Giga Hub 2.0: PPPoE passthrough/2nd PPPoE session capped (average 330 Mbps) on 3 Gbps plan

[Velaris]

Hello,

I'm on a 3 Gbps plan and I'm seeing a repeatable/hard throughput cap only when using PPPoE on a downstream device (PPPoE passthrough / second session).

My setup:

- Bell Giga Hub 2.0
- Downstream router: UniFi Cloud Gateway Fiber (UCG-Fiber) connected to the Giga Hub 10G port

What works:

- If the UCG-Fiber WAN is set to DHCP (e.g. behind the Giga Hub 2.0/double NAT), I can reach full speed (~3 Gbps).
- If my PC is behind the Giga Hub 2.0 on DHCP, my PC (1GbE NIC) reaches the expected ~1 Gbps.

The problem (reproducible):

When I establish a PPPoE session from a device behind the Giga Hub, throughput is capped around ~300–330 Mbps.

Repro 1: PPPoE from UCG-Fiber

- UCG-Fiber WAN set to PPPoE using my b1 credentials
- Result: ~300–330 Mbps (repeatable), despite 3 Gbps plan

Repro 2: PPPoE from a Windows PC (bypassing UCG-Fiber)

- PC connected by Ethernet to the Giga Hub 2.0
- PC NIC: 1GbE, cable: Cat6A
- Created a Windows "Broadband (PPPoE)" connection using the same b1 credentials
- Result: same cap at ~300–330 Mbps (repeatable)

Because the same cap occurs even when PPPoE is established directly from a PC (*no* UniFi router involved), it points to the Giga Hub 2.0 PPPoE passthrough / secondary PPPoE session path rather than my router.

Can you confirm:

- Is this a known issue on the Giga Hub 2.0 (firmware-related)?
- Is there a firmware update or hardware replacement option to resolve PPPoE passthrough speed caps?

Thanks

[AkashicStreaming]

Hi everyone,

I would like to share my findings because my issue appears to be very similar to the one discussed in this thread.

My setup:

• Bell Giga Hub 1.0 (not 2.0)
• Bell 1.5 Gbps service
• TP-Link Archer AX95 (latest firmware)
• PPPoE using my Bell b1 username
• 2.5 Gbps WAN connection between the Giga Hub and the router

For months, my router was able to achieve approximately 940 Mbps over PPPoE without any issues.

The problem appeared after a power outage, when the Giga Hub rebooted and installed a new firmware update.

Since then, I have consistently observed the following:

Test Results

1. PC connected directly to the Giga Hub

• ~940 Mbps
• No issues

2. Archer AX95 using DHCP

• ~940 Mbps
• Full speed

3. Archer AX95 using PPPoE

• Only 380-450 Mbps
• Completely reproducible

Additional troubleshooting performed

• Same PC
• Same Ethernet cable
• Same Speedtest server
• Router firmware has not changed
• MTU correctly set to 1492 for PPPoE
• MTU 1500 for DHCP testing
• QoS disabled
• HomeShield disabled
• Factory settings verified

I also tested Bell's Advanced DMZ.

Results:

• Full download speed (~940 Mbps)
• However, random WAN interruptions occur every few minutes.
• My VPN disconnects each time.

To isolate the issue, I ran continuous pings simultaneously to:

• the Archer AX95 LAN IP
• the Giga Hub LAN IP (192.168.2.1)
• 8.8.8.8

During every interruption:

• The ping to the Archer AX95 never drops.
• The ping to 192.168.2.1 drops.
• The ping to 8.8.8.8 drops at exactly the same time.

This indicates that the LAN remains stable while the WAN path between the router and the Giga Hub briefly stops forwarding traffic.

Since I stream on Twitch, I cannot use Advanced DMZ because those micro-interruptions cause VPN disconnects and could negatively affect long OBS streaming sessions.

At the moment I have switched back to PPPoE because it is slower but perfectly stable.

