Your new Wi-Fi 7 router is missing Wi-Fi 7’s best feature


When you hear that a router supports Wi-Fi 7, you naturally expect it to pack three bands—2.4GHz, 5GHz, and 6GHz—along with other Wi-Fi 7 features such as MLO (Multi-Link Operation), 320MHz channels, and 4096-QAM. In reality, however, MLO is the only one of those three Wi-Fi 7 features that routers are required to support, which has resulted in many Wi-Fi 7 routers shipping with only two bands: 2.4GHz and 5GHz. Why do they lack the 6GHz band, and are they still worth getting? I’ll answer those two questions below.

The main reason Wi-Fi 7 routers don’t include the 6GHz band is manufacturing costs

6GHz is not required for Wi-Fi 7 routers, so budget models don’t offer it

As you’re probably aware, tri-band Wi-Fi 7 routers cost a pretty penny. You’ll be hard-pressed to find a tri-band Wi-Fi 7 router for less than about $200, with high-end models packing extra features costing $300 or more.

On the other hand, there are plenty of budget Wi-Fi 7 routers, some selling for as little as ~$100, but they’re all, without exception, dual-band models that include only the 2.4GHz and 5GHz bands. The reason is simple: the 6GHz band isn’t a mandatory Wi-Fi 7 feature, and omitting it helps manufacturers keep costs down and offer more affordable Wi-Fi 7 routers.

There are four mandatory features every router has to implement to receive Wi-Fi 7 certification. These include MLO (Multi-Link Operation), preamble puncturing, Multiple Resource Units (MRU), and WPA3 security. Every other feature, such as 4096-QAM (Quadrature Amplitude Modulation), 320MHz channel width, and support for the 6GHz band, is optional.

Wi-Fi 7 routers don’t even have to implement Wi-Fi 7’s hallmark feature, MLO, in its “true” form. While Simultaneous MLO is the proper way to implement MLO—or, in other words, to allow Wi-Fi 7 clients to use multiple bands simultaneously—virtually every Wi-Fi 7 router, including high-end models, uses Alternating MLO instead, rapidly switching between different bands rather than using them at the same time.

So it’s not surprising that many Wi-Fi 7 routers only come with the 2.4GHz and 5GHz bands. Including a 6GHz radio is expensive, and since tri-band operation isn’t required for Wi-Fi 7 certification, manufacturers often omit it, as well as other optional Wi-Fi 7 features, to reduce costs on budget Wi-Fi 7 models.

TP-Link Dual-Band BE3600 Wi-Fi 7 Router Archer BE230.

Brand

TP-Link

Wi-Fi Bands

2.4GHz, 5GHz

The TP-Link BE3600 gives you next-gen Wi-Fi 7 performance at a budget price, delivering fast, reliable coverage with multi-gig ports and a powerful quad-core CPU. With strong antennas, EasyMesh support, and modern features like MLO and HomeShield, it’s an easy future-proof upgrade for any home.


Aside from lacking tri-band operation, dual-band Wi-Fi 7 routers are proper Wi-Fi 7 routers

Even if they’re slower than tri-band Wi-Fi 7 offerings

TP-Link Archer BE9700 Tri-Band Wi-Fi 7 router on a table. Credit: TP-Link

Now, aside from not including the 6GHz band, most budget Wi-Fi 7 routers are fully Wi-Fi 7 certified. They come with the mandatory features listed above, such as MLO, preamble puncturing, MRU, and WPA3. Some models also include 4096-QAM, which can provide faster speeds than Wi-Fi 6 and Wi-Fi 6E routers, as well as 2.5Gbps WAN and LAN ports.

In general, you can expect faster speeds over both the 2.4GHz and 5GHz bands compared to similarly positioned Wi-Fi 6 and Wi-Fi 6E routers, as well as lower latency thanks to the inclusion of MLO, which, even in its restricted Alternating MLO form, can noticeably reduce latency.

On the other hand, due to the lack of a 6GHz radio, dual-band Wi-Fi 7 routers are slower than their tri-band counterparts. Not only that, but because they’re noticeably cheaper than tri-band Wi-Fi 7 routers and pack less capable hardware, they often offer lower maximum speeds over the 2.4GHz and 5GHz bands and can’t serve as many clients simultaneously, even though they still support features such as MU-MIMO, preamble puncturing, and Multiple Resource Units.

TP-LINK's Archer BE3600 Wi-Fi 7 Router showcasing its back ports. Credit: Christian Zibreg / How-To Geek / TP-Link

Another area where they fall short is connectivity. While tri-band Wi-Fi 7 models usually come with multiple 2.5Gbps LAN ports and either a 2.5Gbps or even a 10Gbps WAN port, budget models typically offer a 2.5Gbps WAN port and one or perhaps two 2.5Gbps LAN ports, with the remaining ports topping out at 1Gbps.

So, are dual-band Wi-Fi 7 routers worth it?

They beat getting a similarly priced Wi-Fi 6 model

ASUS router on a shelf next to a printer and computer monitor. Credit: Corbin Davenport / How-To Geek

In general, if you’re choosing between similarly priced Wi-Fi 6 and Wi-Fi 7 routers, it’s worth getting the Wi-Fi 7 model, even if it’s slightly pricier, to future-proof your network. But if you don’t own any Wi-Fi 7 client devices and aren’t planning to get any anytime soon, you can save some cash and opt for a budget Wi-Fi 6 router instead.

If you do have Wi-Fi 7 client devices or plan to get some in the near future, a budget Wi-Fi 7 router is the better choice because even affordable Wi-Fi 7 routers come with some nifty features and benefits. As I already mentioned, even Alternating MLO comes with welcome benefits such as lower latency and improved reliability, even if it doesn’t offer the higher speeds associated with Simultaneous MLO.

Then you’ve got preamble puncturing, which improves performance in highly congested locations by blocking off portions of a channel affected by interference while allowing clients to use the rest of it. This can be particularly handy if you live in an apartment building surrounded by dozens of neighboring Wi-Fi networks.

Multiple Resource Unit (MRU) is another useful feature that can improve latency, speed, and reliability by allowing client devices to use multiple Resource Units (RUs) instead of a single Resource Unit (in a nutshell, a smaller chunk of a Wi-Fi channel), as is the case with OFDMA on Wi-Fi 6 and Wi-Fi 6E routers. Having a router with MRU is, yet again, especially handy in highly congested locations.

Conversely, while 4096-QAM is better than 1024-QAM on paper because it allows for higher theoretical speeds, you’re unlikely to notice much of a difference over the 2.4GHz and 5GHz bands in real-world use.

Despite all these handy Wi-Fi 7 features, if you live in an area drowning in Wi-Fi signals, a tri-band Wi-Fi 6E router may be a better choice than a similarly priced dual-band Wi-Fi 7 router because it gives you access to the 6GHz band, which is typically far less congested than the 2.4GHz and 5GHz bands.

ASUS RT-BE92U BE9700 router

Brand

ASUS

Wi-Fi Bands

6 GHz, 5 GHz, 2.4 GHz

This is a great Wi-Fi 7 router, with 6 GHz support, web and mobile app control, and five built-in Ethernet ports. You can add mesh nodes with any ASUS AiMesh-compatible router or extender.



Dual-band Wi-Fi 7 routers are proper Wi-Fi 7 routers and a better choice than many Wi-Fi 6 routers

So yeah, there’s nothing wrong with dual-band Wi-Fi 7 routers. As long as a router is Wi-Fi 7 certified, it doesn’t have to offer the 6GHz band, since a 6GHz radio is not on the list of mandatory Wi-Fi 7 features.

On the other hand, dual-band Wi-Fi 7 routers do include mandatory features such as MLO, MRU, WPA3, and Preamble Puncturing. The main thing you’re missing is the 6GHz band, along with some optional features that can be found on higher-end models such as 4096-QAM and 320MHz channels, as well as extras often found on higher-end models, including 10Gbps WAN ports and multiple 2.5Gbps LAN ports.


A Mercusys BE3600 MR25BE Wi-Fi 7 router.


The missing hyphen loophole: Why expensive “WiFi 7” routers are legally stripping out mandatory features

Your WiFi 7 router might not actually be Wi-Fi 7



Source link

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get our latest articles delivered straight to your inbox. No spam, we promise.

Recent Reviews


After a four-year wait, Euphoria has returned to television, but season 3 is providing a major shake-up to its formula. Not only have four years passed in the real world, but the in-universe tale has moved forward, taking the cast of the Zendaya-led teen drama out of high school and into the trials of young adulthood. As such, the series faces a new challenge of whether it can keep up its momentum with this drastic new status quo.

While it remains to be seen how Euphoria can move past its teen drama roots, it’s an excellent time to dive into the celebrated and controversial series Skins. Let’s see how it handled the test of time, how it outshines Euphoria, and how it fell into similar trappings.

What is Skins?

Skins broke the teen drama mold

Created by Bryan Elsley and Jamie Brittain, Skins is Channel 4’s British drama series that premiered in 2007. Initially, the series first honed in on a group of teens enjoying their youth in the city of Bristol, caught between youthful revolt, partying, and the pressures of adulthood. The show walked a fine line between relatable comedy and serious drama. This combination of genres attracted a following.

Skins aired for seven seasons between 2007 and 2013, running for a final total of 61 episodes. The series was praised by critics and prominent industry voices—including Doctor Who’s Russell T. Davies and Black Mirror’s Charlie Brooker—for breaking the mold of what a teen drama could be. Even over a decade after its final episodes aired, its characters are still fondly remembered, finding new life through a thriving online fandom.


skins


Release Date

2007 – 2013-00-00

Network

E4

Showrunner

Jamie Brittain, Bryan Elsley

Writers

Jamie Brittain, Bryan Elsley



Skins was celebrated as a realistic depiction of teen life

The series was willing to show the highs and lows

Skins is part of a unique generation of teen-focused media released in the mid-2000s and 2010s. The series wasn’t a glossy depiction of youth culture; its cast comprised young people stumbling through life, making mistakes, or intentionally causing trouble. They were allowed to be flawed and even unlikable, which would resonate with the young target demographic at the time, who would find their struggles relatable.

With this clear recognition of what its audience was looking for, Skins became acclaimed for its willingness to dive into taboo and controversial subjects at the time. Alongside several storylines tackling queer themes, the series dared to depict a generation in conflict with those who came before, with the show’s adults either being unintentionally neglectful or outright malicious towards the young cast. As Skins was exploring teens transitioning between youth and adulthood, the show is a coming-of-age story that is willing to show every aspect these changes bring, for better or worse.

Skins spawned several stars

Several actors are now household names

The cast of Skins in a photo. Credit: Warner Home Video

While Euphoria can be credited with being the breakout show for several actors, Skins had no shortage of faces who would dominate both the big screen and television. Seasons 1 and 2’s cast not only featured Nicholas Hoult, Dev Patel, Joe Dempsie, and Hannah Murray long before they would star in highly celebrated projects such as Superman, The Green Knight, and Game of Thrones.

The show also featured small appearances by Get Out’s Daniel Kaluuya, who would pen several episodes for the series. Season 2 would continue to feature future stars in their breakout roles, such as 28 Years Later’s Jack O’Connell as the brash and loud hooligan Cook and The Gentlemen’s Kaya Scodelario, who transformed her season 1 character Effy Stonem into a compelling lead.

When paired with a supporting cast of several talented, established mainstays on British television, it is understandable why Skins provided a perfect chance to give these future stars the perfect breakout roles. Not only were the characters able to tap into the youthful rebelliousness and culture of the time in a way that made it highly relatable to audiences, but the stars behind these characters were able to show their skills against their older costars and prove themselves. As such, it is unsurprising that Skins‘ young leads would go on to bigger projects that would be recognized around the globe.

Skins avoided Euphoria’s production issue

Skins’s major cast shake-ups helped the series continue

The skins show 3. Credit: Warner Home Video

However, with a young cast who would gradually grow out of their roles, Skins was limited in the stories that it could tell while the audiences could still plausibly believe that the actors were the same age as their characters. While finding a cast who could believably play younger characters is hardly a new predicament, it is something that has become more scrutinized as time goes on. Even Euphoria has had to grapple with this issue, with season 3 featuring a time jump of several years to account for its cast outgrowing their high school roles in the gap between each season’s production.

Arguably, out of most teen dramas, Skins found the ideal way to handle this issue. Rather than following a single group of teens across seven seasons, the first six seasons can be divided into three distinct eras with their own unique casts. The final season explored what happened to several fan-favorite characters following their education. Not only did this compromise avoid any potential issues due to the cast’s ages, but it also broadened the scope of the kinds of stories that could be told due to its revolving cast.

Skins wasn’t without its own controversies

A young cast brought several difficulties

That’s not to say that Skins didn’t attract criticism. Due to the young ages of the cast at the time of filming and the situations they were placed in, the series understandably and rightfully received heavy scrutiny of how they were treated, alongside discussions of whether the series was guilty of glorifying unhealthy habits. These critiques weren’t limited to viewers and professional critics either, as several lead actors such as Scodalerio, April Pearson, and Dakota Blue Richards have spoken about their time on set through social media.

While Skins can be celebrated for its willingness to depict a gritty and relatable portrayal of growing up in the early 2000’s, it is important to acknowledge where things could have been handled better, especially as more of its stars open up about their time making the show. It is also important to acknowledge how these revelations can affect the show’s perception, either by those who grew up with the show or newcomers looking in. If you feel uncomfortable by the events depicted onscreen or feel sour towards the show due to the cast’s treatment, it may be best to avoid it.​​​​​​​

Where to stream Skins

The series has a lasting legacy

Effy in Skins. Credit: Channel 4

For better and worse, Skins represents a major moment in British television history. Between casting future stars in their breakout roles and giving audiences an unflinching depiction of teen life, the series is worth revisiting for these aspects. Furthermore, if you are familiar with Euphoria, it is also interesting to go into the series and compare how each show tackles similar themes, not only due to how times have changed between series but also through how a British cultural lens vs. a US lens works.


Furthermore, for US viewers, Skins is currently readily available to stream. The full series is available to Hulu subscribers, as well as those who pay for the Disney+ bundles that feature the service. If your excitement for Euphoria has been dimmed by the lengthy wait between seasons or you are just looking for an interesting show to compare it to, Skins still stands as the best option available.

hulu-poster.jpg

Subscription with ads

Yes, $10/month

Live TV

Yes, various plans available




Source link