Why bother with wireless?

[franc11s]

Being in a wired/wireless house, 802.11g and 3 AP's I know all about wireless and consistent reliabilty. However, I think I was smart enough early on to realise the need to lay cable between my 5040's and each AP from the central router. I think this is key to successful wireless - wire the key points.

My 2 wired 5040's have been up 100% since august 2003 with no drops, hangs or skips - but they are wired. I watch shows from one on the other whilst recording with no skips.

I read a lot about people struggling with AP bridging and wireless streaming of shows and I kind-a believe that there comes a point when it would be much simpler to go wired. I know there are a few cases where it's nearly impossible but given the realibility and performance of wired, I cannot see it being worth the hassle to stay wireless unless it's REALLY forced (rare).

I've just come back from CES in vegas and found a product that apparently has been around for years (I've looked for years myself but never found). I think this product will help anyone to go wired even in difficult situations. Basically it's virtually FLAT cat 5, speaker wire and even power on a roll like tape !! You can run the stuff in the gap under the skirting board (kick board), under carpets (you can walk over it and never knows it's there). It's so thin you could stick it around door panels and cover or paint it. For perfect neatness, you could cut a very thin stip out of the s.h.ee.t rock around doors and corners and simply caulk over it. Noone would know it was there. The ways to use it are endless and its my intention now to wire more places (alll house sound and touch panels) using it.

Maybe I'll get some disagreements but since I've at least found this product, I thought I'd share it - I think it's worth it to go wired if you can.

www.taperwire.com - SORRY - just seen this site is under construction but I'll find other links and post here.

[franc11s]

A quick search gives :

Taperwire
http://www.smarthome.com/8470.html
http://21st-century-goods.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=21st&Category_Code=FW

For speakers

DeWire
http://www.decorpeurope.com/dewire.htm
http://www.decorp.com/news/News%202002/audiophile.htm
http://www.audaud.com/audaud/MAY02/EQUIP/equip3MAY02.html

This guy used DeWire for my surround speakers and it hides well for on-wall installations over paint or wall paper. But if you are going to use a flat wire under the carpet, the Taperwire is more economical and would suffice.

[MaxH]

My Buffalo WBR-G54 routers came with flat patch cords. However, I've heard that this type of cable is not suited to longer runs.

I went with wireless bridges because they were cheap and fast. About a year later, I had Cat5 run for me and I installed the jacks and wall plates. (We were having a lot of other electrical work done, and my knees do not take kindly to crawling for any length of time.) However, I had very little down time with my wireless network, not much more than I have now with a wired network. If you have good equipment properly set up, it's not that bad.

[moyekj]

I agree with MaxH. My 4 Buffalo wireless bridges have been virtually flawless and MUCH easier to setup than having to run wires all over the house even if they can be hidden, and I can move my equipment around the house without having to mess with wires. I say if you live in a house (especially multi-story) and can go wireless then do so, otherwise wiring is the next best option.

[franc11s]

OK, now add VOIP, higher quality streaming or a few other coming soon wireless devices, I guarantee the problems will get worse. Maybe Pre-N (N) will solve that too....

Listen, I do understand there are many many cases where those with the techno savvy (or work first time luck) can and do implement successful wifi solutions. I support all of my friends wireless homes that I setup for them and know they can be made to work. What I'm saying is, wired is better for high band-width stuff or for those that struggle technically when things go wrong. What I'm also saying is maybe - it's just got easier. Wired is too simple to ignore if it can be done.

[Scyber]

Well in my old aparment I had one replay connecting over an 802.11g bridge and I never had any problems with it. So what is the hassle again?

[Jeffwa]

I have a mixed wired & wireless G network in my condo and have only had one problem in ~1.5 years and that was a user issue that caused the network issue. While I agree that a wired LAN is probably more likely to be more stable than a wireless LAN, it's not a certainty. BEsides, flat cable is not the end-all be-all solution. If it were it'd be used more frequently.

[djdementia]

I don't see where they have any data cable available, I see speaker, telephone, security, etc but no Data / Cat 5 equivilent from Tape Wire.
http://www.smarthome.com/8470.html


DeCorp says it's coming soon and to check back often.
http://www.decorp.com/decable.htm

[Scyber]

There is no doubt it my mind that a wired setup is better and more reliable. But that doesn't mean that a wireless setup can't be sufficient for many peoples uses. I would guess that most of the problems result from people who aren't knowledgable about wireless networking. These same people would probably have alot of problems trying to crimp and run wires throughout their house.