Considering that:

• PPPoE previously reached full Gigabit speeds,
• the Archer firmware has not changed,
• DHCP still reaches full speed,
• and several users in this thread report the same behavior (including Windows PCs running PPPoE directly),

I strongly believe this is related to a firmware regression affecting PPPoE Passthrough rather than an issue with third-party routers.

Has anyone from Bell been able to confirm whether engineering is currently investigating this issue?

Thank you.

[ScratchMang]

Same issue here.

I am paying for a 3 Gbps connection. After installing my own OPNsense firewall and moving the Internet connection to a separate PPPoE session through the Giga Hub, my speeds dropped to well below 1 Gbps in both directions. I checked the 2.5 GbE links, interface assignments, PPPoE configuration, MTU settings, hardware offloading, cabling and multiple speed-test servers. Everything on my side is configured correctly, yet the connection remains stuck around 600–900 Mbps.

Customers should not be penalized for using their own firewall or router. Give us a proper bridge mode or provide an ONT/modem that supports one. Telus, Rogers/Shaw and virtually every other ISP I have dealt with allow customers to place provider hardware into bridge mode. Bell appears to be the notable exception.

There is also a legitimate privacy concern. Bell support can apparently see how many devices are connected and, in some cases, what types of devices they are, using MAC-address lookups or information advertised by the devices themselves. That can reveal whether a household primarily uses Apple or Android devices, Roku or Fire TV, Google Home or Alexa, and other details about the equipment inside the home.

Simply saying Bell is not currently collecting or using that information does not address the concern. Policies and business practices can change. The more important question is whether Bell clearly tells new subscribers that its equipment has this capability in the first place.

I seriously doubt most customers are told before signing up: “By the way, our equipment may be able to see and identify the devices connected throughout your home.” Many people would think twice about subscribing if that were disclosed plainly.

Bell should publicly explain exactly what information its equipment can see, what is recorded, how long it is retained, who can access it, whether it is used for support, analytics, profiling or advertising, and what prevents that use from changing in the future.

Bell also encourages customers to enable shared or public Wi-Fi features, which makes transparency even more important. Customers deserve clear answers about what device identifiers are logged, whether devices can be recognized across Bell-managed access points, and what safeguards prevent that information from being used to build broader usage or location profiles.

The bottom line is simple: customers paying for multi-gigabit service should be able to use their own network equipment without being throttled to sub-gigabit speeds or forced to leave Bell hardware controlling and monitoring their internal network.

Provide a real bridge mode, provide a standalone ONT, or fix the PPPoE passthrough limitation.

[Vanadiel]

All questions regarding Privacy can be found here. 

The Privacy Policy is located here. 

Bell does control and monitor their own network, so does every other ISP. It would be pretty bad for an ISP not to monitor and control their own network.

[Vanadiel]

Thank you everyone for taking the time to post and share the issues you're experiencing with PPPoE functionality.

We are aware of the issue and technical teams are working on a fix.  Once a fix is confirmed, we will update this thread with an ETA on deployment.

Thank you,

@BellAlexander - Community Manger

[ScratchMang]

 Vanadiel, 

That is not the issue.

Bell is entitled to monitor and manage Bell’s network. My concern is where Bell’s network ends and my private home network begins.

Bell’s responsibility should end at the service handoff, the Giga Hub, ONT, or modem. The devices, MAC addresses, brands, types, and usage patterns inside my home are not part of Bell’s network simply because Bell supplied the gateway.

There is a clear difference between monitoring line quality, authentication, signal levels, traffic volumes, and service performance, versus identifying and cataloguing devices operating behind the customer’s router.

Saying “every ISP monitors its network” does not answer the privacy concern. The question is whether Bell can see information beyond the network handoff, what specific information it can see, whether that information is stored, who can access it, and how it is used.

Bell’s network ends where mine begins. What happens inside my private network is none of Bell’s business.

[ScratchMang]

Vanadiel,

Also....
Bell’s policy broadly states that it collects service-usage information, monitors whether services are working correctly and analyzes how customers use Bell products. Nowhere does it clearly disclose that Bell’s supplied gateway can identify devices operating inside a customer’s private home network, including device names, MAC addresses, manufacturers or device types.

