Whoohoo. Just ordered FIOS.

[VirtualLarry]

Curious, what kind of router do they provide these days? I'm getting internet and tv. No phone. So I guess that means I get coax from the ONT into my router.

 

[theevilsharpie]

Whatever shitty ActionTec router they have in stock this week.

 

[tysjiang]

I'm jealous....would like to have FIOS

 

[MarkLuvsCS]

jealous x2 as well!!! They have it in quite a few counties nearby in FL (which seems to be most FIOS rich lol) but unfortunately last i heard they weren't expanding operations because of a low penetration rate. the packages for FIOS are a solid $30 cheaper for just the "same" bundled service tv+phone+internet, let alone the fios service offering insanely fast internet and a huge HD selection for a cheaper price.

 

[jlazzaro]

you'll get the actiontec with a coax handoff...the old router version used to be crap, i haven't had any issues with the new one yet. over a year with constant torrents, large files downloads, gaming, etc.

if you get a good tech, you might be able to talk him into cat5 from the ONT instead of coax...it expands your router options. see http://www.dslreports.com/faq/16077. you will always be stuck with the actiontec in some fashion because it controls the STB's.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Well, it was installed today. Got 25/25 internet, and extreme HD package, double-play, for (hopefully) $100/mo. Plus a $100 giftcard back. No DVR, but one HD set-top box. ActionTec "F" router. (Must be saving the "G" models, with gigabit, for the 150/35 installs.)

Coax from ONT, into router and set-top.

Set up my secondard routers, from when I had DSL. Had to swap them, as the main router is now in another room. But everything fired up just fine.

Can pull around 25/20 on wireless N. On the wired PC, I get 30/25. Not bad for 25/25 service. Ping time for wired was like 10ms. Ping time on wireless in other room, is like 40ms.

Edit: Upgraded my WDS routers. Same model, newer DD-WRT firmware. Now they show connection speeds of 130Mbit/sec instead of 65Mbit/sec.


That was over wireless on my laptop.

 

[VirtualLarry]

All is not well in FIOS land.

This is what Verizon's speed test says, on my wireless laptop:

Broadband Speed Test
Analysis information:

Checking for Middleboxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Done
SendBufferSize set to [8192]
running 10s outbound test (client to server) . . . . . 5.45Mb/s
running 10s inbound test (server to client) . . . . . . 20.36Mb/s
Packet size is preserved End-to-End
Server IP addresses are preserved End-to-End
Information: Network Address Translation (NAT) box is modifying the Client's IP address
Server says [173.48.x.x] but Client says [192.168.x.x]

Only 5.5Mbit/sec upload! No wonder I've been seeing slow upload from my NAS to the internet, over wireless.

Running the Verizon speedtest from the wired PC gives 30Mbit/sec down and 25Mbit/sec up - what I am supposed to be getting.

Interesting that the test from Speedtest.net shows 30/25 for the laptop, after I upgraded the routers, but the verizon test shows 20/5.

Unless it's just the Java runtime that's slow on my single-core 1.6Ghz laptop, but I didn't notice the CPU max out during the testing.

I may have to re-think my idea of running my server over WiFi to FIOS.

So what's the problem here - why such a disparity over wireless? And why just the upstream? Shouldn't the router treat upstream and downstream the same?

 

[theevilsharpie]

Verizon's speed test is notoriously inaccurate. I would see what other speed tests say before condemning your hardware.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I ran Verizon's FIOS optimizer on the wireless laptop. Then I ran the speed test again.

Broadband Speed Test
Analysis information:

Checking for Middleboxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Done
SendBufferSize set to [261360]
running 10s outbound test (client to server) . . . . . 18.94Mb/s
running 10s inbound test (server to client) . . . . . . 17.02Mb/s

------ Client System Details ------
OS data: Name = Windows 7, Architecture = x86, Version = 6.1
Java data: Vendor = Sun Microsystems Inc., Version = 1.6.0_22

------ Web100 Detailed Analysis ------
Client Receive Window detected at 3473152 bytes.
45 Mbps T3/DS3 link found.
Link set to Half Duplex mode
Information: throughput is limited by other network traffic.
Good network cable(s) found
Normal duplex operation found.

