Wireless networking - any experts out there ?

In article , Adrian Brentnall scribeth thus

Try

formatting link

next time there're usually very helpful:)..

Reply to
tony sayer
Loading thread data ...

Thanks - cost for a card about 2x what CPC wanted - but then, I guess their card might work !

Thanks Adrian

Reply to
Adrian Brentnall

Fairly sure WiFi is simplex, only one transmitter can transmit at a time or stuff gets corrupted and has to be resent.

That backs up the simplex theory.

Reply to
Dave Liquorice

Yes, but the spectrum used by say channel 3 overlaps those used by channels 1, 2, 6 & 7. Channels 1, 6 & 11 do not overlap each other. So work well as three mutaully interference free channels.

You could use 2,7,12 or 3,8,13 (Europe) or 4,9,14 or 5,10,14 (Japan) but most kit comes defaulted to 1, 6 or 11 so it makes sense in crowded areas to only use 1,6 or 11. When ever I've done a check for visible WiFi devices I've only ever seen stuff on channels 1,6 or 11.

Too many variables. If the there are two bases on say Ch1 and Ch2 but the device trying to talk to the base on ch1 is a long way away or can't be heard by the base on Ch2 then and there is a decent bit of traffic trying to flow on both connections it won't work anything like as well as using say 1 and 6.

Reply to
Dave Liquorice

Personally, I'd say if you have the choice of a cable, use it. In most circumstances it will be faster and more reliable.

If you want to use the wireless, try vahnging the channel on the router and see if that helps.

Reply to
Chris Bartram

Agreed. I wish ISPs would not supply wireless routers too. A lot of people think they have to use wireless!

Reply to
Mark

No, supplying wireless routers is definitely something ISPs should be doing. Laptops are becoming much more popular, and wireless is ideal for those, and if one buys a suitable card rather than the OP's shit, it gives you an easier desktop install too if you can't be bothered laying cat5 about the place. Also, wireless generally works rather better than the doomsayers here are saying - most of the houses I visit have it and it works. Given most people's traffic is likely to be internet-bound rather than within the house, speed is much less of an issue too.

(all that said, I'll use wired where appropriate - fixed kit, where I've got the wire in place).

Reply to
Clive George

I am having similar problems with my PC. My internet radio keeps dropping out. It has only really started happening since I increased the length of the cable from the router to the phone socket but I can't see why that should be the case. I am more inclined to blame the cheapo wireless adapter that I bought from Saverstore and which bears the words 'Made in China'. Maris

Reply to
Maris

With Zen I specifically asked for a wired version.

MM

Reply to
MM

I just don't want all the hassle of security in case some scrote tries to steal my wireless signal. With wired there's no problem. Plus, wired is way faster.

MM

Reply to
MM

That's a different question. You ought to be able to turn the wireless off if you don't want it - I certainly can on mine. But since it works well enough for the majority of people, and offers distinct advantages too, it makes sense for ISPs to offer it by default.

For most people's use, it won't be. The limiting factor will be the connection to the internet. As I said above...

Reply to
Clive George

Longer cable has screwed up your sync rate and/or the messing about has pushed down your BRAS rate. What does your router say it's connection speed is?

Reply to
Dave Liquorice

Why should I have to bother about that? I don't have to with my wired network.

What advantages for me? I have two computers in the same room. Okay, I have a third computer on my digital piano and on those rare occasions that I need to access the network from there I trail a cable across the carpet for 5 minutes, then remove it again. It's absolutely no hassle at all. If I had a wireless network I'd save myself 5 minutes of inconvenience maybe five times a year, but would have all those security considerations to implement instead.

No, it doesn't. They should simply ask what the punter wants, not just assume.

It's ALWAYS faster. Whether wireless users know or not that they aren't getting the full capability, that's their problem.

Our tiny exchange was totally refurbished in 2006, giving us high-speed broadband. Previously, we were one of the rural NOT spots with only dial-up, and then, for some unexplained reason (maybe a bigwig moved into the area), BT blitzed the local roads with their vans, laid cable like nobody's business and we now have said BB that runs very fast. So it would be madness to introduce a slow-down with wireless.

MM

Reply to
MM

It's probable that the extra cable installed is picking up interference from a Medium Wave transmitter.

I'm 8 miles away from one on 909 kHz, and there's no reception of the ADSL signal above bin 200 (862.5 kHz). This of course limits download speed, as bins 201 - 255 are wiped out as far as data carrying is concerned.

More than you ever wanted to know here:

formatting link

Reply to
Terry Fields

A properly configured wireless network will *not* slow down an internet connection that is at best about 20M. I can max out my 20M broadband with ease over wireless while also doing a backup also over wireless to a buffalo linkstation.

The days of 1M wireless have been gone for a decade now.

Reply to
dennis

the problem with wireless is it cant match a duplex 100Mbps cat 5 connection between machines.

Not all networking is WAN.

the days of 20M wireless are numbered. TRe spectrum is SO crowded in urban locations its barely worth using.

In a modern house with foiled up walls, its equally crap.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

The Natural Philosopher wibbled on Wednesday 06 January 2010 10:50

Not gone gig then? ;->

Reply to
Tim W

5.8 Ghz is now available, problem is a lot of things like laptops aren't equipped but it is designed better for A Indoor nomadic (Ofcom's words), B outdoor nomadic, and C point to point where if it has a clear path can works very well :)..
Reply to
tony sayer

Not yet, no.

100 Mbps is fast enough, mostly.
Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

The Natural Philosopher wibbled on Wednesday 06 January 2010 12:02

It is true that whilst I have gig, most of my boxes can't shovel faster than

300-400Mbit/sec[1] and if it's not in cache in the server, then it's down rather more. [1] I had a server at work that I managed to get around 2.5Gbit/second useful NFS transmission speed (including all protocol overheads) serving from a very fast RAID and a stupid amount of cache. Cost a bit though...
Reply to
Tim W

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.