Menu
Reply
  • 30
  • 0
  • 1
Tuning in
695 Views
Message 1 of 25
Flag for a moderator

M200 worse than / no better than M100

So my recent "upgrade" from M100 broadband to M200 gives me average download speeds of just under 20 (yes,twenty) mbps. The technical experts at 150 insisted the free wifi booster they sent me would sort everything out, despite my protestations that my desktop is hooked directly into the Hub and wifi boosting would do nothing to improve things. Of course the wifi boosters have been installed and the download speeds continue to be shocking. I have a few days left within my 14 day cooling off period to cancel my contract and will do so if I can't get this sorted. I'm just hoping that those who really know their stuff in the Community can provide more realistic suggestions than the script readers at 150.

0 Kudos
Reply
  • 4.18K
  • 342
  • 598
Community elder
689 Views
Message 2 of 25
Flag for a moderator
Helpful Answer

Re: M200 worse than / no better than M100

Could you access your router using http://192.168.0.1/ or http://192.168.100.1 for modem mode . You shouldn't need log in, select the 'Check Router Status' option and paste your 'Downstream', 'Upstream', and 'Network Log' tabs?

We can have a look for any oddities in the stats.

0 Kudos
Reply
  • 5.04K
  • 880
  • 2.05K
Very Insightful Person
Very Insightful Person
633 Views
Message 3 of 25
Flag for a moderator

Re: M200 worse than / no better than M100

 I have a few days left within my 14 day cooling off period to cancel my contract and will do so if I can't get this sorted.

If it's a line fault, then it is unlikely to be diagnosed and resolved in a few days.  I'd recommend you phone to cancel, and when you speak to the agent, tell them that you're prepared to delay cancelling and give VM the chance to get things fixed, but only if they can confirm that your 14 day cancellation period starts only when you have a connection working as your require, and confirm that by email.  

If they can't agree to that, then I'd say cancel.  When it works, VM is stable and fast.  But the technical support and customer service can be abysmal (as you may have already found), and whilst most problems do get fixed, a small number of problems they seem unable or unwilling to fix.  You don't want to be locked in to an 18 month contract with a dodgy connection.  You'd also want to make sure that there's no ""over-utilisation" problems causing your slow speeds - they often roll on for months and even years with no sign of any serious intention to fix them on VM's part, but regularly moved "fix" dates that drift past with no change.

I'm a Very Insightful Person, I'm here to share knowledge, I don't work for Virgin Media. Learn more

Have I helped? Click Mark as Helpful Answer or use Kudos to say thanks

0 Kudos
Reply
  • 30
  • 0
  • 1
Tuning in
582 Views
Message 4 of 25
Flag for a moderator

Re: M200 worse than / no better than M100

Thanks for taking the time to try and help Carl. I'll post the info requested in 2 parts as I hit the 20,000 character limit if I try all at once. Will start with the upstream and network ones as the latter don't look too good given the number of warnings shown!

Stuart

 

Upstream bonded channels

Channel Frequency (Hz) Power (dBmV) Symbol Rate (ksps) Modulation Channel ID

1462000004.575512064 qam1
2326000004.475512064 qam3
3394000004.55512064 qam2
4258000004.45512064 qam4



Upstream bonded channels

Channel Channel Type T1 Timeouts T2 Timeouts T3 Timeouts T4 Timeouts

1ATDMA0000
2ATDMA0000
3ATDMA0000
4ATDMA0000

 

Network Log

Time Priority Description

29/08/2020 17:23:23noticeLAN login Success;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
01/01/1970 00:01:46criticalNo Ranging Response received - T3 time-out;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
28/08/2020 19:53:1Warning!Lost MDD Timeout;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
28/08/2020 19:52:56criticalSYNC Timing Synchronization failure - Loss of Sync;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
28/08/2020 19:52:56Warning!RCS Partial Service;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
28/08/2020 19:52:55criticalSYNC Timing Synchronization failure - Loss of Sync;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
28/08/2020 19:52:48Warning!RCS Partial Service;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
01/01/1970 00:01:30criticalNo Ranging Response received - T3 time-out;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
28/08/2020 18:13:48Warning!RCS Partial Service;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
28/08/2020 17:52:36criticalSYNC Timing Synchronization failure - Loss of Sync;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
28/08/2020 17:52:23Warning!RCS Partial Service;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
28/08/2020 17:52:22criticalSYNC Timing Synchronization failure - Loss of Sync;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
28/08/2020 17:52:19Warning!RCS Partial Service;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
28/08/2020 17:52:18criticalSYNC Timing Synchronization failure - Loss of Sync;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
28/08/2020 17:51:52Warning!RCS Partial Service;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
28/08/2020 17:51:47criticalSYNC Timing Synchronization failure - Loss of Sync;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
26/08/2020 03:07:11criticalNo Ranging Response received - T3 time-out;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
25/08/2020 22:04:15ErrorDHCP REBIND WARNING - Field invalid in response;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
25/08/2020 04:38:17ErrorDHCP RENEW sent - No response for IPv4;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
01/01/1970 00:01:30criticalNo Ranging Response received - T3 time-out;CM-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CMTS-MAC=**:**:**:**:**:**;CM-QOS=1.1;CM-VER=3.0;
0 Kudos
Reply
  • 30
  • 0
  • 1
Tuning in
581 Views
Message 5 of 25
Flag for a moderator

Re: M200 worse than / no better than M100

And now the downstream stats:

Downstream bonded channels

Channel Frequency (Hz) Power (dBmV) SNR (dB) Modulation Channel ID

16910000003.538256 qam32
24750000003.538256 qam9
34830000003.740256 qam10
44910000003.738256 qam11
54990000003.738256 qam12
65070000003.538256 qam13
75150000003.738256 qam14
8523000000438256 qam15
95310000004.338256 qam16
105390000004.338256 qam17
11547000000438256 qam18
125550000004.138256 qam19
135630000004.338256 qam20
145710000004.138256 qam21
155790000004.138256 qam22
165870000003.938256 qam23
175950000003.538256 qam24
18635000000438256 qam25
19643000000438256 qam26
206510000003.738256 qam27
216590000003.538256 qam28
226670000003.538256 qam29
236750000003.738256 qam30
246830000003.738256 qam31



Downstream bonded channels

Channel Locked Status RxMER (dB) Pre RS Errors Post RS Errors

1Locked38.91464
2Locked38.920312
3Locked40.318718
4Locked38.92007
5Locked38.918715
6Locked38.91934
7Locked38.91854
8Locked38.91843
9Locked38.91842
10Locked38.91802
11Locked38.91752
12Locked38.61783
13Locked38.91932
14Locked38.61902
15Locked38.91712
16Locked38.91961
17Locked38.917113
18Locked38.91582
19Locked38.91551
20Locked38.91611
21Locked38.61553
22Locked38.91551
23Locked38.91681
24Locked38.915314
0 Kudos
Reply
  • 15.27K
  • 1.16K
  • 1.91K
Alessandro Volta
569 Views
Message 6 of 25
Flag for a moderator
Helpful Answer

Re: M200 worse than / no better than M100

Can you post the contents of the Configuration Tab please.

Then 

Can you set up a Broadband Quality Monitor (BQM) at thinkbroadband.com - this will give you an insight into what is happening with the signal at the other side of the Hub, it will take a few hours to get any kind of trend showing although you should post the link straight away.

Post a link to your BQM on here.

Instructions for posting BQM Link

Under your BQM graph are two links in red.

Click the lower link (Share Live Graph) then click generate.

Copy the text in the Direct Link box, beware, there may be more text than you can see.

On here click the Link icon (2 links chain to the left of the camera icon)

In the URL box paste the link you copied and in the ‘text to display’ box write My BQM then click OK - you can post the link straight away.


*********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
BT Smart Hub 2 with 70Mbs Download,18Mbs Upload, 9.17ms Latency & 0.35ms Jitter.
0 Kudos
Reply
  • 30
  • 0
  • 1
Tuning in
519 Views
Message 7 of 25
Flag for a moderator

Re: M200 worse than / no better than M100

Thanks Mike. The configuration tab is below, will now go and set up the BQM and post the link shortly.

General Configuration

Network access
Allowed
Maximum Number of CPEs
1
Baseline Privacy
Enabled
DOCSIS Mode
Docsis30
Config file
cmreg-vmdg505-rtsxl20016u-b.cm



Primary Downstream Service Flow

SFID312312
Max Traffic Rate230000061
Max Traffic Burst42600
Min Traffic Rate0



Primary Upstream Service Flow

SFID312311
Max Traffic Rate22000061
Max Traffic Burst42600
Min Traffic Rate0
Max Concatenated Burst42600
Scheduling TypeBestEffort
0 Kudos
Reply
  • 30
  • 0
  • 1
Tuning in
514 Views
Message 8 of 25
Flag for a moderator

Re: M200 worse than / no better than M100

My BQM 

Hopefully this works Mike!

Regards,

Stuart

0 Kudos
Reply
  • 4.28K
  • 261
  • 487
Forum Team
Forum Team
501 Views
Message 9 of 25
Flag for a moderator

Re: M200 worse than / no better than M100

Thanks @Stuart_M_H

 

Thanks so much for posting your link - we'll take a look in around 24 hours once some more data has been collected 🙂 

 

Also thank you to our users @MikeRobbo and @Andruser for taking a look and helping out

 

Cheers

 

Katie - Forum Team


New around here? To find out more about the Community check out our Getting Started guide


0 Kudos
Reply
  • 30
  • 0
  • 1
Tuning in
367 Views
Message 10 of 25
Flag for a moderator

Re: M200 worse than / no better than M100

Hi Katie, just wondering if you've had a chance to look at the stats? They mean nothing to me! 

0 Kudos
Reply