Is there a way to force more channel selections in 5Ghz?

[ColinTaylor]

Like you can only get 160MHz with channel 50 and 114.

160 MHz bandwidth covers preset channel ranges. However different manufacturers may represent it differently in their GUI's.

Ignoring any regional or radar limitations for the moment, there are only two contiguous 160MHz channel ranges. One covers channels 36 to 64 centred on channel of 50. The other covers channels 100 to 128 centred on channel 114. Netgear is using the centre channel notation whereas Asus uses a "primary" 20 MHz channel from which it can deduce the other channels which make up 160 MHz.

 

[HWDan]

Im in Canada, i have 2 routers using DFS channels but not with 160mhz. However they are Netgear's.

I could have sworn my ac86u had selectable DFS channels but I just checked and they are mia. That one I've always had at 149 anyway.

 

[jsz]

Try setting manual 36, 40, 44, or 48. Should have working 160mhz.

edit:

the other problem I have with my router, the only way I can let it look at DFS channels is if I set it to Auto, and check the box, "Include DFS channels", most of the time it will select one of the higher channels, 149-165, so even if it does include the DFS channels, it won't be able to use 160MHz bandwidth from those ones.

Well that sucks.. but...You're not loosing much really. 80mhz AX on a well optimized 4x4 radio is pretty good. 160mhz is only really beneficial within 4-5m of the router. After 7-8m, the potential speed levels out and does not matter as much.

I would honestly say screw it and just use the 80mhz bank that has the least congestion. Youll get better performance over a heavily congested 160mhz block. I've tested this enough to realize that the jump from 4x4 Wave 2 AC to AX isn't that big at least in terms of the BCM radios in the GT-AC2900 (AC86U).

Wait for Wifi 6E if you want a significant jump in performance. 5Ghz AX/AC isnt cut out for 160mhz channels. Especially regionally.

 

[mac_angel]

Try setting manual 36, 40, 44, or 48. Should have working 160mhz.

edit:


Well that sucks.. but...You're not loosing much really. 80mhz AX on a well optimized 4x4 radio is pretty good. 160mhz is only really beneficial within 4-5m of the router. After 7-8m, the potential speed levels out and does not matter as much.

I would honestly say screw it and just use the 80mhz bank that has the least congestion. Youll get better performance over a heavily congested 160mhz block. I've tested this enough to realize that the jump from 4x4 Wave 2 AC to AX isn't that big at least in terms of the BCM radios in the GT-AC2900 (AC86U).

Wait for Wifi 6E if you want a significant jump in performance. 5Ghz AX/AC isnt cut out for 160mhz channels. Especially regionally.

The main devices are within a few meters of the Router. My laptop, which is just a few feet away, my gaming computer, which is the floor above, but directly above. The router is close to the ceiling, so it's maybe 2m away. And my son's gaming computer, which is just up one set of stairs.
A 4x4 radio is good, but there are no 4x4 devices. All wireless max out with 2x2, so that means 4800Mb/s is another marketing ploy. At 2x2, the max would be 2400Mb/s, but that's with the 160MHz channel bandwidth. At 80, that's halved again to 1200Mb/s. And that means that is what it maxes out at. You will never have a perfect connection, and throughput is always different than connection speed.
Waiting for WiFi 6e isn't really an option. That would mean that once that does come out, buying a new router, $400+, as well as changing all the WiFi devices, another few hundred dollars. My gaming computer came with WiFi 6, and so did my fiance's and my cell phones. The WiFi card for my laptop was only $25, and the one I bought for my son's gaming computer, upgraded from a very old AC WiFi card, was something like $45.

 

[ColinTaylor]

A 4x4 radio is good, but there are no 4x4 devices.

There's still a benefit to using a 4x4 router with 2x2 clients because multiple simultaneous connections can be balanced across all four streams rather than them fighting over just two.

 

[mac_angel]

There's still a benefit to using a 4x4 router with 2x2 clients because multiple simultaneous connections can be balanced across all four streams rather than them fighting over just two.

if someone has a lot of different devices, yea. But it already has MU-MIMO and OFDMA. 2x2 and 80MHz vs 160MHz are going to make bigger speed differences, especially for a single device. And what I asked for help with.

