Cable routers

come on, I'm sure somebody here has set up routers before...it's very common...give me a hand i need to figure this out ASAP

All I can say is that the router I have puts out a wireless signal but has cable attachments on it too.

It'll work. You can probably do it with just two routers though - or even just a router and a hub.

Your neighbor already has a wireless router right? Most of them have multiple CAT 5 ports on the back as well so you can run a CAT 5 cable from their existing router over to your apartment and hang a hub or router off of that for your use.

As a word of caution: You can get into some quirky DHCP issues when daisy-chaining routers. If you can, setup the network so that only one router acting as the DHCP server for all of the PCs on the network.

Thanks fishin

a few followup questions regarding bandwidth before I make my financial decision...

1. Is the browsing/downloading speed of each user on the network directly proportional to the amount of online bandwidth that is being used by other members on the network? IE, if someone else is downloading a file or viewing a webpage will this correspond linearly to my connection/download speed?

2. If 1 is true, does this mean that if 1 person starts a bunch of downloads, that everyone else on the network could potentially be reduced to in-operable speeds?

Why not just get a wireless AP and place it closer to the source an let it relay the signal?

For #1 I'd say yes. It isn't in actuality but it's something that that typical cable routers don't give you any control over so you are stuck with whatever prioritization the router has built into it. Luckily, there are usually enough burps in the upstream channels that there will be plenty of breaks in downloading a large file and other users can grab the bandwidth if there is a pause.

For #2 - The possibility is there. I use 3 devices on my home network and seldom see it but it does happen on rare occassions. I've had my main PC downloading 7 or 8 files at the same time and used my laptop (via wireless) to read A2K without any noticible lag.

Well, there would be about 10 people connected 24/7, each one would have AIM 24/7, and probably all be very active on the network playing online games etc. I personally would like to be able to download between 100-500 kbytes/sec at all times, and have a good conn speed so that I could comfortable use 4 browsing windows...and if I wanted to, be able to have a low ping like 30-60 or so in online games. As it stands, I can do AIM and browse CERTAIN websites using the wireless...I cannot go to websites that use a lot of ASP or security etc because it takes too long to load and never ends up loading (which prevents me from doing homework there), and I cannot play even the most basic online games. Do you think that having 10 college students active at once would still allow me to have a decent speed online, or should I just buy my own cable system? Financially, I'd much rather pitch in...but I don't want to end up with something that doesn't work.

It's all dependent on how many are actually on-line and what they are doing. AIM doesn't use all that much bandwidth but on-line games can suck up quite a bit in a hurry (depending on the game).

Consider this though - You are in an apartment already with your neighbor. The cable company isn't going to come and run a whole new line for you all the way back to the headend. If you order your own line they're going to tap you in either in the basement of the building or at the pole on the street and as soon as they do you are sharing bandwidth with your neighbors again.

Either way you go, you're still sharing the same bandwidth between your building and the cable headend.

oh...i..see....

now I understand that commercial where the man walks out to drink his coffee in the morning and it's all dead quiet because he bought every house in the neighborhood

I guess there is no reason to pay an extra $50 a month then if I can get the same stuff for $0 a month

thanks for your help

couple more questions...

1. does using a wireless network reduce the maximum connection speed as compared to using a CAT-5 when there is no physical interference in the way of the signal?

2. how much does physical interference like walls etc affect the wireless signal when within wireless range?

I am trying to determine if my connection now is slow because of the interference (several walls, although I am part of the same building so I am definitly within the radius of operation), or if it is slow simply because it is wireless, or if it is slow simply because there are too many people using it already.

Edit--3. I have heard that a long cable from router to computer can cause intermittent or slower speeds. The only possible explanation for this which I can think of is that data signals travel MUCH slower through CAT-5 than through the underground cables. Is this true? If so, the scenario we are discussing (involving running a CAT-5 from their router to our router and then to our computers) would cause a significant loss in speed, am I correct?

Also keep in mind that you are stealing. Everyone has to pay in the end because some people don't want to.

If you like it enough to use it, you should pay for it.

Thank you for that interesting, albeit false, opinion. I could go into an explanation of why it is false, but this is neither the legal nor the philosophy forum...

I am attempting to learn a little bit about applied wireless signals, which is a subject that interests me academically, professionally, and at present, financially.

A couple of things to keep in mind here - "CAT 5" and "wireless" are the tranmission medium. Typical CAT 5 wiring can be used to transmit data at either 10MB/s or 100 MB/s (with "enhanced Cat 5" you could go to 1 GB/s). Wireless networks typically operate at either 10 MB/s (802.11b) or 54 MB/s (802.11g).

That said, your actual speed on any given setup will depend on both the medium and the data speed of the network equipment. But if you have a 10MB/s CAt 5 network and a 10 MB/s 802.11b network you should get the same throughput if there is no interference as you stated.

Wireless is probably more suseptible to interfernce than CAT 5 wiring is though. You may find that there are large numbers of wireless networks in your neighborhood (all using the same frequencies) and things like wireless telephones, garage door openers and microwave ovens have been known to cause problems. Walls tend to attenuate the wireless signal and some are worse than others. Brick/cement walls are much worse than standard 2"x4" and wood sheathing walls are but things like aluminum siding can have a shielding effect too.

The only real way to know your wirless throughput is to test betwen two systems on the ends of it and see what you get.



Hrmm.. no. lol Long CAT 5 runs tend to have problems because there are imperfections in the wires and/or the wires end up getting run along side things like power lines and you get interference. There are also maximum distances you can run CAT5 wiring and remain within the CAT 5 Specs (328 ft/100 Meters between signal shaping devices (i.e. NIC, hub, switch, router, etc..)). If you exceed the 328 ft. limit you are no longer technically "CAT 5".

When you refer to "underground cables" I assume you mean the provider's backbone. They can run much longer distances because they are using entirely different technology. Your CAT 5 cable is used for transmission of an ethernet signal. The backbone isn't ethernet (it's typically a high speed serial connection) and the data rides on a carrier frequency (or uses light) that can be transmitted over hundreds of miles without degrading.

I am getting 8 kbytes/sec. Cable in Vermont is about 260 kbytes/sec on average...so it shouldn't make a difference whether I'm using a 10 MB/S or 100MB/S cable. By the way, are you referring to bits or bytes?



Yeah, there are 2 regular walls and 2 brick/concrete firewalls.