Difficulties maintaining 160 MHz channel bandwidth

[maxbraketorque]

I understand the interest in 160 MHz to obtain better throughput, but is it really needed? Even 2-stream AC at 80 MHz bandwidth can reliably run at speeds of at least 500 mbps at close range and 2-stream AX at 80 MHz can do something like 1000 mbps. In comparison, the typical home network is still based on 1 gbps networking, so why push for 160 MHz at close range, especially for an AX device? And of course this discussion implies that there is an actual need for >500 mbps speeds, which isn't needed for 99% of typical networking usage. The only time network speeds >500 mbps are realistically need is when working with very large files, or when running network backups. And I can say from experience that for network backups, more bandwidth has limited value because the relatively high latency of wifi is what drags down speeds compared to a wired connection.

One could envision that 160 MHz is going to give better throughput at range, but wider channels have to spread the broadcast power across a wider spectrum, resulting in a reduced SNR and less throughput, so there's limited value here as well.

And with AX now becoming common place, a 2-stream device (which represents the vast majority of phones and laptops) can connect at 1000 mbps at close range using just 80 MHz bandwidth.

About 5 years ago, there was a lot of debate on the value of MU-MIMO with 802.11ac, and it didn't take long for the community to begin universally advising people to disable it because it was problematic. I'm somewhat surprised to see that the same thing hasn't happened with 160 MHz.

 

[L&LD]

The reason for not universally advising people against 160MHz bandwidth is because for those who can benefit, do.

 

[drinkingbird]

The reason for not universally advising people against 160MHz bandwidth is because for those who can benefit, do.

Do they though? Decreased range, outages when the radio has to scan or drop to a lower bandwidth, and most of the stuff they're communicating with likely has a 1G max, probably much less.

 

[Tech9]

but is it really needed?

Of course it's needed! How you are going to do a speedtest on your Galaxy Ultra without it?

 

[L&LD]

Yes, they do. When the ISP speeds are available over the whole property, with no issues of needing to scan/drop to lower bandwidth, and the nominally decreased range is also a non-issue with properly placed wired backhaul nodes, the benefits are there.

High speeds aren't needed just for speed tests, at least by some. Even if that is the popular way to make fun of that group of people, by one.

 

[thanh]

I have 2 setting Target Wake Time and WIFI Agile Multiband should I Enable or Disable? thank you

 

[drinkingbird]

I have 2 setting Target Wake Time and WIFI Agile Multiband should I Enable or Disable? thank you

​

You should probably start a new thread for this unrelated question?

 

[Mutzli]

Okay, I had some more time to test the connection width for both settings, 160MHz only or 20/40/80/160MHz. I don't see any difference in the two settings. If a disturbance is detected or I move a device too far away from the router the frequency for that device drops to 80MHz and then to 20MHz. No matter what is set in this field. 160MHz only doesn't force anything nor does it limit a device. It would be interesting to see the code behind this setting to see what really is going on for each different setting.

 

[drinkingbird]

Okay, I had some more time to test the connection width for both settings, 160MHz only or 20/40/80/160MHz. I don't see any difference in the two settings. If a disturbance is detected or I move a device too far away from the router the frequency for that device drops to 80MHz and then to 20MHz. No matter what is set in this field. 160MHz only doesn't force anything nor does it limit a device. It would be interesting to see the code behind this setting to see what really is going on for each different setting.

That setting only affects the router, not the devices. From a device perspective they're basically the same thing, assuming you can get a 160Mhz channel to stay on the router.

 

[Tech9]

That setting only affects the router

This is the behavior observed:

80MHz non-DFS fixed channels - stays at 80MHz regardless of interference
80MHz DFS only fixed channels - cuts off 5GHz Wi-Fi until DFS clear, may take long time
160MHz fixed channels - settings override and back to 80MHz non-DFS until DFS or interference clear

The logic - the router won't do illegal per RF regulations things regardless of user settings.

 

[bbunge]

Do they though? Decreased range, outages when the radio has to scan or drop to a lower bandwidth, and most of the stuff they're communicating with likely has a 1G max, probably much less.

