@thiggins, maximizing the ISP speeds is not what I'm recommending, nor are they pertinent to my line of reasoning.
I replied to
@GJJ who stated
Your average user is not going to see a speed benefit from a higher speed wifi AP.
In the one example from 2016, the customer had upgraded
to a 50/10 Mbps ISP Fibre connection. The size of the home is mostly irrelevant here. At least for the points, I'm making, when taking them in context to the quote above.
In the second example, the 600/100 Mbps cable connection may seem like a luxury. And I can agree. But the point is that a better router (i.e. a higher-speed WiFi, AP), made much better use of the provided speeds than a theoretically 'perfect' candidate (at least on paper) was able to do. And, further, a single router provided better speeds and coverage in the home than the previously 2x RT-AC86U's did (we can disregard the customer's insistence of having the second RT-AX68U router installed too, for our discussion here). And everyone knows that a single router is less expensive, more stable, and easier to maintain than any multi-AP system would be.
Do not simply look at the size of the home and/or the size of the ISP pipe. Different areas have different notions of 'average', after all.
What I'm talking about here is the actual hardware. If and when higher ISP speeds are needed, almost nothing else can be done except to get those higher-end packages. Same as when construction materials hinder WiFi signals significantly within a home, and additional routers may be needed (or not, in the case of my first example, where a single router replaced the ISP's 'mesh' system with significant benefits, as shown in that link).
For other customers who I've mentioned before in passing on these forums, but haven't posted a detailed upgrade/comparison report for them, I'll repeat here once more that no one wanted to go back to the old hardware after they had experienced a newer and better model. Those customers were not technologically savvy, and more than a few were even below the 'average' of what we're trying to define here. But even they saw the benefits of the better hardware within their networks. And to be blunt here, they were the ones who were genuinely curious about the possible benefits that newer routers offered. I was simply in the position at that time to offer them a free trial of that hardware (on my dime).
And while I agree that the lowest cost usually wins
most of the time (for all the reasons imaginable), a lot of people are happy to part with more of their money when they can see tangible benefits for themselves (after they're properly explained to them). The ISP speeds, the size/construction materials of a home, the WiFi environment (including the client devices) are things that are not readily 'fixable' for many, at any one point in time. But the router they chose to live with for the next few years,
is.
Link to the quote below (for full context).
Hello peoples, newbie here. just was wondering if anyone can let me know what all are the h/w versions for this router since it's first launch and which one is the current one? I'm looking to buy one on eBay (australia) but none of the sellers have posted a picture of the bottom sticker and none...
www.snbforums.com
I realize for most home users it is impossible to 'know' if the value is there or not if they're just testing one or two routers, that they may have experience with. That is why I offer the links above to give you an idea of the relative performance differences in a real-world setting. Price usually has nothing to do with that aspect of consumer/prosumer equipment. The specific model, does.
The specific models I choose and recommend for my customers may not be the bargain basement sales that 'lowest cost' entails (nor are they the most expensive either), but they do tend to be used and useful, far further into the future too.
Again, from the link above.
I don't believe any purchase of a home router today is 'overkill' because they are all underpowered, IMO, (of the models I suggest in the link above), it is simply a matter of perspective of how long you want to keep your new purchase and have it be useful far into the future.
In the end, the bottom line paid for an item isn't my definition of value. It never was. Value is getting the best balance of performance and reliability, for the least cost, over the longest period of time. The lowest cost items rarely provide that.
