Hello everyone, Apologize for the lengthy post in advance, but wanted to give some background first. Product: 1 wireless RBR750 router, 2 satellites RBS750Home Size: 2 story, 4100 sq ftCurrent Orbi Placement: see attached layoutCurrent Internet Speed: Xfinity Internet only - 800 Mbps down/20 Mbps up Although the pictorial may indicate otherwise, the network topology is star - both satellites are connected to the router and are displaying a 'Good' 5Ghz connection status (at least in the web UI). Wifi devices that are close to the satellites get roughly 700-750 Mbps. Being close to the router as I type on my laptop, I'm getting speeds around 850 Mbps. With the current placement I have, I've tested the download speeds but wanted to see if they're 'normal' or what you'd expect. All upload speeds were the same regardless at 22ish Mbps.T1: Connected to Satellite 1, 500-550 Mbps downT2: Connected to Satellite 1, 500-550 Mbps downT3: Connected to Satellite 2, 450-500 Mbps downT4: Connected to Satellite 2, 500-550 Mpbs downEach of the satellites are roughly 25 feet from each other as well as the router (line of sight distance). So 3 questions for you all: 1. If these decreased speeds are to be expected because of distance, would having an wired backhaul using MoCA help at all? I realize the Orbis use a triband and the wireless backhaul is on a dedicated band, where if you freed that up via wired, you still wouldn't be able to use that band to help with the wifi speeds - but am not sure if there is any benefit to using MoCA in this case. 2. Do you think the Orbi satellite signals are overlapping one another where the device doesn't know which to connect to which impacts speed at the satellites? I know there's speed loss the further you go, but was not expecting the loss to be this much (again, unsure if this is considered 'normal'). 3. Is there any better optimal placement of the satellites? I want to leave the router in my office, since that's where my main internet is coming in from the house.

I'll throw my .02 in as I moved from wireless to wired backhaul... First, there are some layout differences imho. With a wireless backhaul, you need to place any satellite(s) in an area with a decently GOOD signal, otherwise there will be sync issues. And at the same time, it should be in an area that currently is near to area(s) with poor WiFi coverage - that's the whole purpose of mesh, to extend as strong a signal as possible to the whole house. Now, it can be challenging accomplishing both of these requirements and still having an acceptable place to put the satellite aesthetically in the house. Now it's totally different with wired backhaul. There, you find the WORST area of signal in the house that you can still get an ethernet cable to! Because you don't have to worry about relying on a strong wifi signal for syncing. And this will spread the satellite's wifi signal to areas of the house that most need it. So last, how do you do this, how do you find the signal strength? I would highly recommend to do this right, you need a software app that shows real time signal. There are a number of free ones. I use a Mac laptop, and walk around the house running either/both of 2 tools - WiFi Explorer Lite and iAnalyzeWiFi. Both are free and in the Mac App store. I am sure there are comparable tools in the Windows world, if not more of them. Both tools will give a real time view of ALL signals in your house at that spot; see the picture below. As a bonus, you'll even see neighbor's signals if they are close enough, so it gets really easy to determine channels to set up with the NG routers for 2.4GHz and 5Ghz so that contention between networks is minimized. So here is the most reliable process imho, whether you will use wired or wireless backhaul satellites. Set up just your router. Next, if you have some capability to use wired backhaul, set up those satellite(s) first - walk around the house in the areas where wired backhaul is available, and find a mix of the worst wifi signal area, likely furthest from the router or behind some obstruction, etc., maybe it's somewhere perfectly positioned to split the coverage in the house etc., and place the satellite there. Don't be afraid to experiment. After the 1st satellite is installed, go walk around again with your signal app - see where the signal coverage issues are. Move the satellite to another area, and see what happens to the weak signal areas. Only go to the second, or if needed third, satellite if it's really needed after exhausting all the coverage options and picking the best one - and having a good idea where you are going to place the next satellite to cover a big area not covered by the router or satellite 1. In my case I learned how easy it becomes to figure out where to place satellites doing this! Now, in my case, I have an old 4800 square foot house, with tall ceilings, with 3 floors plus a basement. My cable comes in through the basement, I can't easily change that. So that's where I started this exercise. Before I figured out this smarter way of doing it, I had 1 router and 3 satellites - one on each upper floor. I put them where my wife wouldn't be mad at looking at them lol, but "spread out" in what I thought was logical. But it didn't run so great - I saw a lot of what I see on the forums - performance problems, signal problems, devices locked on to the wrong router/satellite, etc etc etc. Well, after I did the placement with my approach from above, guess what - I discovered that I had too many satellites! I ended up having full house coverage at stronger signals than before, with only 2 satellites - one on the opposite side of the house on 1st floor, and one back on the router side of the house on the third floor. Who woulda thought - the whole second floor, 12 foot ceilings, probably 1000+ sq foot, has no satellite! And it works perfectly - depending on the side of the house, it gets super strong signal either from the first or third floor satellites. The coverage is fantastic and I have never had a problem like I did before. I realized also that this process exposed the fallacy of another assumption I see people have on these forums - "more satellites have to be better than less" - wrong! Signal overlap will kill performance and confuse devices. The key is to be patient, take your time in mapping out/learning where signal strengths are high/low in your house. If you take the time to do this part right, you may be surprised in needing less satellites, you won't have signal overlaps that the devices can't handle, and performance will be the best it can be. But whatever the number needed, the satellites will be placed optimally. One last note from the OP's post - it seemed to me you expect the same wifi performance from all devices from the same spot - that won't happen. Each device has different hardware in it. A 2022 iPhone is faster than a 2020 iPad; and so on. I have had devices sitting next to each other running speed tests and saw different results. So don't get distracted by that. Good luck!