Why bother using wireless? B/c it worked fine for me.

EDIT: Weird timezone things going on with the new server. This was a response to Gerry's message which is now below?

[gduprey]

Wireless is just plain more finicky. I have wireless and it works well, though anything important (like ReplayTVs) are wired. Some folks have good luck with it either because of fortunate circumstances or their knowledge, but judging from the sheer number of problems reported at the dvarchive forums, it's just not suited (on average) for streaming support.

I know lots of you have it working fine -- great! Just saying, it seems more people have problems than have success when it comes to wireless streaming. Suggesting someone go back to a wired network (even if it means dragging their ReplayTV over to their router/hub) is both an early diagnostic suggested to folks over there and one that often "fixes" their problems.

[franc11s]

Gerry. Thanks you put it better than I did. I think the fact there are so many people posting with issues is key. In addition, for the techies here, remember, when (if) somethings does go wrong with wireless, it can either be a 5 minute, 5 day or 5 month fix.

I had a wireless router give me grief every 2nd or 3rd day when it simply refused to let any of my notebooks connect through it. A $10 timer does a reboot every day at 2am and it's been working now for over a year.

Sometimes we do overlook the simplest solutions.

I must also appologise as when I went to the show in vegas, I saw 2 vendors showing off flat cable and I assumed it was now main-stream. It still seems to be from just a few vendors. Heck, I'll start my own company soon and sell the stuff. I think it has huge potential - even in my wired house ;)

[sfhub]

Originally posted by franc11s
Gerry. Thanks you put it better than I did. I think the fact there are so many people posting with issues is key.
If you put it that way, I would have dumped Replay a long time ago :)

In general wired is more reliable than wireless and if I had my choice
I'd pick wired over wireless.

However, I do feel that a great majority of the wireless complaints are
not a problem with the technology but with the implementation.

You see a drastic difference in # of complaints between Buffalo WBR-G54
WDS bridging users and those using non-broadcom bridging technologies.

That tells me wireless, if done right, can work very well and be very stable.

IMO due to crappy bridging implementations, broken radio/antennae
designs, super buggy firmware, and 2.4Ghz phones, wireless has gotten
a bum rap. When people get a broadcom-based WDS bridging solution
configured and working well it completely redefines their opinion of
wireless.

I certainly like the flat cable product concept and if it works well in practice
then it will certainly be an alternative for some segment of folks to consider,
but there will still be a large # of people where wireless is just as
appropriate with virtually indistinguishable reliability if the right equipment
is used in a 2.4Ghz phone-free environment.

The reason for the strong pro-wireless response is because the title
of the thread implies the flat cable solution is the better solution for
everyone and wireless is just filled with problems.

For those of us who have it working (especially the Buffalo users) that
simply isn't true. In our cases, IMO the overriding principle is don't mess
with something that is already working (as opposed to whether wired is
more reliable than wireless)

[gduprey]

Originally posted by sfhub
However, I do feel that a great majority of the wireless complaints are
not a problem with the technology but with the implementation.
I agree. Unfortunatly, most folks pickup cheap units, do not know how to set them up or troubleshoot them and then complain that DVA is broken in the dva forums. Net result is I dread folks saying they have wireless and always suggest they remove the wireless from the problem set as the first step in DVA related debugging (and that cures 80% of the networking problems).

So, wireless can work and is a beautiful thing when it does, but is a pain in the tochus when it doesn't and triply so if folks are not "wireless-savvy".

[Cutrock]

That tells me wireless, if done right, can work very well and be very stable.

However, I do feel that a great majority of the wireless complaints are not a problem with the technology but with the implementation.You see a drastic difference in # of complaints between Buffalo WBR-G54WDS bridging users and those using non-broadcom bridging technologies.

Well put, sfhub. I echo those sentiments. Before deciding to invest in wireless technology, I did my homework and found the majority of Buffalo WBR-G54 users to be extremely satisfied with the performance of their units. Mostly due to the good people who shared their experiences on this site, I purchased the Buffalo routers, 3 in all, and have been extremely satisfied. I found their tech support to be outstanding as well.

