Author Topic: Connection Speed: Airport vs. Direct Ethernet (Read 5951 times)

pendragon · « **on:** August 22, 2006, 08:20:15 AM »

For the last year or so, my DL speed (via a Graphite Airport) has typically been 3.4 to 4.0 megabits per second.

When I call Comcast to complain (I should be at least in the 6 Mbits/sec range), they always ask if I’m going through a router of any kind. I always tell them about my Airport, there is a long silence, and then they say that there must be problem with my "router" because their tests indicate I have a very strong signal, no noise on the line, etc.

Since it is clear (to me) that Comcast’s techs haven’t a clue about Macs and Airports, I always blow then off.

But today, just for kicks, I connected from the Comcast modem directly to my computer’s Ethernet port (bypassing the Airport).

Multiple tests at several different testing sites all confirm my DL speed has more than doubled to 8.3 to 9.3 Mbits/sec.

Clearly I owe Comcast an apology. (Still, considering their rates, I’ll soon get over that pang of conscience.)

And finally, to the issue:

Why does an Airport slow things down (Is that typical?) and is there anything I can do to speed things up?

Xairbusdriver · « **Reply #1 on:** August 22, 2006, 10:37:22 AM »

Signals always travel through solids or even liquids faster than through air. It's just a law of physics. And it's legal! Don't blame Comcast. That's the reason they use cables instead of antennae!

And ethernet, on a Mac, any way, is much more secure than Airport.

pendragon · « **Reply #2 on:** August 22, 2006, 11:56:09 AM »

Amongst all the things that confuse me (a very lengthy list), is that while I understand my old Airport is maxed out at 54 Mbps, I am still far below that threshold. So shouldn't I get at least get the 8-9 Mbps I get when I'm hard wired?

FWIW: My Airport base station is about 1 meter from my computer and my signal strength is a solid 4 bars/radians.

ABD, your point about signals traveling through liquids faster than through air is well taken. Accordingly, I put the base station in a pail of water. Then, I could literally see the signal sparks flying out of it.

After the fire department leaves, I'll retest and post my results. Many thanks for your words of wisdom.

Texas Mac Man · « **Reply #3 on:** August 22, 2006, 02:00:54 PM »

Here's an interesting Airport speed test using the original Airport with 802.11b (11 Mbps)
Your Airport is 802.11g (54 Mbps)

http://www.macintouch.com/airport2.html

pendragon · « **Reply #4 on:** August 22, 2006, 02:22:25 PM »

Tom for the most helpful reference.

Not sure I understood it all, but progress was made...I think.

In my present configuration, I must do some cable swapping to change states, e.g., Airport or Ethernet,

So my local VAR suggested a simple two port router, one line for the Airport and the other directly to the Ethernet. Unless there is a better solution, that is the approach I'll take.

Paddy · « **Reply #5 on:** August 22, 2006, 02:40:24 PM »

Um - I'm confused. Harv - you describe your Airport as a graphite model - that's the oldest and slowest of the Airports, and certainly NOT the 802.11g Airport Extreme model. (which is faster - I have one)

Are you saying that the WIRELESS connection is slow? Wireless connections are always considerably slower than wired connections - regardless of the distance to the router. That isn't a Comcast issue at all - nor is it a "router" issue, but rather the nature of wireless computing. Their support nitwits should have been able to explain that to you! (I'm rather astounded that they didn't - but then it sounds like they don't realize that a router ain't necessarily wireless!!!)

Your proposed solution would work, as would purchasing an Airport Extreme base station - they have both a WAN and a LAN port, so you can have either one wired computer connected or connect an ethernet hub (considerably cheaper than a router) and connect as many hard-wired computers as you need. The graphite Airport does NOT have a LAN port - which means that if you want wired 'puters along with wireless, you have to put another router with wired ports between your ethernet drop and your Airport, as you are proposing.

Me - I'd upgrade to a new Airport base station. Slightly more expensive than a third party router, but I've found it to be by FAR the most reliable router/wireless setup, having tried at least three other brands (including replacing defective models). Of course, your mileage may vary.

One other advantage of the Airport Extreme is the USB port, allowing for networked printers. Very handy.

pendragon · « **Reply #6 on:** August 22, 2006, 03:10:51 PM »

Paddy, As always, you make good sense.

Indeed I will be getting a new Airport Extreme, but I am holding off until I get a machine that has an Extreme card in it. Right now, my DP 800 lacks such a critter and my old Lombard is using a Farallon PC card to achieve a wireless connection. The 2 port router is merely a interim solution.

