What hardware factors affect range distance of consumer grade router?

[jungleexplorer]

Can someone please explain to me in simple terms, what hardware factors actually effect the range (distance of signal) of a consumer grade wifi router? I have read and read the specs of routers and while many of them claim, "Greater Range", none of them give any specifications as to what this greater range is. What I mean is, what is the actual measurement in feet this greater distance means? If a router claims, 30% better range, you have to have a numerical base to know what that 30% means. For instance, if the baseline range is 2 feet, then 30% better range means 3 feet. So you see, if you don't have an idea of what the baseline range is, then 30% means absolutely nothing.

Buying a wireless router is kind of like being in the toothpaste isle trying to decide what toothpaste to buy and there are 40 different types of toothpaste, all the same brand, that claim to be the best, but when I read the ingredients, they all look the same. Router manufacturers use terms like, "Improved Range", Range Boost, Better Range ect, ect ect; but none of this tells you diddly squat as to what the maximum range potential of the router is. Is is very frustrating!

I realize that many factors effect the range of a router. For the sake of argument though, let's assume that all those factors were gone and that we did a head to head test of each router in a environment with zero interference of any kind, what type of router (hardware specification wise) would give me the greatest range as far as signal distance goes?

 

[ahnilated]

Well antenna size, transmitter power would be the big ones for extending range. There are limits though as to how much transmitter power you can use from the FCC.

 

[spdragoo]

If you mean, "feature X provides Y amount of range", there's not really a particular hard & fast rule. Sure, the engineers building these things will know what features produce a particular signal strength under ideal/testing conditions...but a lot of that goes out the window once they're "in the wild".

Essentially, though, here are some things to consider:
-- External antennae usually provide a stronger signal than internal antennae. Mainly this is a size issue, though: smaller routers don't have the room for big internal antennae, so they can use larger antennae to broadcast a stronger signal. This is an area where you can boost the signal further by removing the antennae & replacing them with larger/stronger ones. This is also why some people buy wi-fi boosters/repeaters, especially in very large homes.
-- More antennae = stronger signal. Basically, assuming antennae of the same type, the router with 3 antennae should have a stronger signal than the one with only 2. If you have the option, get the router with more antennae (3 is better than 4, 4 is better than 3, etc.).
-- Channel selection. Having worked in tech support before, I can tell you straight out that most people never change the default settings for their wireless router... & even if they remember to change the default SSID/key, they never change the channel being used. Since 99% of the routers use channels 1, 6 or 11, that can leave you open to interference from your neighbors' routers. If you can see a lot of available networks when looking for the one to connect to, try manually selecting a different channel in the router. Note that this may not have as much effect for Wireless-N routers.
-- Location, location, location. Sticking a router in the back corner of the basement & expecting to get full signal strength in the 3rd-floor bedroom is a recipe for disappointment. You can sometimes get a "dead zone" by getting too close to the router -- but let's face it, if your PC is going to be less than 10ft from the router (especially if it's not going to be moved around), you should just be springing for the CAT5/6 cable anyway. In any case, having more than a floor (or maybe 3 rooms) space between you & the router means you may start having signal issues. But even then, you may still have a decent connection -- I can get 2 out of 3 bars on my iPod touch when I'm standing 20 feet from the back of the house (which is about 40-50 feet from the router itself). Ideally, try to place your router as centrally as possible, so that you only have issues in the outlying areas; my router is in the "computer room", & is actually almost dead center in the house, so all of the rooms have great reception.
-- Housing materials & other environmental factors. Wireless signals are literally radio signals (i.e. when radio was first invented, they called the transceivers "wireless")... so anything that interferes with a radio or TV signal can affect the wireless router signal as well. For example, my house was built in the 1950s, & they were built with metal reinforcements inside the walls (not a true "steel house", but pretty close), which means that cellphone & TV reception is sometimes spotty. Also, having other devices that use a close frequency can cause issues (i.e. 2.4 GHz cordless phones can interfere with Wireless-G routers). If you get issues with signal strength changing radically when you move around a single room, there're probably some environmental factors involved.

 

[jungleexplorer]

If you mean, "feature X provides Y amount of range", there's not really a particular hard & fast rule. Sure, the engineers building these things will know what features produce a particular signal strength under ideal/testing conditions...but a lot of that goes out the window once they're "in the wild".

