Wireless ADSL Router

[Wils]

At present I am using a Netgear 54Mbps wireless router. I want to upgrade to a dual band 'N ' router. I have seen something which I think will do the job (i.e. alow me to pick up the internet wirelessly on my laptop) however would like a 'Techie' to confirm for me that this is the right thing. It can be found at

http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/reviews/network-wifi/3264682/cisco-linksys-e4200-review/

Would this do the job? Thanks for the help

 

[Pierre ZFP]

I like cisco/linksys stuff.  Very reliable and dead easy to setup but that one seems quite expensive, do you really need that extra speed?.  Don't forget you will only benefit for the high speeds if your laptop has 'N' standard capability, and even then, that is only the speed to/from laptop and router, it won't affect your upload/download speeds to t'internet..

[Wils]

Thanks Pierre. I do need the best speed possible for streaming and hope that this will improve on my existing G standard router. My laptop is set for N standard so that's not a problem. I dont know about line speed I top out at 54 Mbps at present and hope to increase that. I have also looked at

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Billion-BiPAC-7800N-Broadband-Wireless-N/dp/B002TOKGL8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1344518983&sr=8-1

Another friend has commented about The Cisco "It makes no reference to providing ADSL2 interface. It is just a wireless

router." This I don't really understand, I just want something to let me pick up streamed video on my laptop without a wired connection, do you think either of these, The Cisco or the Billion would do that?

[Pierre ZFP]

All that ADSL2 does is enable faster line speeds over greater distances (up to 7Km from the exchange IIRC) so I don't see how this will affect your setup.  Not sure I understand your usage, I think I'd be safe to say your internet speed is nowhere near 54Mbps so unless your streaming from another device on your LAN your limiting factor is your download speed, not the speed 'internally' from router to laptop.

[EmilyA]

Probably not relevant, but we have just bought a Netgear N300 from Amazon.fr to replace the one we have had for seven years. We are 6.7km from the exchange and the difference is gobmackingly amazing. We can watch stuff on YouTube, everything loads much faster and it doesn't fall over and have to be rebooted after 20 minutes. I am still in a state of shock.

[AnOther]

Your posts are slightly confusing.

Initially you said "alow me to pick up the internet wirelessly on my laptop" which suggest that you have got problems connecting wirelessly with it but then said " My laptop is set for N standard so that's not a problem" indicating that your WiFi is working. WiFiu B/G & N are all backwardly compatible meaning that you should not need an N router simply because your laptop is.

As Pierre says unless wanting to stream from a local network device your ADSL speed is the limiting factor and there is nothing you can do about that and even if you hooked up wirelessly at full N speed it would not make one iota of difference to streaming video from the web.

My laptop is connected wirelessly to my Livebox at a reported 130Mbps but my ADSL connection is a humble 2Mbps therefore I cannot stream or download any faster than that.

FWIW 2Mbps is quite sufficient to use the BBC iPlayer and youtube.

What EXACTLY is the problem you believe a new router will solve ?

Incidentally don't get hung up on ADSL/ADSL2 etc. they refer to the protocols your ISP is using to provide your service and from the end users point of view any modern router will work with both with no user intervention.

[AnOther]

[quote user="EmilyA"]Probably not relevant, but we have just bought a Netgear N300 from Amazon.fr to replace the one we have had for seven years. We are 6.7km from the exchange and the difference is gobmackingly amazing.[/quote]

7 years in an eon in terms of ADSL technology so it comes as no surprise to me at all that a new router (of any make) has made such a difference,  especially at extreme distances of 6 or 7km !

[EmilyA]

2Mbps humble? We have got 512k!

[AnOther]

It's all relative Emily, my pal in Germany has 100Mb !!!

512Kb is what I would expect from 6.7km and had you come here complaining of anything substantially lower - and said you were using a 7 year old router - I would have advised changing it immediately [;-)]

Anyway, lets not get off topic.

[Wils]

Thanks for

your reply. I use my laptop at present with my ‘G’ router and it works well. I

stream frequently (especially in the football season) and I do get some ‘buffering’

not a lot but some. My thoughts are that as my router is about 8 years old it

might be a good time to upgrade and see if ‘N’ makes any difference. We are

about 5 Kms from the ‘source’ and I hoped that the download speed might be

improved…..no?

[AnOther]

At 5km you are probably struggling for 1Mb !

Whilst I wouldn't bank on any speed improvement a new router wouldn't do any harm in the circumstances.

If you want to see what your limits are then plug into the router directly via ethernet, whatever you get there be assured that WiFi at any speed cannot be better.

