NeRD Q

[cspan37421]

* New Router Day

our existing dual band AC1200 (867/300) router has decided to unceremoniously shut down almost daily, requiring a cold/hard reboot. Not sure what's up, but it's almost 4 years old. We currently have 300 Mbps service and will probably upgrade to gig shortly. It's just $10 more per month.

That 867/300 doesn't seem to fall all that far short of gigabit capacity, so the reason for the router upgrade is more for the recent intermittent shutdowns, and age, than capacity.

But I have a question about whether I'm thinking of routers and bands properly. In short, doesn't the speed/volume/flow of gigabit (colloquially, 1000 Mbps) service get divided up among devices and across bands? For instance, suppose I am considering a tri-band router with the following characteristics:

750Mbps @ 2.4GHz
1625Mbps @ 5GHz
1625Mbps @ 5GHz

Even though this is a very capable router, a 1000 Mbps "pipe" coming in is well short of what it can theoretically deliver. Seems to me that even if all that flow was broadcast on one of the 5GHz bands, you would only be using ~60% of that channel and 0% of the other two.

As a result, a router with that set of capabilities seems like total overkill (even a waste), unless you expect to upgrade your service tier beyond 1000 Mbps, or unless the router has some other desired features. [I don't expect we'll be upgrading beyond gigabit service during the expected 3-5 yr life of the next router.]

Is my reasoning sound? If not, please help me understand this better. Thank you!

I just snagged a TP-Link AC1800 (1200+567) for $99 @ WM and will see if Costco has that C4000 (the tri-band one described above) in stock ... and if there might be a reason to upgrade to that one instead.

[-jk]

OK, I'll start with this from before that I've shared around:

We all want good wifi these days. Here are some very general thoughts that might help if your Zoom glitches (or if your kids and your neighbor's kids are streaming on two or three devices at the same time like mine).

Wifi runs on two frequencies, 2.4 GHz (channels 1-11) and 5 GHz (channels 36 and above – not to be confused with 5G cellular). Wifi on 5 GHz plays nicely with others. Any traffic - and especially any streaming video or zoom - you can move to the 5 GHz range helps overall performance. A 5 GHz signal fades fairly quickly, though, to the point that it often won't send a usable signal from one end of a home to the other. On the other hand, 2.4 GHz signals push much farther through walls and furniture than 5 GHz - which is useful - but 2.4 GHz also pushes into neighbors' homes, competing for very limited 2.4 GHz bandwidth.

Due to spec limits, 2.4 GHz should be using channels 1, 6, or 11 only. Don't "channel bond" (where it shows "1+5" or some such) in this range for theoretical extra speed; it's not effective when other wifi routers or access points are nearby. (For convenience, I'll refer to routers and access points as just "APs".) Double check your wifi settings to be sure any 2.4 GHz self-selected channels are just 1,6, or 11 and not bonded. 5 GHz has many more channels, and channel bonding is fine and gives a nice speed boost. The closer together the homes (especially townhouse communities and condos/apartments), the more important for everyone to keep 2.4 GHz to just 1, 6, and 11, and to use 5 GHz whenever you can.

If your 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz wifi signals have the same network name/SSID (the current default from Verizon, not sure about Comcast), the computer/device that can use either range will choose the frequency on its own. You can change settings in your AP to give the 5 GHz range a separate name, so you can choose which frequency to use depending on your particular circumstances. Some computers can be set to prefer 5 GHz over 2.4 GHz, an option usually buried away in the network adapter’s advanced settings.

Within your home, you can do a few things to improve performance. Run network cable wherever practical - those things that stay put such as desktops, printers, TVs (and their video streaming devices), and your APs themselves. Some APs have directional antennas, with a stronger signal going in a particular direction or plane. Wifi operates line-of-sight, and everything the signal passes through lessens it - some things more than others. Position APs accounting for the antenna and the existing building - walls, appliances, furniture, mirrors, chimneys, etc. Place APs high in a room when you can. Similarly, if you sit between your device and the AP, you will reduce the signal getting to your device. Finally, adding another AP or using a mesh system almost always helps your coverage, but also crowds the airwaves. Each home has different needs and solutions.

