I'm wireless

_RaT_ · Apr 3, 2004

Re: I\'m wireless

I'm using a D Link and they have a multitude of outdoor antennas to increase range. By using multiple bridges, you can increase the range dramatically. My laptop uses a PCMIA card with a built in antenna which results in a limited range. I can go outdoors, but not far. They also have a wireless camera. Tech support is a it lacking.

MossRoad · Apr 4, 2004

Re: I\'m wireless

I think they are using a Cisco Aironet, but I don't know the model number. It is in a box with a very short antenna lead, mounted up high. The Ciscos have a feature that allows you to select the power output needed for your application. They can be set up as bridges or access points, from what I have read. The next time I talk to him, I'll post the model number.

bebster · Apr 4, 2004

Re: I\'m wireless

Don, I'm really curious how this will work out -- please keep us posted. Sometimes the actual distances realized are much less than advertised. Also, the 2.4G frequency is unlicensed and that means that the power is limited. But it sounds like you're on a good path. D-link recently announced a product that uses PoE (Power over Ethernet) technology, where the DC power to run the wi-fi access point is carried by an ethernet cable itself. This will make it easier. Here's a link .

I'm curious about your outdoor use of laptops -- I've never been able to see the screen too well, even in the shade.

_RaT_ · Apr 4, 2004

Re: I\'m wireless

He told me their equipment is Motorola.

OkeeDon · Apr 4, 2004

Re: I\'m wireless

Thanks for the link - it went on my favorites list.

 I'm curious about your outdoor use of laptops -- I've never been able to see the screen too well, even in the shade. 

There's a lot of "it depends" involved. I have active matrix screens, which is essential. When I'm on battery power, it defaults to a dimmer backlight, which makes it harder to see. I could override it, but the battery wouldn't last very long. So, I tend to stick close to a power source, which somewhat defeats the purpose. I have lots of convenient power sources at my present house, and will have more, even outdoors, at the new place.

Also, nothing works very well in direct sun. Our benches, etc. are usually in shade, or I like to work on the covered portion of the pool deck. There will be a couple of pavilions and/or gazebos at the new place, which provide shade. I can work in the front seat of my truck, plugged into an inverter, unless the sun is pouring in that window, in which case I turn the truck around. If there's no direct sun, battery power will work.

It's cool. When I had the pond contractor out for an initial estimate, I parked in the shade and set the laptopup on the hood of the truck, then he and I reviewed all my cad-drawn variations on the site plan. I made a couple of changes at his suggestion, then printed him a copy on a little battery-powered printer (Canon 50).

Hank · Apr 7, 2004

Re: I\'m wireless

 typically a 10 mile radius, although other distances are possible 

In rural AZ, where mountaintops and valleys abound, we have wireless service over 2.5GHz FCC-licensed spectrum. My antenna (about 13" square) talks to a radio on a mountaintop 31 miles distant, and 1 mile higher in elevation. From that mountaintop, the signal is "backhauled" 30 miles to another mountaintop, and again twice more before reaching the ISP's land location, which has multiple DS-3 connections to the Internet backbone.

Inside the house, my CPE is similar to a cable modem (coax connection to the antenna). My service is 1024/256 Kbps, and we have land-based latency <50ms for regional stuff, and about 100ms for cross-country hops.

OkeeDon · Apr 7, 2004

Re: I\'m wireless

The best part of that is that anyone with line of sight to any of those antennas can get service. 1024 is not as fast as my current 3 to 6 mbit cable hookup, but it's twice as fast as satellite.

Cellular service is also improving. My current Nextel Packet Gold service is at a virtual 56Kbit, actually 19.2 plus compression. My son's Sprint service is at 115K, but not as widely covered as Nextel in our area. But, later this summer, Nextel will be increasing speed to an actual 70K or so, with virtual compressed speed of over 200K, over their entire network, and you can still use the phone as a phone at the same time. Or, you can add a Nextel radio to your CardBus slot. Within a few years, I expect to see much faster wireless internet speeds no matter where you are, even on a single laptop at the park or in your car.

_RaT_ · Apr 7, 2004

Re: I\'m wireless

Mine is different. The antenna is about half that size and may be so due to the distance it goes, about 3 miles. The wire from it to my house is outdoor cat 5.

Hank · Apr 7, 2004

Re: I\'m wireless

 1024 is not as fast as my current 3 to 6 mbit cable hookup, but it's twice as fast as satellite. 

For my purposes, the speed is not nearly as important as the latency. I had satellite, and was glad to get rid of it, even though download speeds were impressive (up to 3Mbps in non-business hours). Upload speeds, during business hours, were sometimes as slow as 10-20 Kbps, but usually in the 40-80Kbps range, and occasionally 90-110Kbps.

But latency, geez, in the ideal world, satellite latency is something like 650ms (just due to the thousands of miles the packet has to travel up to the satellite and back down). I would often see 2,000-3,000 ms (2-3 seconds) latency, which really plays havoc with any interactive type of app, like telnet, or a VPN, both of which I use for my work.

I would gladly take a 128/128Kbps connection over satellite any day, as long as it has "land-based" latency.

_RaT_ · Apr 7, 2004

Re: I\'m wireless

Hank, I'm not exactly sure about what latency even is but have an idea it's a delay. My $29 wireless broadband is the slowest broadband they offer with much greater wireless speeds with an increase in cost. We are 200K/200K. I have tested it routinely at a testing site out here called Surewest and it is always over 450K on the download. I use peoples services that are much faster in terms of what they pay for but find in actual use, it makes little difference except when doing larger downloads up in the 30 megabytes and bigger. I find the biggest asset besides the extra speed is always being online. Before, checking the email required a dial in, a waiting to handshake, the mail program loading time and then eventually the server connection. A process of at least a minute for us. Now, after the few seconds it takes for Outlook Express or Outlook to load, it takes about 1/10th of a second to check two accounts on the server. It's so fast that I often hit it several times just to be sure I hit it.