3 ms·
It's not even a battle worth fighting; your average consumer router is significantly less powerful than what the cable company gives you. Even if you do get it
by exelius 11y ago
It's not even a battle worth fighting; your average consumer router is significantly less powerful than what the cable company gives you. Even if you do get it in bridge mode, you'd need something more than a $200 consumer router to get the max speed out of it.
- snuxoll 11y agoSo not true, the RT-AC68U will walk circles around any eMTA an ISP will give you. The eMTA's cable companies give are expensive because a DOCSIS 3.0 modem is already $80 on average, adding a VoIP gateway and WLAN router plus a sufficient profit margin adds up.
- exelius 11y agoWell, basically, a $200 home router will peak well before maxing out a 150 mbps connection unless you turn off all the QoS, UPnP and security features... but at that point you're better off just using the eMTA (which can handle the speed because it never had any of those features in the first place).
- snuxoll 11y agoOnce again, not true. NAT and QoS are the most expensive tasks a consumer router will perform, and even at 1Gbps it's rather mundane work even for a slower CPU (the 600MHz CPU in the RT-AC66U is sufficient). Once you start looking at the latency requirements to achieve 10GBps interconnects you're going to have issues with what you can reasonably expect from the $200 price range, but consumer networks have a long ways to go before that's going to even need to be thought about.
- dublinben 11y agoThis is completely untrue. Even a sub-$100 TP-Link router will provide 800+ Mbps routing, far higher than a typical broadband connection.