Have old G router. Add N-only or go dual band?

[philpoe]

Hi All,

I have a Linksys WRTP54G used as my wireless router since I was a Vonage customer. When I set it up years ago, there was my wired PC, a wireless B PC. The windows client at the time wouldn't work with security, so it remained open.

Years have passed, and suddenly I notice that we have 4 wireless N laptops (one is almost always wired Gb), a 5th that's draft-N that may join as a wired Gb HTPC when it's repaired, 2 iPod Touches (G), a Wii (G), 2 cell phones (both G), a wired NAS (10/100), and a network AIO printer (10/100). Friends and coworkers come with G and N computing devices on a regular basis. There's lots of youtube and hulu watching, flash games and pandora.

According to speedtest.net, my wired connection gets roughly 20Mb/s download from the closest server. My wireless from less than 10ft away is roughly 15Mb/s download. My wife complains that the wireless does not reach the backyard, which is what started me looking at a different router, hopefully with better range (it's probably because it's in the basement, under a desk and table). I learned about the internals of routers and 3rd party firmware, some modern wireless know-how from this site, and realize that the router may be limiting the bandwidth.

I'm considering replacing the router with a dual-band gigabit router like the Netgear WNDR3700v2 (unless I can find a v1) or Linksys E4200. It's likely that I'd try OpenWRT+Gargoyle on it. I wanted to use gigabit ethernet in case I ended up putting a (much) faster NAS on it.

My LAN question is, if I have 10/100 and Gb devices on the same switch, wouldn't the Gb devices revert to 10/100? Do I need a separate Gb Switch for these devices, and would it be chained off the router's 10/100 (or Gb) switch?
Or could I find a 10/100 switch with Gb uplink to house the slower devices, run off the routers Gb switch?
My goal is to ultimately have the wired computers talk to the fast NAS over Gb ethernet without having to fall back to 10/100 because of the cable modem, printer or older 10/100 NAS.

My wireless question is, instead of a relatively expensive dual-band router, would it be easy (and cheaper) to go with a 5Ghz Wireless N router like perhaps the Netgear WNDR3300 and use the WRTP54G as an access point positioned closer to the back yard with an ethernet run?

Devices I'm considering:

Netgear WNDR3700v2 and Linksys E4200 are around $125, with high total bandwidth. A refurb WNDR3700 is about $80.

Netgear WNDR3300 refurb and Linksys E2000 refurb are around $50, and I could use them in 5GHz mode in conjunction with the old G router.

Any thoughts appreciated.

 

[stevech]

To improve coverage (to the back yard), the best thing to do is to add an access point (AP) rather than trying in vain to increase coverage with a single wireless router.

All too often people think a high power router is the answer. But alas, WiFi is a bi-directional communications medium, so the flea power in the laptop's transmissions is often the constraint. WiFi is NOT a one-way broadcast where all that matters is the laptop's received signal strength indication.

To add an AP
if you can run cat5 cable from the router to a place closer to the weak signal area, then do so and put an AP at that place.

Alternatively, buy a pair if IP over power line (HPNA) devices and use these in lieu of cat5 cable. Again, place the AP nearer the weak signal area.

MoCA is another way - it uses TV coaxial cable in the walls instead of power line.

Any consumer WiFi router can be configured to be an AP (see FAQs here). Or you can buy a purpose-built AP for more $.

No magic megawatt router solution for bi-directional wireless!

 

[philpoe]

So it looks like I'll follow up on the idea of using the WRTP54G as an access point closer to the back yard via a cheap ethernet run, and use an inexpensive N router inside the house. Thanks for the confirmation.

I'll try to solve my LAN question by using a 10/100 switch with Gb uplink.

wrt high power routers - I wasn't asking/commenting on high powered transmission routers here, but out of curiosity, in the case of routers touting high powered transmissions, if one were trying to bridge 2 networks where a physical run of cable is difficult, would using 2 such devices be effective since they are transmitting at high power both ways? I understand that this is not relevant to my issue.

It would seem that the main way to extend the range of a router is to focus on the effectiveness of the antenna on the router (the other thing mentioned in ads), for better transmission and to better receive return signals from clients. Is that the case?

To improve coverage (to the back yard), the best thing to do is to add an access point (AP) rather than trying in vain to increase coverage with a single wireless router.

All too often people think a high power router is the answer. But alas, WiFi is a bi-directional communications medium, so the flea power in the laptop's transmissions is often the constraint. WiFi is NOT a one-way broadcast where all that matters is the laptop's received signal strength indication.

To add an AP
if you can run cat5 cable from the router to a place closer to the weak signal area, then do so and put an AP at that place.

Alternatively, buy a pair if IP over power line (HPNA) devices and use these in lieu of cat5 cable. Again, place the AP nearer the weak signal area.

MoCA is another way - it uses TV coaxial cable in the walls instead of power line.

Any consumer WiFi router can be configured to be an AP (see FAQs here). Or you can buy a purpose-built AP for more $.

No magic megawatt router solution for bi-directional wireless!

 

[stevech]

high power... yes: if node A is exchanging data with node B, then proper wireless design is that A and B have the same radiated power- that being the transmitter power + the antenna gain.

If one has lower radiated power, the link is unbalanced.
Most WiFi is unbalanced because laptops have crummy antennas and low power.
The issue is that 802.11 wants both A and B to use the same modulation order (bit rate), for any given packet/frame. So the least common denominator is the constraint! People worry about router power as if it were an AM broadcast station - not the correct metaphor.

There are options in 11n for A and B to have different data rates (modulation order). Options is the key word, complicating cross-product interoperability, so often the slowest node prevails.

