Replacing Sky Q hub/router with something better

[d000hg]

I don't find a problem with the BT ones (currently have 4) - in what way are they not a 'proper mesh'? We don't have the pro version with the 3rd band/backchannel just the classic, but have never seen the discs be a limiting factor when doing stuff.

[ChimpMaster]

A mesh won't increase the capacity of the network though will it?

So in my case is it best to disable and replace the Sky router with something like Eero, while keeping my 3 Access Points running?

[eek]

A mesh won't increase the capacity of the network though will it?

So in my case is it best to disable and replace the Sky router with something like Eero, while keeping my 3 Access Points running?

A mesh will because more modern equipment will add more channels which will allow more devices to talk to the mesh without interrupting each other.

[d000hg]

A mesh won't increase the capacity of the network though will it?

So in my case is it best to disable and replace the Sky router with something like Eero, while keeping my 3 Access Points running?

You hadn't mentioned capacity as an issue?
Non-mesh APs are a POS in my experience, you basically have several WiFi networks running.
There's also the capacity of the link between AP/mesh devices.

I would turn the WiFi off on my router, throw APs in the bin and buy 1/2/3 mesh units depending on the size/construction of your house.

[ChimpMaster]

You hadn't mentioned capacity as an issue?
Non-mesh APs are a POS in my experience, you basically have several WiFi networks running.
There's also the capacity of the link between AP/mesh devices.

I would turn the WiFi off on my router, throw APs in the bin and buy 1/2/3 mesh units depending on the size/construction of your house.

My first post said The main problem is concurrent connections far exceeding the limit of 64 on Sky routers. Maybe I wasn't clear enough, but for sure the challenge I face is with capacity and the the need for > 64 connections to the 'net.

My APs can act as a mesh if I give them all the same SSID and apply Band Steering, but for now I prefer to keep them separate so that I can assign devices to specific APs. They actually do a really good job... it's the Sky router that is giving me headaches.

I'm playing with the config and have now assigned different bands to each AP (they were on Auto before).

I'm going to leave the router Wifi on for now, but my next test will be to stop advertising its SSID and then I will connect only a small number of devices to it. All other/new devices will connect only to the APs.

If that doesn't help then I will switch off the router Wifi and use only the APs.

[d000hg]

My first post said The main problem is concurrent connections far exceeding the limit of 64 on Sky routers. Maybe I wasn't clear enough, but for sure the challenge I face is with capacity and the the need for > 64 connections to the 'net.

I read capacity as meaning data throughput... devices like the Eero support >100 devices. I'm not sure if your Sky router would allow 100 devices on the mesh setup or that would hit its 64-device limit still, is that what you were referring to? I couldn't say if your hub limit is on total devices or total devices its inbuilt WiFi supports but this would seem an important distinction and I wouldn't be surprised if the limit is the latter in which case you'd be OK.
In fact if most home modems had a limit of 64 devices full-stop, the Eero's 100+ Wifi device selling point wouldn't be much use

[Lance]

rather than trying to find a solution make it Sky's problem.
I have considered Sky an awful broadband provider for many years, but when you get internet and TV from them, and it requires their network to work, make it their problem. Just tell them to fix it or you're cancelling.

[WTFH]

I read capacity as meaning data throughput... devices like the Eero support >100 devices. I'm not sure if your Sky router would allow 100 devices on the mesh setup or that would hit its 64-device limit still, is that what you were referring to? I couldn't say if your hub limit is on total devices or total devices its inbuilt WiFi supports but this would seem an important distinction and I wouldn't be surprised if the limit is the latter in which case you'd be OK.
In fact if most home modems had a limit of 64 devices full-stop, the Eero's 100+ Wifi device selling point wouldn't be much use

I suspect it's 64 devices connected to a single wifi connection on a router.

...and I could well be wrong, but I suspect speed will play a part here. A wifi connection of 600Mbps (on a clear day with no obstacles) should deliver that speed to 1 device connected to it. If you have 60 devices connected, does each one get 1/60th, i.e. 10Mbps, when they all try to receive data? And if there are obstacles such as walls, etc, then 600 will drop down a lot lower.
So I wonder if the limit is a throttle on the number of connections put in place by the manufacturer to stop the users complaining about poor speed.

For performance I'd say wire in what can be wired, mesh the rest, and maybe set up a network on a dedicated channel for some items that need wifi but don't move.

[d000hg]

But one assumes with that many devices, the majority are IoT smart-plugs and whatever which use minimal data. You might easily end up with loads of content devices too if you all have phones and tablets and a TV in each room (it's crazy how it adds up really) but you won't be using them all at once. And Watching Netflix in top quality needs something like 20Mbps - let's say 50, so there seems like quite a lot of headspace in terms of pure throughput. Although 600mbps for WiFi is pushing it, I would guess. Half that seems more likely on a sustained level.
For most people, the internet is the limiting factor and most of their WiFi use is just internet use.

I would agree the limits are probably quite arbitrary

[WTFH]

But one assumes with that many devices, the majority are IoT smart-plugs and whatever which use minimal data. You might easily end up with loads of content devices too if you all have phones and tablets and a TV in each room (it's crazy how it adds up really) but you won't be using them all at once. And Watching Netflix in top quality needs something like 20Mbps - let's say 50, so there seems like quite a lot of headspace in terms of pure throughput. Although 600mbps for WiFi is pushing it, I would guess. Half that seems more likely on a sustained level.
For most people, the internet is the limiting factor and most of their WiFi use is just internet use.

I would agree the limits are probably quite arbitrary

Yes, there should be more than enough performance from the Wifi.

Should be...
But, I'm wondering about other factors now as well. He mentions multiple Sky-Q boxes. If these are streaming UltraHD , then each one is 30Mb (according to Sky). Equally, what is the internet download and upload speed that he's actually getting?
And what are all the devices? How many are Amazon/Google/etc devices? How many could be wired in by putting a hub in a bedroom to cover the TV, games console, computer, speakers, etc etc?

The advantage of mesh is that as you move around you just connect to the strongest signal, but if you're not moving around then the best way to get a fast connection is by cable, not wifi.