2.8mb/s = 2.8 millibits per second (what you wrote )
2.8Mb/s = 2.8 Megabits per second
2.8MB/s = 2.8 Mega-Bytes per second
1. This is probably dumb but here goes: I currently have an Apple Airport Extreme Base Station providing WiFi to the apartment (802.11n). Would this allow the full benefit of the 100MB Fibre Power option, or would it still be a bottleneck? Presumably I could also just wire a computer direct to the modem to bypass this - or would that be an issue?
2. As Cablecom have the dubious honour of having delivered me the worst customer service experience of any service provider I've ever used, I'm very hesitant about using them again. Verb's experience doesn't fill me with confidence - has anyone had any more postive switches to the Fiber Power offer?
WiFi is well and good for portable mobile laptop use, but for fixed situations where you want consistent constant high bit rates, you simply cannot beat a cable.
802.11n states throughput of 50 to 144Mbps, and max range of about 100M - but this all varies depending on radio signal strength, interference, how many other people are using 802.11n in your neighbourhood / building, etc etc etc. There are many variables that make WiFi simply a variable transmission medium.
Also consider this: many PCs cannot handle 100Mbps constant throughput, so if your PC is older than say 2 years, it may not be grunty enough
So if you want WiFi for portable use inside your house, by all means use it. But make your grunt machine hard cabled to the router that's connected to the cable modem, so that you can enjoy the full benefit without any bottlenecks.
Cablecom offers cutting edge services - if you look around you'd be hard pushed to find any other company right on the leading edge of technology like they are. To get 100Mbps and > 100 digital TV channels and phone etc into your apartment is a phenomenal technical achievement.
Any new technical roll out has teething trouble - 100M is brand new, less than 10 weeks old. Look at Microsoft: was XP stable when it was released? Was Vista? Is Windows 7? Every new product has a breaking in period.
So you have to decide if you want to ride the wave of progress of flounder around in the backwash and if you ride the wave of progress, every now and then you hit shallow ground and the wave breaks...
PS: I have 15Mbps cablecom internet, and digital TV , and phone, and have found the service to be stable and reliable. The one problem I had was caused by a neighbour (!) and the problem was sorted very quickly and efficiently. So I can only say good things.
And what I get is is way more than what I have ever experienced in any other country I've lived in....
By the way what governs the ability of the PC to handle the speed? I've got an 18 month old machine with 2GHz processor and 2MB RAM - I would assume that should be enough...
Regarding your point about early adoption, I fully agree, you've got to be prepared to be cut by the bleeding edge, if you'll excuse the horrible mixed metaphors. It was more my experience of them getting the basics wrong which is making me hesitate. Not authorising a new modem (as Verb described) seems to me to be less the fault of new technology, and more due to a workflow not being correctly completed. In any case, I've got a feeling the temptation to switch is going to get the better of me anyway
modem? Is this for firewall / IP distribution / other reasons?
The router provides the routing functions on your LAN.
The cablecom has no router built in - it has only 1 port
So if you want to run 2 x devices (grunt machine, and a wifi access point) then you need two ports on the cable modem
And you don't have enough ports...
Its a combination of the above, plus the OS (Vista is better than XP as an out-of-the-box solution). Note how cablecom have a tweaker app to tweak XP so it can handle the faster speeds :-)
but plug the PC in direct to the cable modem and run a PC spped test. Then try with a wifi router in the path. Note the difference in speed and latency.
Also, network ports give a fundamental limitation: a 100M port on a 100M fiber connection is running right at the max - so expect it to stumble every now and then!
I don't want to be the one to make Godwin's law come true but I don't bother testing anymore as I have QoS preventing me getting high speed on test pages...
Depending on the chipset, drivers and how the OS handles the interface, you might find your mileage varies.
Connecting via Ethernet to the cable modem will give you the theoretical max speed.
And do bear in mind that many SoHo routers have a WAN port which is ...... only ............ 10Mbps. Ouch!
When I was with Cablecom I had the 15mbps service which gave me 15mbps at 4am, but only 1-5mbps in the evenings with dropped packets. It was so bad that I couldn't even talk on Skype or watch youtube videos without always having to buffer in the middle of the video. They offered me the service for half price or immediate contract termination and told me that they had no plans to upgrade our region in the next year or two. So the customer support wasn't too bad.
My Swisscom 20mbps on the other hand is connected at 22mbps and gives me constant speed, regardless of the time of day - it's really perfect and the price is not that high if you consider the money saved by sealing the cable socket.
Swisscom: VDSL2 deteriorates quickly from a theoretical maximum of 250 Mbit/s at 'source' to 100 Mbit/s at 0.5 km (1640 ft) and 50 Mbit/s at 1 km (3280 ft),
They offer 20Mbps max at the mo
I can just see the adds:
Swisscom 250Mbps: available to all our telephone exchange neighbours only
Also, are you doing your speed tests on speedtest.net with a wired connection? Here is what my results look like but I guess with DSL distance is a big factor.
Oops I forgot about that other option. Price sounds OK for what you're getting, except the 6mbps part
Why is everything always so difficult with this company?
Tip: look for "Fiber power" on the right hand of the orange Internet line