Web100 reports the Round trip time = 191.19 msec; the Packet size = 1452 Bytes; and
There were 11 packets retransmitted, 597 duplicate acks received, and 380 SACK blocks received
The connection was idle 0 seconds (0%) of the time
This connection is sender limited 93.02% of the time.
This connection is network limited 6.9% of the time.

Web100 reports TCP negotiated the optional Performance Settings to:
RFC 2018 Selective Acknowledgment: ON
RFC 896 Nagle Algorithm: ON
RFC 3168 Explicit Congestion Notification: OFF
RFC 1323 Time Stamping: OFF
RFC 1323 Window Scaling: ON
Information: Network Middlebox is modifying MSS variable
Server IP addresses are preserved End-to-End
Information: Network Address Translation (NAT) box is modifying the Client's IP address
Server says [173.48.x.x] but Client says [192.168.x.x]

I'm not sure why I'm getting so much info this time after running the test. I'm not sure if I like the fact that it says Packet size = 1452 Bytes, and Link set to Half Duplex mode.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Once more for good luck.

Broadband Speed Test
Analysis information:

Checking for Middleboxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Done
SendBufferSize set to [261360]
running 10s outbound test (client to server) . . . . . 21.35Mb/s
running 10s inbound test (server to client) . . . . . . 22.07Mb/s
Information: Network Middlebox is modifying MSS variable
Server IP addresses are preserved End-to-End
Information: Network Address Translation (NAT) box is modifying the Client's IP address
Server says [173.48.x.x] but Client says [192.168.x.x]

Even better this time, with none of that wierd stuff in the middle of the report.

 

[VirtualLarry]

After running Verizon FIOS optimizer.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Anyone know how to reset the customizations done by Verizon's "FIOS optimizer"?

Some sort of "netsh reset (something)" command? Lots of ugly registry hacking?

Edit:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/299357

After resetting IP stack in Win7.




FIOS isn't all it's cracked up to be. Check this out:


Either that, or IA has really crappy internet speeds.

 

[theevilsharpie]

Well, yeah, you're traffic is going across thousands of miles and probably 20-30 hops. You're much more likely to encounter bandwidth congestion in that instance than a server that is closer to your (physically and logically).

Here's my score:

 

[VirtualLarry]

Hmm, my friend's Comcast was congested, so I thought I would check mine, and it looks congested as well. This was at 7:45pm on mon.

At a different friend's place, also on Comcast, I was able to pull 1.7MB/sec from my FIOS link. Which seems to be at the limit of my friend's comcast (16/2).

Edit: I just did a speedtest from my wired computer, and I got 30.6/24. So it's not my internet. Wierd that my wireless is slower now that it was before.

Edit: After stopping my internet radio station, on the wireless laptop:



Edit: Yet another test, the next day.

But less than one minute ago, I did a speedtest on the wired computer, and I got 30.6/24.7.

This is from my dual-core laptop, I pulled it out and plugged it in. In Firefox 4.0beta7 no less. With my internet radio station playing.


This is from my dual-core laptop again, except from within IE8, internet radio also playing still in FF.

 

[Specop 007]

My opinion, your way to hung up on the results of your speed tests.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Well, it appears that my FIOS connection is (slightly) limited by my wireless-N routers. I'm running a pair of WNR834Bv2 models, in WDS mode, with DD-WRT. On a good day, with the updated version of DD-WRT 14929, they claim to be connected at 130Mbit/sec. But my laptops, both of them, show connected at 65Mbit/sec.

Actual throughput is much less, as you can see from the speedtest images.

 

[jdloaner]

Speed test results are occasionally 80% accurate, at best. For instance; I'm sitting solo on a Verizon/UUNET 100Mb Fiber Internet link and it shows currently claims 19/18, however, I could hop on to rapidshare right now and pull a file down at well over 5,000/KBps.

As for your wireless issues with Fios, what version of Windows are you running? That speed test will only help for <= XP. If so, make sure you reboot computer fully when complete to restart the TCP/IP stack.

The MTU setting is correct. Remember, when your router frames the packet up for the 'net it will add 20 bytes for the TCP header and another 20 bytes for IP. Verizon has a 1492 MTU(simple math now shows us this is the same as your setting), anything larger will have to be fragmented(extra headers, extra ACK's, etc).. you definitely want to stay under the MTU. It might even be worth dropping it another 4-6 bytes just to be safe. You can test by pinging something like google.com with the DF(dont fragment) bit set and then specify ICMP packet size of like 1480 (includes 8 bytes subtracted for ICMP header) set and see what it says. Increase or decrease 2 bytes either way depending of if frag'd or not.

