🛒
In March 2022, Wi-Fi routers supporting the 5.9GHz portion of the 5GHz frequency officially became available. Since then, this “final frontier” of the spectrum, known in the US as the UNII-4 group, has proved to be of limited use.
This post will explain, in simple terms, UNII-4, the reason behind its significance—namely, the existence of Dynamic Frequency Selection (DFS)—and answer the question of why the latest Wi-Fi 7 hardware doesn’t support it.
Dong’s note: I first published this post on March 17, 2022, and updated it on July 20, 2025, to add up-to-date information.
What is the 5.9GHz (Wi-Fi 6) band?
Wi-Fi first started in 1999 with the 2.4GHz frequency band, and ten years later, moved to the dual-band concept as 5GHz became available for networking.
Tip
Wi-Fi airspace is regulated and varies from one region to another. Information on this website is generally based on US regulations and applicable to the United States.
The use of the UNII-4 portion, or even its definition, might not be the same or available in other parts of the world, but the general concept of Wi-Fi is applicable worldwide.
As you might have noted, 2.4 is a portion between 2.3 and 2.5, whereas 5 is a whole number. In other words, it appears that the entire 5GHz frequency is available for Wi-Fi use.
Is it, though?
The initial three UNII groups of the 5GHz frequency
In reality, things are much more complicated. From the get-go, Wi-Fi has never had the entire 5GHz band for itself—far from it—nor will it ever.
Like all frequency bands, the 5GHz spectrum is divided into smaller portions from 5.1GHz to 5.9GHz. You can visualize this by putting a measuring tape on the floor. Before it reaches the 6-meter mark, the surface must encompass the entire 5-meter section, which consists of many smaller sections, each measuring millimeters.
The sub-portions of a Wi-Fi band are measured in MHz. (1GHz = 1000MHz). For better management, in the US, they are divided into four groups referred to as Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure (UNII).
The following is the ballpark breakdown of these groups:
- UNII-1 ranges from 5170MHz to 5250MHz
- UNII-2: 5250MHz to 5330MHz
- UNII-2e (extended): 5490MHz to 5730MHz
- UNII-3: 5735MHz to 5835MHz
- UNII-4: 5850MHz to 5925MHz
Again, the grouping is flexible. For example, depending on who you’re talking to, the UNII-2e can be considered part of UNII-3, and UNII-3 can be considered part of UNII-4. Two things to note:
- There are gaps in the spectrum between the groups above. Those are areas of the spectrum permanently dedicated to non-Wi-Fi applications. For example, the gap between 5330MHz and 5490MHz is exclusively used for Doppler RADAR.
- Before 2022, UNII-4 was not available for Wi-Fi use.
To understand the significance of these groups, it is essential to comprehend how Wi-Fi operates in terms of bandwidth.
Wi-Fi bandwidth
A Wi-Fi connection typically utilizes a contiguous portion of the frequency band, called a channel. The minimum width of a channel is 20MHz, and the wider the channel being used, the more bandwidth the connection has—it’s faster.
Equipment can combine adjacent 20MHz channels to create a wider channel and, therefore, the bandwidth. So, two adjacent 20MHz channels combine to form a 40MHz channel, and two adjacent 40MHz channels combine to form an 80MHz channel, and so on.
Tip
Back to the measuring tape analogy, you can combine multiple millimeters into a centimeter and multiple centimeters into a decimeter. Essentially, it’s as basic as putting adjacent surface sections together to create a large, continuous area.
The novelty of Wi-Fi 6 is that it supports 5GHz channels as wide as 160MHz, making it a significantly faster standard compared to Wi-Fi 5, of which the channel width maxes out at 80MHz.
As you might imagine, the wider the channel, the more space it occupies on the spectrum. Wi-Fi 6’s 160MHz channels are so large that the entire spectrum has enough space to form two such channels in theory.
In practice, things are not as simple as combining as many channels as you wish, as not all of them are available at all times due to the use of Dynamic Frequency Selection (or DFS).
Dynamic Frequency Selection and the 5GHz band’s lack of contiguous 160MHz width
Applicable only to the 5GHz frequency, DFS channels refer to the 20MHz portions that share the airspace with radar, which have the right-of-way.
A DFS channel is like a bike lane on which you can drive your car, but only when there are no cyclists around.
Typically, these DFS channels function in the same manner as any other Wi-Fi channel. However, when radar signals are present, which is often the case for those living within tens of miles of an airport or weather station, the router will shift its signals to the next unoccupied DFS channel or reduce the channel’s width to avoid the DFS ones.
During this channel-switching process, your device might briefly get disconnected.
Here’s the real issue: of the entire original 5GHz frequency, the UNII-1 (5170MHz to 5250MHz) and UNII-3 (5735MHz to 5835MHz) portions don’t include DFS channels. However, these portions are only 80MHz wide each and are not within a contiguous airspace of each other. For that reason, if you want to form any 160MHz channel, you’ll need to use a few DFS channels within it, as shown below.
As a result, from the early days of Wi-Fi 6 until early 2022, the use of 160MHz channels was never a certainty. In fact, many Wi-Fi 6 routers opt to use the 80MHz channel width instead to avoid DFS entirely.
And that brings us to the final UNII-4 group, which includes the 5.9GHz portion.
The late arrival of UNII-4
For decades, this portion of the 5GHz band has been controversial because it was reserved for the automotive industry, which ultimately never utilized it—it was a long story.
Wi-Fi advocates fought long and hard for this final airspace of the 5GHz band, and finally, in late 2020, the FCC approved it for Wi-Fi use. It was then made available to hardware vendors in late 2021. With that, Wi-Fi gets the frequency’s tail with three more 20MHz channels, including 169, 173, and 177.
The last channel of the 5GHz band (181), which is part of UNII-4, is not available to Wi-Fi.
Combining those with existing channels forms a 160MHz contiguous air space, enough to make a third 160MHz channel. The table above shows how the addition of the UNII-4 group completes the 5GHz band for Wi-Fi use. (Again, the borders dividing these groups are flexible.)
Most importantly, this new 160MHz channel is the only one that does not use DFS. In other words, it’s the only “clean” high-bandwidth channel that can deliver Wi-Fi 6’s top speed and reliability, even when used near RADAR stations.
That said, the 5.9GHz band enables an exciting potential: Fast Wi-Fi 6 speeds (up to 4800Mbps in the current top 4×4 specs) and long range.
However, for this portion of the frequency to have a real-world impact, it needs to be supported by the hardware, and that has become a relatively subdued reality for the 5.9GHz portion.
5.9GHz band: Limited but significant real-world applications
Like all Wi-Fi connections, the use of the 5.9GHz portion, by itself or as part of a 160MHz channel, requires support from both ends: the broadcaster (router or access points) and the receiver (Wi-Fi client).
Let’s start with the former.
Sparse support on the broadcasting side
While most existing routers can have support for this portion of the band turned on via firmware updates, most vendors opted not to do so due to the expensive re-certification process. By mid-2022, the ASUS ZenWiFi XT8 was the only router that had this treatment, starting with firmware version 3.0.0.4.386_49873.
Since then, I’ve reviewed over half a dozen new routers with UNII-4-enabled capabilities, and their number hasn’t grown significantly in the past couple of years.
Tested Wi-Fi broadcasters with UNII-4:
- ASUS ExtepertWiFi EBM68 (Tri-band)
- ASUS ROG Rapture GT6 (Tri-band)
- ASUS GT-AX11000 Pro (Tri-band)
- ASUS ZenWiFi Pro XT12 (Tri-band)
- ASUS ZenWifi XT9 (Tri-band)
- ASUS ZenWiFi XT8 (Tri-band)
- Synology RT6600ax (Tri-band)
- Synology WRX560 (Dual-band)
That said, it’s safe to say the adoption of the 5.9GHz portion hasn’t been strong. And the reason is simple: there’s no support on the client side.
Non-existent support by end-devices
Indeed, so far, there are no Wi-Fi clients, such as computers or smartphones, that feature 5.9GHz Wi-Fi. As a result, when a router uses this portion of the band, no client can connect to it, making UNII-4 practically useless in a traditional Wi-Fi network.
Regulations are generally less restrictive on Wi-Fi clients—when we travel with our mobile devices, the receiver should work with all Wi-Fi broadcasters worldwide. However, it’s ultimately the vendors who decide whether the hardware can connect via this portion. And so far, they have decided to opt out of UNII-4 entirely on the receiving end. Well almost.
Wireless mesh backhauling gets a significant boost
Technically, you can have a UNII-4 connection when using a supported mesh unit as the receiver. Specifically, when you connect a wired client to the satellite unit of the ZenWifi XT8, the client establishes a connection to the primary router using a 5.9GHz connection.