Ideally, wifi is set up in a way that meets our own needs and doesn't make things worse for our neighbors. A nice, free tool to see what channel you’re using as well as all the wifi signals near you, including channels and their utilization, is inSSIDer for Windows. There's also a Mac version in beta that I haven’t tried.

-jk

[-jk]

Starting with that general info, there are many variables in play.

How many APs are you setting up? How many wifi devices do you have in your home? What's your home constructed of? Real plaster is harder for signals to punch through than sheetrock.

How crowded is your neighborhood? Detached single family homes generally don't have neighbor problems. Condos/apartments can be really tough.

Streaming a 4K movie only takes about 20 mbps. And realistically, you'll likely never notice speeds over 100 mbps unless you're trying to download movies onto a device to watch offline or other big data stuff. Often there are outside bottlenecks. On the flip side, if you have overkill in the house, you'll never wonder you're the problem!

Do you move big data within your house - i.e., streaming off a dvr, copying large files around? For instance, I have a synology drive enclosure I keep backups, videos, and pics on. When I'm pushing scores of gigabytes around, it's nice to have headroom without dragging down everyone else in the house.

-jk

[TruBlu]

OK, I'll start with this from before that I've shared around:

We all want good wifi these days. Here are some very general thoughts that might help if your Zoom glitches (or if your kids and your neighbor's kids are streaming on two or three devices at the same time like mine).

Wifi runs on two frequencies, 2.4 GHz (channels 1-11) and 5 GHz (channels 36 and above – not to be confused with 5G cellular). Wifi on 5 GHz plays nicely with others. Any traffic - and especially any streaming video or zoom - you can move to the 5 GHz range helps overall performance. A 5 GHz signal fades fairly quickly, though, to the point that it often won't send a usable signal from one end of a home to the other. On the other hand, 2.4 GHz signals push much farther through walls and furniture than 5 GHz - which is useful - but 2.4 GHz also pushes into neighbors' homes, competing for very limited 2.4 GHz bandwidth.

Due to spec limits, 2.4 GHz should be using channels 1, 6, or 11 only. Don't "channel bond" (where it shows "1+5" or some such) in this range for theoretical extra speed; it's not effective when other wifi routers or access points are nearby. (For convenience, I'll refer to routers and access points as just "APs".) Double check your wifi settings to be sure any 2.4 GHz self-selected channels are just 1,6, or 11 and not bonded. 5 GHz has many more channels, and channel bonding is fine and gives a nice speed boost. The closer together the homes (especially townhouse communities and condos/apartments), the more important for everyone to keep 2.4 GHz to just 1, 6, and 11, and to use 5 GHz whenever you can.

If your 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz wifi signals have the same network name/SSID (the current default from Verizon, not sure about Comcast), the computer/device that can use either range will choose the frequency on its own. You can change settings in your AP to give the 5 GHz range a separate name, so you can choose which frequency to use depending on your particular circumstances. Some computers can be set to prefer 5 GHz over 2.4 GHz, an option usually buried away in the network adapter’s advanced settings.

Within your home, you can do a few things to improve performance. Run network cable wherever practical - those things that stay put such as desktops, printers, TVs (and their video streaming devices), and your APs themselves. Some APs have directional antennas, with a stronger signal going in a particular direction or plane. Wifi operates line-of-sight, and everything the signal passes through lessens it - some things more than others. Position APs accounting for the antenna and the existing building - walls, appliances, furniture, mirrors, chimneys, etc. Place APs high in a room when you can. Similarly, if you sit between your device and the AP, you will reduce the signal getting to your device. Finally, adding another AP or using a mesh system almost always helps your coverage, but also crowds the airwaves. Each home has different needs and solutions.

Ideally, wifi is set up in a way that meets our own needs and doesn't make things worse for our neighbors. A nice, free tool to see what channel you’re using as well as all the wifi signals near you, including channels and their utilization, is inSSIDer for Windows. There's also a Mac version in beta that I haven’t tried.

