wifi routers

[Skippy722]

Originally Posted by Mr_Luke

Not true.

It makes good sense and I love my TP Link. I was told by several fiber optic and broadband professionals that the outdated Cisco E1000 will not work with fiber optic, and even if it did, my TP Link performs better and I'm not even on fiber optic yet. They praised the TP Link A750 Archer C20 dual band and I can see why.

There's no need for a gigabit router for non professional users (you will not be able to tell any difference).
You'd be wasting your money on a gigabit router but like PT Barnum said " a ____ every minute"


My internet connection is 200Mbps, though we average 180Mbps. If I used a router that had 10/100 Ethernet ports I'm missing out on almost a HALF of the speed I'm paying for. 80mbps makes a pretty significant difference when you're downloading a large games or files.

In the case of that TP Link C20, it has 4 10/100 LAN ports and 1 10/100 WAN port. You'll be paying for 200Mbps, but your router can only support 100Mbps. Yes, the wireless standard is 300~400Mbps transfer rate, but the port connecting you to the outside world is only 100Mbps, a bottleneck.

 

[alarmguy]

Originally Posted by Donald
TP Link is a quality router. AC1750 is a very good TP Link model router without breaking the bank. You want at least a dual band one. Best bet is to buy all the equipment including the modem....


^^AGREE^^

I have to agree, Im going to sound old here, but have been computing since 1995 on the internet.
Used every kind of router and modem. When we moved South 13 years ago, I was though a couple others as well.
Please also keep in mind, as part of my business, almost on a daily basis I am working on a customers wifi network, configuring camera's and security.

Well, some (guessing) 5 years ago We switched providers again, back to Spectrum (TWC) I took the opportunity to purchase our own separate Modem and Router.
I researched a lot and bought a TPLINK Cable Modem and TPLINK AC AC1750 (AKA= Archer C7)
MY GOD, to this day this combination surprises the heck out of me, its been ROCK SOLID the entire time, I will be darned but darn it, the darn thing never needs to be reset.
When I say never, its possible when cable goes down in the entire area, I can think back and remember we had to reset when it came back up.
When I say reset I am tlaking the modem and router, as I just flip a switch on the powerstrip.
and once every few months, for the heck of it, just because, and I dont know why, I just reset it, again, for the heck of it even though its working fine!

It powers AT least (guessing) roughly 14 wifi devices on our home, 3 desktops, 2 laptops, 2 ipads, cell phones, 4 Roku players and other stuff.
Oh and hey, let me through in there, we have a cisco router plugged into the AC1750 too, as it is a VPN to my wifes company! ..

Anyway, I am just waiting for this router or the modem to quit, burn out, stop working, Im wondering if I should buy a back up for when the day comes!

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted by Mr_Luke
I was using a Linksys E1000 wired / wifi router for years but bought a TP Link Archer C20 last week for $35 at Office Depot and I love it. I get improved Wif TV and streaming music on my Amazon Fire 7. Even my internet is improved and I haven't even got fibber optic yet. I have Charter broadband 100 Mbps.

I'm moving to fiber optic 200 Mbps internet soon and this TP Link will work with it.
It's not a gigabit router and I probably don't need one. The E1000 doesn't work with fiber optic.
Dude, come on, it's not rocket science. The C20 has a 100 Mbps WAN port, which means that even if you upgrade to 200 Mbps internet service, you will still be limited to 100 Mbps by your router.

If you love TP Link, at least get the Archer C7 which has a gigabit WAN port.

Quote
There's no need for a gigabit router for non professional users (you will not be able to tell any difference).

In that case, why bother upgrading your internet from 100 to 200 Mbps?

And yes, you will not be able to tell any difference because your WAN port will still limit you to 100 Mbps, unless you replace your C20 with a better router with a gigabit WAN port.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by Mr_Luke

Not true.

It makes good sense and I love my TP Link. I was told by several fiber optic and broadband professionals that the outdated Cisco E1000 will not work with fiber optic, and even if it did, my TP Link performs better and I'm not even on fiber optic yet. They praised the TP Link A750 Archer C20 dual band and I can see why.

There's no need for a gigabit router for non professional users (you will not be able to tell any difference).
You'd be wasting your money on a gigabit router but like PT Barnum said " a ____ every minute"


No, Rand is correct. If you are getting 200Mbit internet and your router has 100Mbit switch ports, you are starving yourself of 50% of your bandwidth. And the Cisco E1000 would work just fine with fibre, the medium is irrelevant to the function here, as it will have an ethernet hand-off to the gateway regardless.

