extending range: torn between "expensive but supposedly safe" and "risky, but cheap and geekishly rewarding"
Page 2 - extending range: torn between "expensive but supposedly safe" and "risky, but cheap and geekishly rewarding". Discuss extending range: torn between "expensive but supposedly safe" and "risky, but cheap and geekishly rewarding", on Wireless Forums.
Re: extending range: torn between "expensive but supposedly safe" and "risky, but cheap and geekishly rewarding"
"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:6ihml2hoquqp164t0a9805eblgm79ive0m@4ax.com...
>
> Instead of a simple repeater you can use a wireless Ethernet bridge
> (that can support enough clients) cabled to a wireless access point on a
> different non-overlapping channel; i.e.,
this would imply buying a bridge and an ap... I'm trying to keep this as
cheap as possible. I ain't looking for the most professional or elegant
solution, I just would like to have my house fully covered with the least
expense...
Re: extending range: torn between "expensive but supposedly safe" and "risky, but cheap and geekishly rewarding"
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 16:50:53 +0100, "Swann" <swann@tempsperdu.fr> wrote
in <eji1d0$ip8$1@registered.motzarella.org>:
>"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
>news:2cgml2pcabd9vk56603ito5csf348q2jjs@4ax.com.. .
>> (f) Upgrade the antenna on the single access point if that's enough to
>> ensure sufficient signal wherever you need it. How well that will work
>> depends on the amount of improvement needed and on layout of your house.
>
>how do I upgrade an antenna? the only ones I saw at my shop were for a
>specific model/brand ap. I have this zyxel router set up as an ap, do you
>think it's possible to do the job on it? I'm not at home now, so I can't
>tell you the model...
Some wireless antennas are on connectors, and are thus easily replaced.
Others are not. See if you can disconnect the antenna(s). Check the
documentation for the type of connector. And/or give us the make &
model and we may be able to help.
Even if you can't disconnect antenna(s), reflector(s) may be another
option with a lot of gain. Picture:
<http://img63.imageshack.us/img63/369/finishedwindsurferuf0.jpg>
Unfortunately, the best DIY website <http://www.freeantennas.com/> is
down, but is still available in the Internet Archive:
<http://web.archive.org/web/20060428021820/http://www.freeantennas.com/>
--
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>
Re: extending range: torn between "expensive but supposedly safe" and "risky, but cheap and geekishly rewarding"
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 00:02:19 +0100, hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel
> Hammerschmidt) wrote in <1hovbla.4zuktk10nztvkN%hlexa@hotmail.com>:
>
> >John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 22:38:23 +0100, hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel
> >> Hammerschmidt) wrote in <1hov6zm.e6hqn5odi4owN%hlexa@hotmail.com>:
>
> >> >So two stations, one connected directly to the router and the other
> >> >using the repeater, each achieve 13.5 Mbps.
<snip>
> Depends what you meant by "connected directly to the router", which
> I took to be a _wired_ connection. With a single repeater:
>
> * Wireless G to wired network speed is a maximum of 27 Mbps.
>
> * Wireless G to wireless G network speed is a maximum of 13.5 Mbps.
"two stations"
<snip>
> >Why not use 802.11 no men cla ture?
>
> What nomenclature?
Re: extending range: torn between "expensive but supposedly safe" and "risky, but cheap and geekishly rewarding"
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:30:07 +0100, hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel
Hammerschmidt) wrote in <1howoea.1gqe1l41egfvhwN%hlexa@hotmail.com>:
>John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 00:02:19 +0100, hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel
>> Hammerschmidt) wrote in <1hovbla.4zuktk10nztvkN%hlexa@hotmail.com>:
>>
>> >John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 22:38:23 +0100, hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel
>> >> Hammerschmidt) wrote in <1hov6zm.e6hqn5odi4owN%hlexa@hotmail.com>:
>>
>> >> >So two stations, one connected directly to the router and the other
>> >> >using the repeater, each achieve 13.5 Mbps.
>
><snip>
>
>> Depends what you meant by "connected directly to the router", which
>> I took to be a _wired_ connection. With a single repeater:
>>
>> * Wireless G to wired network speed is a maximum of 27 Mbps.
>>
>> * Wireless G to wireless G network speed is a maximum of 13.5 Mbps.
>
>"two stations"
>
><snip>
>
>> >Why not use 802.11 no men cla ture?
>>
>> What nomenclature?
>
>QED
Ahhh... hairsplitting. Sorry, I thought you had a meaningful comment.
My mistake.
--
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>
Re: extending range: torn between "expensive but supposedly safe" and "risky, but cheap and geekishly rewarding"
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 16:52:42 +0100, "Swann" <swann@tempsperdu.fr> wrote
in <eji1gd$it1$1@registered.motzarella.org>:
>"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
>news:6ihml2hoquqp164t0a9805eblgm79ive0m@4ax.com.. .
