You can get a TP Link wifi 6 router for only £73 on Amazon:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/TP-LINK-Archer-Next-Gen-Gig...

Or if you wanted something even cheaper, then a Huawei AX3 Pro is only £40 or so on Bay of E.

https://consumer.huawei.com/en/routers/ax3-quad-core/

In reply to a post by Highland76:

You can get a TP Link wifi 6 router for only £73 on Amazon:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/TP-LINK-Archer-Next-Gen-Gig...

whilst that is AX it doesn't seem to be much better than the higher level AC units, so I wouldn't bother. The higher priced TP-LINK kit is higher spec WiFi 6. WiFi 5 and WiFi 6 confuse everyone as there are multiple levels of features in the spec.

In reply to a post by jchamier:

In reply to a post by Highland76:

You can get a TP Link wifi 6 router for only £73 on Amazon:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/TP-LINK-Archer-Next-Gen-Gig...

whilst that is AX it doesn't seem to be much better than the higher level AC units, so I wouldn't bother. The higher priced TP-LINK kit is higher spec WiFi 6. WiFi 5 and WiFi 6 confuse everyone as there are multiple levels of features in the spec.

Although it doesn't have a higher theoretical throughput it is my understanding that it should get closer to that in the real world.
For example say you have an access point that is WiFi 5 (AC) that is 1500Mbps and an access point that is WiFi 6 (AX) that is 1500Mbps the Wi-Fi 6 access point should still provide better speeds in the real world

In reply to a post by danielhyde:

Although it doesn't have a higher theoretical throughput it is my understanding that it should get closer to that in the real world.
For example say you have an access point that is WiFi 5 (AC) that is 1500Mbps and an access point that is WiFi 6 (AX) that is 1500Mbps the Wi-Fi 6 access point should still provide better speeds in the real world

I believe that is the theory, but it is unclear if we need all 6 devices to cope with the new protocol. Equally that might assume you have sufficient 5 GHz channels to run 160 MHz wide channels. Which would be unusual in the UK as our house spacing is not as far apart as the US.

In reply to a post by jchamier:

In reply to a post by danielhyde:

Although it doesn't have a higher theoretical throughput it is my understanding that it should get closer to that in the real world.
For example say you have an access point that is WiFi 5 (AC) that is 1500Mbps and an access point that is WiFi 6 (AX) that is 1500Mbps the Wi-Fi 6 access point should still provide better speeds in the real world

I believe that is the theory, but it is unclear if we need all 6 devices to cope with the new protocol. Equally that might assume you have sufficient 5 GHz channels to run 160 MHz wide channels. Which would be unusual in the UK as our house spacing is not as far apart as the US.

Ah yes I'm not sure wither if all devices need to be WiFi 6 either.
I don't think the interference should be an issue, I live in a relatively modern house and before I installed mesh WiFi the 5GHz signal barely reached upstairs and could only get a very low signal outside.
Now I have mesh the signal outside is still very poor at best.

In reply to a post by danielhyde:

I don't think the interference should be an issue, I live in a relatively modern house and before I installed mesh WiFi the 5GHz signal barely reached upstairs and could only get a very low signal outside.

The more modern the home, the more likely you have insulation that includes metal foil. Older homes don't have this.

In reply to a post by jchamier:

In reply to a post by danielhyde:

I don't think the interference should be an issue, I live in a relatively modern house and before I installed mesh WiFi the 5GHz signal barely reached upstairs and could only get a very low signal outside.

The more modern the home, the more likely you have insulation that includes metal foil. Older homes don't have this.

That's a good point but I don't think it does, not that I've seen.
Older houses can have thicker walls, at my FiL's house WiFi barely goes through one wall.

In reply to a post by danielhyde:

That's a good point but I don't think it does, not that I've seen. Older houses can have thicker walls, at my FiL's house WiFi barely goes through one wall.

I have family in a new build in Cardiff, and mobile phone signals don't get indoors, whereas outside all 4 networks have full signal. These operate at frequencies under 5 GHz, which is why such a push for all operators to enable WiFi calling.

Yes, the older stone walls also act as a radio block, as do multiple layers. Mesh systems help, but are often planned for US homes where they use different construction materials.

2.4 GHz can be better for penetration at the expense of throughput. 5GHz and the potential 6 GHz, are good for throughput, but may only cover a room!

Agreed and furthermore I would say proper structured cabling should be a mandatory requirement for all new builds, in the same way as other facets of construction and building control are mandated.

Folks relying on “WiFi” only are on a bit of a fools errand. A good quality wireless install actually needs (at least some) structured cabling if only to the access points.

Usually new builds with wafer thin walls are perfect examples where good spec wifi kit can work very well, without having tonnes of cables. My house (4 bedroom detached) is just over 10 years old and I've always found a single wifi 5/6 router to be more than enough to give full wifi coverage. Even 2 of our VOIP lines run over wireless with not a RJ45 cable in sight, other than a 30cm run from the ONT to the router.