Comments on: Are dual-band routers must-haves?

When set up properly, a 2.4Ghz-only router can outdo a dual-band router in both range and throughput performance.

[Ryan_R]

Having more than 2.75 GB of RAM will be the big reason to switch to 64 bit Windows. A lot of hardcore PC owners have already done it, and within the next few years it will likely become mainstream.

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.

[timothy97402]

"Dong Ngo is a CNET editor who covers networking and network storage"

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!!!

[iff2mastamatt]

Yeah, this guy is even hard to understand in his product reviews.

[One-Eared Gundark]

Let's not forget about the problems of microwave oven interference on the 2.4 GHz frequency, which typically operate around that freq.

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.

[junadlao]

I was about to read this article when I came upon the opening phrase:

"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???!

[junadlao]

Sorry, I meant to say above that I bought my first Dual-Band router FOUR years ago. And it was fine until I decided to replace it with the newer Linksys WRT600N last year (another dual-band not mentioned). Both products worked with their dual-band wonders for me. I'm pretty sure that D-Link, Netgear and others have similar products at around the same time (meaning since at least 4 years ago) but I just happened to go with Linksys.

[Jim Johnson]

ditto with other commenters regarding the quality of this article.

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.

[beachsandcrab]

Again the Linksys WRT 610 router is not ready for public consumption until they resolve dropouts and range issues in the 5 GHz band. Many who have tried this router have the same issues. I suspect the transmission power is anemic.

[DaveMcLain]

I think that Dong's story on the necessity of dual band routers may have been aimed at the beginner and in other words the person who has not yet purchased a router for their home.

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!

[whbowen]

timothy97402 and the other posters make some very valid comments. With 802.11G & N APs there are in fact only 3 useable channels since both G & N use multiple B channels to produce the throughput speed they offer.

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.

[CoastieSquid]

My goodness people, calm down. It is starting to sound like a geek convention in here. Give the guy a break, if you know something to be incorrect in what he is stating, say so. Are all of the personal attacks on this guy really necessary? If some of you folks know so much about the subject go to CNET and compete for his position so that you can be paid to have people read your articles. Otherwise try to provide CONSTRUCTIVE criticism. It is because of posts like these that a lot of people without an extensive knowledge of electronics shy away from sites like this.

[SimpleBear]

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.

[jimdoherty3333]

While all of the above comments indicate that the posters are wicked smaaart (as they say around here), I just wanted to know what the benefit of buying a router with the 5 ghz band (and thereby reducing my selection significantly). I found the article quite useful, (unlike most of the comments). I expect I will be buying the Belkin N+ since I don't see any compelling reason to go with a 5 ghz router and the N+ has a connection port for a hard drive which seems to be much more useful.