Question SSID question

[MtnMan]

OK, helping a friend that's having some internet speed issues. Got her to call her ISP, and they reprovisioned her modem to their current minimum plan, which helped.

Her router is a bit long in the tooth, a Netgear WNDR4300 (N750), and she wonders if it's time to replace it. I've downloaded the manual for her router, and I'm curious about Netgear's recommendation that the SSID for 2.4G and 5G be different, to the point that the default SSID are different, and they really don't want you to change the SSID.

There was some verbiage about they should be different because a device will hold onto its 2.4G connection instead of using the 5G connection. What?

Since my first router with 5G, I've had the same SSID/password on both bands. The only devices that utilize the 2.4 are devices, like my printer, wife's old iPod, etc., that only are 2.4G capable. I have seen devices switch to 2.4G when out of 5G range, but revert to 5G once it is close enough again.

I've never dealt with Netgear stuff, and after reading the user manual, for hers, I was not impressed. Normally I would say upgrade, but she really doesn't want to spend the $$ as he just got a new laptop and printer, if she can get decent wireless speeds around her house. She lives pretty remote from neighbors on 5 acres, so interference or people trying to access her WiFi isn't an issue.

 

[UsandThem]

On my Asus router (RT-AX86U), the SSID is a different name for each band.

I changed the default name to what I normally use for my network, and added a 5 and 2 at the end of the name so I could easily tell them apart.

Some routers give you the option for it to automatically switch between the two different bands and use one name for them both, but I've never personally liked my routers doing that as it sometimes would cause issues when flipping between the two different bands.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Some routers give you the option for it to automatically switch between the two different bands and use one name for them both, but I've never personally liked my routers doing that as it sometimes would cause issues when flipping between the two different bands.

Some routers call that "Band Steering", I believe. It is not an automatic base feature of the wifi spec, both router and client must support it. I personally prefer separate SSIDs for different bands.

OP: When she gets the money, get her a TP-Link AX1500 at least, for $50-60. Pre-AC routers are long in the tooth, lack features, and most importantly, lack security due to no updates for years. I wouldn't be caught dead using a "N" router, unless it was running up-to-date 3rd-party firmware, and just used for an auxiliary purpose. I wouldn't run it as my main router, except only in an emergency.

Robot or human?

 

[Tech Junky]

I ran separate SSIDs for years to specify devices to which band. However, I just upgraded to an AX411 card in a couple of devices that connects to both bands at the same time to boost the speeds. Before it would max out around 1.2gbps and now it does 1.5gbps consistently.

As to the N router it needs to be replaced with something more current to help the newer devices get the best performance they're capable of. Even without AX devices the way the new tech handles things is so much improved. The caps on the speeds is raised for both bands for starters and there's less contention between legacy and current traffic to speed things up.

 

[Fallen Kell]

N routers are perfectly fine as long as they are running up to date third party firmware such as DD-WRT, OpenWRT, Tomato, etc.... If you get a chance, check that router, as long as it is not "v2" model it should be fully supported (that said, you need to flash to a specific version first and then can flash to the latest, which is something most routers require now anyway).

Also, very few people will have internet speeds that will exceed what an N router can provide 450 Mbps over 5Ghz and another 300 Mbps over 2.4Ghz. The "minimum plan" as posted by the MtnMan is probably only 200 Mbps or even less.

 

[Tech Junky]

internet

LAN speeds can be more important with streaming devices. Sure high def video night only be 20mbps but if you have a bunch of devices all doing that rate you're competing for bandwidth. Add a 4K stream and you're using up to 4X the bandwidth and starving other devices.

 

[Fallen Kell]

LAN speeds can be more important with streaming devices. Sure high def video night only be 20mbps but if you have a bunch of devices all doing that rate you're competing for bandwidth. Add a 4K stream and you're using up to 4X the bandwidth and starving other devices.

Sure, but that means local streaming, not internet streaming. I would venture a guess that the vast majority of people (especially the OP's friend who needed the OP to even help her to get her ISP to upgrade her equipment she is most likely renting to the meet the current minimum plan speeds) do not have their own local streaming capabilities (grant it, I do, but I also have 40 Gbps network connection to my server with over 100 TB of network storage and 10 Gbps network to most of my computers, which the "normal person" most certainly does not have in their home). If all they are doing is internet streaming, WiFi N is still good enough for the vast majority of people.

Someone who is doing local streaming will most likely be versed enough in the technology to know some basic network performance requirements to meet the needs. They might not know all the ins and outs, and how to deal with multiple access points, or the ramifications of using WiFi bridge repeaters (including meshes), setting up VLANs and VAPs, configuring firewalls and routing rules for security and network isolation of specific gear, etc., but they would know enough to know what equipment meets minimum bandwidth of what they are paying for every month.

 

[Tech Junky]

100 TB

Hoarder?

That's a lot of content.

Sounds like we might play the same game IRL. Free time vs work life but, I sense maybe some of that was lab labbing things up in the home.

 

[Fallen Kell]

I run a HTPC/DVR system. At one point I had 4 tuners capable of recording 4 shows at once. I am now down to just a single, but I record over HDMI straight from my cable box and as such can record anything that I can view (premium HD cable channels, on-demand, netflix, amazon prime video, etc...). I also have my entire dvd collection on there and most of my blu-rays (took some special equipment for my dvds as I have hundreds, so I used a 200 disk dvd changer and wrote some programs to automate the process).

Been recording stuff since 2003, but unfortunately lost 2 hhds back in the day before building a real storage server.

I still have plenty of room to expand (12 empty slots still and I can always get an expansion chassis).

 

[Tech Junky]

I have a quad tuner setup as well. Converting things to MP4 though automatically saves a ton of space using mcebuddy. Drops those recordings from 6gb/hr to 1gb or less. I was using an internal card for years and then when I upgraded the server to ADL the card only pulled half of the channels and switched to an external that grabs atsc3. The only issue with atsc3 is the audio codec isn't open source and Plex doesn't have a patch to decode it yet. This allowed me to cut the cord and retain most of the ota stuff for "free" and grab the other stuff at a reduced cost. Finally cut the cord completely switching to tmhi with 5G instead of paying the cable co for internet at twice the price.