Shaw Broadband 50 not up to speed

[BloodFetish]

Buzzard, I assume you're using a PC (as those Mac fellas always like to say "I have a Mac" ) but not sure what OS.

Maybe try booting into safe-mode-with-networking, and retry the speed tests. Do you get better results in Safe Mode? If so then perhaps it's software that loads in the background in a full Windows boot.

I also recommend downloading ProcessExplorer from Microsoft Technet. Some programs are designed to hide themselves from Task Manager (at least in WinXP, anyway), but ProcessExplorer does a much better job at showing what's running 'under the hood'.

Once you have a complete list of what's running, then you can selectively kill a process, do a speed test, kill another process, do another speed test, etc, until you find the culprit.

If the problem persists after you've stripped Windows down to just the essentials then it's looking more like a hardware issue (or maybe a rootkit virus?). but as you say two computers are having the same issue so hardware doesn't sound likely.

Oh, and have you run the same speed test in two different browsers?

[sclitheroe]

Before killing random tasks that are unlikely to have anything to do with poor network performance, I'd try turning off the TCP/IP optimizations present in Vista and Windows 7:

http://www.mydigitallife.info/disabl...lems-in-vista/

If this is the cause, you'll see the difference immediately. If not, you can re-enable the optimizations following the instructions on the same page.

[BloodFetish]

^ I'd not kill tasks randomly either, as you presume. If the problem is in software I merely wanted to provide a method to narrow the focus.

Should I have assumed the OP is a complete doofus and say "don't start with explorer.exe"?

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by BloodFetish

^ I'd not kill tasks randomly either, as you presume. If the problem is in software I merely wanted to provide a method to narrow the focus.

Should I have assumed the OP is a complete doofus and say "don't start with explorer.exe"?

That is usually a pretty good assumption when dealing with non-technical users.

[Burninator]

I got broadband 50 a couple weeks ago and the speeds on my wired computer were awesome, but the speeds over wireless were pretty close to my previous wireless with extreme. Then one night in the middle of downloading a big file the wireless pooped the bed and I was only getting 5 kb/s. It did that for about a day until I phoned Shaw and once I got a hold of someone it probably took about 10 mins on the phone to get the modem into bridge mode and my wireless speeds were way better, almost 5 mbs. Should have done bridge mode from day one.

[rd_aaron]

Originally Posted by Burninator

I got broadband 50 a couple weeks ago and the speeds on my wired computer were awesome, but the speeds over wireless were pretty close to my previous wireless with extreme. Then one night in the middle of downloading a big file the wireless pooped the bed and I was only getting 5 kb/s. It did that for about a day until I phoned Shaw and once I got a hold of someone it probably took about 10 mins on the phone to get the modem into bridge mode and my wireless speeds were way better, almost 5 mbs. Should have done bridge mode from day one.

It's weird. I just got BB50 as well, and plugged in I was getting around 45Mbps which is fine. Wirelessly I was only getting about 12Mbps. I was screwing around with the router settings, but nothing seemed to fix it. I was clicking one setting at a time to try and see if I could get different results and then clicking them back, and all of a sudden it started working better, with all the settings at default. I think during peak time (weekday evening) I was getting a little over 30Mbps over wireless, so I'm not too disappointed in that.

[BloodFetish]

Originally Posted by Rathji

That is usually a pretty good assumption when dealing with non-technical users.

Heh, yeah. Buzzard doesn't come across as a rank beginner to me and I always hold out hope that people ask for more help if they're unsure of something. Call me an optimist

And we don't even know what OS he has so it's hard to give precise directions, anyway.

[ShawSean]

Hey guys, you've got some Shaw eyes on this thread now, so if you're having any further issues with your connection and they haven't been addressed yet, shoot me a pm and I'll try and get things resolved for you.

On a side note, there are many factors involved with troubleshooting poor speeds. Yes, congestion does happen from time to time but 95% of the time it's either older hardware, poor signal levels, software problems or faulty equipment.

Cheers,
Sean

[keratosis]

Welcome to CP.

[Buzzard]

Originally Posted by BloodFetish

Buzzard, I assume you're using a PC (as those Mac fellas always like to say "I have a Mac" ) but not sure what OS.