That’s because a UNII-4-enabled mesh system can use this portion of the frequency as the backhaul link. In this case, you receive dedicated backhaul via a clean 160MHz channel, which guarantees the best possible performance in both data rates and reliability. And that’s generally the case with tri-band Wi-Fi 6 mesh systems that support 5.9GHz, as mentioned on the list above.
Backhaul vs. fronthaul
When you use multiple Wi-Fi broadcasters—in a mesh Wi-Fi system or a combo of a router and an extender—there are two types of connections: fronthaul and backhaul.
Fronthaul is the Wi-Fi signals broadcast outward for clients or the local area network (LAN) ports for wired devices. It’s what we generally expect from a Wi-Fi broadcaster.
Backhaul (a.k.a backbone), on the other hand, is the link between one satellite Wi-Fi broadcaster and another, which can be the network’s primary router, a switch, or another satellite unit.
This link works behind the scenes to keep the hardware units together as a system. It also determines the ceiling bandwidth (and speed) of all devices connected to the particular satellite Wi-Fi broadcaster.
At the satellite/extender unit, the connection used for the backhaul—a Wi-Fi link or a network port—is often called the uplink. Generally, a Wi-Fi broadcaster might use one of its bands (2.4GHz, 5GHz, or 6GHz) or a network port for the uplink.
When a Wi-Fi band handles backhaul and fronthaul simultaneously, only half its bandwidth is available to either end. When a Wi-Fi band functions solely for backhauling, often available traditional Tri-band hardware, it’s called the dedicated backhaul.
Generally, for the best performance and reliability, network cables are recommended for backhauling—wired backhauling, which is an advantage of mesh Wi-Fi hardware with network ports. In this case, a satellite broadcaster can use its entire Wi-Fi bandwidth for front-hauling.
5.9GHz Wi-Fi 6: Practically useless in dual-band broadcasters
It’s worth noting that, due to the lack of support from the receiving end mentioned above, generally a UNII-4-enabled broadcaster has this portion turned off by default. The reason is that a band can only work on one channel at a time, and utilizing the 5.9GHz portion means the 5GHz band will not support non-UNII-4 clients, which is the case for all existing clients.
As a result, UNII-4 has only made sense in traditional tri-band broadcasters, where it’s safe to use this portion on the upper-channel band for the wireless backhaul link, leaving the lower-channel band for clients.
For the same reason, it’s essential to note that on broadcasters that have only one 5GHz band, such as a dual-band Wi-Fi 6 router like the Synology WRX560, there’s simply no reason to enable the UNII-4 portion, as it has no supported clients.
Wi-Fi 7 and UNII-4: The 5.9GHz band is simply non-applicable
If you’re wondering if Wi-Fi 7 hardware supports UNII-4, the answer is that there’s simply no use for this portion in the latest Wi-Fi hardware.
For one, the strength of Wi-Fi 7 is in the 6GHz band. The new Wi-Fi standard also features a new feature called Multi-Link Operation (MLO), which can combine multiple bands into a bonded link, making the use of the 5.9GHz portion as the backhaul largely insignificant. Finally, the lack of support on the client side—Wi-Fi 7 devices don’t support the 5.9GHz portion—means it’s pointless for the broadcasters to support it.
That said, Wi-Fi 7 broadcasters generally don’t support UNII-4. They simply have no reason to.
The takeaway
The availability of the 5.9GHz band for Wi-Fi use was a natural progression of the 5GHz frequency.
Unfortunately, the availability of this portion in early 2022 arrived too late compared to the availability of Wi-Fi 6 itself, which happened in early 2019. As a result, by the time it was released, the ship carrying the Wi-Fi chips intended for clients had sailed—so far, there has been no end-device supporting this band. As a result, the adoption of UNII-4 proved to be fragmented and was only meaningfully applicable to the backhauling of tri-band Wi-Fi 6 mesh systems.
Nowadays, with the availability of Wi-Fi 7, which offers more options to enhance Wi-Fi performance, such as MLO and AFC, the use of 5.9GHz Wi-Fi 6 has become increasingly less significant. However, if you already have a 5.9GHz-endable mesh system in a wireless setup, keep using it. It represents the best of Wi-Fi 6, which remains relevant today and for the foreseeable future.
I contacted Asus USA regarding the UNII-4 on GT-AXE16000, and i was disappointed because the tech told me UNII-4 was not supported in the United States due to regulation, so AXE16000 won’t get FW updated on this. and I do believe this tech provided wrong information to me. ( I had already told them my XT8, AX11000 pro have UNII-4 supported)
“Due to regional regulatory restrictions, regions that do not support UNII-4 may not support UNII-4 band.So maybe even if you buy a product that supports the UNII-4 band, you still can’t use the UNII-4 band. For example, in the United States, subsequent firmware updates to GT-AXE16000 will not support UNII-4 due to regulations that do not support UNII-4 channels.”
There’s a list of current UNII4-enabled hardware at the beginning of this post, Jun. There’s no Quad-band hardware with UNII4. It’s kind of pointless, similar to the case of Dual-band.
Hi Dong,
XT9 is now available. I understand using Uni 4 for back haul makes sense. Since there are no clients that accept the 5.9 Spectrum, does that mean setting the second 5G 160 mhz connecting devices will be competing with airplane radar? If so, should I just go for XT8?
That’s correct, Omran. For now, the UNII-4 portion is only meaningful in a wireless mesh setup. And on that front, the XT8 is the same. As for which to get, it’s your call. This post will help.
Thank you! I ended up going with XT12 (thanks for testing) due to getting a fantastic deal for Gig+ speeds from my cable service provider.Plus I live in a older home with thick concrete walls. You know how that goes.
Hi Dong…really enjoyed your insight on this. Wondered if you could elaborate a little on your comment below. Try as I might I couldn’t fully grasp what you were inferring because I thought introduction of the 160 mhz was supposed to have significant impact on performance too. Are you maybe just commenting in regards to it’s use on those specific channels ?! (I’m in Canada so maybe I’m just confused with context since we do NOT get access to 160 mhz and maybe USA already had use of it even within the earlier firmwares)…thanks
“…the dedicated backhaul has the option of a clean 160MHz channel. While the performance is the same, the reliability of that performance grade improves significantly.”
In the perfect world, all 160MHz channels have the same performance (bandwidth)—that’s like all 5-lane freeways have the same width and speed tolerance. However, the lower 160MHz channels are susceptible to DFS, while the new one afforded by UNII-4 is not. That’s like our 5-lane freeways in California are MUCH faster than those in Ontario in winter because we have no snow. Give the post a *good* read and you’ll understand. 🙂
Understood…thanks. I just mistook what you were saying earlier on 👍
If you were to speculate…do you think XT8 models here might get 160 mhz access or hardware version here likely prohibitive ? With USA approved, will we not follow suit ? hard to know whether to risk going to 6E for 160 mhz backhaul (at additional expense) or sit on the fence. (Interestingly…there are many retailers here selling the USA variations of XT8….if those higher band channels are not in use here anyway, it looms as pretty tempting victimless crime to consider as a viable indoor solution.)
I honestly can’t say, Mike. Canadians can be unpredictable lately but you already know that. 🙂
If you get the US version and use a US time zone, my guess is it might work as intended, but don’t quote me on that.
Currently have 2 Asus RT AC86U hardwired to each other. Now I know these are Wi-Fi 5 standards and want to jump into WI-FI 6. I know none of my devices are 6E compatible. iPhone 14 Pro Max but would like to get a little bump if possible. So I was thinking
GTAX11000 Pro and was also thing about adding
2 Rog Rapture GT6 to the mix. I know this is way overkill for my 1300 sq foot home but figured main router center of house and the other two on opposite ends in the back of the house for backyard range. Do you think this is the best combination of hardware. Like I said I know way overkill but would like to venture into Wi-Fi 6. One other thing is I’ve always been a fan of external antennas because I just feel they get better range than internal ones. So I’m a little concerned with Rog Raptures since they are all on the inside. But if all 3 are hardwired together this should be an issue then. Correct?
Thanks for any input or advice.
I think you only need the GT-AX11000 Pro alone, David—put it at the place where you place the 2nd AC86U. But sure, what you’re thinking will work, too.
Thanks for your advice Dong. Been reading a lot on your article about Dual Band and Tri-Band and best to keep everything the same if possible. The wiring the router and nodes together is simple enough but it does get confusing a little about the extra Band for 5GHZ and it won’t be available if hardwiring all together. I know I want 3 units of Wi-Fi 6 so could you recommend a main router and 2 nodes and I want to hardwire them all together so would you recommend using the two nodes in AP mode. I want the top performance between the three and I’ve never used my Asus in AP mode before always as AiMesh. Again your articles are very interesting and teaching but sometimes a little confusing but I do try to google everything I’m not 100% sure on. Thanks.