Essentially, though, here are some things to consider:
-- External antennae usually provide a stronger signal than internal antennae. Mainly this is a size issue, though: smaller routers don't have the room for big internal antennae, so they can use larger antennae to broadcast a stronger signal. This is an area where you can boost the signal further by removing the antennae & replacing them with larger/stronger ones. This is also why some people buy wi-fi boosters/repeaters, especially in very large homes.
-- More antennae = stronger signal. Basically, assuming antennae of the same type, the router with 3 antennae should have a stronger signal than the one with only 2. If you have the option, get the router with more antennae (3 is better than 4, 4 is better than 3, etc.).
-- Channel selection. Having worked in tech support before, I can tell you straight out that most people never change the default settings for their wireless router... & even if they remember to change the default SSID/key, they never change the channel being used. Since 99% of the routers use channels 1, 6 or 11, that can leave you open to interference from your neighbors' routers. If you can see a lot of available networks when looking for the one to connect to, try manually selecting a different channel in the router. Note that this may not have as much effect for Wireless-N routers.
-- Location, location, location. Sticking a router in the back corner of the basement & expecting to get full signal strength in the 3rd-floor bedroom is a recipe for disappointment. You can sometimes get a "dead zone" by getting too close to the router -- but let's face it, if your PC is going to be less than 10ft from the router (especially if it's not going to be moved around), you should just be springing for the CAT5/6 cable anyway. In any case, having more than a floor (or maybe 3 rooms) space between you & the router means you may start having signal issues. But even then, you may still have a decent connection -- I can get 2 out of 3 bars on my iPod touch when I'm standing 20 feet from the back of the house (which is about 40-50 feet from the router itself). Ideally, try to place your router as centrally as possible, so that you only have issues in the outlying areas; my router is in the "computer room", & is actually almost dead center in the house, so all of the rooms have great reception.
-- Housing materials & other environmental factors. Wireless signals are literally radio signals (i.e. when radio was first invented, they called the transceivers "wireless")... so anything that interferes with a radio or TV signal can affect the wireless router signal as well. For example, my house was built in the 1950s, & they were built with metal reinforcements inside the walls (not a true "steel house", but pretty close), which means that cellphone & TV reception is sometimes spotty. Also, having other devices that use a close frequency can cause issues (i.e. 2.4 GHz cordless phones can interfere with Wireless-G routers). If you get issues with signal strength changing radically when you move around a single room, there're probably some environmental factors involved.

So what you are saying is that Antenna size and quantity are the only factors to consider when it comes to range. So it does not matter if is an A, B, G, N, or AC router, those number make no difference when it comes to signal range. Correct?

 

[spdragoo]

Not exactly. The primary differences are the data rates achievable, but Wireless-N standard generally has double the range of Wireless-B/-G. However, the -N routers also tend to have more antennae built into them. The 2.4GHz band, though -- standard for Wireless-A/-B/-G/-N -- has slightly better range than the 5GHz band -- optional on Wireless-N (so-called "dual-band") and standard for Wireless-AC. But Wireless-N routers also broadcast so that they're backwards-compatible with the lower standards.

 

[bill001g]

You have to be very very careful about terminology.

802.11n does not have 2 times the range. It has exactly the same range because the transmit power is regulated. It does not matter what you transmit. It could be 802.11ac or a baby monitor you can only put out a fixed amount of signal.

The reason people get confused is because they are factoring in the amount of data. A sorta fake example to avoid lots of details.
Lets say a signal level x you get 50m/sec on 802.11g and 100m/sec on 802.11n (because N is more efficient at putting data in)
Then say a signal level y you get 25m/sec on 802.11g and 50m/sec on 802.11n

If your requirement was I must have 50m then 802.11n has more "range" but you still actually have signal from 802.11g it just is deemed not good enough.

The problem with this method of determining range is when you get to the edge of the actual signal coverage it degrades rapidly so it really doesn't matter what encode you are using pretty much a encoding system that passes 2 times the data is still passing 2 times nothing.

Bottom line on this is if you have no signal the encoding method used will make no difference.

Antenna size to a point makes a difference but if you go too large all you manage to do is violate the laws. The radio and antenna are fairly closely matched and you can only go so far before it actually starts to degrade the radios ability to transmit. Reception though is a different story generally larger is almost always better. The key here is the router is only half the equation the equipment on the other end also needs to be able to transmit and receive the signal and its radio and antenna play a role.

Number of antenna if I ignore the beam forming in 802.11ac does not increase the range either. Again this is the definitions of "range" that includes data rates. When you use multiple antenna system they use something called mimo that transmits multiple overlapping signals and user the antenna to separate out the signals. So at a given signal level I get more data but it does not increase the signal level itself

 

[jungleexplorer]

You have to be very very careful about terminology.

802.11n does not have 2 times the range. It has exactly the same range because the transmit power is regulated. It does not matter what you transmit. It could be 802.11ac or a baby monitor you can only put out a fixed amount of signal.

