So I'm following good advice from here and steering clear of 802.11n class router for an ac model. AC1900 was suggested as the best price to performance ratio currently. Been looking exclusively at AC routers and mainly at the AC1900 class. While I see the truth in the info about the 1900, I'm left wondering if it isn't a little overkill for my needs. I'm on a pretty tight ($100-ish USD) budget and I'm seeing a lot of routers in the AC1200-1750 range that look like they would meet my needs and my budget.
Here are my details and please weigh in if you have a moment, thank you. Trying to get completely off the overpriced rental equipment. I have Xfinity Blast 150Mbps cable internet. Non-Comcast Ookla speed test is showing speeds of up to almost 200Mbps hard wired and almost 100Mbps at 5ghz wireless on my HTC One. I know it isn't a spot on measurement, but I'm definitely getting good signal & fast internet.
I picked up a 300Mbps capable gateway from the list Comcast provided of the most compatible modems/gateways for the Blast service, hoping it alone would do. As a modem it is great (clocked almost 200Mbps ethernet and my laptop browser was spitting hot fire), as a router not so much.
So here is what I am dealing with... Aforementioned gateway in bridge mode as modem (tested & getting great speed wired, but wireless is meh with crappy range) is on the first floor with an HP Laser Printer and PS4 hardwired. Can't do much about placement. I have one hi speed coax cable about 3 meters in length coming into the living room and I can't drill or nail to run more wire, so, yeah.
All in all there are 2 adults 3 kids with 5 smartphones, 5 laptops, PS3 and 2 FireTV sticks that need to run on WiFi. As far as I'm aware, none of the laptops are capable of 5ghz reception, nor is the PS3, so they'll have to be at 2.4ghz.
The FireTV sticks and smartphones are 5ghz capable. We live in an old brick farmhouse with plaster walls that was made into a duplex with 2 floors and underground basement. Not a huge coverage area & the rental gateway seems to get good signal to just about everywhere most of the time. Our bedroom is the only problem area as it is farthest away, but I can still get decent to strong signal and between 5-20Mbps at the weakest signal point but with occasional 10-20 second signal drops.
So now here is the crux of my question... Since I only have 150Mbps service (and don't see that going any higher), and a modem capable of 300Mbps max, why do I need a router capable of more than 300Mbps at 2.4ghz? Basically that's the expensive difference I am seeing between AC1200 and even 1750 and the hop to AC1900. Half the wireless we use will be on 2.4ghz, won't be upgraded soon and doesn't have an AC adapter to utilize the extra speed anyway. Since I will have a maximum of 150Mbps service for the foreseeable future, isn't anything over 300Mbps kind of expensive overkill in my situation?
I can find several well reviewed routers with some nice to have features for right around $100USD at the AC1200-1750 level. Having a VERY difficult time finding anything I am confident in at that price in AC1900. Please, for the sake of my tenuous grasp on sanity, help me get stable Netflix throughout the house for the three cranky teens and their rolling eyes. Pretty please. Thank you.
Here are my details and please weigh in if you have a moment, thank you. Trying to get completely off the overpriced rental equipment. I have Xfinity Blast 150Mbps cable internet. Non-Comcast Ookla speed test is showing speeds of up to almost 200Mbps hard wired and almost 100Mbps at 5ghz wireless on my HTC One. I know it isn't a spot on measurement, but I'm definitely getting good signal & fast internet.
I picked up a 300Mbps capable gateway from the list Comcast provided of the most compatible modems/gateways for the Blast service, hoping it alone would do. As a modem it is great (clocked almost 200Mbps ethernet and my laptop browser was spitting hot fire), as a router not so much.
So here is what I am dealing with... Aforementioned gateway in bridge mode as modem (tested & getting great speed wired, but wireless is meh with crappy range) is on the first floor with an HP Laser Printer and PS4 hardwired. Can't do much about placement. I have one hi speed coax cable about 3 meters in length coming into the living room and I can't drill or nail to run more wire, so, yeah.
All in all there are 2 adults 3 kids with 5 smartphones, 5 laptops, PS3 and 2 FireTV sticks that need to run on WiFi. As far as I'm aware, none of the laptops are capable of 5ghz reception, nor is the PS3, so they'll have to be at 2.4ghz.
The FireTV sticks and smartphones are 5ghz capable. We live in an old brick farmhouse with plaster walls that was made into a duplex with 2 floors and underground basement. Not a huge coverage area & the rental gateway seems to get good signal to just about everywhere most of the time. Our bedroom is the only problem area as it is farthest away, but I can still get decent to strong signal and between 5-20Mbps at the weakest signal point but with occasional 10-20 second signal drops.
So now here is the crux of my question... Since I only have 150Mbps service (and don't see that going any higher), and a modem capable of 300Mbps max, why do I need a router capable of more than 300Mbps at 2.4ghz? Basically that's the expensive difference I am seeing between AC1200 and even 1750 and the hop to AC1900. Half the wireless we use will be on 2.4ghz, won't be upgraded soon and doesn't have an AC adapter to utilize the extra speed anyway. Since I will have a maximum of 150Mbps service for the foreseeable future, isn't anything over 300Mbps kind of expensive overkill in my situation?
I can find several well reviewed routers with some nice to have features for right around $100USD at the AC1200-1750 level. Having a VERY difficult time finding anything I am confident in at that price in AC1900. Please, for the sake of my tenuous grasp on sanity, help me get stable Netflix throughout the house for the three cranky teens and their rolling eyes. Pretty please. Thank you.
Last edited:
