Will better router have noticeably better wifi signal?

[Octopuss]

I have a relatively obscure situation at my girlfriend's flat. Ethernet cannot be laid down there (technically yes, but I'm neither doing nor paying for it, and I hate the idea of cables not being inside the walls, sockets would have to be mounted etc. etc., there is a small child and two cats running about, and the place is a mess enough as it is without cables and stuff), and the wifi router is at one end of the place, which results in extremely shitty coverage at the opposite end: instead of roughly 100Mbit speed there's hardly 8Mbit and it's dropping connection like crazy - I mean no shit, through two to three concrete walls.

I've been thinking what to do to improve (not necessarily to fix where fix=full speed everywhere) the situation for the past few days. The main goal is to spend as little money as possible.
First idea was to grab the Proline adapters and add an AP to around middle of the flat. Problem: there would be two wifis instead of one.
Then I learned I could do a mesh network with TP-Link's Proline adapters. Problem: I would also need a TP-Link router. That already makes it more expensive than I thought.

But then I thought about the current state of things.
The connection is fibre cable directly into the flat (unfortunately it's at a far end, so the router has to be placed in that stupid spot), and the router is this several years old Huawei piece of shit. By router I really mean "router". I can't even access the management because the ISP probably changed the password or something.
I could just replace the router, for which I'd also need to buy an ONT, but those boxes are really cheap, so that's not really a problem, but the main question is - I guess - if I buy one of the better routers from a reputable enough brand with several antennas, would that by chance make the wifi signal sufficiently better? I mean it doesn't have to be full speed, it just needs to be stable and a little faster.
If that turns out to be at least somewhat of an improvement, it would be cheap enough for the time being, and a pair of Proline adapters (or whatever they are called) can always be added later on if we want to increase speed further. That would need some planning ahead though, like buying a Onemesh compatible router in case of TP-Link's Proline.

Ideas/opinions?...

 

[louie1961]

Do you have any unused cable TV coax in the walls? If yes, you could use MoCA adapters to turn that COAX into a 2.5gbe wired connection. Then you would only need to add some wireless access points

Coax to Ethernet Adapters – Ethernet over Coax 2.5Gbps Adapter (2-Pack) | TRENDnet - TRENDnet TMO-312C2K

www.trendnet.com

 

[Octopuss]

Nope. No cabling whatsoever.

 

[tubs-ffm]

I read a lot of text but I cannot see a question.

Basically there are 3 Options:

1. You run a LAN cable to a position of the AP that is more in the center.
2. You use a different technology like PowerLAN and use the power cable for network connection.
3. You set-up a WiFi mesh network by using more than on AP

What is better for you is hard to judge without knowing your specific situation.

But what you can try out is to optimize the AP position where it is today. Often people hide such kind of devices inside closets or behind shelves. It should be free and with free line of sight in the main directions.

 

[mattventura]

Problem: there would be two wifis instead of one.

This is generally solvable by giving them the same SSID and password. A "mesh" is different - meshing is where wifi is also used as the link from the main router to the secondary AP. If you're instead using powerline as the backhaul, then it isn't a mesh.

A better main router might help but it's hard to say. There is a legal limit to router transmission strength (1W), and the issue might be the client-to-router signal anyway.

 

[Octopuss]

This is generally solvable by giving them the same SSID and password. A "mesh" is different - meshing is where wifi is also used as the link from the main router to the secondary AP. If you're instead using powerline as the backhaul, then it isn't a mesh.

A better main router might help but it's hard to say. There is a legal limit to router transmission strength (1W), and the issue might be the client-to-router signal anyway.

I thought mesh means there are several APs and together they act like one wifi, and you get seamlessly connected between them depending on your position. Ruckus has this option in the settings.
I think it's called Onemesh (edit: or Easymesh?) in the case of TP-Link, but you do need a router for that.

OneMesh - Flexibly Create a Whole-Home Wi-Fi | TP-Link

OneMesh™ provides seamless whole home mesh WiFi by turning your home routers and extenders into an affordable mesh network.

www.tp-link.com

This is what I originally thought I could buy: AV1000 Gigabit Passthrough Powerline ac Wi-Fi Kit

 

[Octopuss]

Another thing I can do is grab a wifi-less Powerline kit (that's even cheaper) and plug a standalone AP into that. That thing would actually sit in the middle of the flat. I presume standalone AP has better signal than any router by design, or not? Anyway, the position might makefor the biggest difference.

 

[mattventura]

I thought mesh means there are several APs and together they act like one wifi, and you get seamlessly connected between them depending on your position. Ruckus has this option in the settings.