>>
>> Instead of a simple repeater you can use a wireless Ethernet bridge
>> (that can support enough clients) cabled to a wireless access point on a
>> different non-overlapping channel; i.e.,
>
>this would imply buying a bridge and an ap... I'm trying to keep this as
>cheap as possible. I ain't looking for the most professional or elegant
>solution, I just would like to have my house fully covered with the least
>expense...
Fast, cheap, reliable. Pick at most two.
--
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>
Re: extending range: torn between "expensive but supposedly safe" and "risky, but cheap and geekishly rewarding"
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:iluol2htr32qh0nt6u8hhcmg96r11jsg3b@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 12:47:39 +0100, "Swann" <swann@tempsperdu.fr>
> wrote in <ejhj4u$4gk$1@registered.motzarella.org>:
>
>>"DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> ha scritto nel
>>messaggio news:Xns987C80B7192ACthisnthatadelphianet@216.196. 97.142...
>>>
>>> So it's a combo DSL modem/IP Phone/Wireless Router/IP TV box ?
>>>
>>> That's just stupid. Just another instance in which you can see you
>>> are better off with individual components, if this indeed as I
>>> describe it.
>>
>>it's hard to explain if you don't know the peculiar situation where I
>>live. besides, the tv part will just be temporary, it's a limited free
>>offer for some months but we'll recede when it expires. and, trust me,
>>the choice of the ISP was long considered and we're sure it was the
>>best we could have. anyway, my only question was, which of the three
>>possible solutions I listed do you guys think is the best? I mean,
>>imagine you didn't have any other choice besides those three. really,
>>if somebody put a gun to your head and said "go ahead, a, b or c", and
>>he promised to spare your life only if the connectivity issue was
>>solved through your decision, what would you choose?
>
> I think he meant it's stupid for the ISP to do that. I personally
> think that's a bit harsh -- while there can be merit in individual
> boxes, there's undeniably benefits from a combo design (e.g., less
> power, complexity, space, and clutter).
>
I DID mean the ISP was stupid for doing this. It may seem a bit harsh,
but now the guys got a device in his living room where only 1 of the
functions of it is supposed to be, the BB TV. So they are then making
everyone that orders this service package to put this device in there
main TV viewing area ? There should be an option.
Re: extending range: torn between "expensive but supposedly safe" and "risky, but cheap and geekishly rewarding"
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 11:04:16 -0600, DanS
<t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> wrote in
<Xns987D7AFBE40F8thisnthatadelphianet@216.196.97.1 42>:
>John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>news:iluol2htr32qh0nt6u8hhcmg96r11jsg3b@4ax.com :
>> I think he meant it's stupid for the ISP to do that. I personally
>> think that's a bit harsh -- while there can be merit in individual
>> boxes, there's undeniably benefits from a combo design (e.g., less
>> power, complexity, space, and clutter).
>
>I DID mean the ISP was stupid for doing this. It may seem a bit harsh,
>but now the guys got a device in his living room where only 1 of the
>functions of it is supposed to be, the BB TV. So they are then making
>everyone that orders this service package to put this device in there
>main TV viewing area ? There should be an option.
I agree.
--
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>
Re: extending range: torn between "expensive but supposedly safe" and "risky, but cheap and geekishly rewarding"
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:30:07 +0100, hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel
> Hammerschmidt) wrote in <1howoea.1gqe1l41egfvhwN%hlexa@hotmail.com>:
>
> > John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 00:02:19 +0100, hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel
> >> Hammerschmidt) wrote in <1hovbla.4zuktk10nztvkN%hlexa@hotmail.com>:
> >>
> >> > John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 22:38:23 +0100, hlexa@hotmail.com (Axel
> >> >> Hammerschmidt) wrote in <1hov6zm.e6hqn5odi4owN%hlexa@hotmail.com>:
> >>
> >> >> > So two stations, one connected directly to the router and the other
> >> >> > using the repeater, each achieve 13.5 Mbps.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> Depends what you meant by "connected directly to the router", which
> >> I took to be a _wired_ connection. With a single repeater:
> >>
> >> * Wireless G to wired network speed is a maximum of 27 Mbps.
> >>
> >> * Wireless G to wireless G network speed is a maximum of 13.5 Mbps.
> >
> > "two stations"
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> > Why not use 802.11 no men cla ture?
> >>
> >> What nomenclature?
> >
> > QED
>
> Ahhh... hairsplitting. Sorry, I thought you had a meaningful comment.
> My mistake.
For a moment there, Eye thought you knew and was were having me on. My
mistake.
Re: extending range: torn between "expensive but supposedly safe" and "risky, but cheap and geekishly rewarding" 
Linear Mode
