New Modem/Router Question x

littlegem0312 · 15 Jan 2011 at 20:37

Hi Guys

Firstly just wanna say a big hello to everyone as this is the first time I have posted anything one here x

Secondly I wonder if you could help me out a little. I have recently switched to sky broadband and the conenction speed is great and the stability is second to none. The problem that Im having is that they havent backed up this service with their hardware (in essence its crap) I have a D-Link DSL 2640-S and the wireless range on it is crap.

The problem I have is that my home is absolutely solid through out as it is an old 1930s house (which were made to last) I used to have a D-Link DSL-2740r that did the job brilliantly (but i dont know where it is)

Do you know of any routers that have super mega strong range that would suit my house out for wireless capability as its driving me round the bend having to move the router everytime i want a connection in an other room, especially for the Xbox (which kinda defeats having wireless in the first place)

I had a look at this one: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Billion-BiP...less-N/dp/B002TOKGL8/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top but im not quite sure so if anyone out there can offer any advice that would be much appreciated.

Thanks
Gemma x

Skidilliplop · 15 Jan 2011 at 21:33

If you have 802.11n capoability on your Xbox it could be worth getting a Wifi n router and running it at 5Ghz. 5Ghz band tends to have better penetration power than 2.4 GHz. I won't bore you with the physics of it.

littlegem0312 · 15 Jan 2011 at 21:56

Hi
Thanks for the info above the router im currently using is a belkin, how would i change it to a 5Ghz band? to see if that has any impact.

Still open to advice on other routers too x

Duke · 15 Jan 2011 at 22:01

First thing I would do is read the rules on here, as you're not allowed to mention competitors.

Unless the Xbox is 'n' capable, it isn't worth getting an 'n' router as it won't help at all. I would suggest using a set of home plugs.

littlegem0312 · 15 Jan 2011 at 22:18

The xbox is n capable but the router i have at the moment isnt capable of going thtough what seems like lead lined walls in my house.

The problem is NOT the xbox but the actual signal going through the wall.

Lastly would never buy from amazon, but they were the only place i could find a proper descpriton of that router was someone mentioned it to me in an email. Apologies if this has caused WW3 on this site that wasnt actually my intention.

I am getting more that a little frustrated as it seems no one is able or willing to give me a straight answer. I just want to know if there is a modem/router out there with a damn strong wifi signal.

Azuse05 · 15 Jan 2011 at 22:30

Well the strait answer is really the more you crank up the transmit power the more you increase noise and it becomes counter productive. Adding high-gain antennas to a router you can adjust the transmit power on (think tomato/dd-wrt + rt-n16) can help but N has no greater range - it makes uses of multiple antennas to boost throughput/improve signal- and 5GHz weaker penetration than 2.4GHz.

What you need is either a length of cat5e (best and cheapest). A repeater, or high-gain antennas plus tomato capable router (most expensive, slight learning curve). Or home-plugs which have already been suggested and also happen to be the easiest option.

Orcvader · 15 Jan 2011 at 23:50

I would edit your post and remove the link before a mod sees it.

Go for homeplugs, they will be the easiest solution for you.

My friend has had no problems with this set: http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=NW-134-BE&groupid=46&catid=1604&subcat=

benftl · 15 Jan 2011 at 23:55

Skidilliplop said:
If you have 802.11n capoability on your Xbox it could be worth getting a Wifi n router and running it at 5Ghz. 5Ghz band tends to have better penetration power than 2.4 GHz. I won't bore you with the physics of it.

I'm sure 5GHz has worse 'penetrating' properties when compared to 2.4GHz, due to it being a higher frequency signal etc.

Arith · 20 Jan 2011 at 20:09

One thing that caught me out with regards the 360-if you have an older model, and the the wireless n adapter bought separately you can use 2.4 or 5ghz. The new 360 slim models with built in wireless are 2.4ghz n only.

Skidilliplop · 21 Jan 2011 at 10:43

benftl said:
I'm sure 5GHz has worse 'penetrating' properties when compared to 2.4GHz, due to it being a higher frequency signal etc.

E=hf, Higher frequency EM waves have a higher wave energy, and hence penetrate hard objects more effectively.

Hence why you need a piece of card to stop visible light, 3mm thick lead to stop an Xray, 30 feet of concrete to stop a gamma ray.

It's also why long range RF tend to use a highger frequency band. (ye olde Inverse square law of signal attenuation)

bigredshark · 21 Jan 2011 at 11:07

Skidilliplop said:
E=hf, Higher frequency EM waves have a higher wave energy, and hence penetrate hard objects more effectively.

Hence why you need a piece of card to stop visible light, 3mm thick lead to stop an Xray, 30 feet of concrete to stop a gamma ray.

It's also why long range RF tend to use a highger frequency band. (ye olde Inverse square law of signal attenuation)

The physics don't translate into real life quite so exactly though, for instance 900 MHz mobile bands have greater penetration in buildings than 1800 (and both are better than 2300Mhz 3G bands). That's well documented...

The path loss attenuation factors were found equal to
5.3, 5.5 and 6.0 respectively for 900, 1800 and 2300 MHz,
i.e. increasing slightly with frequency.

