very slow on 2.4ghz

[jerryluo]

Hi everyone, so I recently moved to an apartment from a house, and the comcast tech just installed the internet today. But now I encounter a problem, I am still using the same router I used before, but the download speed on 2.4 is extremely slow, and the 5 is a blast. I have googled it, but my ping for 2.4 is not high, so I don't think there are too much interferences. My router is AC66U. Thanks guys.

 

[CooCooCaChoo]

Yeah, more than likely the 2.4 channels are crowded because of your new living environment. I too will be in that situation (going from a house to an apartment) soon myself.

The only thing I can suggest is to use the 5Ghz channel or tune the 2.4 channel's settings to be more tolerant and accommodating of the neighboring 2.4 channels.

 

[Easy Limits]

You may want to do a wifi survey and see what channels are the busiest around you and adjust your router channel to a less busy one.

 

[Veldkornet]

Well, not just ANY open channel. Sometimes picking a channel that's already in use may be better.

Read here for a better understanding.

 

[lepa71]

I know you have Asus router, but I downloaded netgear analytics https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.netgear.WiFiAnalytics&hl=en . It will show you which channel would work best for your enviroment and it worked out very well. Try it.

 

[pege63]

inSSIDer is much better tool

 

[lepa71]

I'm sorry, but no it is not. I used use it and liked it a lot, but it will only recommend 1,6,11 channels. I got much better results on channel 7 for 2.4 band then recommended channel 1 by inSSIDer. Try netgear analytics tool(not genie), just try it.

inSSIDer is much better tool

 

[L&LD]

I'm sorry, but no it is not. I used use it and liked it a lot, but it will only recommend 1,6,11 channels. I got much better results on channel 7 for 2.4 band then recommended channel 1 by inSSIDer. Try netgear analytics tool(not genie), just try it.

Both / all those types of utilities are effectively useless for predicting what will be the best channel to use in actual use.

I used to use inssider (and other similar forgettable tools) and it only added time to getting a wireless network optimized and running smoothly and most of the time, it did not correlate to what it indicated at all.

The most straightforward method is:

Use a wired computer or NAS (not a USB connected drive) to transfer a large 1GB (or larger) file to a wireless laptop computer (preferably plugged in or at least in the 'high performance' power mode) in various locations of the area to be covered (make a note to locate and orient it exactly the same for each iteration of the tests you'll do). Note the time, speed and consistency of the transfer (both from the wired device and back to it).

I also use Ookla and / or dslreports speedtests to measure and confirm the ISP maximum speeds and also their consistency too.

Finally, I quickly browse to different sites on the 'net to get a feel for the latency each channel offers.

All three of these tests are equally important and should be done for each channel tested on each band for each specific location in the area covered by WiFi.

Only use channels 1, 6 or 11 (and 13 if your country laws allows it) to test the 2.4GHz band. Use every available channel in the 5GHz band (as they do not overlap like the 2.4GHz band channels do) when doing your testing.

After setting a new control channel on the router, reboot it and wait at least two minutes for it to settle before running your tests. I would also recommend to reboot the laptop you are testing with too. (Yes, this is a time consuming process).

You will quickly find that only 1 or 2 channels on each band give the best throughput and lowest latency along with the greatest range.

On the 2.4GHz band, using channels other than 1, 6 or 11 (or 13) may give you a better result. But you are causing interference for everyone else on the higher and lower channels from the one you selected (again; because the channels in the 2.4GHz band overlap).

As you can see from the above, what a utility like inssider or anything similar indicates has nothing to do with what is required to find the optimal channel for each band of a WiFi router in a specific environment.

On the contrary, it only gets in the way and makes more work and takes more time for little to no benefit (except maybe a bit of information).

In addition, during my testing (above) with a utility like inssider running, the throughput, consistency and latency were usually far worse than when the utility was not running. This was my final indicator that the benefits were few and far between for this type of utility. I haven't used one since. And have missed the 'information' it offered even less.

