Quote:

We had a tech from our Internet Service Provider come out to the house today (to install wired connections, using the home's pre-existing electrical wiring). But I didn't know he was here (cuz he was working over in the main house).

Could you tell us a little more about this?  I'm really interested in what you did and how well it is working for you.  Is it to connect computers in various parts of the house?  How many rooms?  What kinds of outlets does your computer plug into?  What kind of speed is it supposed to give you?  Have you had a chance to test it?

Maybe just a link to what you had done?

Networking is what I enjoy most about computers, and I haven't heard of any ISP installing this type of network before.

Hi.

First, did you have any trouble logging on to the new forum?

Yes, I actually spoke with the tech about this, cuz I found it interesting.

He brought two gizmos with him. One (with 3 small green LED lights) plug into the wall socket (electrical outlet) under the desk, and the other end plugs into the network connection on the laptop.

I don't use this method myself, as my wireless works fine. But the laptop in the main house (where the router/gateway is located) was having problems dropping the wireless connection (.. wierd, cuz this laptop is located much closer to the router/gateway than mine).

The other gizmo plugs into a wall outlet near the router/gateway, with the network cable part of this gizmo plugged into the router/gateway.

They want you to plug the gizmo DIRECTLY into wall outlet .. and NOT a powerstrip, cuz they don't want any extra current flow thru wiring. A regular simple extension cord is also okay. A powerstrip, they say, will also work, but is less reliable, depending on number on extra current-sucking devices plugged in, and how much current these devices consume .. which can interfere with the data connection.

Devices are roughly size of a small fist. Black plastic, with some green LEDs, with 6-foot cable attached, to plug into date port. CAT-5 cabling type of stuff.

I've been sticking powerline networking in homes for a few years now.  Here's the text from an epinions.com review I wrote in 2005 about the Netgear XE102, an early version of these products:

There simply can't be an easier way to extend your existing home network into parts of the house which don't have cat5 wiring in the walls. Just plug one of these into an electrical outlet near your router, and connect it to your router with an ethernet cable. Now carry another XE102 into any room of the house, plug it into an electrical outlet, and you've got an instant 10baseT port to your LAN. It's that easy! No on/off switches, no buttons, no drivers, no configuration, no software to install. Add one additional XE102 for each additional computer (e.g., four XE102's if you want to hookup 3 computers to your router through the powerline network).

It does come with an installation CD, but that's only for changing the passwords in the units so only XE102's with the same password can communicate with each other. This is handy if you're in an apartment and don't want the neighbors sneaking into your LAN over the building's electrical wiring.

I copied a large file across the LAN to test data throughput. With two of these adapters on outlets close to each other, throughput was roughly 7 mbps. This dropped to 2.4 mbps when the adapters were at opposite ends of the house and through a 25' extension cord (probably 90' total, as the electrical wire runs)--an extreme case. Okay, not 100baseT speed and not great for frequent file sharing, but good enough for internet sharing, and it doesn't get any easier than this.

Oh, don't plug it into a surge strip--the filters in the surge strip hinder passage of the network traffic piggybacking on the power line.

I should also have mentioned that you also want your outlets to be on the same leg coming from the circuit panel of the house's electrical system.

Shortly after writing that, I moved to using the faster Linksys PLE200 instead of the 10mbps XE102s.  The PLE200 was just as simple and reliable, but faster.  In typical use I've seen throughput around 50-80 mbps--nowhere near its rated 200mbps, but faster and more consistent than wireless-g.

I still prefer wireless for laptops that roam around the house, but if you're connecting desktops these things can provide a reliable network connection when running cat5 isn't practical, and without the dropouts and configuration headaches of wireless connections.  

BTW, just for comparison, phoneline networking is far more trouble to configure, so there's simply no reason ever to use phoneline adapters when these powerline units are so drop-dead simple.  I like them.

Back in the day when I used to work for Earthlink Technical Support, we pushed the powerline ethernet concept.  As previsoulys stated above, the speeds aren't by any means phenomenal, but for what an everyday user might do, substantial enough that they can be productive on the internet.

I still have a set or two around the house as a fall back if I get a computer that has questionable wireless capabilities. Nostalgic if anything else for me. Good products though.

Ok, thanks guys.  I'm familiar with powerline networking.  I mention it in my wireless guide as an alternative to wireless.