Of course, wireless does pose certain limitations, but the only interference I've ever experienced occurred intermittantly and randomly when running the microwave. Still, not bad for the joys of wireless!

[franc11s]

I would add that with the numerous wireless brands out there you are basically saying that one is so good, it proves our point especially if someone doesn't come to this board before setting up their wireless or buying a replay. I don't doubt Buffalo is the saviour for many/all wireless issue. Wireless problems are not just replay issues.

Anway, I think we do agree. Wireless is wonderful, wired is practial and buffalo is both ;)

[Jeffwa]

Originally posted by franc11s
Wireless is wonderful, wired is practial and buffalo is both ;)

I don't think it could be said any better. :)

[boekjar]

It cost me about $60 total to install my wired home LAN. There are 16 ethernet ports throughout the house now (and 8 phone ports). Two switches, and one router. Aside from the router, the total cost of installation was just under $60. I did buy a router with wireless capability, just in case I do get a laptop. But it just seems to me that my setup was less expensive, and will give me fewer headaches than if I had gone with a wireless setup.

(Currently have three ReplayTVs, one Vonage adapter, and five computers on the LAN.)

[bholio]

It cost me about $60 total to install my wired home LAN. There are 16 ethernet ports throughout the house now (and 8 phone ports).

boekjar,
How did you do that for $60? Thats under $3 per port (including the phone jacks). My cat5 cable alone was $60 for a box of 1000'. The jacks were anywhere from $3 to $5 each. Patch panel was probably 30. OK this was 5 years ago but I have over 10x what you spent in my wiring job in wire, jacks, faceplates, panel and tools. Other than the cable tester, I don't think I bought anything unnecessary.

I have approx the same amount of runs that you have. Not sure exactly.

Update: Ahhh. Just checked Ebay. Now I see how you did it... Wish I had thought of that...

[Kenlex]

For those of us who "haven't checked EBay," can someone share the secret?

[bholio]

Originally posted by Kenlex
For those of us who "haven't checked EBay," can someone share the secret?
Sorry. For example... I paid $3-$5 per cat 5 jack. I spent over $250 on cat5 jacks alone. Without even trying I was able to find 30 cat5 jacks for $15 on ebay, so $30 would get me more jacks than I needed. (search for 'cat5 keystone')

I expect with a little time and deeper searching, similar savings could be achieved on the other components and tools.

[sfhub]

Originally posted by boekjar
It cost me about $60 total to install my wired home LAN. There are 16 ethernet ports throughout the house now (and 8 phone ports). Two switches, and one router. Aside from the router, the total cost of installation was just under $60.
That is just the cost of raw materials assuming you do the install yourself.
There's no way someone is going to install 16 ports for you for $60.

Comparing $60 wired install to a wireless setup is like comparing apples
to oranges. Not everyone values their time and effort as $0 and even if
they did, not everyone is capable of doing the install themselves.

Fishing the wire, punching down the wire in the jacks and patch panel
(or crimping plugs), testing the connections, potentially cutting dry wall
for the faceplates, and debugging problems is a lot of manual work
compared to entering some values in an HTML config page.

So costs that aren't included in $60 include: cost of tools and testing
equipment (which are relatively expensive), time and effort to install
and debug, router costs.

Now I guess someone could say they bought 4 Buffalo's on sale for
$10 each and they would have 16 ports installed for $40 with much
less time and effort.

My point is *not* that wireless is better than wired or vice versa, simply
that $60 (or $3.75/port) is not a realistic price for most people. You might
have the know-how and tools handy either from work or from your personal
experience, but the vast majority of people do not.

[Ace987]

I was thinking of another reason (I believe not mentioned yet) for going wired. In the very near future, if Replay comes out with a networked HD DVR, streaming is going to be very difficult on a wireless network. I believe the streams are going to need to be able to carry about 3+ times the bandwidth compared to what they are carrying at the moment.

Now I'm sure wireless bandwidth will increase with time as well, but who wants to keep upgrading their wireless equipment each time. If you wire your house with the latest high-speed ethernet cable, all you need to buy are inexpensive switches.

Now don't get me wrong, my place is almost completely wireless ATM. Mainly because of the versitility and less of a hassle to install, but mostly because I've moved 3 times in the past few years with at least one more move coming in the next few.

[plyons10]

I think the essentialy point here, and one I've tried to make elsewhere, is that there are probably many users out there who should have reconsidered spending time, effort and money on wireless setups, when wired is much more trouble free.

Wired will cost more in most situations, but not everyone. Nonetheless, running the CAT5 is more of a capital improvement to one's home, in my opinion, and it's natural that it cost more. If someone owns their home and plan to live there a bit, it often makes sense to counsel them to seriously consider getting wired up, for all the reasons stated here.

I probably wouldn't have done it myself, but the house I bought in 2001 was wired sometime in like 1998 and I've been very grateful this guy did that. Since then, I've added two more runs and had everything centralized in my basement office. I don't know if I would have done this if he didn't start me on the right path.

If I were looking to move, I would consider it a huge plus if someone had CAT5 wiring throughout. I think I realize more than most how valuable an improvement that is.

[sfhub]

Originally posted by plyons10
If I were looking to move, I would consider it a huge plus if someone had CAT5 wiring throughout. I think I realize more than most how valuable an improvement that is.
I understand your point completely and I have wired and wireless setups
for my own residence.

However I have noticed that the "value" of a wired setup has decreased
since 4-5 years ago when wireless wasn't really available and was quite
expensive.

There are very few people (relative to # of home buyers) who actually
need the bandwidth to stream HQ and HD. These folks cannot understand
the value of a home with wired ethernet because they are comparing to
$15 Buffalo router/bridge and $10 pcmcia NICs.

The majority of the home buyers fall into this category.

If you want to put in the wired drops for your own use, go ahead, it works
very reliably, but don't necessarily expect the next person to value it like
you would.

[Ace987]

Originally posted by sfhub
There are very few people (relative to # of home buyers) who actually
need the bandwidth to stream HQ and HD. These folks cannot understand
the value of a home with wired ethernet because they are comparing to
$15 Buffalo router/bridge and $10 pcmcia NICs. That would be a good argument. The problem is that we're talking about wired/wireless networks in the Replay forum, not in a general networking forum. I'd expect most of this discussion to be directed towards the need for streaming lots of data over a home network.

I can understand why the general public wouldn't need a complex network. Hell, most of the general public doesn't even need a network at all. Many just have one computer hooked directly to a modem of some sort. Even if they do, it's generally very small with 1 router/switch. Probably something like a few computers, perhaps a desktop and a laptop.

Obviously the best network depends on a lot of factors:
- Amount of networked devices
- Type of networked devices
- Location of the networked devices
- Ease of running cables
- Does the person own the residence
- Do they plan on moving soon
- How computer savy is the person
- How much is the person worried about security (even the most wireless die-hard fan has to admit that a wired network is more secure than wireless).

Neither choice is the end-all solution. Everyone has their own needs. I think the major point of the original post was to say "hey, look over here, here's something that may make running cable a lot easier." Unfortunely, it seems to have gotten into a wireless versus wired thread which is about as productive as all the Replay versus Tivo threads.

[sfhub]

Originally posted by Ace987
That would be a good argument. The problem is that we're talking about wired/wireless networks in the Replay forum, not in a general networking forum. I'd expect most of this discussion to be directed towards the need for streaming lots of data over a home network.
...
Neither choice is the end-all solution. Everyone has their own needs. I think the major point of the original post was to say "hey, look over here, here's something that may make running cable a lot easier." Unfortunely, it seems to have gotten into a wireless versus wired thread which is about as productive as all the Replay versus Tivo threads.
The response you quoted was in reference to wired being a capital
improvement to one's home.

I agree on what the topic should have been titled as, but in reality it
was titled as "Why bother with wireless?" It is therefore not surprising
the range of responses being elicited.

[franc11s]

Lets add aother point that often gets lost. Most people think it's wired or wireless. Some people think wired is hard. In most houses, it is REALLY simple, even for the lay-person, to run CAT 5 in most houses, through the attic and down into the basement. Most houses have pipe between floors and a simple drill thorugh the wall and down inside or behind the drain pipe is another simple solution. Now, the last 20 feet can be hard but then again, wiring up an acess point 30 feet away from a wireless device is much better that 60 feet..... There are many tricks to simple wiring of key points and I do believe for everyone who needs band-width, it's worth the small effort...