 

[lepa71]

I agree with most of the stuff you said, but ... Have you tried it? The 2.4 band is overlapping and over crowded, but we still have devices that only can do 2.4. Mine is my wife's tab 2. I used the app's suggested channel to get a better throughput( from 5 Mbps to 33Mbps). That is a big difference to me. Sometimes you just have to try new things and see where it will take you.

Both / all those types of utilities are effectively useless for predicting what will be the best channel to use in actual use.

I used to use inssider (and other similar forgettable tools) and it only added time to getting a wireless network optimized and running smoothly and most of the time, it did not correlate to what it indicated at all.

The most straightforward method is:

Use a wired computer or NAS (not a USB connected drive) to transfer a large 1GB (or larger) file to a wireless laptop computer (preferably plugged in or at least in the 'high performance' power mode) in various locations of the area to be covered (make a note to locate and orient it exactly the same for each iteration of the tests you'll do). Note the time, speed and consistency of the transfer (both from the wired device and back to it).

I also use Ookla and / or dslreports speedtests to measure and confirm the ISP maximum speeds and also their consistency too.

Finally, I quickly browse to different sites on the 'net to get a feel for the latency each channel offers.

All three of these tests are equally important and should be done for each channel tested on each band for each specific location in the area covered by WiFi.

Only use channels 1, 6 or 11 (and 13 if your country laws allows it) to test the 2.4GHz band. Use every available channel in the 5GHz band (as they do not overlap like the 2.4GHz band channels do) when doing your testing.

After setting a new control channel on the router, reboot it and wait at least two minutes for it to settle before running your tests. I would also recommend to reboot the laptop you are testing with too. (Yes, this is a time consuming process).

You will quickly find that only 1 or 2 channels on each band give the best throughput and lowest latency along with the greatest range.

On the 2.4GHz band, using channels other than 1, 6 or 11 (or 13) may give you a better result. But you are causing interference for everyone else on the higher and lower channels from the one you selected (again; because the channels in the 2.4GHz band overlap).

As you can see from the above, what a utility like inssider or anything similar indicates has nothing to do with what is required to find the optimal channel for each band of a WiFi router in a specific environment.

On the contrary, it only gets in the way and makes more work and takes more time for little to no benefit (except maybe a bit of information).

In addition, during my testing (above) with a utility like inssider running, the throughput, consistency and latency were usually far worse than when the utility was not running. This was my final indicator that the benefits were few and far between for this type of utility. I haven't used one since. And have missed the 'information' it offered even less.

 

[L&LD]

I agree with most of the stuff you said, but ... Have you tried it? The 2.4 band is overlapping and over crowded, but we still have devices that only can do 2.4. Mine is my wife's tab 2. I used the app's suggested channel to get a better throughput( from 5 Mbps to 33Mbps). That is a big difference to me. Sometimes you just have to try new things and see where it will take you.

I did not doubt that your experience got better. But you've made everyone else's worse by your decision to not use the control channels properly.

 

[lepa71]

how do you know? I know in my area there are some old routers that are set to 40 wide instead of 20 and killing everybody else anyway.
2.4 is overcrowded. So I do try to use 5 band whenever I can, but sometimes it's not an option. Also I do want to be selfish sometimes. There is nothing wrong with it.

I did not doubt that your experience got better. But you've made everyone else's worse by your decision to not use the control channels properly.

 

[L&LD]

how do you know? I know in my area there are some old routers that are set to 40 wide instead of 20 and killing everybody else anyway.
2.4 is overcrowded. So I do try to use 5 band whenever I can, but sometimes it's not an option. Also I do want to be selfish sometimes. There is nothing wrong with it.

I know because you are interfering with both the upper and lower control channels (because they overlap with the channel you choose to use).

So, just because everyone else is doing it, it makes it right? Yes, selfishness is a bad thing. We share the world we're in.

