Is wifi dependent on high mbps?
Discussion
Afternoon. I'm going it alone with my first property soon and I'm investigating internet providers & cost.
If all I want, not being a gamer, streamer, is just decent wifi so I can use laptop, mobile phone and get Freely on the tv and possibly a Firestick, do I need to worry about a high number mbps broadband package, or can I go for the cheapest?
Sorry about the stupid question.
Simon.
If all I want, not being a gamer, streamer, is just decent wifi so I can use laptop, mobile phone and get Freely on the tv and possibly a Firestick, do I need to worry about a high number mbps broadband package, or can I go for the cheapest?
Sorry about the stupid question.
Simon.
You don't necessarily get the speeds you think you are.UPTO is what they usually say so a 50mbps service is up to 50mbps.....but if you do get 50mbps that's plenty for 1 person......you didn't say how many people would be using it at any 1 time because that matters.
Also WiFi is usually slower than an ethernet connection
Also WiFi is usually slower than an ethernet connection
I'm on 30Mb/s here at the moment, over copper. Probably shortly to be converted to fibre. Never seem to get buffering when 2 of us stream HD. The biggest problem can be contention. That is to say, even if you have 8Gbit/s download, if lots of other people in the street/exchange are big bandwidth users, then that might not leave much for you. Similarly, if the ISP doesn't have enough bandwidth (but that is quite rare now) then it may feel quite laggy.
Deviation said:
Which options do you have, as the answer is it depends .
It isn t the entire picture, but too few Mbps will make your broadband feel slow.
For most people, anything between 50 and 100 is ample.
Morning, I think the only option, that I know of, is with BT. It'll just be me living there. Thanks for the info regarding what I could be happy with.It isn t the entire picture, but too few Mbps will make your broadband feel slow.
For most people, anything between 50 and 100 is ample.
Simon Bags said:
Deviation said:
Which options do you have, as the answer is it depends .
It isn t the entire picture, but too few Mbps will make your broadband feel slow.
For most people, anything between 50 and 100 is ample.
Morning, I think the only option, that I know of, is with BT. It'll just be me living there. Thanks for the info regarding what I could be happy with.It isn t the entire picture, but too few Mbps will make your broadband feel slow.
For most people, anything between 50 and 100 is ample.
The only slight problem was with Freely which sometimes got slight pixelation but still watchable, but if you have access to or can get an aerial you don't need Freely.
Later this year fibre is coming to the area and I think the lowest speed I'll get then is 50. I really don't think It'll make any difference considering my usage which is similar to yours.
RotorRambler said:
900mbps available @ £22 a month here (via city fibre)
Just check on comparison sites.
You ll probably find that full fibre providers are cheaper/faster/better than the old copper lines, if they cover your house.
But WiFi is nowhere near that fast, so unless you are using capable wired connections you really aren't getting much advantage.Maybe if you have a many people trying to use high bandwidth stuff via Wifi you might get an advantage.Just check on comparison sites.
You ll probably find that full fibre providers are cheaper/faster/better than the old copper lines, if they cover your house.
Simon Bags said:
Morning, I think the only option, that I know of, is with BT. It'll just be me living there. Thanks for the info regarding what I could be happy with.
If it’s a new property with a fresh FTTP line then it may be limited to BT for the first couple of years (mine was when this place was built) after that the cabinets tend to open up to all available suppliersI found when I changed to plusnet from Sky this year that it was cheaper to go with a 500mb line than anything slower and a 900mb was only £2/mth more, so just went for that and it’s been flawless.
Personally I would say it’s better to have too much bandwidth than skate along on the margins esp given the very minor price differential in it all.
I have 30mbps, and i stream netflix in 4k etc at the same time as surfing the web on a laptop , never had a problem, i do think that we are sold the idea that more is better, ive not found this to be the case.
I did have a few hundred mbps but was looking at the cost, so reduced it, ive not noticed any difference.
I did have a few hundred mbps but was looking at the cost, so reduced it, ive not noticed any difference.
Might want to step back and make sure you understand the options for what it's worth.
