Apologies if this post is in the wrong forum. I’ve just bought a new laptop which supports WiFi 7 (802.11 be). Will I gain anything (speed/range/reliability?) by replacing my bog standard TalkTalk Huawei router with e.g. a Netgear WiFi 7 router? My broadband speeds are only 60Mbit/s down and 20Mbit/s up.
I think it really depends on how much local network traffic you have in the house between devices and whether they all also support it (probably not).
Considering I use 5Ghz WiFi5 at home and have multiple devices moving large files concurrently between each other and 4K Dolby True HD streaming over it with no issues, I don’t think you’re likely to see a benefit yet. Certainly, it won’t have any advantage on your much slower connection to your internet provider, but that’s true even of old 2.4Ghz WiFi.
If your home router already supports WiFi5 I wouldn’t bother. But if you are still rockin an older 2.4Ghz WiFi router, the move to a 5Ghz band is a massive improvement. Application responsiveness on 2.4Ghz isn’t great when they are waking up from an idle mode.
But remember, both the devices and the router need to support it. What WiFi are you currently on?
1 Like
I’m pretty sure my current router is WiFi 5 (802.11ac) and dual band (2.4GHz and 5GHz).
As long as you tell devices to prefer the 5Ghz band, I doubt you’ll get any noticeable difference.
1 Like
1 Like
Where the broadband router is bundled with wifi controller and access point, I would stick with your current ISP broadband router, that will give the overall best/most reliable broadband experience. (If using FTTC / VDSL). You can always disable the ISP router wifi and connect a separate WLAN solution… increasingly this is popular for home users in larger houses. Ubiquiti makes some good options here - but there are many vendors.
You will of course get benefit from wifi 7 for the most part if your host devices support wifi 7 … and that will come into its own in regards if you have a very large number of devices or if you need very high speeds or if you need very low latency.
WiFi 7 (and WiFi 6E) include channel bands of 6GHz … which gives far less congestion than the old 2.4 and 5 GHz bands. WiFi 7 also works better on 2.4 GHz working a lot better with interference… all good stuff, but you need a host to support WiFi 7 to take advantage of it.
I do think for however most domestic uses WiFi 5 is probably still ideal … and these days many host devices support WiFi 5.
1 Like
No don’t bother. If you want to transfer lots of date hardware the laptop to your network.
Agree that benefits are not going to be noticeable, even assuming full devices compatibility.
From an Italy perspective, the only difference may be that the bundled routers from network providers here are usually true crap, and anything to replace them, even in same standard and capability on paper, is huge gain. But may be an Italy thing.
Anyhow, I advice anyone to always prefer - for simplicity - one single device as broadband modem, router, wifi host and possibly mesh host. Having two (e.g. one modem, one wifi mesh) is puzzling for integration from wired and wireless devices direct connections, would try to avoid if possible.
1 Like
I am not sure that is the case anymore, certainly with respect to the WAN router and modem perspective (if not using full fibre)… I kind of doubt Italy is that different from elsewhere - but I could be wrong.
The ISP usually has a vested interest in optimum performance here so they can compete with rivals… you may well find third party VDSL modem routers work less well than the ISP supplied version, which will have been tuned to connect to their network (often specific firmware)
On the wifi part - yes I can agree - but even here it depends if the ISP provides other internet based services… the more they offer - the better this tends to be do so as to reduce support calls and their services work better.
Actually separating the functions can often be the best approach - and if you can, is probably best to implement if you have the know how… it is straightforward technically - we are talking quite different functions. But yes - if it’s all double dutch and magic - use a single combo product.
In small offices and small homes however - it’s often convenient to bundle the router and the Wifi controller and access point functions into a single box - but doesn’t always give the best wifi experience in terms of coverage and therefore performance.
1 Like
As an Italian living in Italy, tech savvy, the kits sold by the providers (at least on anything but FTTH) are customized in the way of trimmed down, and you can have the same bought directly with far more features. I have experiences with three different providers, same experience.
While easy to set WiFi as separate architecture, the major drawback is that some products would not traverse subnets so perceive not products wired from wireless and the opposite, or when doing add hops and latency due to NAT being involved. There are setups to avoid it, if supported by the routers, but not so straightforward.
May be my limited experience, need to try the other service providers 
I do agree’ Difference between Broadband and DSL - GeeksforGeeks Features of Boardband Features of Digital Subscriber Line
DSL vs Cable vs Fibre Optic: Which Internet Should You Choose?
Indeed, I don’t use the widi option on my NTT router. I use a big multi antenna array wifi access point located in an optimal spot high up in a central location. Although an older wifi 5 router, it’s a commercial one with a 300m range.
Remember the range need to work both ways… 
The best perceived approach for non ad-hoc wifi currently - and supported by the newer protocols is a mesh of overlapping low power participating APs (with predominately ethernet connectivity) using the hand off and fast roaming protocols… works best for several devices using the WLAN concurrently.
1 Like
Exactly. WLANs can cover a larger area than LANs, allowing for greater device connectivity and flexibility. WLANs provide greater device mobility and flexibility, as devices can connect wirelessly from anywhere within the network range.
I did originally have several AP locations designed into the house. Various spots high up on each floor connected by ethernet. But I now have smaller APs unused in boxes and the ports on the walls blanked off. Connectivity within the home being unbreakable even with multiple devices streaming concurrently 4K with ATMOS (off the NAS, not the highly compressed stuff off Netflix). Based on that experience I’d say start simple first and just be prepared to go mesh if you hit problems - which you might not.
Some of the multi antenna array APs are better than others. I have a Buffalo branded one by Melco that allows each antenna to work independently greatly improving concurrent throughtput. The way they are angled and directed gives them all different primary catchment zones. It’s specifically intended for handling multiple devices in an office.
yes its about the interference management and density … multiple devices sharing a WLAN in relative close proximity do work well with more lower power meshes. The power is both way. The host can use less power too, which reduces interference elsewhere. Interference impacts signal quality will lessen throughput and increase re transmits.
If your re transmits on receive and send are all very low on your WAP then yes you have an optimum setup for your environment and usage pattern and interference is not impacting performance.
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.