Computerworld did a good comparison on several of the devices a few weeks ago:

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9127759

I still prefer wires, even if I have to string them along the ceiling.  Although I did finally install wireless in my house for my laptop.  I'm paranoid about the security of it though...

Interesting. Could someone let me know the rate, in MB/sec, one could expect when transferring a large file between two computers on a powerline network. I assume three adapters would be needed for this test.

The link MrMagoo provided shows transfer rates not that different from my own, less comprehensive tests.

Like MrMagoo, I also prefer wired ethernet, but the powerline units are darned convenient when running wires isn't practical, and results in fewer service calls than wifi installations.  In typical non-techie households, where the residents are only sharing internet and rarely do any computer-to-computer file sharing, there's not much of a downside.

Many installations I've done were in leased/rented properties where cutting holes here and there wasn't allowed.  In one case, hiding cat6 wasn't practical because the house had cathedral ceilings and concrete slab floors.  In another, the floor was raised but split-level floors and concrete foundation walls made it more labor-intensive (read: costly) to connect different parts of the house from underneath.  In another, an upstairs and a downstairs room were only about 35' apart, but between them was a kitchen, numerous appliances, furnace, and massive hvac ductwork that seriously attenuated a wifi signal between rooms.

Dan,

I'm confused about those results. I think they are testing a single hop power line connection. One computer connected to the router by power line and the other computer connected to the router by a cable. That's my understanding. If both computers were connected to the router by power line I think the transfer rates would be slower.

Brian,

The stream test as described in the article was one computer plugged into a powerline adapter plugged directly into an outlet, and another computer plugged into a powerline adapter which connected to the same outlet through a long extension cord.  The files were transfered directly between the two computers.

He also did other tests plugging the second adapter into various places such as the same outlet directly and another outlet and reported the results separately.  By my reading, it doesn't look like a router was involved in these tests.

MrMagoo,

Thanks for that. So I guess it still makes it one hop power line, if the one hop term is applicable. Analogous to a crossover cable between two NICs.

I'm just trying to relate it to my situation. All my computers are connected via wireless because of house design. I'd prefer cables but that's not to be. In testing, transferring a large file from one computer to another is twice as fast if one computer is connected to the router by a cable (cable lying on the floor). That's why I am curious about two hop power line. I don't need power line, I'm just curious.

Edit... I think I'm catching on. The router is irrelevant for file transfer with power line.

Well, we should clarify that these connections are not as straightforward as a simple lan switch.  I think these powerline devices are technically called bridges--but now we're getting beyond my level, so MrMagoo or somebody else will need to explain what that means.

Since we're correcting terminology, I suppose we should also point out that the way the term "router" is commonly used isn't technically correct.  The typical consumer box is really a combo of both a router and a switch, with the router connected to the switch and the lan cables plugged into the switch's ports.  The switch is part of the local network, and the router part interconnects the two networks, isp and local.  We connect computers to the switch, not the router.  Some boxes also include a third device--a wireless access point that is connected to the switch.

Local packets through a switch goes in one switch port and out another.  Wifi to ethernet are connected access point to switch.  Wifi to wifi goes to/from the access point, but I don't think it goes through the switch.  Powerline to powerline goes ... ???

MrMagoo, how am I doing?

Dan Goodell wrote on Mar 4^th, 2009 at 11:26pm:

MrMagoo, how am I doing?

Not bad at all.  I'll fill in the details.

You bring up some good misunderstandings that most people have.  Most home routers are actually a 1-port router with a 4-port switch on the back.  (Although you can think of the switch connecting to an internal 'port' on the router.)  

Routers

A router can connect networks at the network layer, or layer 3 of the OSI stack.  Routers help computers on different subnets of the network talk to each other by providing a gateway (noted as the 'default gateway' in your IP settings.)  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI_model

More importantly to home users, these home routers also usually do Network Address Translation.  This allows you to use an address like 192.168.x.x on your computer.  An address in that range would never be seen on the public internet and for that reason can be reused in any household behind a router capable of doing NAT.  This allows you to have as many computers as you want in your house sharing internet even though your ISP most likely only gives you 1 public IP address (an IP address that IS allowed on the internet.)  Clear as mud?

