Go Back   Wireless and Wifi Forums > News > Newsgroups > alt.internet.wireless
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)  
Old 07-29-2006, 05:31 PM
phil-news-nospam@ipal.net
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: What are 2 antennas being used for?

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 09:22:17 -0700 Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:

| There's a bit more going on with diversity than is obvious. The
| manufacturers would have eliminated the 2nd antenna long ago if they
| thought they could save a few pennies. Diversity significantly
| improves the reflection immunity of an indoor system, but such
| improvements are not what sells commodity routers. Price is what
| sells commodity routers.
|
| One manufacturer did try to remove the 2nd antenna. The Dlink DI-614+
| and DI-624 went from two antennas to one antenna in later mutations. I
| was told that retail sales immediately dropped. It wasn't a
| performance issue. Customers perceived that two antennas are somehow
| better than one and considered a single antenna router to be inferior.
| DLink still sells some older products with one antenna, but all the
| new DLink routers have two (or three).

Would the cunsumers know if the 2nd antenna isn't connected to anything?
I wonder what they really think happens with 2 antennas. I'll ask around
of some non-techie friends and see what kinds of responses I get. I had
some Netgear one antenna routers here (now returned to store for credit)
and will be getting Linksys WRT54GL that have two antennas. People will
ask why I changed and I'll ask them to see if they can tell the difference.

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2006-07-29-1124@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|

Reply With Quote
  #32 (permalink)  
Old 07-29-2006, 05:33 PM
phil-news-nospam@ipal.net
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: What are 2 antennas being used for?

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:40:08 -0700 Wolfgang S. Rupprecht <wolfgang+gnus20060727T122701@dailyplanet.dontspam .wsrcc.com> wrote:
|
| Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> writes:
|> Customers perceived that two antennas are somehow better than one
|> and considered a single antenna router to be inferior.
|
| "Look at the tail fins on that baby. It must be fast or else why
| would they put tail fins on it???"
|
| I've always suspected that the whole two antenna hack started by
| someone wanting to differentiate their offerings from the crowd.

If I had designed a 2 band (A/G) radio, I might have been inclined to
make separate antennas for each band. Depends on if the duckie antennas
can be made dual band.

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2006-07-29-1131@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|

Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old 07-29-2006, 05:55 PM
phil-news-nospam@ipal.net
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: What are 2 antennas being used for?

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 17:29:22 -0700 Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:

| Chuckle. Return rate is a problem but not for the obvious reason that
| it affects the bottom line. The return rate on commodity wireless is
| sufficiently small that at least one manufacturer just throws them
| away and only retests them if a major distributor returns them en
| masse. They also unload them with large rebates, which requires
| destroying the packaging to collect, which therefore reduces the
| return rate. Return rate is a killer only because it trashes brand
| name recognition, which is the major reason consumers buy any
| particular device. If you look carefully at the advertising in the
| consumer magazines (not the trade journals), you'll probably notice
| that much of starts by congratulating the consumer on having made an
| intelligent choice and goes on to assure the consumer that the company
| is behind its products 150%. In other words, they're going for the
| repeat business based on name recognition.

When I returned the two Netgear WGT624 routers to Staples, I tried
to go out of my way to explain to the clerk that was taking them that
they actually worked fine as designed. I did figure if I had said
that they were not working right, a scenario like you describe could
happen. Since they had been unpackaged, they couldn't sell them as
new very easily, but I was trying to give them as much of a chance to
be sold, maybe cheap, to someone as I could. So I told the clerk,
and this was literally true, too, that they were "access points" (they
truly are) and as such, they cannot talk to each other by design, and
that Netgear failed to disclose this on their web page, PDF file, or
even on the box ... which they did not ... nowhere did they state that
these are access points. So I didn't lie. I just emphasized the more
favorable truth.


| Sure. Perception is everything. Few can explain why two antennas are
| better, but intelligence and technology doesn't count with decisions
| based on perception.

Two light bulbs are brighter. Brighter light means the light can be
seen further away. Non-techies would probably think in ways similar
to that.


| There are other things that are amazingly important for retail sales.
| Color is one. Colors all have subliminal meanings. I walked in to a
| customer with a Watchguard SOHO router. It's in a bright red plastic
| box, apparently to capitalize on the firewall features. My customer
| asked if I had something in a different color? Huh? She said that it
| reminded her of blood, which made her feel awkward. I replaced it
| with an antiseptic white Netgear WG-614, which was deemed acceptable.