 

[Pew]

Originally Posted by Mr_Luke

It makes good sense and I love my TP Link. I was told by several fiber optic and broadband professionals that the outdated Cisco E1000 will not work with fiber optic, and even if it did, my TP Link performs better and I'm not even on fiber optic yet. They praised the TP Link A750 Archer C20 dual band and I can see why.


Fiber goes into your modem, then to your router. The router doesn't care what form of transport you have between the house and the street.

Quote
There's no need for a gigabit router for non professional users (you will not be able to tell any difference).
You'd be wasting your money on a gigabit router but like PT Barnum said " a ____ every minute"


My old comcast copper line was 16MBps. If I didn't have a gigabit capable router, I'd be losing out on nearly 6MBps. Now with fiber, I'd be losing out on 45MBps. I'd be getting 1/5 of the speed I paid for with fiber if I only had a 10/100 router.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by Mr_Luke
TP Link is much better than Netgear.

They are both consumer-grade equipment with similar architectures and software. The difference is that Netgear is American, TP-Link is Chinese. If you are suitably paranoid that the Chinese might be spying on you, that may be relevant.

Originally Posted by Mr_Luke
With fiber optic, no modem needed.

Fibre/fiber is a medium, just like cable or POTS (xDSL). The brand of device is irrelevant, it is whether the ISP is giving you an optical hand-off (requires GPON hardware or similar) or are supplying an ONT. Like with cable and DSL where most brands produce devices that have a built-in modem that is bridged to the WAN interface internally, the same is the case for fibre. In my experience however, the ISP won't give you an optical hand-off and instead will install something in bridge mode, giving you an ethernet hand-off.

 

[Mr_Luke]

Originally Posted by Quattro Pete

In that case, why bother upgrading your internet from 100 to 200 Mbps?


Because it costs less and it will perform better whether I use a gigabit router or a non gigabit router.
And you will will not notice a difference unless you're trying to share huge files such as 500 GB at a time.

Originally Posted by Quattro Pete

And yes, you will not be able to tell any difference because your WAN port will still limit you to 100 Mbps, unless you replace your C20 with a better router with a gigabit WAN port.


Nope, and I have full confidence in my actions to use a non gigabit TP Link A750.
I guarantee I will notice a major improvement in my fiber optic cable over my cable broadband connection.
I already get faster speeds, just with the TP Link C20 on cable BB.

What many of you don't seem to understand is that, you will not notice the difference for general computing, e.g., facebook, eBay, amazon, etc.
Right now I have up to 100 Mbps for general computing and with TCP Optimizer I get plenty fast enough speeds. The pages change as fast as I can blink. You think I need to go faster? You're not making sense. And I'm not even on fiber optic yet.

Lesson : never take your fiber optic internet advice from devoted oil change experts.

 

[Mr_Luke]

Originally Posted by Pew
Originally Posted by Mr_Luke

It makes good sense and I love my TP Link. I was told by several fiber optic and broadband professionals that the outdated Cisco E1000 will not work with fiber optic, and even if it did, my TP Link performs better and I'm not even on fiber optic yet. They praised the TP Link A750 Archer C20 dual band and I can see why.


Fiber goes into your modem, then to your router. The router doesn't care what form of transport you have between the house and the street.

Quote
There's no need for a gigabit router for non professional users (you will not be able to tell any difference).
You'd be wasting your money on a gigabit router but like PT Barnum said " a ____ every minute"


My old comcast copper line was 16MBps. If I didn't have a gigabit capable router, I'd be losing out on nearly 6MBps. Now with fiber, I'd be losing out on 45MBps. I'd be getting 1/5 of the speed I paid for with fiber if I only had a 10/100 router.


No modem needed for the fiber optic internet I'm getting. NADA. The modem belongs to Charter and they will get it back.

It doesn't matter if you're losing out on 6 Mbps if you won't be able to see the difference anyway.

 

[Mr_Luke]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by Mr_Luke

Not true.

It makes good sense and I love my TP Link. I was told by several fiber optic and broadband professionals that the outdated Cisco E1000 will not work with fiber optic, and even if it did, my TP Link performs better and I'm not even on fiber optic yet. They praised the TP Link A750 Archer C20 dual band and I can see why.

There's no need for a gigabit router for non professional users (you will not be able to tell any difference).
You'd be wasting your money on a gigabit router but like PT Barnum said " a ____ every minute"


No, Rand is correct. If you are getting 200Mbit internet and your router has 100Mbit switch ports, you are starving yourself of 50% of your bandwidth. And the Cisco E1000 would work just fine with fibre, the medium is irrelevant to the function here, as it will have an ethernet hand-off to the gateway regardless.


Gee, really? It's funny how at speedguide.net where the internet professionals are, they don't argue about these things and they say the opposite of what you're saying.
I don't even care if the E1000 will work with my fiber optic. I got a $38 TP Link that performs much better, is more modern and up to date, and will work perfectly with my fiber optic. Gee, remind me not to talk about computers with oil change dudes, will ya?

This are the replies from my friend, and that's what I'm going with. I'm not going to be trying to email operating systems to people and I think I'll do well with what I have. I have an excellent WiFi signal with cable BB and the C20. My wired Dell 960 with Win10 runs great at about 90 Mbps.

Quote
The TP-Link Archer C20 is a fine router and you are right that you have to connect the WAN port to the ONT. You will be fine with that TP-Link, just wanted to point out that port limitation. Gigabit routers are all different prices, on the cheaper end the TP-Link Archer A7 (AC1750) is ~60 on Amazon.


Quote


Yeah, it (the TP Link Archer C20) will work, just not to the full capacity of that connection. If you want it to be future proof, you can get a gigabit one and return this, or just use it, up to you. It won't make that much difference in normal situations, as many sites won't be able to serve files at that speed anyway. Even streaming HD video rarely uses over 10 Mbps. The most likely places where you'd notice the difference is if you have a NAS (network attached storage), or transferring stuff between your computers locally (provided they have gigabit ports), or downloading huge files off the internet (Operating Systems, large video files, torrents, etc.). That's where gigabit vs. 10/100 really matters.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by Mr_Luke
Because it costs less and it will perform better whether I use a gigabit router or a non gigabit router.

If it costs less then it's a no-brainer, but whether it performs better or not will depend on node saturation, backhaul bandwidth and the number of hops. Being provided via a fibre to the home link does not guarantee faster performance.

Originally Posted by Mr_Luke
Nope, and I have full confidence in my actions to use a non gigabit TP Link A750.
I guarantee I will notice a major improvement in my fiber optic cable over my cable broadband connection.
I already get faster speeds, just with the TP Link C20 on cable BB.


I really don't think you understand the subject. First off, you may get better performance (lower latency) with fibre, but that will be due newer infrastructure on the backend, which is typically the case in a new build-out. The nodes are typically less congested due to a smaller subscriber base, but that will change as more get onboard. Your cable provider is already using optical back-hauls, so there's no advantage there. They may even have a larger transport network. Secondly, it seems silly to intentionally hinder yourself by subscribing to a service that is offering literally twice the bandwidth you are capable of using. If you knew that going in, you should have bought a gigabit-capable device from the get-go. Thirdly, the C20 isn't magic, it is limited by the same things as all the other gear in its category, which is mainly CPU/chipset and memory. No amount of praise is going to change the fact that it is, at its best, capable of 100Mbit of throughput.

Originally Posted by Mr_Luke
What many of you don't seem to understand is that, you will not notice the difference for general computing, e.g., facebook, eBay, amazon, etc.

This directly contradicts what you've just stated above about you guaranteeing you will notice a difference going to fibre....

Originally Posted by Mr_Luke
Right now I have up to 100 Mbps for general computing and with TCP Optimizer I get plenty fast enough speeds. The pages change as fast as I can blink. You think I need to go faster? You're not making sense. And I'm not even on fiber optic yet.

It's more when you are downloading things, running multiple HD streams (Netflix) and the like, that the difference in increased available bandwidth is apparent. Something you aren't going to notice because you will still be limited to 100Mbit due to your router choice.

Originally Posted by Mr_Luke
Lesson : never take your fiber optic internet advice from devoted oil change experts.

Many of us work in IT for a living, I'm literally an expert on this topic.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by Mr_Luke
Gee, really? It's funny how at speedguide.net where the internet professionals are, they don't argue about these things and they say the opposite of what you're saying.
I don't even care if the E1000 will work with my fiber optic. I got a $38 TP Link that performs much better, is more modern and up to date, and will work perfectly with my fiber optic. Gee, remind me not to talk about computers with oil change dudes, will ya?


I generally stick to the Enterprise forums like the Cisco one on DSL reports, given that's the industry within which I work. And I doubt people are saying the opposite of what I'm saying, it's more likely that you simply don't understand the subject well enough. You are talking IT with a number of people that work in the industry here, just because I also happen to post on an oil forum doesn't mean that's the exclusive scope of my interests. Most of the folks in my industry don't hang around on the speedtest consumer forums doling out advice to end users BTW, and this exchange is a beautiful example as to why.

 

[Skippy722]

Well... if he wants to pay for 200Mbps and only be able to use half of that, that's his prerogative. We tried

 

[Mr_Luke]

Quote


It's more when you are downloading things, running multiple HD streams (Netflix) and the like, that the difference in increased available bandwidth is apparent. Something you aren't going to notice because you will still be limited to 100Mbit due to your router choice.



Multiple HD streams? What gave you the impression I wanted to do that?
I wouldn't even want to do that.
Your first mistake was to assume that I'd want to run multiple HD streams.
I already told you I do facebook, amazon, eBay, emails, and if not on that, then I might be watching my 1 WiFi TV.

 

[Mr_Luke]

How do I remove myself from a post?

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted by Mr_Luke
Originally Posted by Quattro Pete

In that case, why bother upgrading your internet from 100 to 200 Mbps?


Because it costs less and it will perform better whether I use a gigabit router or a non gigabit router.

How will it perform better when your C20 still limits you to 100 Mbps, even when you're paying for a 200 Mbps service?

Quote
You think I need to go faster? You're not making sense. And I'm not even on fiber optic yet.

Nobody said you need to subscribe to a faster internet plan. You were the one that said you'll be upgrading from 100 Mbps to 200 Mbps. All we are saying is that in order to actually take advantage of that 200 Mbps speed tier, you need a router that can handle more than 100 Mbps on the WAN port.

Quote
Lesson : never take your fiber optic internet advice from devoted oil change experts.
This has nothing to do with fiber optic specifically. It has to do with basic understanding of network speeds, regardless of internet delivery method.

I think the lesson is for the rest of us to stop dispensing advice to someone who can't comprehend the basics. Hence, I'm out.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by Mr_Luke
Quote


It's more when you are downloading things, running multiple HD streams (Netflix) and the like, that the difference in increased available bandwidth is apparent. Something you aren't going to notice because you will still be limited to 100Mbit due to your router choice.



Multiple HD streams? What gave you the impression I wanted to do that?
I wouldn't even want to do that.
Your first mistake was to assume that I'd want to run multiple HD streams.
I already told you I do facebook, amazon, eBay, emails, and if not on that, then I might be watching my 1 WiFi TV.



I didn't say that YOU, specifically, would be doing that, simply indicating a scenario in which having access to double the bandwidth has the potential to make an obvious difference in performance.

 

[Mr_Luke]

Originally Posted by Skippy722
Well... if he wants to pay for 200Mbps and only be able to use half of that, that's his prerogative. We tried

I already told you I do facebook, amazon, eBay, emails, pay bills, and if not on my PC, then I might be watching my ONE WiFi TV.
My Dell already runs FAST. How much speed do you think I need, for one person to be on Facebook?
Get real. What do you think I have? 10 kids, all online at the same time, sharing operating systems?

 

[Mr_Luke]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL


I didn't say that YOU, specifically, would be doing that, simply indicating a scenario in which having access to double the bandwidth has the potential to make an obvious difference in performance.


SMH

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by Quattro Pete

I think the lesson is for the rest of us to stop dispensing advice to someone who can't comprehend the basics. Hence, I'm out.



Nailed it.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by Mr_Luke
Originally Posted by OVERKILL


I didn't say that YOU, specifically, would be doing that, simply indicating a scenario in which having access to double the bandwidth has the potential to make an obvious difference in performance.


SMH


Because it was so simple it flew right over your head?

You are buying a 500HP car and then putting a throttle stop on it so that it can never get over 1/2 throttle because you don't believe you will ever need anything more than 250HP. And you are telling us we are crazy for pointing out how ridiculous this is.

Even if your specific scenario (not the generalized scenario I attempted to depict earlier where an individual would notice having double the bandwidth) did not typically lend itself to overall available bandwidth being a big issue, if there were situations where it would, you'd never see them because of the cap you've given yourself on the hardware side, so it doesn't matter. That's what's been attempted to be conveyed here. You won't be able to use what you are paying for, and given that your favourite brand here offers numerous devices that actually DO provide gigabit speeds on the WAN and LAN interfaces, and for not much more, this really strikes one as being very illogical.