[Discuss] Looking for WiFi router with certain characteristics

[Joe at Polcari.com (Joe Polcari)]

How much RF interference do these things generate?

-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces+joe=polcari.com at blu.org
[mailto:discuss-bounces+joe=polcari.com at blu.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Ronan
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 9:35 AM
To: discuss at blu.org
Subject: Re: [Discuss] Looking for WiFi router with certain characteristics

While it may not meet your needs, another alternative often worth 
considering when trying to extent coverage in a building like 
that would be Powerline equipment, such as: this pair of 
Asoka Pluglink devices 
http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/221257888711?lpid=82 that would cost 
you close to $25 total including shipping.
I have a couple like that (not sure if it's precisely the same 
model) in operation in an old Victorian and am pleased with the 
results.
     - S.


On Mon, 28 Jul 2014, Jim Gasek wrote:

> MBR:
>
> Regarding "COVERAGE"  (RF signal strength):
>
> The obvious answer, easy for me b/c I built my house with CAT5 in the
walls,
> home-runs to basement, is to have multiple (hard wired, in my case)
> wifi routers throughout the house.  I have one in the basement Comm room,
> and another in the upstairs bedroom.
>
> In your worst case, you could hardwire one in the North and South corners
> of the basement, for example.   Or pop a hole up to the first floor
> in a couple spots.
>
> Remember the "donut shaped" energy field off each antenna, and point
> appropriately.
>
> I use hardwired where I can, off the wifi router.   The rest of the
> family, with ipads and smartphones need wireless.
>
> Even with no wires at all, you can do (less effective, but...) at least
> I think you can do radio to radio wifi routers.  Called mesh?   Never
> needed to do myself.
>
> ----
>
> I've been told, but not positive, that the radio sections of wifi routers
> seem to crap out over time, especially "consumer grade" products.
> Maybe just salesman folklore.
>
> There used to be a Linksys "power pack" type thing that boosted the
> RF signal, up to IETF RF signal limits.   No opinion there.  I'd guess
> all manufacturers tend to build today up to maximum power limits?
>
> And there are a plethora of directional antennas.  I found them
> cost prohibitive, and too much trouble.
>
> Thanks,
> Jim Gasek
>
> --- mbr at arlsoft.com wrote:
>
> From: MBR <mbr at arlsoft.com>
> To: BLU Discussion List <discuss at blu.org>
> Subject: [Discuss] Looking for WiFi router with certain characteristics
> Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 02:38:27 -0400
>
> Apologies to Lewis Carroll. I'm afraid the following doesn't scan as
> well as his version:
>
>    "The time has come," my router said, "to talk of many things.
>    Of 802.11 ac and n and g and b,
>    And why Cisco updates without permission.
>    And the safety of ASUS settings."
>
>    :-)
>
> It's long past time for me to replace my 802.11 g router with something
> more recent.  But I have a few constraints that make it tricky to select
> the right router. So my question is, do any of you have experience with
> the ASUS RT-N66U or any other router that fits the constraints I
> describe below?  While I'm interested in recommendations of what's
> worked well for you, I'd also appreciate warnings of what to stay away
> from. advTHANKSance for your help.
>
> My constraints are:
>
> 1. COVERAGE:
>
>    The construction of the house the router will be installed in is
>    problematic WRT getting signals through.  It was built before
>    drywall was in common use in the U.S.  But rather than using wood
>    lath, the plaster is held in place by lath.  But it's not
>    traditional wood lath.  It's WIRE LATH.  Also, the heating system is
>    forced hot air, which means that there's SHEET-METAL DUCTWORK
>    between all the ceilings and floors.
>
>    So all the walls, floors, and ceilings have metal in them.
>
>    With the old router, I had to replace one of the stick antennas with
>    a directional antenna aimed toward the part of the house where
>    coverage was weakest.  But since 802.11 N and AC use MIMO, I believe
>    that replacing one of the stick antennas with a directional antenna
>    would screw up the interference pattern that MIMO depends on.
>