That distinction matters.

“Bell monitors its network” is not the same as clearly telling customers that Bell equipment may provide Bell employees or systems with visibility into the devices connected inside their homes.

Bell’s network ends at the service handoff. My private network begins after that point. Bell may need access to line statistics, authentication records and gateway diagnostics, but identifying whether I own Apple devices, Android phones, Roku boxes, Fire TV devices, smart speakers, cameras or other equipment is a different category of information.

If Bell has that capability, it should be disclosed plainly and specifically, not buried beneath broad statements about “service usage” and “support.”

The questions remain:

What connected-device information can Bell see?

Is that information recorded or retained?

Who can access it?

Is it used only for troubleshooting, or also for analytics, profiling, marketing or other purposes?

How can customers prevent Bell from accessing information about devices inside their private networks?

Posting a generic privacy-policy link does not answer any of those questions.

[Vanadiel]

Any privacy issue(s) beyond the policy and other available information should be directed to [email protected]

[cclo]

I was with Bell a year ago with 3.0 Gbps service with Giga Hub 1.0.  I left Bell and went over to Telus.. the reason is price and the second is this issue... DMZ never worked, connection kept on droping...  and the Bridge mode on that Bell Modem never work from Day 1!  Back then I was able to do a 2nd PPPOE connection to my Firewall and I was fine....  I can't believe one year later and find this... it actually gone backward!  now you only get 450 Mbps connection??? I was thinking coming back to Bell after my contact is up with Telus, because Telus never offer 3Gbps in Ontario...   so I google around to find some info... maybe Bell was able to fixed the bridge mode on there modem, I was hoping...   What a  disappointment...   I think I going to stay with Telus...  Yes, they only offer 1.5Gbps down and 1.0 Gbps up.   But there modem's bridge mode actually works!

From what I able to find, the only way to by-pass this Bell Modem is using WAS-110 with 8311 firmware??  It is just too complicated!!!

[dks]

Thank you for your comments. You are correct. Bell does not use bridge mode on their modems. You can use PPPoE passthrough, however. That does have other issues, such as providing your own router, router CPU capacity and more. The bypass you outline is another option, but again, is not supported by Bell. 

[ScratchMang]

This is not simply a matter of customers using underpowered routers or configuring PPPoE incorrectly. Bell has known about PPPoE passthrough and Giga Hub limitations since the original Giga Hub 1.0, yet the problem has continued for years without a proper residential solution.

Customers have also never been able to achieve the full multi-gigabit speeds they are paying for through their own PPPoE equipment. At best, they have been forced to accept reduced performance, unstable Advanced DMZ behaviour, double NAT, or unsupported bypass hardware.

What makes this worse is that Bell appears capable of providing a proper solution to business customers, but not residential customers. That raises an obvious question: is maintaining visibility into residential customers’ internal devices and equipment more valuable to Bell than providing a proper bridge mode or standalone ONT?

Bell-supplied gateways may allow Bell systems or support personnel to identify devices connected inside a customer’s home, including MAC addresses, manufacturers, device names and device types. That capability is not clearly and prominently disclosed when customers subscribe.

Burying broad language somewhere in terms of service or a privacy policy that almost nobody reads is not meaningful disclosure. Customers should be told plainly that Bell equipment may provide visibility into the devices operating inside their private home network.

Bell should disclose exactly what connected-device information it can see, whether it is stored, who can access it, how it is used, and how customers can prevent that access.

Bell’s refusal to provide residential customers with proper bridge mode is not an unavoidable technical limitation. It is a business decision.

Customers paying for multi-gigabit service deserve the same proper network handoff apparently available to business customers: bridge mode, a standalone ONT, or a genuinely functional PPPoE implementation.