I tend to prefer devices with a metallic case, like Netgear USED TO make.
They seem to be migrating to the cheap plastic, now.


| Weight is also an important feature. Given two almost identical
| products, the average consumer will usually pick the heaviest product.
| There's a perception that you get more for your money if it's heavier.
| I learned this the hard way when designing marine radios. We
| literally put a lead brick inside the box and sales immediately
| improved.
|
| Criteria for commodity router selection (most important on top):
| 1. It's cheap.
| 2. A friend has one that works.

Is your friend a geek?

| 3. I've heard of the manufacturer from somewhere.
| 4. The box and color look cool.

Be sure to open it carefully so you can keep the cool box.

| 5. It weighs like something that should work.
| 6. The literature is incomprehensible, so it must be powerful.

The Chinese part? Or the Taiwanese part?

| 7. Larger numbers are always better.
| 108Mbits/sec instead of 54Mbits/sec.
| Is 802.11z later than 802.11b? 5.7GHz is bigger than 2.4Ghz.

Then they should advertize them as 54000kbits/sec and 2400 MHz.

| 8. The flashing lights sure look nice. What do they mean?

They stopped making lights actually show exactly when data is being sent
as that's so fast these days no one could tell unless they are flooding
it real fast. So the circuits have their own blinking rate and hold on
for a few seconds. Almost worthless to geeks. Cool to non-techies.

| 9. This box has more acronyms than the other box.

Oh. I'll have to try that on my brother. "Make sure it has SMTP in it".
"What's SMTP?" "It's how email is sent" "Oh, thanks, that's exactly what
I need it for". :-)

| 10. I read a review that said all I had to do is plug in the
| wireless router and it's ready to go.

Such a reviewer should be chastized for causing so much insecurity.

| Optional:
| 11. Jeff L said it sucked so I guess I'll try it.

Who?

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2006-07-29-1135@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|

Reply With Quote
  #34 (permalink)  
Old 07-29-2006, 06:01 PM
phil-news-nospam@ipal.net
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: What are 2 antennas being used for?

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 01:16:42 GMT John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

| I didn't say that. With all due respect, I think you're being way too
| harsh and cynical. Knowing the exact reason is unimportant when the
| market mechanism is working, as it is here. That's why branding is so
| important. Consumers will mercilessly desert a brand that betrays them,
| and loyally support safe brands even when a guru thinks some other
| product might be better, because it really isn't better, since it hasn't
| earned their market trust. What makes trust such a powerful force is
| that it's so hard to earn and so easy to lose.

Now if only I could figure out why it is that everyone I know who uses
Windows (and all of them swear at it for many reasons all the time)
still treat it as the brand they trust. Linux? Where is that company
located? How come I don't see it in the store?

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2006-07-29-1156@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|

Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old 07-29-2006, 06:40 PM
phil-news-nospam@ipal.net
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: What are 2 antennas being used for?

On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 09:32:08 -0400 Bill Kearney <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote:

| You entirely neglect the cost of wages involved. To have even the typical
| retail clerk handle it would incur at least an hour's time. If not just by
| one person, aggregated across several in the process. At market rates
| that's certainly going to be $10 or more. Then look at the margins and
| actual cost to the retailer for said product. That $50 router, even laden
| with rebates, might be as little as $30 at cost. Going a step further and
| calculating any costs to actually house space to test it, or ship it to
| somewhere that can, and you rapidly start to exceed the actual cost of the
| unit. Cheaper to pitch it becomes quite sensible from a short-term economic
| standpoint.

How many of the staff would instead just take it home?

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2006-07-29-1238@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|

Reply With Quote
  #36 (permalink)  
Old 07-30-2006, 07:33 PM
John Navas
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: What are 2 antennas being used for?

On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 09:32:08 -0400, "Bill Kearney"
<wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote in
<YfKdnZvWX4LE_lbZnZ2dnUVZ_r-dnZ2d@speakeasy.net>:

>> >That depends on the value of the product. I've been told that the
>> >handling and testing costs far exceeds the value of the hardware and
>> >that it is cheaper to toss the returns.

