet and one power cable. Same as what you have now with a coax cable and power cord.

Problem solved.
--
Retired Tech at the Beach.
I speak for myself, not my former employer.



gar187er
I do this for a living

join:2006-06-24
Dover, DE
kudos:4
reply to JonHK

no such thing as good combo device....in any field......more heat, more solder, more cheap points of failure....ie, tv/vcr combos.....
--
I'm better than you!



PaulGor
Premium
join:2002-07-22
Palo Alto, CA
reply to beachintech

said by beachintech:

I would get a modem and router (2 devices).

Thanks. Could you please recommend a model for each? I have 12Mbps account with Comcast so I guess a modem has to be DOCSIS 3.0.


beachintech
There's sand in my tool bag
Premium
join:2008-01-06
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Comcast

Modem does not have to be DOCSIS 3, but I would reccomend getting one anyway. I would not reccomend a Moto 6120, but either the Cisco D3 modem or the Zoom D3 modem (model numbers escape me currently)..

For a router - anything Cisco (Linksys) or Netgear would not be a bad choice. I liked my old Netgear WNDR3700. Look for something wireless N
--
Retired Tech at the Beach.
I speak for myself, not my former employer.



PaulGor
Premium
join:2002-07-22
Palo Alto, CA

Thank you for useful advice!

By the way, I just found out that wireless is "low" when I go to another room via hallway in my house (30-35 ft and walls) - does Netgear usually handles "another room" case?



JigglyWiggly

join:2009-07-12
Pleasanton, CA

I was just testing it out, it's still walledgarden as I did not subscribe it yet, but this is not promising: (This is sbg6580 wireless)

2 feet away:

Reply from 10.10.10.1: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=64
Reply from 10.10.10.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 10.10.10.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 10.10.10.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 10.10.10.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 10.10.10.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 10.10.10.1: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=64
Reply from 10.10.10.1: bytes=32 time=4ms TTL=64
Reply from 10.10.10.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64
Reply from 10.10.10.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 10.10.10.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 10.10.10.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 10.10.10.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 10.10.10.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 10.10.10.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 10.10.10.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 10.10.10.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 10.10.10.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64
Reply from 10.10.10.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
Reply from 10.10.10.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64
 

But then on a 5 year old wap54g in a differnet room:
Reply from 192.168.1.245: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.1.245: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.1.245: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.1.245: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.1.245: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.1.245: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.1.245: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.1.245: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.1.245: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.1.245: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.1.245: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
Reply from 192.168.1.245: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64
 

This isn't promising...


beachintech
There's sand in my tool bag
Premium
join:2008-01-06
kudos:5
reply to PaulGor

Just about every router will handle covering most of your home just fine.
--
Retired Tech at the Beach.
I speak for myself, not my former employer.



JigglyWiggly

join:2009-07-12
Pleasanton, CA

1 edit

To respond to myself in the other post, I think I am just going to return the sbg6580 for a dir-655 + zoom 5341(I already have a zoom and router here, but this is for other place)

I wanted the sbg6580 a lot because it supports 8 downstream channel bonds, but I don't have the dosh to waste on this + router. 3 ms of extra latency is nut acceptable to me.

EDIT: Done, I returned the sbg6580 ;'( so much potential



PaulGor
Premium
join:2002-07-22
Palo Alto, CA
reply to beachintech

Thanks



PaulGor
Premium
join:2002-07-22
Palo Alto, CA

1 edit

So decided to try 2 separate devices and today installed cable modem Ubee U10Co35.32 DOCSIS 3.0 -
nope, it's bad - please advice:

with Motorola Gateway I complained in this thread about wi-fi while for direct Ethernet cable connection it worked just fine - showing speed of 12 Mbps (for which I paying to Comcast) or often even more say 15 Mbps.

With the modem I picked up in Comcast store it's first, intermitten and second, much lower, that is during an hour:

- 10Mbps
- 8
- 3.5
- 7
- 12.5
- 4.5
- then 7 again

Most of the time - 7-8 Mbps


Spoke with Comcast Support 3 times today - they re-set it from their end 2 times and suggested me to diconnect power and other cables and then connect again (did it 2 times today) -
results the same as above

As I still have my Motorola (did not ship it yet back to Amazon) I decided to see what happens if I connect Motorola Gateway with Ethernet cable (hoping that Comcast has this device registered and thus it will recognize it)

With Motorola Gateway direct connection (same coax and Ethernet cables - just diconnected them from Ubee modem) the results are the same as all last week:

- most of the time - 12.5 and much more rare a fluctuation such as say
- 12.5
- 12.0
- 9.5
- then 12.0 again

That is, close values and all close to 12!

*********

Is it a known issue for Ubee modems?

So should I bring this Ubee modem back to Comcast and ask for another model? Which one should I ask for? Or it's just my luck and that specific device was bad while generally Ubee modems are good?

I could avoid getting my $129 back from Amazon and use Motorola Gateway as modem only - as some one suggested earlier in this thread (as Comcast shipped Netgear N-1000 wi-fi router to me - to work with Ubee modem and I've already received it) but it's kind of too expensive to have just cable modem for $129

Also, if I return Ubee back and thus stop monthly service fee of $7 they probably will ask me to bring back Netgear wi-fi router, too, so I would need to buy my own and thus add more $$ to those $129



PaulGor
Premium
join:2002-07-22
Palo Alto, CA

Tried to use Motorola Gateway as cable modem only and use Netgear N-1000 wi-fi router -
only to find out that wireless is ALSO shows "Low" in another room!
Same thing as with wi-fi provided by "combo" Gaterway

Netgear - as far as I have read - has usually good "house coverage", so it could be my house walls (paper SFBA walls) are too tough for wi-fi routers