Are dual-band routers must-haves?
It's been about a year since the debut of dual-band routers, those that support both the ever-popularly used 2.4Ghz and the newer, less busy 5Ghz frequencies. This was very exciting news at first, but after having worked with a few of them, I wonder if they are really worth it.
Just like AT&T cell service, a wireless LAN can be unreliable at times.
(Credit: Dell)If you turn on a wireless network scan in a neighborhood of a big city (like where we are right now in downtown San Francisco), chances are you'll find multiple existing wireless networks.
Wireless routers are so popular now. Up till about a year ago, they all operated in the 2.4ghz frequency, which is shared by many other home appliances, such cordless phones or Bluetooth devices. This, in crowded areas, could potentially create interference that adversely affects your wireless network's performance.
This is the main reason why wireless networking vendors have turned to the cleaner 5Ghz frequency, thus the birth of dual-band routers, such as the Linksys WRT 610N or the D-Link DIR 855.
For you to take advantage of the 5Ghz frequency, the receivers (client machines/adapters) also needs to support this frequency. Most of the existing wireless adapters, however, are made to support only the 2.4Ghz. For this reason, the new routers that support the 5Ghz frequency are generally those that can also support the 2.4Ghz, in most case, simultaneously.
And that is all good. What is not, however, is the problem I have found in all of the dual-band routers I've worked with: the range of the 5Ghz frequency is shorter than that of the 2.4Ghz frequency. Often, the 5Ghz throughput performance is not much faster that of the 2.4Ghz, either.
Also, though the dual-band routers have been out there for a year, there are still very few adapters/clients that support the 5Ghz frequency. And those that do tend to also support the 2.4Ghz frequency. This means, it doesn't matter how much you want it; so far the 5Ghz frequency has been more of an option than a transition.
I find this very much like the ongoing change from the 32-bit Windows operating system to the 64-bit one. As the 64-bit Windows supports 32-bit software applications and there aren't many 64-bit-only software applications, there aren't that many compelling reasons to switch. After a while, your excitement wanes and you wonder why you should even worry about the 64-bit OS at all.
One more thing: Wireless-N routers' radio spectrum consists of 11 channels. This means if they are all set up to use one channel each, there needs to be 12 or more routers/access points in an area to create a considerable amount of interference. Most Wireless-N routers offer the option of scanning and picking the unused channel by themselves.
When it comes to wireless routers, the two most important factors are range and throughput performance. Personally, I find that 2.4Ghz Wireless-N routers are still the best for this. Case in point: our only Editors' Choice award for wireless routers this year is the Belkin N+, a router that doesn't offer any 5Ghz support at all.
Last but not least, 5Ghz or 2.4Ghz, wireless networking to me has always been a mystery. With the same router, it works differently from one location to another, from one Internet service to another, and so on. There are so many unknown factors that could affect your wireless signal.
The only way to ensure the consistency of a LAN is relying on something you can put your finger on. This is where the network cable or a pair of powerline adapters come into play.
Dong Ngo is a CNET editor who covers networking and network storage, and writes about anything else he finds interesting. You can also listen to his podcast at insidecnetlabs.cnet.com. E-mail Dong. 
If my laptop's built-in WiFi doesn't support 5GHz, then I'm not going to purchase a new router and adapter. Interference isn't a huge issue for me, so unless new equipment implements a transition, it looks like I'll be staying at 2.4GHz. WiFi is more for convenience than speed - if I know that I want to copy a huge file I will go to the extra effort to run a cable to the laptop to speed up the time.
ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!
It is clear from the article that the author is clueless on the subject of wireless networking.
1) The 2.4GHz band does indeed have 11 channels but ever since 802.11G came along, multiple channels are used to achieve the theoretical 54MPBS speed. In practice only three non-overlapping channels are then possible: 1, 6 and 11.
2) The 5GHz band obviously has less range, it is operating at a far higher frequency, basic radio theory there. Also the 5GHz band is not free from interference either, cordless phones have been using the band for years. There are actually only two unlicensed bands available for consumer use, 2.4GHZ and 5.8GHZ, with everything from Bluetooth to WiFi to Cordless Phones to Wireless Keyboards and Remotes using them.
