Smart TV: wifi speed ?
 

I can't seem to get a straight answer on this: do different brand/models of smart TVs have different Wifi bandwidth capacities - or is it pretty much standard and fairly limited because at best they need 15 mbps and cannot really use more?

Seems mine is losing internet too often despite everything else in the house staying on, and gets very low connection speed on self tests vs what's on offer (1 gig) - though I am not sure if it's a function of wifi / that self test / or content providers.

In other words, if I speedtest a laptop near my tv I see 800 mbps. My phone will see 150 in the same spot. The Tv will see 5-15 - so It seems the hardware is not geared for capacity/stability. I'd hardwire it but it's gonna be a pain. Just wondering if anyone knows for sure if those TVs CAN read (theoretically) 100mbps-1gig, say... like a laptop, or if they are built with low speed wifi.

The wireless to the TV was not reliable so I put in a MoCA connection because I don't have an easy way to get an internet cable to the TV.

I have similar issues but hadn’t thought of this as a potential solution until now.

I have a eero mesh system in the house, there is the one base station wired into our modem and two others spread around the house.

I wonder if it would be any better if I plugged the TV into one of the wireless units, whether I would get better performance.

I’ll give that a try but am curious if any others with real knowledge have any experience.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just like with laptops, phones, and other "traditional" computers, it depends on the chipset, etc.

Anything with a fixed location is wired ("just" normal 100mb ethernet), wireless is only for phones at my house.

If you can't wire, consider multiple wireless networks running on vastly different channels. Wireless is more like a hub based network than a switched network, so fewer devices on a given network/channel means better overall performance.

I think many people want wire to be a thing of the past, but I feel your pain.
Are new houses hardwired?

Wifi has several standards that offer different capabilities. And the capability of two devices that need to talk (usually device <> router) need to agree.

So if you're router supports XYZ, but your TV supports ABC, then that can be an issue. These days, there's usually pretty good interoperability. And pretty much every device supports older and newer stuff (older usually slower and newer faster).

And even if both devices support the same standard, there's always negotiation between the two that will try to achieve the highest speed possible for conditions.

So both devices could support the same 1.3gb standard, but they could end up negotiating down to 1mb (unlikely to go that low).

almost definitely better.

The base and remotes should have pretty good connectivity, and wired from TV to one of the stations should be good.

wired is almost always > wireless

Wired is stable and generally speedy enough.
Wireless is conveniet, but variable and not generally as reliable even if peak speeds are potentially higher.

For streaming stuff, audio and/or video, less variability is generally more important than peak speed.

Jitter (variable delay/latency) is generally more impactful to audio and/or video than a stable "lower" speed connection. (assuming the low speed meets a minimum speed threshold).

It helped tremendously when I hardwired our TV to the router.

Hardly any homes have ever been hardwired unless someone specified that during the build.

I did peruse a fairly high-end townhome (3500-4000sqft, 4 floor+roof) smart home 3-5 years ago. All of the "smart" stuff was hard wired which is the only way to do it if you want it to be reliable.

People want "wired" to be a thing of the past because it's not as convenient as wireless. But that doesn't make it better.

Friend of mine is a builder and I've helped him with wireless issues at his house, I keep asking why he's building new homes without network built in... Even just a central drop wtih a run to where TV is anticipated, any place a cable tv outlet would be, and a few spots to set up wireless APs (with power right there as well, up and out of the way). He's not sure... and even with minimal extra cost he's not sure if it would help sell when it is all built....

We stopped running cables a few years ago. We will install chases (pvc conduit) from basement to attic, and in places inconvenient to run cabling after sheetrock.

Despite the fact that we know that wired > wireless, for most folks convenience trumps all, and having and running cables is icky. So I doubt it would help. On top of that, where one person thinks is the best place to put a TV is not necessarily where the next guy thinks is the best place.

I fixed my smart tv's streaming problems by adding a fire-stick to one of the ports.
By-passing the tv's inner streaming apps was all I needed to do.

The only downside is that I now have another remote that I need to use for streaming.

It was crazy, the new Townhome that I'd mentioned earlier, very high end, large smart home, probably the highest priced home ever in that particular neighborhood. They had a room upstairs. The closet in the room had a hole in the floor that was probably 8-12" in diameter. That hole must have had 30-50 cat5/6 cables running through it in a huge bundle. There was a small rack on wheels that I think was probably 4' tall, and that rack was full of the smart home stuff. It was a fairly small closet so that stuff really chewed up all of the real estate in that closet, and it was darn ugly.

It seemed to me that the closet was done as an after-thought, and on top of that, there was a closet downstairs under the stairs in the middle of the house that seemed to me like it would be a great place for that stuff.

yeah my question was really: are all TVs capable of supporting high speed WIFI downloads or is this a varying standard, getting better with newer models ? It's hard to see that info on specs..

In my case, I was broadcasting 2.4 and 5.0 GHz under the same SSID (my mistake - mesh died, I resurrected Wifi on the modem w/o thinking too hard about it). I since split the SSID between the 2.4 and 5.0 bands, put the kids on 5.0 and was hoping to see that faster band SSID on the TV or the firestick. Nope, neither sees it. Only 2.4 ! I got a partial answer then !

That said, since I did this, the TV now tests at 55 Mbps (vs a max of 16 before). The laptops are also faster 6x on 5.0 ghz frequency. I think that will help now, and I also ordered a fire cube as I hear they are more stable and have room for bigger wifi antenna - more than than the TV or a firestick hiding behind a TV.. At that point the Cube will be the wifi recipient, not the smart Tv. I'm dropping the use of the native TV stuff, it's just too slow.

Yes there are varying standards and the standards have improved (speed) over time. One thing to remember is that 5GHz is faster, but doesn't travel as far (especially through obstacles) as 2.4GHz which is slower, but goes farther.

Depending upon when your device was made, it may or may not support the latest and greatest. And even if it was made after those standards came out, it still may not support the latest and greatest. It depends upon what the manufacturer was willing to stick in it.

Look for things like 802.11n, 802.11ac, 802.11ax etc....

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1689112022.jpg

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1689112040.jpg

Lotsa different things going on here.

You guys have heard me say it before, don't buy Smart TV's if you have a dumb option because of crap like this.

Separate your points of failure.

We all agree by now that WIFI is for convenience and wired is for performance.

WIFI, at best, will only deliver ~half the bandwidth you are contracted for.

This happens because WIFI does not have backhaul. (Mostly but we will get to that)

Think of WIFI as an old school bucket fire brigade with a line of fireman passing buckets but they only have one bucket.

They pass a full bucket forward but have to pass the empty back down the same line before they can pass another full one forward.

If you had two lines of fireman and more buckets, one line passing buckets forward and the other passing empty buckets back you can dump a **** ton more water.

The line passing empty buckets back is backhaul.

There are ways to address it using Mesh systems where one AP can broadcast and another provide backhaul or a hidden 2nd 2.4ghz band dedicated to it.

Some router vendors use the combined SSID trick where they broadcast on 5 and receive backhaul on 2.4. I've never been a fan of that as I've not seen it work consistently.

For TV's really the best solution is a MoCA to ethernet bridge. Generally cable drops are in or near areas where people would naturally put a TV. Your broadband service runs on MoCA which means it's passing ethernet over coax. Unless your coax network is old and janky it's the best solution as coax is capable of gigabit.

Even if there is a coax drop closer to the TV than any AP's or router it's a better solution as it allows you to hardwire an AP closer to the TV.

And lets not forget, WIFI operates at the speed of the slowest connected device so even if he has 5 of the latest greatest devices connected that one decades old tablet he gave the kids to entertain themselves with is dragging the whole thing down.

Absolutely. And most folks have one crappy old device kicking around for one reason or another.