More helpfully though, unless you have a truly terrible access point or serious interference on the band you're using, I'd forget trying to brute force wireless into working with a new router and just get home plugs or similar. Do see if you can track down potential issue though - old cordless phones, TV senders and microwaves are my favourites.

Skidilliplop · 21 Jan 2011 at 11:47

bigredshark said:
The physics don't translate into real life quite so exactly though, for instance 900 MHz mobile bands have greater penetration in buildings than 1800 (and both are better than 2300Mhz 3G bands). That's well documented...

More helpfully though, unless you have a truly terrible access point or serious interference on the band you're using, I'd forget trying to brute force wireless into working with a new router and just get home plugs or similar. Do see if you can track down potential issue though - old cordless phones, TV senders and microwaves are my favourites.

That's quite a subjective result as it depends what material you're punching through. Metal will cause very different effects to building material. In a steel framed tower block you get very different coverage patterns to a brick built house.
Non conductive, porous materials like brick, concrete and drywall - 5GHz penetrates considerably further. Try it yourself with a wifi analyzer app and a dual band access point

Bane · 22 Jan 2011 at 11:45

Doesn’t Sky have a terms and conditions stating you have to use their provided router?
Don't know if Sky check-up on this, and are able/bother to affect your performance if they detect a non-supplied modem/router.

KIA · 22 Jan 2011 at 11:57

Bane said:
Doesn’t Sky have a terms and conditions stating you have to use their provided router?
Don't know if Sky check-up on this, and are able/bother to affect your performance if they detect a non-supplied modem/router.

It's perfectly acceptable.

ncjok · 22 Jan 2011 at 16:10

Skidilliplop said:
E=hf, Higher frequency EM waves have a higher wave energy, and hence penetrate hard objects more effectively.

Hence why you need a piece of card to stop visible light, 3mm thick lead to stop an Xray, 30 feet of concrete to stop a gamma ray.

I'm struggling to comprehend how your generalisation explains the fact that radiofrequency waves readily pass through the piece of card which visible light cannot.

Skidilliplop · 25 Jan 2011 at 14:10

ncjok said:
I'm struggling to comprehend how your generalisation explains the fact that radiofrequency waves readily pass through the piece of card which visible light cannot.

Radiofrequency = 30KHz to 300GHz. Which includes visible light. If you mean communications radio at the lower end of that spectrum then it doesn't actually penetrate any further than visible light but has a longer wavelength which allows it to diffract (bend) around obstacles considerably easier so while it might appear it's going through an obstacle it's probably going around. FM radio transmitters etc usually transmit at a far higher amplitude than a torch does. Penetration is deeper for highger frequency waves than lower ones for the same transmission power. Obviosuly a highger transmission power improves both penetration and range.

[J.D.C] · 25 Jan 2011 at 14:12

Bane said:
Doesn’t Sky have a terms and conditions stating you have to use their provided router?
Don't know if Sky check-up on this, and are able/bother to affect your performance if they detect a non-supplied modem/router.

They do.

Simply won't help you if you call in without their router in place, that's all.

I usually advise customers to 'piggyback' using another router for wireless issues like the OP is talking about. Or the homeplug as mentioned also.

ncjok · 26 Jan 2011 at 08:17

Skidilliplop said:
Radiofrequency = 30KHz to 300GHz. Which includes visible light.

Not even close. Visible light is at least three orders of magnitude higher in frequency than this definition and more than six orders higher than a common FM radio carrier. The clue is in the name

Skidilliplop said:
If you mean communications radio at the lower end of that spectrum then it doesn't actually penetrate any further than visible light but has a longer wavelength which allows it to diffract (bend) around obstacles considerably easier so while it might appear it's going through an obstacle it's probably going around. FM radio transmitters etc usually transmit at a far higher amplitude than a torch does. Penetration is deeper for highger frequency waves than lower ones for the same transmission power.

To avoid any reflection or macroscopic diffraction effects, how about this example:
A desk lamp (40-100 W incandescent bulb) and a consumer WiFi-enabled router (limit 100 mW) are enclosed in a cardboard box. The lower frequency and lower power radio waves 'escape' and connectivity can be achieved but no light is seen from the lamp.

I'm not posting this to strictly debunk any of what has been written, I just don't want the misinformed belief of a simple correlation between frequency and penetration to be spread. The first example involving visible light, x-rays and gamma rays is not at all sufficient to define a relationship and I think this is proven by involving other ranges of the EM spectrum. The relationship is, in my view, much more complex and in part depends whether the 'wave energy' matches a particular transition in molecular or atomic energy state of the material it is incident upon, allowing it to be absorbed. This phenomenon explains why materials can exhibit defined transmission windows, e.g. bog standard glass can pass radio frequencies, absorb IR, pass visible, absorb UV.

Ultimately I wonder if any improvement observed for signal coverage in the home with a 5 GHz 'N' WiFi router as compared to a 2.4 GHz 'G' spec model will be due to factors other than the relatively small difference in frequency such as transmit/radiated power, MIMO antenna technology, interfering devices.