Just hooked up internet 150, on 2.4 g I get 20 down and 16 up, this is obviously not correct, on 5g I get 120 down and 16 up. even this sound low for 150. Any suggestion.
Hi railwayman ,
Glad to hear that your wired speeds are performing as expected.
Unfortunately technical limitations of 2.4 gHz frequency will keep speeds to around a maximum of 72 mbps (and some older 2.4 gHz devices might cap out around 36 mbps). Slower than expected speeds could be related to WiFi Interference. To improve your wireless speeds, I would recommend looking at changing the 2.4 gHz wireless channel in use by the modem. Instructions to complete this can be found under the WiFi Connectivity Troubleshooting guide.
Are you able to complete a test to the modem with a wired connection? We would like to confirm the modem is reaching full speeds when using a stable wired connection.
For wireless troubleshooting we would recommend viewing the following guides we provide here on the Shaw Community.
Get the most out of WideOpen Internet 150 while on WiFi
WiFi Connectivity Troubleshooting
Please let us know if you have any further questions.
My concerns are with the 2.4g speed we have an older laptop that does not have 5g and it cannot be wired in, so what do we do next, I tried the 2.4 g on various machine and got the same results.
Wired directly I got 176 up and 15 down
Wifi used unlicensed publicly available spectrum. Per Industry Canada rules these devices must accept any and all interference in the 2.4 GHz or 5GHz frequency bands. Because of these characteristics Wifi speeds cannot be guaranteed, and are purely a best-effort convenience.
You should look into an upgrade card, or USB wifi upgrade for your laptop without 5 GHz.
Most retailers of electronics or computer parts will sell a variety of 2.4 & 5 GHz dual-band 802.11ac wifi modules. Some are even actually quite small. Doing this will likely give you the boost in speed you desire.
Older 2.4 GHz devices were marketed sometimes as "54 Mbps". The reality was that ideal throughput was about 1/2 of that or ~27 Mbps. 20 Mbps on an old laptop is probably operating as expected.
One needs to be careful evaluating older 2.4 GHz devices and comparing to newer ones... the primary consideration is often multiple antennas on the receiving device (Google the term MIMO). I had an iPhone 4 and iPhone 5s. With both on 2.4 GHz, the difference was obvious and consistent because the 4 had a single wifi antenna.
adiabatic wrote: Older 2.4 GHz devices were marketed sometimes as "54 Mbps". The reality was that ideal throughput was about 1/2 of that or ~27 Mbps. 20 Mbps on an old laptop is probably operating as expected.
Ars Technica often have good tech writers dig into a topic. Wifi speeds and marketing are a topic I think they hit well a month back:
802.eleventy what? A deep dive into why Wi-Fi kind of sucks | Ars Technica
In the early 2000s, things started to change. Laptops got smaller, lighter, and cheaper—and they had Wi-Fi built in right from the factory. Small businesses started eyeballing the "11Mbps" that 802.11b promised and deciding that 10Mbps had been enough for them in their last building, so why not just go wireless in the new one? My first real exposure to Wi-Fi was in dealing with the aftermath of that decision, and it didn't make for a good first impression. Turns out that "11Mbps" was the maximum physical layer bit rate, not a speed at which you could ever expect your actual data to flow from one machine to another.
Not only is the wifi speed a posting of the Physical Layer MAXIMUM bit rate (wifi steps down depending on signal quality as well, lowering modulations so as to increase the chance of reading the QAM symbol correctly) but in modern devices it can also include proprietary and WiFi Alliance standard technologies like TurboQAM and compression. This means those posted physical layer speed on the box at the store (i.e. AC 1900, AC3200) may only happen if you have an exactly matching client device, that supports the "Turbo" mode higher QAM, the compression, and there are no other devices or signal interference (if you live in an anechoic chamber or faraday cage). Also they post all the bands (2.4 & 5GHz) and multiple radios together (not counting MIMO in that multiple radio business, as AC3200 uses 2 x 5GHz radios each with 3x3 MIMO). This means any one client cannot achieve AC3200, and you'd need a minimum 3 simultaneously receiving clients on 3 different channels with perfect signal and exactly matching client wifi cards @ 3x3 MIMO. Pretty impossible.
Instead you'll likely see 200-400 Mbps, on a good day, real data throughput, on any single channel. Likely only 80 Mbps ideally on the 2.4 GHz, so perhaps a generous 800-900 Mbps with 3 clients receiving on 3 separate channels at the same time. If the processor can handle that.
Retrieving data ...