-jk

I thought English was the preferred language on this board. Please stick to it. I might report you to a Mod . . . oh, wait . . .

[-jk]

My personal example: I live in a modest sized home in a single family neighborhood, on lots mostly 6000 to 10000 sf.

I have 3 APs. One on the second floor in a linen closet on one side of the house, one in a closet on the first floor on the other side of the house, and a third in the basement under the 2nd floor one. I added the third one last spring when we started using that part of the basement for real work. It was originally an acceptably low speed corner of the house, but we needed to Zoom there.

Each of them use both 2.4 and 5 GHz bands all on the same SSID ("GoDuke" - a neighbor used to be AD at Maryland). Each uses different bands, with the 5GHz ones channel-bonded for a boost. I've dialed back the power on the 2.4 GHz bands to encourage devices that can't prioritize 5 GHz to self-select it anyway.

My AV setup has a wired ethernet connection, so my TV, Receiver, TiVo, Apple TV, and Blu Ray players are all wired. (Sidebar: I love power over ethernet! A couple switches and main two APs are all POE so no extra power cords needed.) Most of my home office stuff is also hard wired - printers, the synology box, and any laptop being used in there.

I have 100mbps service, and my kids' friends always say we have "the best internet". We really have the best infrastructure.

-jk

[-jk]

I thought English was the preferred language on this board. Please stick to it. I might report you to a Mod . . . oh, wait . . .

If you have specific questions, I'll try to answer them, but it was written as very general guidance.

-jk

[fidel]

* New Router Day

our existing dual band AC1200 (867/300) router has decided to unceremoniously shut down almost daily, requiring a cold/hard reboot. Not sure what's up, but it's almost 4 years old. We currently have 300 Mbps service and will probably upgrade to gig shortly. It's just $10 more per month.

That 867/300 doesn't seem to fall all that far short of gigabit capacity, so the reason for the router upgrade is more for the recent intermittent shutdowns, and age, than capacity.

But I have a question about whether I'm thinking of routers and bands properly. In short, doesn't the speed/volume/flow of gigabit (colloquially, 1000 Mbps) service get divided up among devices and across bands? For instance, suppose I am considering a tri-band router with the following characteristics:

750Mbps @ 2.4GHz
1625Mbps @ 5GHz
1625Mbps @ 5GHz

Even though this is a very capable router, a 1000 Mbps "pipe" coming in is well short of what it can theoretically deliver. Seems to me that even if all that flow was broadcast on one of the 5GHz bands, you would only be using ~60% of that channel and 0% of the other two.

As a result, a router with that set of capabilities seems like total overkill (even a waste), unless you expect to upgrade your service tier beyond 1000 Mbps, or unless the router has some other desired features. [I don't expect we'll be upgrading beyond gigabit service during the expected 3-5 yr life of the next router.]

Is my reasoning sound? If not, please help me understand this better. Thank you!

I just snagged a TP-Link AC1800 (1200+567) for $99 @ WM and will see if Costco has that C4000 (the tri-band one described above) in stock ... and if there might be a reason to upgrade to that one instead.

The stated bandwidth of wifi can only be reached in the most optimal conditions, which I am not sure exist in the real world. Unless all your devices are within a foot of the AP, you are losing bandwidth to walls, floors, doors, etc.

Add that to what -jk added -- the things you normally do don't need much bandwidth. Unless you are doing lots of file transfers or other 'bulk' data movement, you are sending small messages back and forth, and you don't need big bandwidth for that.

5Ghz is better because, due to something about the wavelength, it travels through obstacles better...just not as far. So you will get a cleaner signal over short distances, meaning less retries.

If you are a gamer, I'd go wired. I'm not sure what the throughput demands are, but for max everything you need as much bandwidth direct to the device as you can get.

[-jk]

The stated bandwidth of wifi can only be reached in the most optimal conditions, which I am not sure exist in the real world. Unless all your devices are within a foot of the AP, you are losing bandwidth to walls, floors, doors, etc.

Add that to what -jk added -- the things you normally do don't need much bandwidth. Unless you are doing lots of file transfers or other 'bulk' data movement, you are sending small messages back and forth, and you don't need big bandwidth for that.

5Ghz is better because, due to something about the wavelength, it travels through obstacles better...just not as far. So you will get a cleaner signal over short distances, meaning less retries.

If you are a gamer, I'd go wired. I'm not sure what the throughput demands are, but for max everything you need as much bandwidth direct to the device as you can get.

For online gaming definitely wired. You want as low and stable latency as possible, and wifi adds more and more unpredictable latency.

For 2.4 v 5 GHz I think the major difference is much less environmental noise on the frequency. Microwaves, cordless phones (not cell phones), baby monitors - all sorts of stuff operates in the 2.4 range that interfere with wifi there.

-jk

[camion]

If you have specific questions, I'll try to answer them, but it was written as very general guidance.

-jk

Oh good. I have a specific question.

My apartment is about 100 ft from the community pool. I get a weak signal from my place when I'm sitting at the pool. The WiFi router is presently about as close to the pool as I can get it from within my place. Is there a different router, a signal booster or directional antenna I can get for my WiFi so I can sit at the pool and surf the interwebs?

And yes, there are a good number of WiFi routers in the area.

[-jk]

Oh good. I have a specific question.

My apartment is about 100 ft from the community pool. I get a weak signal from my place when I'm sitting at the pool. The WiFi router is presently about as close to the pool as I can get it from within my place. Is there a different router, a signal booster or directional antenna I can get for my WiFi so I can sit at the pool and surf the interwebs?

And yes, there are a good number of WiFi routers in the area.

You'd need a Yagi (directional) antenna and an AP with a compatible antenna jack. Simplest ones are made from pringles cans. (google it!)

Even if a usable signal makes it to the pool, congestion may still be a problem though.

-jk

[cspan37421]

Thank you all, much good advice and info here. I'm not sure my question was answered, though. It has to do with whether one's service speed is a limited resource that gets divided up among devices (when they're being used, of course), and, as you note, some to losses due to distance and obstacles. I appreciate the reminder about that. And whether a given router with theoretical capabilities that are, in aggregate, a 4x multiplier of one's service speed, is in effect a waste. I'm just trying to figure out if there's any value in getting a router that seems to have capacity well beyond the service tier we expect for the next few years.

To give more background:

We are not building or renovating this house, so the wiring isn't likely changing anytime soon. Not going to rewire the upstairs to please gamer boy (who is 21 and effectively off the payroll already). We have one wire coming in for fiber optics internet (at 300 Mbps, to be 1000 by EOY) and it goes to one AP (dual-band router, 867 + 300) that may be dying. 5 bedroom house, ~ 3000sf, 1.5 floors plus semi-furnished basement. Wood frame & drywall interior construction ... no brick (save fireplace), no plaster, no stone. Tile in bathrooms only. Wood flooring in 4 main floor rooms, including the one with the AP. I guess that would only attenuate the signal to the basement, not any other rooms on the main floor or upstairs.

We have these devices, and in relation to their draw on our home's internet pipe:

2 smartphones, 1 in near constant use, 1 almost never used. Locations vary.
1 tablet in daily use. Location varies.
1 laptop that is used full time during business hours on wi-fi. Video (Zoom, Skype, MSFT Meetings - not sure) used almost daily, but not all day. Located ~40 ft and 3 walls away from AP.
1 desktop PC in constant use via ethernet (passthrough via router/AP). No video meetings, though. Most of the "draw" is from web browsing and podcast updating. [plenty of other use but not a big draw on internet svc]
2 x Roku streaming sticks, for after work/weekends. One is in basement, 15' and one wood floor plus one wall away; one is 15' and 1 wall away. Each had trouble with disconnects on 5 GHz band; reverted to 2.4 and that fixed it.
Our laser printer is also connected via wi-fi, but that's on the LAN and not really drawing from the ISP's pipeline.

[Other things that get sporadic use on the wi-fi, but only at the expense of any time spent on the above: Raspberry Pi, 1 more laptop]. No "smart home" stuff.

