Adding a new Wi-Fi router to an existing setup

I’m currently stuck with an Xfinity fixed plan giving me 200/20 Mbps over coax, running through this Comcast https://www.ubeeinteractive.com/?product=evw32c router.
The WiFi speeds are honestly pathetic—I'm getting maybe 70-100 Mbps. Sure, if I crank the bandwidth setting to the absolute max, I can hit 180, but I assume that’s just pushing the hardware way past its limits and isn't a sustainable way to run things. On top of that, the range is tiny; once I get toward the edges of my place, the signal is basically on life support. To make matters worse, there aren't even any settings to set up a separate guest password.

What I’m thinking is this: what if I just disable the WiFi on my current Comcast unit entirely and plug this router into it via Ethernet? This one actually supports a guest network https://eu.dlink.com/uk/en/products/...al-band-router—something like this

...and then just use this new unit for all my WiFi needs. Would that actually boost my coverage and speed? I really want to avoid buying extra Wi-Fi Extenders if possible; I reckon I just need a signal that's about 15-20% stronger to properly cover my whole house.

If this isn't the right move, I'm open to suggestions for a different router altogether.

- In a typical American home, 2.4GHz covers more ground than 5GHz. Think about it—higher frequencies just struggle more when they hit obstacles like walls or doors.
- If you want that 300Mbps speed on the 2.4GHz band, you’ve gotta set the channel width to 40MHz. Otherwise, you’re stuck at 150Mbps. Basically, wider channels mean more speed, but you pay for it by losing range. It’s the same deal with 5GHz bandwidth.
- Obviously, for those speeds to actually matter, your gadgets need to be able to handle them too.
- Just a heads-up: don't get too excited about those theoretical numbers. Real-world speeds are usually about half of what's advertised.
- You can actually set up an extra Access Point without killing the Wi-Fi on your current Comcast router. Just try to run an Ethernet cable out to the spot where the Comcast signal is getting weak. When you set it up, make sure both have the exact same password and SSID. Also, instead of leaving the channels on "Auto," pick them manually and make sure they’re spaced out—at least 4 channels apart from whatever the Comcast router is using.
- I wouldn't recommend using a Wi-Fi Extender in repeater mode. Unlike an Access Point, a repeater basically cuts your speed in half compared to what your ISP is giving you. If you go the Access Point route, just make sure the device has a Gigabit Ethernet port to match the Comcast one.

So, I picked up this https://www.tp-link.com/uk/home-netw...int/tl-wa901n/ unit. I actually disabled the Wi-Fi on my Comcast hardware and hardwired this thing directly into it. But here’s the kicker: for some reason, the speeds right next to the device won't even break 100 Mbps. It’s infuriating! When I test via a direct cable connection, I’m seeing nearly 200 Mbps, yet when I’m standing right next to the Netgear Nighthawk, I’m only getting 120-130 Mbps. To make matters worse, in the areas where I actually rely on the Wi-Fi, the performance is actually *worse* than what I was getting from the Comcast Wi-Fi originally. I don't get it—it claims a 450Mbps wireless transmission rate, so I was really banking on it at least pushing past the 100 Mbps mark.
Bottom line, the main reason I grabbed this router was to get those four available SSIDs, and while the coverage is decent now, I’ve essentially just cleared up one frequency in the house (the 5GHz band) only to end up with one extra device cluttering the network.

The thing is, that cable running from the Comcast setup to the Linksys Router is capping you at 100Mbps because that device lacks a Gigabit Ethernet port.
Check out the first line under the specs here: https://www.tp-link.com/en/home-netw...specifications

(just look at the last sentence I wrote in my previous post)

Total garbage. You’re absolutely right about this. I saw the exact same thing, and when I actually confronted the salesperson about it, they tried to claim it was megabytes instead of megabits. Honestly, given that the speed was listed at 450, it sounded more logical to me at the time, so I just went along with it—I’ll admit I’m not exactly an expert on all these technical nuances. Do you happen to have any recommendations for a decent device like this? I should be able to get this one back to the store within the next 8 days.

Swapped my old gear out for this https://eu.dlink.com/uk/en/products/...t-router#Specs and man, what a difference! I’m finally hitting speeds of 140-150 Mbps on the 5 GHz band now. To give you some perspective, when I was stuck using the Comcast equipment in this exact same spot, I was barely scraping 90, maybe 100 if I was lucky.
I’m still scratching my head over the 2.4 GHz band, though. It won't budge past 35-40 Mbps. Even with the Comcast setup, I could at least hit 50 on 2.4 GHz.
What really bugs me is that back when I was using the TP-Link Router—which is strictly 2.4 GHz—I was actually pulling 70-80 Mbps.

briskcanyon12 said:Swapped my old gear for this https://eu.dlink.com/uk/en/products/...t-router#Specs and now I’m pulling 140-150 Mbps on the 5 GHz band. On the old Comcast unit at the exact same spot, I was barely hitting 90 or maybe 100.
I can't figure out why the 2.4 GHz band won't go past 35-40. Even on the Comcast unit, the 2.4 GHz maxed out at 50.
Back when I used the TP-Link Router which is strictly 2.4 GHz, I could get 70-80.

Wi-Fi is just finicky because there are so many variables involved.
For example, if a Wi-Fi connection is rated for 100 Mbps and you have two clients connected, that speed gets split immediately. You aren't getting 100 anymore; you're looking at 50. That's just how Wi-Fi works. There isn't much you can do about it.
Second, if you have a neighbor within range using the same channel (frequency) as your Wi-Fi—expect your speeds to tank. How much they drop depends on how physically close they are and how close they are on the frequency spectrum. They don't even have to be on the exact same channel; being on a nearby one causes enough interference to slow things down.

