Can I set my router bandwidth to 80mhz without issues?

[Asher Bunnell]

I live in a family home with three routers and a kinda nasty modem, not terrible though. Would setting one of the routers to 80mhz cause problems for the rest of the homes internet?

[Allan B]

Generally you want to leave them on auto.    The best option is make sure all 3 routers are using separate wifi channels in the 2.4 and 5ghz band.  Don't pick 1\2\3 either, you need to use channels 1/5/8 for example.

[Donut417]

1 hour ago, Allan B said:

need to use channels 1/5/8 for example.

For 2.4 Ghz its 1,6, and 11 as those channels dont overlap. 

 

[LAwLz]

9 hours ago, Asher Bunnell said:

I live in a family home with three routers and a kinda nasty modem, not terrible though. Would setting one of the routers to 80mhz cause problems for the rest of the homes internet?

It depends on which band we are talking about.

2.4GHz? No, never use anything more than 20Mhz channel width.

5GHz? It might not be an issue, but it depends on what the environment looks like where you live.

 

My question is, why are you thinking of increasing the channel width? Are you not satisfied with the speeds? Are you sure the bottleneck isn't somewhere else? Is it a reception issue?

[Alex Atkin UK]

18 hours ago, Allan B said:

Generally you want to leave them on auto.    The best option is make sure all 3 routers are using separate wifi channels in the 2.4 and 5ghz band.  Don't pick 1\2\3 either, you need to use channels 1/5/8 for example.

I strongly disagree, at least for channel selection.  Auto is often really dumb and picks overlapping channels with other networks.

[Allan B]

27 minutes ago, Alex Atkin UK said:

I strongly disagree, at least for channel selection.  Auto is often really dumb and picks overlapping channels with other networks.

I meant auto for the channel width 20/40/80, for channel selection yes, auto is generally garbage, unless you are using a mesh system.

[Alex Atkin UK]

15 minutes ago, Allan B said:

I meant auto for the channel width 20/40/80, for channel selection yes, auto is generally garbage, unless you are using a mesh system.

Technically I believe channel width is always Auto even on routers that do not say so, as it will only be as wide as the client connecting is capable.  Its probably more accurate to call it "max" channel width.

It can be useful to limit it smaller to avoid overlapping other channels of course, not convinced routers are clever enough to do this on their own.

 

What's really frustrating is channel selection itself as different routers sometimes use different schemes, where the channel number can be the upper 20Mhz, lower 20Mhz or the middle channel of the whole width.  Which is why ideally you'd use a WiFi scanner on a client that supports the full width to see what the SSID is actually broadcasting.

[LAwLz]

13 hours ago, Alex Atkin UK said:

What's really frustrating is channel selection itself as different routers sometimes use different schemes, where the channel number can be the upper 20Mhz, lower 20Mhz or the middle channel of the whole width.  Which is why ideally you'd use a WiFi scanner on a client that supports the full width to see what the SSID is actually broadcasting.

Are you saying that "Channel 1" on one device can be a different range of frequency on another? Because that should not be the case.

 

The IEEE standard has very strict definitions of what for example "channel 1" means.

Channel 1 is 2401–2423MHz with 2412Mhz as the middle.

Channel 9 for example is 2441-2463MHz with 2452MHz as the middle.

 

If you have seen anything else then that device is not complaint with the IEEE standard, and probably doesn't work that well with Wi-Fi devices.

[Alex Atkin UK]

16 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Are you saying that "Channel 1" on one device can be a different range of frequency on another? Because that should not be the case.

 

The IEEE standard has very strict definitions of what for example "channel 1" means.

Channel 1 is 2401–2423MHz with 2412Mhz as the middle.

Channel 9 for example is 2441-2463MHz with 2452MHz as the middle.

 

If you have seen anything else then that device is not complaint with the IEEE standard, and probably doesn't work that well with Wi-Fi devices.

I've not seen them do it on 2.4Ghz, probably as its almost always a bad idea to use anything other than 20Mhz.  But I've seen it on 5Ghz where say you wouldn't be able to choose 36 in 40Mhz because its based on upper primary channel not lower.

I suppose in theory there might be a benefit to be able to choose which is your primary channel (as it presumably determines what is used for fall-back if your client only supports a smaller channel width), but not sure I've seen it used in that way.

The problem to me is that generally its not made plain to people that multiple channels are actually used in WiFi to begin with.

Ubiquiti go the other way on their LiteBeam PtP links and confuse things even more by showing you the actual channel frequency and not the channel numbers at all, although that is down to them letting you use down to 10Mhz channel widths with custom alignment at 5Mhz increments, as they use a customised WiFi protocol.

[Falcon1986]

On 10/6/2022 at 2:23 PM, Allan B said:

I meant auto for the channel width 20/40/80, for channel selection yes, auto is generally garbage, unless you are using a mesh system.

'Auto' on consumer-grade home routers is generally unreliable. But some mesh and SDN-based systems tend to do a better job. That's because, with the latter, the WiFi environment is frequently being scanned so that the software can optimize for best performance.

 

On 10/5/2022 at 5:29 PM, Asher Bunnell said:

I live in a family home with three routers and a kinda nasty modem, not terrible though. Would setting one of the routers to 80mhz cause problems for the rest of the homes internet?

When you choose 80MHz on 5GHz, you utilize more of the spectrum. Look at a chart and you'll see that quite a few channels are bonded such that only 6 different non-overlapping broadcasts can be comfortably accommodated on 5GHz. Furthermore, 4 of these 6 fall within DFS/radar range.

 

But keep in mind that if you intend to increase WLAN speeds by doing this, you do this at the expense of a loss in 5GHz wireless range. This is because antenna power must now be allocated to keeping several channels up rather than a narrower 20-40MHz channel. Therefore, if this is your intention, you might need to install additional APs at the peripheries of signal fallout.

 

Sometimes, you might find that using 40MHz works best for your environment with better range and consistent reliability. For example, where my in-laws live, UniFi chooses to use 40MHz automatically while trying to avoid overlap with neighbours' WiFi less than -70dBm. They only have a symmetrical 100Mbps fiber connection anyway, and that speed is attainable and more than adequate for client devices streaming, on VoIP calls, video calls, etc.

On 10/7/2022 at 9:01 PM, Alex Atkin UK said:

Ubiquiti go the other way on their LiteBeam PtP links and confuse things even more by showing you the actual channel frequency and not the channel numbers at all, although that is down to them letting you use down to 10Mhz channel widths with custom alignment at 5Mhz increments, as they use a customised WiFi protocol.

Yes, they do this with almost all of their WISP/bridging devices, back to the EdgeMax days. But these devices are meant for professionals who appreciate the granular detail and finer tuning that can be done even in the most unfavourable WiFi environments.

[Alex Atkin UK]

3 hours ago, Falcon1986 said:

Yes, they do this with almost all of their WISP/bridging devices, back to the EdgeMax days. But these devices are meant for professionals who appreciate the granular detail and finer tuning that can be done even in the most unfavourable WiFi environments.

I agree it was perhaps a bad example given the demographic, but I can't remember what device it was I saw using the lower channel as primary which is what is really confusing when they usually use upper.