You can have RBS on different floors, just distance between each other and the RBR is important: 30 feet or more is recommended in between RBR📡 and RBS🛰️ to begin with depending upon building materials when wirelessly connected. Be aware that you may not or probably wont' see anything near 700Mpbs or over this on WiFi. Due to limitations on wifi devices and 2x2 MIMO support, most wifi devices top out at around 400-600mpbs depending. 4x4 MIMO devices can see over 700Mpbs in certain configurations. What your seeing is still great speeds, even with one RBS deployed. https://www.increasebroadbandspeed.co.uk/realistic-speeds-wi-fi-5-and-wi-fi-6https://www.duckware.com/tech/wifi-in-the-us.html

unioncorps wrote: since you won't get any added bandwidth from freeing up that wireless backhaul band and can't use it anyway. While true, this is irrelevant. Transmission over WiFi is horribly slow compared to wired Ethernet. (Each packet is physically larger. There are 'gaps' in the stream as devices send 'management frames'. And, WiFi is inherently "one person transmits at a time", whereas Ethernet allows data to flow in both directions simultaneously. With one router and two satellites, that WiFi backhaul channel is shared between all three radios (and any nearby WiFi system using the same channels). MoCA shares this characteristic as the COAX bandwidth is shared between all MoCA devices that are connected. A separate physical Ethernet cable from router to each satellite provides the highest practical bandwidth. unioncorps wrote: My impression around mesh technology is that regardless of where you go in the home (assuming the mesh is setup correctly), you'd still achieve consistent speeds throughout even at the ends of the home furthest from the router via the satellites. For example, knowing that there are a ton of more factors to consider but for simplicity sake let's ignore for now, if I'm paying for 800Mbps down I would expect to see speeds consistently close to 800 Mbps everywhere I had a connected satellite and throughout the home. This is simply incorrect. A device farther from a WiFi access point will always deliver less performance than a device near to one. It's physics. Mesh means that no matter where you go in the house, devices will remain connected to a single WiFi network. One SSID/password. Transitions will be seamless. Creating a larger WiFi footprint by installing a bunch of "WiFi Extenders" will product a spaghetti mess of separate WiFi networks. They may all have the same SSID/password, but devices will not roam seamlessly between them.

donawalt - thank you for the tips and insights! Very helpful! Which free Wifi analyzer do you think is best? I think I have an app I downloaded a while back but it's really hard to use and not intuitive. As an update, I installed MoCA to my current network yesterday, really so I can create a wired backhaul to my 2 Orbi mesh satellites. Connecting directly to the satellites themselves using an ethernet cable, I get roughly 815-915 Mbps down / 22-23 up speeds on my 800/20 Xfinity plan. From a Wifi standpoint, I get roughly 750-800 Mbps when I'm 15 ft away from a satellite. Prior to the MoCA install, I was getting 650-675 Mbps on average when I'm 15 ft away. It seems having MoCA serving as a wired backhaul helps, though it's not a true ethernet connection.

Thanks Furry. The only thing that's outstanding for me is that with the introduction of MoCA in my network setup, I had to add 2 splitters which increased my cable modem upstream power levels - they're right now sitting at around 50-51 dbmV. Before I installed MoCA, upstream power was ranging around 48-49 dbmV. With my MocA setup, I haven't yet experienced internet drops or connectivity issues despite the higher upstream levels. Even so, I feel the power levels are really at the top acceptable threshold and any random blip may cause a disconnection. Since I need to use splitters, are there splitters that are lower loss than others that still are MocA compatible frequency-wise? I've attached a schematic so you can visualize my setup and splitter output terminal db loss.

unioncorps

Guide

Jul 28, 2023

Is there any benefit to have a wired backhaul for an Orbi Mesh system?

Hello everyone,

Apologize for the lengthy post in advance, but wanted to give some background first.

Product: 1 wireless RBR750 router, 2 satellites RBS750

Home Size: 2 story, 4100 sq ft

Current Orbi Placement: see attached layout

Current Internet Speed: Xfinity Internet only - 800 Mbps down/20 Mbps up

Although the pictorial may indicate otherwise, the network topology is star - both satellites are connected to the router and are displaying a 'Good' 5Ghz connection status (at least in the web UI). Wifi devices that are close to the satellites get roughly 700-750 Mbps. Being close to the router as I type on my laptop, I'm getting speeds around 850 Mbps.

With the current placement I have, I've tested the download speeds but wanted to see if they're 'normal' or what you'd expect. All upload speeds were the same regardless at 22ish Mbps.

T1: Connected to Satellite 1, 500-550 Mbps down
T2: Connected to Satellite 1, 500-550 Mbps down
T3: Connected to Satellite 2, 450-500 Mbps down
T4: Connected to Satellite 2, 500-550 Mpbs down

Each of the satellites are roughly 25 feet from each other as well as the router (line of sight distance).

So 3 questions for you all:

1. If these decreased speeds are to be expected because of distance, would having an wired backhaul using MoCA help at all? I realize the Orbis use a triband and the wireless backhaul is on a dedicated band, where if you freed that up via wired, you still wouldn't be able to use that band to help with the wifi speeds - but am not sure if there is any benefit to using MoCA in this case.

2. Do you think the Orbi satellite signals are overlapping one another where the device doesn't know which to connect to which impacts speed at the satellites? I know there's speed loss the further you go, but was not expecting the loss to be this much (again, unsure if this is considered 'normal').

3. Is there any better optimal placement of the satellites? I want to leave the router in my office, since that's where my main internet is coming in from the house.

35 Replies

CrimpOn
Guru
Jul 28, 2023
unioncorps wrote:

1. If these decreased speeds are to be expected because of distance, would having an wired backhaul using MoCA help at all? I realize the Orbis use a triband and the wireless backhaul is on a dedicated band, where if you freed that up via wired, you still wouldn't be able to use that band to help with the wifi speeds - but am not sure if there is any benefit to using MoCA in this case.

There is some evidence to suggest that a modern MoCA installation could provide a true "gigabit" connection between router and satellites:

https://mocalliance.org/about/faqs.php#:~:text=How%20fast%20can%20MoCA%20go,1%20Gbps%20actual%20data%20rates.

This would likely improve the throughput, but how much remains to be seen. Only devices supporting WiFi6 (802.11ax) are likely to benefit.

An easy test would be to purchase a couple of 100ft. Ethernet patch cables (Amazon has them for under $20US). If the satellites perform better when linked directly with cable, then MoCA might be a solution.
- unioncorps
  Guide
  Jul 28, 2023
  CrimpOn thanks!
  
  The debate I've been reading is that since Orbi already has a dedicated triband that is reserved strictly for a wireless backhaul to communicate with other satellites in the network, establishing a wired backhaul (whether MoCA or true ethernet) wouldn't help any since you won't get any added bandwidth from freeing up that wireless backhaul band and can't use it anyway.
  
  My impression around mesh technology is that regardless of where you go in the home (assuming the mesh is setup correctly), you'd still achieve consistent speeds throughout even at the ends of the home furthest from the router via the satellites. For example, knowing that there are a ton of more factors to consider but for simplicity sake let's ignore for now, if I'm paying for 800Mbps down I would expect to see speeds consistently close to 800 Mbps everywhere I had a connected satellite and throughout the home.
  - FURRYe38
    Guru
    Jul 28, 2023
    You could see that if you had 4x4 MIMO supporting devices.
    
    Wired ethernet devices should see to speed speeds though.
FURRYe38
Guru
Jul 28, 2023
You could reduce the RBS count by one for that size of home.

Though the RBS are on different floors from the RBR, the one RBS on the 1st floor RBS would be too close the the RBR and there would be too much wifi signal over lap here.

Ethernet connected RBS is recommended if the home supports it:

https://kb.netgear.com/000051205/What-is-Ethernet-backhaul-and-how-do-I-set-it-up-on-my-Orbi-WiFi-System 📡

Not sure about MoCA, however I've seen others post about it. Possible it could work if done right.
- unioncorps
  Guide
  Jul 28, 2023
  Thanks! Previously, I did try taking out 1 satellite in the equation and moved the existing one toward the center of the house on the first floor in the foyer. When connecting to Wifi via the satellite from the master bedroom or in the dining room, I seem to get lesser speeds like only 400-450 Mbps down. Seems having 2 satellites gives me better speeds but still not to what I'm paying for - I'd be happy with consistent speeds of 700-750 Mbps.
  
  Should satellites be on the same floor vs. different floors? And if so, is it better to have them on the 2nd floor vs. 1st and people on the 1st floor can still get a good speed?
  - FURRYe38
    Guru
    Jul 28, 2023
    You can have RBS on different floors, just distance between each other and the RBR is important:
    
    30 feet or more is recommended in between RBR📡 and RBS🛰️ to begin with depending upon building materials when wirelessly connected.
    
    Be aware that you may not or probably wont' see anything near 700Mpbs or over this on WiFi. Due to limitations on wifi devices and 2x2 MIMO support, most wifi devices top out at around 400-600mpbs depending. 4x4 MIMO devices can see over 700Mpbs in certain configurations. What your seeing is still great speeds, even with one RBS deployed.
    
    https://www.increasebroadbandspeed.co.uk/realistic-speeds-wi-fi-5-and-wi-fi-6
    https://www.duckware.com/tech/wifi-in-the-us.html

Forum Discussion

Is there any benefit to have a wired backhaul for an Orbi Mesh system?