When the adult kids are visiting, that adds 2 more smartphones, 2 more laptops, 1 game console. Sometimes one of them has to work from here when visiting, and thus must be connected. The other is a college senior, but he did the same with his summer internship.

I can't even begin to think of what all these different things draw, how it relates to our 300 mbps service, and how much of that speed is eaten by our walls and the distances.

[-jk]

That’s a lot of kit and house for one access point/router. If you don’t want to wire anything, you might want to look into one of the mesh systems. They do a fairly good job of balancing WiFi backhaul by mixing frequencies.

https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/r...king-kits/amp/

-jk

[LasVegas]

Yes, a wifi router that can deliver higher speeds than your connection is technically a waste. The internet service you have is divided up among all devices at any time. Devices not in use use nothing basically unless they are updating software. Internet browsing uses next to nothing so no need to worry on that front as well. 300 mbps is more than enough for the average family. Netflix recommends 25 mbps for ONE 4K video stream. So a 300 mbps connection would let you stream at least 12 4K videos at once.

Your issue really is going to be signal in a home that large. My recommendation would be to get a mesh wifi network. I have a tp link deco system and it’s awesome. Basically it comes with three routers. The first one you hook up to the modem. The other two can be strategically placed throughout the home. I have three floors and have one on every floor. My signal is always great and I almost always pull at least 130 mpbs in every spot in my home (I have a 150 mbps plan)

[cspan37421]

Thanks! - time to get educated on mesh. I did note Google's offering at Costco tonight, and it had zero specs listed on the display "card". So it was hard to compare it to our single router's specs and judge whether it would be faster, slower, or the same overall (say, at the main AP itself; I understand the whole point is to boost the signal at more distant locations in the house). There were 1-2 other mesh offerings there too, but I didn't look at the packaging to see if those had any specs.

Our single AP is fairly centrally located in the house, save for being along the front wall (facing the street), as that's where my desk faces (bay window), and it sits atop it. Apart from that it's pretty close to the geometric center as far as left-to-right and up/down. And as best I know, everyone's been able to do all they've needed to, wherever. Can't speak for gaming lag though; it's plausible.

So yeah, those are a lot of devices but there are just two of us here most of the time, and apart from her iphone, I think each of us only draws from the internet pipe with one device at a time. I don't have my laptop going while watching Netflix on Roku; when she's on her laptop for work she's not on her tablet, etc. Now my multitasking kids ... that's another story!

[BlueDevil2K]

Not much to add...but I'll agree, wired is almost always preferable to wireless. One option to consider with which I've had a lot of success is MoCA. I have two APs, and they're connected to each other via the coaxial cable that's built into the house via two of these:

https://www.amazon.com/MOTOROLA-Adap...dp/B077Y3SQXR/

One is next to the cable modem in one corner of the house, and the other is by the TV in the (almost) opposite corner of the house. The two APs communicate with each other via MoCA, so no bandwidth is being lost by having one AP "repeat" the other. I'm another luddite (apparently?) who still uses TiVos. One nice aspect of MoCA is that I have a TiVo Mini that is also on that MoCA network, connecting to the main TiVo using the same technology.

Some day I'll upgrade to a mesh network, and when I do, I will definitely go with either two or three APs, all connected to each other via MoCA using the three cable jacks in the house. All of this without running a single Ethernet cable more than ~10 feet.

One other thing to keep in mind - increasingly, smart devices are able to communicate directly (i.e. peer-to-peer, not sending all of their data through the router itself). I actually got myself into trouble in one case by attaching one to an Ethernet port, when it really preferred wireless. A couple of nights ago I gave in, re-enabled its Wi-Fi, and unplugged the Ethernet cable. All that is to say that some of the capacity of the router may not be needed if devices are communicating with each other vs. streaming from outside.

[gep]

Thanks! - time to get educated on mesh. I did note Google's offering at Costco tonight, and it had zero specs listed on the display "card". So it was hard to compare it to our single router's specs and judge whether it would be faster, slower, or the same overall (say, at the main AP itself; I understand the whole point is to boost the signal at more distant locations in the house). There were 1-2 other mesh offerings there too, but I didn't look at the packaging to see if those had any specs.

