Re: 5G Channels

whsbuss-1 · ‎2017-01-23

I wonder why Netgear chose to not implement the higher 5G channels? Also, I was surprised to see you can only user 36-48 for channels in the wireless settings. Here in my house ch.149 presents the best signal. But I can't use it.

The upcoming Asus Hive will do the opposite..... use lower 5G channels for backhaul and standard upper channels for client connections.

peteytesting · ‎2017-01-23

@whsbuss-1 wrote:
I wonder why Netgear chose to not implement the higher 5G channels? Also, I was surprised to see you can only user 36-48 for channels in the wireless settings. Here in my house ch.149 presents the best signal. But I can't use it.

The upcoming Asus Hive will do the opposite..... use lower 5G channels for backhaul and standard upper channels for client connections.

hi

think about what you have just posted

if the best ch for 5 gig is 149 why not dedicate that to the backbone of the orbi system that being its backhaul , giving 1733M and the high 5 gig channels to the backhaul ensures max performance across the backhaul connection and also ensures the router and sat / sats have the best connection and then gives you a wifi signal much closer to where its needed be that 867M on 5 gig which is fine

lets look at the hive spot using the lower 5 gig means your backhaul is only 867M max , so whats the use of 1733M at the sats if the backbone can only handle 867M ?

i do think the orbi approach makes far more sense esp with multiple sats ,

yes dedicated backhaul via wifi is a great way to go and orbi has proved to be the best available at this , i think you will find the asus results be more middle of the road due to its limited 867M backhaul

pete

whsbuss-1 · ‎2017-01-24

@peteytesting wrote:
@whsbuss-1 wrote:
I wonder why Netgear chose to not implement the higher 5G channels? Also, I was surprised to see you can only user 36-48 for channels in the wireless settings. Here in my house ch.149 presents the best signal. But I can't use it.

The upcoming Asus Hive will do the opposite..... use lower 5G channels for backhaul and standard upper channels for client connections.
hi

think about what you have just posted

if the best ch for 5 gig is 149 why not dedicate that to the backbone of the orbi system that being its backhaul , giving 1733M and the high 5 gig channels to the backhaul ensures max performance across the backhaul connection and also ensures the router and sat / sats have the best connection and then gives you a wifi signal much closer to where its needed be that 867M on 5 gig which is fine

lets look at the hive spot using the lower 5 gig means your backhaul is only 867M max , so whats the use of 1733M at the sats if the backbone can only handle 867M ?

i do think the orbi approach makes far more sense esp with multiple sats ,

yes dedicated backhaul via wifi is a great way to go and orbi has proved to be the best available at this , i think you will find the asus results be more middle of the road due to its limited 867M backhaul

pete

Oh I know exactly what I posted. What I am saying is the Orbi has the right scheme for wireless backhaul. However why can we not configure what's best for our location regarding the 5G? What if there's interferrence on those lower 5G channels - wouldn't that affect backhaul bandwidth?

I am just advocating a more configurable setup. Would also like to see some sort of client handoff setting on the Orbi. UniFi allows the setting of a minimal RSSI. Orbi could do the same so clients don't hang on to the last unit (router or sat) its connected to when there's a stronger signal near by.