general contracting question: wiring a house for ethernet

[jaster]

Howdy!



Err - Do you maybe mean 108M/54M?

Because, you know, I'd LOVE to find some 108Gigabit wireless
equipment cheap ...

But 802.11g is 54Mbit/sec max. Which a) is just a hair over 50%
of
100Mbit, and b) is a shared bandwidth, whereas that 100Mbit is per channel
B)

RwP

As I said to spodosaurus, I only had experience with my friend's wireless
in his 2-story. He has lots of other problems but nothing about the
connection speed.

I'm aware Belkin has started to guarantee wireless speed

http://www.tgdaily.com/2005/11/09/belkin_guarantees_wireless_performance/

but I admit all this time I thought 54G meant 54G not 54Mb, never bothered
reading speed specs.

Still like I said, if wiring for cable TV then wire for network otherwise
it's convience vs wire speed.

 

[DevilsPGD]

In message <[email protected]> Conor

That's because we're in the UK where stuff is expensive. A wallplate
will set you back about $10 so another few $$ for the cable and the
connectors leaves you around $65 for labour. Remember you're drilling
through wooden battons, not just stapling the cable to the skirting.

You could probably get the components shipped out reasonably cheap. Even
$65 should get you a lot of labour, the telco here charges $72CAD/hour,
I know guys who charge less then half that and make a pretty penny.

It sure doesn't take an hour to install a jack in most cases, a couple
hours per house should be a general maximum in most of the places I've
seen (and I've done some three story beasts in under 4 hours, and I'm
far from experienced, nor do I have all the right tools)

 

[David Maynard]

As I said to spodosaurus, I only had experience with my friend's wireless
in his 2-story. He has lots of other problems but nothing about the
connection speed.

I'm aware Belkin has started to guarantee wireless speed

Not quite. Read it precisely. They will offer a refund to those "who
believe that the data throughput is not what they expect at the time of
purchase,

-->based upon packaging that referenced the industry 108 Mbps standard<---,

can return the product(s) for a full refund." (emphasis added).

They then go on to say that NEW PACKAGING will state that "actual
throughput rates... will be lower than the stated industry standard
depending on network conditions and environmental factors such as volume of
network traffic, building materials and construction, and network overhead."

In short, they're acknowledging that the 'industry standard' data rate spec
alone is misleading, and will remedy those who bought based upon that, and
are changing the 'spec' to show that (the industry) 108 Mbps (standard)
isn't what one can expect in actual operation.

And that's the *opposite* of 'guaranteeing' the "wireless speed" because
rather than saying they 'guarantee' you *will* get 108mbps they're telling
you it (likely) won't happen and that, from now on, you won't have the
packaging 'excuse' to complain when you don't get 108mbps throughput.

 

[Ed Medlin]

Not quite. Read it precisely. They will offer a refund to those "who
believe that the data throughput is not what they expect at the time of
purchase,

-->based upon packaging that referenced the industry 108 Mbps
standard<---,

can return the product(s) for a full refund." (emphasis added).

They then go on to say that NEW PACKAGING will state that "actual
throughput rates... will be lower than the stated industry standard
depending on network conditions and environmental factors such as volume
of network traffic, building materials and construction, and network
overhead."

In short, they're acknowledging that the 'industry standard' data rate
spec alone is misleading, and will remedy those who bought based upon
that, and are changing the 'spec' to show that (the industry) 108 Mbps
(standard) isn't what one can expect in actual operation.

And that's the *opposite* of 'guaranteeing' the "wireless speed" because
rather than saying they 'guarantee' you *will* get 108mbps they're telling
you it (likely) won't happen and that, from now on, you won't have the
packaging 'excuse' to complain when you don't get 108mbps throughput.

To me it seems that Belkin is actually being "honest" about the speeds to
expect. Something that some other big names in the business should do. I
have used wireless for some time with satillite systems and laptops mainly
for convenience rather than raw speed. I have several WAPs around and one
near the rear deck so I can go outside and read the news and have coffee on
nice mornings. I can get to about 100ft into my back yard and still get a
decent signal. I don't transfer large files or anything like that, so it
works for me. My home is in a very rural area and security is not a big
issue although my nearest neighbor's wireless network does occaisionally
show up on my available networks very weakly. His home is over 100yds
away.......

Ed

 

[David Maynard]

To me it seems that Belkin is actually being "honest" about the speeds to
expect. Something that some other big names in the business should do.

Oh, I agree and was just dealing with the perception expressed that it was
a 'guarantee' of "wireless speed."

The attempt at 'honesty' is interesting in light of Jaster's apparent
impression it's a 'guarantee' rather than the 'honest' admission those
speeds will, in all likelihood, not be achieved. And then, of course,
there's the matter that even at 'full speed' wireless has significantly
more protocol overhead than a wired connection, signal hopping among
remotes, etc., but that's a matter of understanding the technology and not
a 'spec' problem, per see.

IMO, an even bigger 'spec' game are 56k modems that depend on phone line
characteristics that no one is obligated to provide, nor is there even a
'standard spec' for it, and even if you are 'lucky' you will still rarely,
if ever, achieve the 'standard spec' speed of 56kbps.