The reason people get confused is because they are factoring in the amount of data. A sorta fake example to avoid lots of details.
Lets say a signal level x you get 50m/sec on 802.11g and 100m/sec on 802.11n (because N is more efficient at putting data in)
Then say a signal level y you get 25m/sec on 802.11g and 50m/sec on 802.11n

If your requirement was I must have 50m then 802.11n has more "range" but you still actually have signal from 802.11g it just is deemed not good enough.

The problem with this method of determining range is when you get to the edge of the actual signal coverage it degrades rapidly so it really doesn't matter what encode you are using pretty much a encoding system that passes 2 times the data is still passing 2 times nothing.

Bottom line on this is if you have no signal the encoding method used will make no difference.

Antenna size to a point makes a difference but if you go too large all you manage to do is violate the laws. The radio and antenna are fairly closely matched and you can only go so far before it actually starts to degrade the radios ability to transmit. Reception though is a different story generally larger is almost always better. The key here is the router is only half the equation the equipment on the other end also needs to be able to transmit and receive the signal and its radio and antenna play a role.

Number of antenna if I ignore the beam forming in 802.11ac does not increase the range either. Again this is the definitions of "range" that includes data rates. When you use multiple antenna system they use something called mimo that transmits multiple overlapping signals and user the antenna to separate out the signals. So at a given signal level I get more data but it does not increase the signal level itself

Thank you so much. You really seem to have a good grasp of this subject and can put it in terms my old brain can still understand. As I was reading your answer, a light came on and I began to understand (seems this light stays off more and more the older I get. LOL!).

It finally dawned me that if I put in a high powered router, I may very well be able to receive signal at a greater distance, but if the device receiving the signal is not capable of equal transmitting power as the router, then it will strictly be a one way communication (like a simple FM radio). But one way does not work when it comes to computers because they need to talk back and forth constantly. Kind of like google search, it has great potential, but if you can't type anything into the box for it to search for, it is just a white screen with 5 letters on it that does nothing.

Okay, I ordered a router. I ordered the Amped Wireless High Power Wireless-N 600mW Amplified Router (R10000) off amazon. I went with this one because, if it does not give me enough coverage, or if I have problems with peripherals return signal strength, I can always add the Amped Wireless High Power Wireless-N 600mW Smart Repeater and Range Extender (SR10000) to the system. Both of these together cost $180 and will probably give me better and greater range coverage then a single ASUS RT-AC68U with beam forming technology (which cost $280).

Do you think I made a good choice?

 

[bill001g]

I would avoid using any form of repeater if you have a choice. you will lose at least half you speed. I have no clue if beam forming is another marketing scam or if it really works. Sounds interesting but how it works in the lab is going to be far different than how it works in peoples houses.

I tend to stay away from amped only because I feel they try to twist data to make themselves look better. The do things like include antenna gain in the output power which is not real standard.

So what you do is look where they can't lie on the FCC site.

First is this site.
http://wikidevi.com/wiki/Amped_Wireless_R10000
They act like they have some special amplifier chips...guess what they use a pretty standard radio made by realtek.
Then click on the FCC-ID on that screen.
In these reports even though they are highly technical you will see they do not actually transmit at any higher power than other similar routers that use similar chipsets.

This is not to say it is a bad router just it likely will not give anymore range than any other router. The FCC site is the only one where testing standards are enforced.

 

[jungleexplorer]

Just an update here. That Amped Wireless High Power Wireless-N 600mW Amplified Router (R10000) I ordered was a piece of junk. It gave me 1/3 of the range as my 5 year old Linksys WRT54GL. I absolutely could not believe it. I contacted the manufacturers tech support and they told me that I could expect a maximum range of 60 feet out of the router. You see, they do know the range potential, they just won't advertise it. It's like I said; They use words like Amped, High Power, Range Booster etc, but it is all a bunch of lies. Anyway, I returned it and now I am back to using my old WRT54GL. This Amped router was my third router that I have bought and tried head to head with my wrt54gl and so far the wrt54gl has trounced all other routers I have tried as far as range. I know this seems almost impossible, but on Dec 28th I was deer hunting in a stand 600 feet from my house and was checking Facebook on my smartphone over wifi from my wrt45gl.

 

[bill001g]

If you are looking for a good solid router most the Asus ones work very well. I have 2 but I tend to always have them non operational because I am not so good at writing my own mods to dd-wrt firmware. Tp-link also makes very solid devices and they tend to be cheaper than the asus.

Most times I tend to avoid recommending any particular brands after getting burned bad by a manufacture that left the model the same but changed the hardware inside.

Many people still like linksys but since it has bounced around from cisco to belkin now I have not bought one in many years so I don't know if their new stuff is as good and the older stuff.