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
@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!
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.
Already have an account? Login
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.
Sorry, we're still checking this file's contents to make sure it's safe to download. Please try again in a few minutes.
Sorry, our virus scanner detected that this file isn't safe to download.