Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
High Power N Wireless Router?
15 views
Skip to first unread message
Fred Moore
Dec 3, 2012, 9:27:04 PM12/3/12
to
(I write this from my padded cell in The iPad Addiction Recovery
Facility, Intensive Care Ward. Got my new iPad4 3 days ago. My wife had
me committed after the first 24 hours with the device. Prognosis not
good.)
I, of course, want to use my iPad with my home wireless network. And it
does work, except it could be better. The first problem is that my
current wireless router is 802.11b/g. It's been a good router (a
Belkin), but I want to move up to N. I'd like to have the faster data
transfer as well as dual networks and guest network access. Second, I
live in an older house with very solid walls. They're 7/8" thick plaster
over cement and lath. They really kill the signal from the current
router. So, I need a router with high output. I have Googled a fair bit
and can't find any good output or range comparisons. I can't believe no
one has done this, but I can't find them.
I'm prepared to pay up to $200 if necessary (I hope less) to get
something really good. I have heavily researched Amazon's reviews of
various Gigabit ethernet N routers and am getting more and more confused
by the 1-star reviews. How can a router which so many people give 4 or 5
stars, have other people giving the same device 1 star because they are
getting exactly the opposite experience ('Oh, great range.' 'No,
terrible range' etc.)?
I was inclined toward the Apple Airport Extreme because I had heard it
had good range. Then I read a few reviews where users directly
contradicted other high-rated reviews. How can this be? Yes, I know
there's always someone who will pan even the best product, but can that
really explain it?
I also had some concern about the Extreme's seeming lack of
configurability. Apple evidently removed port forwarding, QoS, and other
items from user control. Is that really true? However, some non-Apple
routers are fully configurable but may not to work well with Macs
(according to some complaints).
So what have you folks experienced? There are highly rated wireless N
routers from all the usuals: Asus, Belkin, D-Link, Linksys, as well as
others on Amazon. Any solid recommendations which sort out the confusion
will be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
(Ya can take ma life, but ya canna take ma iPad!) :-D
Facility, Intensive Care Ward. Got my new iPad4 3 days ago. My wife had
me committed after the first 24 hours with the device. Prognosis not
good.)
I, of course, want to use my iPad with my home wireless network. And it
does work, except it could be better. The first problem is that my
current wireless router is 802.11b/g. It's been a good router (a
Belkin), but I want to move up to N. I'd like to have the faster data
transfer as well as dual networks and guest network access. Second, I
live in an older house with very solid walls. They're 7/8" thick plaster
over cement and lath. They really kill the signal from the current
router. So, I need a router with high output. I have Googled a fair bit
and can't find any good output or range comparisons. I can't believe no
one has done this, but I can't find them.
I'm prepared to pay up to $200 if necessary (I hope less) to get
something really good. I have heavily researched Amazon's reviews of
various Gigabit ethernet N routers and am getting more and more confused
by the 1-star reviews. How can a router which so many people give 4 or 5
stars, have other people giving the same device 1 star because they are
getting exactly the opposite experience ('Oh, great range.' 'No,
terrible range' etc.)?
I was inclined toward the Apple Airport Extreme because I had heard it
had good range. Then I read a few reviews where users directly
contradicted other high-rated reviews. How can this be? Yes, I know
there's always someone who will pan even the best product, but can that
really explain it?
I also had some concern about the Extreme's seeming lack of
configurability. Apple evidently removed port forwarding, QoS, and other
items from user control. Is that really true? However, some non-Apple
routers are fully configurable but may not to work well with Macs
(according to some complaints).
So what have you folks experienced? There are highly rated wireless N
routers from all the usuals: Asus, Belkin, D-Link, Linksys, as well as
others on Amazon. Any solid recommendations which sort out the confusion
will be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
(Ya can take ma life, but ya canna take ma iPad!) :-D
AnimalMagic
Dec 3, 2012, 10:45:50 PM12/3/12
to
On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 21:27:04 -0500, Fred Moore <fmo...@gcfn.org> wrote:
>They're 7/8" thick plaster
>over cement and lath.
Oh, joy!
>They're 7/8" thick plaster
>over cement and lath.
In my post wire days, we hated doing the downtown Cincinnati area
because the buildings were mostly lath walls.
You might do better to hang the thing on the phone pole out front, and
let the hooks connect through the front windows. :-) (or out back).
easier to pass through glass than concrete.
You can turn off your SSID broadcast too, so folks won't be trying to
hit it. Have to watch out for theft though at that point. Hang a router
AND a webcam!
Message has been deleted
David Stone
Dec 4, 2012, 9:14:32 AM12/4/12
to
In article <slrnkbrs6h....@mbp55.local>,
Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <fmoore-9A9DB4....@news.eternal-september.org>
> I have covers a 3200sqft house very well. I get occasional wifi issue in
> the far extremes of the house, but only occasional and usually only when
> streaming HD video.
I'm using an Apple Extreme, which is in the front basement. Good
reception through the entire house up to the rear second-floor
bedroom through lathe and plaster walls (no cement in mine though -
or are you referring to the "mud" layer below the finish plaster?)
Front-to-back floor-plan distance would be about 60 feet or so?
The only time I've had a problem was when my wife stacked some
metal tins and a spindle of CD-RWs on top (it's currently sitting
on the back of my desk).
Apple changed the available configuration options in Airport Utility,
but that doesn't affect me too much since I run it in bridge mode and
leave the other stuff to my modem/router on the wired portion of my
home network.
Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <fmoore-9A9DB4....@news.eternal-september.org>
> Fred Moore <fmo...@gcfn.org> wrote:
> > (I write this from my padded cell in The iPad Addiction Recovery
> > Facility, Intensive Care Ward. Got my new iPad4 3 days ago. My wife had
> > me committed after the first 24 hours with the device. Prognosis not
> > good.)
>
> > I, of course, want to use my iPad with my home wireless network. And it
> > does work, except it could be better. The first problem is that my
> > current wireless router is 802.11b/g. It's been a good router (a
> > Belkin), but I want to move up to N. I'd like to have the faster data
> > transfer as well as dual networks and guest network access. Second, I
> > live in an older house with very solid walls. They're 7/8" thick plaster
> > over cement and lath. They really kill the signal from the current
> > router. So, I need a router with high output. I have Googled a fair bit
> > and can't find any good output or range comparisons. I can't believe no
> > one has done this, but I can't find them.
>
> I can't comment on the plaster and lathe and cement, but the WNDR3700v3
> > (I write this from my padded cell in The iPad Addiction Recovery
> > Facility, Intensive Care Ward. Got my new iPad4 3 days ago. My wife had
> > me committed after the first 24 hours with the device. Prognosis not
> > good.)
>
> > I, of course, want to use my iPad with my home wireless network. And it
> > does work, except it could be better. The first problem is that my
> > current wireless router is 802.11b/g. It's been a good router (a
> > Belkin), but I want to move up to N. I'd like to have the faster data
> > transfer as well as dual networks and guest network access. Second, I
> > live in an older house with very solid walls. They're 7/8" thick plaster
> > over cement and lath. They really kill the signal from the current
> > router. So, I need a router with high output. I have Googled a fair bit
> > and can't find any good output or range comparisons. I can't believe no
> > one has done this, but I can't find them.
>
> I have covers a 3200sqft house very well. I get occasional wifi issue in
> the far extremes of the house, but only occasional and usually only when
> streaming HD video.
I'm using an Apple Extreme, which is in the front basement. Good
reception through the entire house up to the rear second-floor
bedroom through lathe and plaster walls (no cement in mine though -
or are you referring to the "mud" layer below the finish plaster?)
Front-to-back floor-plan distance would be about 60 feet or so?
The only time I've had a problem was when my wife stacked some
metal tins and a spindle of CD-RWs on top (it's currently sitting
on the back of my desk).
Apple changed the available configuration options in Airport Utility,
but that doesn't affect me too much since I run it in bridge mode and
leave the other stuff to my modem/router on the wired portion of my
home network.
DaveC
Dec 4, 2012, 12:32:12 PM12/4/12
to
The FCC (radio emissions regulator here in the USA) specifies a maximum
signal power for all WiFi devices. Period. No manufacturer can exceed this.
So you're not going to see one device with more power than another. But
output power is not the end-all factor that separates the good from the bad.
Radio communications is one of those engineering arts that borders on voodoo.
Some gifted engineers get it right while the others turn out crap.
Re. the reviews, each person's ability to configure such devices is
different. One may overlook an important setting that another person can deal
with. (Supporting a network is a challenge that is beyond the abilities of
most users, IMO...) Or one household may have a microwave oven or cordless
phone that interferes with WiFi, or neighboring WiFi routers that are using
the same channels which will cause problems. Many possibilities.
My suggestion: find a retailer that has a no-questions-asked return policy
and buy it and try it. Buy a couple of competitive models at once. You may
pay a little more than from a discount house but you'll be satisfied in the
end if you can test-drive them.
Good luck.
signal power for all WiFi devices. Period. No manufacturer can exceed this.
So you're not going to see one device with more power than another. But
output power is not the end-all factor that separates the good from the bad.
Radio communications is one of those engineering arts that borders on voodoo.
Some gifted engineers get it right while the others turn out crap.
Re. the reviews, each person's ability to configure such devices is
different. One may overlook an important setting that another person can deal
with. (Supporting a network is a challenge that is beyond the abilities of
most users, IMO...) Or one household may have a microwave oven or cordless
phone that interferes with WiFi, or neighboring WiFi routers that are using
the same channels which will cause problems. Many possibilities.
My suggestion: find a retailer that has a no-questions-asked return policy
and buy it and try it. Buy a couple of competitive models at once. You may
pay a little more than from a discount house but you'll be satisfied in the
end if you can test-drive them.
Good luck.
DaveC
Dec 4, 2012, 12:36:53 PM12/4/12
to
> Re. the reviews, each person's ability to configure such devices is
> different.
Also, look at the *average* review rating. If 100 people are satisfied and 10
> different.
are not, I'd say that is a product worth trying out.
Cheers.
you
Dec 4, 2012, 2:23:11 PM12/4/12
to
In article
<0001HW.CCE3739C...@news.eternal-september.org>,
have the 5.0 Ghz Band, which are part of the CFR48Part15 Regulations of
the FCC. The FCC only allows Devices to be sold that comply with the
Technical Requirements of Part 15. The Output Power is specified in ERP.
(Effective Radiated Power) This is Output Powder * Antenna Gain. There
are MANY units that comply by having Higher Output Power and less
Antenna Gain. With these units, one can increase ERP, by replacing the
Antenna, with one with MORE Gain. Part 15 states that any antenna that
is "User Removable" MUST use an RF Connector, that is NOT Generally
available to the General Public. (Reverse Gender or Reverse Thread) So
as to make such an Antenna Upgrade much harder. Many of these
connectors, or Gain Antennas, come with the appropriate Connectors
already attached, thus making the FCC's Regulation, mute. I use a One
Watt Buffalo WHR-HP-G54 802.11b/g AP with a 20db Panel Antenna, to
extend my LAN, 3 miles down the beach to my cabin. I have a second
duplicate AP on the other end. RSL is above 50db on each end. It can be
done, All it takes is MONEY, and a few Smarts.....