Switches

The switch that you connect your computers to on the back of the 'router' works on Layer 2 of the OSI model.  Switches don't see IP addresses, only MAC addresses.  So, it is involved in one computer talking to the other within your own network.  However, it does have enough circuitry to read the MAC address and route traffic directly to the correct port on the switch that needs it.  In other words, each port has its own, isolated set of wires and circuitry and every switch port could communicate at full speed all the time.

Another device that you may still hear about but wouldn't likely buy anymore is a hub.  Hubs actually work at layer 1 - the physical layer.  They only connect the wires together - like a really sophisticated splice of all your cables.  

This means that the entire network is shared between all the computers connected to a hub - as opposed to on a switch where each computer has its own dedicated segment on the network.  This allows computers on switch to use full duplex communication (that is, they can talk and listen at the same time.)  Computers connected to a hub must use half duplex since every computer hears what ever computer says - even themselves.  That makes shared mediums like hubs slower networks (and more prone to error.)

Wireless

The wireless access point is almost like hub connected to the switch (but without wires, obviously.)  The logical difference is that the wireless access point is smart enough to keep track of the different nodes that are connected to it and provide encryption, while a hub is a completely dumb device.  This is a big part of the reason you never get the advertised speeds on a wireless network.  It is a shared network.  

The other reason wireless networks are slow is that the top speed is measured by burst speeds, and the bursts are very short (a few tens of miliseconds.)  That's why wireless networks do fine with small amounts of data like web browsing but choke up with something like a large file transfer.

Powerline

Now, a bridge can be thought of as a 2-port switch.  In this case, each side of the switch connects to a different kind of network (so it bridges two dissimilar networks.)  One switch port goes to an ethernet network (your computer, router, or a bigger switch or router if you want to do that.)  The other 'port' goes to the powerline network.

The powerline network is a shared medium.  All the computers on the powerline network are sharing the same wires (or they couldn't communicate.)  So we are in the same situation as the hub, only the splicing is done at your electrical box instead of in a nice hub.

Powerline networking also has to contend with the fact that those wires were never meant to carry data traffic.  There is often more than one isolated power leg in your house, and outlets on different legs will likely not be able to communicate.  Also, there is a lot of wire there that you don't need.  An ethernet cable is going to go straight from source to destination.  Your electrical cables go to every switch and outlet in the house.  Now, add to the fact that there is noise from both electricity and every radio signal any wire in the house happens to pick up, and you have a hostile environment for data.

With that in mind, they work pretty well.  Like Dan said, sometimes ethernet and wireless are both not options for whatever reason, and powerline will get the job done.  

There is also a similar technology (HPNA) that allows you to use your phone lines to connect computers.  It works better than powerline (since phone lines are better suited to carrying data than electrical cable,) but is usually at least twice as expensive.  Home Phoneline Network Alliance gear really comes in handy for its range.  Phone lines will get you up to 1000 ft, and similar gear will give you several thousand feet over coax, so it will really get to the back corners of your mansion like wireless couldn't dream of.  Speeds are decent, too, advertised up to 320 Mb/s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HomePNA

For Price/Performance, there is still nothing that beats Cat5 and Ethernet.  If you can get a wire, you should.

Brian wrote on Mar 4^th, 2009 at 6:38pm:

In testing, transferring a large file from one computer to another is twice as fast if one computer is connected to the router by a cable (cable lying on the floor).

And now we can see why this is.  With one computer using an ethernet wire, it is one less computer on the shared wireless network.  This makes a big difference with wireless because wireless is actually less than half-duplex.  

First, one computer takes its turn on the wireless network to send a piece of data to the router, then pauses.  The router then takes a turn to send that data on to the destination computer, then pauses.  Then the source computer sends the next piece and pauses.  The cycle continues, always only one computer on the wireless network per turn.

With one computer on wires, you get half the pauses, leading to almost twice the speed.

With powerline, you are getting closer to true half-duplex, so I don't think the speed difference would be as dramatic with one computer on ethernet.  Data can go straight from source to receiver without going through the router.

Incredibly interesting information!

Thanks for the fine detail, MrMagoo.

"a bridge can be thought of as a 2-port switch."

That's a very helpful description.  Assuming a configuration with powerline adapters as extensions to a common ethernet home lan, I wasn't sure what happened with file transfers between two computers on powerline adapters.  I didn't know whether the data had to travel up the electrical wiring to the router/switch and then back down to the other adapter.  Thinking of the bridges as switches makes it easier to understand that the traffic goes straight across.


"(HPNA) works better than powerline (since phone lines are better suited to carrying data than electrical cable,) but is usually at least twice as expensive."

And harder to find, IME.  You just can't find hpna stuff at newegg, or Fry's, or Best Buy, for instance.

One thing I really like about the powerline adapters is that you don't have to alter the computers--just plug in an ethernet cable.  What I haven't liked about hpna adapters is that you have to install special drivers, and the installation CD invariably piles all sorts of crapware onto your machine while installing the driver.  And when it doesn't work, it's a lot harder to try and troubleshoot exactly where the problem is.

It's also harder to mate it to an ethernet lan, right?  You'd need to find a hpna-to-ethernet bridge, or you'd need to put two adapters, hpna and ethernet, in one computer and use it as a bridge.

Dan Goodell wrote on Mar 5^th, 2009 at 4:04am:

And harder to find, IME.  You just can't find hpna stuff at newegg, or Fry's, or Best Buy, for instance.

I've never worked with HPNA personally, but it's speed and range have always interested me.  The difficulty in finding it that you mention and the price of it has always kept me from buying it just to play with it.  In my mind, HPNA is there if you need it, but not worth it unless there just isn't any other way to get to the back corners of your coverage area.  If it is as difficult as you say to install the drivers and deal with crapware, that just furthers my opinion that it should be reserved for special needs.

I did hear that Phillips introduced new HPNA adapters designed to work over coax at CES this year.  Hopefully they have made improvements over previous generations.

My experience with hpna is limited to three customers over the past 5 years.  All three were originally installed by PacBell/SBC along with their dsl service, and used 2-Wire dsl boxes with either 2-Wire or Netgear adapters.

In one case, one adapter died.  I simply couldn't find a replacement anywhere, online or local.  SBC said they could custom order a new one, but at an exorbitant price.  The customer had me rip out the hpna network (3 computers) and replace it with conventional ethernet.

In another case, the customer wanted to add a wireless access point for her laptops.  I couldn't find a way to get that to work with her existing hpna gear, so we replaced everything with ethernet.

In the most recent case, an XP computer with a Netgear usb hpna adapter was replaced by a Vista computer.  No Vista driver--in fact, the Netgear website won't even own up to having ever made any hpna devices!  Again, we junked everything and switched to ethernet.

So for me, hpna's track record is zero for three.

Sounds like I won't be using my house wiring as a network, any time soon.

However, I have upgraded from a Wireless G-type router to a Wireless N-type router.  (Intellinet Wireless N)
Not only do I have a lot faster wireless connection inside my house, but my neighbors, 300' away are benefiting from it too.
I installed an Intellinet Wireless N nic card in their PC.

Going "N" gives you faster speed and greater distance.
The only drawback I've seen so far is that "N" requires Cat-6 cable for direct connections, to get the max speed, and a Wireless N nic card for computers using the wireless N service.

interesting thread!

Shadow  8-)

TheShadow wrote on Mar 9^th, 2009 at 8:56am:

The only drawback I've seen so far is that "N" requires Cat-6 cable for direct connections, to get the max speed, and a Wireless N nic card for computers using the wireless N service.

Cat6 is nice, but unnecessary.  You need Cat5 or better for 100Mb/s Ethernet and Cat5e or better for 1000Mb/s (or 1Gb/s) Ethernet.  Cat6 is only required if you are pushing both the distance and speed limitations of Gigabit connections.

For those following along in the audience, almost no house would need a 1Gb/s connection at home (which implies you don't need Cat6.)  It doesn't make the internet faster - your ISP is still only going to work at their max speed (which is usually in the range for several Mb/s.)  The only way you will notice is if you routinely transfer large files between computers in your house, all computers involved in the transfer were on the gigabit network, AND you sat around waiting for the transfer to finish.

The only thing I could envision in a home that would fit this senario is a few computers networked into a video editing or rendering cluster.  Maybe if you were sharing serious data via a network drive...  

Also, it might be nice to go ahead and run Cat6 if you are installing a network in your house and want to be more future-proof.  I'm not saying you'll *never* need it.  Just that it's going to be a decade before you appreciate it.  I stream media files around my home network constantly and it only uses a few Mb/s at most.  If I remember correctly, even HD movies would only need something like 25 Mb/s to stream across the network.

