WiFi 3 / WiFi 6

[FortyTwo2]

I have recently (4 weeks) moved from Virgin to Sky and it has been a lumpy ride on every level.  The lastest is this  , , , the 'Engineer's' visit here today to solve my WiFi issues.

I am on Sky Stream (2 pods) and I am paying for wifi max full fibre 150.  I do some work on a laptop during the eveneing and on some evenings it disconnects.   The engineer came today . . .. the conversation went like this . . . 

Engineer "the router is in a cupboard under the stairs in the hall, it's got to come out onto the table on the hall"

Me "the Virgin router was in the same place for 10 years and it never disconnected once in 10 years"

Engineer "that's because the Virgin router was version 3, old tech that was better at going through walls but slower, your Sky router is version 6 which you need for the speed for your pod but it struggles to get through walls"

Is that **bleep**?

(Note:  Before he came I downloaded an app to test the wifi signal and it was -35dbm in the hall and -65dbm in the lounge and it was the same after he left)

[TimmyBGood]

@FortyTwo2 

Technically 5Ghz attenuates more rapidly than 2.4Ghz on transit through building fabric, so there's some sense there.

https://boneymaundu.medium.com/speed-vs-range-decoding-the-differences-between-2-4-ghz-5-ghz-and-6-g... 

[FortyTwo2]

Thanks for the link which says that WiFi 3 goes through walls better than WiFi6. And, I can confirm that the Virgin router I had was Arris Hub 3.  The article says that (WiFI 3) Due to its lower frequency, 2.4 GHz transmits data at a slower rate than higher frequency bands. 2.4GHz routers have a maximum speed range of 450 Mbps, with some rare exceptions reaching 600 Mbps. Lower frequencies, however, have a greater signal range than higher frequencies.  As I am on 150mbps and as the vast majority of Sky customers are on a max 500mbps WHY not give the WiFi 3 router that is happy with 160mbps and happy with walls?

Next . .  Clearly Sky know that some people live in larger houses with thicker walls and surely must have some means of ensuring that the service works anywhere in that house and never fails?  When I signed up, I suspected that the TV ‘pods’ might struggle over wifi and so paid extra for the wifi max.  It seems that the focus on my wifi max is all about what speed am I getting in each room and not what strength of signal am I getting in each room.  The other question that is not being investigated is – why did it disconnect at that time on that day i.e. if the signal strength is good for most days why is not good enough on that day?

Nest . .  I am asking myself the question  . . . am I paying extra for wifi max so that it gives me that max speed in each room with the wifi 6 router and I would have been better off not paying that extra money and getting the standard wifi router that got me a better signal through the walls?

[TimmyBGood]

@FortyTwo2 

Note there's a complication in naming conventions here.  At over 20 years old WiFi 3 (802.11g) is antique and hugely obsolete: the Virgin Hub model you mention, despite its name, is WiFi 5 (802.11ac) and would have broadcast a 5Ghz signal as well as 2.4Ghz, while the Max Hub is WiFi 6 (802.11ax)

Frequent posts to this forum seem to indicate that Max performs unexpectedly poorly in some properties, which Sky is investigating.

[TimmyBGood]

---

@FortyTwo2 wrote:

Clearly Sky know that some people live in larger houses with thicker walls and surely must have some means of ensuring that the service works anywhere in that house and never fails?  

---

No: ISPs don't 'ensure' that at all, because in some cases it's simply impossible without wiping out their own profit margin which they aren't obliged to do.

The WiFi 'guarantees' are actually of a small refund if the specified wireless coverage isn't achieved.