120M : Meant to get up to 150 mb

[General Maximus]

Kush has given you a very good explanation above but to put it in simpler terms and so you understand the difference think of it this way. 4g is a mobile connection running at 20mbits, ac is wireless (e.g. home use) and can run at 1 gigabit. Dont quote me on the exact numbers because i am in a hotel on my mobile atm but it is there or there about. The point is that the difference in speed is huge.

[qasdfdsaq]

Originally Posted by General Maximus

4g is a mobile connection running at 20mbits, ac is wireless (e.g. home use) and can run at 1 gigabit. Dont quote me on the exact numbers because i am in a hotel on my mobile atm but it is there or there about. The point is that the difference in speed is huge.

Not even close...

4G according to the original definition runs at a minimum of 1Gbps on low-mobility devices, 4G by that definition doesn't even exist yet.

LTE, and LTE-A, which EE are now marketing as "4G Plus" despite the fact it doesn't meet the original requirements for even basic 4G* runs at 75, 150, 300 or 450Mbps actual throughput in the UK depending on your hardware and location.

802.11AC typically provides a maximum of ~250 or ~450Mbps actual throughput depending on your hardware. Most existing hardware can barely exceed 400Mbps though some can theoretically approach 900Mbps.

The difference in speed is actually minimal, in part, because 802.11AC and LTE use the same underlying methods for the actual radio transmission, only differing in higher level protocols and regulations. If you solely consider the underlying RF layer, LTE is in fact faster. LTE provides 150Mbps of usable throughput on a 2-stream 20Mhz channel, 802.11ac provides only 120Mbps. WiFi does however, have more capacity.

* You could say LTE-A might meet the original requirements of 100Mbps+ on high-mobility devices, but it's arguable whether you can actually achieve those speeds in practice in a fast-moving vehicle.

[Eeeps]

Originally Posted by General Maximus

yup, your old dlink router has only got 100mbit ports on it so that is the most you are ever going to get over cable. I thought the dlink router was only 802.11g (which would mean you wouldn't get more than 25mbits) but I have just done a quick google and apparently it is draft n. Anyways, you still won't get full speed over wireless either.
You have got two options, you can either ring VM up and moan your ass off about the poor wireless on shub1 (which they know all too well) and they'll charge you £20 for a shub2 (which is miles better) or you can draw a line in the sand and invest in a proper router which you know is going to work and tbh, kick ass over anything VM are going to offer you.

I suggest OP should definitely contact VM to get the SH2 (or better).

Alternative is to use the existing SH1 in router mode and use the Dlink as an access point giving wired access to 150Mb/s and wireless to ~60Mb/s.