Virgin Media installing the ground work for fibre ( how long before any other company can use the ground work?)

New IPS - virgin 1gb installed .
Connecting the cable straight to the router gives me the full 1120Mbps on the PC
Xbox X and PS5's give me a decent speed over my network ( over one or two switches - speed test at around 800Mbps on all 3 devices - i know i wouldn't get max speed on these )

The GF iphone 13 reads 860+Mbps on speedtest.

how ever im having issues with my laptop ( only 300Mbps speedtest ) but my samsung G53 is the slowest of them all at only 52Mbps - with very limited range - less than 10m on 5ghz and just over a 100Mbps on 2.4ghz on the Virgin Hub 5

Iv just setup my old vodafone router as an AP and the speeds are a little better at 281Mbps and the range is a lot better too ( well over 20m )
So my question is ? is the Samsung G53 5G capable of reaching 800+ on speedtests?
i guessing the laptop is limited due to the Wifi card ?

Does the PC have a 2.5Gb network port?
 
Just reread and not you say you tested on both bands already

If that’s so and the Samsung is the only device with such poor performance I’d hazard a guess that’s the week link
 
The phone appears to be 5GHz Wi-Fi capable so if you wanted to test you could split the 2.4 & 5GHz Wi-Fi bands & put them under different ssid’s move the phone onto the 5GHz ssid & retest.
Iv tried that on the Virgin hub , but with no luck , 5Ghz gives me about 50Mbps and 2.4 gives me about 130 or just over

i guess i could spilt the bands on the Vodafone AP and try that , but surely it would be best bet on the newer hub 5 than a old vodafone router ?
 
Just reread and not you say you tested on both bands already

If that’s so and the Samsung is the only device with such poor performance I’d hazard a guess that’s the week link
Yea I'm thinking the same , what I don't understand is the phone is 5g capable over mobile data ( haven't tested it tho )
Yet the WiFi signal is 💩 🤷‍♂️
 
Yea I'm thinking the same , what I don't understand is the phone is 5g capable over mobile data ( haven't tested it tho )
Yet the WiFi signal is 💩 🤷‍♂️
5G mobile and 5GHz wifi are not the same thing.

That said your phone seems to be 5GHz wifi enabled so there is still a question why it’s performance in that mode is so poor.
 
5G mobile and 5GHz wifi are not the same thing.

That said your phone seems to be 5GHz wifi enabled so there is still a question why it’s performance in that mode is so poor.
Iv looked at the settings but can't see anything that i should be "enabling"

Will have look on the net and see if I can find anything.
 
Can I ask what benefit ultra fast broadband brings to a phone? Even at 50Mb, you are well above the streaming rates of 4k, and uploading photos etc. will take very little time.

I was led to believe the benefits of an ultra fast connection was to provide a high level of service to multiple devices, and the speed to an individual device needs only be above the threshold needed for sustained data transfer.
 
So my question is ? is the Samsung G53 5G capable of reaching 800+ on speedtests?
i guessing the laptop is limited due to the Wifi card ?

Thaaaaat's Numberwang. The first thing to do would be to find the specification of both and see what they are capable of. By way of example, my laptop "only" has a 72mbps 2.4Ghz Wi-Fi NIC. No matter what is upstream of it, that's the best it will ever get.

Bear in mind that phones tend to have titchy antenna and try to be particularly misery with their transmit power to eek out the life of their (tiny) battery - that's not a great help.

And sometimes some device pairings just don't get on so well with each other. It's a pain, but it happens.
 
Last edited:
I was led to believe the benefits of an ultra fast connection was to provide a high level of service to multiple devices, and the speed to an individual device needs only be above the threshold needed for sustained data transfer.

Quite, it's about availing the bandwidth, or "capacity" if you will, for the infrastructure as a whole. It's much the same argument as for Aggregated Link trunks (multiple physical links bonded as if a single logical link with higher capacity.)

Back in the days when 100mbps (ethernet) to the desktop was the norm and 1000mbps (gigabit) ethernet was a very expensive optional extra, I was deploying 2x1000mbps LA's between my 24/48 port switches which might elicit the question, "What's the point (and why spend the money) if I can only use 100mbps to my desktop?" Of course, the "point" is that my 2000mbps LA trunks can service 20 (ish) 100mbps desktops users at full (100mbps) tilt before there starts to be any competition for the uplink capacity. In the biz. we quite often refer to this metaphorically as a "fatter pipe" rather than a "faster" one.

It's like the road network - the trunk routes have multiple lanes and high speed not so much so any individual car can "get there faster" but so that they can handle a greater volume of traffic before congestion occurs, which thence means any individual car may get where they are going sooner than they otherwise might have because they didn't have to sit in a queue.

This sort of thing happens in data networking all over the place. Wi-Fi, for example, does not transmit data "one bit at a time" (called "bit serial" in the jargon) but transmits multiple bits in parallel which gives the illusion of a "faster" (higher capacity) link . But the fundamental signalling rate (called the "symbol rate" or "baud rate") of Wi-Fi hasn't changed pretty much since it was invented, the increased Link Rates are achieved by (basically) increasing the amount of parallelism and/or packing in more bits per symbol using higher order modulation schemes.
 
Last edited:

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom