Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Does our “need for speed” make our wi-fi suck?

orb.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 327 posts

Re: Does our “need for speed” make our wi-fi suck?

#261

Post by superkuh »

throw0101d wrote: post #140

The next release standard is 802.11bn, "Wifi 8", and it has been dubbed Ultra High Reliability (UHR) : * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11bn So other considerations are being considered.

It might help. But wifi, like all radio, is a shared medium. Unlike actual transmission lines like ethernet where you get the entire electromagnetic spectrum to yourself to use multiple times, once for each twisted pair. Even if ethernet itself only uses baseband modulation and doesn't efficiently fill the spectrum it's more than enough. The reliability is incomparible to radio.

Re: Does our “need for speed” make our wi-fi suck?

#262

Post by ipython »

ssl-3 wrote: post #227
ipython wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the best way to speed up your Wi-Fi is to not use it. So true! Other tips I’ve found useful: Separate 2.4ghz network for only IoT devices. They tend to have terrible WiFi chipsets and use older WiFi standards. Slower speed = more airtime used for the same amount of data. This way the “slow” IoT devices don’t interfere with your faster devices which… Faster devices such as laptops and phones belong on 5ghz only netw…

That's sounds like a good concept: I'm no stranger to cheap IoT devices chewing up local 2.4GHz bandwidth with chatter and I have a lot of that going on. But does it matter in 2025? As a broad concept: Ever since my last Sonos device [that they didn't deliberately brick] died, I don't have any even vaguely bandwidth-intensive devices left in my world that are 2.4GHz-only. Whatever laptop I have this year prefers the…

There is no non-IoT 2.4ghz network in my design. All "fast" devices are on a 5ghz only network. The only 2.4ghz network is dedicated to IoT devices. This also eliminates the need for devices to hunt and roam between 5ghz and 2.4ghz unnecessarily. Just need to balance tx power to make sure the 5ghz handoffs are as smooth as possible between APs.

Re: Does our “need for speed” make our wi-fi suck?

#263

Post by bxparks »

ssl-3 wrote: post #227
ipython wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the best way to speed up your Wi-Fi is to not use it. So true! Other tips I’ve found useful: Separate 2.4ghz network for only IoT devices. They tend to have terrible WiFi chipsets and use older WiFi standards. Slower speed = more airtime used for the same amount of data. This way the “slow” IoT devices don’t interfere with your faster devices which… Faster devices such as laptops and phones belong on 5ghz only netw…

That's sounds like a good concept: I'm no stranger to cheap IoT devices chewing up local 2.4GHz bandwidth with chatter and I have a lot of that going on. But does it matter in 2025? As a broad concept: Ever since my last Sonos device [that they didn't deliberately brick] died, I don't have any even vaguely bandwidth-intensive devices left in my world that are 2.4GHz-only. Whatever laptop I have this year prefers the…

You are lucky. In 2025 I have to run most of my 20-30 wifi devices on 2.4 GHz because 5 GHz won't penetrate the walls in my house, especially diagonally.

My dev laptop is about 10 m (30 ft) away from the wifi access point, but goes through about 6 walls diagonally, due to some weird layout, and 2.4 GHz is way faster.

The house has some thick walls.

Same with phones. As soon as I'm in a different room, 2.4 GHz is faster. So I just keep things on 2.4.

Yeah, I've been planning to wire the house with Cat-6 into every room and add some access points. It's been on the backlog for 6 years..

Re: Does our “need for speed” make our wi-fi suck?

#264

Post by ElijahLynn »

jval43 wrote: post #231
ashdksnndck wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some friends live in a rental that they’ve decorated well. It wasn’t until multiple visits that I realized they had run Ethernet throughout the house. You can get skinny Ethernet cables that bend easily. If you get some that match your paint, and route them in straight lines, those can be unobtrusive. Use tricks like running the cables along baseboards and other trim pieces. If you really want to minimize the visual…

I did this years ago using the very thin (3mm, round) Unifi Patch Cables in white. Very clean and reliable, and getting 1 Gbit/s without issue. Another benefit is that I can cram 4 of them inside a single cable runner at the one spot I have to (no space for a switch). Where it's just one cable you run them bare and they look very clean. The old ones I have are still CAT5e, the newer ones they sell are CAT6 at the sam…

Thanks

Here is a link for others who want to know how thin:

https://store.ui.com/us/en/category/accessories-cables-dacs/...

Re: Does our “need for speed” make our wi-fi suck?

#265

Post by robocat »

ssl-3 wrote: post #228
robocat wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> do you mean the modem was so crappy > but I would assume the modems Your assumption is sometimes incorrect as cheap devices can share some RF front end. Also apparently resource contention can also occur due to CPU, thermal, and memory issues. https://chatgpt.com/share/68e9d2ee-01a4-8004-b27b-01e9083f7e... (Note that Prof is one "character" I have defined in the prompt customisation) Or: https://g.co/gemini/share/1…

Ah, splendid. I'm so glad that you have come before me today to present this bot's confounding quandary, and I receive it with tremendous glee. Please allow me to proffer the following retort: The answer to having a shitty, incapable router is to use one that is not shitty, and is capable. (The routing-bits have no clue what RF spectrum is being utilized, and never have. They just deal with packets. The packets are a…

There's no need to be rude.

cycomanic knows stuff but their answer was basically contradicting chrneu, which nobody likes. It is counterintuitive to me (and I'm guessing cycomanic too) that the different bands should interact so much.

The AI answers passed my shit-detector... And I think it is the same as trying to be helpful but providing a search link in the past. Other HN users can make their own decision about reading the prompt or reply (although using links does make me wonder about cross account tracking and doxing myself).

Re: Does our “need for speed” make our wi-fi suck?

#266

Post by immibis »

vlan0 wrote: post #238
MedAzizBenSalem wrote: post #234

This is such a great write-up it highlights a truth that’s been hiding in plain sight for years: we’ve optimized Wi-Fi for headline speeds, not human experience. Emphasis on throughput reminds one of the "megapixel wars" of early digital photography a simple, clear-cut figure that completely misrepresents actual quality. Responsiveness and reliability are the actual measures that control day to day satisfaction, but…

How do you think speeds effect airtime utilization/optimization? And how does this change with lower PHY rates?

Not linearly. The data may take twice as long to transmit at half the rate, but there's overhead which doesn't change. If you can use half the channel width and transmit at half the rate, you halve the Hz-seconds used for preambles and stuff, while keeping the Hz-seconds used for data the same.

Re: Does our “need for speed” make our wi-fi suck?

#268

Post by hylaride »

kindacuriouzzx wrote: post #223
JoshTriplett wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The other bit of advice that is buried in there that no-one wants to hear for residences is the best way to speed up your Wi-Fi is to not use it. You might think it's convenient to have your TV connect to Netflix via WiFi and it is, but it is going to make everything else that really needs the Wi-Fi slower. It's a much better answer to hook up everything on Ethernet that you possibly can than it is to follow the mo…

Does this advice still hold true for Internet that is provided through power sockets in the house?

If you live in a dense area with lots of APs and regularly get performance issues, power line networking will provide excellent ~400Mbps connections that are more than adequate for things like video calls unless your power cables are ancient or under-spec'd (some older houses can sometimes have lower gauge cables that may not perform as well and I imagine some knob and tube setups are not ideal for data transfer, either).

If you have newer clients that support it, Wifi 6E/7/802.11ax (or whatever it's called) uses the 6GHz spectrum that isn't as heavily used (yet). I've had good success with it in my multi-unit apartment condo (feels as clean as 5GHz did ~2010). Some higher end APs can also use multi-antenna beams that can help, too.

Re: Does our “need for speed” make our wi-fi suck?

#269

Post by ElijahLynn »

everdrive wrote: post #250

Wifi sucks in general. You ever get on a video call and someone has starts talking like a robot? And then, out of pure superstition they start walking around their house hoping to "find" the better reception? And it never really works, but they keep trying it anyhow, and then they either say "maybe I need a better internet" or "but I have full bars." No information is really given to a normal (or in some cases, even…

WiFi is pretty magical in general. Sometimes it sucks.

Re: Does our “need for speed” make our wi-fi suck?

#270

Post by OJFord »

jval43 wrote: post #231
ashdksnndck wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some friends live in a rental that they’ve decorated well. It wasn’t until multiple visits that I realized they had run Ethernet throughout the house. You can get skinny Ethernet cables that bend easily. If you get some that match your paint, and route them in straight lines, those can be unobtrusive. Use tricks like running the cables along baseboards and other trim pieces. If you really want to minimize the visual…

I did this years ago using the very thin (3mm, round) Unifi Patch Cables in white. Very clean and reliable, and getting 1 Gbit/s without issue. Another benefit is that I can cram 4 of them inside a single cable runner at the one spot I have to (no space for a switch). Where it's just one cable you run them bare and they look very clean. The old ones I have are still CAT5e, the newer ones they sell are CAT6 at the sam…

Patch cables are meant for connections between equipment, e.g. in a networking cabinet. Cable for the runs between terminal points (like the cabinet's patch panel and a workstation, or your home TV, etc.) is less flexible - more shielded and I think solid core instead of multi-stranded (like twin & Earth vs. flex) - I'm not sure if it's available flat or skinny though.
Post reply on HN