better wifi signal - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HotUKDeals, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HotUKDeals app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit
Expired

better wifi signal

£0.00 @
Can anyone tell me what is the best option to boost a wifi signal please? Read More
deekie Avatar
2y, 5m agoPosted 2 years, 5 months ago
Can anyone tell me what is the best option to boost a wifi signal please?
deekie Avatar
2y, 5m agoPosted 2 years, 5 months ago
Options

All Responses

(22) Jump to unreadPost an answer
Responses/page:
#1
It depends, some more enviromental info may help as there are many options.


Edited By: Likely2 on Dec 07, 2014 13:49
#2
We have fibre optic with talktalk and the wifi is sometimes poor upstairs when using a laptop/pad. We live in a rural . Area. Thanks
#3
Simply raising it up helps. Ours lives on our mantelpiece. looks awful, but makes a big difference. A piece of foil underneath/behind to reflect signal back into the house can do some good too.

As mentioned above, there are a lot of environmental factors - thick walls, bookcases, distances, etc, that may decide which extender option you choose.

Our house is over 100 years old, so "pogo plugs" are useless unless we replace all the wiring. Range extenders can be a bit temperamental, as a lot of them just create a 2nd network with the same name.

Replacing the router is always good, as the one supplied by the broadband company will always be a cheap, standard thing. The gadget show did a test on them a few weeks ago. would be worth looking it up on the channel 5 website.
#4
thank you for answering. I see what you mean about environmental factors. I will try raising it up from the floor.. As for the age of the house - We have a fairly new build so no internal brick wallls and relatively new wiring.

I was just wondering if anybody has used anything that worked for them in getting a better wifi signal.. thanks...
#5
Having two access points furthest apart would be best but you need to link them by Ethernet. I've a dot & dab house and I've run 4 cat 5e cables from upstairs to the front room for various things, like main pc, media pc, tv and wifi router. This beats powerline hands down. I now get transfer speeds of 110MB/s. I'd only use wifi for portable devices. It's hassle running the cables inside the walls but worth it. Once your in the roof you can drop cables into each room.

Worth looking into for a future project.
banned#6
hi, one of these will solve your problems:
http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/computing-accessories/networking/power-line-networking/linksys-plwk400-powerline-av-wifi-powerline-adapter-kit-twin-pack-10088161-pdt.html

this is a power line wifi adaptor. Basically, you plug one unit next your router, connect it to your router via ethernet. Then, you place the other unit where your signal is lacking and the unit produces a new wifi signal.

Note this is a powerline adaptor, not one that simply picks up your wifi signal and then extends it. It uses your electric cabling to transmit your broadband to the 2nd unit, where it recreates the WiFi signal.
banned#7
kester76
Having two access points furthest apart would be best but you need to link them by Ethernet. I've a dot & dab house and I've run 4 cat 5e cables from upstairs to the front room for various things, like main pc, media pc, tv and wifi router. This beats powerline hands down. I now get transfer speeds of 110MB/s. I'd only use wifi for portable devices. It's hassle running the cables inside the walls but worth it. Once your in the roof you can drop cables into each room.

Worth looking into for a future project.

why would you want transfer speeds of 110mb/s if OP only has max 50mbps internet if that?

Edited By: hukdealz on Dec 07, 2014 17:47
#8
hukdealz
hi, one of these will solve your problems:
http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/computing-accessories/networking/power-line-networking/linksys-plwk400-powerline-av-wifi-powerline-adapter-kit-twin-pack-10088161-pdt.html

this is a power line wifi adaptor. Basically, you plug one unit next your router, connect it to your router via ethernet. Then, you place the other unit where your signal is lacking and the unit produces a new wifi signal.

Note this is a powerline adaptor, not one that simply picks up your wifi signal and then extends it. It uses your electric cabling to transmit your broadband to the 2nd unit, where it recreates the WiFi signal.

I also have an old house (more than 120 years old) - My boys have xbox consoles in their bedrooms upstairs. We use the homeplugs and connect their consoles via ethranet into the homeplugs. I have tried wi fi boosters but as the walls as so thick the booster isn't must use. you will need a home plug for every room that you need wifi. Hope this helps. :p
banned#9
burdybabe
hukdealz
hi, one of these will solve your problems:
http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/computing-accessories/networking/power-line-networking/linksys-plwk400-powerline-av-wifi-powerline-adapter-kit-twin-pack-10088161-pdt.html

this is a power line wifi adaptor. Basically, you plug one unit next your router, connect it to your router via ethernet. Then, you place the other unit where your signal is lacking and the unit produces a new wifi signal.