[suein56]

[quote user="Wils"]My thoughts are that as my router is about 8 years old it

might be a good time to upgrade and see if ‘N’ makes any difference. We are

about 5 Kms from the ‘source’ and I hoped that the download speed might be

improved ...[/quote]

Could you share your speed with us after doing a speed test on http://www.speedtest.net/ ?

Depending where you live you might well be offered the choice of several different servers so it might be a good idea to try a couple or three to achieve a realistic picture of your present speed.

Sue

[Jay]

AnO - TELECONNECT have just arranged an upgrade for me, 3km line, now on ADSL2+ 6.2 Meg., excellent! Thought you might like to know.

[Wils]

OK did test. With VPN connected upload was 1.52Mbps and

without VPN connected it was 1.58Mbps download was around 0.25, does this help?

[sid]

I wonder if you have the upload/download figures the wrong way round?

[suein56]

[quote user="Wils"] With VPN connected upload was 1.52Mbps and

without VPN connected it was 1.58Mbps download was around 0.25 [/quote]

ANO is right, with your line length you are realistically limited to these kind of speeds. A new router might improve matters a tad though mostly, IMHO, with signal sustainability rather than enhanced speed. Sid is right too, you have inverted the upload and download speed results.

If you have an FT type telephone no then you can try this site and it should give you more info about your particular line and maximum potential speeds.

www.degrouptest.com

Sue

[AnOther]

[quote user="Jay"]AnO - TELECONNECT have just arranged an upgrade for me, 3km line, now on ADSL2+ 6.2 Meg., excellent! Thought you might like to know.[/quote]

I'm very happy for you Jay but I doubt Teleconnect have actually 'arranged' anything in the sense you imply, they will have taken advantage of an upgrade FT may have done on your line - either a rerouting or the correcting of false data - so you cannot give them all the credit, any ISP should or would have done likewise [;-)]

[Jay]

[quote user="AnOther"][quote user="Jay"]AnO - TELECONNECT have just arranged an upgrade for me, 3km line, now on ADSL2+ 6.2 Meg., excellent! Thought you might like to know.[/quote]

I'm very happy for you Jay but I doubt Teleconnect have actually 'arranged' anything in the sense you imply, they will have taken advantage of an upgrade FT may have done on your line - either a rerouting or the correcting of false data - so you cannot give them all the credit, any ISP should or would have done likewise [;-)]

[/quote]

Thanks, I'm pleased you are happy for me, I thought you would be. Does this then not imply that line length is only part of the equation? You said earlier "At 5km you are probably struggling for 1Mb".

[Quillan]

Every physical connection also reduces your speed. They have just run new cables in for us from the exchange because they have now put FT cables and EDF cables underground. There are a lot less junction box's now, they used to be all over the place at the top of poles etc, this has added and 250+ kb to our speed which for us is magic and makes a big difference. We are actually getting very near the 1MB we are supposed to get at our distance.

[EmilyA]

We are supposed to be getting Wifi Max within two years. Sixteen mb allegedly, though I will believe it when I see it.

[Quillan]

'They' told us we were getting fibre when they did all this work and all we got was a new copper cable. [:(]

[AnOther]

[quote user="Jay"]Does this then not imply that line length is only part of the equation? You said earlier "At 5km you are probably struggling for 1Mb".[/quote]Absolutely !

The first thing to consider are the connections along the way to you of which there will be several. There is no such thing as a zero loss  connection and although the loss may be minimal multiply it x10 - quite possible on a 5km - then it can add up to a significant amount and 3dB actually represents a halving of the signal.

We are assuming that all connections are perfect of course, get just one iff'y one and suddenly you've lost another few dB's - and possibly halved your signal yet again.

The second thing is that the cross section of the cable has a major effect on losses, the thicker the cable the lower the loss. Many older cables were only 0.4mm or 0.6mm for which the losses are 15dB/km and 12.4/km respectively.

When replacing or running new cables FT will generally be using thicker cable, typically 0.8mm for which the losses are only 7.9dB attenuation per kilometer, about half of that which you would get if your line were wholly 0.4mm.

It's interesting to know that the attenuation figures you see on the likes of Degrouptest etc. are not measured but calculated from the lengths of each size of cable which make up any particular line. Under' Longueur de ligne' you will see some numbers like this:

4/10 sur xxxx mètres

6/10 sur xxxx mètres

and if you calculate your own lengths using the loss figures I have given you will arrive at the 4 decimal place number given for your line's attenuation. The big problem here is that some of these line figures are still as recorded by FT when lines were first installed but unfortunately in many cases they have never been revised when changes were made but as far as FT are concerned they are still valid and are used to base any offerings on. If you were virtually next door to your exchange but FT's database said that your line was say 6km you would be offered not the 20mb you might expect but maybe only 1mb !

So yes, there is a lot more to it than just line length !