 

[lepa71]

What you are saying does not make sense. If everybody will use 1,6,11 channels as you would like it, then nobody will have any bandwidth. That is simple as that, by spreading( the reason we have more that 3 channels) we have a better throughput. Selfishness is not a bad thing. Because of selfishness and laziness we have more innovations/creations than we would have without.

 

[L&LD]

What you are saying does not make sense. If everybody will use 1,6,11 channels as you would like it, then nobody will have any bandwidth. That is simple as that, by spreading( the reason we have more that 3 channels) we have a better throughput. Selfishness is not a bad thing. Because of selfishness and laziness we have more innovations/creations than we would have without.

I do make sense. You don't.

It is not what I would like. It is what is expected of routers using the 2.4GHz band as defined by the WiFi alliance group.

By using a single channel you impact every other user on two other channels in your area. If that sounds like a grown up and 'innovative' thing to do, we're done talking.

But if you want to give your neighbors a shot of some of that bandwidth, then you know what to do.

Sticking to the three (or four) main control channels on the 2.4GHz band is what will make a congested WiFi environment work as well and as fairly as possible for all involved. That is called thinking of others, not just ourselves.

People who think and act similar to you will bring all wireless network traffic to a virtual standstill. Especially when more than one like minded individual is wreaking havoc with another like minded 'innovator'.


You have already found the solution to too many 2.4GHz routers in your immediate area (use the 5GHz band). It isn't to hog even more than your share.

 

[lepa71]

Wow. Just Wow. I think we should just get 1 channel and be done with it. We will be in perfect place then. I don't know why we have 11/13 channels.

 

[Veldkornet]

Wow. Just Wow. I think we should just get 1 channel and be done with it. We will be in perfect place then. I don't know why we have 11/13 channels.

What are you smoking? Read the link I pasted a bit further up.

 

[lepa71]

I'm sorry I don't smoke. If you have 54 router(like in my area) that are close to each other and try to put them on 3(1,6,11) channels you will not get far. I have never said your would get full speed and if I use inSSIDer I can see that most of them are trying to use 1,6,11 channels and the whole neighborhood is complaining that their wifi is slow. So in theory it should work, but if I get 3-5 Mbps on either 1 or 6 or 11 channels vs getting 4-5 time more with a non standard channel I would go for it. Please enlighten me and explain why this works in real life.

 

[RMerlin]

Wow. Just Wow. I think we should just get 1 channel and be done with it. We will be in perfect place then. I don't know why we have 11/13 channels.

Because those channels were established long ago, before routers started using wider channels, and back when interference sources weren't always other routers but could be from other devices that use less wide channels. Modern routers use channels that are wider than the frequency distance between two channels, that's why things overlap. And when two routers overlap, both of them will have trouble transmitting data if they do so at the same time.

Having two routers on channel 1 is more stable than having one on channel 1 and another on channel 2. In the first case, the two channels can time with one another to avoid overlaps. In the second instance, they see one another as random noise, and can't coordinate together as well. If two transfer at the same time, you will get a lot of retransmitted packets due to the noise.

 

[RMerlin]

The thing to keep in mind is that tools like InSSIDer aren't the solve-it-all. The important factor is not which channel is used, but whether the routers on these channels are actually transmitting data or not. A router sitting on the same channel as you but never transmitting anything heavier than occasional email transfer will have very little impact on your own network. If however they are constantly torrenting/streaming 4K video, then you will have a problem.

Unfortunately, there are no simple end user tool to determine the amount of traffic occuring on those other networks.

 

[lepa71]

I respect my neighbors, but I can't go around and tell them that you and you are going to use channel 1 and you going to set your router to channel 6 and the rest have to use channel 11. In real life this will never happen. New router will scale down from 40 to 20, but old ones will stay at 40 and pick the channels the router thinks is the best. I consciously picked my channel(#7) to minimize interference to channel 6 as people on it had the weakest signal. I was surprised that channel 7 worked better that channel 6. It shouldn't of, but it did.

This is all I'm saying.