<0001HW.CCE3739C...@news.eternal-september.org>,
DaveC <inv...@invalid.net> wrote:
> The FCC (radio emissions regulator here in the USA) specifies a maximum
> signal power for all WiFi devices. Period. No manufacturer can exceed this.
> So you're not going to see one device with more power than another.
Well not quite..... ALL 801.X Devices use the 2.4 Ghz Band and some also
> The FCC (radio emissions regulator here in the USA) specifies a maximum
> signal power for all WiFi devices. Period. No manufacturer can exceed this.
> So you're not going to see one device with more power than another.
have the 5.0 Ghz Band, which are part of the CFR48Part15 Regulations of
the FCC. The FCC only allows Devices to be sold that comply with the
Technical Requirements of Part 15. The Output Power is specified in ERP.
(Effective Radiated Power) This is Output Powder * Antenna Gain. There
are MANY units that comply by having Higher Output Power and less
Antenna Gain. With these units, one can increase ERP, by replacing the
Antenna, with one with MORE Gain. Part 15 states that any antenna that
is "User Removable" MUST use an RF Connector, that is NOT Generally
available to the General Public. (Reverse Gender or Reverse Thread) So
as to make such an Antenna Upgrade much harder. Many of these
connectors, or Gain Antennas, come with the appropriate Connectors
already attached, thus making the FCC's Regulation, mute. I use a One
Watt Buffalo WHR-HP-G54 802.11b/g AP with a 20db Panel Antenna, to
extend my LAN, 3 miles down the beach to my cabin. I have a second
duplicate AP on the other end. RSL is above 50db on each end. It can be
done, All it takes is MONEY, and a few Smarts.....
David Stone
Dec 5, 2012, 9:17:20 AM12/5/12
to
In article
<0001HW.CCE374B5...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Then again, if there are <10 reviews total, ignore the average...
<0001HW.CCE374B5...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Fred Moore
Dec 5, 2012, 2:14:28 PM12/5/12
to
In article <slrnkbrs6h....@mbp55.local>,
Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> I can't comment on the plaster and lathe and cement, but the WNDR3700v3
> I have covers a 3200sqft house very well. I get occasional wifi issue in
> the far extremes of the house, but only occasional and usually only when
> streaming HD video.
>
> <http://www.amazon.com/NETGEAR-Wireless-Router-Gigabit-WNDR3700/dp/B002HWRJY4/
Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> I can't comment on the plaster and lathe and cement, but the WNDR3700v3
> I have covers a 3200sqft house very well. I get occasional wifi issue in
> the far extremes of the house, but only occasional and usually only when
> streaming HD video.
>
> >
>
> There is a newer version (the wndr3800) but I have no direct experience with
> it.
>
> <http://www.amazon.com/Netgear-WNDR3800-Premium-Gigabit-Wireless/dp/B0058NN6CS
> />
>
> Reading the description, this is probably the one I would buy if I were
> buying one right now.
Based on your suggestions, I've found the NETGEAR N900 Dual Band Gigabit
(WNDR4500) Wireless Router
<http://www.amazon.com/NETGEAR-Wireless-Router-Gigabit-WNDR4500/dp/B005KG
44V0/ref=sr_1_138?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1354664632&sr=1-138&keywords=
wireless+router>, which seems like the unit just above the ones you
mention.
Its big extras (scroll down the Amazon page for a feature comparison
chart) for me are the 'Best' signal strength, the ReadyShare options,
and the Time Machine compatibility.
However, the 18% 1-star reviews of 541 gives me pause. The chief
complaint is poor reliability and poor service/support. On the other
side, 71% gave it a 4- or 5-star rating. Barring any dissuasion by you
folks, this will likely be my choice.
Thanks to all for your taking the time to help.
Fred Moore
Dec 5, 2012, 2:18:47 PM12/5/12
to
In article <you-0BCAD2.1...@news.starband.net>,
Are the add-on/replacement antennas usually worth it (provided you have
a unit which has changeable antennas)? Several of the stick antennas
look like just longer versions of what comes with the unit. I thought
length (not to be confused with placement) was only associated with
frequency, not power output, but then it's been a while since I had my
EE RF course.
a unit which has changeable antennas)? Several of the stick antennas
look like just longer versions of what comes with the unit. I thought
length (not to be confused with placement) was only associated with
frequency, not power output, but then it's been a while since I had my
EE RF course.
Fred Moore
Dec 5, 2012, 2:27:50 PM12/5/12
to
In article <no.email-98F858...@news.eternal-september.org>,
gypsum wallboard lath (just like wallboard only with 1" holes every foot
or so for the mud/cement/whatever to adhere to. On top of that is 1/4"
of very hard cementatious material with large sand aggregate. The top
1/8" is a skim coat of plaster. Total thickness 7/8".
The good news it's *very* sturdy and a great sound absorber. The bad
news is that it eats RF signals for snacks. But at least it's not stucco
with its steel mesh underlayment.
David Stone <no.e...@domain.invalid> wrote:
> I'm using an Apple Extreme, which is in the front basement. Good
> reception through the entire house up to the rear second-floor
> bedroom through lathe and plaster walls (no cement in mine though -
> or are you referring to the "mud" layer below the finish plaster?)
It's standard box-wall, 2x4 construction. The sheathing is 1/2" of
> I'm using an Apple Extreme, which is in the front basement. Good
> reception through the entire house up to the rear second-floor
> bedroom through lathe and plaster walls (no cement in mine though -
> or are you referring to the "mud" layer below the finish plaster?)
gypsum wallboard lath (just like wallboard only with 1" holes every foot
or so for the mud/cement/whatever to adhere to. On top of that is 1/4"
of very hard cementatious material with large sand aggregate. The top
1/8" is a skim coat of plaster. Total thickness 7/8".
The good news it's *very* sturdy and a great sound absorber. The bad
news is that it eats RF signals for snacks. But at least it's not stucco
with its steel mesh underlayment.
Jolly Roger
Dec 5, 2012, 2:30:09 PM12/5/12
to
In article <fmoore-9A9DB4....@news.eternal-september.org>,
I live in a building where my router is 100 or so feet away from the
furthest location where wireless access is needed, through multiple
walls. A while back, when I still had a Netgear, I decided I wanted
wireless coverage in the room furthest away from my router. The signal
was so weak in that room that clients regularly dropped off the network.
Adding a big external antenna to the Netgear helped, but did not fix,
the problem. I've since switched to a dual-band Apple Airport Extreme,
which got similar results - until I added another older model Airport
Extreme to extend my network coverage. Now clients never drop off the
network.
> I also had some concern about the Extreme's seeming lack of
> configurability. Apple evidently removed port forwarding, QoS, and other
> items from user control. Is that really true?
Not entirely, no. What Apple did was release a newer version of the
Airport Utility. That newer version was missing certain features. But
Apple still offers the previous version of Airport Utility for download,
and you can still use it to manage those features:
<http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1482?viewlocale=en_US&locale=en_US>
I use it all the time.
> However, some non-Apple
> routers are fully configurable but may not to work well with Macs
> (according to some complaints).
One thing I love about Apple routers is how much more user friendly
configuration is compared with the typical crappy, ill-designed
browser-based web page configuration facilities offered by most
companies.
--
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.
JR
Fred Moore <fmo...@gcfn.org> wrote:
> I was inclined toward the Apple Airport Extreme because I had heard it
> had good range. Then I read a few reviews where users directly
> contradicted other high-rated reviews. How can this be? Yes, I know
> there's always someone who will pan even the best product, but can that
> really explain it?
I've used Netgear, LinkSys, and Apple routers, and range is comparable.
> I was inclined toward the Apple Airport Extreme because I had heard it
> had good range. Then I read a few reviews where users directly
> contradicted other high-rated reviews. How can this be? Yes, I know
> there's always someone who will pan even the best product, but can that
> really explain it?
I live in a building where my router is 100 or so feet away from the
furthest location where wireless access is needed, through multiple
walls. A while back, when I still had a Netgear, I decided I wanted
wireless coverage in the room furthest away from my router. The signal
was so weak in that room that clients regularly dropped off the network.
Adding a big external antenna to the Netgear helped, but did not fix,
the problem. I've since switched to a dual-band Apple Airport Extreme,
which got similar results - until I added another older model Airport
Extreme to extend my network coverage. Now clients never drop off the
network.
> I also had some concern about the Extreme's seeming lack of
> configurability. Apple evidently removed port forwarding, QoS, and other
> items from user control. Is that really true?
Airport Utility. That newer version was missing certain features. But
Apple still offers the previous version of Airport Utility for download,
and you can still use it to manage those features:
<http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1482?viewlocale=en_US&locale=en_US>
I use it all the time.
> However, some non-Apple
> routers are fully configurable but may not to work well with Macs
> (according to some complaints).
configuration is compared with the typical crappy, ill-designed
browser-based web page configuration facilities offered by most
companies.
--
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.
JR
Jolly Roger
Dec 5, 2012, 2:31:58 PM12/5/12
to
In article <fmoore-329478....@news.eternal-september.org>,
The one I bought for my Netgear certainly didn't give as much
improvement as I thought I'd get based on the price I paid for it.
improvement as I thought I'd get based on the price I paid for it.
nospam
Dec 5, 2012, 4:11:04 PM12/5/12
to
> Are the add-on/replacement antennas usually worth it (provided you have
> a unit which has changeable antennas)? Several of the stick antennas
> look like just longer versions of what comes with the unit. I thought
> length (not to be confused with placement) was only associated with
> frequency, not power output, but then it's been a while since I had my
> EE RF course.
antenna length is associated with frequency, however, they can be
> a unit which has changeable antennas)? Several of the stick antennas
> look like just longer versions of what comes with the unit. I thought
> length (not to be confused with placement) was only associated with
> frequency, not power output, but then it's been a while since I had my
> EE RF course.
quarter-wave, half-wave, etc. what matters is the gain of the antenna
and it's pattern (e.g., omnidirectional or focused in one direction).
however, the real problem is putting a better antenna on the base
station doesn't help with what the laptop is transmitting. you really
need a better antenna at both ends (or additional routers).
Suze
Dec 6, 2012, 8:40:41 AM12/6/12
to
> Are the add-on/replacement antennas usually worth it (provided you have
> a unit which has changeable antennas)? Several of the stick antennas
> look like just longer versions of what comes with the unit. I thought
> length (not to be confused with placement) was only associated with
> frequency, not power output, but then it's been a while since I had my
> EE RF course.
My experience using an old Linksys WRT-54G router and a Mac Mini (2009,
> a unit which has changeable antennas)? Several of the stick antennas
> look like just longer versions of what comes with the unit. I thought
> length (not to be confused with placement) was only associated with
> frequency, not power output, but then it's been a while since I had my
> EE RF course.
2.26 GHz w/Snow Leopard) in a 30-year old two-story home: My router was
mounted on a back outside wall in an end-of-the-house sunshine basement
room where my home office was located. I hard-line ethernet cabled to
the Linksys with my Mac Mini. However, due to my husband's illness, I
had to move my office upstairs to be close to him-- my new office was
vertically over the router, but one room over laterally. I connected
with the Linksys using the Mini's Airport Wifi antenna.