Our single AP is fairly centrally located in the house, save for being along the front wall (facing the street), as that's where my desk faces (bay window), and it sits atop it. Apart from that it's pretty close to the geometric center as far as left-to-right and up/down. And as best I know, everyone's been able to do all they've needed to, wherever. Can't speak for gaming lag though; it's plausible.

So yeah, those are a lot of devices but there are just two of us here most of the time, and apart from her iphone, I think each of us only draws from the internet pipe with one device at a time. I don't have my laptop going while watching Netflix on Roku; when she's on her laptop for work she's not on her tablet, etc. Now my multitasking kids ... that's another story!

I was going to mention Google WiFi mesh network. It is designed to be "plug-and-play"... almost no user options to set. This might be a dissapointment for those that like to "get under the hood". But, it works great out of the box. Son-in-law got it for their house. Plugged in the first one connected to the modem, plugged the other 2 in other locations in the house. Immediately connected with essentially max speeds... at 5GHz as preferred... 2.4 GHz as necessary (like for hardware that doesn't support 5 GHz). Good luck

[BlueDevil2K]

Due to spec limits, 2.4 GHz should be using channels 1, 6, or 11 only.

I've never seen this before. I've had good luck with looking at what channels are being used by my neighbors' networks and picking channels that are not being utilized elsewhere. What's the rationale for channels 1, 6, and 11 only? I can currently see 18(!) networks from my laptop, of which 3 are mine and as far as I can tell in total cover ~14 different houses. If even 9 of those 18 networks are 2.4 GHz networks, wouldn't there have to be three APs on each channel in different houses, all interfering with each other?

ETA: screen capture of nearby networks

[gep]

I've never seen this before. I've had good luck with looking at what channels are being used by my neighbors' networks and picking channels that are not being utilized elsewhere. What's the rationale for channels 1, 6, and 11 only? I can currently see 18(!) networks from my laptop, of which 3 are mine and as far as I can tell in total cover ~14 different houses. If even 9 of those 18 networks are 2.4 GHz networks, wouldn't there have to be three APs on each channel in different houses, all interfering with each other?

My understanding is that channels 1, 6, and 11 do not "overlap". That is, something like channel 3 overlaps other channels... thereby increasing interference. Anyone else?

[BlueDevil2K]

My understanding is that channels 1, 6, and 11 do not "overlap". That is, something like channel 3 overlaps other channels... thereby increasing interference. Anyone else?

That makes sense - as shown in the attachment I just added, my router on channel 6 is spanning a wide range (2-10?) of frequencies. I'm just wondering if it wouldn't be better to be the only AP on channel 8 or 9 vs. being one of several nearby APs on channel 6...

[Nrrrrvous]

Yes, a wifi router that can deliver higher speeds than your connection is technically a waste. The internet service you have is divided up among all devices at any time. Devices not in use use nothing basically unless they are updating software. Internet browsing uses next to nothing so no need to worry on that front as well. 300 mbps is more than enough for the average family. Netflix recommends 25 mbps for ONE 4K video stream. So a 300 mbps connection would let you stream at least 12 4K videos at once.

Your issue really is going to be signal in a home that large. My recommendation would be to get a mesh wifi network. I have a tp link deco system and it’s awesome. Basically it comes with three routers. The first one you hook up to the modem. The other two can be strategically placed throughout the home. I have three floors and have one on every floor. My signal is always great and I almost always pull at least 130 mpbs in every spot in my home (I have a 150 mbps plan)

Just curious. Have they solved the iphone/ipad switching issues that they used to have with mesh networks? (1-2 years ago?) I tried a nice Eero package about a year and a half ago. My iphones would connect to one of the APs but then would have trouble switching to a different AP when you carried them to the other end of the house. After much research into the Eero and Orbi systems I was told that it was an Apple issue and they couldn't do anything about it. I gave up and went away from mesh wifi. Anyone still having these issues?