extending range: torn between "expensive but supposedly safe" and "risky, but cheap and geekishly rewarding"

Because the Wi-Fi router has to wait for the repeater while it repeats the packet.

OK. So the router runs at 27 Mbps with the repeater - is that constant or only when the repeater is active?

Anyway! The router shares the available bandwidth with the station that connects directly to the router and the repeater. The station then gets

So two stations, one connected directly to the router and the other using the repeater, each achieve 13.5 Mbps.

So much for theory. When Eye use a D-Link DWL-G700AP (access point) in repeater mode with a Trendnet TEW-510APB (access point) the station as often as not still connects to the Trendnet when left to itself, despite the signal from the access point being very weak. This is the so-called bug light problem, because the client (software) acts like a moth entranced by a flame and unable to move away from it.

Eye doubt that; too slow.

On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 22:51:27 +0100, snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com (Axel Hammerschmidt) wrote in :

I'm not making that up -- that's fact.

On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 22:38:23 +0100, snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com (Axel Hammerschmidt) wrote in :

Correct -- only one device can be transmitting at any one time.

The router, just like the repeater and all other wireless devices, still runs at a maximum of 54 Mbps, but only 1/2 as often (because of bandwidth taken for repeating).

1. All devices (router, local station, repeater, remote station) are sharing the same channel.
2. Only one device can be transmitting at a time.

1. The repeater doubles the amount of wireless traffic (for all devices it can "hear"), thereby cutting effective network speed in half.

No, a repeater turns a maximum 54 Mbps network into a 27 Mbps network for all devices on that network. (Actual speeds will typically be much less.)

Consider a network with access point AP, local wireless device LW, repeater WR, and remote device RW. When LW is talking to AP, WR is still repeating: Packet 1 from LW to AP Repeat of packet 1 by WR Packet 2 from AP to LW Repeat of packet 2 by WR

They are nominal values. Gives the same result as your numbers.

Why not use 802.11 no men cla ture?

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 00:02:19 +0100, snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com (Axel Hammerschmidt) wrote in :

Depends what you meant by "connected directly to the router", which I took to be a _wired_ connection. With a single repeater: * Wireless G to wired network speed is a maximum of 27 Mbps.

• Wireless G to wireless G network speed is a maximum of 13.5 Mbps.

What nomenclature?

"DanS" ha scritto nel messaggio news:Xns987C80B7192ACthisnthatadelphianet@216.196.97.142...

it's hard to explain if you don't know the peculiar situation where I live. besides, the tv part will just be temporary, it's a limited free offer for some months but we'll recede when it expires. and, trust me, the choice of the ISP was long considered and we're sure it was the best we could have. anyway, my only question was, which of the three possible solutions I listed do you guys think is the best? I mean, imagine you didn't have any other choice besides those three. really, if somebody put a gun to your head and said "go ahead, a, b or c", and he promised to spare your life only if the connectivity issue was solved through your decision, what would you choose?

Swann

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 12:47:39 +0100, "Swann" wrote in :

I think he meant it's stupid for the ISP to do that. I personally think that's a bit harsh -- while there can be merit in individual boxes, there's undeniably benefits from a combo design (e.g., less power, complexity, space, and clutter).

"John Navas" ha scritto nel messaggio news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

this would either imply buying both an ap and powerline adapters, which could end up being too expensive. I can't pass a wire through the walls, not enough space.

how do I upgrade an antenna? the only ones I saw at my shop were for a specific model/brand ap. I have this zyxel router set up as an ap, do you think it's possible to do the job on it? I'm not at home now, so I can't tell you the model...

Swann

"John Navas" ha scritto nel messaggio news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

this would imply buying a bridge and an ap... I'm trying to keep this as cheap as possible. I ain't looking for the most professional or elegant solution, I just would like to have my house fully covered with the least expense...

Swann

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 16:50:53 +0100, "Swann" wrote in :

Some wireless antennas are on connectors, and are thus easily replaced. Others are not. See if you can disconnect the antenna(s). Check the documentation for the type of connector. And/or give us the make & model and we may be able to help.

Even if you can't disconnect antenna(s), reflector(s) may be another option with a lot of gain. Picture:

Unfortunately, the best DIY website is down, but is still available in the Internet Archive:

"two stations"

QED

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:30:07 +0100, snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com (Axel Hammerschmidt) wrote in :

Ahhh... hairsplitting. Sorry, I thought you had a meaningful comment. My mistake.

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 16:52:42 +0100, "Swann" wrote in :

Fast, cheap, reliable. Pick at most two.

John Navas wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

I DID mean the ISP was stupid for doing this. It may seem a bit harsh, but now the guys got a device in his living room where only 1 of the functions of it is supposed to be, the BB TV. So they are then making everyone that orders this service package to put this device in there main TV viewing area ? There should be an option.

DanS

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 11:04:16 -0600, DanS wrote in :

I agree.

For a moment there, Eye thought you knew and was were having me on. My mistake.