Now, Gigabit Ethernet IS beautiful inside a data center or linking various offices across town from each other.  All of the local libraries are hooked together by a 1Gbit MetroEthernet LAN, and the Admin of that network says it made his job about 14 times easier, so I'm not knocking Gigabit.  Just saying most people shouldn't sweat it.

Wireless N, on the other hand, is nice.  It's range and signal processing make connections that wouldn't have worked before now smooth and easy.  And the extra speed WILL be noticeable.  Since the advertised speeds are bust speeds, as we discussed earlier, the real-world throughput of G is around 19Mb/s.  Numbers for N are harder to find because it is still new, but I've seen speed test results in the range of 44Mb/s.  If you just have one or two computers sharing the Internet, you might not notice much difference, but if you do ANY file sharing between computers at home or have more than about 3 computers on the network, the upgrade to N will probably give you a noticeably more pleasant experience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/802.11

[soapbox]
Not to be the party spoiler, but having worked for an ISP my conscience makes me mention this.  

Wireless does make it all too easy to share your internet with your neighbors.  However, it is both likely against your Terms of Service and morally questionable if it means that your neighbor doesn't pay for service of his own from the ISP.  The legal troubles multiply if you accept any amount of money from your neighbor in the arrangement.

Moral and legal issues aside, you are giving up quite a bit of privacy.  If you voluntarily shared your wireless network with me, there isn't much you could do to keep me from gaining access to every file on every computer of your entire network, along with lists of every site you visit, and you'd never know.  Even if you trust your neighbor, do you trust everyone who visits his house?

Ok, I've said my bit.
[/soapbox]

[public service message]
And now that I've brought up the subject of wireless security, I want to remind anyone still with me in the audience that even if you *didn't* voluntarily give me access to your wireless network, I could probably get it myself anyway.  Cracking WEP is trivial and takes only seconds.  Cracking WPA2 with a weak pass-phrase is only slightly harder.  Only WPA2 w/ TKIP and a strong pass-phrase provides any significant protection.

So, if you have a wireless network, make sure you secure it.  Turning it off if you aren't going to use it for an extended time also helps.  If you could just as easily use Ethernet, I would.

And please don't give me the "there's nothing on my computer anyone would want" line.  You have no idea what is really there and how people could use it against you.
[/public service message]

My neighbors are great but completely computer Illiterate.
The Mr. can't even turn on the computer and the Mrs. can only do email and the most simple job searches, etc.  So I don't think they'll be hacking my own computer.  NO-One else goes to their house and uses their PC.
Anyway, it's only a temporary setup till they get their own Cable Service.

Wireless G would have never made the 300' trip to the neighbors house and all the way thru the Double-Wide mobile to their PC on the other side of the house.  The Intellinet Wireless N setup makes the grade with a connection speed of 230 and three out of five bars on the signal strength meter.
I have the same Intellinet Wireless NIC card in my #2 PC here in my house and the connection speed to the router is 300 with Five Bars.

We live out in the country and there are no other neighbors around that would be able to access my Wireless router.  So just the logistics themselves are my best protection.

I'm getting a new 5 Meg Cable ISP service installed someday soon and as you can assume, I'm really looking forward to the increase in Internet Connection speed.  
By comparison, my Wild Blue Satellite service runs at a snails pace.
I just downloaded the new AVG 8.5 FREE at a blazing  ::) ;D ;D ;D 60 KB/Sec download speed.

I've been paying $50 per month for that lousy speed, for two years now.
(OK, y'all stop laughing! )

Interesting Thread!

Shadow  8-)

TheShadow wrote on Mar 10^th, 2009 at 10:07am:

I've been paying $50 per month for that lousy speed, for two years now. (OK, y'all stop laughing! ) Shadow  8-)

I'm not laughing! I'm on wildblue also. not great, but much better than dailup. It's not really so much the speed but the FAP that bugs me. With five systems on the network (three kids) i really have to watch the download usage. As soon as we can get cable or DSL around here then WB is history!

I can download files from my ISP and a few other sites at 1000 to 2000 KB/sec. But most internet downloads are less than 150 KB/sec so a potentially fast connection is rarely used at full speed.

TheShadow wrote on Mar 10^th, 2009 at 10:07am:

By comparison, my Wild Blue Satellite service runs at a snails pace.