Nope, do not see any of those...

Am using default WIFI settings mostly. Only changes are to disable WPS, set 2.4 GHz to 20 MHz and enable use DFS channels. My router and AiMesh node 5 GHz run at 80 MHz until a 160 MHz client connects then the bandwidth goes to 160 MHz. The 5 GHz channel does switch from time to time (have seen it on channel 52, 36, 116 and 100 over the past several days). No one here notices when it switches!

Do I need 160 MHz? Not for my 100/100 FIOS. But because it is there and I can I do.

 

[leerees]

If you want 160mhz to work, set the control channel to 100. This works in the UK, it might be different in other countries.

One point worth noting is it can take a while (can't remember exact time) for the DFS channel to be cleared and active.

Obviously, the wider the channel, the more chance of transmission retries and interference.

It's a case of speed vs latency. If you like both, use 80mhz. If you genuinely need gigabit wifi, use 160mhz.

 

[drinkingbird]

If you want 160mhz to work, set the control channel to 100. This works in the UK, it might be different in other countries.

One point worth noting is it can take a while (can't remember exact time) for the DFS channel to be cleared and active.

Obviously, the wider the channel, the more chance of transmission retries and interference.

It's a case of speed vs latency. If you like both, use 80mhz. If you genuinely need gigabit wifi, use 160mhz.

That may be valid for your particular house. Everyone has a different environment, channel 100 isn't a "one size fits all". In the UK there is only one 160mhz channel I believe so setting the control channel doesn't have any impact.

 

[Ripshod]

In the UK there is only one 160mhz channel I believe so setting the control channel doesn't have any impact.

I'm currently on 100/160, and previously I've seen 36/160 as I posted elsewhere. So I guess my router is broken or operating illegally?

 

[drinkingbird]

I'm currently on 100/160, and previously I've seen 36/160 as I posted elsewhere. So I guess my router is broken or operating illegally?

I may be thinking of another country, I know there are a bunch with only 1.

 

[ColinTaylor]

That may be valid for your particular house. Everyone has a different environment, channel 100 isn't a "one size fits all". In the UK there is only one 160mhz channel I believe so setting the control channel doesn't have any impact.

36-64 and 100-128 are valid in the UK.

 

[sfx2000]

Don't worry - having been there - 160MHz isn't much to write home about...

Focus on the entire list of clients that can do WiFi5/6 in 5GHz - 80MHz is the right place - if you're looking for some range, consider 40Mhz..

 

[drinkingbird]

36-64 and 100-128 are valid in the UK.

That's why I said "I beleive" - too lazy to look it up

Although in reality 100-128 is garbage so essentially the same boat as the US, only really one usable and even that overlaps 50% with DFS. People need to be happy with 80 until 6ghz is more common. Or, in reality, just be happy with 80. Close to 1G throughput over wifi is pretty damn good.

 

[ColinTaylor]

That's why I said "I beleive" - too lazy to look it up

I was only confirming the availability of those channels.

Although in reality 100-128 is garbage so essentially the same boat as the US, only really one usable and even that overlaps 50% with DFS. People need to be happy with 80 until 6ghz is more common. Or, in reality, just be happy with 80. Close to 1G throughput over wifi is pretty damn good.

I've been using 124@160 for two years without much problem. So it's not "garbage" for everyone. What is garbage for me is trying to use the only non-DFS 80MHz channel block (36-48) which all my neighbours are using.

 

[drinkingbird]

I was only confirming the availability of those channels.


I've been using 124@160 for two years without much problem. So it's not "garbage" for everyone. What is garbage for me is trying to use the only non-DFS 80MHz channel block (36-48) which all my neighbours are using.

In some cases 36-48 with several neighboring networks is actually better, obviously varies by environment. If you don't have 3 to 10 minute scanning dropouts then sometimes the DFS space can be a blessing. I think the requirements and power levels are different for DFS over there too.

Stop adding extra "u"s to everything I hear that enough at work all day