My Mac mini got deplorable 11% Wifi signal strength upstairs, which
after some reading about the Wifi tribulations of other Mini owners, I
attributed to the Mini's rather paltry omnidirectional antenna, coupled
with the interference from multiple networks in our neighborhood.
(Amazingly, I was also getting anywhere from 20-87% signal strength from
wifi's in 11 other homes in our neighborhood, while only getting 11%
from my own.) I tried moving the Mini around, tilting on its side, a
tinfoiled reflector for my router, and longer router antennas--all with
no real improvement in the Mini's signal strength.
I bought a Bear Extender (directional) antenna for the Mini along with
the Bear extender cable, which immediately bumped up my Mini's Linksys
reception to around 66%. Then I moved the Linksys router from the
exterior basement wall about 12 feet across the room to a central
location, near the middle hallway in my home. Now the Mini using the
directional Bear Extender antenna/cable gets a steady 94-100% Wifi
signal strength.
Note the Bear Extender does not use the Airport antenna at all, it's a
totally separate antenna system using its own software. Networking with
other computers on the Linksys works the same. (The Bear also offers an
upgrade antenna that is omnidirectional, however I chose the original
directional antenna because I wanted to aim my antenna directly at my
router to try to decrease outside network interference.)
--
Good judgment results from experience, and experience results from bad judgment.
Fred Moore
Dec 6, 2012, 11:35:36 AM12/6/12
to
In article
<replytome-A8DD9...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Thanks for posting this, Suze. I had heard of such devices and the Bear
but never investigated them. The reviews on Amazon were very positive.
However, my original purpose in posting the router question was for
getting better reception on an iPad. I didn't see any mention of the
Bear Extender being adaptable to that device, though I do have a laptop
which might use it. Thanks again for taking the time to post. Very
interesting.
<replytome-A8DD9...@news.eternal-september.org>,
but never investigated them. The reviews on Amazon were very positive.
However, my original purpose in posting the router question was for
getting better reception on an iPad. I didn't see any mention of the
Bear Extender being adaptable to that device, though I do have a laptop
which might use it. Thanks again for taking the time to post. Very
interesting.
Fred Moore
Dec 6, 2012, 11:46:03 AM12/6/12
to
In article <051220121611043281%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
best incoming or outgoing power transfer with full wave being the best
but usually too physically long to be convenient. Also, isn't this same
principle of physics related to antenna 'standing wave' calibration?
> however, the real problem is putting a better antenna on the base
> station doesn't help with what the laptop is transmitting. you really
> need a better antenna at both ends (or additional routers).
Good point. Suze suggested the Bear Extender for regular computers. Is
there such a device for the iPod? Thanks for posting.
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <fmoore-329478....@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Fred Moore <fmo...@gcfn.org> wrote:
>
> > Are the add-on/replacement antennas usually worth it (provided you have
> > a unit which has changeable antennas)? Several of the stick antennas
> > look like just longer versions of what comes with the unit. I thought
> > length (not to be confused with placement) was only associated with
> > frequency, not power output, but then it's been a while since I had my
> > EE RF course.
>
> antenna length is associated with frequency, however, they can be
> quarter-wave, half-wave, etc. what matters is the gain of the antenna
> and it's pattern (e.g., omnidirectional or focused in one direction).
Right, now I remember. (Inverse) powers of 2 of the wavelength give the
> In article <fmoore-329478....@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Fred Moore <fmo...@gcfn.org> wrote:
>
> > Are the add-on/replacement antennas usually worth it (provided you have
> > a unit which has changeable antennas)? Several of the stick antennas
> > look like just longer versions of what comes with the unit. I thought
> > length (not to be confused with placement) was only associated with
> > frequency, not power output, but then it's been a while since I had my
> > EE RF course.
>
> antenna length is associated with frequency, however, they can be
> quarter-wave, half-wave, etc. what matters is the gain of the antenna
> and it's pattern (e.g., omnidirectional or focused in one direction).
best incoming or outgoing power transfer with full wave being the best
but usually too physically long to be convenient. Also, isn't this same
principle of physics related to antenna 'standing wave' calibration?
> however, the real problem is putting a better antenna on the base
> station doesn't help with what the laptop is transmitting. you really
> need a better antenna at both ends (or additional routers).
there such a device for the iPod? Thanks for posting.
nospam
Dec 6, 2012, 11:59:51 AM12/6/12
to
In article <fmoore-26708C....@news.eternal-september.org>,
the wifi antenna is internal, so short of taking it apart and somehow
hacking something onto it, no.
hacking something onto it, no.
Fred Moore
Dec 6, 2012, 12:52:02 PM12/6/12
to
In article <jollyroger-C64BB...@news.individual.net>,
aesthetics of the Airport Extreme, I find it hard to believe it could
have the range of other routers with 3 aerials sticking out the back. So
much for intuition. ;)
Just to confirm about how you're using the older AExt, it's being used
as a repeater? In bridge mode? I was thinking you could only do this
with an ethernet line run from the primary router, in other words, a
wired extension of the wireless network rather than a true repeater.
If you hadn't had the old AExt sitting around, you could have bought an
Airport Express and used it in repeater mode to accomplish the same
thing? I've never been entirely sure what the full capabilities of the
AExp are. I suppose I've always been suspicious of repeaters, despite
the fact that they are widely used commercially, for fear of getting
'garbage in, garbage out'.
> > I also had some concern about the Extreme's seeming lack of
> > configurability. Apple evidently removed port forwarding, QoS, and other
> > items from user control. Is that really true?
>
> Not entirely, no. What Apple did was release a newer version of the
> Airport Utility. That newer version was missing certain features. But
> Apple still offers the previous version of Airport Utility for download,
> and you can still use it to manage those features:
>
> <http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1482?viewlocale=en_US&locale=en_US>
>
> I use it all the time.
I had heard of this. However, makes me wonder how long Apple will keep
the older utility around. What about future compatibility and
configurability?
> > However, some non-Apple
> > routers are fully configurable but may not to work well with Macs
> > (according to some complaints).
>
> One thing I love about Apple routers is how much more user friendly
> configuration is compared with the typical crappy, ill-designed
> browser-based web page configuration facilities offered by most
> companies.
Yes, I set up an AExt for a neighbor a year ago. Stock setup was fine
for her and like falling off a log. 10 minutes total including sorting
out her rat's nest of wiring.
As long as I can get at some of the more esoteric settings _if_ I need
them (and get good range), then Apple's utility isn't a problem. Yes,
most of the manufacturer-supplied configuration utilities are poor. My
current Belkin's is actually not bad, but using the one from its
predecessor, an Asante, was arduous at best.
Thanks for helping me out here!
Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> In article <fmoore-9A9DB4....@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Fred Moore <fmo...@gcfn.org> wrote:
>
> > I was inclined toward the Apple Airport Extreme because I had heard it
> > had good range. Then I read a few reviews where users directly
> > contradicted other high-rated reviews. How can this be? Yes, I know
> > there's always someone who will pan even the best product, but can that
> > really explain it?
>
> I've used Netgear, LinkSys, and Apple routers, and range is comparable.
> I live in a building where my router is 100 or so feet away from the
> furthest location where wireless access is needed, through multiple
> walls. A while back, when I still had a Netgear, I decided I wanted
> wireless coverage in the room furthest away from my router. The signal
> was so weak in that room that clients regularly dropped off the network.
> Adding a big external antenna to the Netgear helped, but did not fix,
> the problem. I've since switched to a dual-band Apple Airport Extreme,
> which got similar results - until I added another older model Airport
> Extreme to extend my network coverage. Now clients never drop off the
> network.
Thanks for the real-world data, JR. Always useful. As much as I like the
> In article <fmoore-9A9DB4....@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Fred Moore <fmo...@gcfn.org> wrote:
>
> > I was inclined toward the Apple Airport Extreme because I had heard it
> > had good range. Then I read a few reviews where users directly
> > contradicted other high-rated reviews. How can this be? Yes, I know
> > there's always someone who will pan even the best product, but can that
> > really explain it?
>
> I've used Netgear, LinkSys, and Apple routers, and range is comparable.
> I live in a building where my router is 100 or so feet away from the
> furthest location where wireless access is needed, through multiple
> walls. A while back, when I still had a Netgear, I decided I wanted
> wireless coverage in the room furthest away from my router. The signal
> was so weak in that room that clients regularly dropped off the network.
> Adding a big external antenna to the Netgear helped, but did not fix,
> the problem. I've since switched to a dual-band Apple Airport Extreme,
> which got similar results - until I added another older model Airport
> Extreme to extend my network coverage. Now clients never drop off the
> network.
aesthetics of the Airport Extreme, I find it hard to believe it could
have the range of other routers with 3 aerials sticking out the back. So
much for intuition. ;)
Just to confirm about how you're using the older AExt, it's being used
as a repeater? In bridge mode? I was thinking you could only do this
with an ethernet line run from the primary router, in other words, a
wired extension of the wireless network rather than a true repeater.
If you hadn't had the old AExt sitting around, you could have bought an
Airport Express and used it in repeater mode to accomplish the same
thing? I've never been entirely sure what the full capabilities of the
AExp are. I suppose I've always been suspicious of repeaters, despite
the fact that they are widely used commercially, for fear of getting
'garbage in, garbage out'.
> > I also had some concern about the Extreme's seeming lack of
> > configurability. Apple evidently removed port forwarding, QoS, and other
> > items from user control. Is that really true?
>
> Not entirely, no. What Apple did was release a newer version of the
> Airport Utility. That newer version was missing certain features. But
> Apple still offers the previous version of Airport Utility for download,
> and you can still use it to manage those features:
>
> <http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1482?viewlocale=en_US&locale=en_US>
>
> I use it all the time.
the older utility around. What about future compatibility and
configurability?
> > However, some non-Apple
> > routers are fully configurable but may not to work well with Macs
> > (according to some complaints).
>
> One thing I love about Apple routers is how much more user friendly
> configuration is compared with the typical crappy, ill-designed
> browser-based web page configuration facilities offered by most
> companies.
for her and like falling off a log. 10 minutes total including sorting
out her rat's nest of wiring.
As long as I can get at some of the more esoteric settings _if_ I need
them (and get good range), then Apple's utility isn't a problem. Yes,
most of the manufacturer-supplied configuration utilities are poor. My
current Belkin's is actually not bad, but using the one from its
predecessor, an Asante, was arduous at best.
Thanks for helping me out here!
Jolly Roger
Dec 6, 2012, 1:06:28 PM12/6/12
to
In article <fmoore-0EF9A9....@news.eternal-september.org>,
Right, I was afraid of the same thing when I initially purchased it, but
was pleasantly surprised. It really seemed about on par with the Netgear
I was using before it.
> Just to confirm about how you're using the older AExt, it's being used
> as a repeater? In bridge mode? I was thinking you could only do this
> with an ethernet line run from the primary router, in other words, a
> wired extension of the wireless network rather than a true repeater.
No, you can extend it wirelessly too. When setting up the main dual-band
AE router, I set it up with "Create a wireless network", and when
setting up the secondary gigabit AE router, I set it up with "Extend a
wireless network". The rest was automatic. I placed the secondary router
halfway between the furthest point away from the router and the router
itself, figuring that would give me the best chance of holing a
connection on the router itself and extending coverage into the problem
area, and it works like a charm!
> If you hadn't had the old AExt sitting around, you could have bought an
> Airport Express and used it in repeater mode to accomplish the same
> thing? I've never been entirely sure what the full capabilities of the
> AExp are. I suppose I've always been suspicious of repeaters, despite
> the fact that they are widely used commercially, for fear of getting
> 'garbage in, garbage out'.
I'm not sure. I do have a couple hanging around. Maybe I'll give that a
shot some time when I'm bored (hahaha! yeah right).
> > > I also had some concern about the Extreme's seeming lack of
> > > configurability. Apple evidently removed port forwarding, QoS, and other
> > > items from user control. Is that really true?
> >
> > Not entirely, no. What Apple did was release a newer version of the
> > Airport Utility. That newer version was missing certain features. But
> > Apple still offers the previous version of Airport Utility for download,
> > and you can still use it to manage those features:
> >
> > <http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1482?viewlocale=en_US&locale=en_US>
> >
> > I use it all the time.
>
> I had heard of this. However, makes me wonder how long Apple will keep
> the older utility around. What about future compatibility and
> configurability?
My take on it was that they did a complete rewrite of the tool and
simply haven't gotten around to adding those features to it yet. I
wouldn't be surprised to see those features pop up in some future
release. In the mean time, I'm not all that concerned. I'll just be sure
to keep a machine around that can run 5.6.
> > > However, some non-Apple
> > > routers are fully configurable but may not to work well with Macs
> > > (according to some complaints).
> >
> > One thing I love about Apple routers is how much more user friendly
> > configuration is compared with the typical crappy, ill-designed
> > browser-based web page configuration facilities offered by most
> > companies.
>
> Yes, I set up an AExt for a neighbor a year ago. Stock setup was fine
> for her and like falling off a log. 10 minutes total including sorting
> out her rat's nest of wiring.
>
> As long as I can get at some of the more esoteric settings _if_ I need
> them (and get good range), then Apple's utility isn't a problem. Yes,
> most of the manufacturer-supplied configuration utilities are poor. My
> current Belkin's is actually not bad, but using the one from its
> predecessor, an Asante, was arduous at best.
Right. The other thing I dislike about most routers is the updates are
often dismal, if they exist at all, and often the updates stop very
quickly, and you are left with a stagnant router.
> Thanks for helping me out here!
Any time!
was pleasantly surprised. It really seemed about on par with the Netgear
I was using before it.
> Just to confirm about how you're using the older AExt, it's being used
> as a repeater? In bridge mode? I was thinking you could only do this
> with an ethernet line run from the primary router, in other words, a
> wired extension of the wireless network rather than a true repeater.
AE router, I set it up with "Create a wireless network", and when
setting up the secondary gigabit AE router, I set it up with "Extend a
wireless network". The rest was automatic. I placed the secondary router
halfway between the furthest point away from the router and the router
itself, figuring that would give me the best chance of holing a
connection on the router itself and extending coverage into the problem
area, and it works like a charm!
> If you hadn't had the old AExt sitting around, you could have bought an
> Airport Express and used it in repeater mode to accomplish the same
> thing? I've never been entirely sure what the full capabilities of the
> AExp are. I suppose I've always been suspicious of repeaters, despite
> the fact that they are widely used commercially, for fear of getting
> 'garbage in, garbage out'.
shot some time when I'm bored (hahaha! yeah right).
> > > I also had some concern about the Extreme's seeming lack of
> > > configurability. Apple evidently removed port forwarding, QoS, and other
> > > items from user control. Is that really true?
> >
> > Not entirely, no. What Apple did was release a newer version of the
> > Airport Utility. That newer version was missing certain features. But
> > Apple still offers the previous version of Airport Utility for download,
> > and you can still use it to manage those features:
> >
> > <http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1482?viewlocale=en_US&locale=en_US>
> >
> > I use it all the time.
>
> I had heard of this. However, makes me wonder how long Apple will keep
> the older utility around. What about future compatibility and
> configurability?
simply haven't gotten around to adding those features to it yet. I
wouldn't be surprised to see those features pop up in some future
release. In the mean time, I'm not all that concerned. I'll just be sure
to keep a machine around that can run 5.6.
> > > However, some non-Apple
> > > routers are fully configurable but may not to work well with Macs
> > > (according to some complaints).
> >
> > One thing I love about Apple routers is how much more user friendly
> > configuration is compared with the typical crappy, ill-designed
> > browser-based web page configuration facilities offered by most
> > companies.
>
> Yes, I set up an AExt for a neighbor a year ago. Stock setup was fine
> for her and like falling off a log. 10 minutes total including sorting
> out her rat's nest of wiring.
>
> As long as I can get at some of the more esoteric settings _if_ I need
> them (and get good range), then Apple's utility isn't a problem. Yes,
> most of the manufacturer-supplied configuration utilities are poor. My
> current Belkin's is actually not bad, but using the one from its
> predecessor, an Asante, was arduous at best.
often dismal, if they exist at all, and often the updates stop very
quickly, and you are left with a stagnant router.
> Thanks for helping me out here!
Tom Stiller
Dec 6, 2012, 1:30:09 PM12/6/12
to
In article <jollyroger-2EA39...@news.individual.net>,
performance impact due to the double transmit/receive exchanges?
--
PRAY, v. To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf
of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy. -- Ambrose Bierce
Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> When setting up the main dual-band
> AE router, I set it up with "Create a wireless network", and when
> setting up the secondary gigabit AE router, I set it up with "Extend a
> wireless network". The rest was automatic. I placed the secondary router
> halfway between the furthest point away from the router and the router
> itself, figuring that would give me the best chance of holing a
> connection on the router itself and extending coverage into the problem
> area, and it works like a charm!
Question: given that the radios are half-duplex, do you notice any
> When setting up the main dual-band
> AE router, I set it up with "Create a wireless network", and when
> setting up the secondary gigabit AE router, I set it up with "Extend a
> wireless network". The rest was automatic. I placed the secondary router
> halfway between the furthest point away from the router and the router
> itself, figuring that would give me the best chance of holing a
> connection on the router itself and extending coverage into the problem
> area, and it works like a charm!
performance impact due to the double transmit/receive exchanges?
--
PRAY, v. To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf
of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy. -- Ambrose Bierce
Jolly Roger
Dec 6, 2012, 1:49:09 PM12/6/12
to
In article <tom_stiller-F364...@news.individual.net>,
Tom Stiller <tom_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <jollyroger-2EA39...@news.individual.net>,
> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > When setting up the main dual-band
> > AE router, I set it up with "Create a wireless network", and when
> > setting up the secondary gigabit AE router, I set it up with "Extend a
> > wireless network". The rest was automatic. I placed the secondary router
> > halfway between the furthest point away from the router and the router
> > itself, figuring that would give me the best chance of holing a
> > connection on the router itself and extending coverage into the problem
> > area, and it works like a charm!
>
> Question: given that the radios are half-duplex, do you notice any
> performance impact due to the double transmit/receive exchanges?
How would I detect that?
> In article <jollyroger-2EA39...@news.individual.net>,
> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > When setting up the main dual-band
> > AE router, I set it up with "Create a wireless network", and when
> > setting up the secondary gigabit AE router, I set it up with "Extend a
> > wireless network". The rest was automatic. I placed the secondary router
> > halfway between the furthest point away from the router and the router
> > itself, figuring that would give me the best chance of holing a
> > connection on the router itself and extending coverage into the problem
> > area, and it works like a charm!
>
> Question: given that the radios are half-duplex, do you notice any
> performance impact due to the double transmit/receive exchanges?
Tom Stiller
Dec 6, 2012, 2:07:54 PM12/6/12
to
In article <jollyroger-02A2F...@news.individual.net>,
Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> In article <tom_stiller-F364...@news.individual.net>,
> Tom Stiller <tom_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <jollyroger-2EA39...@news.individual.net>,
> > Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> > > When setting up the main dual-band
> > > AE router, I set it up with "Create a wireless network", and when
> > > setting up the secondary gigabit AE router, I set it up with "Extend a
> > > wireless network". The rest was automatic. I placed the secondary router
> > > halfway between the furthest point away from the router and the router
> > > itself, figuring that would give me the best chance of holing a
> > > connection on the router itself and extending coverage into the problem
> > > area, and it works like a charm!
> >
> > Question: given that the radios are half-duplex, do you notice any
> > performance impact due to the double transmit/receive exchanges?
>
> How would I detect that?
I guess the answer is that you haven't noticed any performance impact.
> In article <tom_stiller-F364...@news.individual.net>,
> Tom Stiller <tom_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <jollyroger-2EA39...@news.individual.net>,
> > Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> > > When setting up the main dual-band
> > > AE router, I set it up with "Create a wireless network", and when
> > > setting up the secondary gigabit AE router, I set it up with "Extend a
> > > wireless network". The rest was automatic. I placed the secondary router
> > > halfway between the furthest point away from the router and the router
> > > itself, figuring that would give me the best chance of holing a
> > > connection on the router itself and extending coverage into the problem
> > > area, and it works like a charm!
> >
> > Question: given that the radios are half-duplex, do you notice any
> > performance impact due to the double transmit/receive exchanges?
>
> How would I detect that?
Jolly Roger
Dec 6, 2012, 2:28:17 PM12/6/12
to
In article <tom_stiller-FB5D...@news.individual.net>,
MBps transfer speeds, which seems to be within the realistic range.
Tom Stiller <tom_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <jollyroger-02A2F...@news.individual.net>,
> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <tom_stiller-F364...@news.individual.net>,
> > Tom Stiller <tom_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <jollyroger-2EA39...@news.individual.net>,
> > > Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > When setting up the main dual-band
> > > > AE router, I set it up with "Create a wireless network", and when
> > > > setting up the secondary gigabit AE router, I set it up with "Extend a
> > > > wireless network". The rest was automatic. I placed the secondary
> > > > router
> > > > halfway between the furthest point away from the router and the router
> > > > itself, figuring that would give me the best chance of holing a
> > > > connection on the router itself and extending coverage into the problem
> > > > area, and it works like a charm!
> > >
> > > Question: given that the radios are half-duplex, do you notice any
> > > performance impact due to the double transmit/receive exchanges?
> >
> > How would I detect that?
>
> I guess the answer is that you haven't noticed any performance impact.
No, I haven't noticed any problems. I typically see anywhere from 12-14
> In article <jollyroger-02A2F...@news.individual.net>,
> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <tom_stiller-F364...@news.individual.net>,
> > Tom Stiller <tom_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <jollyroger-2EA39...@news.individual.net>,
> > > Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > When setting up the main dual-band
> > > > AE router, I set it up with "Create a wireless network", and when
> > > > setting up the secondary gigabit AE router, I set it up with "Extend a
> > > > wireless network". The rest was automatic. I placed the secondary
> > > > router
> > > > halfway between the furthest point away from the router and the router
> > > > itself, figuring that would give me the best chance of holing a
> > > > connection on the router itself and extending coverage into the problem
> > > > area, and it works like a charm!
> > >
> > > Question: given that the radios are half-duplex, do you notice any
> > > performance impact due to the double transmit/receive exchanges?
> >
> > How would I detect that?
>
> I guess the answer is that you haven't noticed any performance impact.
MBps transfer speeds, which seems to be within the realistic range.
DaveC
Dec 6, 2012, 2:44:33 PM12/6/12
to
> I placed the secondary router
> halfway between the furthest point away from the router and the router
> itself, figuring that would give me the best chance of holing a
> connection on the router itself and extending coverage into the problem
> area, and it works like a charm!
[JR]
> halfway between the furthest point away from the router and the router
> itself, figuring that would give me the best chance of holing a
> connection on the router itself and extending coverage into the problem
> area, and it works like a charm!
My understanding of the function of such a repeater-mode router is that it
first receives the signal (packets) and then retransmit them. This makes it
"half-duplex", no? So this means that your destination Mac receives half the
bandwidth available at the source router, yes?
Feel free to fill the holes in my understanding...
Thanks,
Dave
DaveC
Dec 6, 2012, 2:48:07 PM12/6/12
to
> No, I haven't noticed any problems. I typically see anywhere from 12-14
> MBps transfer speeds, which seems to be within the realistic range.
[JR]
> MBps transfer speeds, which seems to be within the realistic range.
As comparison, do you have a portable computer that you can test bandwidth
when near the source router, then compare when moved to the far side of the
repeater router?
I, too, am interested to know if there's any drop in bandwidth due to the
receive-then-transmit handling of packets.
Dave
nospam
Dec 6, 2012, 3:37:07 PM12/6/12
to
In article
<0001HW.CCE63677...@news.eternal-september.org>, DaveC
if you aren't pushing the limits of your network then the reduction in
bandwidth might not matter, but the maximum speed is going to be lower.
<0001HW.CCE63677...@news.eternal-september.org>, DaveC
<inv...@invalid.net> wrote:
> > No, I haven't noticed any problems. I typically see anywhere from 12-14
> > MBps transfer speeds, which seems to be within the realistic range.
>
> > No, I haven't noticed any problems. I typically see anywhere from 12-14
> > MBps transfer speeds, which seems to be within the realistic range.
>
> As comparison, do you have a portable computer that you can test bandwidth
> when near the source router, then compare when moved to the far side of the
> repeater router?
>
> I, too, am interested to know if there's any drop in bandwidth due to the
> receive-then-transmit handling of packets.
there will be. that's how wds works.
> when near the source router, then compare when moved to the far side of the
> repeater router?
>
> I, too, am interested to know if there's any drop in bandwidth due to the
> receive-then-transmit handling of packets.
if you aren't pushing the limits of your network then the reduction in
bandwidth might not matter, but the maximum speed is going to be lower.
nospam
Dec 6, 2012, 3:37:09 PM12/6/12
to
In article
<0001HW.CCE635A1...@news.eternal-september.org>, DaveC
station, you've halved it again.
<0001HW.CCE635A1...@news.eternal-september.org>, DaveC
<inv...@invalid.net> wrote:
> My understanding of the function of such a repeater-mode router is that it
> first receives the signal (packets) and then retransmit them. This makes it
> "half-duplex", no? So this means that your destination Mac receives half the
> bandwidth available at the source router, yes?
wifi is already half-duplex. if you have to repeat it to a remote base
> My understanding of the function of such a repeater-mode router is that it
> first receives the signal (packets) and then retransmit them. This makes it
> "half-duplex", no? So this means that your destination Mac receives half the
> bandwidth available at the source router, yes?
station, you've halved it again.
Jolly Roger
Dec 6, 2012, 4:02:19 PM12/6/12
to
wouldn't drop off the network. If I ever do care enough about speed to
test it, I'll post here.
Jolly Roger
Dec 6, 2012, 4:03:06 PM12/6/12
to
> > I placed the secondary router
> > halfway between the furthest point away from the router and the router
> > itself, figuring that would give me the best chance of holing a
> > connection on the router itself and extending coverage into the problem
> > area, and it works like a charm!
> [JR]
>
> My understanding of the function of such a repeater-mode router is that it
> first receives the signal (packets) and then retransmit them. This makes it
> "half-duplex", no? So this means that your destination Mac receives half the
> bandwidth available at the source router, yes?
I suppose so; though I certainly haven't felt that speed is a problem
> > halfway between the furthest point away from the router and the router
> > itself, figuring that would give me the best chance of holing a
> > connection on the router itself and extending coverage into the problem
> > area, and it works like a charm!
> [JR]
>
> My understanding of the function of such a repeater-mode router is that it
> first receives the signal (packets) and then retransmit them. This makes it
> "half-duplex", no? So this means that your destination Mac receives half the
> bandwidth available at the source router, yes?
with my setup.
Tom Stiller
Dec 6, 2012, 4:56:49 PM12/6/12
to
receive [anything] at the same time. what you describe is "store and
forward" which also applies here.
The problem is not so much a reduction bandwidth as an overall increase
in throughput delay.
>
> Thanks,
> Dave
Tom Stiller
Dec 6, 2012, 5:00:07 PM12/6/12
to
In article <061220121537098053%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
Well, it's not quarter-duplex. The major impact of repeating is
throughput delay, assuming both the channels have the same data rate.
throughput delay, assuming both the channels have the same data rate.
nospam
Dec 6, 2012, 5:25:49 PM12/6/12
to
In article <tom_stiller-D904...@news.individual.net>, Tom
retransmit it to the client. there is also an additional latency too.
Stiller <tom_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > My understanding of the function of such a repeater-mode router is that it
> > > first receives the signal (packets) and then retransmit them. This makes it
> > > "half-duplex", no? So this means that your destination Mac receives half
> > > the bandwidth available at the source router, yes?
> >
> > wifi is already half-duplex. if you have to repeat it to a remote base
> > station, you've halved it again.
>
> Well, it's not quarter-duplex. The major impact of repeating is
> throughput delay, assuming both the channels have the same data rate.
it's both. the remote base station has to receive the data and then
> > > My understanding of the function of such a repeater-mode router is that it
> > > first receives the signal (packets) and then retransmit them. This makes it
> > > "half-duplex", no? So this means that your destination Mac receives half
> > > the bandwidth available at the source router, yes?
> >
> > wifi is already half-duplex. if you have to repeat it to a remote base
> > station, you've halved it again.
>
> Well, it's not quarter-duplex. The major impact of repeating is
> throughput delay, assuming both the channels have the same data rate.
retransmit it to the client. there is also an additional latency too.
Suze
Dec 6, 2012, 6:13:30 PM12/6/12
to
In article <fmoore-CC24D0....@news.eternal-september.org>,
http://store.bearextender.com/pages/bearextender-and-ipad-iphone
It's not possible directly, but you can use it to increase signal
strength on a nearby mac and then use it in "hotspot mode".
It's not possible directly, but you can use it to increase signal
strength on a nearby mac and then use it in "hotspot mode".
Tom Stiller
Dec 6, 2012, 6:43:29 PM12/6/12
to
In article <061220121725499297%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
True, but it has nothing to do with wether the station is full- or
half-duplex, only that it's a store and forward repeater (well, maybe
latency since the radio has to turn around from xmit to rec).
Ethernet routers and switches are full-duplex but they suffer throughput
(i.e. end-to-end) delay for the same reasons.
half-duplex, only that it's a store and forward repeater (well, maybe
latency since the radio has to turn around from xmit to rec).
Ethernet routers and switches are full-duplex but they suffer throughput
(i.e. end-to-end) delay for the same reasons.
Bob Harris
Dec 6, 2012, 6:58:43 PM12/6/12
to
In article
<fmoore-9A9DB4....@news.eternal-september.org>,
Fred Moore <fmo...@gcfn.org> wrote:
> (I write this from my padded cell in The iPad Addiction Recovery
> Facility, Intensive Care Ward. Got my new iPad4 3 days ago. My wife had
> me committed after the first 24 hours with the device. Prognosis not
> good.)
>
> I, of course, want to use my iPad with my home wireless network. And it
> does work, except it could be better. The first problem is that my
> current wireless router is 802.11b/g. It's been a good router (a
> Belkin), but I want to move up to N. I'd like to have the faster data
> transfer as well as dual networks and guest network access. Second, I
> live in an older house with very solid walls. They're 7/8" thick plaster
> over cement and lath. They really kill the signal from the current
> router. So, I need a router with high output. I have Googled a fair bit
> and can't find any good output or range comparisons. I can't believe no
> one has done this, but I can't find them.
>
> I'm prepared to pay up to $200 if necessary (I hope less) to get
> something really good. I have heavily researched Amazon's reviews of
> various Gigabit ethernet N routers and am getting more and more confused
> by the 1-star reviews. How can a router which so many people give 4 or 5
> stars, have other people giving the same device 1 star because they are
> getting exactly the opposite experience ('Oh, great range.' 'No,
> terrible range' etc.)?
> routers from all the usuals: Asus, Belkin, D-Link, Linksys, as well as
> others on Amazon. Any solid recommendations which sort out the confusion
> will be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
>
> (Ya can take ma life, but ya canna take ma iPad!) :-D
I just use 2 WiFi devices setup in a Roaming WiFi network. I've
done this in 2 homes.
One is the WiFi Router connected to the broadband modem. I then
have an ethernet cable running from the primary router to a second
WiFi base station in a different part of the house.
The 2nd WiFi base station has routing disabled (Airport Extreme
calls this "Bridge" mode, other routers either have a disable DHCP
or disable both DHCP and NAT as a way to turn off routing).
The 2nd WiFi base station uses the identical SSID WiFi name and
password so that your devices can automatically switch base
stations as one signal gets weak and the other gets stronger. You
can have an on-going FaceTime session with someone, automatically
switch base stations and never notice with a properly setup
Roaming network.
Finally, each base station uses a different channel (for 2.4GHz at
least 5 channels apart, for 5GHz make sure it is a different
channel), so that they do not interfere with each other. And of
course you want to pick channels that are not being interfered
with by your neighbors.
Speaking of neighbors, they can be a major source of signal issues
if you are using 2.4GHz channels that are too close together AND
your neighbors are close enough to your home. Use something like
"WiFi Scanner" or iStumbler to find out what channels your
neighbors are using so you can make sure you are not interfering
with each other.
<fmoore-9A9DB4....@news.eternal-september.org>,
Fred Moore <fmo...@gcfn.org> wrote:
> (I write this from my padded cell in The iPad Addiction Recovery
> Facility, Intensive Care Ward. Got my new iPad4 3 days ago. My wife had
> me committed after the first 24 hours with the device. Prognosis not
> good.)
>
> I, of course, want to use my iPad with my home wireless network. And it
> does work, except it could be better. The first problem is that my
> current wireless router is 802.11b/g. It's been a good router (a
> Belkin), but I want to move up to N. I'd like to have the faster data
> transfer as well as dual networks and guest network access. Second, I
> live in an older house with very solid walls. They're 7/8" thick plaster
> over cement and lath. They really kill the signal from the current
> router. So, I need a router with high output. I have Googled a fair bit
> and can't find any good output or range comparisons. I can't believe no
> one has done this, but I can't find them.
>
> I'm prepared to pay up to $200 if necessary (I hope less) to get
> something really good. I have heavily researched Amazon's reviews of
> various Gigabit ethernet N routers and am getting more and more confused
> by the 1-star reviews. How can a router which so many people give 4 or 5
> stars, have other people giving the same device 1 star because they are
> getting exactly the opposite experience ('Oh, great range.' 'No,
> terrible range' etc.)?
>
> I was inclined toward the Apple Airport Extreme because I had heard it
> had good range. Then I read a few reviews where users directly
> contradicted other high-rated reviews. How can this be? Yes, I know
> there's always someone who will pan even the best product, but can that
> really explain it?
>
> I was inclined toward the Apple Airport Extreme because I had heard it
> had good range. Then I read a few reviews where users directly
> contradicted other high-rated reviews. How can this be? Yes, I know
> there's always someone who will pan even the best product, but can that
> really explain it?
>
> I also had some concern about the Extreme's seeming lack of
> configurability. Apple evidently removed port forwarding, QoS, and other
> items from user control. Is that really true? However, some non-Apple
> configurability. Apple evidently removed port forwarding, QoS, and other
> routers are fully configurable but may not to work well with Macs
> (according to some complaints).
>
> So what have you folks experienced? There are highly rated wireless N
> (according to some complaints).
>
> routers from all the usuals: Asus, Belkin, D-Link, Linksys, as well as
> others on Amazon. Any solid recommendations which sort out the confusion
> will be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
>
> (Ya can take ma life, but ya canna take ma iPad!) :-D
I just use 2 WiFi devices setup in a Roaming WiFi network. I've
done this in 2 homes.
One is the WiFi Router connected to the broadband modem. I then
have an ethernet cable running from the primary router to a second
WiFi base station in a different part of the house.
The 2nd WiFi base station has routing disabled (Airport Extreme
calls this "Bridge" mode, other routers either have a disable DHCP
or disable both DHCP and NAT as a way to turn off routing).
The 2nd WiFi base station uses the identical SSID WiFi name and
password so that your devices can automatically switch base
stations as one signal gets weak and the other gets stronger. You
can have an on-going FaceTime session with someone, automatically
switch base stations and never notice with a properly setup
Roaming network.
Finally, each base station uses a different channel (for 2.4GHz at
least 5 channels apart, for 5GHz make sure it is a different
channel), so that they do not interfere with each other. And of
course you want to pick channels that are not being interfered
with by your neighbors.
Speaking of neighbors, they can be a major source of signal issues
if you are using 2.4GHz channels that are too close together AND
your neighbors are close enough to your home. Use something like
"WiFi Scanner" or iStumbler to find out what channels your
neighbors are using so you can make sure you are not interfering
with each other.
ChairmanOfTheBored
Dec 6, 2012, 10:58:43 PM12/6/12
to
What you have stated is incorrect.
ChairmanOfTheBored
Dec 6, 2012, 10:59:57 PM12/6/12
to
nospam
Dec 6, 2012, 11:27:17 PM12/6/12
to
In article <ecq2c8947l8tgu0f8...@4ax.com>,
ChairmanOfTheBored <RUB...@crackasmile.org> wrote:
> >> > > My understanding of the function of such a repeater-mode router is
> >> > > that it
> >> > > first receives the signal (packets) and then retransmit them. This
> >> > > makes it
> >> > > "half-duplex", no? So this means that your destination Mac receives
> >> > > half
> >> > > the bandwidth available at the source router, yes?
> >> >
> >> > wifi is already half-duplex. if you have to repeat it to a remote base
> >> > station, you've halved it again.
> >>
> >> Well, it's not quarter-duplex. The major impact of repeating is
> >> throughput delay, assuming both the channels have the same data rate.
> >
> >it's both. the remote base station has to receive the data and then
> >retransmit it to the client. there is also an additional latency too.
>
> But it does NOT half everything. It is a miniscule amount.
it's much more than miniscule.
> >> > > My understanding of the function of such a repeater-mode router is
> >> > > that it
> >> > > first receives the signal (packets) and then retransmit them. This
> >> > > makes it
> >> > > "half-duplex", no? So this means that your destination Mac receives
> >> > > half
> >> > > the bandwidth available at the source router, yes?
> >> >
> >> > wifi is already half-duplex. if you have to repeat it to a remote base
> >> > station, you've halved it again.
> >>
> >> Well, it's not quarter-duplex. The major impact of repeating is
> >> throughput delay, assuming both the channels have the same data rate.
> >
> >it's both. the remote base station has to receive the data and then
> >retransmit it to the client. there is also an additional latency too.
>
> But it does NOT half everything. It is a miniscule amount.
nospam
Dec 6, 2012, 11:27:19 PM12/6/12
to
In article <99q2c85igtak78lmh...@4ax.com>,
ChairmanOfTheBored <RUB...@crackasmile.org> wrote:
> >> My understanding of the function of such a repeater-mode router is that it
> >> first receives the signal (packets) and then retransmit them. This makes it
> >> "half-duplex", no? So this means that your destination Mac receives half
> >> the bandwidth available at the source router, yes?
> >
> >wifi is already half-duplex. if you have to repeat it to a remote base
> >station, you've halved it again.
>
> What you were 'taught', you failed to learn correctly.
>
> What you have stated is incorrect.
it's exactly correct.
> >> My understanding of the function of such a repeater-mode router is that it
> >> first receives the signal (packets) and then retransmit them. This makes it
> >> "half-duplex", no? So this means that your destination Mac receives half
> >> the bandwidth available at the source router, yes?
> >
> >wifi is already half-duplex. if you have to repeat it to a remote base
> >station, you've halved it again.
>
> What you were 'taught', you failed to learn correctly.
>
> What you have stated is incorrect.
Tom Stiller
Dec 7, 2012, 9:36:54 AM12/7/12
to
In article <061220122327193108%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
you seem to have confused transmit/receive protocol with bandwidth and
you are still wrong. Repeating does not halve anything; it simply adds
to the end-to-end delay
you are still wrong. Repeating does not halve anything; it simply adds
to the end-to-end delay
nospam
Dec 7, 2012, 12:24:59 PM12/7/12
to
In article <tom_stiller-D165...@news.individual.net>, Tom
<http://www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/WDS_Linked_router_network>
Also take note of the fact that all repeaters, including this WDS
Repeater mode, will sacrifice half of the bandwidth available from
the primary router for clients wirelessly connected to the repeater.
This is a result of the repeater taking turns talking to not just one
partner, but to two, and having to relay the traffic between them.
<http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/wireless/wireless-howto/31191-everything-
you-need-to-know-about-wireless-bridging-and-repeating-part-1-wds>
Note that wireless throughput is cut approximately in half for each
repeating "hop", i.e. an AP that data flows through before hitting
the wired network. This is because all transmissions use the same
channel and radio and must be retransmitted to reach the wired LAN.
The repeating throughput reduction applies both to WDS and non-WDS
repeating.
<http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/tutorials/article.php/3628576>
On the second floor, "router 2" acts as both a wireless client and an
access point to receive and re-transmit the signal from router 1, the
key word being re-transmit. There is a cost to WDS -- clients
associated with router 2 will see only half the bandwidth as those
associated with router 1.
Stiller <tom_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >wifi is already half-duplex. if you have to repeat it to a remote base
> > > >station, you've halved it again.
> > >
> > > What you were 'taught', you failed to learn correctly.
> > >
> > > What you have stated is incorrect.
> >
> > it's exactly correct.
>
> you seem to have confused transmit/receive protocol with bandwidth and
> you are still wrong. Repeating does not halve anything; it simply adds
> to the end-to-end delay
i'm not the one who is confused.
> > > >wifi is already half-duplex. if you have to repeat it to a remote base
> > > >station, you've halved it again.
> > >
> > > What you were 'taught', you failed to learn correctly.
> > >
> > > What you have stated is incorrect.
> >
> > it's exactly correct.
>
> you seem to have confused transmit/receive protocol with bandwidth and
> you are still wrong. Repeating does not halve anything; it simply adds
> to the end-to-end delay
<http://www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/WDS_Linked_router_network>
Also take note of the fact that all repeaters, including this WDS
Repeater mode, will sacrifice half of the bandwidth available from
the primary router for clients wirelessly connected to the repeater.
This is a result of the repeater taking turns talking to not just one
partner, but to two, and having to relay the traffic between them.
<http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/wireless/wireless-howto/31191-everything-
you-need-to-know-about-wireless-bridging-and-repeating-part-1-wds>
Note that wireless throughput is cut approximately in half for each
repeating "hop", i.e. an AP that data flows through before hitting
the wired network. This is because all transmissions use the same
channel and radio and must be retransmitted to reach the wired LAN.
The repeating throughput reduction applies both to WDS and non-WDS
repeating.
<http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/tutorials/article.php/3628576>
On the second floor, "router 2" acts as both a wireless client and an
access point to receive and re-transmit the signal from router 1, the
key word being re-transmit. There is a cost to WDS -- clients
associated with router 2 will see only half the bandwidth as those
associated with router 1.
Tom Stiller
Dec 7, 2012, 2:04:14 PM12/7/12
to
In article <071220121224591272%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
can begin listening again as soon as the downlink transmission is
complete, starting another packet transmission.
> <http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/tutorials/article.php/3628576>
> On the second floor, "router 2" acts as both a wireless client and an
> access point to receive and re-transmit the signal from router 1, the
> key word being re-transmit. There is a cost to WDS -- clients
> associated with router 2 will see only half the bandwidth as those
> associated with router 1.
This might be the case if the transmission consisted of a single packet
but most exchanges are several packets in length.
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <tom_stiller-D165...@news.individual.net>, Tom
> Stiller <tom_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >wifi is already half-duplex. if you have to repeat it to a remote base
> > > > >station, you've halved it again.
> > > >
> > > > What you were 'taught', you failed to learn correctly.
> > > >
> > > > What you have stated is incorrect.
> > >
> > > it's exactly correct.
> >
> > you seem to have confused transmit/receive protocol with bandwidth and
> > you are still wrong. Repeating does not halve anything; it simply adds
> > to the end-to-end delay
>
> i'm not the one who is confused.
>
> <http://www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/WDS_Linked_router_network>
> Also take note of the fact that all repeaters, including this WDS
> Repeater mode, will sacrifice half of the bandwidth available from
> the primary router for clients wirelessly connected to the repeater.
> This is a result of the repeater taking turns talking to not just one
> partner, but to two, and having to relay the traffic between them.
That's just the store and forward delay. The first station in the chain
> In article <tom_stiller-D165...@news.individual.net>, Tom
> Stiller <tom_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >wifi is already half-duplex. if you have to repeat it to a remote base
> > > > >station, you've halved it again.
> > > >
> > > > What you were 'taught', you failed to learn correctly.
> > > >
> > > > What you have stated is incorrect.
> > >
> > > it's exactly correct.
> >
> > you seem to have confused transmit/receive protocol with bandwidth and
> > you are still wrong. Repeating does not halve anything; it simply adds
> > to the end-to-end delay
>
> i'm not the one who is confused.
>
> <http://www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/WDS_Linked_router_network>
> Also take note of the fact that all repeaters, including this WDS
> Repeater mode, will sacrifice half of the bandwidth available from
> the primary router for clients wirelessly connected to the repeater.
> This is a result of the repeater taking turns talking to not just one
> partner, but to two, and having to relay the traffic between them.
can begin listening again as soon as the downlink transmission is
complete, starting another packet transmission.
>
> <http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/wireless/wireless-howto/31191-everything-
> you-need-to-know-about-wireless-bridging-and-repeating-part-1-wds>
> Note that wireless throughput is cut approximately in half for each
> repeating "hop", i.e. an AP that data flows through before hitting
> the wired network. This is because all transmissions use the same
> channel and radio and must be retransmitted to reach the wired LAN.
> The repeating throughput reduction applies both to WDS and non-WDS
> repeating.
Who says the stations have to operate on the same channel?
> <http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/wireless/wireless-howto/31191-everything-
> you-need-to-know-about-wireless-bridging-and-repeating-part-1-wds>
> Note that wireless throughput is cut approximately in half for each
> repeating "hop", i.e. an AP that data flows through before hitting
> the wired network. This is because all transmissions use the same
> channel and radio and must be retransmitted to reach the wired LAN.
> The repeating throughput reduction applies both to WDS and non-WDS
> repeating.
> <http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/tutorials/article.php/3628576>
> On the second floor, "router 2" acts as both a wireless client and an
> access point to receive and re-transmit the signal from router 1, the
> key word being re-transmit. There is a cost to WDS -- clients
> associated with router 2 will see only half the bandwidth as those
> associated with router 1.
but most exchanges are several packets in length.
nospam
Dec 7, 2012, 2:56:56 PM12/7/12
to
In article <tom_stiller-DF96...@news.individual.net>, Tom
> > <http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/wireless/wireless-howto/31191-everything-
> > you-need-to-know-about-wireless-bridging-and-repeating-part-1-wds>
> > Note that wireless throughput is cut approximately in half for each
> > repeating "hop", i.e. an AP that data flows through before hitting
> > the wired network. This is because all transmissions use the same
> > channel and radio and must be retransmitted to reach the wired LAN.
> > The repeating throughput reduction applies both to WDS and non-WDS
> > repeating.
>
> Who says the stations have to operate on the same channel?
Stiller <tom_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > you seem to have confused transmit/receive protocol with bandwidth and
> > > you are still wrong. Repeating does not halve anything; it simply adds
> > > to the end-to-end delay
> >
> > i'm not the one who is confused.
> >
> > <http://www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/WDS_Linked_router_network>
> > Also take note of the fact that all repeaters, including this WDS
> > Repeater mode, will sacrifice half of the bandwidth available from
> > the primary router for clients wirelessly connected to the repeater.
> > This is a result of the repeater taking turns talking to not just one
> > partner, but to two, and having to relay the traffic between them.
>
> That's just the store and forward delay. The first station in the chain
> can begin listening again as soon as the downlink transmission is
> complete, starting another packet transmission.
doesn't work that way.
> > > you seem to have confused transmit/receive protocol with bandwidth and
> > > you are still wrong. Repeating does not halve anything; it simply adds
> > > to the end-to-end delay
> >
> > i'm not the one who is confused.
> >
> > <http://www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/WDS_Linked_router_network>
> > Also take note of the fact that all repeaters, including this WDS
> > Repeater mode, will sacrifice half of the bandwidth available from
> > the primary router for clients wirelessly connected to the repeater.
> > This is a result of the repeater taking turns talking to not just one
> > partner, but to two, and having to relay the traffic between them.
>
> That's just the store and forward delay. The first station in the chain
> can begin listening again as soon as the downlink transmission is
> complete, starting another packet transmission.
> > <http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/wireless/wireless-howto/31191-everything-
> > you-need-to-know-about-wireless-bridging-and-repeating-part-1-wds>
> > Note that wireless throughput is cut approximately in half for each
> > repeating "hop", i.e. an AP that data flows through before hitting
> > the wired network. This is because all transmissions use the same
> > channel and radio and must be retransmitted to reach the wired LAN.
> > The repeating throughput reduction applies both to WDS and non-WDS
> > repeating.
>
> Who says the stations have to operate on the same channel?
that's how wds works.
> > <http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/tutorials/article.php/3628576>
> > On the second floor, "router 2" acts as both a wireless client and an
> > access point to receive and re-transmit the signal from router 1, the
> > key word being re-transmit. There is a cost to WDS -- clients
> > associated with router 2 will see only half the bandwidth as those
> > associated with router 1.
>
> This might be the case if the transmission consisted of a single packet
> but most exchanges are several packets in length.
that doesn't matter.
> > On the second floor, "router 2" acts as both a wireless client and an
> > access point to receive and re-transmit the signal from router 1, the
> > key word being re-transmit. There is a cost to WDS -- clients
> > associated with router 2 will see only half the bandwidth as those
> > associated with router 1.
>
> This might be the case if the transmission consisted of a single packet
> but most exchanges are several packets in length.
you
Dec 8, 2012, 2:50:49 PM12/8/12
to
In article <tom_stiller-F364...@news.individual.net>,
and you both do not really understand the technology, in use here...
MANY of the later AP's and routers are MIMO.... (Multi In/Multi Out)
which means, they can both Transmit and Receive at the SAME Time...
by using Time Domain Spread Spectrum Encoding, which means the Tx Carrier
is moving around in the Band Space, at different Frequencies/Times, than
where the Receiver is looking for incoming Carriers. It ALSO means there
can be MULTIPLE Transmitters and Receivers in a single Box, that can
function at the SAME Time.... Get with the Program.... and learn the
technology....
Tom Stiller <tom_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Question: given that the radios are half-duplex, do you notice any
> performance impact due to the double transmit/receive exchanges?
Been watching this debate for a while now...
> Question: given that the radios are half-duplex, do you notice any
> performance impact due to the double transmit/receive exchanges?
and you both do not really understand the technology, in use here...
MANY of the later AP's and routers are MIMO.... (Multi In/Multi Out)
which means, they can both Transmit and Receive at the SAME Time...
by using Time Domain Spread Spectrum Encoding, which means the Tx Carrier
is moving around in the Band Space, at different Frequencies/Times, than
where the Receiver is looking for incoming Carriers. It ALSO means there
can be MULTIPLE Transmitters and Receivers in a single Box, that can
function at the SAME Time.... Get with the Program.... and learn the
technology....
nospam
Dec 8, 2012, 3:09:13 PM12/8/12
to
In article <you-1A8C2B.1...@news.starband.net>, you
<y...@shadows.orgs> wrote:
> MANY of the later AP's and routers are MIMO.... (Multi In/Multi Out)
> which means, they can both Transmit and Receive at the SAME Time...
> by using Time Domain Spread Spectrum Encoding, which means the Tx Carrier
> is moving around in the Band Space, at different Frequencies/Times, than
> where the Receiver is looking for incoming Carriers. It ALSO means there
> can be MULTIPLE Transmitters and Receivers in a single Box, that can
> function at the SAME Time.... Get with the Program.... and learn the
> technology....
mimo doesn't change the fact that wds cuts bandwidth.
> MANY of the later AP's and routers are MIMO.... (Multi In/Multi Out)
> which means, they can both Transmit and Receive at the SAME Time...
> by using Time Domain Spread Spectrum Encoding, which means the Tx Carrier
> is moving around in the Band Space, at different Frequencies/Times, than
> where the Receiver is looking for incoming Carriers. It ALSO means there
> can be MULTIPLE Transmitters and Receivers in a single Box, that can
> function at the SAME Time.... Get with the Program.... and learn the
> technology....
Jolly Roger
Dec 8, 2012, 3:18:23 PM12/8/12
to
In article <081220121509135254%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
It also doesn't change the fact that the bandwidth drop is acceptable
for those wishing to extend coverage. This is much ado about nothing.
for those wishing to extend coverage. This is much ado about nothing.
Bruce Gordon
Dec 8, 2012, 3:22:01 PM12/8/12
to
In article <fmoore-329478....@news.eternal-september.org>,
Fred Moore <fmo...@gcfn.org> wrote:
> In article <you-0BCAD2.1...@news.starband.net>,
> you <y...@shadows.orgs> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <0001HW.CCE3739C...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > DaveC <inv...@invalid.net> wrote:
> >
> > > The FCC (radio emissions regulator here in the USA) specifies a maximum
> > > signal power for all WiFi devices. Period. No manufacturer can exceed
> > > this.
> > > So you're not going to see one device with more power than another.
> >
> > Well not quite..... ALL 801.X Devices use the 2.4 Ghz Band and some also
> > have the 5.0 Ghz Band, which are part of the CFR48Part15 Regulations of
> > the FCC. The FCC only allows Devices to be sold that comply with the
> > Technical Requirements of Part 15. The Output Power is specified in ERP.
> > (Effective Radiated Power) This is Output Powder * Antenna Gain. There
> > are MANY units that comply by having Higher Output Power and less
> > Antenna Gain. With these units, one can increase ERP, by replacing the
> > Antenna, with one with MORE Gain. Part 15 states that any antenna that
> > is "User Removable" MUST use an RF Connector, that is NOT Generally
> > available to the General Public. (Reverse Gender or Reverse Thread) So
> > as to make such an Antenna Upgrade much harder. Many of these
> > connectors, or Gain Antennas, come with the appropriate Connectors
> > already attached, thus making the FCC's Regulation, mute. I use a One
> > Watt Buffalo WHR-HP-G54 802.11b/g AP with a 20db Panel Antenna, to
> > extend my LAN, 3 miles down the beach to my cabin. I have a second
> > duplicate AP on the other end. RSL is above 50db on each end. It can be
> > done, All it takes is MONEY, and a few Smarts.....
longer Antennas have MULTIPLE Radiating Elements, phased, and stacked,
vertically, which makes the taller/longer in physical appearance. If it
were "Me"... I would put the AP at one end of the house, and then try a
20db Panel Antenna, to focus ALL the available Output Power directed
thru the building. This type system can be used to direct your Wifi away
from any neighbor interference by placing the your Wifi, so that it is
looking away from the neighbors house. Just Say'en.....
Fred Moore <fmo...@gcfn.org> wrote:
> In article <you-0BCAD2.1...@news.starband.net>,
> you <y...@shadows.orgs> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <0001HW.CCE3739C...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > DaveC <inv...@invalid.net> wrote:
> >
> > > The FCC (radio emissions regulator here in the USA) specifies a maximum
> > > signal power for all WiFi devices. Period. No manufacturer can exceed
> > > this.
> > > So you're not going to see one device with more power than another.
> >
> > Well not quite..... ALL 801.X Devices use the 2.4 Ghz Band and some also
> > have the 5.0 Ghz Band, which are part of the CFR48Part15 Regulations of
> > the FCC. The FCC only allows Devices to be sold that comply with the
> > Technical Requirements of Part 15. The Output Power is specified in ERP.
> > (Effective Radiated Power) This is Output Powder * Antenna Gain. There
> > are MANY units that comply by having Higher Output Power and less
> > Antenna Gain. With these units, one can increase ERP, by replacing the
> > Antenna, with one with MORE Gain. Part 15 states that any antenna that
> > is "User Removable" MUST use an RF Connector, that is NOT Generally
> > available to the General Public. (Reverse Gender or Reverse Thread) So
> > as to make such an Antenna Upgrade much harder. Many of these
> > connectors, or Gain Antennas, come with the appropriate Connectors
> > already attached, thus making the FCC's Regulation, mute. I use a One
> > Watt Buffalo WHR-HP-G54 802.11b/g AP with a 20db Panel Antenna, to
> > extend my LAN, 3 miles down the beach to my cabin. I have a second
> > duplicate AP on the other end. RSL is above 50db on each end. It can be
> > done, All it takes is MONEY, and a few Smarts.....
>
> Are the add-on/replacement antennas usually worth it (provided you have
> a unit which has changeable antennas)? Several of the stick antennas
> look like just longer versions of what comes with the unit. I thought
> length (not to be confused with placement) was only associated with
> frequency, not power output, but then it's been a while since I had my
> EE RF course.
No Length in this case, equal Gain, in the GHZ Frequency Range. The
> Are the add-on/replacement antennas usually worth it (provided you have
> a unit which has changeable antennas)? Several of the stick antennas
> look like just longer versions of what comes with the unit. I thought
> length (not to be confused with placement) was only associated with
> frequency, not power output, but then it's been a while since I had my
> EE RF course.
longer Antennas have MULTIPLE Radiating Elements, phased, and stacked,
vertically, which makes the taller/longer in physical appearance. If it
were "Me"... I would put the AP at one end of the house, and then try a
20db Panel Antenna, to focus ALL the available Output Power directed
thru the building. This type system can be used to direct your Wifi away
from any neighbor interference by placing the your Wifi, so that it is
looking away from the neighbors house. Just Say'en.....
you
Dec 8, 2012, 3:26:22 PM12/8/12
to
In article <051220121611043281%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
> quarter-wave, half-wave, etc. what matters is the gain of the antenna
> and it's pattern (e.g., omnidirectional or focused in one direction).
>
> however, the real problem is putting a better antenna on the base
> station doesn't help with what the laptop is transmitting. you really
> need a better antenna at both ends (or additional routers).
Bzzzzt Wrong Answer..... Antenna gain is ALWAYS BiDirectional....
any change in Antenna Gain, is reflected on BOTH Transmit AND Receive.
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <fmoore-329478....@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Fred Moore <fmo...@gcfn.org> wrote:
>
> > Are the add-on/replacement antennas usually worth it (provided you have
> > a unit which has changeable antennas)? Several of the stick antennas
> > look like just longer versions of what comes with the unit. I thought
> > length (not to be confused with placement) was only associated with
> > frequency, not power output, but then it's been a while since I had my
> > EE RF course.
>
> antenna length is associated with frequency, however, they can be
> In article <fmoore-329478....@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Fred Moore <fmo...@gcfn.org> wrote:
>
> > Are the add-on/replacement antennas usually worth it (provided you have
> > a unit which has changeable antennas)? Several of the stick antennas
> > look like just longer versions of what comes with the unit. I thought
> > length (not to be confused with placement) was only associated with
> > frequency, not power output, but then it's been a while since I had my
> > EE RF course.
>
> quarter-wave, half-wave, etc. what matters is the gain of the antenna
> and it's pattern (e.g., omnidirectional or focused in one direction).
>
> however, the real problem is putting a better antenna on the base
> station doesn't help with what the laptop is transmitting. you really
> need a better antenna at both ends (or additional routers).
Bzzzzt Wrong Answer..... Antenna gain is ALWAYS BiDirectional....
any change in Antenna Gain, is reflected on BOTH Transmit AND Receive.
nospam
Dec 8, 2012, 3:41:27 PM12/8/12
to
In article <jollyroger-2767E...@news.individual.net>,
acceptable to others. the fact is that wds cuts throughput in half.
there's no getting around that.
half is a substantial cut, but if someone's isp is the limiting factor,
they won't notice. on the other hand, they *will* notice the difference
when moving files between machines on the lan.
Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > > MANY of the later AP's and routers are MIMO.... (Multi In/Multi Out)
> > > which means, they can both Transmit and Receive at the SAME Time...
> > > by using Time Domain Spread Spectrum Encoding, which means the Tx Carrier
> > > is moving around in the Band Space, at different Frequencies/Times, than
> > > where the Receiver is looking for incoming Carriers. It ALSO means there
> > > can be MULTIPLE Transmitters and Receivers in a single Box, that can
> > > function at the SAME Time.... Get with the Program.... and learn the
> > > technology....
> >
> > mimo doesn't change the fact that wds cuts bandwidth.
>
> It also doesn't change the fact that the bandwidth drop is acceptable
> for those wishing to extend coverage. This is much ado about nothing.
that depends on a lot of things. what is acceptable to you may not be
> > > MANY of the later AP's and routers are MIMO.... (Multi In/Multi Out)
> > > which means, they can both Transmit and Receive at the SAME Time...
> > > by using Time Domain Spread Spectrum Encoding, which means the Tx Carrier
> > > is moving around in the Band Space, at different Frequencies/Times, than
> > > where the Receiver is looking for incoming Carriers. It ALSO means there
> > > can be MULTIPLE Transmitters and Receivers in a single Box, that can
> > > function at the SAME Time.... Get with the Program.... and learn the
> > > technology....
> >
> > mimo doesn't change the fact that wds cuts bandwidth.
>
> It also doesn't change the fact that the bandwidth drop is acceptable
> for those wishing to extend coverage. This is much ado about nothing.
acceptable to others. the fact is that wds cuts throughput in half.
there's no getting around that.
half is a substantial cut, but if someone's isp is the limiting factor,
they won't notice. on the other hand, they *will* notice the difference
when moving files between machines on the lan.
Fred Moore
Dec 9, 2012, 3:55:14 PM12/9/12
to
In article
<nospam.News.Bob-63...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Thanks for posting the details, Bob. I have indeed considered extended
hardwiring. It is possible in my setup, but certainly not as easy as
plugging in a repeater. I think I'll just bite the bullet, get an
upper-end product, and see how it goes. Keeping DaveC's recommendation
in mind, Amazon has a decent return policy. Also if a good wireless
router has problems, that may be an indication that your ethernet
extension approach is what's needed.
<nospam.News.Bob-63...@news.eternal-september.org>,
hardwiring. It is possible in my setup, but certainly not as easy as
plugging in a repeater. I think I'll just bite the bullet, get an
upper-end product, and see how it goes. Keeping DaveC's recommendation
in mind, Amazon has a decent return policy. Also if a good wireless
router has problems, that may be an indication that your ethernet
extension approach is what's needed.
Fred Moore
Dec 9, 2012, 4:08:02 PM12/9/12
to
In article <fmoore-9A9DB4....@news.eternal-september.org>,
Okay, with my head reeling with wireless router information, it's time
for me to squat or get off the pot. It was a very close race, but I have
made my decision. The winner is:
The NETGEAR N900 Dual Band Gigabit (WNDR4500) Wireless Router
<http://www.amazon.com/NETGEAR-Wireless-Router-Gigabit-WNDR4500/dp/B005KG
44V0/ref=sr_1_138?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1354664632&sr=1-138&keywords=
wireless+router>
This unit just narrowly beat out the only real competition, the Apple
Airport Extreme, because it has a fourth ethernet port, has a second USB
port, seems to have a good setup interface, is also Time Machine
compatible, can do shared printing, and is $20 cheaper. I'll let you
know how the setup goes, though it may take me a while to have time to
get it installed (lots of other projects and the holidays coming up).
THANK YOU! to all who contributed. It made this confusing task much more
fruitful.
I, Fred Moore <fmo...@gcfn.org>, the OP, wrote:
> I, of course, want to use my iPad with my home wireless network. And it
> does work, except it could be better. The first problem is that my
> current wireless router is 802.11b/g. It's been a good router (a
> Belkin), but I want to move up to N. I'd like to have the faster data
> transfer as well as dual networks and guest network access....
> I, of course, want to use my iPad with my home wireless network. And it
> does work, except it could be better. The first problem is that my
> current wireless router is 802.11b/g. It's been a good router (a
> Belkin), but I want to move up to N. I'd like to have the faster data
Okay, with my head reeling with wireless router information, it's time
for me to squat or get off the pot. It was a very close race, but I have
made my decision. The winner is:
The NETGEAR N900 Dual Band Gigabit (WNDR4500) Wireless Router
<http://www.amazon.com/NETGEAR-Wireless-Router-Gigabit-WNDR4500/dp/B005KG
44V0/ref=sr_1_138?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1354664632&sr=1-138&keywords=
wireless+router>
This unit just narrowly beat out the only real competition, the Apple
Airport Extreme, because it has a fourth ethernet port, has a second USB
port, seems to have a good setup interface, is also Time Machine
compatible, can do shared printing, and is $20 cheaper. I'll let you
know how the setup goes, though it may take me a while to have time to
get it installed (lots of other projects and the holidays coming up).
THANK YOU! to all who contributed. It made this confusing task much more
fruitful.
Jolly Roger
Dec 9, 2012, 6:03:18 PM12/9/12
to
In article <fmoore-8A6B5B....@news.eternal-september.org>,
I've had an okay experience with several Netgear router models (not
including the one you mention above). My main complaints with Netgar
routers I've used were:
* clunky web-based interface
* firmware updates were infrequent
* firmware updates stopped fairly quickly after purchase (within a year
or two) due to lack of support from Netgear
including the one you mention above). My main complaints with Netgar
routers I've used were:
* clunky web-based interface
* firmware updates were infrequent
* firmware updates stopped fairly quickly after purchase (within a year
or two) due to lack of support from Netgear
DaveC
Dec 10, 2012, 12:19:22 AM12/10/12
to
> I've had an okay experience with several Netgear router models (not
> including the one you mention above). My main complaints with Netgar
> routers I've used were:
>
> * clunky web-based interface
> * firmware updates were infrequent
> * firmware updates stopped fairly quickly after purchase (within a year
> or two) due to lack of support from Netgear
[JR]
> including the one you mention above). My main complaints with Netgar
> routers I've used were:
>
> * clunky web-based interface
> * firmware updates were infrequent
> * firmware updates stopped fairly quickly after purchase (within a year
> or two) due to lack of support from Netgear
I second this comment.
My experience with Netgear routers has been less-than-wonderful. One thing
Apple products have over much of the competition in my experience is that
they're easy to configure.
My suggestion is to choose almost any other make other than Netgear.
I'm sure you'll get lots of differing comments... ;-
Dave
0 new messages