The Return To External Antennas?

[Darknessrise]

I don't know if anyone else has been noticing this, but if you look a lot of the new Belkins, Linksys, Netgear, D-link, etc. they have been moving a lot of their routers to external antennas. Even Belkin's/Netgear's new cheap routers are coming out with externals.

Seems like 2014 is the year when many major brands are dropping their use of internal antennas for external across many price points. It started to grow in 2013, but it seems like these internal antenna brands are switching over faster now.

 

[RMerlin]

I don't know if anyone else has been noticing this, but if you look a lot of the new Belkins, Linksys, Netgear, D-link, etc. they have been moving a lot of their routers to external antennas. Even Belkin's/Netgear's new cheap routers are coming out with externals.

Seems like 2014 is the year when many major brands are dropping their use of internal antennas for external across many price points. It started to grow in 2013, but it seems like these internal antenna brands are switching over faster now.

I wonder if this wouldn't be required with the more complex radio technologies that are appearing: MU-MIMO, Beamforming, the increase in the number of spatial streams, etc...

Part of it is probably marketing too. People have come to expect better range from routers with external antennas, so enthusiast products are going that way, while the mom & dad routers will remain with more visually appealing designs with internal antennas.

 

[sm00thpapa]

I'm glad companies are going back to external antennas. I was never a fan of internal antennas when they first came out years ago. In my experiences much reduced range with internal antennas.

 

[sfx2000]

It's more about marketing and product perception...

A properly designed internal antenna performs as well as, and sometimes better, than an external antenna.

sfx

 

[remixedcat]

sfx is right. I've had an Aruba Networks AP225 with internal antennas outperform the Amped RTA15 with external antennas. Both are AC1200 class.

 

[stevech]

To the lay person, it's counter-intuitive that internal antennas can outperform external ones. With MIMO, it's more about antenna spacing and radiation patterns than a measly few dB of gain differences.
(This is in the context of horizontally omnidirectional coverage).

 

[KGB7]

I have moded Linskys and Netgear routers with internal anntenas by adding external antennas.
The benefit was small, but worth the time and money.

Unless the technology takes a huge leap a decade from now, the external antennas will be around for a while.

Think cell phones back in the 90's. They had external anntenas. Now they have internal antennas. But that's mostly do to cell signal got stronger and there are more cell towers.

 

[stevech]

I have moded Linskys and Netgear routers with internal anntenas by adding external antennas.
The benefit was small, but worth the time and money.

Unless the technology takes a huge leap a decade from now, the external antennas will be around for a while.

Think cell phones back in the 90's. They had external anntenas. Now they have internal antennas. But that's mostly do to cell signal got stronger and there are more cell towers.

In cell phones, much of the antenna issue comes from the demise of TDMA/GSM. CDMA and LTE as Verizon/Sprint have long had, uses a basic principle of needing minimum possible handset transmitter power - to get the calls per RF channel maximized. So the handset's tx power changes 100's of times a second based on conditions. Directed by the base station (cell site). With AT&T and other carriers, stuck with TDMA/GSM EDGE, etc., that are not CDMA, their handsets blasted away at high power with very little power control. They needed all that power due to the ancient TDMA they used. (And AT&T/T-mobile still do, in most markets where they never finished building LTE.)

In WiFi, there's never been active/dynamic client power control. It would help interference a bit. But WiFi is half-duplex by its nature whereas cellular is full duplex - uplink channel and downlink channel going simultaneously. WiFi could/should have power control on every single frame sent - in either direction. That would help a lot.

In both WiFi and cellular - the challenge is the transmitted signal from the handset/client to the base station/AP. Consumers only see "Bars" on the screen for the to-client signal. Leading to "can you hear me now?" as one dances for a "hot" spot.

 

[theveterans]

Add to the list is Linksys EA6100. Sadly it's only Fast Ethernet which defeats the point of 802.11ac

Linksys is probably betting to get better sales than Netgear R6100 based on having external antennas lol.

 

[RMerlin]

Personally, I think the biggest benefit of external antennas is not they suddenly increase the range by being "bigger". It's more about the fact that you can easily adjust their positioning based on your specific environment.

This is probably more beneficial to people who need to cover multiple floors.

 

[KGB7]

In cell phones, much of the antenna issue comes from the demise of TDMA/GSM. CDMA and LTE as Verizon/Sprint have long had, uses a basic principle of needing minimum possible handset transmitter power - to get the calls per RF channel maximized. So the handset's tx power changes 100's of times a second based on conditions. Directed by the base station (cell site). With AT&T and other carriers, stuck with TDMA/GSM EDGE, etc., that are not CDMA, their handsets blasted away at high power with very little power control. They needed all that power due to the ancient TDMA they used. (And AT&T/T-mobile still do, in most markets where they never finished building LTE.)

In WiFi, there's never been active/dynamic client power control. It would help interference a bit. But WiFi is half-duplex by its nature whereas cellular is full duplex - uplink channel and downlink channel going simultaneously. WiFi could/should have power control on every single frame sent - in either direction. That would help a lot.

In both WiFi and cellular - the challenge is the transmitted signal from the handset/client to the base station/AP. Consumers only see "Bars" on the screen for the to-client signal. Leading to "can you hear me now?" as one dances for a "hot" spot.

As i said; Unless the technology takes a huge leap a decade from now, the external antennas will be around for a while.

 

[Alex Atkin UK]

What I find really frustrating is when they have external hard-wired antennas.

I understand that not including a RP-SMA socket probably saves them a small fortune in bulk, but its a pretty shirtty thing to do IMO. It kills half the benefit of externals.

 

[stevech]

As i said; Unless the technology takes a huge leap a decade from now, the external antennas will be around for a while.

Likely increasingly less, due to costs and competition.

 

[KGB7]

Likely increasingly less, due to costs and competition.

Competition brings and forces innovation. Otherwise, we would still be using smoke signals to skype with our grandparents.

 

[sm00thpapa]

Companies robbing customers selling routers with 2dbi antennas and then selling 5 and 7dbi add ons. And us the customers fall for it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[htismaqe]

Personally, I think the biggest benefit of external antennas is not they suddenly increase the range by being "bigger". It's more about the fact that you can easily adjust their positioning based on your specific environment.

This is probably more beneficial to people who need to cover multiple floors.

Yeah, I mentioned this earlier in the thread. They're not more powerful but they're tunable.

 

[stevech]

Companies robbing customers selling routers with 2dbi antennas and then selling 5 and 7dbi add ons. And us the customers fall for it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

a tiny few

 

[sfx2000]

a tiny few

Most foiks don't buy upgraded antennae in any event...

And antenna matches, as SteveCH has alluded to earlier in this thread - these are critical - that "upgrade" might actually be a downgrade...