Belkin AC900

[uncrx2003]

Thinking about getting a new wireless router to use it behind my Uverse RG. I was looking at the Netgear R6300. I was walking around Costco today and noticed that they have the new Belkin AC900 DB there ($99). Couldn't find anything online except for the manual. Anyone here has any experience with this router?

http://cache-www.belkin.com/support/dl/MAN_F9K1117_AC900_Router.pdf

 

[stevech]

What's the shortfall with the current router?
U-verse is not very fast (or worse).

Does AT&T allow you to have your own router and control your own firewall settings?

 

[uncrx2003]

The Uverse router is required for TV service so it acts both as a modem and the TV server. The wireless range really sucks on it. I would like a router with a bit better range to use as my primary router. This alone is a pain to set up with the Uverse RG. I wonder if this Belkin is a Costco model only.

 

[stevech]

Since you must use their router... what you need for better coverage is one or more WiFi Access Points (APs). A network should have just one router.

An AP is the WiFi portion of a WiFi router. You can purchase a product that can be an AP (among other roles). Or you can re-purpose any WiFi router to be an AP (you don't use the WAN port and you disable DHCP). There's a FAQ here on how to do this.

Place the AP(s) to improve coverage. Connect each AP to a LAN port on the router (or a switch leading to the router). Connect via cat5 cable. Or if that just can't be done, you can substitute, for cat5, HomePlug or MoCA devices; see the forum section.

The AP's supplement the existing WiFi; they don't replace it.

 

[sfx2000]

some of the u-verse stuff does odd things to send to the secondary boxes (other TV's) - for me this was a deal-breaker.

ATT has been doing a big push in my neighborhood - not fiber to the curb, just xDSL...

If you only have the single TV, if I recall, you can set the box to bridge mode for your LAN traffic and attach an AP if you don't want their WiFi...

 

[stevech]

I urge all that ask: Don't go with U-Verse.
Technical: It tries to use a 30 year old copper wire phone pair from your house to their curbside VRAD (which has to be a really short run) - to move today's HD content. Since that copper has a tiny fraction of the capacity/bandwidth of even a cable TV coax, U-Verse is a mess of compromises in speed and higher compression of video (lower quality) to get their advertised multi-stream of video channels to the house, and support Internet and Phone.

The absurd case I saw was a naive neighbor-lady down the street: AT&T pitched U-Verse. The VRAD is about 800 ft. away. She had TimeWarner cable. AT&T deceived her on pricing, and she took their pitch. They came, unwired Timewarner inside her house. Spent TWO days running new coax, cat5, MoCA, and so on. Idiots they were: they then hooked it up and their copper wire based modem could not get a strong enough signal to/from the VRAD. Why? Well, it was simply: 800 ft. as the crow files, but twice that as the builder did the underground wire routing (followed the streets, not the crow's path!) Geesh. Shoulda checked signal before building. AT&T abandoned the job. She had to pay TimeWarner to rewire and reinstate her cable service. Soon thereafter, AT&T billed her for the installation. She had fits undoing this.

This happened to others in the neighborhood. This is not rural; it's dense urban townhouses.

That and the way AT&T used to treat me as a customer (unbelievably deceptive, rude, etc)... they are the evil empire now, per me. AT&T is not your father's AT&T: it's SBC renamed due to the acquisition.

 

[TonyH]

[/QUOTE]

If you only have the single TV, if I recall, you can set the box to bridge mode for your LAN traffic and attach an AP if you don't want their WiFi...[/QUOTE]

IMO, getting rid of their router is better idea.

 

[uncrx2003]

If you only have the single TV, if I recall, you can set the box to bridge mode for your LAN traffic and attach an AP if you don't want their WiFi...[/QUOTE]

IMO, getting rid of their router is better idea.[/QUOTE]

Whether Uverse is bad or not could be a whole new discussion. I'll say one thing though, the picture quality is better than TWC. Customer no service sucks for both.

My original plan was just to get the AC900. Since it's from Costco, if it doesn't work out they'll always take it back. I looked at the AP options suggested above but I having a hard time running the CAT5 cable to the location I want. I think I'm just going to be the guinea pig and buy the AC900.

 

[clintb]

I urge all that ask: Don't go with U-Verse.

At a low point in my IT career I took an eye opening job with AT&T as a Premises Technician on the U-Verse side. Wow, did it ever open my eyes to how un-technical of people they will hire. Nice enough folks I worked with, but most did not know a lick about networking/computers/physical layer.

800 feet, in the U-Verse world would not be much at all, if it were really that. 1600 feet is not much either. I've personally installed U-Verse service on loops around 3400 feet, but that was on very new copper, and it had strong signals. I'm really surprised they went forward with the install without checking first. That tech, or techs, must have been very new and not under the gun for the absurd levels of efficiency AT&T wants (98% when I left).

After working for AT&T, I won't use their products anymore...

 

[uncrx2003]

Well using it as a router behind the Uverse gateway didn't work. Played around with it for several hours before giving up. I ended up setting it as an access point. Going to have to find a way to run the cable now. I really do like this router. Setup is interface is extremely easy. $99 for an AC router, it cost same or cheaper than some AP.

 

[stevech]

After working for AT&T, I won't use their products anymore...

That about says it all.

Just after the dinosaur age, I worked for AT&T (as a young guy). In that regulated era, they were a wonderful company, but the CWA union, even then, sucked.

 

[sfx2000]

Yhat and the way AT&T used to treat me as a customer (unbelievably deceptive, rude, etc)... they are the evil empire now, per me. AT&T is not your father's AT&T: it's SBC renamed due to the acquisition.

Remember PacBell before the SBC acquisition - they were actually pretty decent, went downhill after SBC took over - not much longer after that did Cox offer dialtone - haven't looked back since then...