There's three ways to do this:
1. If you buy a random assortment of APs, but configure them with the same settings (apart from wireless channel - that should be different to minimize interference), then it will act as one network. Roaming (moving from one AP to another automatically) might not work as seamlessly as you'd want. They need to all have some kind of connection to the same LAN (ethernet, powerline, moca, etc) for this to work.
2. If you buy centrally-managed APs, you can do #1 but with proper roaming. Clients can seamlessly move from one AP to another as you move throughout the building. Same restriction - you need ethernet/powerline/moca as a backhaul.
3. True wireless meshing uses wifi as the backhaul. It doesn't require any separate wired networking. It will generally also support seamless roaming. However, depending on equipment, it also performs the worst, as the backhaul itself also takes up wireless airtime, and may be subject to signal strength issues.

Some solutions (like TP-Link Omada) can do #2 or #3 - they'll use a wired connection if available, otherwise will fall back to a wireless backhaul.

 

[Octopuss]

#2 seems to be supported on quite a few TP-Link routers. They call it " EasyMesh Wired/Ethernet Backhaul", and seems to be just what I'm looking for IF I decide to go with multiple wifi sources.

But right now I'm thinking Powerline into the middle of the flat and one standalone AP might give the best overall wifi signal - but it wouldn't be the cheapest option either. I guess it depends if I can find something decent second hand. The signal would go through one concrete wall at any rate.
I have Ruckus APs at home, but those are horribly expensive and not available even 2nd hand in my country, and even the cheaper models would be an overkill for a flat where you only connect one to two phones, one roaming notebook and a TV, depending on the chosen setup (with Powerline I'd just use a cable for that one).

 

[tgl]

A better main router might help but it's hard to say. There is a legal limit to router transmission strength (1W), and the issue might be the client-to-router signal anyway.

Yeah, that. Spending more money on a "better" AP seems really unlikely to help much. What you need is an AP that is closer to the clients. If you can't run a real ethernet cable to that AP, powerline is probably an okay second choice. Wireless backhaul should be your last resort really, although it might be okay if your speed expectations are minimal.

I'd try to have two APs, one at each end of the flat, if possible. As stated, if you give them the same SSID and password the clients will probably roam well enough between them, even if they're different makes.

 

[kapone]

I don't get it.

Buy a semi decent Wifi AP and a run of the mill router (i.e. mini PC running whatever firewall/router OS), hardwire the AP to the router, and problem solved?

If not willing to do any of the above, give it up and live with what it is?

Edit: I have a Ruckus R730 (I think?) in my vacation house (~3500sqft) and I've never had any issues with wifi coverage there. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

That doesn't mean the R730 is the best or anything, it just means, get the right equipment for the right needs. Money is money, but so is life. Prioritize.

 

[tgl]

I don't get it.

I think the main problem here is the concrete interior walls. Wifi doesn't go through those too well, and I'm sure they're the big obstacle to doing any ethernet wiring, too. Problem's not going to be solved without putting another AP on the far side. The hard part is getting a backhaul connection to that AP.

 

[Octopuss]

I don't get it.

Yeah, you don't get it.
I specifically wrote the solution must be as cheap as possible, and you throw a miniPC router idea around? I also wrote I cannot drag any cables around, and you talk about wiring something? Man, I don't even...
Btw what does "a run of the mill" even mean?


Instead of weird ideas that directly conflict with the requirements I wrote, give me some AP suggestions. Something cheap yet decent. That means Ruckus is out of the question, even used. I have just checked the prices of the OLD R610 on Ebay in Europe, and that's beyond ridiculous.
Signal strength is more important than speed (max speed is absolutely irrelevant here, because the devices aren't even connecting to each other). I am more than willing to buy 2nd hand.

 

[i386]

I guess - if I buy one of the better routers from a reputable enough brand with several antennas, would that by chance make the wifi signal sufficiently better?

No, the "integrated services router" (as cisco calls them) are compromises of space, functionality & power consumption. A dedicated access point will provide the better wifi.

instead of roughly 100Mbit speed there's hardly 8Mbit and it's dropping connection like crazy - I mean no shit, through two to three concrete walls.

I'm in germany and we usually have massive walls
Years ago I used a fritzbox from avm as a wifi access point and it had the same problem; the signal would get considerably weaker with every wall inbetween. I bought a (not so cheap) ruckus access point and the signals improved a lot.

 

[MarktheRed]

This is a God tier write up on how to maximize wifi performance:

https://community.ui.com/questions/Help-me-get-the-optimal-WiFi-performance-in-my-home/f31db73a-91ea-4376-a229-1d5ab433b98c#answer/d7b26c3a-5140-4fc1-b472-5361b818a092

My assessment is that getting a single kickass wifi access point (i.e., 4x4 5ghz 4x4 2.4ghz antennas') will always be better than multiple mesh type acess points. Also remember that wifi 6e/ wifi 7 only work in the same room as the access point, unless you live in a Japanese paper door style house. Wifi 6e/7 have ZERO (repeat: zero) signal penetration so if you want wifi 7 bandwidth in every room in your house, you will need access points in every room. I see that as silly. 5GHz is KING for happy wifi in a busy environment as it marries high bandwidth (600mbs+) with reasonably high wall penetration ability.

I suggest you get one of these n100 routers with OPNsense / PFsense and a good single access point. The Ubiquiti u6 Enterprise and / or EAP660HD. Both have 4x4 antennas for both 5ghz and 2.4ghz band.

Reddit has good charts for TPLink and Ubiquiti access points as the shear number of AP's for both companies is INSANE
https://www.reddit.com/r/HomeNetworking/comments/swkecg https://www.reddit.com/r/HomeNetworking/comments/11858ge
I have a U6 Enterprise in my 3000 SF brick walled house mounted in the ceiling of my top floor exactly center to my property and it covers me great. I have heard the TP-Link EAP 660HD is great too, although I liked the Unifi access point controller software better. I know I don't need a Unifi controller for a single access point, but OPNSEnse has a great plugin for it and I like the client topography interface and channel optimization functions. It also looks a lot nicer with flush mount solutions that my wife appreciated. It is also much more expensive for the EAP 660HD brand new, but lots of sales possible for both.

Thanks for reading my blog!

 

[Octopuss]

5GHz is KING for happy wifi in a busy environment as it marries high bandwidth (600mbs+) with reasonably high wall penetration ability.

5GHz has absolutely atrocious penetration compared to 2,4GHz last time I checked.

I suggest you get one of these n100 routers with OPNsense / PFsense

I feel like you missed the part where I said this has to be as cheap as possible. And why on earth would I put pfSense box in a flat of someone who knows absolute zero about computers? Hello, reality check! This is not power user shit I'm talking about here but a regular household.
You also completely missed the part where I said I don't care about the absolute speed one bit.

 

[Terry Kennedy]

Ideas/opinions?...

You've described a difficult situation. I'm surprised there isn't at least some wiring in there (besides the obvious power). Did the builders expect that everyone would watch TV where the cable comes into the space? Or, if an older building before cable TV was common, I'd expect wiring for a land line telephone in at least some of the rooms. Even if the existing wiring isn't usable, it can provide a clue as to how to get from Point A to Point B.

I'm not a big fan of Ethernet-over-AC adapters. In my experience, you'll often find that all of the outlets in one room are on opposite AC power legs from the outlets in the other room. You'd expect it to be 50/50, but Murphy's Law strikes more often than not.

Your best bet is going to be 2.4GHz. 5GHz is faster for line-of-sight but doesn't work well through walls, particularly concrete ones. But there are really only 3 "good" 2.4GHz channels and if this is an apartment, there are likely multiple other devices nearby on all of them. Plus, some oaf will decide that Channel 4 is good and splatter over 1 and 6 with their "super wideband" gizmo.

It is possible to run cabling in even difficult situations. "Back in the day", telephone / TV cable installers would take their time and do a clean job. Now it's drill / jackhammer a hole in the wall, run a cable, put the equipment on the floor, connect it and run away.

I've done things like remove the baseboard moulding and route out a channel for cables in the back, then re-attach it to the concrete wall. Or pull the baseboard and discover there's a gap between the wood flooring and the wall and put the wire in there. It all depends on how much effort you're willing to put into things and how easy it is to get access to all of the places you need - much easier in a vacant apartment.

 

[kapone]

I think the main problem here is the concrete interior walls.

Yes and No. My vacation home is concrete (and ICF) walls - Florida.

No issues there.

 

[kapone]

must be as cheap as possible,

What's your definition of cheap?

you throw a miniPC router idea around?

Do you know how much a mini-pc router costs? Peanuts.

I also wrote I cannot drag any cables around, and you talk about wiring something? Man, I don't even...

I did. There's always a way. Simple stick on or screwed on channels (with wires inside) are easy peezy.

Something cheap yet decent.

Maybe maybe. Can't have it both ways.

max speed is absolutely irrelevant here, because the devices aren't even connecting to each other)

I'm not sure I understand this. You do want half decent internet speeds, don't you?

 

[Octopuss]

I'm surprised there isn't at least some wiring in there (besides the obvious power). Did the builders expect that everyone would watch TV where the cable comes into the space?

It's a 14 story building block built around 1980. There was no internet or cable TV back then.