Best REALLY cheap router?

[kimnua]

Which is the best router under $17.5

 

[L&LD]

Is the above post spam or a serious question? I have paid more than that for some LAN cables to connect the router to the ISP.

 

[joegreat]

Which is the best router under $17.5

Answer: None!

The best below USD 100.00 is Asus RT-N66U or the RT-N56U (with less WLAN range but faster CPU for additional services like VPN)!

With kind regards
Joe

 

[System Error Message]

Best and cheapest dont go together. You could always do the routing by yourself by manually passing packets to your ISP.

 

[stevech]

Answer: None!

The best below USD 100.00 is Asus RT-N66U or the RT-N56U (with less WLAN range but faster CPU for additional services like VPN)!

With kind regards
Joe

This $35 single band router served me well for quite a while...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...0168&cm_re=asus_router-_-33-320-168-_-Product

 

[Trip]

As the others have said, you're not going to find a whole lot of performance for less than $20. That said, there are options. The Netis WF2412 is only $13 at NewEgg, and while it won't win any awards, it does have single-stream N wifi, a built-in 4-port switch and at least decent reviews.

You can also find a myriad of mini/travel routers under $20 on Amazon, NewEgg, deal sites, etc.

 

[sfx2000]

Which is the best router under $17.5

$17.50 might be a bit of a challenge -

A decent N300 Router/AP with gigabit ports (1WAN/4LAN) can be done for about $20 FOB Shenzen, CN - and that's BOM price with whitebox UI, basic plastics, and a power adapter..

At that price level, most of the solutions there are going to be MediaTek (ex-Ralink) or Realtek based, but N300 class is very mature...

 

[2TallinVA]

For under $20, you might want to consider the TP-Link TL-WR841N. I get 3 out of 5 bars from this 2.4 Ghz N300 router located about 100 ft. away at a neighbor's house across the street.

 

[stevech]

For under $20, you might want to consider the TP-Link TL-WR841N. I get 3 out of 5 bars from this 2.4 Ghz N300 router located about 100 ft. away at a neighbor's house across the street.

Problem with that may be the common issue that the client-to-router direction yields a weak signal at the router - due to the client's low power.

The from-router signal strength is but part of the story.

 

[System Error Message]

Just scavange a laptop and you can than have your own router + AP. It doesnt involve any additional costs.

 

[KenZ71]

Who knows what the OPs budget / needs are. Yes, you get what you pay for but sometimes saving a few $$ is more important than bleeding edge performance.

I've been running two Netgear 3700s - one as router, one as AP been quite happy. Try an refurb like the below

http://smile.amazon.com/sp?_encodin...derID=&seller=A20LUWN2KIDODF&tab=&vasStoreID=

 

[sfx2000]

Checking around the Amazon - lot's of single band N300 class devices in the sub-20 range - they're all ok, sample below...

• Tenda W307 - N300 class for $16
• TP-LINK TL-WR841N- $20
  
• Trendnet TEW-731BR - $17

 

[2TallinVA]

Problem with that may be the common issue that the client-to-router direction yields a weak signal at the router - due to the client's low power.

The from-router signal strength is but part of the story.

Points well taken, Stevech. However, that doesn't pose a problem for me as I don't access their secured router. My point was that, if I can get 3 out of 5 bars 100 ft. away with 2 walls separating the client and the router, imagine then what is seen by the clients on their premises for under $20. As an aside, as someone with some experience in RF as a radio amateur, I can truly appreciate things on the receive side such as dynamic range, sensitivity, selectivity and noise floor.

 

[stevech]

RF, me too. Professionally. Ham for more decades than I'll admit.

Consider: All WiFi routers transmit their beacon frames at the lowest possible modulation order and thus the PA can operate at highest possible power. Similar to the fact that WiFi transmitters can use about 6dB more power when using 802.11b or low end of the 11n modes, for a given client (modulation order changes frame by frame per client vs. time and conditions). A WiFi SSID survey is usually logging RSSI of beacon frames, not data frames which use a more aggressive modulation mode than do beacons.

As the modulation order in OFDM modes increases, the TX power has to reduce in order to preserve the TX Rho (waveform accuracy or "EVM" error vector magnitude). It's a fact of life with OFDM having a high peak to RMS power ratio as compared to non-OFDM modes. This is the famous "OFDM PA back-off" topic.

 

[sfx2000]

RF, me too. Professionally. Ham for more decades than I'll admit.

Consider: All WiFi routers transmit their beacon frames at the lowest possible modulation order and thus the PA can operate at highest possible power. Similar to the fact that WiFi transmitters can use about 6dB more power when using 802.11b or low end of the 11n modes, for a given client (modulation order changes frame by frame per client vs. time and conditions). A WiFi SSID survey is usually logging RSSI of beacon frames, not data frames which use a more aggressive modulation mode than do beacons.

As the modulation order in OFDM modes increases, the TX power has to reduce in order to preserve the TX Rho (waveform accuracy or "EVM" error vector magnitude). It's a fact of life with OFDM having a high peak to RMS power ratio as compared to non-OFDM modes. This is the famous "OFDM PA back-off" topic.

Yep - TRP with DSSS is higher, but OFDM has better coding gain, so at the end of the day, pretty much a wash, and symbol rates in between min-max range will always be higher

Throw MIMO into the mix with multiple SS's, even better yet... then we toss in Space Time Block Codes and better error correction with low density parity check codes...

The secret to best wifi performance is always location - more power, as SteveCH suggests, doesn't help much.

 

[2TallinVA]

Notwithstanding the RF modulation scheme and methodology employed, generally speaking ERP makes a difference. Case in point, two years ago Netgear sued ASUS and charges were brought forth by the FCC, to which ASUS pleaded guilty and paid a fine because the apparent higher power on an N and AC router, which violated FCC guidelines, gave the ASUS WiFi routers an unfair market advantage (not to mention likely caused more interference problems) as Netgear alleged in the lawsuit.
http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/wire...0-netgear-suing-asus-for-wireless-hanky-panky

Further, the subsequent retesting performed by this very site (SmallNetBuilder) after ASUS apparently modified their firmware in order to bring the AC router in question into compliance showed a reduction in performance in many categories.
http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/wireless/wireless-reviews/32177-asus-rt-ac66u-second-wireless-retest

 

[stevech]

I always wondered about the real merits that lawsuit... the FCC limits in 2.4GHz are NOT WiFi/802.11 specific. FCC regulates radiated power vs. duty cycle vs. antenna beamwidth. Narrower beam, more power permitted (less interference). A narrow beam antenna, say, 5 or 10 degrees, can radiate 5 Watts, as I recall. And so on.

ERP is funny to define with complex modulation modes: RMS? Peak? Average? In the 902-928MHz ISM band, FCC defines max power w.r.t. transmitter on-time duty cycle. Freq. hoppers can run wider channel bandwidth and more power. (way back, 802.11 had a hopping mode for that reason too).

It's all nuts.

 

[sfx2000]

Netgear's major complaint was that the Asus devices were not consistent with what was approved by the FCC - and Asus was caught in 3rd party testing...

Similar to what is currently happening with Volkswagen and the diesel thing...

 

[stevech]

Netgear's major complaint was that the Asus devices were not consistent with what was approved by the FCC - and Asus was caught in 3rd party testing...

Similar to what is currently happening with Volkswagen and the diesel thing...

? VW was caught cheating to run on the road far in excess of the regulatory limits.
As I read, Asus was not exceeding the regulatory limits for the US FCC and similar regulations. The EIRP limits vary by antenna beamwidth.

Related, or not: Steered-beam antennas point to a flaw in the regulations, long-standing. I don't think the FCC ever fixed it. That is, a narrow-beam antenna can legally radiate far more power than an omni-directional or less directional antenna. At any instant in time, the steered-beam antenna is arguably subject to the EIRP limit for that beamwidth - as the regulations don't (didn't) mention temporal EIRP (e.g., an average EIRP for x amount of time as the radiated "swath" rotates through 360 degrees, in steps (for a beacon broadcast as an example.).
I'll gladly stand corrected if this is wrong.

Arguing these techie things in a court of law becomes a matter of who's got the best-paid, most eloquent expert witness.

 

[sfx2000]

As I read, Asus was not exceeding the regulatory limits for the US FCC and similar regulations. The EIRP limits vary by antenna beamwidth.

If I recall, the HW/SW version that was tested and submitted to the FCC (and approved) had one set of values, and real world off the shelf devices were not consistent with those values, even considering manufacturing variance (plus 1dB/minus 3dB). Netgear, probably during competitive analysis or interop/QA testing on their client cards caught the issue and brought it up... I think it was a bit extreme how they went about it (professional courtesy goes a long way in the business at the regulatory level)

Whether it was a bug or not, it was confirmed and verified, and Asus released a SW fix to resolve it. Problem solved.

The takeaway is quality is always a concern with regulatory items - what the Feds approve are what's supposed to be in production - in the Asus case it clearly wasn't. Again, it's not that Asus exceeded limits, it was that production samples were well beyond the certified limits that were submitted (e.g. the samples did not match the test report, which puts the test report in question)

Side note - Beamforming and Smart Antenna's, Concur with your thoughts - I think the FCC is being too conservative in their max EIRP, and this seems to be the consensus across the industry - total power at the PA doesn't change, and average TRP across the pattern doesn't change, but the peak EIRP, FCC suggests, goes across the line (which I, like you, disagree with).