Suggest a Feature

[manc]

Bumping this!

Switching to a none DFS channel impedes my performance hugely. 😞

[lester358]

There are 9 non-DFS channels. In densely populated area chances are good that you can be kicked out of DFS channel, to non-DFS, but Roku switches to 2.4 band and stays on it and that is much worse. Now, in apartment building only meaningful interference on 5GHz band can come from apartments above, below, left and right, still 5 non-DFS channels left for trouble-free service. Check availability with free Wi-Fi analyzer.   

[dmarcoux]

---

@lester358 wrote:

There are 9 non-DFS channels

Hi Lester,

To get best use of 802.11ac bandwidth, 80MHz channels (configured on the AP) are needed and there are just 2 non-DFS channels at 80MHz.  DFS is pretty easy to implement on the client side and it would me (and others on the thread) to configure our APs to use 4 additional 80MHz channels (the DFS ones) which are unlikely to have as much overlap or conflict.

[Splurge]

+1. DFS support in dense cities is vital. My 5 GHz network is unusable on non-DFS channels. This discovery is going to push me to buy a different streaming device. 😞

[BigDog71-2]

The wait time, known as the Channel Availability Check, is 1 minute not 10 minutes, except for channels 120, 124 & 128 but only in some countries, eg Europe. I agree that having to wait 1 minute before the remote works or the Roku can connect to the network could be annoying, but I think that having the _option_ to enable the DFS channels with an appropriate warning about the delay would be helpful. 

When I revamped my home network with APs that supported DFS channels, I moved my Rokus to wired connections as a workaround. 

[BigDog71-2]

---

@dmarcoux wrote:

---

Hi Lester,

To get best use of 802.11ac bandwidth, 80MHz channels (configured on the AP) are needed and there are just 2 non-DFS channels at 80MHz.  DFS is pretty easy to implement on the client side and it would me (and others on the thread) to configure our APs to use 4 additional 80MHz channels (the DFS ones) which are unlikely to have as much overlap or conflict.

---

There are not a lot use cases for 80MHz channels. Yeah they have bigger numbers, but 40MHz channels have plenty of throughput and are less likely to experience interference. 20MHz channels will do in a pinch, especially if you live someplace where all you neighbors think they're Wi-Fi experts, blasting 80MHz channels at full power. Lastly, to my knowledge the Rokus don't, or at least didn't support 80MHz channels. 

[JustAnotherDave]

While we're at it, why not support the latest protocols (Wi-Fi 6 and 6e)?  I suspect the answer would be "cost-benefit ratio" and I can understand where you might be coming from -- the added cost of using a chipset that supports 6e isn't worth the benefits most users would see from it.  That's OK--that's exactly what a flagship "ultra" model is for -- it's a device with all the bells and whistles that the buyer chooses because they want the best for one reason or another.  And, really, how much extra WOULD it cost per device?  I don't know the answer to that, but I'm guessing it would be under $10 (am I way off?).  There are many users who would pay that because they fall into one of the following:

1. They actually would benefit from upgrade
2. They think they would benefit from the upgrade (whether or not they actually do doesn't matter here--if they think they would and are willing to pay extra for it, that's all that matters)
3. They don't know what it means, but want the best everything

Roku already has a bunch of model options in its line up so leaving the budget models as-is and just adding the upgrade to high-end models shouldn't cause any new issues.

[OwnerofDevices]

I don't think that Roku will ever support DFS. Roku is content with giving the bare minimum in link speed to let you  stream. If you don't believe me, login to your router and see for yourself and take a look. I have 3 Roku TVs that connect to my Verizon g3100 router at 152mbps. I recently  bought a Verizon Stream TV that actually is an android TV that is also is wireless AC and the box is a little far from my router, but the link speed on that device is 830mbps. I have also thought about getting an access point for my nonDFS devices and then reenabling DFS on my router for my DFS client.    

[kiler129]

It's not about the link speed - it's about using the SSID which works with every single device EXCEPT Roku.

For me it's the end. Good bye Roku, it was good 12 years with multiple of your products. After over a decade I'm done with a device unable to connect to a wifi supporting basic standards and staying silent. Sure, AppleTV may be $80 used but at least it does work...

[OwnerofDevices]

I own 5 Roku devices all connected using wireless. DFS is not a basic standard in the US. The only ISP that sells DFS gear is Verizon to my knowledge. The largest ISP in the US is Xfinity and Xfinity offers zero DFS gear. I used to be a Verizon customer and a Verizon router set me back $300 bucks to purchase from Verizon. I have an Intel AX200 in a HP laptop that supports DFS channels. Please, list the networking manufactures for me that are making DFS equipment. You will struggle to come up with any companies besides Verizon and Intel. I just bought a Samsung s21 two weeks ago and no DFS support. I also have another HP laptop with a Realtek wireless AX 6 that does not support DFS channels. Apple TV steaming devices does not support DFS channels. Apple TV 4K - Technical Specifications - Apple