Because of all that, it's pretty hard for anyone to help you remotely. With Wi-Fi, you really need to be physically present at the Location to run actual tests.

Wired connections are a different beast entirely. If you have five devices plugged into a 100 Mbps switch, everyone gets that 100 Mbps capacity. It might be slightly less due to overhead, but the bandwidth isn't divided by five. If five devices connect via Wi-Fi, you effectively divide that initial speed by five right out of the gate, and then you still have to subtract all the other interference issues.
And those "five" things don't have to be five separate people. It could just be you. A laptop, a phone, a tablet, a PlayStation, and a smart TV—boom, you've got five devices on the network.
That's why you should use a wire whenever you possibly can.

I’m at home, and even the nearest neighbor's house is at least 30 feet away from me.
The Location is exactly the same spot, and using the Comcast unit, I'm getting 2.4 GHz speeds that crawl between 45 Mbps—it won't budge, even when I'm standing right on top of the thing. On the 5 GHz band, I hit maybe 80-100 Mbps max, though if I'm practically touching the device, I can squeeze out 120.
I tried hardwiring a TP-Link Router into the Comcast unit; it only works on the 2.4 GHz band, and the port is capped at 100 Mbps. Even then, near where I actually work, I'm only seeing 70-80 Mbps.
Then I hardwired a D-LINK DIR-842 into the Comcast unit. This one has both 2.4 and 5 GHz bands and features a Gigabit Ethernet port. On 2.4 GHz, it's just as pathetic as the Comcast unit, topping out at 45 Mbps. However, the 5 GHz band performs significantly better—I get 160 Mbps right next to it, and about 130-140 Mbps at my desk.

Honestly, I don't get it. Why does a device that only supports 2.4 GHz pull better speeds on that band than these dual-band units? It shouldn't be an antenna strength issue because even when I'm hovering over the hardware, the speed doesn't increase. Plus, the D-LINK DIR-842 claims to support up to 300 Mbps on 2.4 GHz, yet I'm barely hitting 50—that's barely a fraction of what it's supposed to do, let alone close to its limit. To make matters worse, I tried disabling the 5 GHz signal entirely, but it made absolutely zero difference.

I saw some stuff online suggesting that the D-LINK DIR-842 can be manually configured as an Access Point. I have no idea if that would impact the speed, especially since the TP-Link Router was set up strictly as an AP.

I’ve got this old little TP-Link multi-purpose router lying around. I hooked it up to my Comcast setup, and on the 2.4GHz band, I'm only hitting about 90 Mbps.
Does anyone have any bright ideas on whether it's actually possible to push the 2.4GHz speed on a D-LINK DIR-842 past that 45-50 Mbps ceiling? There is definitely some kind of internal bottleneck on this thing, and I'm certain it isn't an issue with the incoming signal.

wearymason4 said:- In residential settings, 2.4GHz offers better range than 5GHz (higher frequencies struggle more with obstacles like walls or doors).
- For 2.4GHz, you need a 40MHz channel width to hit 300Mbps; otherwise, you're stuck at 150Mbps. Basically, wider channels mean higher speeds but sacrifice range. It's the same deal with 5GHz channel widths.
- Obviously, for those speeds to matter, the user devices have to support them too.
- Real-world speeds are usually about half of what those theoretical numbers claim.
- You can set up an additional Cisco unit without killing the existing Wi-Fi on the Ubiquiti router, but try connecting it via Ethernet to a spot where the Ubiquiti signal is weak. Just make sure both use the same SSID and password, and instead of leaving channels on "Auto," manually set them so they are at least four channels apart from the Ubiquiti setup.
- I wouldn't recommend using a Netgear Extender (repeater mode) because, unlike a Cisco unit, it cuts your speed in half compared to what your ISP provides. If you go with a Cisco unit, just ensure it has a Gigabit LAN port to match the Ubiquiti one.

I might be double-posting here, but I haven't checked this forum in quite a while, so please excuse me if this belongs in a newer thread.

It seems I’m dealing with a similar headache to sch35, though he clearly knows his way around technical jargon far better than I do. My setup involves a fixed coaxial connection through an Ubiquiti evw32c router https://www.ubiquiti.com/?product=evw32c. The router isn't exactly in a prime location; it's sitting on a mid-floor in a peripheral part of a multi-family building, covering the ground floor and the upper level.

I'm based in California, and this router is supposed to provide Wi-Fi to five separate rental units/apartments. Downstairs, I'm on a wired Ethernet connection connected to my PC via a Linksys Router https://www.tp-link.com/us/home-network/router/tl-wr743nd/, which I’ve set up with its own unique username and password.

I've been trying to fix the weak signal upstairs using signal boosters, but honestly, it feels like a band-aid solution rather than a real fix. I also have the option to add another router upstairs via Ethernet, provided it has specs compatible with the Ubiquiti evw32c, unlike my current Linksys Router 150 Mbps.

Here is my question:
Can I configure all three devices to share the same SSID and password, while keeping guests or tourists isolated on the signal boosters using a different login?

In every room, I also have the option to add a Wi-Fi Access Point/Client Router with appropriate specs. I realize I'm mixing technical requirements with security concerns here, but this is the best explanation I can manage from my layman's perspective. Thanks in advance for any advice.