 

[jsz]

The main devices are within a few meters of the Router. My laptop, which is just a few feet away, my gaming computer, which is the floor above, but directly above. The router is close to the ceiling, so it's maybe 2m away. And my son's gaming computer, which is just up one set of stairs.
A 4x4 radio is good, but there are no 4x4 devices. All wireless max out with 2x2, so that means 4800Mb/s is another marketing ploy. At 2x2, the max would be 2400Mb/s, but that's with the 160MHz channel bandwidth. At 80, that's halved again to 1200Mb/s. And that means that is what it maxes out at. You will never have a perfect connection, and throughput is always different than connection speed.
Waiting for WiFi 6e isn't really an option. That would mean that once that does come out, buying a new router, $400+, as well as changing all the WiFi devices, another few hundred dollars. My gaming computer came with WiFi 6, and so did my fiance's and my cell phones. The WiFi card for my laptop was only $25, and the one I bought for my son's gaming computer, upgraded from a very old AC WiFi card, was something like $45.

I think your interpretation of wireless access points is wrong. 4x4 (and greater 8x8 Qualcomm designs) push a signal much further, but in your case it really doesn't matter as it seems all your devices are within 5m of the router.

"4800mbps" on the 5g more or less represents MU-MIMO capability these days, but you're correct to say that its more of a marketing ploy as MU-MIMO won't be a valid solution until AX clients are pushed en masse. There might be a case for you as you have multiple AX devices with MU-MIMO, but the current broadcom implementation hasn't really been tested in detail.

Yes most clients are 2x2, and this is especially valid for AX, but there is significant benefit of having a 4x4 and or greater antenna config on an access point for range purposes. Your 2x2 clients will benefit significantly at 7-8m+ range and its easily argued that a 4x4 AC wave2 router can out perform a cheaper 2x2 AX with AX clients. The 2x2 router is only better close range.

Anyway.. The point I was making is that if you live in a heavily congested area, the least congested 80mhz block will perform better than a crowed 160mhz block. I've tested this extensively in a subjective real world scenario. It's a YMMV kinda thing.

 

[mac_angel]

I think your interpretation of wireless access points is wrong. 4x4 (and greater 8x8 Qualcomm designs) push a signal much further, but in your case it really doesn't matter as it seems all your devices are within 5m of the router.

"4800mbps" on the 5g more or less represents MU-MIMO capability these days, but you're correct to say that its more of a marketing ploy as MU-MIMO won't be a valid solution until AX clients are pushed en masse. There might be a case for you as you have multiple AX devices with MU-MIMO, but the current broadcom implementation hasn't really been tested in detail.

Yes most clients are 2x2, and this is especially valid for AX, but there is significant benefit of having a 4x4 and or greater antenna config on an access point for range purposes. Your 2x2 clients will benefit significantly at 7-8m+ range and its easily argued that a 4x4 AC wave2 router can perform a cheaper 2x2 AX with AX clients. The 2x2 router is only better close range.

Anyway.. The point I was making is that if you live in a heavily congested area, the least congested 80mhz block will perform better than a crowed 160mhz block. I've tested this extensively in a subjective real world scenario. It's a YMMV kinda thing.

yea, I get all of that. And even upgrading my AC68U to the new AX86U, the AC WIFI cards got a much better, faster connection. But even most of my AC cards support 160MHz and/or 2x2 (not including my smart TVs, not sure about the Roku or NVidia Shield Pro 2019. I know the Shield doesn't like one group of channels, I can't remember if it's the higher or lower. It finds the SSID, but when I try to connect it says the connection speed is crappy. It's in the same room, and is purely the channel group since the others work fine).
I do live in a townhouse complex, so there are a lot of WIFI around. AX isn't exactly popular yet, and I'm willing to bet that most of the WIFI that's around me are just coming from their service provider's modem. Most people don't upgrade to their own routers. If anything, they might get an Eros mesh system by their ISP, and those are very basic AC.
Even 80+80 would be an option, and would make a lot more sense than offering 160MHz in North America when that steps into the DFS channels. So far as I can figure, the AX86U doesn't support 80+80 though. Is that hardware or firmware related?
But I still have my first question of why I started my post. I am trying to find a way to turn on, and connect with the 160MHz. And from what I understand, it is not available on every channel, regardless of DFS. According to a page on Netgear for their routers, the 160MHz only works on specific channels.
https://kb.netgear.com/000060378/Wh...ction-channels-does-my-NETGEAR-device-support
So I'm assuming that will be the same for Asus. If so, what channels are they? If they are the same ones, how can I have access to them because in the settings, they are not listed as options for me.

 

[ColinTaylor]

And from what I understand, it is not available on every channel, regardless of DFS. According to a page on Netgear for their routers, the 160MHz only works on specific channels.
https://kb.netgear.com/000060378/Wh...ction-channels-does-my-NETGEAR-device-support
So I'm assuming that will be the same for Asus. If so, what channels are they?

I answered this question in post #21.

 

[jsz]

I do live in a townhouse complex, so there are a lot of WIFI around. AX isn't exactly popular yet, and I'm willing to bet that most of the WIFI that's around me are just coming from their service provider's modem. Most people don't upgrade to their own routers. If anything, they might get an Eros mesh system by their ISP, and those are very basic AC.

Since you live in a congested area, the router is basically auto detecting that there's a lot of people on the lower 36-48 block which would be required for 160mhz channel width (also requires DFS channnels 52-64). Have you tried manually setting your router to any number in the lower DFS block? 52-56-60-64? This will/should use the full 36-64 (50) block required for 160mhz. Your primary channel can be anything really.

The 2nd 160mhz block (114) isn't valid in Canada. 120-124-128 are blocked for weather radio.

source: https://www.semfionetworks.com/blog/5ghz-band-channel-availability-in-canada


Also to clarify, AX vs AC 5G isn't much of a difference. You're subject to the same interference from AC users unless there's BSS coloring enabled via AX client.

If you end up getting it working, I would check the higher channels again to make sure the 80mhz block is actually worse as a congested 160mhz block can perform worse. Honestly speaking.. you have 4 or 5 80mhz options that could potentially offer better performance. YMMV.

On that note, I would be really confused if the Canadian version of the router blocks manual 52-64...

Edit: manual 36-48 should also work if 160mhz is enabled.

 

[mac_angel]

I answered this question in post #21.

That says what channels can do 160MHz. My question was how I can make my router use those channels, by force, firmware, or even a tinfoil hat for all I care.

 

[jsz]

Untick "Auto select channel including DFS"

Control channel: (Pick one of the following)
36
40
44
48
52
56
60
64

This will become your primary channel of the 160mhz block. It involves all of these channels.

Visual representation:

 

[mac_angel]

Since you live in a congested area, the router is basically auto detecting that there's a lot of people on the lower 36-48 block which would be required for 160mhz channel width (also requires DFS channnels 52-64). Have you tried manually setting your router to any number in the lower DFS block? 52-56-60-64? This will/should use the full 36-64 (50) block required for 160mhz. Your primary channel can be anything really.

The 2nd 160mhz block (114) isn't valid in Canada. 120-124-128 are blocked for weather radio.

source: https://www.semfionetworks.com/blog/5ghz-band-channel-availability-in-canada


Also to clarify, AX vs AC 5G isn't much of a difference. You're subject to the same interference from AC users unless there's BSS coloring enabled via AX client.

If you end up getting it working, I would check the higher channels again to make sure the 80mhz block is actually worse as a congested 160mhz block can perform worse. Honestly speaking.. you have 4 or 5 80mhz options that could potentially offer better performance. YMMV.

On that note, I would be really confused if the Canadian version of the router blocks manual 52-64...

Edit: manual 36-48 should also work if 160mhz is enabled.

Using WIFI Analyzer, it shows there are way more WIFIs in the higher channels than the lower ones. My one immediate neighbour is using one of the lower ones, then there's one other. All the rest are in the higher bands.
I am pretty sure from my reading that 160MHz is not available in the higher bands, no matter what. According to an article that was posted on here (although it is a few years old) is that 160MHz is available from channel 36 to 64. According to Netgear, you have to select a specific channel to enable 160MHz, there's being channel 50. In my settings I can only see 36 to 48. Even with the DFS channels box checked, it does not list them. The other 160MHz 'grouping' is from channel 100 to 128. Right in the middle of the DFS channels, which I'm sure is available in many other places around the world. In looking around for my problem, a lot of people said it's channel 100 for Asus routers, but they were not in North America.
I plan on doing speed tests once I am able to figure out how to get it. I am fairly certain no one else around me is running AX, and it is probably just as unlikely for anyone to be running 160MHz, especially if I am unable to. So if I can get mine to work, I should have very little interference from my neighbours.

 

[jsz]

Using WIFI Analyzer, it shows there are way more WIFIs in the higher channels than the lower ones. My one immediate neighbour is using one of the lower ones, then there's one other. All the rest are in the higher bands.
I am pretty sure from my reading that 160MHz is not available in the higher bands, no matter what. According to an article that was posted on here (although it is a few years old) is that 160MHz is available from channel 36 to 64. According to Netgear, you have to select a specific channel to enable 160MHz, there's being channel 50. In my settings I can only see 36 to 48. Even with the DFS channels box checked, it does not list them. The other 160MHz 'grouping' is from channel 100 to 128. Right in the middle of the DFS channels, which I'm sure is available in many other places around the world. In looking around for my problem, a lot of people said it's channel 100 for Asus routers, but they were not in North America.
I plan on doing speed tests once I am able to figure out how to get it. I am fairly certain no one else around me is running AX, and it is probably just as unlikely for anyone to be running 160MHz, especially if I am unable to. So if I can get mine to work, I should have very little interference from my neighbours.

Okay then ASUS released a misleading product and I would contact them ASAP.

52-64 is required for you to have 160mhz functionality since Canada should block 114..do you have 128 listed in control Channel?

Also to clarify 160mhz is available on AC and it uses the same 80mhz blocks your neighbors can use.

 

[mac_angel]

Untick "Auto select channel including DFS"

Control channel: (Pick one of the following)
36
40
44
48
52
56
60
64

This will become your primary channel of the 160mhz block. It involves all of these channels.

Visual representation:

1. As I have said a few times now. They are not available. I can only select 36-48, 149-165.
2. As I have also said a few times now, not all channels are accepting of the 160MHz bandwidth. While they may fall into that bracket of where the 160MHz channel bandwidth lays, it seems that only very specific channels will actually do it. I do not know which channels Asus will allow it for, I have repeatedly asked them and for 2 weeks got the equivalent "intelligent" response of, "have you tried turning it off and on again?" Netgear has a page that shows a list of most of their routers, what technology they support, and what specific channels you have to select to get 160MHz bandwidth.

https://kb.netgear.com/000060378/Wh...ction-channels-does-my-NETGEAR-device-support

Not all of the channels within that spectrum will do 160MHz, only those very specific channels.

 

[jsz]

1. As I have said a few times now. They are not available. I can only select 36-48, 149-165.
2. As I have also said a few times now, not all channels are accepting of the 160MHz bandwidth. While they may fall into that bracket of where the 160MHz channel bandwidth lays, it seems that only very specific channels will actually do it. I do not know which channels Asus will allow it for, I have repeatedly asked them and for 2 weeks got the equivalent "intelligent" response of, "have you tried turning it off and on again?" Netgear has a page that shows a list of most of their routers, what technology they support, and what specific channels you have to select to get 160MHz bandwidth.

https://kb.netgear.com/000060378/Wh...ction-channels-does-my-NETGEAR-device-support

Not all of the channels within that spectrum will do 160MHz, only those very specific channels.

1) Yes, your router is only capable of 80mhz and ASUS technically sold a misleading product to Canadians. There is no reason for 52-64 to be missing.
2) Yes, I explained which ones do 160mhz. Each 20mhz channel functions as a control channel for the entire "50" block.

NETGEAR uses a different schematic for settings, post #21 here tries to clarify this.

160mhz operates by combining the (20mhz and or center "50" block) 36 + 40 + 44 + 48 + 52 + 56 + 60 + 64 channels. Manually selecting a control channel still uses the above block, just one of these becomes the primary channel.

Alternatively in the US, the 2nd 160mhz block (114) is 100 + 104 + 108 + 112 + 116 + 120 + 124 + 128. Which should be disabled in Canada since 120 + 124 + 128 are weather radio and off limits. Granted you SHOULD have access to DFS 100-112 for 80mhz.

Both 160mhz AC and AX can use these blocks. Hope that clarifies things.

 

[mac_angel]

okay, I didn't know about the difference between Asus and Netgear with the channels. Asus's on tech support don't even know the difference, and I've only been able to learn what I can from online in the past couple of weeks. I do know that A, N, AC, and AX all use the same channels in the 5GHz range. I'm actually a retired IT technician and I used to work at an IBM research and development lab, but that was around 16 years ago, and I'm "retired" because of permanent health problems. While I'm somewhat out of the loop on keeping up on the technologies from a professional stand point, I do know the basics, and I know what to look for and can understand a lot more than the average person. I have actually been having to tell Asus's own employees about their own technologies because for North America they outsource their tech support, and they outsource them to F'ing idiots.
I do know what channels are needed to be able to get 160MHz channel bandwidth. But, as for my original post:

Is there a way to force more channel selections in 5Ghz?

I live in Canada so the only channel options available are 36 to 48, and 149 to 165. This knocks out any option to be able to use 160MHz and get full speed out of my WIFI.

I know that AC can use the same channels. I know that AC can also use 160MHz. I know that AC can also use 2x2, that alone has given a speed/connection boost on some of my wifi devices. I know that neighbours can take up channels around me. None of those things have anything to do with my initial question.

 

[jsz]

Will require a different firmware as routers are typically region locked.


Not sure if you can get around ASUS with 3rd party firmware. Might require them to actually update the product for your region.

Sorry.

 

[JagoUK]

okay, I didn't know about the difference between Asus and Netgear with the channels. Asus's on tech support don't even know the difference, and I've only been able to learn what I can from online in the past couple of weeks. I do know that A, N, AC, and AX all use the same channels in the 5GHz range. I'm actually a retired IT technician and I used to work at an IBM research and development lab, but that was around 16 years ago, and I'm "retired" because of permanent health problems. While I'm somewhat out of the loop on keeping up on the technologies from a professional stand point, I do know the basics, and I know what to look for and can understand a lot more than the average person. I have actually been having to tell Asus's own employees about their own technologies because for North America they outsource their tech support, and they outsource them to F'ing idiots.
I do know what channels are needed to be able to get 160MHz channel bandwidth. But, as for my original post:

Is there a way to force more channel selections in 5Ghz?

I live in Canada so the only channel options available are 36 to 48, and 149 to 165. This knocks out any option to be able to use 160MHz and get full speed out of my WIFI.

I know that AC can use the same channels. I know that AC can also use 160MHz. I know that AC can also use 2x2, that alone has given a speed/connection boost on some of my wifi devices. I know that neighbours can take up channels around me. None of those things have anything to do with my initial question.

Your question has been answered. There is no legal way around DFS until Canada (Or any country that uses DFS) relaxes the restrictions.
For this reason living near a Radar, I returned my XT8 until they release the Wifi 6E version.
Even ASUS own technical support on here said 160mhz on 5ghz band is too difficult. Although IMO they could make it a lot easier by enabling 80+80 or allowing selection of other 5ghz channels on triband routers.

 

[thiggins]

Using 160 MHz wide channels is not worth the hassle. While 80+80 is allowed in the spec, it essentially requires two radios. Qualcomm has done this for their AX implementations, at least the first generation. I'm not sure whether they also do contiguous 160 in their 2nd gen chipset. Broadcom supports 160 MHz contiguous. Of course, that means you need DFS channels, with all the accompanying hassles.

Another dirty little secret for using DFS is that the STA is not allowed to probe the channel until the AP starts beaconing. That would violate the radar monitoring period. So 5 GHz association can take minutes when an AP first boots up or changes channel. Maybe not so much a pain in the real world, but a real pain when testing.

This will all become moot with 6E. Plenty of contiguous bandwidth there and no DFS. But will work only for 6E devices.

For now, just use 80 MHz channels. Too many headaches for too little return.

P.S. You can't legally change a router's operating region unless the router itself allows it. You won't find information or help doing illegal mods here in SNBForums.