"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:nvall2tiqs8prpn3kh4f6195ldf3o1fg6f@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 00:21:08 -0500, "David" <this@is.invalid> wrote in
> <NoqdnXzfWfgHPsfYnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d@comcast.com>:

>>- Max length, strong SSID, went ahead and disabled broadcasts since it
>> was easy
>
> Bad idea. Turn SSID back on. Just make it unique. Length is
> irrelevant. There's no (zip, zilch, nada) "strength" in the SSID.

>>- Went ahead and enabled MAC filtering
>
> Bad idea. Won't do any real good, likely to cause problems.

I've tried to read up on these and AFAICT both present low hurdles.
I'm not relying on them, and the way I see it a hurdle is a hurdle and
I'll take it even if it is low. The Intel software remembers the SSID
for me and I only have one MAC address to whitelist so I'm not seeing
an issue WRT inconvenience. Taking this into consideration, why do
you say they are a bad idea?

>>Speed tests via wireless are coming in around 7Mbps
>>no matter where I am. Which is about half of what I get through the router
>>via hardwired LAN. The wireless performance sounds low to me but I
>>need to do some more research into that.
>
> That is low. With good signal you should be getting about 22 Mbps
> wireless to wired, or about 11 Mbps wireless to wireless.

Well after netstumbling for any problems and updating software and
tweaking everything I could find I still get substantially lower test results
over wireless vs hardwire on the Speak Easy Speed Tests. As a sanity
check I used iperf to check desktop<->notebook bandwidth and it
reports a little over 25Mbps. Maybe after some sleep I'll finish getting
to the bottom of this <yawn>.