dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
66

Darknessfall
Premium Member
join:2012-08-17
Motorola MG8725
Asus RT-N66

3 edits

Darknessfall to my thoughts

Premium Member

to my thoughts

Re: NEW! U-verse Gateway - NVG599 - WIRELESS AC! AC1600

said by my thoughts :

N is still single band 2.4 frequency.

It says that it's 3 antenna 2x2(2 stream with antenna diversity) N on 2.4(300 Mbps)
+
3 antenna 3x3(3 stream) AC on 5 GHz(1300 Mbps)

Maybe they'll finally be able to use this instead of an additional WAP for the STBs?

Tech007
Premium Member
join:2013-01-25
Belleville, IL

Tech007

Premium Member

possibbly, suppose to be able to use 4-5 wifi boxes some time this year

mackey
Premium Member
join:2007-08-20

mackey to Darknessfall

Premium Member

to Darknessfall
said by Darknessfall:

It says that it's 3x3(2 stream with antenna diversity) N on 2.4(300 Mbps)

No, it says it's 2x2 on 2.4 (3x3 is only for 5.8 802.11ac).

/M

Darknessfall
Premium Member
join:2012-08-17
Motorola MG8725
Asus RT-N66

2 edits

Darknessfall

Premium Member

said by mackey:

said by Darknessfall:

It says that it's 3x3(2 stream with antenna diversity) N on 2.4(300 Mbps)

No, it says it's 2x2 on 2.4 (3x3 is only for 5.8 802.11ac).

/M

I think you read my post wrong or I just wrote it wrong. By 3x3, I meant 3 antenna, but with 2(2x2) stream at most per client(300 Mbps on 40 MHz/144 Mbps on 20 MHz). Antenna diversity will be used to choose the two best antennas out of three on 2.4 GHz. I probably shouldn't have said 3x3 and should have said 3 antenna with 2x2. Fixed.

AnonMan
@comcast.net

AnonMan

Anon

Great, just what I need AT&T to blast another frequency with 3x the power vs. what they need.

I live in a house and can probably see 12-15 2-wire signals and mind you these houses are not butt up against each other. The RF interference is nuts and I have moved to 5GHz AC band to have some actual usable wifi as on 2.4GHz the bandwidth sucks due to all this.

Now they want to move to it too. They need to stop putting these in the field on default max power and clogging up the airwaves. End of the day it hurts everyone.

I understand in some situations it may need to be but not every single one. It should have some sort of site survey test or something to do or be part of install to set it correctly, but they don't even allow you to set it...

The whole 802.11AC is a joke. It's fast an great now because most people are on 2.4GHz but now move everyone to 5GHz and all you did was create the same thing, but in this case it will be worse because they are mashing more channels together to get this bandwidth and increasing power output...

Darknessfall
Premium Member
join:2012-08-17
Motorola MG8725
Asus RT-N66

4 edits

Darknessfall

Premium Member

said by AnonMan :

Great, just what I need AT&T to blast another frequency with 3x the power vs. what they need.

I live in a house and can probably see 12-15 2-wire signals and mind you these houses are not butt up against each other. The RF interference is nuts and I have moved to 5GHz AC band to have some actual usable wifi as on 2.4GHz the bandwidth sucks due to all this.

Now they want to move to it too. They need to stop putting these in the field on default max power and clogging up the airwaves. End of the day it hurts everyone.

I understand in some situations it may need to be but not every single one. It should have some sort of site survey test or something to do or be part of install to set it correctly, but they don't even allow you to set it...

The whole 802.11AC is a joke. It's fast an great now because most people are on 2.4GHz but now move everyone to 5GHz and all you did was create the same thing, but in this case it will be worse because they are mashing more channels together to get this bandwidth and increasing power output...

Yeah, those 2WIREs go incredibly far. If I let my inSSIDer run all day, I can see 35 2wires. What makes it worse is that these 2wires like to overlap you to death. They totally throw 1,6, and 11 out the window with their 400 mW! My 2wire goes about 900ft on my phone with a weak wireless card.

I think AC will be ok. While more people will be using the same channel(unless they begin using the two additional 80 MHz channel spots) and we only have 2(4) spots to 80 MHz, I don't think interference will be that bad. Most of the 2.4 GHz interference is from overlapping networks. You see only a slight decrease in throughput when on the same channel. Channels 36-48 will probably end up cleaner though due to most devices preferring 149-165 instead and many manufacturers defaulting it to the upper band. Probably due to the higher output power.

Seems like this gateway, like many U-verse gateways will have higher output power on 6 compared to 1 and 11. It also seems to be limited to 149+153+157+161 80 MHz bonding. Test results claim that it cannot use any other channels.

mackey
Premium Member
join:2007-08-20

mackey to AnonMan

Premium Member

to AnonMan
said by AnonMan :

The whole 802.11AC is a joke. It's fast an great now because most people are on 2.4GHz but now move everyone to 5GHz and all you did was create the same thing, but in this case it will be worse because they are mashing more channels together to get this bandwidth and increasing power output...

Although it's still going to be a mess, it won't be as bad as the current 2.4GHz situation.

With 2.4GHz there's 3 non-overlapping channels, but on 5GHz with 80MHz wide channels there are 5 non-overlapping channels. Plus, if an AP detects someone else trying to use the same channel it will automatically drop back to 40MHz (10 non-overlapping channels) and then 20 MHz wide channels in order to avoid interference. Also helping is the fact that 5GHz doesn't penetrate or go as far as 2.4GHz does.

/M

Darknessfall
Premium Member
join:2012-08-17
Motorola MG8725
Asus RT-N66

4 edits

Darknessfall

Premium Member

said by mackey:

said by AnonMan :

The whole 802.11AC is a joke. It's fast an great now because most people are on 2.4GHz but now move everyone to 5GHz and all you did was create the same thing, but in this case it will be worse because they are mashing more channels together to get this bandwidth and increasing power output...

Although it's still going to be a mess, it won't be as bad as the current 2.4GHz situation.

With 2.4GHz there's 3 non-overlapping channels, but on 5GHz with 80MHz wide channels there are 5 non-overlapping channels. Plus, if an AP detects someone else trying to use the same channel it will automatically drop back to 40MHz (10 non-overlapping channels) and then 20 MHz wide channels in order to avoid interference. Also helping is the fact that 5GHz doesn't penetrate or go as far as 2.4GHz does.

/M

I wouldn't really count those additional 80 MHz areas since barely any consumer gear uses them and many devices being are defaulted to use channels in the upper 5 GHz band(Netgear defaults all of their new dual band routers to channel 153). The only device I have seen that is available to regular people and can use non 38-48 or 149-165 channels is the VAP2500. My WNDA4100 can detect networks on non 38-40 or 149-165 channels while my new A6200 cannot. The upper 5 GHz band is going to become quite congested. No overlapping does help however.

Many AC routers don't have much of a wide gap between 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz range(when in the upper band). A R6300v2 can have -50 on 2.4 GHz and -55 on 5 GHz and my EA6300v1 has -48 on 2.4 GHz and -54 on 5 GHz. Dropping to the lower band(with lower output power) does however widen that gap.

I also wouldn't count on the automatic fallback. Many devices in the 2.4 GHz band don't fallback from 40 MHz(even wifi certified devices). Examples: The WNR1000v3 with 150 Mbps enabled, the Belkin N150, EA6300v1(With N only/auto channel width enabled), R6250(Disabling 20/40 MHz coexistence), even a Comcast SMC gateway is wifi certified, yet it forces 40 MHz by default.

I feel that more devices should support the additional 5 GHz channels that you mentioned to help ease congestion.

I did however notice that more companies with devices in the 5 GHz band are now putting in dynamic auto channel modes. Networks in the 5 GHz band are usually easy to "nudge" off a channel if you put your network on it since they use dynamic auto modes that work while the unit is running instead of just on boot up/wireless refresh.

AnonMan
@mycingular.net

AnonMan

Anon

That's the issue though.

2.4GHz has the same "auto" ability to reduce from 40 to 20MHz and in fact 2.4GHz routers currently auto select channels better because they often have "auto" as a channel option. Very few 5GHz routers allow an "auto" on the 5GHz band because it has a decent hit on boot up time etc.

That and the whole range thing isn't as true as it use to be. Yes 24GHz can go further they have bumped the 5GHz up a good deal to help compensate for this.

I use only 5GHz in my house and my signal is almost identical as when 2.4GHz is on. I actually get better on 5GHz because no interference.

The whole it has less range just doesn't help when they are putting amps and boosters on the 5GHz to help give it similar range.

I wish the technology would just get smarter as far as power output and auto sense the furthest device and reduce power to only as needed. Then maybe every so often do a pulse burst at the max rate to allow the chance for any new device to connect that may otherwise be outside limit and re-adjust. Even if just once every 15 seconds that clears up a lot of airwaves for a big period of time per minute.