3) Anyone who's been paying even a little attention this past year knows that the "beachfront porperty" in the radio spectrum is at lower frequencies, such as the 700MHz band that was just auctioned off by the FCC. It was so valuable because it can penetrate walls and has greater range than either Cell Phone or WiFi bands. Radio stations operate at even lower frequencies of course, with even better reception properties. That there can be dead spots in a gven WiFi installation operating at such high frequencies should be no mystery to anyone with even a little knowledge of the field.
I could go on, but I have work to do, so I'll close with:
CNET SHOULD GET SOME PEOPLE WITH ACTUAL TECHNICAL EXPERTISE ON STAFF!!!
Caption under the graphic:
"Just like AT&T cell service, a wireless LAN can be unreliable at times." - Dong Ngo
The same can be said for Verizon around my location, where AT&T has been rock solid for me. Sounds like Dong had a bad experience with AT&T cell service. Interesting, but it has nothing to do with the article.
"It's been about a year since the debut of dual-band routers..."
I said, WHAT?!? This supposed technology blogger (can't say journalist) doesn't even know that dual-band routers have been around for years. I bought my first dual-band (802.11a and 802.11b/g) router from Linksys which was their WRT54AG model. Mr. Blogger, please look it up in the Linksys product archive in their website. Please try to widen your knowledge especially if you are going to blog about it in a supposedly technical-worthy site as CNET. Please prove me wrong in my growing disillusionment that these technology sites are increasingly lowering their standards in allowing less-than-knowledgeable bloggers to write on their site.
I remember you writing before that these previous routers are not technically dual-band as they are supposedly not able to simultaneously broadcast in both bands. PLEASE. Get one and test it first. I use the 802.11a band for watching TV on my Media Center Extender while SIMULTANEOUSLY surfing the web on the 802.11g band on my notebook. What's the up and up with your statements???!
A problem not commonly addressed is the marketing push for range. Many people do not need 300' capabilities, especially when living in an urban apartment type setting. If the wireless access point manufacturers could also band together and start offering wireless devices that automatically manage signal strength (we know users won't do this) we would see less interference from other wireless devices within each user's location.
Right now, every wireless access point transmits at near max capabilities to OUT SHOUT neighboring devices.
Generally I find his reports to be good and quite funny too sometimes. Those outtakes on the one with the new Linksys router are great!
Jim Johnson also makes a VERY important point, which actually brings up a concept from the FCC regulations. Kepping the power level of your AP and client devices down the the minimum necessary to give you the range you need is something that should be done and is REQUIRED by the FCC for all licensed services. Some of the better client cards (such as the Cisco CB21A) do a one-way form of automatic power control - not a perfect solution but it seems to work fine as far as I can determine. All the cellular-based WAN devices also have automatic power control, but that is because APC is mandatory in FCC Part 22 devices (it has been in even analog cell phones since the first ones in 1983).
I have a Cisco CB21A dual-band wireless card in my laptop and I find very few places with broadband access offer 802.11A connectivity. One place here in Sacramento that does is the main downtown Sacramento Public Library (the branches offer only 802.11 B/G). If I'm at the library on the weekends having 802.11A is handy since usually the 2.4GHz band is crowded with other users and I'm usually the only one with 802.11A capability.
One minor correction to timothy97402's comment on the number of bands available for unlicensed devices (what the FCC calls "ISM" bands): there is in fact a 3rd band available - 902~928MHz. The first microwave ovens (circa 1950s) used this band. The old Ricochet system used that band too, and when I lved in the Bay Area when Ricochet was operational (late 1990s) it worked quite well. It was slow by today's standards (same as a bonded ISDN link - max. 128 kbps) but even that was better than a V.90 modem.
While wireless LAN is far from perfect it sure beats the pants off what we had available less than a decade to go, and I'll bet that in another 10 years we'll look back and say "how did we get along with those crude systems from way back in 2008". I'm old enough to have a historical perspective - I remember (though not fondly) 300 bps acoustic modems and 75 baud Teletype machines.
- by SimpleBear January 2, 2009 12:31 PM PST
- I have 6 neighboring Wi-Fi APs and all are still using the traditional 11g. I think the question is still when are people going to start seeing 11n as the main "Wi-Fi" - not even dual band yet. And to be quite honest, I'm quite happy with my 11g DD-WRT router over my previous Linksys WRT610N. I think what most people want is just stability over performance as of now.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(12 Comments)