>>
>> That sounds to me like urban legend. For a $50 retail router in today's
>> competitive market we probably have a loaded manufacturing cost on the
>> order of $15. Testing is probably no more than 20% of that, or about
>> $3. Scrapping probably results in no more than $1.50 of returned net
>> value. At an NTF (no trouble found) rate of 90%, and a refurb value of
>> even 50%, retesting is a no brainer, with a net gain of (50% x $15) -
>> ($3 / 90%) - $1.50 = $2.67 per return. These are conservative
>> assumptions -- the recovery benefit is usually better than that.

>
>You entirely neglect the cost of wages involved. To have even the typical
>retail clerk handle it would incur at least an hour's time. If not just by
>one person, aggregated across several in the process. At market rates
>that's certainly going to be $10 or more.


Doesn't change the balance because the retailer has to absorb that as
part of the cost of doing business -- no return, no credit.

>Then look at the margins and
>actual cost to the retailer for said product. That $50 router, even laden
>with rebates, might be as little as $30 at cost. Going a step further and
>calculating any costs to actually house space to test it, or ship it to
>somewhere that can, and you rapidly start to exceed the actual cost of the
>unit. Cheaper to pitch it becomes quite sensible from a short-term economic
>standpoint.


Not once it arrives back at a recycling center, which run quite
efficiently. Disassembly is a low wage job, and testing is highly
automated. Given the low margins and high NTF rate, it's important to
recover value from returns. Both professional experience and actual
conduct confirms this -- it's easy to find refurb products of this kind
from major manfs -- I personally have a number of Netgear Wi-Fi refurbs
that have all worked as well or better than new items.

>> You seem to have a very low opinion of people. I think that's both
>> unwarranted and sad -- they may simply have different priorities than
>> you and me, which to them are valid, no matter what we might think of
>> them.

>
>There's nothing wrong with being cynical, and it certainly doesn't deserve
>being called "sad". To say nothing of copping some sort of inversely
>political correct attitude. If you're in over you head, don't trying
>blustering out of it by insulting people.


Grow up.

--
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>

Reply With Quote
  #37 (permalink)  
Old 07-30-2006, 07:34 PM
John Navas
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: What are 2 antennas being used for?

On 29 Jul 2006 17:40:24 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote in
<eag6i811jnd@news3.newsguy.com>:

>On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 09:32:08 -0400 Bill Kearney <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>| You entirely neglect the cost of wages involved. To have even the typical
>| retail clerk handle it would incur at least an hour's time. If not just by
>| one person, aggregated across several in the process. At market rates
>| that's certainly going to be $10 or more. Then look at the margins and
>| actual cost to the retailer for said product. That $50 router, even laden
>| with rebates, might be as little as $30 at cost. Going a step further and
>| calculating any costs to actually house space to test it, or ship it to
>| somewhere that can, and you rapidly start to exceed the actual cost of the
>| unit. Cheaper to pitch it becomes quite sensible from a short-term economic
>| standpoint.
>
>How many of the staff would instead just take it home?


Or sell it. Which is why retailers usually have to return items to get
credit.

--
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>

Reply With Quote
  #38 (permalink)  
Old 07-30-2006, 07:36 PM
John Navas
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: What are 2 antennas being used for?

On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 09:31:26 -0400, "Bill Kearney"
<wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote in
<87udnSZrQoWy_lbZnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@speakeasy.net> :

>> Companies I've
>> worked for have carefully tracked recovered parts, and subsequent
>> failure rates have been as good or better than all new parts.

>
>Which companies? What units? What price point? What delivery channel?
>Experience gained in one does not necessary translate to another. I spent a
>decade being a manufacturer's rep so I'm more than a little familiar with
>supply chain dynamics.


All products of a major PC manufacturer and a major PC peripheral
company, plus a number of clients.

--
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>

Reply With Quote
  #39 (permalink)  
Old 07-30-2006, 07:41 PM
John Navas
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: What are 2 antennas being used for?

On 29 Jul 2006 16:55:23 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote in
<eag3tr01lv9@news1.newsguy.com>:

>On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 17:29:22 -0700 Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:


>| There are other things that are amazingly important for retail sales.
>| Color is one. Colors all have subliminal meanings. I walked in to a
>| customer with a Watchguard SOHO router. It's in a bright red plastic
>| box, apparently to capitalize on the firewall features. My customer
>| asked if I had something in a different color? Huh? She said that it
>| reminded her of blood, which made her feel awkward. I replaced it
>| with an antiseptic white Netgear WG-614, which was deemed acceptable.
>
>I tend to prefer devices with a metallic case, like Netgear USED TO make.
>They seem to be migrating to the cheap plastic, now.


Me too, but the market is happy with plastic, and isn't willing to pay
more for metal.Metal boxes are still available, albeit in higher tier
that cost quite a bit more. Plastic is arguably less wasteful of
resources.

>| 8. The flashing lights sure look nice. What do they mean?
>
>They stopped making lights actually show exactly when data is being sent
>as that's so fast these days no one could tell unless they are flooding
>it real fast. So the circuits have their own blinking rate and hold on
>for a few seconds. Almost worthless to geeks. Cool to non-techies.


I think light activity is a quite useful indicator of functional
activity, especially when troubleshooting.

--
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>

Reply With Quote
  #40 (permalink)  
Old 07-30-2006, 07:42 PM
John Navas
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: What are 2 antennas being used for?

On 29 Jul 2006 16:31:25 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote in
<eag2gt01gl2@news1.newsguy.com>:

>On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 09:22:17 -0700 Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote:
>
>| There's a bit more going on with diversity than is obvious. The
>| manufacturers would have eliminated the 2nd antenna long ago if they
>| thought they could save a few pennies. Diversity significantly
>| improves the reflection immunity of an indoor system, but such
>| improvements are not what sells commodity routers. Price is what
>| sells commodity routers.
>|
>| One manufacturer did try to remove the 2nd antenna. The Dlink DI-614+
>| and DI-624 went from two antennas to one antenna in later mutations. I
>| was told that retail sales immediately dropped. It wasn't a
>| performance issue. Customers perceived that two antennas are somehow
>| better than one and considered a single antenna router to be inferior.
>| DLink still sells some older products with one antenna, but all the
>| new DLink routers have two (or three).
>
>Would the cunsumers know if the 2nd antenna isn't connected to anything?


That would eventually get out, and the resulting scandal might well be
devastating to the reputation of the manufacturer.

--
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>

Reply With Quote
  #41 (permalink)  
Old 07-30-2006, 07:42 PM
phil-news-nospam@ipal.net
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: What are 2 antennas being used for?

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 18:34:28 GMT John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
| On 29 Jul 2006 17:40:24 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote in
| <eag6i811jnd@news3.newsguy.com>:
|
|>On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 09:32:08 -0400 Bill Kearney <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote:
|>
|>| You entirely neglect the cost of wages involved. To have even the typical
|>| retail clerk handle it would incur at least an hour's time. If not just by
|>| one person, aggregated across several in the process. At market rates
|>| that's certainly going to be $10 or more. Then look at the margins and
|>| actual cost to the retailer for said product. That $50 router, even laden
|>| with rebates, might be as little as $30 at cost. Going a step further and
|>| calculating any costs to actually house space to test it, or ship it to
|>| somewhere that can, and you rapidly start to exceed the actual cost of the
|>| unit. Cheaper to pitch it becomes quite sensible from a short-term economic
|>| standpoint.
|>
|>How many of the staff would instead just take it home?
|
| Or sell it. Which is why retailers usually have to return items to get
| credit.

Or maybe return a key piece of the item to prove the store cannot resell
it in working condition.

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2006-07-30-1341@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|

Reply With Quote
  #42 (permalink)  
Old 07-30-2006, 07:48 PM
phil-news-nospam@ipal.net
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: What are 2 antennas being used for?

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 18:33:43 GMT John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

| Not once it arrives back at a recycling center, which run quite
| efficiently. Disassembly is a low wage job, and testing is highly
| automated. Given the low margins and high NTF rate, it's important to
| recover value from returns. Both professional experience and actual
| conduct confirms this -- it's easy to find refurb products of this kind
| from major manfs -- I personally have a number of Netgear Wi-Fi refurbs
| that have all worked as well or better than new items.

How much discount would be typical of these low end (under $100) type
devices for a refurb unit?

I'm assuming a retail store gets full credit on the price they pay for
the device on a return. But if that price is less than refurb pricing,
what if the store decides, because they believe the device is working,
that they can sell it as an "open box" item (e.g. being honest that it
is a "customer return", so it isn't all packaged right, has maybe been
used a bit), at a price that is still a markup over their wholesale
pricing, but more competitive with refurb pricing?

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2006-07-30-1343@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|

Reply With Quote
  #43 (permalink)  
Old 07-30-2006, 09:36 PM
John Navas
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: What are 2 antennas being used for?

On 30 Jul 2006 18:42:29 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote in
<eaiuil026ng@news1.newsguy.com>:

>On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 18:34:28 GMT John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>| On 29 Jul 2006 17:40:24 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote in
>| <eag6i811jnd@news3.newsguy.com>:
>|
>|>On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 09:32:08 -0400 Bill Kearney <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote:
>|>
>|>| You entirely neglect the cost of wages involved. To have even the typical
>|>| retail clerk handle it would incur at least an hour's time. If not just by
>|>| one person, aggregated across several in the process. At market rates
>|>| that's certainly going to be $10 or more. Then look at the margins and
>|>| actual cost to the retailer for said product. That $50 router, even laden
>|>| with rebates, might be as little as $30 at cost. Going a step further and
>|>| calculating any costs to actually house space to test it, or ship it to
>|>| somewhere that can, and you rapidly start to exceed the actual cost of the
>|>| unit. Cheaper to pitch it becomes quite sensible from a short-term economic
>|>| standpoint.
>|>
>|>How many of the staff would instead just take it home?
>|
>| Or sell it. Which is why retailers usually have to return items to get
>| credit.
>
>Or maybe return a key piece of the item to prove the store cannot resell
>it in working condition.


That would be pretty hard to do with a low-end router, and pointless
since it makes sense to recycle them.

--
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>

Reply With Quote
  #44 (permalink)  
Old 07-30-2006, 09:43 PM
John Navas
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: What are 2 antennas being used for?

On 30 Jul 2006 18:48:45 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote in
<eaiuud126ng@news1.newsguy.com>:

>On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 18:33:43 GMT John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>| Not once it arrives back at a recycling center, which run quite
>| efficiently. Disassembly is a low wage job, and testing is highly
>| automated. Given the low margins and high NTF rate, it's important to
>| recover value from returns. Both professional experience and actual
>| conduct confirms this -- it's easy to find refurb products of this kind
>| from major manfs -- I personally have a number of Netgear Wi-Fi refurbs
>| that have all worked as well or better than new items.
>
>How much discount would be typical of these low end (under $100) type
>devices for a refurb unit?


Typically in the range of 15-30% off for current items, more for older
items.

>I'm assuming a retail store gets full credit on the price they pay for
>the device on a return.


Correct, usually as a replacement in or credit against a future
shipment.

>But if that price is less than refurb pricing,
>what if the store decides, because they believe the device is working,
>that they can sell it as an "open box" item (e.g. being honest that it
>is a "customer return", so it isn't all packaged right, has maybe been
>used a bit), at a price that is still a markup over their wholesale
>pricing, but more competitive with refurb pricing?


Some will do that, but it's a pure margin hit to the retailer versus the
cost of handling the return, which is the usual tradeoff.

--
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>

Reply With Quote
  #45 (permalink)  
Old 07-31-2006, 02:50 AM
phil-news-nospam@ipal.net
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: What are 2 antennas being used for?

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 18:41:15 GMT John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
| On 29 Jul 2006 16:55:23 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote in
| <eag3tr01lv9@news1.newsguy.com>:
|>They stopped making lights actually show exactly when data is being sent
|>as that's so fast these days no one could tell unless they are flooding
|>it real fast. So the circuits have their own blinking rate and hold on
|>for a few seconds. Almost worthless to geeks. Cool to non-techies.
|
| I think light activity is a quite useful indicator of functional
| activity, especially when troubleshooting.

I'd rather have a light that is exactly on when data is actually in the
process of being sent and/or received (maybe different color for send vs.
receive). That would be more useful as I could then see exactly how busy
a port is, etc. Trouble is, too many people cannot see things blink at
such rates (I usually can).

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2006-07-30-2047@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|

Reply With Quote
  #46 (permalink)  
Old 07-31-2006, 04:49 AM
Duane Arnold
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: What are 2 antennas being used for?

Well John,

This is off topic but you should read it to understand what is happening
to RNess on the cross posting post you replied to in another NG I saw
you in on the cross post, in particularly when you see AUK the Kook NG
on a cross post.

RNess is being impersonated and it wasn't the person making the post.

http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killf..._troll_faq.htm

If that was not you on the reply, then you have my apology.

Duane :)

Reply With Quote
  #47 (permalink)  
Old 07-31-2006, 06:46 PM
William P.N. Smith
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: What are 2 antennas being used for?

phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
>I'd rather have a light that is exactly on when data is actually in the
>process of being sent and/or received (maybe different color for send vs.
>receive). That would be more useful as I could then see exactly how busy
>a port is, etc. Trouble is, too many people cannot see things blink at
>such rates (I usually can).


You can see a single packet go by? Really?

Reply With Quote
  #48 (permalink)  
Old 07-31-2006, 08:26 PM
John Navas
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: What are 2 antennas being used for?

On 31 Jul 2006 01:50:00 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote in
<eajnk806mv@news1.newsguy.com>:

>On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 18:41:15 GMT John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>| On 29 Jul 2006 16:55:23 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote in
>| <eag3tr01lv9@news1.newsguy.com>:
>|>They stopped making lights actually show exactly when data is being sent
>|>as that's so fast these days no one could tell unless they are flooding
>|>it real fast. So the circuits have their own blinking rate and hold on
>|>for a few seconds. Almost worthless to geeks. Cool to non-techies.
>|
>| I think light activity is a quite useful indicator of functional
>| activity, especially when troubleshooting.
>
>I'd rather have a light that is exactly on when data is actually in the
>process of being sent and/or received (maybe different color for send vs.
>receive). That would be more useful as I could then see exactly how busy
>a port is, etc. Trouble is, too many people cannot see things blink at
>such rates (I usually can).


Your eyes are good for perhaps 50 Hz. Broadband download rates can be
much higher than that.

--
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>

Reply With Quote
  #49 (permalink)  
Old 07-31-2006, 10:08 PM
phil-news-nospam@ipal.net
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: What are 2 antennas being used for?

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 13:46:24 -0400 William P.N. Smith <news2006c@compusmiths.com> wrote:
| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
|>I'd rather have a light that is exactly on when data is actually in the
|>process of being sent and/or received (maybe different color for send vs.
|>receive). That would be more useful as I could then see exactly how busy
|>a port is, etc. Trouble is, too many people cannot see things blink at
|>such rates (I usually can).
|
| You can see a single packet go by? Really?

If it comes by itself, yes. Definitely at 10 mbps where I've actually
tested this with a device I know was lighting only when the frames was
being shifted out the serializer. At 100 mbps, I can't be certain, but
I suspect I can at least for long frames as I could see ACK length at
10 mbps.

Now, jam all the frames together and that gets harder to do. I can
still see something at 10 mbps. At 100 mbps I think probably not as
the rate is way too high. But I think I will be able to see a single
frame of 1500 bytes.

The objective isn't to see every frame. It's to see if anything is
upsetting an otherwise steady stream of frames.

There was a T1 modem we had at a previous job I was at which had TX and RX
lights that were blinking with the actual packets. I later found out that
they were actually blinking on just the 1's, not the 0's, and doing so in
a way the data could have been monitored via some pickup devices I did not
happen to have. It was at the time considered a security exposure because
someone could peek at that light and see the data. Fortunately ours was in
a closed room. I don't want to go so far as have that ability on the LEDs,
but having them come on during the data part of the frame, and go back off
at the end of the data part, in one color for RX and another color for TX
(or split LEDs) would definitely be useful to me, even if can't see the
time gap between frames.

FYI, I see fluorescent lights blinking at 120 Hz. The red phosphor lags
more than the others and I can see that, too.

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2006-07-31-1606@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|

Reply With Quote
  #50 (permalink)  
Old 07-31-2006, 10:10 PM
phil-news-nospam@ipal.net
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: What are 2 antennas being used for?

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 19:26:52 GMT John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
| On 31 Jul 2006 01:50:00 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote in
| <eajnk806mv@news1.newsguy.com>:
|
|>On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 18:41:15 GMT John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
|>| On 29 Jul 2006 16:55:23 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote in
|>| <eag3tr01lv9@news1.newsguy.com>:
|>|>They stopped making lights actually show exactly when data is being sent
|>|>as that's so fast these days no one could tell unless they are flooding
|>|>it real fast. So the circuits have their own blinking rate and hold on
|>|>for a few seconds. Almost worthless to geeks. Cool to non-techies.
|>|
|>| I think light activity is a quite useful indicator of functional
|>| activity, especially when troubleshooting.
|>
|>I'd rather have a light that is exactly on when data is actually in the
|>process of being sent and/or received (maybe different color for send vs.
|>receive). That would be more useful as I could then see exactly how busy
|>a port is, etc. Trouble is, too many people cannot see things blink at
|>such rates (I usually can).
|
| Your eyes are good for perhaps 50 Hz. Broadband download rates can be
| much higher than that.

120 Hz in my case. And I can see a 100 microsecond pulse.

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2006-07-31-1608@ipal.net |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|

Reply With Quote
  #51 (permalink)  
Old 07-31-2006, 10:43 PM
John Navas
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: What are 2 antennas being used for?

On 31 Jul 2006 21:10:12 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote in
<ealrjk11nj@news4.newsguy.com>:

>On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 19:26:52 GMT John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>| On 31 Jul 2006 01:50:00 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote in
>| <eajnk806mv@news1.newsguy.com>:
>|
>|>On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 18:41:15 GMT John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>|>| On 29 Jul 2006 16:55:23 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote in
>|>| <eag3tr01lv9@news1.newsguy.com>:
>|>|>They stopped making lights actually show exactly when data is being sent
>|>|>as that's so fast these days no one could tell unless they are flooding
>|>|>it real fast. So the circuits have their own blinking rate and hold on
>|>|>for a few seconds. Almost worthless to geeks. Cool to non-techies.
>|>|
>|>| I think light activity is a quite useful indicator of functional
>|>| activity, especially when troubleshooting.
>|>
>|>I'd rather have a light that is exactly on when data is actually in the
>|>process of being sent and/or received (maybe different color for send vs.
>|>receive). That would be more useful as I could then see exactly how busy
>|>a port is, etc. Trouble is, too many people cannot see things blink at
>|>such rates (I usually can).
>|
>| Your eyes are good for perhaps 50 Hz. Broadband download rates can be
>| much higher than that.
>
>120 Hz in my case. And I can see a 100 microsecond pulse.


I'd be willing to bet you can't, and that's still not fast enough in any
event.

--
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>

Reply With Quote
  #52 (permalink)  
Old 07-31-2006, 10:52 PM
John Navas
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: What are 2 antennas being used for?

On 31 Jul 2006 21:08:32 GMT, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote in
<ealrgg01nj@news4.newsguy.com>:

>On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 13:46:24 -0400 William P.N. Smith <news2006c@compusmiths.com> wrote:
>| phil-news-nospam@ipal.net wrote:
>|>I'd rather have a light that is exactly on when data is actually in the
>|>process of being sent and/or received (maybe different color for send vs.
>|>receive). That would be more useful as I could then see exactly how busy
>|>a port is, etc. Trouble is, too many people cannot see things blink at
>|>such rates (I usually can).
>|
>| You can see a single packet go by? Really?
>
>If it comes by itself, yes. Definitely at 10 mbps where I've actually
>tested this with a device I know was lighting only when the frames was
>being shifted out the serializer.


No way. 10 Mbps is over 800 1500-byte frames per second.

>FYI, I see fluorescent lights blinking at 120 Hz. The red phosphor lags
>more than the others and I can see that, too.


That's a far cry from broadband frame rates.

--
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>

Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Want to trade some devices and antennas wiffer Buy/Sell/Exchange 1 12-22-2007 07:39 PM
Re: Q: Biquad Antennas dold@XReXXQXXBi.usenet.us.com alt.internet.wireless 0 07-21-2006 07:33 PM
High gain omni-directional antennas NZLamb Hardware Discussion 4 05-04-2006 09:31 AM
Antennas Now In Stock rfshopdotcomdotau Buy/Sell/Exchange 5 12-02-2004 10:45 PM
Slotted Waveguide Antennas shadowX Hardware Discussion 13 11-10-2003 09:49 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45