If you don't have speeds in access of 150Mbps whats the point of a AC router ?

[sfx2000]

Cradlepoint too, until smartphones (Androids) on Verizon provide no extra charge WiFi hot spot.

Cradlepoints are still awesome - much better than tethering a smartphone in AP mode... if someone is limited to 3G/4G/LTE as a WAN connection, they're really the only good choice (performance and device support).

 

[sfx2000]

You will see better integration soon. You should realize that without SmallNetBuilder, there would be no SNBForums. The forums does not support itself financially.

Looking forward to the integration - both SmallNetBuilder (the main site) and the SNBForums are chocked full of great information.

 

[Subzero89]

I ended up getting the Asus RT-N66U wow this thing is great, got it for $90. AC just not worth it in my opinion. By the time I could actually need AC router something else possibly better will be out.

 

[JoeJoe]

Wow your missing the point, anyway it was for gaming getting more fps.

I was of course joking.

Just because you don't need the speed or range of 802.11ac, it doesn't mean millions of other people don't.

 

[stevech]

I ended up getting the Asus RT-N66U wow this thing is great, got it for $90. AC just not worth it in my opinion. By the time I could actually need AC router something else possibly better will be out.

Agree!!

 

[RMerlin]

One of the factors engineers mention is that 802.11ac should enhance battery life on mobile devices versus 802.11n, as it allows these devices to more quickly complete any wifi activity, allowing the phone to return more quickly into a low-power idle state. I have never seen any numbers to support this however.

 

[Subzero89]

I was of course joking.

Just because you don't need the speed or range of 802.11ac, it doesn't mean millions of other people don't.

OK, by the way range did not really change at all according to like 2-3 articles I red. Yes on speed if you actually need it and currently have internet speeds in the neighborhood of 150Mbps.

 

[stevech]

With DOCSIS 3 cable modems, many of us have 100/10 net yield (per speedtest.net). And for the financially secure, 200 and 300Mbps net yield too.

 

[sfx2000]

One of the factors engineers mention is that 802.11ac should enhance battery life on mobile devices versus 802.11n, as it allows these devices to more quickly complete any wifi activity, allowing the phone to return more quickly into a low-power idle state. I have never seen any numbers to support this however.

Assuming that the mobile clients support AC - yes, there should be some benefit...

 

[JoeJoe]

OK, by the way range did not really change at all according to like 2-3 articles I red. Yes on speed if you actually need it and currently have internet speeds in the neighborhood of 150Mbps.

There other other reasons to want a faster network speed besides being connected to the internet.

Not all networks are even connected to the internet.

 

[L&LD]

There other other reasons to want a faster network speed besides being connected to the internet.

Not all networks are even connected to the internet.

Exactly. As I've already mentioned (even in this very thread).

 

[stevech]

There other other reasons to want a faster network speed besides being connected to the internet.

Not all networks are even connected to the internet.

But most people that frequent this board want at least the same speeds the ISP provides, to their WiFi clients. After signal strength 2-ways, and competition with neighbors' WiFi (channel selection), and putting desktops on wired, not WiFi, we have the phones and tablets. In this home, a handheld device never needs more than say 5-10Mbps at most. But that's just here.

A handheld wouldn't be doing big ole file transfers from a home/SOHO NAS that needs to be done fast (so I don't mean streaming videos).
A desktop that does a LOT of big fast file transfers belongs on wired, not WiFi, if at all possible.

Laptops - can be used as are handhelds, or as a desktop, but not too often that they need gobs of speed on WiFi.

Well, seems this way to me.

 

[sfx2000]

Exactly. As I've already mentioned (even in this very thread).

local coverage/performance should be a decent multiple of the WAN - once one gets about 300Mbps, it's less of a problem, but many of us in the sub-100Mbit ghetto...

 

[L&LD]

local coverage/performance should be a decent multiple of the WAN - once one gets about 300Mbps, it's less of a problem, but many of us in the sub-100Mbit ghetto...

Yes, I'm in that 'ghetto' too.

 

[superjet]

Is my logic flawed in thinking that (in a sense) wireless bandwidth is shared that having more bandwidth means the realized connection ends up with higher available bandwidth?

Talking about a household with a gaggle of wireless clients that are modern devices and nearly continuously communicating with the WAN side of the network

 

[L&LD]

Is my logic flawed in thinking that (in a sense) wireless bandwidth is shared that having more bandwidth means the realized connection ends up with higher available bandwidth?

Talking about a household with a gaggle of wireless clients that are modern devices and nearly continuously communicating with the WAN side of the network

Can't follow your logic here (meaning; I don't understand the question).

Can you rephrase it?

 

[TonyH]

Yes, I'm in that 'ghetto' too.

That is for sure over here too.

 

[TonyH]

Is my logic flawed in thinking that (in a sense) wireless bandwidth is shared that having more bandwidth means the realized connection ends up with higher available bandwidth?

Talking about a household with a gaggle of wireless clients that are modern devices and nearly continuously communicating with the WAN side of the network

Radio output power is fixed at certain level by law and design. If you make the b/w wide effective power level is going lower. You could counter it maybe using sharp beam antenna.(Never test it myself tho in field situation.

 

[sfx2000]

Yes, I'm in that 'ghetto' too.

GhettoPro...

at least I'm getting some semi-functional IPv6...

 

[superjet]

Can't follow your logic here (meaning; I don't understand the question).

Can you rephrase it?

Sorry, that was phrased terribly.

Take a n300 router. I give 2/3 available of theoretical bandwidth off the top so only 200mbps available before we even connect a device.

10 identical (in hardware and usage) devices all close to the router (so no attenuation from being further away)

20mbps available per device.

http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/4726628672 here's my ghetto connection

A good estimate if not perfect with the theory?