The Lombard will be replaced (and donated to charity) as soon as the next version of 15" Macbook Pro is released. My old DP 800 and 22" Cinema display moves to my beloved's desk. Then, I'll buy a new MacPro (model TBD), probably late this year.

Indeed I would like to blame Comcast, but I know where the fault lies. I was stubborn in not listening when I should have, and arrogant in presuming I knew more that another. Clearly, traits I learned from my former wife.

Paddy · « **Reply #7 on:** August 22, 2006, 04:52:06 PM »

QUOTE

Clearly, traits I learned from my former wife.

I think I'll stay away from that one!

Ooh - lucky you! I too am waiting for Rev. 2 of the MacBook Pro, though admit I'll be taking a gander at the 17" model before plunking down my hard-earned cash. (15" makes more sense, but we can always drool) The Rev. 2s may appear soon, if the rumor sites are to be believed:

http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060814180417.shtml

Makes sense...we'll see.

amaizen_aristotle · « **Reply #8 on:** August 22, 2006, 05:24:53 PM »

This thread got me thinking...

I too use Comcast, and have been generally pleased with the service. It always seems to come up a bit slower than they say it should, but I thought that was normal. I have a Netgear router, with my MDD connected via ethernet and my PowerBook via wireless. The wireless is always slower, and I expected that, but Pendragon gave me an idea -- how about bypassing the router and going straight from the modem to the MDD. My speed went from 5.8 MBs to 7.0 MBs. Is this normal? Would the router slow things down, even though it is connected via the ethernet port?

AA

MamaMoose · « **Reply #9 on:** August 23, 2006, 04:14:05 AM »

ABD,

Signals are slowed down in a medium at electromagnetic waves do. A medium is characterized by the index of refraction (n), a number greater than 1. Only air has a n = 1. Therefore the velocity or speed of an electromagnetic signal (wave) in a medium is the velocity of light © divided by n - v = c/n.

The reason the download rate is less when a router is interfaced is because there are losses (resistive, inductive, and capacitive) in the router. One way of saying it is impedance mismatch. This is especially true of high frequency signals. Another source of loss may be the voltage margin between a one bit and a zero bit is reduced. Therefore, additional circuitry is required to perform error correction.

MamaMoose - physicist at large or large physicist

pendragon · « **Reply #10 on:** August 23, 2006, 08:33:43 AM »

Mama,

QUOTE

The reason the download rate is less when a router is interfaced is because there are losses (resistive, inductive, and capacitive) in the router. One way of saying it is impedance mismatch. This is especially true of high frequency signals. Another source of loss may be the voltage margin between a one bit and a zero bit is reduced. Therefore, additional circuitry is required to perform error correction

I guess that means that inserting a wired router, between the cable modem and the computer, will actually slow the download speed. (I mean in everyday measurable terms, as distinct from theoretical calculations.) Or, does the modem’s error correction circuitry put things to right and thus no download speed differences are (likely) to be detected?

kelly · « **Reply #11 on:** August 23, 2006, 09:17:29 AM »

Wireless will always be slower.

FWIW.

It's a two way connection.

Your mac has to act as a transmitter back to the Router.

For about every bit of Data.

Xairbusdriver · « **Reply #12 on:** August 23, 2006, 10:22:16 AM »

mama, Thanks for the attempted explanation. Unfortunately, by the time I got to the end of it the "medium" between my ears had an index of refraction greater than infinity!

BTW, is "velocity or speed of an electromagnetic signal (wave) in a medium is the velocity of light © divided by n - v = c/n" really copyrighted or just the word "light"? Or is this somehow relatted to the widely respected network of CNN?!

As I often said to the Judge, "Don't confuse me with the facts!"

FLASH1296 · « **Reply #13 on:** August 24, 2006, 04:28:57 PM »

Test your upload and download speeds for free.

http://www.speakeasy.net/speedtest/

Texas Mac Man · « **Reply #14 on:** August 25, 2006, 08:14:14 AM »

I like the graphic speed indicator on the Speakeasy site. I like it better than the SBC (AT&T) DSL speed test site.

I did an unscientific test using my G4 & G3 Pismo. I have DSL service & the G4 is direct connected to a Netgear router. The Pismo has an Airport Extreme PC wireless card. (I could have connected the Pismo direct to see if the results were the same as the G4, but I didn't.)

In several runs on both Macs, the download speed was a bit (8%) slower on the Pismo. The upload speed was the same.

News:

Author Topic: Connection Speed: Airport vs. Direct Ethernet (Read 5951 times)

MamaMoose