>    I'm hoping that MIMO will solve the coverage problem that the
>    directional antenna solved with the old router.
>
>    Do any of you have any experience with routers in environments like
>    this?  If MIMO doesn't get me the coverage I need, what are my options?
>
> 2. N vs. AC:
>
>    I have a 5 GHz cordless phone that I do not want to replace.  It
>    implements features that would be difficult to find a replacement
>    for, and even if I could, replacing it would be quite expensive.  So
>    it was important for me to figure out whether this phone will
>    interfere with an 802.11-AC router.  It took several months of
>    research, but eventually I determined that it definitely will
>    interfere with over half of the 5 GHz WiFi channels used in the U.S.
>
>    Since 802.11-AC only operates in the 5 GHz band, but 802.11-N
>    operates in both the 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz bands, 802.11-N seems like a
>    much better choice for my circumstances.
>
>    Furthermore, most of the computers on my network don't support
>    802.11-AC, but are recent enough that I'm not likely to replace them
>    anytime soon.
>
>    So it makes sense to me to ignore 802.11-AC routers and only look at
>    802.11-N.  Does this logic make sense to you?
>
> 3. SPEED:
>
>    Of the 802.11-N offerings, the highest aggregate speed seems to be
>    450 Mbps in the 2.4 GHz band plus 450 Mbps in the 5 GHz band.  This
>    is commonly known as an N900 router.  Given the potential
>    interference from the 5 GHz cordless phone, I may not get the full
>    450 Mbps from the 5 GHz range, but a dual band N router seems the
>    choice most likely to get me the fastest throughput possible for my
>    circumstances.
>
> 4. PORTS:
>
>    In addition to supporting WiFi, I also need the router to provide 4
>    LAN Ethernet ports in addition to the 1 WAN Ethernet port for
>    connecting it to my cable modem.
>
> 5. WHAT ROUTERS CAN BE TRUSTED?
>
>    CISCO: Given the above constraints, I was considering the Linksys
>    (Cisco) EA4500, but when I Googled it, I quickly learned that about
>    2 years ago, Cisco/Linksys had pushed out their Cloud Connect
>    firmware to all their routers without the router owners' permission,
>    and in order for the owner to continue using his own router, he had
>    no choice but to sign an agreement that allows Cisco to spy on his
>    Internet use, allows Cisco to sell any data they collect, and allows
>    Cisco to legally lock the router's owner out of his own router
>    whenever they feel like it.
>    http://boingboing.net/2012/07/03/cisco-locks-customers-out-of-t.html,
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9228687/Linksys_firmware_upgrade_for_
Wi_Fi_routers_angers_some_users,
>
http://www.extremetech.com/computing/132142-ciscos-cloud-vision-mandatory-mo
netized-and-killed-at-their-discretion
>
>    Even though they eventually changed their policy, they have reserved
>    the right to change it back, and also the right to change how your
>    router works, EVEN IF YOU SET IT NOT TO ACCEPT AUTOMATIC UPDATES.
>
>    I will never again in my life trust anything Cisco/Linksys says or
>    have anything to do with any of their equipment.
>
>    ASUS: The next router I've been considering is the ASUS RT-N66U.
>    But Googling for that model turned up the following articles:
>
>
http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/02/dear-asus-router-user-youve-been-pwn
ed-thanks-to-easily-exploited-flaw
>    http://nullfluid.com/asusgate.txt,
>
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/zeroday/2014/02/05/so-this-is-what-getting-pwne
d-is-like
>
>    It sounds like ASUS was informed of a major security flaw in their
>    firmware, and chose to bury their head in the sand instead of fixing
>    the problem. While not the best behavior, it's nowhere near as
>    egregious as Cisco's behavior.
>
>    Have any of you seen other router manufacturers trying to seize
>    control of the hardware, either like Cisco tried to do, or in some
>    other fashion?  If so, which manufacturers, and what have they done?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at blu.org
> http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at blu.org
> http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss at blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss