Three's HomeFi

ploppers

ploppers

ploppers

Associate
Joined
9 Jun 2017
Posts
9
Hi,

I know this isn't strictly 'mobile phones & tablets', but since it's about Three I figure it's the best place.

I just bought a HomeFi from Three. It is advertised supposed to be able to do 150Mbps download. I only seem to get about 20Mbps download, even though I have a pretty decent signal (4/5 bars). That isn't any better than my phone can get (also Three). I wonder if anyone else has managed to get any better speed?

I feel a little miffed because I bought in-store and so the two week cooling off period doesn't apply. I imagine I might be able to return it because it doesn't perform (anywhere near as fast) as advertised, though I guess they might argue with that.

Max.
 
As Glaucus said, your phone was a good indicator of the performance you can expect from the cell towers in your area. The fact that you based your decision on a theoretical max throughput for a networking device, rather than the information you had to hand about the network seems a little odd.

Sure, a slightly better antenna and a device designed for networking PPS (packet per second) throughput might give you a bit of an uplift over a phone (or at least a more stable connection overall), but it was never going to perform miracles.
 
I'm guessing you were looking at the connectivity bit here: http://www.three.co.uk/Discover/Devices/Huawei/HomeFi?memory=0&colour=Black

While Cat 4 is rated for up to 150mb dl/50mb ul, that's only in the best case scenario, distance will be the biggest factor here. Even then, you'll unlikely get the maximum speeds as 3 will need to allocate the bandwidth for other users in the area as well. The fact you're able to get 20mb is still pretty decent.
 
Glaucus said:
:confused: why did you think you would get better speeds than your phone. Its as good as the signal/local infrastructure.
Click to expand...

Why? I could think of several reasons why that might be true. The phone could be throttled while the homefi not(*). The homefi might have a faster modem than the phone; likewise CPU or any other component that might be a bottleneck. It seems easy to me to think of perfectly reasonable reasons why one device might be slower/faster than a completely different device.

The biggest reason, of course, is that is what was advertised.

(*) In some places, they take advantage of this and you can subscribe to slower connections for less money (or faster for more money). Personally, I prefer that than having monthly limits since I know I'll never run out of data and never be disconnected.

Orcvader said:
I'm guessing you were looking at the connectivity bit here: http://www.three.co.uk/Discover/Devices/Huawei/HomeFi?memory=0&colour=Black

While Cat 4 is rated for up to 150mb dl/50mb ul, that's only in the best case scenario, distance will be the biggest factor here. Even then, you'll unlikely get the maximum speeds as 3 will need to allocate the bandwidth for other users in the area as well. The fact you're able to get 20mb is still pretty decent.
Click to expand...

That's correct - that's the figure I was expecting to get (close to). I considered I was in a 'best case scenario', or close to it. I don't consider 20Mbps to be anywhere close to 150Mbps. The fact that they can (do?) allocate bandwidth is justification enough for me to think it is quite plausible that they might allocate more for such a device.

IMO, it's false advertising. They should mention the bandwidth that a user might be realistically be able to expect. That's how it is for ADSL, for example.- they say upto ~75Mbps, but clearly say that it is dependent on various factors and even give you an indication based on your location.

Anyway, y'all answered my question, I think. I can't get any faster unless 3 decide to allocate more, which seems very unlikely.

Thanks.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
its not allocation, its just throughput be it mobile, adsl or fiber, all internet is upto.
you could always try going back and saying you were miss sold.
 
Glaucus said:
its not allocation, its just throughput be it mobile, adsl or fiber, all internet is upto.
you could always try going back and saying you were miss sold.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's "upto" - that's the allocation. I've had a 1Mbps contract before - I can use as much as I like per month, but only ever get 1M bits in anyone second. It looks like Three allocate 20Mbps per connection. I imagine they could also sell contracts that are slower, and faster too, if they so chose. Yes, in a similar way to ADSL (you can buy different speeds, and also monthly limits) - I realise I wouldn't get the full 150Mbps, or very unlikely, certainly if I wasn't in 'ideal' conditions, but 20Mbps seems to be an imposed limit and not environmental in any way, and it certainly isn't close to 150Mbps.

I think I'll take it back.

Thanks for all your help.
 
ploppers said:
Yeah, it's "upto" - that's the allocation. I've had a 1Mbps contract before - I can use as much as I like per month, but only ever get 1M bits in anyone second. It looks like Three allocate 20Mbps per connection. I imagine they could also sell contracts that are slower, and faster too, if they so chose. Yes, in a similar way to ADSL (you can buy different speeds, and also monthly limits) - I realise I wouldn't get the full 150Mbps, or very unlikely, certainly if I wasn't in 'ideal' conditions, but 20Mbps seems to be an imposed limit and not environmental in any way, and it certainly isn't close to 150Mbps.

I think I'll take it back.

Thanks for all your help.
Click to expand...
no,its not allocation. there is to many users in your area. if 150 was available you would get it, but that is essentially never go to happen. The highest i've had is 75mbs, but in a rural place that somehow had 4g. Nothing to do with they could sell a faster speed.
 
ploppers said:
Oh, you mean that at some time of day/night (assuming there is a time when no one else is using it), I can closer to 150Mbps? I've seen it lower than 20Mbps, but never higher.
Click to expand...
that's not the only factor, but yes it is one factor, the other is reception and infrastructure and what it is physically capable of giving.
at home i'm in a congested city and thus get about 4mbps yet just 10 miles away i get 70ish.
 
FWIW, I successfully argued that their web site mislead me into thinking I would be able to achieve something approaching 150Mbps/50Mbps with their HomeFi product, and they agreed to cancel the contract without any cost/penalty. I had to do some arguing though. I went through their technical networking team (or something like that) who stated that ~20Mbps is the expected maximum bandwidth and there was nothing technically wrong.

I asked them to make this clearer on their web site.

My main argument is that they're selling a home broadband product and so the customer would be expecting to achieve speeds approaching those seen in the ad. I can't help but wonder if they shouldn't be held to the same rules as the likes of BT, PlusNet, etc. where they are required(?) to show typical speeds. I guess that might be quite difficult, technically.

In the end, I upgraded my phone plan to from unlimited data + 5GB tethering £15/m, 1 month contract; to unlimited data + 30GB tethering £24/m, 12 month contract. So, compared with the HomeFi, I ended up paying an extra £9/m instead of £24/m, but get a 30GB monthly tethering allowance, instead of 40GB.

So, all good I think.
 
Glaucus said:
this is not the case and if you ever get home broad band there is a good chance you will be very disappointed.
Click to expand...

I have had many broadband connections, and it is the case. It is required to be the case for broadband...they can no longer quote theoretical speed.

I think we're saying the same thing, but in different words.

Until January, I had BT Infinity2. It says 'Up to 76Mb speeds', but I didn't expect to actually get 76Mbps (or even just below that), but I would expect to get something approaching that...eg 50Mbps...I'm pretty sure I got 50Mbps from time-to-time.
I equate that to Three saying 'Up to '150Mbps', and I don't consider 20Mbps to be 'approaching' 150Mbps - it's not even close. 100Mbps - that would be approaching 150Mbps.

BT even have a tool where you can test the line to see what you should expect. That's what I thought would be quite difficult for Three to implement (having said that, I guess they might know from the bandwidth delivered to other users in the area).
 
it is not required as you state it, yes they did bring laws in to help, but it doesn't go as far as you think. You always need to do a postcode checker to find realistic speeds, which might be well well well below the advertised.
 
I'm not arguing and I'm not trying to have a go at you. I'm just trying to say you are not protected like you think you are and unless you change your opinion, then it is likely to happen again. they essentially just have to prominently show upto, it is not based on what you actually get, that is impossible to advertise as every area is so different.
 
Glaucus the speeds you can achieve on xDSL connections is based on your line attenuation. This is still a constant, your line will stabilise at an acceptable noise margin which is very easily measurable. Therefore you can actually very easily determine your line's maximum potential throughput. Any deviations will be classed as a problem.

The speeds you can achieve on DOCSIS are usually only ever hindered due to radio frequency interference/return path issues. As these are classed as service problems, once fixed you can expect to attain full advertised throughput.

The speeds you achieve on 3G/4G are dictated by far too many factors. You can bet there will be heavy QoS at the final router, load is extremely variable and can change every millisecond, signal strength is a key factor but is completely variable, even the tiniest obstacle can change everything. Sufficed to say it's absolutely ludicrous to even attempt to put ANY figure on such a device whether it's 5Mb/s or 500Mb/s, this is because there are simply NO constants.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom