I am just wondering what the general view is of the astonishing number of wireless routers on the market (both xDSL and cable) which are offering wireless connections of hundreds of megabits, but have no wired connection faster than 100M.
I realise that most connections are directed toward the internet, and that that majority of customers have download speeds less than 100M so its not really a problem. However, for anybody using a media server or any other service on the LAN there's hardly any point in going wireless at all
There must be some rationale for this, apart from plain cost cutting - what is it ?
Has never bothered me. The router I use isn't even wireless. I use one wired connection into the main gigabit switches (with a firewall box in between, as it happens). I do have wireless APs hung off the gigfabit network. So the only thing that's on the 100Mb/s connection is the VDSL link - which is much slower than that.
All three FTTC routers I've tried (a D-Link, a TP-Link and a Draytek) recently have had four Gigabit ports, though my old Draytek 2820n has only one Gigabit port and three 100Mb/s. I think *modern* routers do now tend to have all Gigabit.
They're already making laptops without them: you have to buy an add-on USB-Ethernet port if you want one, just as you have to buy an add-on CD/DVD/BluRay drive if you want one.
Given that Gigabit cabling and switches and PCs with Gigabit ports have all been widely and cheaply available for over a decade, I think it's reprehensible. But you can only vote with your wallet - just don't buy kit with only Fast Ethernet capability.
Agreed. The moment you start backing up PC OS image files or media files over your LAN, Gigabit comes into its own. As it happens I've had to revert temporarily to having my servers connected to the rest of the LAN via WiFi, and even though it's 802.11n accessing them is treacle slow.
Yes.
Why? Even though you may only normally use WiFi, sometimes unforeseen circumstances can make a faster cabled connection incredibly useful.
I didn't read that as "I'm hoping for a router with no Ethernet ports", but rather as "I anticipate it's only a matter of time before routers with no Ethernet ports come on the market."
I have the Sky Q router for my sins, it's not the best by any stretch of the imagination, but it works. Only real drawbacks are no easy wall mounting fixings and only 2 Ethernet ports, but at least both are Gigabit. Only use one of them to link to the main switch in the rack anyway, and all I use wireless for is the occasional checking of email on the phone if there aren't any PC's switched on.
That's because the original design of that unit is to provide a wireless access point on the end of a cable, to provide wireless to something that does not have the capability, or as a wireless repeater.
Consequently it DOES have an RJ45 - I've got two of 'em!
yeah ... a 100M Ethernet port - in spite of the "Combined simultaneous wireless speeds of up to 733Mbps on the 2.4GHz and 5GHz bands" quoted in the manufacturers spec sheet.
It was the point of the thread, but not the statement I was replying to. The GP said "I'm waiting for a router with no ethernet ports" Then someone cited the TPLink.. Which has an ethernet port...
Nevertheless, having a wireless router with a 100mbit port versus a
1000mbit doesn't mean you can't transfer data at 1000mbps.. It just means that you can only transfer at that speed to another wireless device.
Eh? You are confusing wireless and wired. A wired port running at 100Mb will connect to a wired port running at 1000Mb bit the data will only flow at the rate of the lowest speed port in use, in this instance it has NOTHING to do with wi-fi.
Agreed there are wireless routers that can achieve wireless speeds well above 100Mb (usually in the 5GHz radio band) but I don't know of any capable of 1000Mb. Indeed even routers with radio rated over 100Mb will be seriously limited by other factors such as signal strength, signal quality, and the rate at which the rest of system can handle the data flow.
I'm not confusing anything. If you have a 1gbps wireless router with a
100MB ethernet port, you can d/l stuff from the internet/wired lan at
100mbps. No faster..
But.. you can transfer data to another wireless device at 1gbps IF your devices can operate that fast.
My point was that a router with a 100mbit port isn't "strictly" limited to 100mbps. Two wifi laptops, connected to a 1gbit wireless router can communicate with each other significantly faster than 100mbps, assuming you don't have client isolation enabled. i.e. the wired port never comes into play.
And yeah, I know that signal strength is a factor.
As for wireless routers that will achieve 1gbps, there are plenty.. Granted, not your typical home setup, but a MikroTik 60GHz radio link will achieve that speed (of course it also has a gigabit port). Mimosa B24s (24 GHz) will also clock in at 1gbps. Ubiquiti's AirFiber 5X uses multiple transmitters out of the same dish at 45 degree polarized angles to hit nearly 2GBPS when using 4 radios. (technically not a single router, but 5GHz radio waves can't physically carry 2gbit/s, hence the workaround. I'd classify all of these as consumer radios due to the low cost ($700/ea for the Mimosas, $300/each for the MikroTiks, and about $1,100/each for a fully loaded AirFiber 5X) which certainly puts them in the hands of pros and hobbyists alike.
Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.