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

71–80 of 327 posts

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

#71

Post by lxgr »

jeffbee wrote: post #7
PaulHoule wrote: post #2

I did some experimentation with UniFi hubs and came to the conclusion that if you can give each device its own WiFi channel that would be ideal -- contention is that bad and often an uncontended channel with otherwise poor characteristics will beat a contended channel that otherwise looks good. 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…

Ethernet pretty much sucks and has not improved substantially in consumer devices since the previous century. It also has pretty severe idle power consumption consequences for PCs, unless you are an expert who goes around fixing that.

Compared to what?

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

#72

Post by lxgr »

dlcarrier wrote: post #60
semiquaver wrote: post #4

The thing about speed tests causing a bad experience because they hog airtime felt like a non sequitur (since performing them is rare and manual) until I saw this: > Many ISPs, device manufacturers, and consumers automate periodic, high-intensity speed tests that negatively impact the consumer internet experience as demonstrated But there’s no support for this claim presented frankly I am skeptical. What WiFi devices…

DOCSIS cable modems perform perform regularly scheduled tests, but it's only between devices, and shouldn't affect available bandwidth, because there's far more bandwidth within the DOCSIS network than between the network and the Internet.

> there's far more bandwidth within the DOCSIS network than between the network and the Internet.

Really? DOCSIS has been the bottleneck out of Wi-Fi, DOCSIS, and wider Internet every time I've had the misfortune of having to use it in an apartment.

Especially the tiny uplink frequency slice of DOCSIS 3 and below is pathetic.

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

#73

Post by runjake »

jdeibele wrote: post #44
typpilol wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reality is that most people only have a single cord coming into the house So they would have to do quite a bit of work to run cable. Also people living in apartments that cant just start drilling through walls. I'd say most ppl use wifi because they have too, not pure convenience

We downsized from a house built in 1914 with phone jacks everywhere to a house built in 2007 with coax and ethernet ports in every room, some rooms with two. At the 1914 house, I used ethernet-over-powerline adapters so I could have a second router running in access point mode. The alternative was punching holes in the outside walls since there was no way to feasibly run cabling inside lath-and-plaster walls. I don't…

> I don't know how 2025 houses are built but I would be surprised if they didn't have an ethernet jack in every room to a wiring closet of some sort. Not sure about coax.

Speaking from a US standpoint, it still not common in new construction for ethernet to be deployed in a house. I'm not sure why. It seems like a no-brainer.

Coax is still usually reserved to a couple jacks -- usually in the living room and master bedrooms.

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

#74

Post by lxgr »

thewebguyd wrote: post #5
semiquaver wrote: post #4

The thing about speed tests causing a bad experience because they hog airtime felt like a non sequitur (since performing them is rare and manual) until I saw this: > Many ISPs, device manufacturers, and consumers automate periodic, high-intensity speed tests that negatively impact the consumer internet experience as demonstrated But there’s no support for this claim presented frankly I am skeptical. What WiFi devices…

> What WiFi devices are regularly conducting speed tests without being asked? ISP provided routers, at least Xfinity does. I've gotten emails from them (before I ripped out their equipment and put my own in) "Great news, you're getting more than your plan's promised speeds" with speedtest results in the email, because they ran speed tests at like 3AM. I wouldn't be surprised if it's happening often across all the res…

That would be a speedtest between the router/modem and CMTS then, not one between a Wi-Fi connected device and the ISP, no?

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

#75

Post by rbranson »

xmprt wrote: post #67
rbranson wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's a much better answer to hook up everything on Ethernet that you possibly can than it is to follow the more traveled route of more channels and more congestion with mesh Wi-Fi. Certainly this is the brute-force way to do it and can work if you can run enough UTP everywhere. As a counterexample, I went all-in on WiFi and have 5 access points with dedicated backhauls. This is in SF too, so neighbors are right up…

I'm not super familiar with SF construction materials but I wonder if that plays a part in it too? If your neighbors are separated by concrete walls then you're probably getting less interference from them than you'd think and your mesh might actually work better(?)... but what do I know since I'm no networking engineer.