Note this is a powerline adaptor, not one that simply picks up your wifi signal and then extends it. It uses your electric cabling to transmit your broadband to the 2nd unit, where it recreates the WiFi signal.

I also have an old house (more than 120 years old) - My boys have xbox consoles in their bedrooms upstairs. We use the homeplugs and connect their consoles via ethranet into the homeplugs. I have tried wi fi boosters but as the walls as so thick the booster isn't must use. you will need a home plug for every room that you need wifi. Hope this helps. :p

I think you're misunderstanding what the device I'm pointing out is- it's not a standard powerline unit. Instead of connecting via ethernet at the other end, it creates another wifi signal.

I think you also missed the fact that the OP's house is a new build- it seems distance is the issue. This is why I am recommending powerline wifi adaptors. I am exactly in the same position as the OP in the sense that we live in a new build, but our house is too large for the router to cover the entire building. That's why we opted for powerline wifi adaptors and they work perfectly.
#10
hukdealz
kester76
Having two access points furthest apart would be best but you need to link them by Ethernet. I've a dot & dab house and I've run 4 cat 5e cables from upstairs to the front room for various things, like main pc, media pc, tv and wifi router. This beats powerline hands down. I now get transfer speeds of 110MB/s. I'd only use wifi for portable devices. It's hassle running the cables inside the walls but worth it. Once your in the roof you can drop cables into each room.
Worth looking into for a future project.
why would you want transfer speeds of 110mb/s if OP only has max 50mbps internet if that?

The 110mb/s is the LAN speed and means he can transfer documents , films music etc between devices in his house at that speed. This may well be useful if there are 3 or 4 people viewing movies etc that are stored on a server or NAS in the house, it is independant on whatever the WAN (internet) speed is. Obviously if someone is downloading from the internet then the speed limit in this case would be the WAN speed.
#11
We used to struggle getting wifi upstairs
Especially with older routers
Quite a large/old house , proper walls
When we decorated we ran a ethernet cable from our existing router to our spare netgear router and used it as a second access point
So we have one router downstairs at the front of the house
And another upstairs at the back of the house
Since having a newer bt router we dont seen to need the router upstairs
#12
I'd recommend multiple access points as in my house I have an iPod touch, iPhone 5, galaxy s1 and 4, lg smart tv, sky box, 4 pcs, net book, ipad 3, Sony wifi speaker, sony amp, sony blu ray player, ps3, Xbox 360 and a load of other wifi junk fighting for wifi space. It's amazing how much stuff connects to wifi now and people just don't realise how crowded it is.
banned#13
RxTx
hukdealz
kester76
Having two access points furthest apart would be best but you need to link them by Ethernet. I've a dot & dab house and I've run 4 cat 5e cables from upstairs to the front room for various things, like main pc, media pc, tv and wifi router. This beats powerline hands down. I now get transfer speeds of 110MB/s. I'd only use wifi for portable devices. It's hassle running the cables inside the walls but worth it. Once your in the roof you can drop cables into each room.
Worth looking into for a future project.
why would you want transfer speeds of 110mb/s if OP only has max 50mbps internet if that?

The 110mb/s is the LAN speed and means he can transfer documents , films music etc between devices in his house at that speed. This may well be useful if there are 3 or 4 people viewing movies etc that are stored on a server or NAS in the house, it is independant on whatever the WAN (internet) speed is. Obviously if someone is downloading from the internet then the speed limit in this case would be the WAN speed.

I think you're forgetting that the vast vast vast majority of people don't use NAS.

Thanks for the insightful comment though, but just out of curiosity, why would you need 100mb/s? Surely for watching movies, the max you'll need for 4k will be a fraction of a mb per second. The only reason I can imagine you'd need that sort of speed is for very occasion mass transfer of files?
The reason I ask is because I'm the the process of upgrading my home network, and I'm trying to figure out if ethernet is worth the hassle
#14
some providers offer wifi signal booster like sky. perhaps call your provider to ask if they offer anything like this?
#15
hukdealz
RxTx
hukdealz
kester76
Having two access points furthest apart would be best but you need to link them by Ethernet. I've a dot & dab house and I've run 4 cat 5e cables from upstairs to the front room for various things, like main pc, media pc, tv and wifi router. This beats powerline hands down. I now get transfer speeds of 110MB/s. I'd only use wifi for portable devices. It's hassle running the cables inside the walls but worth it. Once your in the roof you can drop cables into each room.
Worth looking into for a future project.
why would you want transfer speeds of 110mb/s if OP only has max 50mbps internet if that?

The 110mb/s is the LAN speed and means he can transfer documents , films music etc between devices in his house at that speed. This may well be useful if there are 3 or 4 people viewing movies etc that are stored on a server or NAS in the house, it is independant on whatever the WAN (internet) speed is. Obviously if someone is downloading from the internet then the speed limit in this case would be the WAN speed.

I think you're forgetting that the vast vast vast majority of people don't use NAS.

Thanks for the insightful comment though, but just out of curiosity, why would you need 100mb/s? Surely for watching movies, the max you'll need for 4k will be a fraction of a mb per second. The only reason I can imagine you'd need that sort of speed is for very occasion mass transfer of files?
The reason I ask is because I'm the the process of upgrading my home network, and I'm trying to figure out if ethernet is worth the hassle
It's definitely worth the effort. It's drops your latency right down, allows the best quality steam streaming and is relatively future proof. It's more expensive and difficult to do but you get a network that can take any strain you put on it. It frees up your wifi space and with a HP Microserver you can centrally store all your media, run media centres, email, dns.
#16
If you don't want to go the homeplug route, have a look at one of these:
http://www.tp-link.com/en/products/details/?model=TL-WA850RE

a breeze to set up and took our wifi signal downstairs from 1 bar to the full amount (also on a talktalk router which are regarded as very poor!)
#17
Thank you all very much for your responses. There is certainly a lot to think about, much appreciated.
#18
hukdealz
RxTx
hukdealz
kester76
Having two access points furthest apart would be best but you need to link them by Ethernet. I've a dot & dab house and I've run 4 cat 5e cables from upstairs to the front room for various things, like main pc, media pc, tv and wifi router. This beats powerline hands down. I now get transfer speeds of 110MB/s. I'd only use wifi for portable devices. It's hassle running the cables inside the walls but worth it. Once your in the roof you can drop cables into each room.
Worth looking into for a future project.
why would you want transfer speeds of 110mb/s if OP only has max 50mbps internet if that?

The 110mb/s is the LAN speed and means he can transfer documents , films music etc between devices in his house at that speed. This may well be useful if there are 3 or 4 people viewing movies etc that are stored on a server or NAS in the house, it is independant on whatever the WAN (internet) speed is. Obviously if someone is downloading from the internet then the speed limit in this case would be the WAN speed.

I think you're forgetting that the vast vast vast majority of people don't use NAS.

Thanks for the insightful comment though, but just out of curiosity, why would you need 100mb/s? Surely for watching movies, the max you'll need for 4k will be a fraction of a mb per second. The only reason I can imagine you'd need that sort of speed is for very occasion mass transfer of files?
The reason I ask is because I'm the the process of upgrading my home network, and I'm trying to figure out if ethernet is worth the hassle

It's horses for courses....

I have five children, If all of us watch a HD movie simultaneously, and it does happen, thats 6 x 50mbit/sec = 300Mbit from the server - consequently I've got a 1000mbit cat6 backbone running from the basement and cat5e spurs to save money across each floor.

Add in the background network load such as mobile phones checking for emails, facebook upates x3, 4 tablets with permanent connections, wifi printer, smart thermostat etc etc it all adds up.

The main point however is that 7 years ago, a lot of people didn't even have broadband and 5 years ago 21Mbps was lightning quick, we're now 5 times that and reaching the point where top-of-the-line broadband is saturating megabit ethernet - so 100mbps is already, in my opinion, verging on obsolescence....
#19
hukdealz
RxTx
hukdealz
kester76
Having two access points furthest apart would be best but you need to link them by Ethernet. I've a dot & dab house and I've run 4 cat 5e cables from upstairs to the front room for various things, like main pc, media pc, tv and wifi router. This beats powerline hands down. I now get transfer speeds of 110MB/s. I'd only use wifi for portable devices. It's hassle running the cables inside the walls but worth it. Once your in the roof you can drop cables into each room.
Worth looking into for a future project.
why would you want transfer speeds of 110mb/s if OP only has max 50mbps internet if that?
The 110mb/s is the LAN speed and means he can transfer documents , films music etc between devices in his house at that speed. This may well be useful if there are 3 or 4 people viewing movies etc that are stored on a server or NAS in the house, it is independant on whatever the WAN (internet) speed is. Obviously if someone is downloading from the internet then the speed limit in this case would be the WAN speed.
I think you're forgetting that the vast vast vast majority of people don't use NAS.
Thanks for the insightful comment though, but just out of curiosity, why would you need 100mb/s? Surely for watching movies, the max you'll need for 4k will be a fraction of a mb per second. The only reason I can imagine you'd need that sort of speed is for very occasion mass transfer of files?
The reason I ask is because I'm the the process of upgrading my home network, and I'm trying to figure out if ethernet is worth the hassle

100mb/s is quite old hat now and is not difficult to acheive in a wired network and certainly wouldn't cost any more than setting up a 10mb/s network for instance. Most networking gear made in the last year or two will probably be capable of 1000mb/s. The network is unlikely to be loaded heavily very often but as you say large file transfers do benefit enormously from being on a fast, wired link. I mentioned NAS's and servers but it applies equally to shared files on family computers.

The lowest figure I've seen for a stable (uninterupted) 4k streamed compressed video is around 50mb/s so 2 tv's watching 4k tv on the house LAN would have used all the 100mb/s bandwidth. Add to that all the other houskeeping traffic and you would be starting to struggle. And remember 10 years from now we'll be looking at 8k displays which I guess will need perhaps 200mb/s ?

I would certainly wire your network if you can. Faster, more secure and less likely to have local interference causing problems. I've got a NAS and microserver, a couple of smart TV's and 2 WiFi access points. These are all cabled which frees up the wifi bandwidth for the and portable devices etc.
banned#20
RxTx
hukdealz
RxTx
hukdealz
kester76
Having two access points furthest apart would be best but you need to link them by Ethernet. I've a dot & dab house and I've run 4 cat 5e cables from upstairs to the front room for various things, like main pc, media pc, tv and wifi router. This beats powerline hands down. I now get transfer speeds of 110MB/s. I'd only use wifi for portable devices. It's hassle running the cables inside the walls but worth it. Once your in the roof you can drop cables into each room.
Worth looking into for a future project.
why would you want transfer speeds of 110mb/s if OP only has max 50mbps internet if that?
The 110mb/s is the LAN speed and means he can transfer documents , films music etc between devices in his house at that speed. This may well be useful if there are 3 or 4 people viewing movies etc that are stored on a server or NAS in the house, it is independant on whatever the WAN (internet) speed is. Obviously if someone is downloading from the internet then the speed limit in this case would be the WAN speed.
I think you're forgetting that the vast vast vast majority of people don't use NAS.
Thanks for the insightful comment though, but just out of curiosity, why would you need 100mb/s? Surely for watching movies, the max you'll need for 4k will be a fraction of a mb per second. The only reason I can imagine you'd need that sort of speed is for very occasion mass transfer of files?
The reason I ask is because I'm the the process of upgrading my home network, and I'm trying to figure out if ethernet is worth the hassle

100mb/s is quite old hat now and is not difficult to acheive in a wired network and certainly wouldn't cost any more than setting up a 10mb/s network for instance. Most networking gear made in the last year or two will probably be capable of 1000mb/s. The network is unlikely to be loaded heavily very often but as you say large file transfers do benefit enormously from being on a fast, wired link. I mentioned NAS's and servers but it applies equally to shared files on family computers.

The lowest figure I've seen for a stable (uninterupted) 4k streamed compressed video is around 50mb/s so 2 tv's watching 4k tv on the house LAN would have used all the 100mb/s bandwidth. Add to that all the other houskeeping traffic and you would be starting to struggle. And remember 10 years from now we'll be looking at 8k displays which I guess will need perhaps 200mb/s ?

I would certainly wire your network if you can. Faster, more secure and less likely to have local interference causing problems. I've got a NAS and microserver, a couple of smart TV's and 2 WiFi access points. These are all cabled which frees up the wifi bandwidth for the and portable devices etc.

thank you, very useful information there.
but does streaming 4k really require 50mb/s of bandwidth?! That doesn't make sense to me- by my calculations that would mean a 90 minute film would be a 270gb file! I may just being stupid
banned#21
RxTx
hukdealz
RxTx
hukdealz
kester76
Having two access points furthest apart would be best but you need to link them by Ethernet. I've a dot & dab house and I've run 4 cat 5e cables from upstairs to the front room for various things, like main pc, media pc, tv and wifi router. This beats powerline hands down. I now get transfer speeds of 110MB/s. I'd only use wifi for portable devices. It's hassle running the cables inside the walls but worth it. Once your in the roof you can drop cables into each room.
Worth looking into for a future project.
why would you want transfer speeds of 110mb/s if OP only has max 50mbps internet if that?
The 110mb/s is the LAN speed and means he can transfer documents , films music etc between devices in his house at that speed. This may well be useful if there are 3 or 4 people viewing movies etc that are stored on a server or NAS in the house, it is independant on whatever the WAN (internet) speed is. Obviously if someone is downloading from the internet then the speed limit in this case would be the WAN speed.
I think you're forgetting that the vast vast vast majority of people don't use NAS.
Thanks for the insightful comment though, but just out of curiosity, why would you need 100mb/s? Surely for watching movies, the max you'll need for 4k will be a fraction of a mb per second. The only reason I can imagine you'd need that sort of speed is for very occasion mass transfer of files?
The reason I ask is because I'm the the process of upgrading my home network, and I'm trying to figure out if ethernet is worth the hassle

100mb/s is quite old hat now and is not difficult to acheive in a wired network and certainly wouldn't cost any more than setting up a 10mb/s network for instance. Most networking gear made in the last year or two will probably be capable of 1000mb/s. The network is unlikely to be loaded heavily very often but as you say large file transfers do benefit enormously from being on a fast, wired link. I mentioned NAS's and servers but it applies equally to shared files on family computers.

The lowest figure I've seen for a stable (uninterupted) 4k streamed compressed video is around 50mb/s so 2 tv's watching 4k tv on the house LAN would have used all the 100mb/s bandwidth. Add to that all the other houskeeping traffic and you would be starting to struggle. And remember 10 years from now we'll be looking at 8k displays which I guess will need perhaps 200mb/s ?

I would certainly wire your network if you can. Faster, more secure and less likely to have local interference causing problems. I've got a NAS and microserver, a couple of smart TV's and 2 WiFi access points. These are all cabled which frees up the wifi bandwidth for the and portable devices etc.
I understand now, I was interpreting you as MB/s instead of Mb/s!

Edited By: hukdealz on Dec 07, 2014 22:21
banned#22
bradford_dr
hukdealz
RxTx
hukdealz
kester76
Having two access points furthest apart would be best but you need to link them by Ethernet. I've a dot & dab house and I've run 4 cat 5e cables from upstairs to the front room for various things, like main pc, media pc, tv and wifi router. This beats powerline hands down. I now get transfer speeds of 110MB/s. I'd only use wifi for portable devices. It's hassle running the cables inside the walls but worth it. Once your in the roof you can drop cables into each room.
Worth looking into for a future project.
why would you want transfer speeds of 110mb/s if OP only has max 50mbps internet if that?

The 110mb/s is the LAN speed and means he can transfer documents , films music etc between devices in his house at that speed. This may well be useful if there are 3 or 4 people viewing movies etc that are stored on a server or NAS in the house, it is independant on whatever the WAN (internet) speed is. Obviously if someone is downloading from the internet then the speed limit in this case would be the WAN speed.

I think you're forgetting that the vast vast vast majority of people don't use NAS.

Thanks for the insightful comment though, but just out of curiosity, why would you need 100mb/s? Surely for watching movies, the max you'll need for 4k will be a fraction of a mb per second. The only reason I can imagine you'd need that sort of speed is for very occasion mass transfer of files?
The reason I ask is because I'm the the process of upgrading my home network, and I'm trying to figure out if ethernet is worth the hassle

It's horses for courses....

I have five children, If all of us watch a HD movie simultaneously, and it does happen, thats 6 x 50mbit/sec = 300Mbit from the server - consequently I've got a 1000mbit cat6 backbone running from the basement and cat5e spurs to save money across each floor.

Add in the background network load such as mobile phones checking for emails, facebook upates x3, 4 tablets with permanent connections, wifi printer, smart thermostat etc etc it all adds up.

The main point however is that 7 years ago, a lot of people didn't even have broadband and 5 years ago 21Mbps was lightning quick, we're now 5 times that and reaching the point where top-of-the-line broadband is saturating megabit ethernet - so 100mbps is already, in my opinion, verging on obsolescence....
Very good explanation, thank you.

I suppose our family is just odd because we tend to watch movies together, streaming via HDMI from laptop to TV. We're clearly old fashioned oO

Post an Answer

You don't need an account to leave a response. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!