Brian wrote on Mar 10^th, 2009 at 3:31pm:

I can download files from my ISP and a few other sites at 1000 to 2000 KB/sec. But most internet downloads are less than 150 KB/sec so a potentially fast connection is rarely used at full speed.

It is true that fast cable/dsl connections are rarely maxed out, mostly because you are capable of receiving data faster than a lot of sites will send it.  Cable and DSL also have the advantage of extremely low latency.  The terrible latency on satellite providers makes it completely unusable for certain types of traffic (such as VoIP and some online games.)  So, even when you aren't maxing it out, Cable/DSL/Fiber are providing a better surfing experience than satellite or dial-up.

Boy, you can say that again!  The latency really sux!

I can actually download my email faster on my dial up service, than I can over WB (Satellite).  Forget about Voip......WB flatly tells you that they don't support any such service.

Most of the problems with Satellite ISP were not presented up-front.  I didn't find out about them till I started running into problems, like with the max. 30 day usage.  They shut me completely off, the second month I had the service.  >:(
I finally got back on-line, after a few days, but had to download nothing more than email for about two weeks, till I got my rolling 30 day usage total down to a tolerable level.

I'm still using WB Satellite, because the Cable company isn't sure whether they can actually give me Cable ISP service or not.  It has to do with the length of the cable run, to my house.  They may need to extend the main trunk cable, closer to my house.  There are three families here on this corner that want the service, so maybe that will be enough to get the cable company to extend their trunk line.  I sure hope so.

I'm sorry that we've gotten off of the original topic.  My bad! :(

Shadow 8-)

TheShadow wrote on Mar 12^th, 2009 at 10:16am:

I'm sorry that we've gotten off of the original topic.

Discussing various types of network connections is on topic and everyone seems to be finding it interesting.  Thanks for sharing your experience with satellite.


TheShadow wrote on Mar 12^th, 2009 at 10:16am:

There are three families here on this corner that want the service, so maybe that will be enough to get the cable company to extend their trunk line.

What is the local cable company?  The cable company I used to work for would likely have solved the issue by setting up Arcwave.  Arcwave is a pair of small wireless transceivers.  You hook the main cable line up to one side, and it wirelessly extends the main cable to the other side.  It's a nice solution if you only need to reach a few houses, need to cross a barrier that would otherwise be hard to get around, or just need a semi-permanent plant extension.  

For example, sometimes getting the rights to build a line across the freeway is cost prohibitive.  Other times, extending the main line across a large field to reach a few houses on the other side just doesn't work out when you do the cost/potential income analysis.  Arcwave can often be cost effective in these cases.  

Whether they will do it for you or not depends a lot on the cable company.  Some are too small to have the skills to deal with arcwave.  Some are too big to care about 3 customers.  Some find it too difficult to support or have other reasons.  We found a big benefit in keeping the community happy, so we would do anything we could as long as it was financially workable.

The cable company servicing this area is "Cablevision".
Most of their customers are in Retirement communities or Rural areas.

The latest word here is that they will run a cable to me for ISP only, but the run will be too long, to give me HD-TV.

Since I'm well covered for TV and telephone service, all I need or want is the ISP service.  Well, next week, we'll see what they've come up with.

They will give me 5Meg service for about $50 per month.  That's still ridiculously slow, compared to my 300 Meg internal network speed, with my Intellinet N Router.
But, quantum leaps above my current 60k download speeds, with WB Satellite or 3.5k download speeds with my Dial Up service.

The latency (time delays) with the satellite is so bad that it takes me two to three times the time to get my email as it does when I just use my Dial Up service.   I don't really notice it though, because I have Outlook Express programmed to check my email every three minutes, in the background.  So I'm never just sitting here waiting on the mail to come in.
It simply gets here, when it gets here. ::)
So in actuality, I'm tricking myself into ignoring the Latency. ;) ;D ::)

Well, enough of that.

I still suspect that Wireless N is a better method of connecting computers within a building, than some of the other alternatives.
Because of its higher power, it will penetrate walls better than Wireless G.

For instance, a person who lives in an apartment and maybe moves periodically, could benefit greatly from a Wireless N setup.

Cheers Mates!
Shadow  8-)

TheShadow wrote on Mar 14^th, 2009 at 10:33am:

The latest word here is that they will run a cable to me for ISP only, but the run will be too long, to give me HD-TV.

It's really cool of them to run the cable for you even though they will only be able to provide one service.  Many cable companies would have trouble justifying the cost of extending a line unless they could sell all their services on it.


TheShadow wrote on Mar 14^th, 2009 at 10:33am:

They will give me 5Meg service for about $50 per month.  That's still ridiculously slow, compared to my 300 Meg internal network speed, with my Intellinet N Router.

I think you'll find 5Mb/s to be plenty of speed.  There aren't very many sites that can send you data that fast, except for the big one's like Microsoft, Google, etc.  So, you wouldn't be able to use much more speed than that anyway unless you are doing something outside typical surfing.

As we discussed earlier in this thread, the 300Mb/s speed quoted for wireless N is sort of a technicality, and you'll never be able to transfer data anywhere near that speed.  Actual throughput is a small fraction of that (~40Mb/s.)  Still plenty fast for surfing, though, as you pointed out.


TheShadow wrote on Mar 14^th, 2009 at 10:33am:

I still suspect that Wireless N is a better method of connecting computers within a building, than some of the other alternatives.

It depends on your goals.  For surfing the internet from the couch on your laptop, wireless is fantastic.  For pretty much anything else, wireless uses more power and provides less reliability, speed, and security than almost any other popular method of networking.  I know you make light of wireless security problems, but as someone who has done penetration testing on wireless networks I can tell you the weakness of wireless security IS real and IS scary.

So I'm interested what angle you are seeing this from or what alternatives you had in mind and what disadvantages you see them as having.


TheShadow wrote on Mar 14^th, 2009 at 10:33am:

Because of its higher power, it will penetrate walls better than Wireless G.

802.11n is just the latest specification from the 802.11 working group, the same fine people who developed 802.11g and 802.11b.  It is based on the same protocols and the same 2.4MHz frequency range.  That frequency range is not specifically set aside for wireless networking and is shared with Bluetooth, cordless telephones, and microwave ovens.  Power output is limited by regulations to ensure all these devices share the spectrum fairly.  N doesn't use a higher power so much as improved modulation techniques and multiple antennas to improve its range and speed.  Although a nice improvement, and sufficient for a decent sized house, it is still not going to provide coverage for an entire hotel or apartment building.  You still need multiple access points for that, connected together by some other network type.

I greatly admire, those who can get right into the technical nooks and crannies of things like Wireless Networking.
But, at my stage in life, I just want what works.

I've seen apartment dwellers run cat5 cable all over their apartment to connect several computers together.  Wireless would surely be better than having cables running over doorways and under carpets.


Yes, my Intellinet Wireless N router and Intellinet Wireless N network card both use three antennas.  If that's what it takes to double the effective area of coverage, then I'm all for it.  

Now I'm considering the practicality of using a 3' Dish on the remote end of a connection to greatly enhance the signal level at a distance of 1000' or more.

I found several very good web sites that deal with using an old TV dish to use as an antenna for a remote wireless receiver.

I'd love to be able to use this dish.....
http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g90/DrWho1943/indexphp.gif
but alas, I may have to settle for something a bit smaller. :'(

So, MrMagoo, you're saying that at least in your opinion, there is NO way to protect a Wireless Network, from hackers?  

I'm not talking about someone at the CIA level, but just the local jerkwad wanting to steal a little wireless service.

Eh wot? ::)

Shadow  8-)

I was looking into this for a company the next town over I do general computer stuff for.  They were leeching wireless from the owner's house next door (but same building and wiring) through a repeater - it was OK for just one computer checking email, but fell to its knees when they tried to do real work. My first thought was to replace the router in the house with a powerline device and use another in the office. That plan fell through for a variety of reasons and they ended up getting a new cable account for the business, but I learned a couple of things along the way. For one thing while they're still around on the secondary market you can get set up for this with an excellent product really cheaply here

http://snipurl.com/dxbcb

Last year's model, but a real high quality product you can get for a song.  I bought two of them intending to set them up with both ends there. When it turned out they didn't need it I sold them one and kept one myself. I've been using it for a couple of weeks and as a router it's rock solid.  I didn't get around to trying out the powerline stuff which I don't need right now, but when they pay the bill ;) I'm going to buy another. Note that you can use this as an access point as well as an originating router, so I'm thinking I may use it to stick a music server far away up on my second floor and listen downstairs. Even if it's slower than cat5 it should be fast enough.