It's all wood construction, originally stick victorians with 2x4 exterior walls. My "loudest" neighbor is being picked up on 80MHz at -47 dBm.

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

#76

Post by tetris11 »

ttshaw1 wrote: post #25

I don't get what the point of the article is. Is the takeaway that I should lower the channel width in my home? How many WAPs would I need to be running for that to matter? I'd argue it's more important to get everyone to turn down TX power in cases where your neighbors in an apartment building are conflicting. And that's never going to happen, so just conform to the legal limit and your SNR should be fine. Anything…

I lose wifi signal consistently in my bedroom on my 80Mhz wide 5Ghz wifi.

I just now reduced it to 20Mhz, and though there is a (slight) perceptible drop in latency, those 5 extra dB I gained from Signal/Noise have given me wifi in the bedroom again

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

#77

Post by sidewndr46 »

GeorgeTirebiter wrote: post #37
typpilol wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reality is that most people only have a single cord coming into the house So they would have to do quite a bit of work to run cable. Also people living in apartments that cant just start drilling through walls. I'd say most ppl use wifi because they have too, not pure convenience

Mu-MIMO would help. The real problem is that energy between a unit and an AP is not in a pencil-thin RF laser-beam --- it is spread out. Other nodes hear that energy, and back off. If we had better control of point-to-point links, then you could have plenty of bandwidth. It's not as if the photon field cannot hold them all. When we broadcast in all directions, we waste energy, and we cause unnecessary interference to…

it was quite a while back but I read some press release about a manufacturer that would make an access point that had mechanically steered directional antennas. Unfortunately I don't think it ever made it to market.

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

#78

Post by sidewndr46 »

runjake wrote: post #73
jdeibele wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We downsized from a house built in 1914 with phone jacks everywhere to a house built in 2007 with coax and ethernet ports in every room, some rooms with two. At the 1914 house, I used ethernet-over-powerline adapters so I could have a second router running in access point mode. The alternative was punching holes in the outside walls since there was no way to feasibly run cabling inside lath-and-plaster walls. I don't…

> I don't know how 2025 houses are built but I would be surprised if they didn't have an ethernet jack in every room to a wiring closet of some sort. Not sure about coax. Speaking from a US standpoint, it still not common in new construction for ethernet to be deployed in a house. I'm not sure why. It seems like a no-brainer. Coax is still usually reserved to a couple jacks -- usually in the living room and master be…

Adding cat5e or cat6 to each room is just a cost. Builders generally compete on cost.

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

#79

Post by sidewndr46 »

rbranson wrote: post #64
PaulHoule wrote: post #2

I did some experimentation with UniFi hubs and came to the conclusion that if you can give each device its own WiFi channel that would be ideal -- contention is that bad and often an uncontended channel with otherwise poor characteristics will beat a contended channel that otherwise looks good. 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…

> It's a much better answer to hook up everything on Ethernet that you possibly can than it is to follow the more traveled route of more channels and more congestion with mesh Wi-Fi. Certainly this is the brute-force way to do it and can work if you can run enough UTP everywhere. As a counterexample, I went all-in on WiFi and have 5 access points with dedicated backhauls. This is in SF too, so neighbors are right up…

you have five access points and 60 devices? How many square feet are you trying to cover?

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

#80

Post by sidewndr46 »

lxgr wrote: post #66

> Many ISPs, device manufacturers, and consumers automate periodic, high-intensity speed tests that negatively impact the consumer internet experience as demonstrated. Is that actually a thing? Why would any ISP intentionally add unnecessary load to their network?

I've only met around 10 people that even know what a speed test is. I'm not sure how most consumers would even go about automating one. What would be the first step?
Post reply on HN