TP-Link 2.4GHz N300 Long Range Outdoor CPE for PtP and PtMP Transmission | Point to Point Wireless Bridge | 9dBi, 5km+ | Passive PoE Powered w/ Free PoE Injector | Pharos Control (CPE210)

This CPE is great. I've used this in a setup for a family member to get internet out to their gazebo that is about 150ft from their house. Streaming video for watching NFL games, MLB games, movies etc works great without issue. It's an awesome setup!With that, I decided to get one myself to have internet in my detached shop. It's only about 50 feet from my house. I have this device configured as a client to my home wireless network and then running to a small WIFI router in my shop that is in AP mode. Standing in the same room about 20 feet from my home WIFI router it was getting about 75mbps download (2.4ghz band) and with my setup to my shop I get about 60mbps in my shop. So it's a solid connection.Here's the thing that some people MAY be overlooking if they are running a similar setup. I have a 1gbps internet connection. That's NOT the speed I can expect over wireless. If I were to use the 5ghz band I can get decent throughput but I'd have to be pretty close to the home router. Anyway, this CPE says 300mbps throughput in the 2.4 ghz band. IF you were to get that throughput that is ONLY to the CPE, NOT to anything that is using it to access the internet. The catch (for me) was the ethernet port. It's a 10/100mbps so that's where the bottleneck is in my scenario. The fastest I could hope to get is 100mbps. For me, there's nothing wrong with that and it will work great. I'm sure for a lot of people's needs this will work great. I just wanted to put it out there in case people had certain expectations. If ou really need the greater speeds, get the TP-Link CPE710 as it has the 10/100/1000mbps ethernet connection and the ethernet interface won't be the bottleneck any longer.Bottom line: Good, reliable, quality product. 100% recommend!

I needed to get wifi from main house to guest house - a distance of about 175 feet (according to Google Earth). I ordered 2 N300's. One that I received was clearly a returned item - packaging was torn, printed user manual had someone else's handwritten notes in it, including their username and password. Kind of annoying, but for $42, I decided to see if it worked before sending it back (it did).The hardest part about installation was running the cable. I mounted the main house access point above the router closet, next to a parapet and used an existing conduit to run cable. It was harder than I expected, but after an hour of screwing around, I successfully pulled the cable. Set up was simple except that your router must have an ip address of 192.168.0.1. Mine was set as 192.168.1.1, so I had to reset it in order to communicate with the access point. I was afraid I would lose connectivity with existing devices after changing the router ip address and then back again, but that problem did not occur. After setting up the access point, I was able to change the gateway's ip address back to 192.168.1.1 and assign a new ip address to the access point (not in that order). installing the guest house access point was similar. I added a wireless access point in the guest house to distribute wifi there. Note that you cannot directly use the N300 for internet access, you need some kind of access point or switch. Download speed via wifi in the guest house is around 60mbs, while at the router in the main house I get 500mbs+. Advertised speed from Xfinity is 600mbs. So a significant loss in speed in the guest house, but should be sufficient to run a couple of cameras and stream one tv.One weird thing: as soon as the setup was working, an existing Nest Cam would not connect to it's long-time existing wireless access point. Eventually, I reduced the "transmit power" (on the wireless tab) for both of the N300's from 27 to 15 and that seemed to fix the problem. TP-Link tech support was responsive, but doubted that their devices could have interfered and did not believe that reducing the transmit power solved the problem. However, if I turn the transmit power back up the camera again works only intermittently. It's only circumstantial evidence, but to me it's pretty compelling.Bottom line: the N300's worked largely as advertised, with reasonably simple installation and setup requirements. They do what I needed.

I'm a certified network engineer with over 20 years experience, so keep that in mind. I work on network devices like this every day.So far I like the TP Link wifi bridge. We are connecting a guest house to the main house internet connection. The guest house is 400-500 feet away from the main house. The main house (transmitter, or Access Point) is mounted outside. The guest house receiver (client) is actually indoors, facing the main house, with direct line of site, resting against the exterior wall of the guest house.This is the 3rd network bridge I've setup for this situation. The prior two solutions were from engenius. However, I like the TP Link solution better for the following reasons:1. the web interface to manage the devices has a few more options and is easier to use, in my opinion.2. The devices utilize 10/100 Mbps wired ethernet ports. Although this is counter-intuitive (how can you get 300Mbps wifi when the Access Point is only 100Mbps?). However, in my experience, these wifi bridges are MORE RELIABLE when the uplink is only 100Mbps.If you are ONLY downloading from the internet, the gigabit ethernet devices work well. However, if you are trying to work remotely from the remote location, you need reliable uploads as well. In this situation, 10/100 ethernet seems to be more reliable.The TPLink bridge solution uses a priority connection protocol (not an industry standard) when using two TP Link access points. This seems to work well, as advertised. With a simple button option you can change the priority from Throughput (for streaming downloaded video, for instance) to Latency (for using video calling, Voice over IP (VOIP) calling, etc). This option does seem to work well, and it only has to be enabled on the receiving end (the "client"), and not on the transmitting end (the "Access Point"). Also, switching the setting doesn't require a reboot of the client device so you can make that change on-the-fly.There is an important setup tip which applies to any wifi bridge solution that you end up choosing: You need a computer with a physical ethernet port to connect to the devices for the first time. I have a few MacBook laptops, and none of them have a physical port. I ended changing my home wifi ip address to match the devices (192.168.0.x), and plugged the devices into our existing wifi router. Then I could connect to them to program them, change their default IP address, etc.I downloaded the user manual from the internet before they arrived and read through it a few times, so by the time they arrived I knew exactly how to program them for our situation.Another reason I went with TP Link is, our home wifi router is TP Link and I've been happy with that device as well. Most of the wifi bridges that you see on Amazon are from mysterious companies that I never heard of. When I finally found the TP Link, I was much more confident ordering it.I hope this helps your decision.