In article , NY
Most ISP provided modems are capable of 5GHz operation and 802.11n these
days - maybe you should ask your ISP to replace your antidiluvian unit.
while 5ghz is certainly preferred, 802.11n @ 2.4gz would be faster than
Depends whether there are other routers that use the same channel within
interference range. That would slow things down down a lot if there are
interference affects any wifi.
Also, the range of 5 GHz is a *lot* less. Some devices, such as my wife's
iPad, try 5 GHz in preference, even if you give the two networks different
if the ssids have different names, the preference is not dependent on
but then are reluctant to switch over to 2.4 even when 5 gets weak as
you move out of range. I eventually had to disable 5 GHz because her iPad
would struggle on at ludicrously low levels of signal (ie with a couple of
internal walls in between) rather than using 2.4 which was still very
use the same ssid for both and it will intelligently switch.
some wifi routers can adjust the threshold at which it switches.
ideally, set up one or more 5ghz wifi access points elsewhere in the
house, wherever it's needed. mesh units make this *very* easy but
non-mesh units will also work.
I've yet to find a wireless laptop that communicates at more than about 80
Mbps (when doing a large file copy), even when there's nothing else on the
same channel, the router is capable of 400 and the laptop and router are
next to each other. My laptop tends to connect at about 40 Mbps (according
to Task Manager | Networking) but then gradually slows down to about 5. If I
disable the laptop's wifi and plug into the router by Ethernet, a big file
copy will run at about 100 Mbps - assuming I'm copying to another computer
on the LAN which is connected by wifi - so it's not computer or HDD speed
that is throttling it.
80mbps is abnormally slow for modern wifi and even not so modern wifi.
Wifi is great for portability, but I remain to be convinced that it is able
to match it for speed. For web browsing, the ADSL WAN speed is the limiting
factor, so you don't notice, but file access between two local computers
doesn't have that restriction so you should be able to get (in theory) 400
Mbps (assuming no other wifi traffic, and assuming Gigabit Ethernet to the
in theory, better than gigabit speeds.
in reality, near gigabit speeds.
wired gigabit to the wifi access point becomes the bottleneck.