[biker1]

Nope. Any centrally located router will deliver good Wi-Fi performance.

ISP probably push higher bandwidths because they see higher revenues in doing so and most people have no clue what they require.

You spend a lot of words pushing a narrative.

Originally Posted by jrref

You are fortunate that you get 90% of nominal bandwidth everywhere in your 2100 sq ft house. I've been in a lot of homes here in the Villages and coverage depends on the quality of the wifi device used and the floor plan layout. Although the cable and fiber techs try to place the wifi device in the best location, I've seen some terrible installs, especially with cable. These days the techs are instructed to do the install as quick as possible. But with a good wifi device placed in a good location, yes, you should get most of the wired speed. So a great example is the new Quantum fiber recently installed in Bonita Villas. These are Courtyard Villas with a common, long floor plan. Meaning usually a bedroom converted office on one end then the kitchen, livingrooms and bedrooms as you go to the other end of the home. When Quantum installs the SmartNid/router they also put the wifi7 pod right next to it on the wall of the bedroom/office in most cases. Although the wifi works, it gets pretty slow and spotty as you go to the other end of the home. What I've been doing for many is making a 10-15ft Ethernet cable then moving the Wifi7 pod over to their desk or a shelf on the desk were there is limited obstructions to the rest of the home. The result is the wifi signal is almost full strength all over the home, even in the Lanai on the other side of the home. In the "old" days at Verizon, the techs would do stuff like this to get the most out of the service. These days, the techs don't have ethernet cable on the truck or are even allowed to make cables. They install, get it working and as long as there is a signal they are done. I don't agree with this but this is the situation.Of course you might get a tech who may take the extra step but it's rare.

I don't disagree with the notion of 5 or 10 or 20 or 40 Mbs being sufficient especially since everything we stream is compressed but you are assuming near perfect conditions. And I don't blame the ISPs "pushing" higher speeds so most installations will work with minimal callbacks. If they are willing to provide reasonable speeds at cheap monthly prices like the fiber companies are doing today, I'm happy. It will be interesting to see what the future holds.

[jrref]

Originally Posted by biker1

Nope. Any centrally located router will deliver good Wi-Fi performance.

ISP probably push higher bandwidths because they see higher revenues in doing so and most people have no clue what they require.

You spend a lot of words pushing a narrative.

I don't agree with everything you are saying but you are entitled to your opinion. It's good to get different perspectives on a topic.

As far as pushing a narrative, I have 30 years real-life experience in networking field, worked for an ISP, and am just trying to share some of my knowledge to my neighbors here in the Villages. Many Villagers have none or very little understanding in this area and welcome people who are willing to help.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by biker1

Nope. Any centrally located router will deliver good Wi-Fi performance.

ISP probably push higher bandwidths because they see higher revenues in doing so and most people have no clue what they require.

You spend a lot of words pushing a narrative.

Not even centrally located.

My TMobile router is at the end of my house closest to the cell tower for best reception. I ran three speed tests standing five feet from the router and three more at the other end of the house in the bedroom. There was essentially no difference at all.

"Essentially" because two of the three tests were faster in the bedroom, farther from the router. My *guess* is that the rate was bouncing between 300Mbps and 320Mbps and it just happened to be at the higher end when I was farther away from the router.

[biker1]

Nope, not opinion, just facts. You consistently go on a rant about cable providers and suggest people need higher bandwidths than required. Cable providers are fine for internet access for the vast majority of people. Choosing a cable provider for content is another issue. While I haven't used a cable provider for internet access there are plenty who have and seem happy. While I have had broadband access for 28 years and fiber to the house for 15 years, I wouldn't criticize those who choose cable for internet access. It is just bits down a wire and if it meets your requirements then it is fine.

Originally Posted by jrref

I don't agree with everything you are saying but you are entitled to your opinion. It's good to get different perspectives on a topic.

As far as pushing a narrative, I have 30 years real-life experience in networking field, worked for an ISP, and am just trying to share some of my knowledge. Many Villagers have none or very little understanding in this area and welcome people who are willing to help.

[biker1]

It is good to hear that. While I have been reasonably happy with CenturyLink/QuantumFiber, I am glad to hear that the cellular providers are a good option if I need it. Thanks for the feedback.

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Not even centrally located.

My TMobile router is at the end of my house closest to the cell tower for best reception. I ran three speed tests standing five feet from the router and three more at the other end of the house in the bedroom. There was essentially no difference at all.

"Essentially" because two of the three tests were faster in the bedroom, farther from the router. My *guess* is that the rate was bouncing between 300Mbps and 320Mbps and it just happened to be at the higher end when I was farther away from the router.

[jrref]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Not even centrally located.

My TMobile router is at the end of my house closest to the cell tower for best reception. I ran three speed tests standing five feet from the router and three more at the other end of the house in the bedroom. There was essentially no difference at all.

"Essentially" because two of the three tests were faster in the bedroom, farther from the router. My *guess* is that the rate was bouncing between 300Mbps and 320Mbps and it just happened to be at the higher end when I was farther away from the router.

Which type of home do you have so we can get an idea of the layout? Are there any major obstructions between your router and the rest of your house? My guess is no because as I mentioned, with the proper placement, you can get almost wired speeds over wifi throughout your home.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by jrref

Which type of home do you have so we can get an idea of the layout? Are there any major obstructions between your router and the rest of your house? My guess is no because as I mentioned, with the proper placement, you can get almost wired speeds over wifi throughout your home.

It's a Begonia and other than a couple of interior walls, there is no major obstructions anywhere in my home.

Just tried it again in the far corner of the garage - as far away as physically possible and through an exterior wall and around a car and golf cart. Again, no degradation at all.

So for me, centrally-located is not necessary, wired is not necessary, and wifi pods are not necessary. Every manufacturer's router is different but right now I'm pretty happy with mine.

[jrref]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

It's a Begonia and other than a couple of interior walls, there is no major obstructions anywhere in my home.

Just tried it again in the far corner of the garage - as far away as physically possible and through an exterior wall and around a car and golf cart. Again, no degradation at all.

So for me, centrally-located is not necessary, wired is not necessary, and wifi pods are not necessary. Every manufacturer's router is different but right now I'm pretty happy with mine.

That's great. I know that model very well and my neighbor who has that model has one of the older Quantum wifi routers, non-mesh, covering the whole home as well. It's a very open floor plan.

[jrref]

Originally Posted by biker1

Nope, not opinion, just facts. You consistently go on a rant about cable providers and suggest people need higher bandwidths than required. Cable providers are fine for internet access for the vast majority of people. Choosing a cable provider for content is another issue. While I haven't used a cable provider for internet access there are plenty who have and seem happy. While I have had broadband access for 28 years and fiber to the house for 15 years, I wouldn't criticize those who choose cable for internet access. It is just bits down a wire and if it meets your requirements then it is fine.

Given your assumptions, for sake of discussion, I measured streaming a Netflix 4K HDR movie last night and the bandwidth was between 15 and 18Mbs. So let's assume 20Mbs for discussion as the most bandwidth anyone would need to stream Netflix on one TV. So, for a typical home here in the Villages with two people living in it, If both parties watched Netflix for example, on two separate TVs it would use about 40Mbs. Beyond that, each person might use their phone but let's assume that is minimal, also many might stream 1080P content using less bandwidth and 40Mbs is what's needed. Again I'm not trying to argue with you, just want to think this through.

This morning I went on the internet to see what's offers are listed for providers here in the Villages at my location In Osceola Hills. I know other areas in the Villages might have slightly different offers. Also, for simplicity, listed is base internet service without any special bundling.

What I found was:

1) Verizon Fixed Wireless: Plans starting at $35/month plus taxes and fees, No speed claims but they say Good for 1080P streaming. The $45/month plan says Good for 4K streaming. Price lock for 5 years. Couldn't find any limitations on monthly data.

2) T-Mobile Fixed Wireless: Plans startiong at $50/month plus taxes and fees. Typical Download Speed 87 – 318 Mbps (5G), Typical Upload Speed 14 – 56 Mbps (5G), No contract or price lock. Unlimited data.

3) Xfinity Internet: Plans starting at $35/month plus taxes and fees 150Mbs for the 1st year. Monthly limit on data.

4) Spectrum Internet: Plans starting at $30/month plus taxes and fees 100Mbs for the 1st year. Unlimited data.

5) Quantum Internet: Plans starting at $50/month, no taxes and fees, 500Mbs, uncertain the length of the deal given the controversy of "price for life". Unlimited data.

6) Centric Internet: Similar to Quantum.

So, given these offers and given the analysis that we don't need speeds over 40Mbs or something close to that, ISPs are all already providing a "base" speed plan for about $50/month given some you need to add the taxes and fees. Their advertising may be trying to convince you to pay more for faster speeds but they are all offering their base speeds at approximately the same cost.

[biker1]

My point is the lowest tier from almost all providers is greatly in excess of what the vast majority of users in The Villages need. Paying more for additional bandwidth is silly since it will offer no value. I have 200 megabits per second up and down as that is the lowest tier offered. This is essentially 10x what I use. Even when I was working from home running software projects and sometimes moving around large tarballs, the lower bandwidth we had at the time (80 megabits per second) was in excess of what I needed. Regarding video, I also measured 4K at about 20 megabits per second. Currently, there isn't much material. Furthermore, at typical viewing distances you would be hard pressed to see the difference between 1080p and 2160p.

Originally Posted by jrref

Given your assumptions, for sake of discussion, I measured streaming a Netflix 4K HDR movie last night and the bandwidth was between 15 and 18Mbs. So let's assume 20Mbs for discussion as the most bandwidth anyone would need to stream Netflix on one TV. So, for a typical home here in the Villages with two people living in it, If both parties watched Netflix for example, on two separate TVs it would use about 40Mbs. Beyond that, each person might use their phone but let's assume that is minimal, also many might stream 1080P content using less bandwidth and 40Mbs is what's needed. Again I'm not trying to argue with you, just want to think this through.

This morning I went on the internet to see what's offers are listed for providers here in the Villages at my location In Osceola Hills. I know other areas in the Villages might have slightly different offers. Also, for simplicity, listed is base internet service without any special bundling.

What I found was:

1) Verizon Fixed Wireless: Plans starting at $35/month plus taxes and fees, No speed claims but they say Good for 1080P streaming. The $45/month plan says Good for 4K streaming. Price lock for 5 years. Couldn't find any limitations on monthly data.

2) T-Mobile Fixed Wireless: Plans startiong at $50/month plus taxes and fees. Typical Download Speed 87 – 318 Mbps (5G), Typical Upload Speed 14 – 56 Mbps (5G), No contract or price lock. Unlimited data.

3) Xfinity Internet: Plans starting at $35/month plus taxes and fees 150Mbs for the 1st year. Monthly limit on data.

4) Spectrum Internet: Plans starting at $30/month plus taxes and fees 100Mbs for the 1st year. Unlimited data.

5) Quantum Internet: Plans starting at $50/month, no taxes and fees, 500Mbs, uncertain the length of the deal given the controversy of "price for life". Unlimited data.

6) Centric Internet: Similar to Quantum.

So, given these offers and given the analysis that we don't need speeds over 40Mbs or something close to that, ISPs are all already providing a "base" speed plan for about $50/month given some you need to add the taxes and fees. Their advertising may be trying to convince you to pay more for faster speeds but they are all offering their base speeds at approximately the same cost.

[jrref]

Originally Posted by biker1

My point is the lowest tier from almost all providers is greatly in excess of what the vast majority of users in The Villages need. Paying more for additional bandwidth is silly since it will offer no value. I have 200 megabits per second up and down as that is the lowest tier offered. This is essentially 10x what I use. Even when I was working from home running software projects and sometimes moving around large tarballs, the lower bandwidth we had at the time (80 megabits per second) was in excess of what I needed. Regarding video, I also measured 4K at about 20 megabits per second. Currently, there isn't much material. Furthermore, at typical viewing distances you would be hard pressed to see the difference between 1080p and 2160p.

Understood. I think there is a minum that these companies are going to charge for minum service to cover their percieved costs. Right now in this area it looks like it's around $50 taxes and fees included. I don't believe we are going to see an offer like $20/month for 50Mbs for example or maybe I could be wrong.

Anyway, thanks for bringing this up. It's an interesting discussion.

As far at the TV resolution, funny you bring that up. My retirement job is TV Calibrator and we do the Value Electronics TV Shootout every year. You can see the videos on YouTube. Most don't reaize there is a relationship of screen size to seating distance in order to see specific resolutions. Here is a good reference explaining it all for those who are interested. TV Size To Distance Calculator (And The Science Behind It) - RTINGS.com

I'm pretty sure there are fewer and fewer 1080P only TVs these days and most are 4K. But your point makes me chuckle because when 8K TV came out we realized you needed to be sitting pretty much on-top of the TV in order to see that resolution. With 4K you have to be sitting closer than you might think to see that resolution as well.

[biker1]

No, we probably won't. QuantumFiber's lowest tier is 200 megabits per second. Paying additional for more bandwidth, unless you have a requirement, makes no sense. I suspect the providers have convinced many people they need more bandwidth. I know people who opted for 1 gigabit per second, and pay additional over a lower bandwidth, but have no need for it.

Regarding TV resolution, the best sets are 4K and 8K, whether you need the resolution or not. That is just the way the manufacturers work; the sets with the best glass and electronics have the higher resolution.

Originally Posted by jrref

Understood. I think there is a minum that these companies are going to charge for minum service to cover their percieved costs. Right now in this area it looks like it's around $50 taxes and fees included. I don't believe we are going to see an offer like $20/month for 50Mbs for example or maybe I could be wrong.

Anyway, thanks for bringing this up. It's an interesting discussion.

As far at the TV resolution, funny you bring that up. My retirement job is TV Calibrator and we do the Value Electronics TV Shootout every year. You can see the videos on YouTube. Most don't reaize there is a relationship of screen size to seating distance in order to see specific resolutions. Here is a good reference explaining it all for those who are interested. TV Size To Distance Calculator (And The Science Behind It) - RTINGS.com

I'm pretty sure there are fewer and fewer 1080P only TVs these days and most are 4K. But your point makes me chuckle because when 8K TV came out we realized you needed to be sitting pretty much on-top of the TV in order to see that resolution. With 4K you have to be sitting closer than you might think to see that resolution as well.

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by biker1

No, we probably won't. QuantumFiber's lowest tier is 200 megabits per second. Paying additional for more bandwidth, unless you have a requirement, makes no sense. I suspect the providers have convinced many people they need more bandwidth. I know people who opted for 1 gigabit per second, and pay additional over a lower bandwidth, but have no need for it.

Regarding TV resolution, the best sets are 4K and 8K, whether you need the resolution or not. That is just the way the manufacturers work; the sets with the best glass and electronics have the higher resolution.

Question: If a 4K or 8K TV does a good job at upscaling, why do you need to watch a 4K signal? Last year, they admitted that the Super Bowl was actually broadcast in an upscaled version of 4K, not a native 4K signal. Was that any different from watching it on an upscaling TV? I certainly couldn't tell the difference.

[jrref]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

Question: If a 4K or 8K TV does a good job at upscaling, why do you need to watch a 4K signal? Last year, they admitted that the Super Bowl was actually broadcast in an upscaled version of 4K, not a native 4K signal. Was that any different from watching it on an upscaling TV? I certainly couldn't tell the difference.

Very good question.

So, when a signal is "upscaled" to a higher resolution the software has to "make up" information that's not there to get the additional pixels.

The lower-resolution content is upscaled through a process called "interpolation," which enlarges the image while maintaining (or potentially improving) its visual quality. More specifically, interpolation creates a grid of "blank" pixels on top of the original image and then colors those blanks based on their surrounding pixels. The enlarged picture is then refined by sharpening or softening parts of the image when necessary, as well as applying filters to adjust its colors further. The result is an estimate that closely matches the original picture but now fits the pixel count of a 4K screen. (Quoted from https://www.howtogeek.com/4k-upscali...ich-is-better/)

The algorithms used these days are very sophisticated and the results are very good. With native 4K content, there is no interpolation so the result will be the best.

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by jrref

Very good question.

So, when a signal is "upscaled" to a higher resolution the software has to "make up" information that's not there to get the additional pixels.

The lower-resolution content is upscaled through a process called "interpolation," which enlarges the image while maintaining (or potentially improving) its visual quality. More specifically, interpolation creates a grid of "blank" pixels on top of the original image and then colors those blanks based on their surrounding pixels. The enlarged picture is then refined by sharpening or softening parts of the image when necessary, as well as applying filters to adjust its colors further. The result is an estimate that closely matches the original picture but now fits the pixel count of a 4K screen. (Quoted from https://www.howtogeek.com/4k-upscali...ich-is-better/)

The algorithms used these days are very sophisticated and the results are very good. With native 4K content, there is no interpolation so the result will be the best.

I understand interpolation. But, if they cannot even afford to broadcast the Super Bowl in native 4K, what is the point of broadcasting it using upscaling when almost everyone already has a 4K TV that upscales?