[krw]

I'm with Bell and I had to go buy a passthrough SFP module to get my full service speed and I have Ubiquiti Fiber router with PPPoE Offload and it still did not exceed 800 mbps. A solution should be not that hard. If you go to EBOX, they provide a ONT on Bell's network. If you go to Telus, they provide a Bridge Mode capable modem on Bell's network. 

Bell should offer customers a choice. If you have your own equipment, request and send a ONT. If you want full service router with WiFi, request and ship the Gigahub. Having to go spend 300 dollars US on a passthrough SFP if you have the proper equipment to do so to get the speed you pay for should not be on the customer

[Vanadiel]

It is likely a practical decision as PPPOE requires specific equipment that can perform the required PPPOE functionality without limiting the up and download speed.

Most customers just want working internet and would never use PPPOE directly. And that is what is provided to residential customers a plug and play solution. It is also easier for support purposes to have a modem/gateway device they can remotely manage and use for troubleshooting, and it also ensures they can provide new functionality to customers by rolling out firmware updates.

Using PPPOE directly by using an GPON or XPON is not something the average residential consumer would need or be interested in, as they would need to have their own hardware and own configuration in order to get working internet, including their own WiFI hardware.

That is roughly why they provide what they provide to residential customers.

[ScratchMang]

Vanadiel,

That explains why Bell provides the Giga Hub as the default option. It does not explain why Bell refuses to offer an alternative to customers who already own capable equipment, or who simply do not want Bell, its systems or its support personnel having visibility into devices inside their private home network.

Nobody is suggesting that every residential customer should configure PPPoE, purchase advanced networking hardware or manage their own Wi-Fi. The Giga Hub can remain the standard plug-and-play option for customers who want Bell to manage everything.

The issue is choice.

Customers with suitable equipment should be able to request a standalone ONT or genuine bridge mode. EBOX provides an ONT over Bell’s network, and Telus provides bridge-capable equipment over Bell’s network. The technology plainly exists.

I have worked in IT longer than many of Bell’s support representatives have been alive. I do not need, want or require Bell to manage my firewall, routing, Wi-Fi or internal network. I do a much better job then they could ever possibly manage, WiFi pods indeed, what a joke. If I request it then Bell’s responsibility should end at the service demarcation point. Everything beyond that point is my equipment, my network and my business.

Bell’s support convenience should not require customers to accept reduced speeds, unstable Advanced DMZ behaviour, double NAT, unsupported bypass hardware or Bell-managed visibility into devices inside their homes.

The proper solution is simple:

• Giga Hub for customers wanting a managed, plug-and-play service

• Standalone ONT or bridge mode for customers using their own equipment

The fact that most customers would not use the second option is irrelevant. Those who need it should not be denied it merely because Bell finds a one-size-fits-all arrangement easier to manage.

And once again, this is apologetics, not an answer. You are not addressing the problem or proposing any solution. You are simply explaining why Bell’s refusal to provide customers with a reasonable choice should supposedly be accepted.

[Vanadiel]

They provide an internet service to residential customers. Their decision is to provide it using a home hub with routing and managing functions. They decided not to provide a standalone ONT or bridge mode for residential customers.

That being said, if you have the older home hub 3000 with separate ONT it's super easy to remove the home hub from your internet connection and use the GPON directly. That is why I would never upgrade since that is the solution I use.

[ScratchMang]

Vanadiel,

You cannot request an older Home Hub 3000. You cannot request a standalone ONT, bridge-capable gateway or any alternative hardware. Residential customers are given the Giga Hub 2.0 or nothing.

That makes your position rather convenient. You retain an older setup that allows you to bypass Bell’s gateway, while defending Bell’s decision to deny that same freedom to current customers.

It is easy to dismiss legitimate concerns and explain why customers should simply accept Bell’s policies when those policies do not affect you.

Your own refusal to upgrade proves the point. You clearly value having control over your own network and avoiding Bell’s managed gateway, yet you characterize that same requirement as unnecessary when other customers ask for it.

That is not an answer. It is apologetics from someone who already has the solution Bell refuses to provide to everyone else.