Maybe try booting into safe-mode-with-networking, and retry the speed tests. Do you get better results in Safe Mode? If so then perhaps it's software that loads in the background in a full Windows boot.

I also recommend downloading ProcessExplorer from Microsoft Technet. Some programs are designed to hide themselves from Task Manager (at least in WinXP, anyway), but ProcessExplorer does a much better job at showing what's running 'under the hood'.

Once you have a complete list of what's running, then you can selectively kill a process, do a speed test, kill another process, do another speed test, etc, until you find the culprit.

If the problem persists after you've stripped Windows down to just the essentials then it's looking more like a hardware issue (or maybe a rootkit virus?). but as you say two computers are having the same issue so hardware doesn't sound likely.

Oh, and have you run the same speed test in two different browsers?

Tried all that except the ProcessExplorer, same results. I will try the ProcessExplorer when I get some more time.

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

Before killing random tasks that are unlikely to have anything to do with poor network performance, I'd try turning off the TCP/IP optimizations present in Vista and Windows 7:

http://www.mydigitallife.info/disabl...lems-in-vista/

If this is the cause, you'll see the difference immediately. If not, you can re-enable the optimizations following the instructions on the same page.

Tried that too, same results.

Thanks for coming on board Sean. PM sent.

[ShawSean]

Thanks for the warm welcome folks. PM replied.

Cheers.

[Russic]

I think in every marketing meeting from here out when social media comes up I'll have to ask "... and have you thought of implanting somebody within CP?".

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by Russic

I think in every marketing meeting from here out when social media comes up I'll have to ask "... and have you thought of implanting somebody within CP?".

I believe the correct psyops term is embedding, not implanting

For example: http://markcrispinmiller.com/2010/10...l-tv-stations/

[BananaPancakes]

What's everyone's upload speeds like on BB50?

I'm getting around 45mbps for download, which is fine, but I don't think my upload speed has ever been higher than ~3 mbps, when the website says I should be getting 5mbps.

I've tested on speedtest.net and the one on shaw.ca

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by BananaPancakes

What's everyone's upload speeds like on BB50?

I'm getting around 45mbps for download, which is fine, but I don't think my upload speed has ever been higher than ~3 mbps, when the website says I should be getting 5mbps.

I've tested on speedtest.net and the one on shaw.ca

I get between 4 and 4.5 upstream on BB100, fwiw

It's pretty interesting too that they advertise BB100 as having 10 megabits upstream now, with no disclaimer about it coming via upgrades (ie. "phase 2"), and yet existing BB100 users haven't been upgraded yet

Any idea when that will be rectified, ShawSean?

edit: the more I think about this, the more it bothers me - BB100 was originally advertised as 5 upstream, with 10 coming in phase 2, so I was paying for what was being advertised. Now its clearly labeled at 10 upstream, but phase 2 upgrades never occurred for me, so I'm now paying the same for less service than advertised.

[Superfraggle]

According to speedtest.shaw.ca, I'm getting 44 down and 2.36 up. I've run it twice, and the second time was 38 down and 1.69 up.

But when I do speedtest.net, it's 12.78 down and 2.8 up. I've done this one three times now, and that was the best result.

That's with the Shaw Broadband 50.

[keratosis]

Same as always. Except for ping, which goes up or down
depending on traffic.
BB50

[Buzzard]

After dicking around for a month with Shaw I had another tech show up today. He checked the usual suspects then decided to swap out the modem. BAM!!! Hair straight back and givin'er now with 48 mb/s of unadulterated, broadband goodness.

I have no idea how the first tech ended up with 40+ mb/s on her laptop....cool trick though. And why it never occurred to anyone else that I talked to at Shaw to try a different modem, I dont know.

Anyhow...all good to go now, and for anyone else experiencing similar issues, you might save some time and stress by recommending they try that first, rather than last. Fwiw, the new modem/router is now a SMC 3GN

[Regulator75]

^^^ How good are the upload rates via their new WiFi routers?

[Buzzard]

Originally Posted by Regulator75

^^^ How good are the upload rates via their new WiFi routers?

My uploads haven't changed I see with the new router. Consistently around 2.9 mbps.