Depending where you will live broadly you probably have options of OpenReach based ISPs, possibly specific ISPs that service that area, possibly good enough 4G/5G coverage dependent on usage and services like Starlink.
Depending where you will live broadly you probably have options of OpenReach based ISPs, possibly specific ISPs that service that area, possibly good enough 4G/5G coverage dependent on usage and services like Starlink.
Streaming 4K video uses up to about 40Mbps. HD TV (1080p) is around a quarter of that. Personally I'd say the minimum I'd go for these days is probably around 25-50 Mbps depending on what resolution TV you have and how many people might be using it at the same time. For general web browsing I doubt you'd notice much difference between 10 and 50, but you might well with video, and multiple people want to use it at the same time you'll want more bandwidth than that.
Some TV providers now use broadband for thier "live" TV services so worth taking in to account and look at what they include in the bundle.
Personally I went for a 600Mbps service as the bundle deal wasn't much more expensive than the basic bundle with slower internet and less TV channels.
Some TV providers now use broadband for thier "live" TV services so worth taking in to account and look at what they include in the bundle.
Personally I went for a 600Mbps service as the bundle deal wasn't much more expensive than the basic bundle with slower internet and less TV channels.
ARH said:
RotorRambler said:
900mbps available @ £22 a month here (via city fibre)
Just check on comparison sites.
You ll probably find that full fibre providers are cheaper/faster/better than the old copper lines, if they cover your house.
But WiFi is nowhere near that fast, so unless you are using capable wired connections you really aren't getting much advantage.Maybe if you have a many people trying to use high bandwidth stuff via Wifi you might get an advantage.Just check on comparison sites.
You ll probably find that full fibre providers are cheaper/faster/better than the old copper lines, if they cover your house.
I get what you say, 900 isn’t required. I doubt would notice any difference if 150.
But @ £22 a month (new customers, £25 for me) it’s cheaper than the Openreach offerings.
Luckily City Fibre covers my area, a game changer.
The only wired options in this area are 10mb from BT or very good from virgin but i don’t like them so we went wireless router from Three 3 years ago and it does all we need (2 TV fire sticks / streaming / web stuff etc) though we don't have any need for good latency.
It's £29 / month on a rolling monthly but significantly cheaper if you go on contract. It connects to local towers on 5g and 4g and we usually see 300 + download speeds. The early router they gave us was dropping out frequently but the latest one "the black router" self aligns its areal when you switch it on. maybe that router will also work on other providers like Vodaphone etc?
It's £29 / month on a rolling monthly but significantly cheaper if you go on contract. It connects to local towers on 5g and 4g and we usually see 300 + download speeds. The early router they gave us was dropping out frequently but the latest one "the black router" self aligns its areal when you switch it on. maybe that router will also work on other providers like Vodaphone etc?
butchstewie said:
Might want to step back and make sure you understand the options for what it's worth.
Depending where you will live broadly you probably have options of OpenReach based ISPs, possibly specific ISPs that service that area, possibly good enough 4G/5G coverage dependent on usage and services like Starlink.
Agree with this - find out what the options are first.Depending where you will live broadly you probably have options of OpenReach based ISPs, possibly specific ISPs that service that area, possibly good enough 4G/5G coverage dependent on usage and services like Starlink.
If you have symmetric FTTP from an altnet - a good one not on the brink of going under - anything in the 100Mbps+ range is going to be decent.
If you have openreach wholesale FTTP resold by Sky/etc these are good products but the asymmetric nature of them means you might want to overpay for download to bump up the upload speeds. I wouldn't want 150mbps but only 30mbps upstream.
If you are on FTTC its inferior to fibre services but might be better than wireless alternatives.
If you're talking woeful 2000's era service over a long piece of copper then better to look at cellular services or Starlink!
I don't really get the 'just enough to manage' arguments these threads always create. When people go from DSL era services to fast fibre services they often start finding use cases for the bandwidth, that they never thought they'd need, because they can. I realise there's little point in overpaying for the maximum service level if you don't need it but sometimes the cost differences are really trivial.
Gassing Station | Computers, Gadgets & Stuff | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff