Forum Discussion
IS it best to separate the 2.4 ghz and 5 ghz wifi channels?
I have a lot of smart home devices, light switches, cameras, Alexa, Tesla solar, etc. All use the 2.4 ghz wifi. When grandkids come over, with their wifi devices and games, my TV streaming slows.
Would it be best to separate the 2.4 ghz and 5 ghz channels on the t-mobile home internet gateway, only allow guest and grandkids access to 2.4 and keep the 5 ghz for TV streaming and home computer?
I would also use the hybrid 2.4 and 5 GHz network which auto-selects the band and channel for each device as the primary network. I don't know if there is a proper name for it; I call it the "default" network because that is how the gateways are configured out of the box. A separate 2.4 GHz network, with lesser security if needed, can be added for older devices or ones that won't connect to the default network.
Before I had the T-Mobile gateway, I used a Netgear Nighthawk 802.11ac router. It had both 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz bands. I set up connections for my TV to both. Occasionally (maybe once a month), the TV would lose its connection to one and I'd have to go into its settings to switch to the other. I have not had to do that in the year that I have had it connected to the default network on the T-Mobile gateway.
I have not had any trouble with any of my devices in my home, except for the ancient desktop computer and printer which would not work with the WPA2/WPA3 + AES security on the default network; and they are so old, they don't recognize 5 GHz signals either. I made a 2.4 GHz WPA/WPA2 + TKIP/AES network just for them.
I have not seen a reason to add a dedicated 5 GHz network in my home.
Update to my inquiry, I watched T-Mobile's perfect You Tube video and added the new networks. Fácil
I'm adding solar with batteries. The battery manufacturer requires If I have a dual band Wifi router I must separate the bands if they use the same password because the Apollo battery management system will only connect to a 2.4Ghz network. It will NOT connect to a 5Ghz network. From the forum Conversations, if I have to do this, I like the idea of having a default combined network and then a separate 2.4Ghz network to connect with battery management system.
I could really use help on how to do this.I also have a google home(Nest) security camera system that I tried to find what speed it’s going on but couldn’t find it in the App.
Gracias,
Mr P
I would also use the hybrid 2.4 and 5 GHz network which auto-selects the band and channel for each device as the primary network. I don't know if there is a proper name for it; I call it the "default" network because that is how the gateways are configured out of the box. A separate 2.4 GHz network, with lesser security if needed, can be added for older devices or ones that won't connect to the default network.
Before I had the T-Mobile gateway, I used a Netgear Nighthawk 802.11ac router. It had both 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz bands. I set up connections for my TV to both. Occasionally (maybe once a month), the TV would lose its connection to one and I'd have to go into its settings to switch to the other. I have not had to do that in the year that I have had it connected to the default network on the T-Mobile gateway.
I have not had any trouble with any of my devices in my home, except for the ancient desktop computer and printer which would not work with the WPA2/WPA3 + AES security on the default network; and they are so old, they don't recognize 5 GHz signals either. I made a 2.4 GHz WPA/WPA2 + TKIP/AES network just for them.
I have not seen a reason to add a dedicated 5 GHz network in my home.
SouthDev wrote:
syaoran wrote:
For the sake of compatibility. It is always better to separate them. Not only does this allow you to keep slower devices off of the 5GHz band, but it it can make it easier to manage devices as well. Things like networked printers, smarthome devices, and wireless cameras as a few examples, benefit more from the stronger signal and don't require, even if they support, the need for a faster connection. Things like tablets, PC's, gaming consoles, and streaming devices as a few examples, definitely benefit more from the faster speeds of the 5GHz band when they support it.
That’s certainly an opinion, but absolutely not accurate in real-world residential settings.
Much of what you’ve written is based on a misunderstanding of the tech and a best-of-both approach that utilizes one of two hybrids (eg separate 2.4Ghz SSID).
The reality is that it's not "better" for the bulk of situations to split the two bands into two separate SSID's based on modern chipsets/algorithms for quick-switch best-signal monitoring. However, for unique situations where there is a unique need for a split, that's certainly fine in those events. Where it's not, the hybrid approach is the better middle-ground.
That's your opinion! Use whatever works best for you.
syaoran wrote:
For the sake of compatibility. It is always better to separate them. Not only does this allow you to keep slower devices off of the 5GHz band, but it it can make it easier to manage devices as well. Things like networked printers, smarthome devices, and wireless cameras as a few examples, benefit more from the stronger signal and don't require, even if they support, the need for a faster connection. Things like tablets, PC's, gaming consoles, and streaming devices as a few examples, definitely benefit more from the faster speeds of the 5GHz band when they support it.
That’s certainly an opinion, but absolutely not accurate in real-world residential settings.
Much of what you’ve written is based on a misunderstanding of the tech and a best-of-both approach that utilizes one of two hybrids (eg separate 2.4Ghz SSID).
The reality is that it's not "better" for the bulk of situations to split the two bands into two separate SSID's based on modern chipsets/algorithms for quick-switch best-signal monitoring. However, for unique situations where there is a unique need for a split, that's certainly fine in those events. Where it's not, the hybrid approach is the better middle-ground.
You can keep one SSID that uses both the 5 GHz and 2.4 GHz bands, thus allowing more modern devices to auto-select whichever is optimum (5 GHz is faster, but more range-limited than 2.4 GHz). Then you can add a second SSID that is 2.4 Ghz *only* (perhaps with down-graded security also) for the more primitive devices (cameras, ovens, door-openers, weather stations, etc) than aren't compatible with 5 GHz.
For the sake of compatibility. It is always better to separate them. Not only does this allow you to keep slower devices off of the 5GHz band, but it it can make it easier to manage devices as well. Things like networked printers, smarthome devices, and wireless cameras as a few examples, benefit more from the stronger signal and don't require, even if they support, the need for a faster connection. Things like tablets, PC's, gaming consoles, and streaming devices as a few examples, definitely benefit more from the faster speeds of the 5GHz band when they support it.
@formercanuck - in this Original Poster’s use case, he’s unable to disable 2.4 Ghz bands because he has smart home deviecs/etc that don’t support 5 Ghz.
However, in a small home and/or using wired AP’s, without the need for backwards compatibility, your approach is certainly ideal!
In general, I just disable 2.4GHz, as its a narrower band, often causes issues with Bluetooth (mouse/keyboard/earbuds). I have no use for it for 99% of items. I have a separate WiFi repeater for the few items that can use it (Ethernet over Powerline) I've had pretty much zero issues using 5GHz
If you’re referring to naming each band separately to divide them, then no.
This eliminates modern algorithms from choosing the best signal between the two identically named options, in a relatively faster/hassle-free manner, as opposed to two differently named WiFi bands, which will not optimize with the same level of agility.
If that doesn’t make sense, please let me know and I can elaborate based on your specific interests.