 

[philpoe]

Change in plans

Just to make sure that I wasn't trying to fix something that's not broken, I connected the wired PC directly to the cable modem. Download speeds did not improve, so the router does not seem to be the limiting factor for download speeds for internet traffic. I'm getting roughly 20Mb/s from Comcast through the cable modem.

Without having ISP speeds that exceed wireless-G, or the faster NAS available now, nor the HTPC available to read from it, there is no pressing need for faster performance from the current router. I'll address it later when streaming media over the network from a local server presents an issue.

Regarding security, which I couldn't enable before with the previous clients, the current clients seem to be much more "mature" and should work well. I'll test enabling it this weekend, but considering the clients, I don't expect any issues.

That leaves the issue regarding range. I considered that I could still buy an inexpensive device to use as an access point, but I think that I might be able to solve my problem by simply changing the location of the router, which ultimately is a hassle, or improving the antenna performance by replacing the external antenna with a high-gain one. Looking at options that included cables to place the antenna away from the router it occurred to me that I could improve the location of the current antenna by putting a cable run.

Reading FAQs here, it shows that the higher the gain, the narrower the beamwidth, making it harder to get the antenna position "just right". The tradeoff seems to be moving the current low gain antenna with a run of cable with appropriate connectors, or trying a higher gain antenna, or both. In any case, it looks like a relatively inexpensive experiment. I have some more reading to do, but it's the strategy I'll start with instead of a new router.

Hi All,
According to speedtest.net, my wired connection gets roughly 20Mb/s download from the closest server. My wireless from less than 10ft away is roughly 15Mb/s download. My wife complains that the wireless does not reach the backyard, which is what started me looking at a different router, hopefully with better range (it's probably because it's in the basement, under a desk and table). I learned about the internals of routers and 3rd party firmware, some modern wireless know-how from this site, and realize that the router may be limiting the bandwidth.

 

[stevech]

antenna cables at 2.4GHz are a problem. They are lossy, large diameter, need to be short, etc.

 

[philpoe]

I'm more interested in the antenna itself and the concept of beamwidth narrowing of high-gain antennas. Does it help more to put a 9.5 dBi (or higher) ducktail antenna on the router, or try to relocate the antenna with a cable if I want to keep the router by the rest of the equipment?

With this comment about cables, I'd imagine that I'm better off investigating the antenna, but are there any downsides besides aesthetics and cost when using a high-gain replacement dipole? How would directionality come into play here?

antenna cables at 2.4GHz are a problem. They are lossy, large diameter, need to be short, etc.

 

[stevech]

always better to elevate/relocate to shorten distance - and eliminate obstructions in the path. A bad case is a PC with a PCI WiFi card and antenna sticking out the back of the PC which is in turn buried low amidst furniture. that PC would probably do better with a $15 USB WiFi adapter on the end of 10 ft. USB extension cable (which is not an RF cable), and elevated/in the clear.

A 9.5dBi "rubber duck" antenna, if bought from a reputable manufacturer and not one of the rip-off antennas resold by D-Link or some such, can help. But this is just 6dB or so better than the default antenna. And that's not a lot.

That gain in an omni-directional (rod-like) antenna means the vertical pattern becomes more like a doughnut rather than a sphere, where the spherical pattern is 0 dBi as a reference.

If your needs are not omni-directional, it's better to use a patch antenna (panel, about 8 in. square) and aim that at the weak signal area. These are horizontally directional and typ. have about 13dBi of gain. That coax needs to be 2ft or less. To go longer, you need 1/2 in. thick low loss coax that is a PITA to handle, can't bend much, etc.

Most 11n access points/routers now have internal antennas and no external antenna connectors. These and older ones with two external antennas use what's call diversity - where the "best-antenna" is chosen on a packet by packet basis (Switched diversity). If you go to a single gain antenna, the diversity scheme is gone - but that's OK - as switched diversity is usually only good for an equivalent 3-4dB of benefit, depending on the walls/floors and other conditions of non-line-of-sight.

So getting an AP nearer the weak signal area by cat5 connection or MoCA or HPNA (power line) is the sure bet.

 

[philpoe]

My current router location is not a far cry from your PC description. Given that the costs of an antenna and used or refurbished G router are fairly close (though the router has a power cost), I'll make a choice from there.
Finding an above-ground location for an AP is a little bit more of a challenge than was expected, as it's tough to hide in my case, and it would almost surely overheat in the crawlspace to the roof.

always better to elevate/relocate to shorten distance - and eliminate obstructions in the path. A bad case is a PC with a PCI WiFi card and antenna sticking out the back of the PC which is in turn buried low amidst furniture. that PC would probably do better with a $15 USB WiFi adapter on the end of 10 ft. USB extension cable (which is not an RF cable), and elevated/in the clear.

 

[teknojnky]

If you have a suitable entertainment center, a good place for wifi is on top of that, typically its out of sight and close to the cable box, while offering elevated/unobstructed signals.

 

[philpoe]

Before last night, that would have presented a challenge because I needed the router's switch in the office, but I did found a 10/100 switch collecting dust, giving me a bit of flexibility in relocating the router without moving other networked equipment. It sure doesn't hurt to try it. I just need to pick up an ethernet cable and give it a shot.

Thanks for the suggestion.

In our case, the family room is underground, like the office (ranch house with finished basement space). It would most likely help with the 1 indoor location that has a problem as it's closer, but it would have nearly the same obstruction path with the cinder walls and ground for the backyard.

If you have a suitable entertainment center, a good place for wifi is on top of that, typically its out of sight and close to the cable box, while offering elevated/unobstructed signals.