I also read that supposedly the question of whether or not the two outlets you want to use are on the same leg of the breaker box is a real issue. In the US your power comes in at 240V and is split into two 120V legs - on each side of the breaker box, every other breaker (vertically) is on the same leg.  But there's a workaround domestic dryer plugs connect to both legs, and somewhere else on Amazon is a product from another manufacturer which is just a pass through dryer plug with circuitry to bridge the network signal across the two legs. It's cheap, maybe $25, and should solve that issue.

Off-Topic replies have been moved to this Topic.

I've seen a few new Coax to Ethernet adapters trickling onto the market.  They claim speeds of up to 270 Mb/s.  

If you are wondering how coax fits into our discussion of bandwidth above, it is a shared medium - very similar to your electrical wiring.  However, unlike your electrical wiring, Coax IS designed to carry data like this, and is very good at it.  There would be very little noise on the Coax in the frequencies the data is using (unless your cable company is doing something strange.)

I expect these adapters to perform well, but at their current price I won't be implementing them anytime soon in my house.

http://www.netgear.com/Products/PowerlineNetworking/Coax/MCAB1001.aspx

I understand that you should not plug the powerline units into a power strip because of filtering.  I would assume the same thing would apply to a UPS - am I correct?

If I am, then, I guess, this would be another reason to wire the rooms.  Power goes out frequently where I live in Dallas and I like to be able to work for 15 - 20 minutes before I decide the power won't be right back on and have to shut down.

thorin wrote on May 4^th, 2009 at 9:25pm:

I would assume the same thing would apply to a UPS - am I correct?

Yes, you are correct.  In fact, a UPS would have a much bigger effect, especially a higher end UPS, which cleans all the noise out of the electrical signal.  Along with the noise, it is likely to eliminate your network traffic right out.  I have heard of people successfully running powerline adapters off an electrical strip, and a lower end UPS should be no different, but it is not the "recommended" setup.


thorin wrote on May 4^th, 2009 at 9:25pm:

this would be another reason to wire the rooms

If you can wire the rooms, that is going to be the best option.  There are lots of reasons to do it, and the connection is magnitudes better than any alternative in many ways.  Even the cost is often comparable to most of the alternatives, although wireless is starting to get pretty cheap.

Thanks MrMagoo,

Guess I had better get into the attic before the Dallas heat takes hold!

I dont know if i am doing this right, but here it goes (someone please help me figure this out).....
WARNING:::::: i have a lot of questions...... on this subject...... (please help).......

[color=#ff0000]Have a Sony Vaio (XP) with Intel Wirelss PRO ........ can get service from house .... person with service is UNKNOWN and dont know the distance .... and is on the 802.11g and another is 802.11b (signal is at 1 bar, which is low, but can get it)
BUT.....................
Have a Dell with a wireless (1397 802.11g mini half card)....... can NOT get signal to connect with this (states that signal is TOO weak, eventhough it has 1 bar TOO)........ again, dont know the person and/or how far the signal is comming from...[/color]

NOW, i have an adapter (802.11N) which ONLY works on the DELL, but NOT on the SONY.
WHY does it do that?

Another question: i have been told about a "repeater"/signal expander??? and that this could be of better value.....
Then i have been told that FIRST I have to know they type of ROUTER that the other person has and use the same type and/or configure it..... true/not????

Also, what is the difference btwn 802.11 - G and N???

Would it be wise to stick with the adapter (N) or to get a "repeater" (and would I have to know all that information first before I set it up).
I would like something that has mobility and convience.... Do I have the right one?

(Sorry, one more question......=====  Is it true that if i got a "G" it would work on any, such as b,g,a,etc BUT since I have a "N" it will only work with g's or b's)

I am truely baffled with this. I just thought that once I purchased the DELL , it would work like the SONY wireless card........ easy......... guess not....... please give me some suggestions.... thank you sooooooooooooooo much....

Sounds like you need to read through the guide and then let us know what questions you have:

http://guides.radified.com/magoo/guides/wireless/wireless_networking_01.htm

For anyone who might be looking in on this old thread, here's a recent article extolling some of the virtues of powerline adapters:

The secret sauce: powerline network adapters