[Ace987]

Originally posted by sfhub
The response you quoted was in reference to wired being a capital
improvement to one's home. Agreed. People are drawn to a place for certain reasons. I really doubt that even the geekiest person who would like a pre-wired network would choose a place for that reason alone. I'm sure they'd rather be close to a Fry's and run their own cable instead :D As far as improving a home value, it really wouldn't. Most home improvements don't raise the value of the home for even close to the original cost of installing whatever it is.

Originally posted by sfhub
I agree on what the topic should have been titled as, but in reality it
was titled as "Why bother with wireless?" It is therefore not surprising
the range of responses being elicited. Yeah, perhaps the original poster was looking for a good argument.... I know I like those sometimes :D

[Creech]

Originally posted by franc11s
Lets add aother point that often gets lost. Most people think it's wired or wireless. Some people think wired is hard. In most houses, it is REALLY simple, even for the lay-person, to run CAT 5 in most houses, through the attic and down into the basement. Most houses have pipe between floors and a simple drill thorugh the wall and down inside or behind the drain pipe is another simple solution. Now, the last 20 feet can be hard but then again, wiring up an acess point 30 feet away from a wireless device is much better that 60 feet..... There are many tricks to simple wiring of key points and I do believe for everyone who needs band-width, it's worth the small effort...

I would agree. Running CAT 5 is not rocket science. I had some previous experience--as a grad student I worked for the network services at the university wiring dorms--but even so, it is so not hard. If you can look at coloured wires and match them up you can wire a home in most cases.

Just my $0.02 worth,
Matthew.

[Synapse]

I hit walmart twice to accumulate a pair of $59 Linksys WRT54G's. Not bad to be a streaming fool now! CA and all. Sweet. :)

[Scyber]

Originally posted by Creech
I would agree. Running CAT 5 is not rocket science. I had some previous experience--as a grad student I worked for the network services at the university wiring dorms--but even so, it is so not hard. If you can look at coloured wires and match them up you can wire a home in most cases.

Just my $0.02 worth,
Matthew.

Its not rocket science no, but it is not something that the layman would know offhand. Remember, setting up a reliable wireless setup isn't rocket science either.

Why is it that everyone assumes that the same people that can't look online to solve their wireless problems will have no problem wiring their own house?

I will agree that wired is more reliable, but an ignorant user is still an ignorant user.

[boekjar]

When I made my decision to go wired over wireless, I had been reading forums with all so many people asking questions about how to correctly setup their wireless network, or trying to troubleshoot things on their wireless network...

AND I didn't really do my homework, but somehow came to the conclusion that wireless bridges and routers were pretty much the same thing, and the good ones cost in the $50-$60 range. I had thought that I would have to buy wireless PCI cards for my computers (4-5 of them at something like $30 each), plus a wireless bridge/router for each of my 3 ReplayTVs (3 * $60), and that was adding up to some heavy money...

I repeat, I did no homework. My FIRST priority was stability and speed. My next priority was money, and wireless seemed to lose on both counts. So I didn't even research wireless.

[Snarler]

Running CAT5 isn't as easy as you think when you
1. Live in Florida so you don't have basements
2. Have a vaulted ceiling so there's no attic in some rooms
3. Have your TV/Replay/stereo on the stairwell wall so there's no ceiling touching it

However, when there's so much of something in the air (can't figure out yet if it's my other wireless equipment like phones and security cameras or the five other wireless networks I can pick up in my home from what I assume are my neighbors) that my wireless network is really only useful for web browsing, you tend to find a way to run that cable :)

Hey, only about four feet of it is visible...

--
Daniel

[csleereplay]

For those who have success with buffalos, please share your setup settings especially in the wireless pages. Do you use WEP? Do you configure in a Star topology, etc....

I have 2 WBR-G54, 1 WBR2-G54. I get frequent reboots. However , when it's running it streams fine. If I flick between recorded shows on a remote RTV, it will 90% crash and reboot.

How do you check signal strengths on the buffalos?

[Jeffwa]

I run my setup (2 - WBR-G54, 1 - WBR2-G54) in a solar system pattern. 1 WBR-G54 is the central access point (and the only one that can accept wireless connections) and the other 2 Buffaloes bridge to it. If I add any more, they'll just bridge to the main unit. I use WEP and MAC address filtering. I don't have any problems with my Replays rebooting like yours. I have a medium sized townhouse (~1350 sq. ft) so my distances between Buffaloes isn't very far (~15-20ft in a straight line.) My firmware doesn't match on all the units, though the WBR2-G54 was upgraded right after I got it to a newer version (2.x). The 2 WBR-G54s are running firmware version 1.31.

[MaxH]

Originally posted by csleereplay
For those who have success with buffalos, please share your setup settings especially in the wireless pages. Do you use WEP? Do you configure in a Star topology, etc....

I have 2 WBR-G54, 1 WBR2-G54. I get frequent reboots. However , when it's running it streams fine. If I flick between recorded shows on a remote RTV, it will 90% crash and reboot.

How do you check signal strengths on the buffalos?

I used WEP (you can't use WPA with WDS bridging, at least on the Buffalos), and I used a straight line config, because I wanted the fewest hops between the Replays when streaming, since that was the most demanding use of bandwidth. So it was like this:

Cable Modem===Buff1(Router)- - - - -Buff2(Replay1)- - - - -Buff3(Replay2)

So Replay 2 might have been slightly slower talking to the outside world. I really didn't care as much about that as I did about IHVS.

The extender antennae I added helped a lot, too.

Are you using WDS bridging?

[franc11s]

OK, here you go, for further discussion (did someone say I liked an argument :) )....

I just bought 2 x pre-N network cards and one pre-N wireless router.... (All Bellkin). I'm returning the belkin router and swapping with another. It just doesn't give out any wireless signal - hope that's a one-off. The Belkin PRE-N cards alone are awesome in my 2 notebooks. I'm getting a 50% plus signal from my neigbors network and he's 100 ft away. My Netgear cards wouldn't even see it... Can't wait to get a working router. Perhaps this is the way eventually to go for wireless since the bandwidth, distance and signal strengths are all vastly improved - theory. ANyone wanna buy my "G" stuff?

I also switched my 2 hard wire PC's to Gigabit cards with gigabit cards and gigabit hub... I guess I was bored :) I swap large video files between the 2. I doesn't seem to make a lot of difference unless files are in memory - I now think I need faster hard drives :)

[csleereplay]

My setup is


BUFRouter3------->Replay3
::
Cable_modem ---> Lingo ATA ---> BUFRouterMain -------> Replay1
:: |---> Replay4
::
BUFRouter2--------> Replay2



I enable "Protection Mode" and "Bursting". I use WEP but no MAC Filtering

[csleereplay]

Sorry my ASCII art got messed up.

BUFRouter1 and BUFRouter2 are linked via WDS to BUFROuterMain
Replay1 and Replay4 are hardwired to BUFRouterMain.

Streaming between 1 and 4 are flawless but when replay2 or replay3 are involved, then reboots happen

[MaxH]

Originally posted by csleereplay
Sorry my ASCII art got messed up.

BUFRouter1 and BUFRouter2 are linked via WDS to BUFROuterMain
Replay1 and Replay4 are hardwired to BUFRouterMain.

Streaming between 1 and 4 are flawless but when replay2 or replay3 are involved, then reboots happen

Of course, 1 and 4 are hard wired to the router, if I interpret your diagram correctly. I'll ask again, do you have WDS bridging enabled? It should improve the reliability when transferring wirelessly.

Also, unless you are using an 802.11b device somewhere, disable protection. IIRC, it will only slow things down, and it's only useful if you have a mixed B and G environment.

If you have WDS set up properly, and you have no B devices and disabling 802.11g protection does not help, I'd suggest you look at adding external antennae.

EDIT: Oh, and the "code" tag works well for ASCII diagrams made in Notepad. Try using that next time.

[sfhub]

Originally posted by franc11s
I also switched my 2 hard wire PC's to Gigabit cards with gigabit cards and gigabit hub... I guess I was bored :) I swap large video files between the 2. I doesn't seem to make a lot of difference unless files are in memory - I now think I need faster hard drives :)
If you want full gigabit bandwidth you'll also need to look at SATA,
CSA LAN, or PCIe.

Otherwise the PCI bus is limited to 128MB/sec and that is shared between
IDE, Network, and any other PCI peripherals you are using.

