M1 FIBRE BROADBAND DISCUSSION - Part 2

[lewis_wong]

Imagine with all these expensive wifi-7 routers, the 6gbps plan can be as low as $34.90

The price will drop significantly in the future when everyone got their own wifi-7 routers.

The recontract price for 3/6/10Gbps are higher now? It is no longer as what mentioned by others previously though.

 

[Jurong640]

Doesn't seem to be available on my M1+ app yet.

Yep. I also don't see it too. Only treats

 

[kanashii23]

I just called M1. They say cannot upgrade or re-contract as need 5 months before contract expire then can re-contract.

Should be 4 month. If ur contract end end on June 20. Feb 21 can recontract thru the app.

 

[xiaofan]

The recontract price for 3/6/10Gbps are higher now? It is no longer as what mentioned by others previously though.

The good recontract offer for 6Gbps plan (S$15 per month OFF) and 10Gbps plan (S$13 per month OFF) will not be shown on the website directly. Rather you need to sign in with your account to see if you are eligible or not. If not, check with M1 to see if they can extend the offer to you.

If your area is really not ready for the 3/6/10Gbps even for recontract users, then you are out of luck now. In that case, one option is to wait for a few more months to see how it goes.

 

[sword28]

Finally upgrade to the free twin BT10.
Luckily this time round, upgrading from TUF-BE6500 is much more seamless, at least most of the client devices auto connect to BT10. Still using TUF-BE6500 as AiMesh, all 3 units via Ethernet backhaul.

However, I still face some hiccups, sharing my experience so maybe others can benefit.
Three devices cannot connect after switching to BT10.

1. AOC TV
2. Sonoff S26 smart plugs
3. Wifi Water Heater Switch

Luckily BT10 allows adding guest networks. Because only the wifi heater switch can connect to IoT network.
For the AOC TV and smart plugs, I need to create additional 2.4 and 5.0 guest networks, then can work.
Strange, because TUF is also Wifi7, same as BT10, not sure why cannot connect.
Anyone knows why?

OK for the benefit, again some improvement after switching to BT10.
My upgrade journey:
TUF-BE6500 on 1gbps --> TUF-BE6500 on 10gbps --> BT10 on 10gbps
1st upgrade (to 10gbps) in my study room, my download speed on IP16PM increase from 3xx-4xx mbps to 5xx-6xx mbps
2nd upgrade (to BT10) increase from 5xx-6xx to 8xx-9xx mbps

However, BT10 fares poorer in my weakest wifi spot compare to TUF-BE6500.

But one thing strange is last time I need to stand very close to TUF-BE6500 then I can over 1gbps speed.
The TUF is connected directly from ONT.

But now, my TUF-BE6500 is daisy-chain to 2nd unit of BT10 and even standing like over 3m from it, I once tested to get 1.1gpbs from it.
Anyone knows why?

 

[Fronsac]

M1 relocation charges are quite low $61.04 (compared to SingTel and Starhub). New location should have TP point already? If yes, there should only be relocation charges.

ONT Activation and registration fee still applicable right? That is 123 + 61 + relocation another 61 or is the relocation fee the same as registration fee so I just pay 123 +61. By the time I move I am like left with 3 months.

 

[dev_stg_prd]

I managed to find the internet statistics. It's inside the Tether (TP-Link) app, under Traffic Usage

Is this router huge?

 

[sango65]

Is this router huge?

Hmm, not really big, but compare against old Asus router, is big.

Anyway, Archer BE805 has 10 internal antennas.

 

[dev_stg_prd]

Hmm, not really big, but compare against old Asus router, is big.

Anyway, Archer BE805 has 10 internal antennas.

Wah gpgt.it's like a mini PC. So far can cover whole house inclusive of extreme toilet location?

 

[sango65]

Wah gpgt.it's like a mini PC. So far can cover whole house inclusive of extreme toilet location?

yep, can, but my house only 4-rm, not really big

 

[hkchew03]

Hmm, not really big, but compare against old Asus router, is big.