If I were you I would pull that actiontec out of the way, drop ONE DD-WRT to face the internet and handle wireless, then hang the actiontec(with wifi turned off) off the DD-WRT. Forget the wireless bridge or whatever you have going.. pretty sure those only operate will encrypting with WEP - no thanks.

Good luck.

 

[RavenSEAL]

I get around 24 when running my ethernet cable, this is my crappy encore wireless adapter.

 

[VirtualLarry]

If I were you I would pull that actiontec out of the way, drop ONE DD-WRT to face the internet and handle wireless, then hang the actiontec(with wifi turned off) off the DD-WRT. Forget the wireless bridge or whatever you have going.. pretty sure those only operate will encrypting with WEP - no thanks.
Good luck.

Well, removing the ActionTec is not possible, since the HD TV set-top box needs the coax MoCa connection to pull an IP from the router. Since my Netgear routers don't support MoCa, the ActionTec has to stay.

Second, my WDS routers are running in WPA-PSK mode, not sure where you get the idea that WDS only supports WEP. (Although, for my WNR2000 routers that I just bought, they are limited in just that way with the Netgear factory firmware. But DD-WRT isn't limited like that.)

 

[Bryf50]

Well, removing the ActionTec is not possible, since the HD TV set-top box needs the coax MoCa connection to pull an IP from the router. Since my Netgear routers don't support MoCa, the ActionTec has to stay.

This is not true. With a little configuration you can use the ActionTec as a switch that also supports Moca. You then can run your own router facing the internet and the actiontec will sit behind it. Your set top boxes will get the ip address from your own router if you set it up right. This is how I have mine set up right now.

 

[VirtualLarry]

This is not true. With a little configuration you can use the ActionTec as a switch that also supports Moca. You then can run your own router facing the internet and the actiontec will sit behind it. Your set top boxes will get the ip address from your own router if you set it up right. This is how I have mine set up right now.

Intriguing. How does your set-top box work then? Doesn't it need Coax from the ONT to recieve all of those TV channels? I told my installer that I wanted to hook up my own routers, in WDS mode, and he said that the ActionTec had to be "first".

 

[yinan]

The set top boxes need to connect via coax to get the channels, yes. You will still need coax in your house. The only thing the Actiontec does is be a MoCa bridge. Hook its WAN port up to an internal port on your router, and as long as the installer ran cat5 to your router it will work. It is how my firewall is currently set up.

 

[VirtualLarry]

The set top boxes need to connect via coax to get the channels, yes. You will still need coax in your house. The only thing the Actiontec does is be a MoCa bridge. Hook its WAN port up to an internal port on your router, and as long as the installer ran cat5 to your router it will work. It is how my firewall is currently set up.

Wait, so you have BOTH, coax AND Cat5 coming out of your ONT? My installer didn't give me that option. I was under the impression that the data came from the ONT on EITHER coax or Cat5, not both.

Edit: and I'm still not sure where we are going with this. What would be the advantage of putting my WDS router "first", connected to the ONT? It wouldn't help my wireless speeds any. There's no problem with the speed wired, connected through both routers.

 

[Tencntraze]

OT, and I'm fine with taking this to PM or whatever, but is FIOS rolling out Wireless N routers? I already have a DLINK that's been working great for me, but when I move in a couple months I'll be getting FIOS as well, so I've been trying to plan out what I'm going to do. I have a Ceton quad tuner on order and don't care about the FIOS VOD or guide, so I assume that I'd be able to replace the router and still have full internet and HDTV? On the other hand, if the Verizon routers are solid now, and have N, I'll just use that.

 

[VirtualLarry]

OT, and I'm fine with taking this to PM or whatever, but is FIOS rolling out Wireless N routers?

I have an ActionTec rev F, which supposedly supports single-channel N (150, not 300). The rev G sports gigabit LAN/WAN ports, and dual-channel N (300). It has two smaller antennas on it, rather than one single bigger one. There's a big thread about it over on DSLreports.com.