The 2nd 5GHz not being available thingy is only applicable to Netgear’s Orbi, David. You can scratch that if you use any other brand. That said, for your case, start with this AiMesh post and you’ll finger everything out. Note the related posts, too.
Solid article. I was wondering what do you think if it’s worth it to change primary nodes on an AI mesh for the unii4 wireless backhaul. Currently have a Asus GT-AX11000 as my primary router and 4 XT8 as nodes. Would it be make a huge improvement to get ride of the AX11000 and just use all XT8 for a unii4 wireless backhaul.
I definitely would make a difference, Ben, especially the 5GHz performance at the router’s unit. But don’t take “huge” too literally.
unii-4 question.
Background 1st. Asus xt12 configured with 3 SSIDs.
BW from cm to router over 370. Not using smart connect you can only select a BW as preferred backhaul not dedicated (5.2 BW). When I enabled UNNII-4 I noticed the connection between the router and access point went from Great to just OK and back again once UNII-4 was disabled..
Please rephrase your question with clear English, Marc. I don’t know what you meant by “BW”, “cm”, etc. And what’s 5.2? Please respect the comment rules!
bandwidth, cable modem.
And thanks for quick response.
5.2 second 5Ghz bandwidth I chose for preferred backhaul.
Marc, please spend more time and equip yourself with some basic terminologies — you might want to start with this post — AND common courtesy (which is NOT a subject covered by this website.)
I want to help, but we’re not speaking the same language right now. You need to know what you are talking about — and you might know a lot — AND how to convey it so that others can and want to talk to you. Focusing solely on what you want while being lazy about expressing what you mean will not get others engaged.
If you ever leave a comment here again, please make sure you first read and respect the rules. Don’t waste others’ time by throwing out your broken, half-baked thoughts, expecting others to finish them for you, and then providing answers to your questions!
Good luck and take care!
Very interesting article . I’m using the XT8 , but since im from Europe, we cant go higher than channel 140 , its a bit jealousy to seeing you guy in the US get the most out performance of the hardware 😀
Yeah, radio frequencies are regulated differently around the world. More in this post.
What’s your thoughts on community coming up with 5.9 Ghz support?
1. For Macbooks – Broadcom WiFi module drivers are already in Linux kernel. A Project similar to can be made to work with macOS
2. Intel AX drivers for linux and FreeBSD are already open source, and these are already ported for mac. I believe an open source driver for intel can be made for windows as well with support for 5.9 Ghz.
Unless ALL existing 5GHz clients support UNII-4, which’s never gonna happen, the support on the broadcaster end will be limited to the 2nd 5GHz band (when applicable) for compatibility reasons. On the client side, it’s a cool thing to have but not a huge impact.
Why can’t Wi-Fi 5 broadcasters use 5.9 Ghz, why it’s limited to Wi-Fi 6? This extra frequency is useful in high density urban apartments. Is there a technical limitation? Can we extend open source firmware with unii-4 support?
Excellent question and I don’t know the exact answer, Kevin. But my take is there’s no need. Wi-Fi 5 generally uses 80MHz at most (there is some 160MHz hardware but they are just for marketing, no real-world impact) and it mostly uses 40MHz channel width anyway. So, the need for UNII-4 is completely unnecessary.
There is definitely need for extra channels in a dense apartment complex, right? hence those users can benefit from UNII-4 frequency.
Only if UNII-4 is supported by all existing (legacy) clients which unlikely will ever happen as mentioned in the post.
Yeah Kevin …
You complain about the new 5.9 GHz band not being compatible with the WiFi 5 standard. Well for that matter 5.9 GHz doesn’t look to be compatible with most all WiFi 6 equipment anyhow.
For instance, the WiFi system and most all the many clients here are WiFi 6 capable. Yet only two Smartphones so far (Samsung S22 Ultras) can see the 5.9 GHz band.
Yes, That’s because Manufacturers don’t want to work on releasing updates to existing Wi-Fi adapters/clients. There is no technical limitation that’s stopping existing Wi-Fi 5 clients to work at 5.9 Ghz.
Of course they could also argue one of the main selling points of the new 6 GHz band for the 5 .9 GHz band as well. …
That is by not allowing mixed clients from older and slower legacy devices on the 5.9 GHz band. It helps control traffic congestion that plague the lower UNII-2 and -3 band channels on 5 GHz. …
Haven’t specifically heard this as a reason from any mfr. or official government source, but just saying it could be offered as a legitimate excuse.
That is, if one considers restricting the 6 GHz to WiFi 6 clients to be a valid excuse for that reason to begin with of course.
Hey great article….
Just to note though,… I recently noticed the new option in the web interface to activate the UNII-4 band on my Asus XT8 mesh system.
However, it added only three new 20 MHz channels, not four as stated in the article. Channels 169, 173, and 177 spanning 5.835 to 5.895 GHz. No channel 181 listed.
Now currently have my 5GHz-2 band channel set for 160 MHz spanning channels 149 to 177 without including any DFS restricted ones, … great!
Though I did have to manually set the primary channel to something below 169 since most of the older clients here could not see the WiFi beacon if it were on one of the new 5.9 GHz channels.
In most cases, you will see that. UNII4 includes four channels (loosely) but that doesn’t mean all will be available for Wi-Fi.
Ok thanks ….
Do you happen to know the frequencies for channel 181? As I can’t find mention of it anywhere. The UNII-4 band ends after channel 177 at 5.895 GHz from everything I can find online.
Same thing with all the FCC documentation I can pull up on the subject. Only the lower 45 MHz of the 75 MHz wide 5.9 GHz band has supposedly been reassigned for WiFi use. The remaining 30 MHz upper portion is still reserved for various ITS services.
So that’s a 45 MHz segment beginning at 5.850 GHz + an existing 15 MHz separation from the end of channel 165 at 5.835 GHz, for a total bandwidth of 60 MHz between 5.835 to 5.895 GHz.
This then leaves room for only three new 20 MHz wide WiFi channels for UNII-4, 169, 173, and 177. ….
I don’t think 181 is available to Wi-Fi. Depending on who you talk to, it might be part of UNII4 or not. We only need the first three channels to make a third 160MHz band as mentioned in the post.
Hi,
Very interesting feed-back H.T. II.
Do you mean that setting the primary control channel to something below 169 enables older clients to see and connect to the wifi network ? Is so, are they able to use the whole 160MHz channel ? At which speed to they connect ?
If any part of the UNII-4 portion is used, unsupported clients won’t be able to connect, even when they can see the SSID.
Actually what happens is if I select channel 165 as the control channel. The WiFi clients that cannot see the UNII-4 band will only use 20 MHz of bandwidth even if I have 160 MHz selected in the settings.
And if I select any one of the channels between 149 to 161 the maximum bandwidth for any connected client is the 80 MHz total between those channels. Again, even with 160 MHz selected in the settings.
The only way to get the full 160 MHz bandwidth on the 5 GHz-2 band is to select one of the three UNII-4 band channels as the control one with 160 MHz selected in the settings of course.
Which would mean none of my clients here would then be able to see the 5 GHz-2 band at all except for two Samsung S22 Ultra Smartphones we have.
Seems like with these limitations the UNII-4 band is really only usable as part of a 160 MHz bandwidth (between
chs. 149 to 177) dedicated wireless backhaul. With all clients using the 5 GHz-1 band for fronthaul traffic.
5.9 GHz is only 100 MHz away from 6 GHz band, and you say the range of 6 GHz is short based on your real world tests. By that logic, wouldn’t 5.9 GHz have a pretty short range as well? I don’t see the excitement here in that case, unless there is DFS in the early portions of the 6 GHz band that further limits its utility, whereas UNII-4 does not have DFS as you have stated.
6GHz includes the space between 6GHz and 7GHz, Ian. Be consistent! And there’s a cut-off between 5.x and 6 in terms of support on the receiving end. i.e. a client supporting 5.9xGHz won’t work with a 6GHz broadcaster, though there are just a few MHz in the gap. The point is it’s more than just putting those MHz together.
I did test the 5.9GHz for range, and it was negligently different from the lower portions. So yes, there’s quite a bit of excitement. It’s the nuance.
Just upgraded to Google Fiber 2Gb and I have to say, Google’s own hardware does quite well. I maxed out Wifi with my own router (Asus rt-ax86) on the 1Gb plan at 450 down and 460 up. With Google’s hardware, same spot and same device, I am getting 860 down and 560 up. Test on fast.com in both cases around the same time. Any suggestions on a great 2.5G multigig card for for my desktop?
I’d go with the GT-AX6000 or the RT-AX89X. I’m getting 10Gbs Fibe in a few days and will try the latter with it.