[csleereplay]

Yes, I'm using WDS bridging between BufRouter1 <::> BufRouterMain <::> BufRouter2. That's the only way to wirelessly bridge them as I can tell.

[franc11s]

Wow PRE-N is everything they say it is. I have just one PRE-N router so far and it seems to easily be able to replace all 3 of my 802.11g WAPS and it not only covers my entire house but a ton further outside as well. I'm going to do some more testing but I'm blown away so far... OK, I'll move this thread to a network one unless anyone is interested in my PRE-N results...

TTFN

[moyekj]

Pre 802.11n solution - can't be cheap right now as the clients go for around $100, WAP/routers probably double that. Your poor neighbors with 802.11b/g now will get bombarded with interference :)

[franc11s]

:) - I setup my neighbors network for them. I'll check. It doesn't interfere with my sons who's still running 802.11g in the house !!

Actually the router is $140 and the cards at $80 each. Not too shabby.

[plasmamaniac]

Does a wireless phone interfere or vice versa with the Belkin Pre-N router. I am on my way to buy one and the Pre-N card?

[sfhub]

Originally posted by moyekj
Your poor neighbors with 802.11b/g now will get bombarded with interference :)
It doesn't interfere per se, but 2 people can't send on the same channel
on the same time. They will cooperatively back off even if they are on
different SSIDs. Cordless phones and microwaves, on the other hand,
do not participate in this cooperation so they can knock your connection
out completely (when those items are in use)

[plasmamaniac]

I just bought and installed the Belkin Pre-N Router and Wireless Network Card and WOW does it increase speed. It has doubled my speed. I thought 54 Mbps was the max for DSL but I am getting 108 Mbps with this puppy.

Can this be true or is that just a theoretical maximum rate? All I know is that it is faster.

[Ace987]

Originally posted by plasmamaniac
I just bought and installed the Belkin Pre-N Router and Wireless Network Card and WOW does it increase speed. It has doubled my speed. I thought 54 MBPS was the max for DSL but I am getting 108 MBPS with this puppy.

Can this be true or is that just a theoretical maximum rate? All I know is that it is faster. It's really 54 and 108 Mbps, not MBPS. Big "B" stands for bytes and little "b" for bits. There are 8 bits to a byte which really screws people up a lot. Almost every commercial product advertises as bits because it is a much bigger number and most consumers don't know the difference.

Anyhow, the older 802.11B is quicker than MOST people need for wireless internet and it was only 11Mbps. Typical DSL speed for home users range from 1Mbps to 3Mbps, so the 11Mbps is way more than you need if all you are doing is surfing the web.

So why would going from 54Mbps to 108Mbps help you out? Not really sure, perhaps there was something with your old wireless gear causing you to actually stream at less than your DSL speed. Your 54Mpbs might of been something like a 1Mbps connection due to other problems.

edit: fixed spelling errors, thanks SFHUB

[sfhub]

Originally posted by Ace987
Big "B" stands for bytes and little "b" for bites.
Using bits and bytes is a little less confusing than bites and bytes. :)

Also, networking has historically always been quoted in bits per sec,
whereas the hard drive world decided to change to base10
1000byte/kilobyte more for marketing reasons. I've never seen
any network equipment quoted in bytes, going back 15-20 years.

There is usually another 15% confusion when people convert between
base10 and base2 measurements.

[Ace987]

Originally posted by sfhub
Using bits and bytes is a little less confusing than bites and bytes. :)
Wow, I really need to stay away from forums when I get less than 4 hours of sleep the night before :D

[plasmamaniac]

I will be using it to stream DVDs to my notebook PC. This Belkin router is definitely faster for whatever reason than my Linksys and I have better range. I used to have to wait alot longer for responses but now it is almost instantaneous. I thought that maybe my wireless phone was interfering so I unplugged it but that didn't speed things up.

If a wireless phone sits inactive will it interfere with the Belkin router or will it just interfere when the phone is in use and if it is using the same channel?

[sfhub]

Originally posted by plasmamaniac
If a wireless phone sits inactive will it interfere with the Belkin router or will it just interfere when the phone is in use and if it is using the same channel?
Usually it interferes when it is in use or ringing. 2.4G cordless phones
don't have the same concept of channels as 802.11. Phone will just
use the spectrum in their own proprietary way w/o regard for other
equipment using the frequency.