I
have used wireless for some time with satillite systems and laptops mainly
for convenience rather than raw speed. I have several WAPs around and one
near the rear deck so I can go outside and read the news and have coffee on
nice mornings. I can get to about 100ft into my back yard and still get a
decent signal. I don't transfer large files or anything like that, so it
works for me. My home is in a very rural area and security is not a big
issue although my nearest neighbor's wireless network does occaisionally
show up on my available networks very weakly. His home is over 100yds
away.......

I use it for the same reason and also for a machine, or two, that are
simply inconvenient to wire.

Funny how 'high tech' slogans change. The mantra used to be "get wired."
Now it's "get unwired" (wireless). hehe.

 

[jaster]

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 18:35:32 -0600, David Maynard thoughtfully wrote:

[snip]

Oh, I agree and was just dealing with the perception expressed that it was
a 'guarantee' of "wireless speed."

The attempt at 'honesty' is interesting in light of Jaster's apparent
impression it's a 'guarantee' rather than the 'honest' admission those
speeds will, in all likelihood, not be achieved. And then, of course,
there's the matter that even at 'full speed' wireless has significantly
more protocol overhead than a wired connection, signal hopping among
remotes, etc., but that's a matter of understanding the technology and not
a 'spec' problem, per see.

Guarantee was how the article had headlined it though it went on to
mention the caveats.

BTW, I just did a file transfer over my 100m wired lan but it only
transferred at 10m/s. So 54m/108m ain't so slow.

IMO, an even bigger 'spec' game are 56k modems that depend on phone line
characteristics that no one is obligated to provide, nor is there even a
'standard spec' for it, and even if you are 'lucky' you will still rarely,
if ever, achieve the 'standard spec' speed of 56kbps.

That's the reason I jumped to DSL as soon as it was available. Of two
apartments and one house the best I ever got was 33kbps, most of the time
it was 26kbps.

[snip]

 

[JAD]

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 18:35:32 -0600, David Maynard thoughtfully wrote:

[snip]

Oh, I agree and was just dealing with the perception expressed that it was
a 'guarantee' of "wireless speed."

The attempt at 'honesty' is interesting in light of Jaster's apparent
impression it's a 'guarantee' rather than the 'honest' admission those
speeds will, in all likelihood, not be achieved. And then, of course,
there's the matter that even at 'full speed' wireless has significantly
more protocol overhead than a wired connection, signal hopping among
remotes, etc., but that's a matter of understanding the technology and not
a 'spec' problem, per see.

Guarantee was how the article had headlined it though it went on to
mention the caveats.

BTW, I just did a file transfer over my 100m wired lan but it only
transferred at 10m/s. So 54m/108m ain't so slow.

There is something wrong with that setup. is this over an extended
distance?

IMO, an even bigger 'spec' game are 56k modems that depend on phone line
characteristics that no one is obligated to provide, nor is there even a
'standard spec' for it, and even if you are 'lucky' you will still rarely,
if ever, achieve the 'standard spec' speed of 56kbps.

That's the reason I jumped to DSL as soon as it was available. Of two
apartments and one house the best I ever got was 33kbps, most of the time
it was 26kbps.

[snip]

I use it for the same reason and also for a machine, or two, that are
simply inconvenient to wire.

Funny how 'high tech' slogans change. The mantra used to be "get wired."
Now it's "get unwired" (wireless). hehe.

 

[DevilsPGD]

In message <[email protected]> jaster

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 18:35:32 -0600, David Maynard thoughtfully wrote:

[snip]

Oh, I agree and was just dealing with the perception expressed that it was
a 'guarantee' of "wireless speed."

The attempt at 'honesty' is interesting in light of Jaster's apparent
impression it's a 'guarantee' rather than the 'honest' admission those
speeds will, in all likelihood, not be achieved. And then, of course,
there's the matter that even at 'full speed' wireless has significantly
more protocol overhead than a wired connection, signal hopping among
remotes, etc., but that's a matter of understanding the technology and not
a 'spec' problem, per see.

Guarantee was how the article had headlined it though it went on to
mention the caveats.

BTW, I just did a file transfer over my 100m wired lan but it only
transferred at 10m/s. So 54m/108m ain't so slow.

Your inability to properly configure a network doesn't change the fact
that a switched 100Mb wired network will always be faster then a 802.11g
54Mb network, where the network is the limiting factor.

Even in 108Mb networks, you'll virtually never come close to the full
theoretical speed, plus you're still sharing bandwidth between users...

Obviously if the source or the destination can't keep up, the network
doesn't matter.

 

[David Maynard]

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 18:35:32 -0600, David Maynard thoughtfully wrote:

[snip]

Oh, I agree and was just dealing with the perception expressed that it was
a 'guarantee' of "wireless speed."

The attempt at 'honesty' is interesting in light of Jaster's apparent
impression it's a 'guarantee' rather than the 'honest' admission those
speeds will, in all likelihood, not be achieved. And then, of course,
there's the matter that even at 'full speed' wireless has significantly
more protocol overhead than a wired connection, signal hopping among
remotes, etc., but that's a matter of understanding the technology and not
a 'spec' problem, per see.

