ADSL wireless

Hello,
My mother just bought Tuscali Broadband (in UK, cheapest option). She
wants the advantage of a wireless connection though, so she'll need a
ADSL-wireless router. Can anyone suggest a cheap cost-effective one?

Thanks.

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 20:28:40 +0000, Makhno <root@127.0.0.1> wrote in
<wqidnQYXSdv4X0nYnZ2dnUVZ8sfinZ2d@bt.com>:

>My mother just bought Tuscali Broadband (in UK, cheapest option). She
>wants the advantage of a wireless connection though, so she'll need a
>ADSL-wireless router. Can anyone suggest a cheap cost-effective one?

"Cheap cost-effective" is an oxymoron.

Stick with the standard ADSL modem, and add a good (not cheap) standard
wireless router (e.g., Buffalo Technology).

--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

> "Cheap cost-effective" is an oxymoron.

Not at all. It can be 'Expensive cost-effective'. Cost-effectiveness is
just a ratio.
Ferraris might be be cost-effective, but I can't afford one.

> Stick with the standard ADSL modem, and add a good (not cheap) standard
> wireless router (e.g., Buffalo Technology).

Thanks, I'll have a look at Buffalo.

On Feb 15, 11:17 pm, Makhno <r...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> > "Cheap cost-effective" is an oxymoron.
>
> Not at all. It can be 'Expensive cost-effective'. Cost-effectiveness is
> just a ratio.
> Ferraris might be be cost-effective, but I can't afford one.
>
> > Stick with the standard ADSL modem, and add a good (not cheap) standard
> > wireless router (e.g., Buffalo Technology).
>
> Thanks, I'll have a look at Buffalo.

Also consider ZyXEL ADSL wireless Routers, they are great and very
stable ones.

www.networkingland.com/wifi_vendors.htm

Panda,

www.networkingland.com

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 21:17:47 +0000, Makhno <root@127.0.0.1> wrote in
<qb2dnb89V8h1UEnYnZ2dnUVZ8t3inZ2d@bt.com>:

>> "Cheap cost-effective" is an oxymoron.
>
>Not at all. It can be 'Expensive cost-effective'. Cost-effectiveness is
>just a ratio.
>Ferraris might be be cost-effective, but I can't afford one.

Do you put no value on your time, quality of operation, or frustration?
If so, then "cheap" is fine; if not, "cheap" has a negative connotation
("of low value") that's fundamentally inconsistent with
"cost-effective". Perhaps you meant something more like "low cost" or
"bargain"? "Cheap" is rarely "cost-effective" or a real "bargain".

The distinction is important because my recommendation would be
different for "cheap" versus "cost-effective".

--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>