Anyway, Archer BE805 has 10 internal antennas.

that is almost like a small desktop...

 

[xiaofan]

Wah gpgt.it's like a mini PC. So far can cover whole house inclusive of extreme toilet location?

It is quite big.
https://www.tp-link.com/sg/home-networking/wifi-router/archer-be805/#specifications
Dimensions (W×D×H): 4.1 × 11.7 × 10.4 in (104.3 × 297 × 264.5 mm).

As for wireless coverage, it will depend on your floor plan and placement. Some floor plans are just too difficult for single wireless router (eg: household shelter in the centre of the flat). Placement is also key.

You may want to post your floor plan with details of the locations of the FTP, LAN ports in the rooms and intended placement location of the router.

I have done pretty extensive wireless related tests for TP-Link Archer BE805 in the following thread (close and far range wireless tests with all four SSIDs, wireless backhaul with Archer BE805+HB710).

Example wireless coverage test at weak signal area (two walls away) --> Post #151 and #152. My conclusion is that wireless coverage of Archer BE805 is pretty decent, as good as my RT-AX86U (my benchmarking router for wireless coverage). My flat is an old 1998 4-room HDB flat, 106 sqm. I put the router in a central location and the coverage is okay (5GHz SSID, not 6GHz SSID and MLO SSID).

https://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/...d-deco-wifi-6e-7-mesh-solution.6953682/page-8

Floor plan for reference: 1998 4-room HDB flat, 106 sqm

Router --> RT-AX86U
Router 2 --> HB710 in the above coverage test. Point A is the difficult spot with weak signal since there are two walls between the router and the test device.

Test device: Acer Swift Go 14 2024 model (Intel Core Ultra 5 125H CPU, 16GB, 1TB, Killer BE1750 WiFi 7 adpater based on Intel BE200 chipset).

Test results using TP-Link Archer BE805 (RT-AX86U is still there) vs RT-AX86U (HB710 is now OFF).

Looks like Archer BE805 5GHz band coverage is similar to RT-AX86U, better than HB710.

Archer BE805 5GHz SSID

PS C:\work\speedtest\ookla-speedtest-1.2.0-win64> .\speedtest.exe -s 13623

   Speedtest by Ookla

      Server: Singtel - Singapore (id: 13623)
         ISP: Singtel Fibre
Idle Latency:     3.77 ms   (jitter: 0.24ms, low: 3.56ms, high: 4.54ms)
    Download:   162.97 Mbps (data used: 208.2 MB)
                 44.49 ms   (jitter: 37.76ms, low: 3.84ms, high: 553.06ms)
      Upload:    81.45 Mbps (data used: 112.9 MB)
                438.51 ms   (jitter: 97.18ms, low: 8.07ms, high: 892.35ms)
 Packet Loss:     0.0%
  Result URL: https://www.speedtest.net/result/c/ca37df21-bbc9-4910-ba3f-668b7e677da9

RT-AX86U 5GHz SSID (today's result a bit worse than previous test).

PS C:\work\speedtest\ookla-speedtest-1.2.0-win64> .\speedtest.exe -s 13623

   Speedtest by Ookla

      Server: Singtel - Singapore (id: 13623)
         ISP: Singtel Fibre
Idle Latency:     5.01 ms   (jitter: 1.17ms, low: 4.15ms, high: 7.66ms)
    Download:   167.47 Mbps (data used: 232.9 MB)
                 43.21 ms   (jitter: 34.68ms, low: 7.54ms, high: 320.71ms)
      Upload:    19.12 Mbps (data used: 34.0 MB)
                141.69 ms   (jitter: 48.75ms, low: 10.37ms, high: 594.05ms)
 Packet Loss:     0.0%
  Result URL: https://www.speedtest.net/result/c/8d17b3b6-6916-4ba9-a837-c4c7017f5398

Archer BE805 6GHz SSID -- today it is quite bad, almost no signal. Unstable as well -- sometimes no connection.