Guarantee was how the article had headlined it

That's why the admonition "don't believe everything you read" came to be so
popular.

Always go for the 'original' rather than what some writer 'tells' you he
thinks it means as they're wrong more often than right even when they're
not in 'hype headline' mode.

though it went on to
mention the caveats.

BTW, I just did a file transfer over my 100m wired lan but it only
transferred at 10m/s. So 54m/108m ain't so slow.

Assuming your "10m/s" means 10mbps, and not 10 mega-BYTES per sec, that's a
bad conclusion derived from obviously faulty data.

I don't now what thing caused the slow transfer but it sure wasn't caused
by a properly configured 100mbps wired ethernet link.

That's the reason I jumped to DSL as soon as it was available. Of two
apartments and one house the best I ever got was 33kbps, most of the time
it was 26kbps.

You were getting fairly normal speeds for a normal phone line.

[snip]

I use it for the same reason and also for a machine, or two, that are
simply inconvenient to wire.

Funny how 'high tech' slogans change. The mantra used to be "get wired."
Now it's "get unwired" (wireless). hehe.

 

[spodosaurus]

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 18:35:32 -0600, David Maynard thoughtfully wrote:

[snip]

Oh, I agree and was just dealing with the perception expressed that it was
a 'guarantee' of "wireless speed."

The attempt at 'honesty' is interesting in light of Jaster's apparent
impression it's a 'guarantee' rather than the 'honest' admission those
speeds will, in all likelihood, not be achieved. And then, of course,
there's the matter that even at 'full speed' wireless has significantly
more protocol overhead than a wired connection, signal hopping among
remotes, etc., but that's a matter of understanding the technology and not
a 'spec' problem, per see.

Guarantee was how the article had headlined it though it went on to
mention the caveats.

BTW, I just did a file transfer over my 100m wired lan but it only
transferred at 10m/s. So 54m/108m ain't so slow.

10m? megabits? megabytes? You've repeatedly shown that you don't know
what you're talking about when it comes to networking, so I'm suspecting
you're getting your bits and bytes mixed up again, as well as probably
having a misconfigured netowrk. Sorry to sound harsh, but I end up
cleaning up the mess guys like you make, and I have to deal with the
frustration of the customers that you've caused.

 

[jaster]

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 18:24:43 +0800, spodosaurus thoughtfully wrote:
[snip]

10m? megabits? megabytes? You've repeatedly shown that you don't know what
you're talking about when it comes to networking, so I'm suspecting you're

Forgotten bud forgotten.

And that's my point 10m/s means what?
Not much, what's important is the file was 100% transferred.

getting your bits and bytes mixed up again, as well as probably having a
misconfigured netowrk. Sorry to sound harsh, but I end up cleaning up
the mess guys like you make, and I have to deal with the frustration of
the customers that you've caused.

Although numbed by displays of 54G and 108G my point is speed is
relative to the user. If one will transfer very large critical
files all the time, or if good reception will be a problem then wired is
important. Otherwise wireless speed is good enough for average joe who
just wants to share the internet connection with the family.

Networking is not new to old timers who networked over serial
ports with null modem cables, 10base coax and 10base-T files are just
bigger. After all thats been said average joe's all important internet
connection is 33kbps-3Mbps unless he has a T3 or better and some of those
joes play games online.

 

[spodosaurus]

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 18:24:43 +0800, spodosaurus thoughtfully wrote:
[snip]

10m? megabits? megabytes? You've repeatedly shown that you don't know what
you're talking about when it comes to networking, so I'm suspecting you're

Forgotten bud forgotten.

And that's my point 10m/s means what?
Not much, what's important is the file was 100% transferred.

No, your point was that it was slow compared to wireless:

"BTW, I just did a file transfer over my 100m wired lan but it only
transferred at 10m/s. So 54m/108m ain't so slow."

Stop making shit up.

Although numbed by displays of 54G and 108G my point is speed is
relative to the user.

No, only in the Faculty of Arse...err....Arts... where science and
mathematics are flexible things, and 2+2 might equal four if everyone
decides it's an appropriate gender neutral and politically correct use
of the number four.

If one will transfer very large critical
files all the time, or if good reception will be a problem then wired is
important. Otherwise wireless speed is good enough for average joe who
just wants to share the internet connection with the family.

Then why were YOU just complaining about transfer speeds?

Networking is not new to old timers who networked over serial
ports with null modem cables, 10base coax and 10base-T files are just
bigger.

Yes, I know, which is why I find your errors amusing seeing as I've been
at this for so long.

After all thats been said average joe's all important internet
connection is 33kbps-3Mbps unless he has a T3 or better and some of those
joes play games online.

ADSL2+ offers greater speeds, but of course you were unaware of this as
well.

:-(



--
spammage trappage: remove the underscores to reply

I'm going to die rather sooner than I'd like. I tried to protect my
neighbours from crime, and became the victim of it. Complications in
hospital following this resulted in a serious illness. I now need a bone
marrow transplant. Many people around the world are waiting for a marrow
transplant, too. Please volunteer to be a marrow donor:
http://www.abmdr.org.au/
http://www.marrow.org/