PS C:\work\speedtest\ookla-speedtest-1.2.0-win64> .\speedtest.exe -s 13623

   Speedtest by Ookla

      Server: Singtel - Singapore (id: 13623)
         ISP: Singtel Fibre
Idle Latency:     4.41 ms   (jitter: 49.58ms, low: 3.35ms, high: 103.19ms)
    Download:     6.27 Mbps (data used: 12.2 MB)
                109.98 ms   (jitter: 75.75ms, low: 3.42ms, high: 1167.06ms)
      Upload:    30.64 Mbps (data used: 50.1 MB)
                226.46 ms   (jitter: 74.65ms, low: 9.36ms, high: 1276.48ms)
 Packet Loss:     0.0%
  Result URL: https://www.speedtest.net/result/c/11c52e4b-c028-4a14-96e3-089f4b84be3f

Archer BE805 MLO SSID -- somehow it is using 2.4GHz+6GHz and not 2.4GHz+5GHz.

PS C:\work\speedtest\ookla-speedtest-1.2.0-win64> .\speedtest.exe -s 13623

   Speedtest by Ookla

      Server: Singtel - Singapore (id: 13623)
         ISP: Singtel Fibre
Idle Latency:     4.46 ms   (jitter: 2.60ms, low: 4.17ms, high: 13.88ms)
    Download:    50.15 Mbps (data used: 77.0 MB)
                 56.10 ms   (jitter: 46.58ms, low: 5.28ms, high: 1063.74ms)
      Upload:     8.15 Mbps (data used: 14.0 MB)
                118.28 ms   (jitter: 52.46ms, low: 8.93ms, high: 849.64ms)
 Packet Loss:     0.0%
  Result URL: https://www.speedtest.net/result/c/30d71d8e-79b3-425a-85ba-47bbc34895b6

Archer BE805 2.4GHz SSID.

PS C:\work\speedtest\ookla-speedtest-1.2.0-win64> .\speedtest.exe -s 13623

   Speedtest by Ookla

      Server: Singtel - Singapore (id: 13623)
         ISP: Singtel Fibre
Idle Latency:    12.37 ms   (jitter: 15.89ms, low: 3.94ms, high: 48.03ms)
    Download:    46.30 Mbps (data used: 73.7 MB)
                 91.10 ms   (jitter: 56.38ms, low: 3.99ms, high: 994.03ms)
      Upload:     6.81 Mbps (data used: 8.9 MB)
                198.12 ms   (jitter: 61.10ms, low: 10.01ms, high: 828.73ms)
 Packet Loss:     0.0%
  Result URL: https://www.speedtest.net/result/c/383eaa0b-a0c1-422a-9c81-5c1b20456402

 

[xiaofan]

BTW, I have encountered two issues with TP-Link Archer BE805, but I tend to believe it is more related to the recent Intel BE200 wireless driver updates (driver version 23.110.0.5, Windows 11 24H2).

Hopefully the users can share your experiences as well. Thanks.

1) 6GHz SSID can not be detected by the Intel BE200 Wireless router (only happened once) --> in reality the 6GHz SSID is there. Rebooting the laptop will sort out the issue. So this is not an issue of the Archer BE805 but rather Intel BE200 driver.

2) Slow MLO SSID speed (PHY link speed is normal, but slow real speed) --> I am not able to sort out the issue, seems to be a compatibility issue with Intel BE200 and Archer BE805. No issues with 6GHz/5GHz/2.4GHz SSID. I am waiting for further Intel BE200 driver updates to see if the issue goes away or not.

Reference:
https://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/...-deco-wifi-6e-7-mesh-solution.6953682/page-13

 

[Jurong640]

Hmm, not really big, but compare against old Asus router, is big.

Anyway, Archer BE805 has 10 internal antennas.

It's a slightly smaller version of Playstation. Have fun with it.

 

[dev_stg_prd]

It is quite big.
https://www.tp-link.com/sg/home-networking/wifi-router/archer-be805/#specifications
Dimensions (W×D×H): 4.1 × 11.7 × 10.4 in (104.3 × 297 × 264.5 mm).

As for wireless coverage, it will depend on your floor plan and placement. Some floor plans are just too difficult for single wireless router (eg: household shelter in the centre of the flat). Placement is also key.

You may want to post your floor plan with details of the locations of the FTP, LAN ports in the rooms and intended placement location of the router.

I have done pretty extensive wireless related tests for TP-Link Archer BE805 in the following thread (close and far range wireless tests with all four SSIDs, wireless backhaul with Archer BE805+HB710).

Example wireless coverage test at weak signal area (two walls away) --> Post #151 and #152. My conclusion is that wireless coverage of Archer BE805 is pretty decent, as good as my RT-AX86U (my benchmarking router for wireless coverage). My flat is an old 1998 4-room HDB flat, 106 sqm. I put the router in a central location and the coverage is okay (5GHz SSID, not 6GHz SSID and MLO SSID).

https://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/...d-deco-wifi-6e-7-mesh-solution.6953682/page-8

For wifi 7 routers, is this a expected size or other brands are smaller?

 

[xiaofan]

For wifi 7 routers, is this a expected size or other brands are smaller?

10G capable WiFi 7 routers with dual 10G ports are big in general, especially with a powerful CPU, like Archer BE800/805/900, Starhub TP-Link EB810v, Asus ROG GT-BE98.

Large size ones with dual 10G ports, with flagship CPU:
Archer BE805 --> 4.1 × 11.7 × 10.4 in (104.3 × 297 × 264.5 mm)
Archer BE800/BE900/EB810v --> 3.8 x 11.9 × 10.3 in (96 x 302 × 262.5 mm)
Asus ROG GT-BE98 --> 350.41 x 350.41 x 220.6 mm

Relatively smaller ones with dual 10G ports, with flagship CPU:
TP-Link Deco BE85: 5.04 × 5.04 × 9.29 in (128 × 128 × 236 mm), cylinder shape
SingTel TP-Link HB810: 5.04 × 5.04 × 9.29 in (128 × 128 × 236 mm), cylinder shape
Amazon eero Max 7: 7.24 x 8.73 x 3.54in (183.90 x 221.89 x 89.90mm)
Asus ZenWiFi BQ16: 214*174.2*72 mm

Relatively smaller ones with dual 10G ports, with mid-range CPU:
Starhub/MR TP-Link HB710: 5.04 × 5.04 × 9.29 in (128 × 128 × 236 mm), cylinder shape
Asus ZenWiFi BT10: 159 x 72 x 186 mm

 

[erikospeed]

Do ensure the installer does an actual speed test prior to signing off

For my case, installer claims his thunderbolt lan adaptor couldn't seem to be detectable due so to laptop low battery considering the fact I chose the earliest slot 9am-11am

 

[sango65]

Do ensure the installer does an actual speed test prior to signing off

For my case, installer claims his thunderbolt lan adaptor couldn't seem to be detectable due so to laptop low battery considering the fact I chose the earliest slot 9am-11am

wah, like that need to complain to the m1 CSO.

but then again, dont think we are able to utilise the high broadband speed when surfing overseas websites

 

[chins]

Hmm, not really big, but compare against old Asus router, is big.

Anyway, Archer BE805 has 10 internal antennas.

Oh my! That's huge! Any idea if it can be placed sideways (i.e. flat on one side)? I have a habit of hiding router in the TV console.

 

[erikospeed]

wah, like that need to complain to the m1 CSO.

but then again, dont think we are able to utilise the high broadband speed when surfing overseas websites

Probably doing a speed test is the only crucial part of the installer in which the end user probably couldn't due to limitations of a non- 10gbps thunderbolt ethernet adapter 🫤